Factonista » Guest Contributor

Secular Humanists Should Be Vegetarians

Guest Contributor — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:20:49 +0000

Contributed by John Xu

One thing we atheists seem to pride ourselves more and more these days over religious folks is our sense of morality – if we do good without the need for a supreme supernatural overseer to tell us to, then we must be morally superior. Is this really so I wonder? For starters, do atheists donate more to charity than the religious? Do we offer up our seats to the elderly more often? Do we treat our neighbours better, or contribute more to our communities? More often than not, I think, we would find that the answers to those questions would be a no. Of course, I am not in any way insinuating that atheism leads to immorality. Instead, I am trying to point out that if we want to claim to be morally superior, we have to put our money where our mouths are. Since this website is supposedly also advocating secular humanism, I should think these ideas aren’t very contentious. But what does vegetarianism have to do with anything? Well, here are some facts about the meat we eat everyday:

The Waste of Meat-Eating

Most of the meat we eat in North America come from factory farms, which are inherently extremely wasteful and inefficient. Consider that when we grow grains to feed the animals that in turn feed us, most of the energy in those grains go towards growing bones, skins, and self-repair mechanisms of the animals. In fact, it takes over 10kg of grain to raise 1kg of beef. How does it look like for other animals? Well…

Producing livestock requires a large amount of resources in terms of water and land on which to build farms and facilities. It also necessitates the use of even more land in order to grow the food to with the animals with. To put it into perspective, 1 hectare of land can feed 1 person per year if it produced beef, while it can feed 22 if it grew potatoes. The land used to produce meat would be several times more efficiently employed if used to grow soybeans, rice, corn, or wheat, both in terms of calories and proteins.

Growing meat, as it happens, also takes a huge amount of fresh water – a commodity the world is starting to seriously lack these days. Here is a chart showing exactly how much water that steaming juicy steak on your plate last night costs:

The world, as a whole, cannot sustain such a great strain on freshwater. This is especially true when the freshwater used for irrigation depletes rivers or underground aquifers faster than they are being replenished, as is happening in many parts of the world.

Really, eating meat is like driving a car to your next door neighbour’s for dinner – it makes no sense.

The Environmental Costs of Eating Meat
Cow vs Car
When asked about what the main contributors to global warming are, an average person would probably never pause to think about meat-eating. It would be pretty shocking then to find out that growing meat is actually one of the greatest producers of green house gases. This is because CO2 is produced when fossil fuels are burnt to produce fertilizers used to produce feed; methane is released from the breakdown of fertilizers and manure; fossil fuels are used during feed and animal production, and the transport of processed and refrigerated animal products.

A study in the New Scientist found that if an average American changed from eating meat to being vegan, he/she would manage to produce 1.5 tons less of CO2 per year, while changing to a hybrid fuel-efficient car would only save 1 ton per year.

Farm animals also produce methane and nitrous oxide, which, respectively, have 23 and 296 times the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide. The decomposition of fertilizers and manure is responsible for 80 percent of agricultural methane emissions and about 35-40 percent of total anthropogenic methane emissions; and as for nitrous oxide, livestock produces 65 percent of the total anthropogenic emissions. Animal farming is thus one of the greatest contributors of global warming.

The Threat of Meat to Rainforests
Thanks to globalization and the reduction of trade barriers, the world is increasingly becoming a single market. This means that a global increase in meat consumption causes forests in other countries to be cut down to grow food for feeding animals. In Brazil, for example, vast areas of forest are being destroyed each year in order to grow soybeans that are exported to the US and Europe for feeding livestock. In 2002, 25,500 km of rainforest – an area the size of Belgium – was cleared, with the main reason being soyabean cultivation. All of this forest clearing then releases tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while decreasing the amount of trees that soak up carbon dioxide.

The Ethical Dimensions
What Happens in Factory Farms
The chickens you buy in supermarkets are raised in very large sheds that hold tens of thousands of chickens, with each chicken given about an average of 96 square inches of room – the size of a standard 8.5 inch x 11 inch page of printing paper. In these sheds, chickens are unable to move without pushing through each other, unable to stretch their wings at will, or to flee aggressive birds.

These chickens suffer from a large variety of problems ranging from blindness, respiratory diseases, sores, and severe tearing caused by a build-up of feces, to chronic bone pain caused by having a growth rate many times the speed of normal chickens from selective breeding. As a side-effect of the selective breeding, these chickens have an enormous appetite, which if satisfied, will cause them to grow grotesquely large and die before reaching sexual maturity, and as a result, are consistently fed 60-80 percent less than their appetites desire.

Cattles, on the other hand, in order to be fattened as quickly and efficiently as possible, are kept on a diet of high-energy grains and corn instead of the roughage they eat normally. However, cattle’s digestive system evolved to break down grass, and when they do not eat it, a great amount of lactic acid accumulates in their rumens, causing gas problems so severe that cattle could suffocate from it. Liver abscesses are also another consequence of this. Giving cattle only corn to eat is equivalent to feeding humans with candy bars; and to prevent them from getting sick and dying before they can be slaughtered, they are injected with huge amounts of antibiotics.

So What?
As secular humanists, we should be cognizant of the ethical implications of our actions. It isn’t good enough to point out the moral sinkholes of bronze-age superstitions – we have to show the world that we can do better. It is frighteningly obvious that eating meat is a luxury for us living in the developed world, contributes to climate change, and is on highly shaky ethical grounds. So why wait? Do the right thing.

Sources and Further Reading

John Robbins, The Food Revolution, Conari Press, 2001
CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology), 1999. Contribution of Animal Agriculture to Meeting Global Human Food Demand.

Livestock Revolution. Implications for Rural Poverty, the Environment, and Global Food Security, World Bank Report 23241, November 2001
D.Pimentel et al, “Water resources: agriculture, the environment, and Society,” BioScience, vol. 47 (1997), pp. 97-106.

J.L.Beckett and J.W.Oltjen, “Estimation of the Water Requirements for Beef Production in the United States,” Journal of Animal Science, vol.71 (1993) pp.818-826
D.Pimentel et al, “Water resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues” BioScience, vol. 54 (2004), pp. 909-918.

Eshel, Gidon and Pamela Martin, “Diet, Energy and Global Warming,” Earth Interactions, May 2005
“Challenge to Fishing: Keep Unwanted Species Out of Its Huge Nets,” Otto Pohl, The New York Times, July 29, 2003

Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, 2nd edition, New York: Avon Books, 1990

J. Mason and P. Singer, The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter, Rodale

Winning the Battle for Gay Rights

Guest Contributor — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:32:14 +0000

Article written for Edger by Jon Adams.

I’m late to the discussion over Proposition 8. I’ve been following the news, digesting the defeat, tempering my emotions, and articulating my thoughts. But as an ex-Mormon bisexual living in the heart of Mormondom (Utah), I feel compelled to break my peace and make a foray into the issue. So here it goes.

The LGBT community endured an emotional rollercoaster on Election Day. One moment, they were assured “Yes we can!” The next, with the passage of Proposition 8, they were told “Um, no you can’t.” They are still suffering from that whiplash.

Over the past week and a half, that pain has manifested itself as anger (and understandably so) toward those who supported Proposition 8—particularly the LDS Church.

The LDS Church has been quick to note that they were not alone in supporting Proposition 8—they were party to a coalition of hundreds of churches*. Point taken. There were admittedly many culprits: the majority of older voters and black voters, a dishonest YES campaign, an inept NO campaign—all these contributed to and share some blame for Proposition 8’s passage. But this ignores the fact that the LDS Church was undoubtedly the most influential backer of Proposition 8, donating $23 million dollars to the cause and demanding support of their church members.

Given the church’s extensive involvement in Proposition 8, it’s not at all surprising that there have been worldwide protests at their temples and church-houses. But Mormons have cried foul. “It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election,” wrote Kim Farah, the spokeswoman for the LDS Church and (incidentally) my neighbor.

“While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.”

Translation: We can get in your pants, but you can’t get in our face.

Did the LDS Church think it could help deprive people their marriage rights with immunity? Protests are the price the church paid to participate in our democratic process. The church didn’t have to stick its nose in Californian affairs. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

That said, I do have some reservations about the recent spate of protests. The LGBT community and its allies are upset, and I think it’s wholly appropriate for them to communicate the profound pain wrought by Proposition 8. But I fear that the protests will prove counterproductive—especially those protests targeting Mormon temples and church-houses. They play into Mormon prejudices about homosexuals and feed their martyrdom complex.

Mormons are no strangers to persecution. Indeed, persecution strokes their identity as a “peculiar people” (their phrase). And it will only strengthen Mormon resolve against what they perceive to be threats to their religion, like gay rights.

Also, an angry unfocused response to Proposition 8 invites irresponsible behavior and speech. Just a few days ago, for example, some punk mailed suspicious white powder to two LDS temples. Such actions must be swiftly and forcefully condemned.

Signs like “Keep your cult out of the culture wars” and “F**k you, bigots!” aren’t helpful either. If they do anything, they just make our calls for tolerance ring hollow.

Now, I don’t think violence or vitriol typify the protests. But sadly, that is what’s making the news.

The protests are making it easier for the Mormons to claim that they are the real victims, not the homosexuals whose marriage rights they helped rob. No matter how poor the LDS Church’s public image is, we cannot allow this debate to be framed as a religious liberties issue. We’ll lose. Time and time again.

Remember that the public opinion turned in favor of Proposition 8 only when the YES campaign dishonestly claimed that homosexuality would be thrust upon Californians in their churches and in their children’s schools. In other words, the YES campaign effectively painted the opponents of Proposition 8 as invasive and intolerant—they made us the bad guys.

At the same time, however, we cannot let up on pressuring the LDS Church. Bowing to pressures—both internal and external—in the past, the church gave up polygamy and the priesthood ban for blacks. What exactly a measured and effective amount of pressure would be, though, I don’t know. But I do know what it’s not: http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-11/43235098.jpg

There are already legal challenges to Proposition 8. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit claiming that a mere amendment is not adequate to strip people of what the California Constitution says is a “fundamental right”—marriage. A revision is required to strike the “fundamental right” language, and that takes a 2/3rds vote by citizens of California.

http://aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html

Don’t invest too much in this lawsuit, though. From my understanding, the ACLU’s case is shaky and the California Supreme Court has rejected the “revision” argument in other cases.

Glenn Greenwald thinks there’s another answer to Proposition 8: A repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This would effectively gut Proposition 8 and render it useless, he argues. And thankfully, Obama has committed to repealing DOMA.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/06/doma/

These legal and political approaches to gay rights are fine so long as they are coupled with grassroots efforts. That might mean the occasional protest. Protests get our voices heard, which is important. But they rarely get our voices listened to. Gay rights advocates need to work on building bridges of dialogue. Abraham Lincoln said, “The best way to destroy your enemy is to make him your friend.”

I hope I haven’t been a downer; I’m really quite optimistic for the future. Equal rights will win out eventually. We (LGBT persons and allies) are on the winning side not only of an argument, but of history also.

Just half a century ago, the LDS Church and most of society opposed interracial marriage. In 1947, the First Presidency (the Mormon prophet and his two counselors) stated: “The intermarriage of the Negro and White races [is] a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now…We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency…toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.**”

You know, for a church that claims to be protecting marriage, the LDS Church sure has a difficult time defining what exactly it is defending. One man, many women? One white man, one white woman? One man, one woman?

Progress, while hard-fought, is the natural arc of human history. And those institutions anchored in the past will drown with the rising tide of tomorrow.

If you are interested in the history of Mormon anti-gay policies and rhetoric, check out this link: http://www.affirmation.org/learning/anti-gay.shtml

I have also written about certain anti-gay policies at Brigham Young University: http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=764

*According recently leaked memos, LDS Church joined the coalition to have it serve as a cover. The LDS Church said that they want to take an activist approach against gay marriage, but was reluctant to be “out front.” The church had the money, but recognized that “the public image of the Catholic Church [was] higher than [their] church.” The LDS Church’s alliance with the Catholic Church is yet another oddity in this whole affair, as historically Mormons have vilified the Catholic Church as “the whore of Babylon” and “the great and abominable church.” (http://www.abc4.com/content/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=4a8a2464-6cf3-45d1-a0bd-606f034bae33)

**Even that ignorant statement represented progress over what Brigham Young (the second Mormon prophet) taught: “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”