For sake of argument, let's assume it is environmentally more destructive to ship me a handful of almonds (from where? Brazil?) than it is to ship me a steak from Perth. Am I morally obligated to eat the steak, even knowing that the cow didn't have a good life?
That depends on whether you believe in moral absolutes. ;) And how you weigh the needs of the many against the needs of the few.
Are we still talking about morality now, or simple survival?
The two are intertwined. It's not ethical to consume more than the planet can sustain.
I don't remember the figures off-hand, but it takes a lot of pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat. I'm sceptical about your implicit suggestion that an animal-based food-and-clothing regime is less ecologically destabalizing than one based strictly on vegetables.
I probably wasn't clear—I'm not saying that animal-based food and clothing is always more sustainable, just that it could potentially be. All other things being equal, it's less wasteful the lower down on the food chain you are, so plants are more sustainable than animals, herbivores more sustainable than omnivores.
Where it gets complicated is when you have to factor in transportaton (fuel), pesticides, preservatives, production, labour (at least with plants that are labour-intensive to cultivate). These factors currently affect meat as well, though, so in general it's still better to be vegetarian. The ideal, I guess, would be vegetarian, local, and organic, but who can afford that?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: Worse and Worser
Date: 2007-01-19 04:53 am (UTC)That depends on whether you believe in moral absolutes. ;) And how you weigh the needs of the many against the needs of the few.
Are we still talking about morality now, or simple survival?
The two are intertwined. It's not ethical to consume more than the planet can sustain.
I don't remember the figures off-hand, but it takes a lot of pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat. I'm sceptical about your implicit suggestion that an animal-based food-and-clothing regime is less ecologically destabalizing than one based strictly on vegetables.
I probably wasn't clear—I'm not saying that animal-based food and clothing is always more sustainable, just that it could potentially be. All other things being equal, it's less wasteful the lower down on the food chain you are, so plants are more sustainable than animals, herbivores more sustainable than omnivores.
Where it gets complicated is when you have to factor in transportaton (fuel), pesticides, preservatives, production, labour (at least with plants that are labour-intensive to cultivate). These factors currently affect meat as well, though, so in general it's still better to be vegetarian. The ideal, I guess, would be vegetarian, local, and organic, but who can afford that?