In my first post I discussed the current diet of the average American, and how it was affecting their health. I believed that the diet most people are on is leading to a higher rate of chronic diseases, such as diabetes and atherosclerosis. I proposed that not only is what we are eating killing us, it is leading to the mistreatment of animals. Our mass over-consumption of meat is leading to factory farms that do heinous things such has not having cages big enough for animals to move around in. This, combined with the steroids and hormones that we inject to make the animals larger; steroids we later ingest; leads to a gross mistreatment of animals. I proposed that by raising all animals free-range/organic, we could improve our own health, while leading to better lives for the animals.
Later on, for my 10th post, I did readings by Leopold and Calicott that demonstrated the unsustainability of current human acts. They suggested that the world could never live in balance while humans continue to exploit its natural resources without bounds. This is partially due to our massive demands due to being over our carrying capacity, but also partially due to just pure wastefulness. People are unwilling to change and help sustain the environment unless they can make money off of it. People would rather profit themselves than help benefit their own species. Calicott offers the solution that we act like the Native Americans did, giving offerings such as food back to the natural environment in exchange for the resources that we exploit from it. While this is a good yet difficult idea, it is better than the other solution of killing off 90% of the population, and can be implemented through education of the general population.
I realize now that these two posts at opposite ends of the semester do not coincide with each other. My first post was written from an animal liberation perspective, while my 10th was derived from my ecological ethics perspective which developed over the course of this class. All of the organic/free-range cattle I talk about in my first post would need way more land than is currently used. Although grass-fed beef is much healthier, it is much more work and resource consuming. Also, if everyone started consuming free-range beef, our current population would have even less to keep it in check. With the current lack of disease, anything beneficial to a chunk of our species will only raise our population levels even further above our land's carrying capacity. In light of this, I have to change my conclusion from my initial post. One does not simply change how cattle are raised and improve the health of Americans. There needs to be a combination of grass-fed and grain-fed, to keep our own population in check. This allows us to manage our own health and population levels while gradually easing our use on factory farms and their dependency on the mistreatment of animals.
I also believe that the consumption of more vegetables, nuts, and other non-meat products would also alleviate the problem with factory farm livestock. Americans generally consume more meat and more food than nutritionally required. With a lower demand for meat, these factory farms would no longer need to torture their livestock for higher output and they might convert to a free-range, grass-fed system.
ReplyDeleteI like how you discovered a change in your way of thinking between two posts. The more we learn about philosophy the more we come to question our own moral beliefs, which is the whole point of philosophy. Like you, I also stated in my first post that factory farms are not sustainable and that we need to protect animals from the conditions of factory farms. But when we try to argue against factory farms into people supporting locally grown and organic free range food, a new problem arises. With the way our current population has grown, do we have enough open land to go organic and still be able to provide the amount of food needed to support our population? In regards to your statement about how people value money over the environment and that we need to act more like Native Americans and show respect for nature I feel like this isn't a realistic approach, as much as I agree with it. We live in completely different times than the Native Americans, where money dominates our lives and nature is a source of recreation rather than a source of life. If we really want change to happen we need to think about how to motivate people to act differently. If the government were to give financial benefits to people who made environmental changes, than maybe they would be more inclined to do so. As wrong as it sounds to bribe people, I think it's one possibility that would actually start making progress into reversing our impact on the environment. Very nice connection between your ideas even though they were different from your original beliefs.
ReplyDeleteTaking a vegetarian approach to eating habits would be a simple way of protecting animals. As a population we could benefit from it, especially because of how unhealthy so many Americans are. Obviously, the point of this class isn't to address the obesity epidemic but I think that in using this fact, the argument to lessen meat consumption and lessen the number of factories that exists would be stronger. It is an easy and intelligent alternative to slaughtering so many animals. The conditions that exist in so many of these factories are so inhumane and if there is any alternatives then we should be educated to them and really make attempts at bringing about awareness and trying to start a movement for a more vegetarian lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you admitted that over the course of the class your opinion had changed a lot! I feel that way too sometimes :] I do however strongly believe in organic farming and that our current diet is very bad for us. We eat too much meat! And of that meat too much is very fatty. Free range meat is leaner and better for us and maybe instead of increasing the number of free range farms by a huge amount to save the animals we could use free range and organic farming to raise the meat, eat less of it and use healthy protein supplements such as beans and nuts to save more animals and our own health.
ReplyDeleteI see what you mean by the farm raised meat would require more space, however, I think that that would help make the price of meat more expensive. This would help deter people from consuming as much and lead them to choose more fruits, vegetables, and other goods, helping both the animals, the environment, and the health of humans. The reference Callicott made to the Native Americans was a good one that I think would be quite interesting if we could actually implement it. But people are too busy and too driven by greed to consider the consequences of their actions and how it affects the environment and ultimate them in return. I feel like this is proven by the current condition of the environment. Humans will only take initative to help the world when something directly affects them. Like we donate money to starving impoverished kids we see on TV because we often feel guilty and want to alleviate the emotional pain we feel. Or we'll opt to eat more berries because the steak we're used to is apparently leading to obesity. I think humans need to start to realize the potential consequences before the become reality. Then we can work our way towards a solution before it's too late.
ReplyDelete