B.F.Skinner Has Eaten My Dinner replied: "(SUMMARY) Your arguments are weak and full of holes. You cannot achieve "full vegetarianism" without force which you do not advocate. You pretend to be for the humane treatment of animals but your only solution is your religious advocacy of not eating meat rather than supporting those who do not treat animals poorly. You lump meat eaters and lacto-oval vegetarians together when it suits your weak arguments, then you argue against eggs, milk and butter when you want to make another point. You fail to appreciate complex political and economic problems such as food as a weapon and other issues, instead asking us to engage in a religious vegetarian diet to "fix everything". You identify problems with land management, ocean protection and other areas but suggest that we can just engage in the magic bullet of not eating meat to "solve everything" - definitely religious thinking. In short your arguments are stupid and weak, poorly thought out and badly argued. Your screed shows the weakness of your propaganda thusly: "PEOPLE" You mention starvation, "30,000,000 dies of starvation" You mention land displacement, But this argumentation is terribly weak. Much starvation is caused by political instability, food as a weapon in warfare, poor distribution infrastructures and ethnic conflict. In Africa food was used as a weapon, as well as being re-sold to finance weapons in one conflict, causing a great deal of starvation. It's not that the food wasn't there - it just couldn't get to the people it was meant to feed. Being a vegetarian would have meant JACK SHIT to stopping starvation. Perhaps we should send them guns instead? As for land displacement, this too is mostly a political and economic problem. Those who are weak have their land taken from them. If it's not for a cattle farming its for a "vegetarian" cash crop like cotton, cocoa or other "vegetarian friendly" products. The problem is that the weak are run over by the strong. Vegetarianism would only shift the nature of the exploitation, not stop it. You slop in five or six other arguments under this heading, but they have similar rational/logical problems. LAND Soil erosion, desertification and poor land management? Blame your democracy for that. If your voters aren't electing people to protect your land then you are screwed. They might as well be creating massive soy production facilities as anything. Untrammeled economic force is the problem, not meat eating. "If everyone went vegetarian up to 90% of land used for animal farming could be taken out of production & used to replant woodlands, leisure activities etc." The only way you'd get this is by force. Are you suggesting the use of force to make people vegetarian? Not explicitly, but I am suspicious if that wouldn't be the case. If you are not advocating force then there is no way "everyone would go vegetarian" so this is a pipe dream. Vegetariansm is a luxury of the first world. In the rest of the world the only vegetarians are religious or are so poor they can't afford the meat they'd like to have. "25% of Central america's forests have been destroyed for cattle grazing since 1960" Central American politics are massively manipulated by the huge drug trade, corruption, and "low intensity conflict" done in the name of anti-communism and other suspect causes. Are you saying that we should dictate to multiple central American nations how they should manage their land? What incentives are to be made? Or is this again another hidden appeal to force? Shall we force them to not destroy their lands? If we become vegetarian and they don't stop raising cattle ... what then? In the US you have the same corrupt effect of democracy: if the citizens let business run-amok then what? Are we to overturn democracy? Establish a vegetarian dictatorship? "AIR" Yes, cattle farming causes problems but you fail to mention how much of the problem they represent. Is it significant? I would suggest that it pales in comparison to automobile, gasoline engine exhaust, and coal power plants. You are attacking a minor problem, while ignoring major course of air pollution. Thus, vegetarianism as a "solution" to air problems is irrelevant. WATER Again this is a land management issue. I'll ask you this: if it could be done efficiently - so that the effluent went into compost or was contained appropriately, would you be for it? Moreover, you fail to indicate what land measures you would take. Simply attacking meat eating doesn't ensure that other offenses against water don't take place. And again to significance you don't mention whether there aren't more problematic sources of water pollution: such as heavy metals from industrial production. EFFICIENCY You complain about inefficiency, but then note that animals are treated inhumanely to prevent movement: "movement (which is why they keep many animals in very close confinement), hair, bones, faeces etc" It sounds like animal farmers are listening to you. Don't you want humane inefficient treatment? "1lb of beef takes 1 gallon of petrol to produce A family of four eating beef for a year uses enough petrol to run a car for 6 months (obviously depending on how far you drive!)" Cattle consumption pre-dates our gas driven industry. The Cattle is mentioned in the Irish Cattle Raid of Cooley, and the Americans moved steers across the country without gas. The link to gas is a modern aspect and is not intrinsic to meat eating. What if everyone simply ate chickens grown in their own back yards? Would you be ok with that? "If the full ecological cost of meat was passed onto the consumer - the price would be quadrupled (at least) The EC spends œ100,000,000's to subsidise animal production resulting in lakes of unwanted milk & mountains of unwanted meat & butter. This money could be better spent encouraging organic fruit, vegetable & grain production" You are talking about corrupt democratic politics. There is plenty of corruption in non-meat subsidies here in the US as well. You object only to one kind of corruption, but not if they are "veggie corrupt"? How do you stop such powerful economic forces from continuing to do what they want? "In the USA in 1979 145,000,000 tons of crops were fed to cattle resulting in only 21million tons of animal bodies - the cost of the wasted crops was $20,000,000,000" Your veggie crops use petrol/gas just like meat crops, if even at a lower rate. They also use water, pesticides and so on. Moreover, once produced there is no guarantee it won't be used as an additive to gasoline (ethanol for example). "Between 1950 & 1985 grain production in Europe & the USA increased massively but 2/3 was fed to animals 70% of all grain is fed to animals Eating vast quantities of animal flesh, eggs, milk & butter is a luxury that most of the planet can not afford" So the problem is really economic oppression, lack of economic development and political and military disparity. The rest of the world wants the luxury of eating large quantities of 'animal flesh, eggs, milk and butter' (even many vegetarians are quite ok with a diet of eggs, milk and butter - are you now saying vegetarians are the enemy too?). "ANIMALS Fishing with drift (and other modern) nets weakens & destroys ecosystems by indiscriminately killing billions of sea creatures & disrupting the sea bed Fishermen's nets kill 10 times as many other animals as the fish they are hoping to catch Fish caught in nets die an agonising slow death of suffocation" So if a humane way to kill the fish was found - perhaps stunning them with electricity or a fast acting poison - you'd be ok with that? "Each year 15,000,000,000 land animals are slaughtered for food & an unknown but much larger number of sea creatures (including 1000's of dolphins caught accidentally) Chickens are crammed into battery cages with upto 3 other birds, they are unable to even spread their wings & many can not even stand up" So you are ok with all of teh free-range, cage free, dolphin safe and other human methods of animal farming? "Unwanted male chicks (because they can't lay eggs) are gassed or pulped while their sisters go to the battery sheds" You would prefer that they be killed humanely, or 'gassing' is not humane? You would prefer that they be aborted before they are born? If they were cloned from a single female would you be ok with that? "Chicks are debeaked without anaesthetic to prevent them injuring each other in the unnaturally confined conditions they are kept in - this is equivalent to having your fingernails pulled out without anaesthetic" So you want them to get anesthesia then? "Modern farming methods using growth hormones & artificial lighting mean that many chickens out grow their bones, resulting in fractured & broken legs" Some do, some don't. Are you supporting those who don't? "Sows are kept tethered in stalls 1.3 x 1 metre on concrete or slatted floors - they can not even turn around Poultry raised for meat are kept in windowless broiler sheds, with around 20-30,000 in each shed, they live in an area of 10-20 cm square - fighting due to overcrowding is common & like battery hens they commonly suffer from supperating bed sores Broilersheds are artificially lit 23 hours a day to produce rapid growth Animals travel between farms & to slaughter in overcrowded transporters with no food or water - resulting in stress, injuries & deaths - legal requirements are widely ignored 95% of poultry suffer injuries before being killed & 30% suffer broken bones Problems with stunning practices mean that many animals have their throats slit while still conscious (around 6% of cattle or 200,000 per year) & are then dipped in tanks of scalding water (to loosen feathers, bristles etc.) again while fully conscious 4000 animals die spurting their blood out every minute in a British slaughterhouse Calf leather comes from animals killed at just 2 weeks old Cows were fed on the ground up remains of other cows & sheep - the result is thought to be BSE (mad cow disease) in the USA cattle are fed partly on recycled plastic pellets Cows only give milk for 10 months after they have a calf - so they are routinely artificially inseminated (ie. mechanically raped) to keep them pregnant & milking - their calves are taken away (usually at 12 hours old) for meat or export to veal crates Cows would naturally live upto 20 years but are slaughtered after 5-7 years when their milk production begins to fall In the UK animals are killed by first being stunned with electricity or a captive bolt gun (ie. a bolt is fired into their heads) before having their throats slit & being plunged into boiling water - all this happens on a production line with the animals being hung upside down from a moving conveyor belt - this is factory farming" So then you support non-factory farmed animals? They are out there. Do you support them? If so, why don't you mention it? If you are really out to support humane animal treatment it behooves you to identify and call for the support of human, non-factory farmed livestocks. Instead you offer an irrational poorly thought out argument that invites us to engage in your religion of vegetarianism. It is a religion, a religious practice, not a rational policy. "Animals are those unfortunate slaves & victims of the most brutal part of mankind" - John Stewart Mill (philosopher)" Perhaps we should look at what makes humans (and animals) brutal? "HEALTH Vegetarians have a 20% lower rate of mortality from all causes (ie. they live longer & don't get sick as often)" This is a nonsense statistic. Cite your source. Vegetarians may be people who take care of themselves for other reasons, don't smoke, exercise more and so on. In other words, compare "healthy meat eaters" who don't smoke, exercise, and so on to " healthy vegetarians" and you might have something. Vegetarians, in the US at least, represent a minority. The majority of the very unwell are going to be lumped in the non-vegetarian numbers. Look at mortality rates of nations which are vegetarian - assuming you can find any - and even then its problematic to pull out causality. "Meat is full of traces of antibiotics, hormones, toxins produced by stress & pesticide residues that become concentrated from all the crops they have eaten Fish contain heavy metals & other pollutants -many of which originated on farms" Pesticides and pollutants can and do end up in the good chain of vegetarians. So you are against pollution then, rather than boycotting meat products? Not eating meat doesn't help anyone not become ill from eating bad fish or meat, it just saves you. "The world health organisation recommends a diet low in saturated fat, sugar, salt & with plenty of fibre - exactly what you get on a vegan/vegetarian diet" Not necessarily. You can be a "twinkie vegetarian". There is nothing intrinsically healthy about not eating meat. It is hard to get a lot of cholesterol but that's about it, and eggs and whole milk/cream might do that for ya too. "Farmed animals contain upto 50% saturated fat in their bodies Vegetarians have 24% reduced risk of getting heart disease & Vegans a 57% reduction (heart disease is the biggest killer in the UK accounting for 50% of deaths) Obesity is rare in vegetarians, obesity is related to many diseases" But this is unknown as to why. Many non-vegetarians are also not obese so you cannot claim 100% causality. The correlation may be due to other factors (as mentioned above they are "health nuts"). Many top athletes are meat eaters and they have spectacular health. "Vegans & vegetarians have lower blood pressure & cholesterol levels - high levels are associated with heart disease, strokes & kidney failure Vegetarians have a 50% reduced risk of dying of diabetes Vegetarians have a 40% reduced level of cancer than the general population thought to be because they have a higher intake of vitamins A,C & E Vegetarians have a reduced risk of developing gall & kidney stones 80% of food poisoning is due to infected meat (faeces, bacteria etc.) after all meat is decomposing flesh - most of the rest is due to salmonella in eggs" We recently had a spate of food poisonings in vegetables. You can get salmonella poisoning on a vegetarian diet. "Osteoporosis due to calcium loss from bones is mainly due to the sulphur content in meat & casein protein in milk that cause calcium to be lost in the urine - the countries with the highest meat & dairy consumption are those with the highest levels of brittle bones" No strong correlation can be made here. Bone density is a function of exercise, and it may be simply that the meat eating nations produce weaker people. "50% of people do not have the enzyme to digest milk properly & milk allergy is related to asthma & eczema Meat eaters have double the rate of Alzheimers disease as Vegans & Vegetarians - some people also think that Parkinsons disease is also linked to meat eating" Weak correlation arguments, with no citation of courses. You again have the problem of numbers and multiple factors - meat eaters may be simply less "health conscious" and may do any number of things that cause them problems. Compare health conscious meat eaters to vegetarians and these numbers may look very similar. "Egg yolk is a dense concentration of saturated fat & the white is high in albumin protein associated with leaching calcium into your urine. Butter is 80% saturated fat, cream is 40% saturated fat & cheese is 25-40% saturated fat" Vegetarians eat all of this! "Meat eaters are two and a half times more likely to get bowel cancer than Vegetarians" But why? Are these "vegans"? Or are they sucking down milk, butter, eggs and cheese? "The cling film used to wrap meat in supermarkets & butchers contains chemicals linked to falling sperm counts in men Chinese people (living mainly on a vegetarian diet) consume 20% more calories than Americans but Americans are 20% fatter" Mainly vegetarians! The Chinese are huge eaters of pork, eggs and chicken. If they are vegetarians its because they can't afford meat, or are religious (some buddhists for example, but not all). You can't cite "mostly vegetarian" populations to prove anything! They are also notorious cigarette smokers. "Of 2,100,000 deaths in the USA in 1987, 1,500,000 were related to diet (ie. meat & dairy)" Which is to say that they had a lack of exercise. "AND I COULD GO ON ! If you've read this far, I hope that you are beginning to see that the Meat & Dairy industry is a major contributor to misery on this planet. It is destroying the health of people in rich countries, starving those in poor countries, it is torturing & killing billions of animals every year and in the meantime it is one of the major factors in the destruction of the environment - so what does the meat & dairy industry have to say in it's defence? Well their only real point is usually "Meat is tasty" - fair enough a lot of people enjoy the taste of meat - but there are plenty of delicious alternatives (just consider the huge range of vegetarian dishes in Indian cooking - one of the oldest & most sophisticated cuisines in the world) and if you really crave meat & dairy, nowadays there are plenty of healthy non animal alternatives - just look in the supermarket & health food shop. So I hope you will agree it's pretty pathetic to consider all the evidence & then say "well I know you're right about the environment & health & the animals - but I just love my meat" Your arguments are weak and full of holes. You cannot achieve "full vegetarianism" without force which you do not advocate. You pretend to be for the humane treatment of animals but your only solution is your religious advocacy of not eating meat rather than supporting those who do not treat animals poorly. You lump meat eaters and lacto-oval vegetarians together when it suits your weak arguments, then you argue against eggs, milk and butter when you want to make another point. You fail to appreciate complex political and economic problems such as food as a weapon and other issues, instead asking us to engage in a religious vegetarian diet to "fix everything". You identify problems with land management, ocean protection and other areas but suggest that we can just engage in the magic bullet of not eating meat to "solve everything" - definitely religious thinking. In short your arguments are stupid and weak, poorly thought out and badly argued."