VeggieBoards banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm new to the boards, and I come with a question in relation to my vegetarian speech I'm doing for class. Could anyone tell me anything they know about how much distributors would suffer if they stopped selling meat and instead just sold vegetables and fruit? I'm in a speech class, and I'm giving a speech on veg*nism and why it's great and all. Afterwards, we'll have a debate and I'll answer questions from the class.<br><br><br><br>
I think the teacher might say something like, "But what about the people who depend on meat to make a living? How much money will they lose if we all went without meat?" I'm not saying in my speech, "Everyone in the world should be vegetarian." but the teacher will play on extremes.<br><br><br><br>
Could you guys help me out? I didn't really know how to research this, and it's the only thing I'm uncertain of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
Well I think there are a lot of people who only sell meat and they would lose a lot. Some things to consider:<br><br>
It's unlikely everyone would go vegetarian at once.<br><br>
The world is always changing and the economy always has to change. It changed for the end of slavery, it changed for child labor and minimum wage laws, it changed when people stopped using carriages and started driving cars as well as with the computer. There are constantly winners and losers in the economy. Should the govt. help the losers find a new industry if change is too fast? Well that is another discussion. That's one possibility.<br><br><br><br>
I would look up your country's govt site on argriculture. ( <a href="http://www.usda.gov" target="_blank">www.usda.gov</a> if in the US.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,983 Posts
I'm doing the same speech, and I've thought about this a little. I don't know the figures, but sometimes the economy has to suffer for the greater good. Think of the American south and slavery. Losing their slaves was a hard blow to the plantation owners, but no one today would argue that they should have been allowed to keep them. Tobacco is a big industry, but few people are promoting smoking to keep tobacco farmers in business. Same with oil. Oil is huge, but we understand that our dependence on it is troublesome, and the general public is generally in favor of using alternative fuels (although no one is willing to go out of their way to do it... but that's another topic). So while you can genuinly feel sorry for people whose livelihoods might be hurt by vegetarianism, the end result would be worth it. Since everyone is not going to go vegetarian overnight (and you can certainly add that to your argument--no point in defending an impossible future), cattle-ranchers and the like would enough time during the decline in sales to start side businesses and prepare for the demise of their original careers.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,873 Posts
That same argument was made when slavery was abolished. Just because people profit from something doesn't make it ok. What about all of the people who profit from the sale of drugs, prostitution, etc? Aren't we hurting their business?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
Not everyone is willing to live on beans or make their own meat subs, so if meat were no longer sold I'd assume that meat subs would take over a lot of the refrigerator space that meat previously occupied. Look at the size of the veg meat sections in big supermarkets now -- they keep growing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,684 Posts
If you mention anything remotely AR or AW-related, make sure you have your facts straight. This seems to bother more people than health or environmental reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
I'm with cookingVeg on this one, there will be jobs created in the vegan food industry to replace all those lost in the meat industry, since people still have to eat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
885 Posts
Look at the milkmen. Having fridges in the home ended their careers - same with the ice-delivery man. Telling lumberjacks they can't cut down certain trees negatively affects the economies of lumber towns, but most people agree that you can't just allow us to clear cut our forests. Making electric cars would hurt the oil industry, but few people would feel sorry about that. ;-) Ending the sale of meat would cause people to find new livelyhoods - people need food and protein from something, and these people can pick up there!<br><br><br><br>
Selling veggies and fruit is actually pretty lucrative. Selling of meat would be far less lucrative if it wasn't for the government subsidies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,984 Posts
Just like the oil companies would fight with all their billions to keep us from moving to hydrogen based energy. The meat and dairy councils will fight with their billions to keep us from moving away from animal industries.<br><br><br><br>
if we moved to a democracy, it would solve much of the <i>fun</i> of special interests. Bribing a senator isn't as effective when their vote is equal to everyone else's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
This is actually a tough topic. I was about to agree that the current meat workers would just find jobs processing grains, fruits, and veggies instead, but that actually isn't totally true. Some of them would, but definitely not all.<br><br><br><br>
One of the major environmental disadvantages of meat is that it's inefficient. 70% of the world's grain is fed to animals, so those animals can be fed to humans. Cutting out the "middle men" (the animals) makes the process of feeding humans with all that grain easier and more efficient. So less workers really would be required to produce the same amount of food for humans.<br><br><br><br>
I actually had never thought of that before. Sad, but true. There really would be a downside to the entire world going vegetarian. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":("> I think the economy would find ways to bounce back and create new careers for these displaced workers, but the transition could be rough.<br><br><br><br>
--Fromper<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/juggle.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":juggle:">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Fromper</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
This is actually a tough topic. I was about to agree that the current meat workers would just find jobs processing grains, fruits, and veggies instead, but that actually isn't totally true. Some of them would, but definitely not all.<br><br><br><br>
One of the major environmental disadvantages of meat is that it's inefficient. 70% of the world's grain is fed to animals, so those animals can be fed to humans. Cutting out the "middle men" (the animals) makes the process of feeding humans with all that grain easier and more efficient. So less workers really would be required to produce the same amount of food for humans.<br><br><br><br>
I actually had never thought of that before. Sad, but true. There really would be a downside to the entire world going vegetarian. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":("> I think the economy would find ways to bounce back and create new careers for these displaced workers, but the transition could be rough.<br><br><br><br>
--Fromper<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/juggle.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":juggle:"></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Although... (now that I'm thinking about this slightly further)<br><br><br><br>
We wouldn't be feeding the same amount of humans. We'd have enough extra grain to feed all of the current meat eaters, along with the 1.2 billion people in the world who are currently not getting enough food. So maybe we would need the extra workers, after all.<br><br><br><br>
--Fromper<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/juggle.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":juggle:">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,983 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Fromper</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Although... (now that I'm thinking about this slightly further)<br><br><br><br>
We wouldn't be feeding the same amount of humans. We'd have enough extra grain to feed all of the current meat eaters, along with the 1.2 billion people in the world who are currently not getting enough food. So maybe we would need the extra workers, after all.<br><br><br><br>
--Fromper<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/juggle.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":juggle:"></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
The problem of feeding the hungry is that they don't have food because they can't afford it. It would be nice to give the surplus food to them, but that won't solve the problem of the farmers not having jobs. Who would pay them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Michael</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
That same argument was made when slavery was abolished. Just because people profit from something doesn't make it ok.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
YES. I couldn't agree more.<br><br><br><br>
But an interesting aside, the COOP I shop at sells only vegetarian products and they have been in business for a considerable amount of time, and are always crowded when I am there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Iria</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
The problem of feeding the hungry is that they don't have food because they can't afford it. It would be nice to give the surplus food to them, but that won't solve the problem of the farmers not having jobs. Who would pay them?</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
You're kind of missing my point. The 1.2 billion starving people aren't the current meat packers in industrialized nations who will be out of work once meat is no longer sold. They're poverty stricken people in third world countries that don't have enough food to go around. Having jobs wouldn't help those people, because there isn't food available for them all to buy in those areas, even if they had money. And there isn't enough food right now to send to them all, because we keep feeding 70% of the world's grain production to farm animals, instead of sending it to those third world countries. Cut the animals out of the food chain, and some of that grain could be sent to Africa, probably paid for by aid packages from industrialized nations. See where I'm going with this?<br><br><br><br>
My original point was that cutting the animals from that food chain would result in less jobs, because it would take less laborers to produce the food that currently feeds the 80% of the world that isn't starving. But then I realized that instead of laying off the extra workers, they could be put to work helping to feed the 20% who are currently starving, thus my second post.<br><br><br><br>
I hope this is making sense. It's all just a theory, but the voices in my head tell me it sounds good. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/rockon.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":rockon:"><br><br><br><br>
--Fromper<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/juggle.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":juggle:">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,983 Posts
No, I understood. I was asking who was going to pay the farmers who grow food for the starving people? The starving people can't pay for it. In an ideal world, the governments of countries like the US could pay the farmers and send out the food as charity, but that's not likely to happen.<br><br><br><br>
It's a really nice idea, but I don't see how it could work logistically.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,887 Posts
Well, right now the government subsidizes the agriculutral system at many levels, because of the inefficiency of raising livestock commercially. If grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables were the only things being grown, the subsidies may not be needed, and then the government aid could go to the starving people...
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top