This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In today's Dot Earth post " Can People Have Meat and a Planet, Too? ," Andrew Revkin explores the brave new world of growing meat cultures in vitro as a more humane and possibly more environmentally friendly way of producing meat. Every day, some people switch from meat-based diets to vegetarian diets.
Then, click on "Comments" below to answer the question that Keith posed on his personal blog : Has anyone out there met someone who was persuaded to give up eating meat as a result of an argument? Please read the post by Megan McArdle that Keith linked to in his post from yesterday.
PETA is offering a $1,000,000 reward to anyone who creates commercially viable in vitro meat. I don't see any ethical problem with producing or consuming such meat. Addendum: Here is a New York Times story about the reward.
Some will reduce their consumption of meat for the sake of the animals. Force, coercion, and manipulation, by comparison, are inferior on each score. I believe that as time passes, humans will, for various reasons, change their diets. Others will do so for the sake of the environment. Others will do so for health reasons.
Should we legalize dog meat for human consumption? Saletan discusses some reader reactions to his first post on legalizing dog meat here. Should we be eating dog meat? For a discussion of the issue, see William Saletan’s recent post at the Human Nature Blog. What's next? Soylent green? What do you think?
Here’s another self-interested reason to not eat meat: Drug-resistant bacteria are routinely found in beef, chicken, and pork sold in supermarkets. To find out more of what the meat industry and pharmaceutical companies don't want you to know, read this Associated Press column by Margie Mason and Martha Mendoza.
This is one of the best essays I have read on the subject of animalethics. Also I would like to recommend this essay by David DeGrazia to your readers.
Someone sent a link to this blog post, which shows why economics is known as "the dismal science." It also lends credence to the dictum that economists know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The Argument from Brutalization The previous argument was based on an alleged indirect effect on human beings of not eating meat. It is argued that the killing and eating of meat indirectly tends to brutalize people. People who do not eat meat tend to be less cruel and inhumane to persons than people who do eat meat.
To the Editor: Re “ Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler ” (Week in Review, Jan. 27): Mark Bittman answered my prayers by writing an article exposing how the meat industry contributes to global warming, world hunger and other issues plaguing our world. 27, 2008 To the Editor: “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler” was misguided.
To the Editor: Re “ PETA’s Latest Tactic: $1 Million for Fake Meat ” (news article, April 21): The commercial development of meat from animal tissue won’t result in “fake meat” any more than cloning sheep results in fake sheep. A more accurate name for the end result would therefore be “clean meat.”
To the Editor: Let’s tell people of the quantum jump in energy efficiency that could be accomplished by eating less meat and having what meat is eaten be grass fed and pasture raised by local farmers. It’s easy to cut meat consumption if you start with one day a week of no meat. Bonnie Lane Webber New York, Jan.
2): Yes, 100 years ago Upton Sinclair wrote a book about the plight of the immigrant and focused in part on the meat industry. But 100 years later, our industry has been transformed and our meat supply is among the safest, most abundant and certainly the most affordable anywhere in the world. Since 1999, the incidence of E.
Addendum: The argument seems to be as follows: It is inconsistent both (a) to eat meat and (b) to condemn (or mourn) the killing of Harambe; I condemn (or mourn) the killing of Harambe; therefore, I may no longer eat meat. Good leftist that he is, Peter Singer doesn't let a crisis go to waste.
Niman gives us is to pay attention to the source of meat products and what our mothers always told us: clean your plate. To the Editor: The claims Nicolette Hahn Niman makes for how greenhouse gases might be reduced while still eating meat may very well be true, and I do not have the expertise to challenge them. The best advice Ms.
31) is simply wrong in suggesting that grass-fed beef produces less methane than feed-lot meat. It is the other way around, with grass-fed animals producing up to three times more methane. To replace factory-farmed meat without further tropical forest destruction is impossible.
Kristof writes, by way of apology for his "hypocrisy," that he eats meat ("albeit with misgivings") and has "no compunctions about using mousetraps." Eating meat and using mousetraps are as different (morally speaking) as night and day. Eating meat cannot be so justified. Eating meat cannot be so justified.
But there is a net loss in all meat production, not just of farmed fish or feeding fish to land animals being raised for food. Feeding grain to chickens, pigs and cows is even more inefficient, with 70 percent of grain grown in the United States going to animals raised for food. Danielle Kichler Washington, Nov.
But the vested interests are very strong, and consumers have become accustomed to artificially low prices for meat. When we understand that these prices require “torturing animals,” we will begin to change this system and also improve our diets. His new column offers hope for animals and help for people.
The United States Department of Agriculture purchases food, including high-fat meat and dairy products, under the direction of Congress based on agricultural surpluses and price support activities to help American agriculture producers. The cheeseburgers and meat tacos our children eat at school also deserve our full attention.
The editorial board of the New York Times weighs in on in vitro meat. I can't be sure, since the editorial opinion is so jumbled, but the board seems to be arguing that people should continue to eat meat, provided the animals whose flesh they consume are not made to suffer. Would the board say the same thing about humans?
If I can show you that one of your moral principles entails that it's wrong to eat meat, then, to avoid contradiction, you must either abandon the principle or abstain from meat. If you're unwilling to abandon the principle, then you must abstain from meat. Here is a brilliant example of this approach.
Enough has now been said to show that the habit of flesh-eating, involving as it does the sacrifice of vast tracts of land to the grazing of cattle, and the consequent starving of agriculture, is far too costly to be justified, in the face of an extending civilisation, unless by a much clearer proof of its necessity than any which its advocates have (..)
about the world food crisis, Paul Krugman doesn’t mention an obvious and important solution: Eat less meat. The 700 calories’ worth of animal feed he says it takes to produce 100 calories of beef contributes nothing to the well-being of consumers.
A vegetarian of the first sort has no grounds for objecting to the eating of animals—molluscs for example—too rudimentary in their development to feel pain. Nor could he object to meat-eating if the slaughter were completely painless and the raising of animals at least as comfortable as life in the wild.
To the Editor: Re “ Hooked on Meat ,” by Mark Bittman (column, June 2): The other day, I asked the manager of our local chain grocery store why we were offered only Peruvian asparagus in the springtime. Why do we eat so much meat? Remember when fresh, locally grown asparagus would come in? Why eat produce that has no flavor?
The strongest part of [Peter] Singer's case against meat eating is his brief discussion of the world food crisis. More specifically, they eat far more meat than is necessary to maintain adequate nutrition. Michael Fox , "'Animal Liberation': A Critique," Ethics 88 [January 1978]: 106-18, at 116-7)
Kristof , I’m not opposed to hog farmers or people consuming meat. But we are paying the price for having as much meat as we want, whenever we want, and cheaply, too. Millions of animals cannot be forced to grow on schedule without subjecting them to conditions that require the use (and abuse) of antibiotics.
As examples, I would give the following: (1) abstaining from meat for the sake of the animals; (2) abstaining from meat for health reasons; (3) eating meat because one believes (with, say, Roger Scruton) that doing so redounds to the benefit of the animals themselves; (4) eating meat because one likes the taste.
Beyond the environmental impacts of meat production there is a basic ethical issue involved. So here is an even more modest proposal than roasting Fido: Try eating only what animals you are willing to kill with your own hands. Rather than eating dogs, we all ought to eat exclusively small-farmed, free-range meat.
Please stop by for a visit, take the interview as a meat eater to see how it works (regardless of whether you eat meat), and consider adding a link to eInterview.org from your web site. This probing often leads people to examine their own practices and to better understand the choices made by others.
As the world moves toward raising the majority of animals in the unnatural setting of factory farms, it is likely that more, and worse, such pathogens will arise. What will it take for us, and our public health leaders, to question our addiction to meat and tolerance of factory farming?
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 30+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content