VeggieBoards banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,981 Posts
That's a rough estimate of something that's kind of hard to calculate. If you add up the amount of animals killed for food in the US per year and divide by the current population it comes out to about 100 per year. So yeah, it's a good way to see the immediate impact of your dietary choices. But you also need to remember that dairy cows are sent to the slaughterhouse once they stop producing milk so that may skew the figures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,134 Posts
100/year seems like an awful lot. That's two animals per week.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,981 Posts
It also needs to be qualified. Are you talking about worldwide or just the US?

In the UK, 800 animals are killed for food which would mean that each ominvore brit is responsible for about 15 animal deaths per year, but that does not take into account the large amount of pre-slaughtered animal-based foods imported from other countries.

A difficult statistic to calculate!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Yeah, I didn't think it would be straightforward. I'd just like to have something to reassure me I'm making a difference. Not that I would become an omni if there was no effect whatsoever.

(From the UK btw)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,546 Posts
I don't see how that counts as saving anything.

A) not killing something isn't saving it any more than me not shooting you is saving you.

B) unless that number is based on the effect of supply & demand, the animals are killed anyway, and you just aren't eating them.

C) if it is, the increase in population of people who eat meat is almost definitely greater than those who stop, so it's probably just slowing growth of the industry.

And of course, if the animals were being bred less because of vegetarianism, that only means they never exist to begin with. You save a potential animal from existence. Hooray?

But, as far as I know, that number was conjured up by PeTA based on a rough estimate of the animals you would otherwise have eaten. So really, it's just what you don't eat, not "save". If you want to save something, work at a shelter or something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scythe View Post

And of course, if the animals were being bred less because of vegetarianism, that only means they never exist to begin with. You save a potential animal from existence. Hooray?
It prevents a life being reared simply to be inhumanely slaughtered. So in a matter of speaking, you ARE saving an animal.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,873 Posts
It depends on what all is included. Shrimp? You can eat 10 of those in a sitting. Fish? If you eat one a week that's 52. If you eat half a chicken a week that's 26. A big basket of buffalo wings? I don't even want to know.


And depending on who does the math *cough*PETA*cough* I wouldn't be surprised if they even included eggs as (potential) lives saved.

Quote:
And of course, if the animals were being bred less because of vegetarianism, that only means they never exist to begin with. You save a potential animal from existence. Hooray?
If you knew you were going to live the life of a factory farmed animal you would want to be born? I highly doubt it.

And unless you run around impregnating every woman you sleep with then you're denying your offspring the chance to live. Hypocrite.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,081 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post

And unless you run around impregnating every woman you sleep with then you're denying your offspring the chance to live. Hypocrite.
How is Scythe's correcting the misuse of "saved" making him a hypocrite? It's true, you can't save something that never was. In a supply and demand industry, we decrease the demand, so the supply is fewer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,983 Posts
The wording bugs me, because it makes me picture 100 cows, pigs, and chickens living happy full lives because I didn't eat them. But I suppose we are saving 100 hypothetical animals from cruel deaths by not causing the deaths of 100 real animals. It doesn't really matter what we are or are not 'saving,' because either way we're still not directly contributing to the death of animals.

I think the above paragraph only made sense in my head. Oh well. It's the same argument being replayed elsewhere in this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
I personally dont feel Im "saving" any animals by not eating them.

Its not like there are cows set aside that would have been for me who are taken away to a happy ranch to live out the rest of their lives munching grass on the hillside.

If anything if the demand goes down so less animals would be bred for meat purposes..but I still dont see that as saving animals. Its just reducing the population and not by that much I suspect. There is no way I ate 100 animals a year when I was omni.

Its kinda like saying spaying and neutering "saves" baby kittens and puppies. It doesnt save anyone, it just keeps the population down. It may reduce the amount of suffering going on in the world, but its not helping individual beings.

Same with not wearing fur..Im just not taking part in something terrible by never wearing fur, but the fur industry still goes on, and animals still suffer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
Instead of speculating all day, just do the math. 10 BILLION LAND animals killed for food each year in the US for 295,734,134 people.

Quote:
Each year in the United States, 10 billion land animals are raised and killed for meat, eggs, and milk.(1,2) Statistically, farm animals comprise 98 percent of all animals in the country with whom we interact directly,(3) and that staggering percentage does not even include the estimated 10 billion aquatic animals killed for human consumption. Indeed, the numbers of animals killed by trappers and hunters; in classrooms, research laboratories, and animal shelters; and on fur farms; and those animals raised as companions or used for entertainment by circuses and zoos, collectively make up only 2 percent of the animals in some established relationship with humans.(4)...Of the 10 billion land animals killed annually in the United States, 95 percent are birds, and the overwhelming majority are "broiler" chickens raised for meat, 1 million killed each hour. Additionally, nearly 300 million laying hens(6) are raised for eggs, and more than 250 million turkeys(7) are slaughtered for meat...
http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/r..._overview.html
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,081 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by starseed13 View Post

If anything if the demand goes down so less animals would be bred for meat purposes..but I still dont see that as saving animals. Its just reducing the population and not by that much I suspect. There is no way I ate 100 animals a year when I was omni.
I could see people easily eating 100 animals a year. They're not saying 100 cows. They're saying 100 lives. If that includes shrimp and fish, like someone else mentioned, 100 is easy to achieve. Even if you didn't eat a lot of shrimp or fish, chickens are only 3-5 pounds each. It would be easy to go through a lot of them, as well.

Re: other posts

We are saving animals from having to go through that. I'm not arguing using "save." I dont' care if people use "save." I'm just saying that it doesn't make Scythe a hypocrite. I didn't even really see the similiarities in what he said compared to what Michael said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
You people don't seem to understand that the problem with the word 'save' is not whether we talk about saving them from death or saving them from being bred, tortured and killed.

The problem is that talking about "saving" presupposes that some animals are already destined to be consumed by you in the future, and you are saving those animals from that destiny. Whereas in reality, no animals are going to be consumed by you. In short, "saving" presupposes in this context that something is going to happen and you prevent it from happening. The only counter-argument to this is that they are indeed destined to be consumed in the sense that meat-eating is the norm in our society and you are consciously stepping away from the omni "path" that your upbringing and social conditioning etc. has created for you.

The problem with 'saving' from an AR standpoint is that it makes not-killing an active process - saving is active - and so more naturally aligns with the view that not exploiting animals is some kind of charity and not a moral obligation. It also, as said, presupposes that animals are going to be killed - that this is the default course of events - which can also be seen as problematic.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter: it remains true that fewer animals will be bred and exploited for meat if people go veg*n than if they remain omni.

If anyone actually understood my post, they get a free jar of store-bought hummus (that's gone bad).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,691 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica Alana View Post

I could see people easily eating 100 animals a year. They're not saying 100 cows. They're saying 100 lives. If that includes shrimp and fish, like someone else mentioned, 100 is easy to achieve. Even if you didn't eat a lot of shrimp or fish, chickens are only 3-5 pounds each. It would be easy to go through a lot of them, as well.
Even if you want to talk cows, I hear there could be bits of 100 or more cows ground up in a single hamburger.

I view it as the equivalent of those "crime clocks" the FBI publishes. It's not necessarily literally true that someone is being raped every 5.5 minutes-- it's an over-simplification to make a point. It's not possible to know for a fact how many animals are not slaughtered because a single person goes veg, or even if any are not slaughtered who would otherwise be slaughtered. But it is still possible to feel confident that all of us together, as a market force, are making a difference in the long term, and that as more people go veg, we make more of a difference together.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
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