VeggieBoards banner

Am I saving animals by being vegetarian?

3K views 54 replies 30 participants last post by  Chick 
#1 ·
I've been struggling with this question for a while, and I have to conclude for me, the answer is no. I mean, I know people talk about how by having more people becoming vegetarians, then more animals will be saved. But just because a group of people doesn't eat meat, there are many others who do. I know people say if there are more vegetarians, then the demand for meat will decrease, which in turn leads to less demand for meat production. But even if that happens, people will probably just find other uses for meat or the animals. I just don't feel I'm saving any animals by being vegetarian. Don't get me wrong. Being vegetarian is a good thing. I will continue to be vegetarian because I see it as the morally right thing to do for me...but as far as saving animals, I don't think I'm of much help. I see running and supporting animal sanctuaries as more tangible help.

The more I think about it...urging people to have less children probably helps the animals more than urging people to become vegetarians.
 
#3 ·
Quote:
urging people to have less children probably helps the animals more than urging people to become vegetarians
And the reason you can't do both? Reminds me of several years ago, I was at a demo for some animal related issue (can't remember the exact issue) and one passerby was doing the "what about the kids? Kids are more important than the issue you're talking about" spiel. Why this sticks in my memory is the night before I had spent helping compile a list of potentially hazardous children's toys.

Quote:
If I don't eat meat, someone else will
Actually, they probably eat meat regardless of what you do. They'd have to eat MORE meat because you don't for the conclusion you are drawing to hold.
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by roneet View Post

But just because a group of people doesn't eat meat, there are many others who do.
But unless the first group of people not eating meat will encourage the other people to eat more meat than they otherwise would, it doesn't matter.

Quote:
I know people say if there are more vegetarians, then the demand for meat will decrease, which in turn leads to less demand for meat production. But even if that happens, people will probably just find other uses for meat or the animals.
I don't understand. I don't think there is a group of people in society who just really badly want to exploit animals, no matter if there is a demand for it. They exploit animals on a scale that roughly correlates with how much people want to buy the end product.
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS View Post

And the reason you can't do both? Reminds me of several years ago, I was at a demo for some animal related issue (can't remember the exact issue) and one passerby was doing the "what about the kids? Kids are more important than the issue you're talking about" spiel. Why this sticks in my memory is the night before I had spent helping compile a list of potentially hazardous children's toys.
I am doing both. I'm just saying that if there are less people in the world, it's probably better for the other animals, not to mention the environment.

Quote:
Actually, they probably eat meat regardless of what you do. They'd have to eat MORE meat because you don't for the conclusion you are drawing to hold.
That's exactly it. They eat meat whether I eat meat or not. So animals are still getting killed for the meat because there's always someone who will buy and eat it.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by roneet View Post

That's exactly it. They eat meat whether I eat meat or not. So animals are still getting killed for the meat because there's always someone who will buy and eat it.
That's like saying "it doesn't matter whether I beat up that person standing on the street corner; there will always be people in society who beat up people, even if I choose not to".
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

But unless the first group of people not eating meat will encourage the other people to eat more meat than they otherwise would, it doesn't matter.
I don't get it. Why doesn't it matter?

Quote:
I don't understand. I don't think there is a group of people in society who just really badly want to exploit animals, no matter if there is a demand for it. They exploit animals on a scale that roughly correlates with how much people want to buy the end product.
In many cases, people use animals not just for meat. So say even if people don't eat meat, people probably will find other uses for the animals...maybe people will discover a way to kill them to produce fuel. I don't know... I'm just saying...if people's attitudes towards animals don't change, it's not going to help or save the animals. It's not just about whether one eats meat or not.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

That's like saying "it doesn't matter whether I beat up that person standing on the street corner; there will always be people in society who beat up people, even if I choose not to".
Ok, it matters that I don't participate in beating up the person. But is it helping that person when I stand there and not beat him up too while someone else is beating him?
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by roneet View Post

I don't get it. Why doesn't it matter?
Because other people causing violence won't have any impact on the significance of your own decision about whether to add to the violence in the world or not.

Quote:
In many cases, people use animals not just for meat. So say even if people don't eat meat, people probably will find other uses for the animals...maybe people will discover a way to kill them to produce fuel. I don't know... I'm just saying...if people's attitudes towards animals don't change, it's not going to help or save the animals. It's not just about whether one eats meat or not.
Unless you have some evidence showing that farmers have some economic motive to keep breeding a constant number of animals irrespective of whether they will be slaughtered for meat or not, I don't think this sounds like a very plausible scenario.

People use animals for other purposes than their flesh, yes. But I don't think those other purposes are used to replace the use of animals for consumption. If less people will buy chicken flesh, that doesn't mean that farmers are going to produce more wool.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by roneet View Post

Ok, it matters that I don't participate in beating up the person. But is it helping that person when I stand there and not beat him up too while someone else is beating him?
The situation comparable to animal exploitation is not that the same person assaulted by those other people won't also be assaulted by you. A comparable situation is one in which John and Mary are beating up James somewhere else, and you are wondering whether it matters that you don't beat up Thomas, because James will be assaulted anyway. And if that sounds like a strange thing to wonder, that's exactly why I don't understand the point you are making about "other people will eat meat anyway".

No, I wouldn't say that you are helping James by not beating him up. I would say, however, that it makes an enormous difference whether you beat him up or not. The world in which you beat him up is more violent than the world in which you don't.
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

The situation comparable to animal exploitation is not that the same person assaulted by those other people won't also be assaulted by you. A comparable situation is one in which John and Mary are beating up James somewhere else, and you are wondering whether it matters that you don't beat up Thomas, because James will be assaulted anyway. And if that sounds like a strange thing to wonder, that's exactly why I don't understand the point you are making about "other people will eat meat anyway".

No, I wouldn't say that you are helping James by not beating him up. I would say, however, that it makes an enormous difference whether you beat him up or not. The world in which you beat him up is more violent than the world in which you don't.
In this situation, it matters to me that I don't beat up James. Does it matter to James that I don't beat him up? I suppose so. But does it help or save James from getting beaten up just because I don't beat him up? No. That's what I'm trying to say.

So similarly, my original question was, am I SAVING the pig when I didn't eat him (just the act of me not eating him...I'm not talking about me stopping other people from eating him?)? No. Does it matter that I don't eat him? It matters to me. But in the end, the pig still gets killed.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by roneet View Post

So similarly, my original question was, am I SAVING the pig when I didn't eat him (just the act of me not eating him...I'm not talking about me stopping other people from eating him?)? No. Does it matter that I don't eat him? It matters to me. But in the end, the pig still gets killed.
No, the pig doesn't get killed. The pig simply won't be bred in the first place because you aren't there to buy his flesh.

(Or, to be more precise: you are a member of a group of consumers, who, as a whole, negatively impact the number of animals bred for consumption.)
 
#14 ·
It doesn't sound like you're looking at the big picture. It's not about individuals, it's about helping promote change. Think about all veg*ns. The meat they don't purchase doesn't just get thrown out, it brings about change in meat production. That's why I advocate less meat to everyone, for whatever reason they might respond to. Doesn't really matter whether it's just about health, or ethics, the more people realize they don't need meat, the less will be raised. Subsequently the idea of meat being neccessary will decrease, and the next generation can be raised will a more natural attitude towards veg*ns.
It's not just about standing by while James gets beat up, but not participating, it's about advocating peaceful living and doing whatever you can to stop the violence.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by silva View Post

It doesn't sound like you're looking at the big picture. It's not about individuals, it's about helping promote change. Think about all veg*ns. The meat they don't purchase doesn't just get thrown out, it brings about change in meat production. That's why I advocate less meat to everyone, for whatever reason they might respond to. Doesn't really matter whether it's just about health, or ethics, the more people realize they don't need meat, the less will be raised. Subsequently the idea of meat being neccessary will decrease, and the next generation can be raised will a more natural attitude towards veg*ns.
It's not just about standing by while James gets beat up, but not participating, it's about advocating peaceful living and doing whatever you can to stop the violence.
I suppose that's a good thing (what I highlighted). I guess I'm just looking for immediate change/results. The fact that it's going to take time and change is going to be gradual makes me feel that I am not doing enough just being vegetarian.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by creep View Post

I understand what you're getting at, but I still don't see the point of the question.
Imagine, right now, there's a pig at the slaughterhouse down the street about to get turned into a pile of meat. We are vegetarians and we are not going to eat the pig. Are we saving that pig? That's what my original question is about.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by roneet View Post

Imagine, right now, there's a pig at the slaughterhouse down the street about to get turned into a pile of meat. We are vegetarians and we are not going to eat the pig.
By the manner in which you have presented the question, you have already excluded from consideration the part of the process that veg*ns are having an effect on: the part of the process in which it is decided how many pigs will be brought into this world (to be caused suffering to and killed). In short, you're begging the question.
 
#19 ·
What about change for the future? You might not be able to save that pig thats in the current slaughterhouse... but you might be able to help save the pig in 5 generations time, if people learn now, then the change will be put into action 'tomorrow'. (Although if it were a veg*n world then there won't be a pig in 5 generations time because they won't be bred for exploitation anymore).

It really is about supply and demand and economic benefit.
I have a friend that farms cows recreationally... she loves them as pets and so has about 15 of them on a farm. However, when the price for cows gets high around $1500 each, she'll send them to the slaughterhouse... because then they're worth more as food than pets (to her).
If the farming of animals becomes un-economical, then farmers will transition to crops. If you look at the farming trends in New Zealand, there is tracking done between how many sheep farms, cow farms, and different types of crop farms we have throughout the country. There is visible change each decade depending on what types of products fetch the most money through export...

So: If less people eat meat -> less people buy meat -> NZ exports less meat -> Oversupply of meat on the market -> decrease in the value/price of meat -> Farmers make more profit on vegetables -> They start farming vegetables instead.

The change you make now, will not save the pig now... but it will save the pigs tomorrow


(Sorry, this post wasn;t meant to be patronising, I feel like I've been talking to you like you're a 5 year old).
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wednesday_12 View Post

What about change for the future? You might not be able to save that pig thats in the current slaughterhouse... but you might be able to help save the pig in 5 generations time, if people learn now, then the change will be put into action 'tomorrow'. (Although if it were a veg*n world then there won't be a pig in 5 generations time because they won't be bred for exploitation anymore).

It really is about supply and demand and economic benefit.
I have a friend that farms cows recreationally... she loves them as pets and so has about 15 of them on a farm. However, when the price for cows gets high around $1500 each, she'll send them to the slaughterhouse... because then they're worth more as food than pets (to her).
If the farming of animals becomes un-economical, then farmers will transition to crops. If you look at the farming trends in New Zealand, there is tracking done between how many sheep farms, cow farms, and different types of crop farms we have throughout the country. There is visible change each decade depending on what types of products fetch the most money through export...

So: If less people eat meat -> less people buy meat -> NZ exports less meat -> Oversupply of meat on the market -> decrease in the value/price of meat -> Farmers make more profit on vegetables -> They start farming vegetables instead.

The change you make now, will not save the pig now... but it will save the pigs tomorrow


(Sorry, this post wasn;t meant to be patronising, I feel like I've been talking to you like you're a 5 year old).
Fewer pigs being born because there is less demand for their meat is a good thing but it still doesn't save anybody, if you are never born you can't be saved.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wednesday_12 View Post

What about change for the future? You might not be able to save that pig thats in the current slaughterhouse... but you might be able to help save the pig in 5 generations time, if people learn now, then the change will be put into action 'tomorrow'. (Although if it were a veg*n world then there won't be a pig in 5 generations time because they won't be bred for exploitation anymore).

It really is about supply and demand and economic benefit.
I have a friend that farms cows recreationally... she loves them as pets and so has about 15 of them on a farm. However, when the price for cows gets high around $1500 each, she'll send them to the slaughterhouse... because then they're worth more as food than pets (to her).
If the farming of animals becomes un-economical, then farmers will transition to crops. If you look at the farming trends in New Zealand, there is tracking done between how many sheep farms, cow farms, and different types of crop farms we have throughout the country. There is visible change each decade depending on what types of products fetch the most money through export...

So: If less people eat meat -> less people buy meat -> NZ exports less meat -> Oversupply of meat on the market -> decrease in the value/price of meat -> Farmers make more profit on vegetables -> They start farming vegetables instead.

The change you make now, will not save the pig now... but it will save the pigs tomorrow


(Sorry, this post wasn;t meant to be patronising, I feel like I've been talking to you like you're a 5 year old).
I've had people mistake me for a 16 year old, not 5 though.
 
#25 ·
No, you can't end a war by being a conscientious objector. Hell, you most likely can't end a war by protesting it, educating people about the violence, or trying to get people to retire from the military. War will go on, people will still die.

No, you can't end child abuse by not beating up your own kids. You probably can't end it by dedicating your WHOLE life to educating people about child abuse, by becoming a social worker and saving children from abusive homes, etc. Abuse will go on, kids will still get beaten.

(No, you can't stop people from acting like hipsters, even if you tell them how douchey it is. You probably can't put an end to this apocalypse of taste and style even if you spend every waking hour burning down stores selling chuck taylors, or pass legislation that bans tattoo parlors from giving people star tattoos. Hipsters will go on, those douchers will still exist.)

But when it comes to killing and violence and oppression, there is incredible merit in non-participation. Don't cheapen that. And don't think it doesn't matter.

It's a matter of scale. If you work hard to promote kindness and compassion toward all animals, maybe one day someone will make a change because of you. Maybe two people will. And maybe they will spread the word like you have. Okay, so the few animals each year that don't get born at all because of us veg*ns don't qualify to YOU as "saving" any animals... But in a hundred years, if only a thousand animals are being slaughtered a year... Have you made a difference then? What if there is just one being slaughtered a year? Then? When does the reduction start to matter? According to you, it sounds like it NEVER matters - or at least never counts as "saving" animals.

If that's the case - fine. I can sort of see the logic there. I think it ENTIRELY misses the point and is a deeply strange thing to focus on, but that's all right. Just adopt some hens from battery cages. Buy a rabbit being sold for meat. You can "save" animals, if you think that's the most helpful.


(Note to Self: God help me, 3 down and 7 to go. This dare is ruining my posts...)
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry View Post

I guess I am unsure of what you are asking. A lot of veggie sites say that vegetarians "save" X number of animals per year. The number is really an example of how many animals are killed to feed an omni per year.
I'm sorry. Now that I re-read what I wrote...I guess it wasn't clear. I was agreeing with you when I asked the question above.

You said saving animals from being born doesn't save the ones who are already here. I was replying 'yeah' to you and asking others 'what about the animals who are here?'
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top