Dateline: June of the year 2109, in a high school social sciences class in Boise, Idaho.
Teacher: Good morning class. Today we are remembering what life was like in the days of Barack Hussein Obama, the first African American President of the United States. As you all know, President Obama did many things to distinguish himself as one of the greatest Presidents our country has ever known.
Back in 2009, the country was in a fast downward spiral of financial disaster; but Obama and his cabinet -- against all odds -- implemented a plan that re-organized the way banks and public corporations did business. He made them accountable not only to the shareholders and government, but also to the environment and to the well-being of the workers. There were a couple of very dark years for a lot of people, but a second Great Depression was averted.
It was under President Obama's leadership that this country was ushered into the era of peace and prosperity that we've experienced since then. Some argue that he saved the world from impending ecological collapse by appointing key agricultural and scientific people that made critical recommendations.
A hundred years ago, you may find this hard to believe, but the entire world was behaving in a way that made scientists of the time wonder aloud whether humans are actually a rational species. Some of the most brilliant scientists of the day argued that without changes in policy, the world was doomed to Biblical-style plagues, floods, famines, food and water wars, and other catastrophes -- all of human origin. Even so, entire industries lined up to condemn these scientists -- there was actually a debate about whether global warming was a problem.
Gasps and murmuring of incredulity from the students.
I know, we see it all clearly now. But back then, people were used to just taking whatever they wanted of natural resources, not believing that there could ever be consequences. They thought there was no end to the oil in the ground, fresh air or water, trees, or even animals. They believed they could do whatever they wanted, and so they did.
It's impressive to think about how the transformation occurred, though. Take for instance how people used to eat. Back in the day, people used to eat animals as part of nearly every meal. No kidding. But then in late 2006, United Nations scientists argued that eating meat was "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global," singling out meat consumption as a top cause of everything from desertification to loss of biodiversity to global warming. In fact, it was the business of raising animals for food that caused more global warming gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide -- than all the various forms of transportation put together. So even though driving those millions of big cars and flying old fashioned planes powered by oil were polluting the environment and warming the planet at breakneck speed, animal agriculture was an even bigger problem.
It seemed that no one listened, though, as 10 billion land animals and tens of billions of fish continued to be killed and eaten by humans every year in the United States alone.
Student: 10 billion animals and all those fish were slaughtered a year? For people to eat?
Teacher: Oh yes, people in the United States ate on average about 100 kilograms of animal flesh per person per year; of course back then the U.S. measured weight in something called pounds -- so it was an average of about 220 pounds. They ate huge chunks of cows -- their rumps, shoulders, and from around their ribs -- and drank their milk. They even ate the cow's baby's -- called veal -- because they liked the taste tender flesh. They dined on chickens more than anything, eating their breasts, legs, and wings. And people ate their eggs too!
Groans of disgust from the room. One student exclaims, "Humans consumed the milk and eggs of cows and chickens? Seriously?"
Teacher: Yes, seriously. But back to the environment please: It was inconceivable to people that the food they ate was what was warming the planet. Even former President Al Gore, who at that time had not yet been elected President or started his crusade against eating animals, didn't embrace the idea. He did finally see the connection of course, and he became one of President Obama's main advisors, urging him to see the full picture of what animal agriculture was doing to our planet.
At the same time, a number of scientists got together and challenged the world to recognize the insanity of funneling crops through animals to eat them. In addition to causing almost one-fifth of all global warming -- and for something both cruel and unhealthy -- funneling crops through animals also wasted hundreds of millions of tons of grain, corn, and soy. These crops were funneled through animals, wasting all of their fiber and carbohydrates, and the vast majority of their calories.
And remember, this was 100 years ago, when almost a billion people were starving and more than a billion lived in dire poverty. It's shocking to think that in such a rich world, people starved, but they did -- from those almost one billion who were not eating enough to be healthy, about 40 million people every year actually died from starvation-related causes. So that makes the waste of crops even harder to understand.
There is a spirited debate in college and university political science departments about whether it was the scientific argument about animals or the environmental and human starvation arguments that finally caused eating animals to be seen as so totally unethical, but everyone agrees that Richard Dawkins, other scientists, and animal protection groups focused attention on the scientific argument -- now obvious to us -- that other animals are more like us than they're unlike us (they feel pain, they are familial, they seek enjoyment, etc.) and that eating them is... well it's beneath our humanity and certainly bad for our health and the health of the planet.
Professor Dawkins, who was the foremost evolutionary scientist of his day, denounced what he called "speciesist arrogance" -- this idea that human beings are the pinnacle of creation -- and he called other species our "cousins," though these ideas were hardly the scientific consensus, despite the efforts of Dawkins, Jane Goodall, and other such pioneers. Of course it's obvious to us that other species have the same basic capacities and senses as human beings, but again, this was a big, big deal when Dawkins and Goodall were saying it 100 years ago.
At that same time, animal protection groups started to focus more and more on the way these animals were treated. Groups documented the unbelievable cruelty of systems for egg production where so-called farmers crammed seven animals into tiny cages, as many as 100,000 in a shed, unable to do anything natural to being a chicken. They documented slaughterhouses -- it remains amazing to me that society didn't come up with another name for these places -- chopping animals' limbs off while they were still conscious.
They kept animals by the thousands in windowless buildings hidden away from view, and inside, they had people lined up to kill them, dismember them, and chop them up to be shipped out for food. There was a lot of blood, and there were horrible sounds coming from those places. But it was the biggest industry in the whole world, and people didn't seem to question the rightness of it. You can sometimes see these videos late at night on the American History channel, but they justifiably contain a parental warning, since they are not for the faint of heart.
At this point, most of the students are staring blankly, in total shock.
I'm sorry -- I know this is hard to hear. But it's important that we understand our history, and it's important that...
A student interrupts: But ma'am, how could this be? Wouldn't people get sick if they were eating animals' corpses? I mean, they were eating dead bodies!
Why yes, they got sick. Millions of people got sick from eating contaminated animal flesh every year, and thousands died. And even more shocking, more than half of Americans died from heart disease and cancer (those were big diseases back then), and two-thirds of Americans were overweight from eating this unhealthy diet. Although some doctors and nutritionists tried to tell everyone else that the human body is not designed to consume animals, much as people smoked cigarettes and denied the harm for so long, people also ate animals and denied the harm. I know this all sounds quite fantastical to you, but it's true.
Another student chimes in: But why, why did they eat animals? It seems so... gross.
Teacher: Well, perhaps they liked the taste of animal flesh [students groan collectively]. I'm really not sure. In 2008, a movie came out about a rugby team that experienced a plane crash, and the members ended up eating their team members as they froze to death. I suspect that the realization that humans are also made of flesh might have shocked some people.
At that time, it's important to remember that the very idea of green businesses was brand new and some businesses thrived as people clung to tradition. There were massive corporations dedicated to profiting from war, coal mining, oil, and killing billions of animals. You may not believe this, but people would actually call Thanksgiving "turkey day" because about 50 million turkeys were killed for that day alone.
First student blurts out in frustration: How could this be? My great grandmother was alive 100 years ago -- surely she didn't eat animals!?
Teacher: Well remember, humans held other humans as slaves not very long before that, and the Holocaust was a mere 60 years before Obama came to office. Think of things like the witch burnings, the crusades, the fact that women couldn't even vote 100 years earlier than the first black presidency. Thankfully, human beings evolve ethically, not just physically!
Anyway, about 100 years ago, a campaign began, spearheaded by a coalition of health, environmental, poverty, and animal protection groups, and supported by President Obama and his animal-loving family. Suddenly shirts and bumper stickers were everywhere, "Vegetarian is our HOPE!" And of course it had many layers to it -- the environment, global poverty, our health. It started becoming popular to eat a more plant based diet, and sure enough, a momentum was started, and within a few years, humans phased out eating animals.
It was, perhaps, the inevitable tide of history. In this case, scientific understanding met ecological crisis met the strong urge for self-preservation. We're learning from our mistakes and learning from science. We can, at least, be thankful for that, class. Don't you agree that learning from our mistakes is worth celebrating?
A young girl, silent until then, says quietly: I'm glad I wasn't alive then. I don't think I could have stomached eating an animal.
There are many herbivore animals species. People should not lean towards processed foods like fake soy chicken etc. Those are supportive transitional foods that should really only be used sparingly to help those immersed in an animal based culture learn to eat a whole foods plant based diet. Roots (tubers, carrots, potatoes, parsnips, beets, etc) fruits, berries, nuts, seeds, shoots, grains etc. This is where man can get all they need for optimal health and dietary excellence. People who live in regions where they cannot achieve this, well- they do what they can to survive. Perhaps they should consider migrating where life isn't so extreme- but often it is all they know- and due to space and time this is an extremely overly simplified answer to a very complex question and is not in the spirit of judgment. This article is about a vision and discussion for a peaceful, sustainable and civilized world that humans recognize they are symbiotic with, not the absolute dominating center of.
"The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Keith and "Against the Grain" by Richard Manning (researches the ethical, political, ecological, and nutritional deficits of a vegetarian diet).
"The Original Diet" by me (researches what Nature intended humans to eat to provide a healthy life in harmony with our environment).
Roy Mankovitz, Director
www.MontecitoWellness.com
You do realize that when humans existed on that diet there were a lot less humans inhabiting the earth. More undeveloped land for these animals to subsist. And what about vegetables? Those are good, too.
Food production, like health care delivery, became a for-profit industry. That's where we went wrong.
Now we are bombarded by ads that ask "What's for dinner?" by the beef industry and a myriad of synthetic drug ads promising to treat every imaginable "disease" that big PHrma can invent if you can survive the side effects.
And on top of that we have grocery stores filled with synthetic foods full of preservatives all promising to save us time and trouble but instead causing disease in the long run. I would say the food industry and the pharmaceutical industry teamed up to make new customers for each other.
It's time to stop pretending that there is one diet that will suit everyone's health needs. As a species, we wouldn't continue to be adaptable to change if we all ate the same things. Go visit the Inuit and ask them how they would survive on a vegetarian diet. Look at my long, long line of ancestors from Northern Europe and think about how they could live through long winters on root vegetables alone. Now ask why we don't have ruminant chambers instead of our current stomachs or all thick, flat teeth.
Our species is very unlikely to ever become entirely vegetarian because we are NOT built
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJa3E_zXrCo&feature=related
American's, on average consume 70% animal foods when it has been proven that a diet of less than 10% animal foods is enough to keep us healthy, wealthy, and wise.
"Let food be thy medicine."
And protected the rights of extremists who chopped off the heads of live human beings
As one who has actually visited slaughtering facilities, I have never witnessed what you are quoting.
I have various requirements for my animals and thus I was choosy about where I take them... but in all the facilities I have been to I have not seen this.
It not in the best interest for animals to suffer and be stressed at the time of their death. This causes a reduction in the quality of the meat.
Handling of animals has dramatically improved over the years and will continue to do so.
Unsubstantiated statements like yours fall into the category of ridiculous. Sorry but you are generalizing and wrong.
And President Obama himself spent the taxpayers money to indulge himself with $100 per pound beef imported for his White House parties.
One, part of the data factored in is rain forest clearing for "livestock production" and part of livestock contribution to green house gases. While I am not in favor of deforestation, I ask you how is this connected to how much methane a cow belches? The rain forest is being cleared for many reasons not just livestock.
Two, most livestock in the US is on land that was prairie, scrub, grassland, and mountain slopes. No deforesting was required to create this farm/ranch land. Cattle spend only a few months of their lives in a feed lot. I am not in favor of feed lots or factory farms.
The report also factors in all the fossil fuels going into grain production as if all grain goes into livestock. This is absolutely false. Most livestock are fed BY PRODUCTS on grain processing for human use. Whole grains are just too expensive to be used.
I will further add that (as stated in an article posted on this site) a forage based diet dramatically reduces methane emissions and improves the healthiness of meat, dairy, and poultry products.
and besides, those rainforests being cut down? mostly for cattle grazing for meat this shipped to the U.S - so yes, there is a direct connection.
It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat. it takes 1 pound of grain to produce one pound of bread. tell me which way will really feed the world's hungry. there just isn't a single argument for meat consumption these days. In this modern world it is even possible to veg. in places like alaska and tibet. We no longer have any excuses other than our taste buds.
and don't even mention protein to me - a nursing infant (the time we are growing the fastest) is given the perfect food; mothers milk. guess what? mothers milk gets only 5% of it's calories from protein; at the time when we need protein the very most!
meat - get over it, it's dead
clearly you don't know enough about human nutrition.... although mankind has survived for centuries eating it, there is a lot wrong with meat....if you have to cook, irradiate, spray bacterial viruses something to make it safe to eat or suffer life threatening consequences or when you do cook it, it creates hetero cyclic amenes (which are carcinogens), or when its a safe bet it shouldn't go in your mouth ..the problem is if you cook it, unlike something down right poisonous like holly berries or Amanitas mushrooms that have immediate consequences, it takes years of eating this way to actually kill you. Conversely, cooking plants does not result in HCAs.
What I don't believe is that Idaho will have social sciences on the curriculum.
If there is to be a "grass roots" movement on all of this, it needs to be affordable most of all. And any movement towards vegetarianism should be made easily implemented (shopping lists and menus and budgets are desperately needed.) People need to learn how to cook.......
My family and I are almost completely vegetarian and have been for years. I cook every night. We are trying to eliminate our use of soy substitutes (funny meat). Most are loaded with chemicals and flavor enhancers and salt. We are trending towards veganism.
My children are the voluntary vegetarians. Many of their friends are too. They look to be the future.
I think you might be wrong about the metric system. We already converted to metric back in the 70's. We had kilometer signs, and gas pumps were switched to liters. Then over the next few years they slowly switched back.
The resistance to metrics is based on our simple inablitiy to visualize the increments.
Anyone mildly familiar with mechanics is aware that it's much easier to judge the size of a metric nut accurately, since they have fewer size divisions.
The metric system is the ONLY way to do science and engineering. Thanks to the anti-science conservatives, we have to convert from old English units to metric, do the calculations, then convert back to English. The rest of the world is smarter.
But criminalizing the consumption of meat alienates an entire segment of our population, meaning you're unlikely to convince them to think like you and 'come over to your side,' so to speak.
Instead, it might behoove us more to educate people more thoroughly on what consuming meat does to the environment and to our bodies. In addition, it seems wiser to pursue regulations on the raising and production of cattle, etc.
You will never eliminate meat from the American diet, let alone the world diet, but we can encourage people to reduce consumption, which is a theme that should be stressed across the board, not just in our diets.
I like meat, but I have made an effort to eat much less of it. I feel better physically and mentally. Go figure. But I will most likely never give it up entirely.
Please read my comments on: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/05/change-in-diet-could-curb_n_211968.html
I am not going to take time re-post them. But I try to lay out the cattle industry as well as I could in a forum such as this with limited space.
If someone out there wants to eat only veggies, fine, but that doesn't give that person the right to try to force everyone else to eat, drink and think the way they do.
Banning all livestock production is not the solution. I too have issues with corporate farming. But the best way to diminish their hold is to stop buying their products, just like the best way to create jobs in the US is to buy products produced here. Almost nothing in Wal-M. is produced in the US.
Buy locally produced foods and support those that are doing their best to produce healthy, safe food in an as humanely, ecologically safe, sustainable manner as possible.
Condemning the entire livestock industry and agriculture in general has far reaching ramifications. No wool, no manure for organic food production, no milk, no cheese, no leather, no horses, no jell-o, no eggs, no cake, etc.
Livestock production is tied to almost every aspect of our lives. Sorry to tell you all. We would be left to mercy of chemical and pharmaceutical companies. Rural communities would be devastated. The economic catastrophe would make the current situation look like a party.
This akin to:
Patient: "I got a sliver in my big toe"
Doctor: "Here let me fix that for you. I just cut off your head. See now it does not hurt any more."
I hate to break the news to you, but humans are evolved to eat meat. It's in our DNA. Don't believe me? Look at our closest genetic relative, the chimpanzee. Originally it was thought that they were vegetarians. WIth a little more study it was realized that chimps methodically hunt, kill and eat small animals all the way up to antelope size.
There is an absolutely horrifying video of a group of bachelor hhimps hunting down a shrieking colobus monkey and rending it limb from limb and gorging on the raw bloody chunks.
The Homo and Pan genera of Hominidae eat meat. End of story.
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html
I have seen the statistics that show how much it would mean if every person in America just pledged to have one meatless day a week. If we gently turned ourselves to the idea that protein is great if it flavors the other things on our plate instead of taking up half the plate, that too would help. Asian cuisines are a good model in that regard.
By the way, yes, other primates want the occasional bloody feast, but if we only ate as much meat as our primate brothers, there would be no environmental problem.
Long 10 hour day. First day without rain in a week. I seem to end up working harder trying to make up time. Came in to grab a bite to eat and see what was going in the world.
I thought you might enjoy this link. You may search by state.
http://www.eatwild.com/
Washington is a large state (not sure which part you are in) but there are several listings for the state.
Grass fed farming might be more prevalent east of the Mississippi because our farms generally are smaller. But there are many all across this country.
But there seemed to be several listings for pastured pork as well as just about any other kind of meat you might consider.
Have to go back to work (I want to get some locust posts split after the heat of the day subsides) and do my evening check of the herd... still waiting on a couple cows to calve and vigilance reduces emergencies.