The Conservative Cave
Interests => All Things Edible (and how to prepare them) => Topic started by: bijou on September 11, 2010, 11:55:37 AM
-
The ethical case against eating animal produce once seemed clear. But a new book is an abattoir for dodgy arguments
This will not be an easy column to write. I am about to put down 1,200 words in support of a book that starts by attacking me and often returns to this sport. But it has persuaded me that I was wrong. More to the point, it has opened my eyes to some fascinating complexities in what seemed to be a black and white case.
In the Guardian in 2002 I discussed the sharp rise in the number of the world's livestock, and the connection between their consumption of grain and human malnutrition. After reviewing the figures, I concluded that veganism "is the only ethical response to what is arguably the world's most urgent social justice issue". I still believe that the diversion of ever wider tracts of arable land from feeding people to feeding livestock is iniquitous and grotesque. So does the book I'm about to discuss. I no longer believe that the only ethical response is to stop eating meat.
In Meat: A Benign Extravagance, Simon Fairlie pays handsome tribute to vegans for opening up the debate. He then subjects their case to the first treatment I've read that is both objective and forensic. His book is an abattoir for misleading claims and dodgy figures, on both sides of the argument. ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation
The man for whom the term moonbat was invenyed (George Monbiot) gives up on veganism.
-
I heard about this on Mark Levin last night. Almost ran off the road from laughter.
-
....and all the while the vagans are giving you hell for eating meat that was feed unclean grains they are drinking alcoholic beverages that consumed the very best of all grains in their manufacture..... :hammer: