Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nightshade I do seem to remember that eating meat takes up less resources per acre than growing crops for consumption this led to the increase in leisure that we all enjoy now |
That is most definitely NOT true. One of the arguments for vegetarianism is that it is far more efficient (in terms of calories per acre).
This debate can run and run and I think I'm about done to be honest. I'm not claiming that vegetarianism would not be without costs and who knows whether these would outweigh the benefits for definite. However, my objection to the debate so far is that all costs and benefits have to be considered. It's no good raising an individual (possible) cost as an argument against vegetarianism and it is disingenuous to imply there would be no potential benefits (just as it would be disingenuous of me to imply there would be no potential costs). We can't pretend that today's agricultural practices are not without significant cost (re. livestock, the current density of livestock is extremely unnatural) and so shouldn't assume that a carefully managed change would have to be detrimental to the environment.
Matt