2008: the year much of humanity began to go hungry

Yeah, I knew about the ethanol stat–that one’s really scary. Also the batteries in hybrid cars. I was reading today that the airline industry is growing by 7% every year… x

I usually enjoy reading Monbiot’s stuff for ‘The Guardian’–I didn’t know he had a website all his own. I’m going to check out the article when I’m not quite so exhausted after being in the garden–but I took a quick initial glance and it looks very interesting indeed. I’ll probably get the chance to read it properly later today… x

Hmm, I’ve read the article and thought it very good. Was reading down the first five or so responses on that Downsizer article and ended up thinking to myself, man, people can be really arsey and stupid and childish when their golden goose (kind of literally, in this instance) is questioned. Stuff like,

“But if I eat less meat, I’ll be more hungry. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Monbiot.”

and, your meat producer and provider guy,

“Sadly, it misses the most important point completely- we shouldn’t feed the world, the world should feed itself.”

That last one was particularly galling. I may be misinterpreting but it appears glib, and Monbiot wasn’t missing the point at all. So we in the West aren’t responsible for the food crisis that hits other parts of the world far, far harder than it will actually hit us, eh? Hmm. Where we will suffer is in our wallets, not our bellies. But it is our still-extant imperialism, our markets, our economics which prevail, and which are directly responsible for the growing crisis.

And when it comes to who gets the increasingly limited food, you can guarantee the fat and rich will be first in line to get the grub, and will have the money to pay for it.

In one sense, yes. The world should feed itself. But that requires a cooperative spirit, and redistribution of wealth and privilege, that the currently dominant system will not and never will countenance.

It doesn’t make this chap Rob right that he draws on that experience of farming, or that he was a vegetarian–the pertinent fact is really that he isn’t now. I’d argue that his approach to farming is sticking plaster for the wound rather than an actual cure for what ails our race in this one specific area, ie food distribution and crops for people versus crops for animals.

I do know, from what you’ve said before, that this guy is definitely best of the bunch when it comes to meat farmers in following ethical practices as far as they go; but ethical practices can be conventionalised as much as more overtly destructive behaviours. Take biofuels. Many green campaigners supported them until it got out that they were Bad, Bad, Bad. So they changed their minds. Similarly, while ethical farming of meat animals is good in the context of now, it doesn’t mean it’s good in the context of forevermore. It may be that it’s bad–just differently bad, if I can use that phrasing, when compared to the practices of the intensive farmers–and there is an argument being made, by Monbiot, myself and others, that yes, we need to cut down drastically on society’s consumption of meat or we’re basically all fucked in yet another essential aspect of life on earth.

It isn’t, of course, just about other people starving, though that’s enough. Cutting out even two or three meat-based meals a week reduces your carbon footprint as an individual and family as well.

Then there was this one,

“I notice that this issue is always about too little food rather than too many mouths.”

Um, no. Monbiot and others have made it clear there is plenty of food, it’s what we do with it–distribute it unfairly to the West and leave little for the third world, feed too much livestock with it to satisfy ever-growing hunger for meat, turn it into fuel for the school run… After all that, no. There isn’t enough food. But the planet produces enough to feed us all if we weren’t so collectively irresponsible.

But yes, overpopulation is an issue. But what to do about it? Sterilise huge swathes of the human race? Who decides who gets their gonads and ovaries trimmed, and who gets to breed? And what would be the criteria? Much more dodgy to pursue that argument than to try to get people to stop eating meat, or eat less of it. I think the above quoted line was classic avoidance of the issue by trying to say, ‘don’t let’s look over here, let’s look over there instead’. Again, hmm.

I was looking for more intelligent responses to Monbiot’s article and, at time of writing this, they were sadly lacking. The conversation in the forum descended into joking about the Pope… *boggle*

Most people commenting didn’t actually raise any ideas. They answered the big question with questions, or jokes, or diversionary statements.

Meat is clearly a passion and a line in the sand past which many otherwise hardcore greens/environmentalists/self-sufficiency types won’t cross. It is, pun intended, a sacred cow. They’ll live in mud huts, they’ll grow fruit and veg, they’ll stop using plastic bags. Just don’t ask them to quit the beef. They won’t ever.

Hugely disappointing that they are so adamant. Not even one meat-eater thereon said that as a consequence of this knowledge becoming known they would cut down on the amount of meat they consume. If a bunch of greenies on Downsizer respond like that, what hope for the rest of the nation changing its ways?

it all (responses to the situation, and the situation itself) confirms the view I’ve long held that meat is quite literally addictive. And everyone, not just the junkies, will suffer because of that. x

You’re right that there was no context thereon for what he was saying, and the idea you espouse that every nation should feed itself is one that makes sense but flies in the opposite direction to the free market. Any surplus could then be traded, but of course the world we live in today doesn’t trade in surplus, it trades in plenty, I suppose.

All food for thought.

Now then,

“This is your blog and you can say what you want but I’m sorry just because you don’t eat meat doesn’t necessarily give you the moral high ground unless you are unilaterally deciding that eating meat is immoral and that appears to be a totally different stance than you’ve taken before and ironic seeing as you surround yourself with Carnivore’s (cats) and Ominvore’s (turtles, cockatials and chickens) in the form of your animals - If we all stopped eating meat - Where would the meat come from to feed your cats? Unless you are going to let them catch their own food - and decimate the local bird population even more.”

I don’t think strong advocacy of a position inherently means you’re adopting a moral high ground, unless you’re saying the majority of people are being wilfully stupid or selfish or dumb. And I’m not and never have been saying that. It is indeed my blog, and as you’re one for expressing strong views yourself I’m surprised to see you perhaps advocating, albeit not directly, that strong views are somehow objectionable.

Compromise is sometimes, not always, a good thing, same as the causing of offence–and yes, my views are the same as anyone’s frankly, being in a state of flux from cradle to grave. Hardened, long-held opinions can sometimes be indicative of closed minds. So yes, I change my mind. Not every five minutes, which would be indicative of inconstancy, but occasionally, yes, absolutely, without apology.

You’ve chosen in the above quote (though later in your comment, things change) to adopt a similar tactic of deflection on the issue of how much meat is raised and consumed to the person who started on about overpopulation rather than respond directly to the enormous challenge posed by currently available data and articles by the likes of George Monbiot. Because it is, truly, a deflection to bring the cats and birds and terrapins into this.

Why? Well, for starters, it is entirely consistent for a lifelong advocate of animal rights to provide a home for victims of animal neglect, cruelty and/or abandonment. The only cat we have that was bought as a kitten was from a tatty pet shop in Hackney ten years ago, and arguably she was better off with us than stuck in a tiny cage.

The others all came from situations that ranged from less than satisfactory to downright horrible. The terrapins, too, were rescue animals, one in particular having lived seven years in a tiny tank before she came to us so deformed she was bent in the middle (which got better over a period of years). The male cockatiel was the sole survivor of a clutch of eggs produced by two parents who were bought for me, not by me, as gifts and, when they died, rather than leave him to live up to another fifteen years alone in a cage, I bought him a companion.

I’m not justifying in saying all that. I’m explaining because you raise them as issues to suggest hypocrisy on my part, or at least ill-thought-out reasoning. I’m not sure. I make no apology for doing what I can to alleviate suffering, human or animal. In much the same way, if the cats despatch a creature outside, I can do nothing about it and they are operating according to their natural predatory instincts without, unlike us, being enslaved by a mechanised production system that results in massive food waste and unfair distribution. However, you know that if they bring prey indoors, I try to rescue it, sometimes successfully, sometimes not–but I am concerned at the decimation of wild birds in urban areas. Only the other day I surprised your hubby by telling him starlings are on the RSPCA red list as their numbers have dropped 66 per cent since the early 1960s, due entirely to pet cats. And when one was caught by our cats last week I did all I could to save the bird, and was totally upset that I could not.

The chickens, of course, form part of a move towards greater, not total, self-sufficiency when it comes to their eggs and, as importantly, keeping them not only rescues the four we have currently from being turned into fertiliser after a year of living in hell but encourages conversations with friends, family and neighbours that lead to either more ethical shopping on their part–organic, free range–or even towards adopting vegetarian lifestyles.

Plus, chickens, like sheep and goats and to some extent pigs, are far less impactful and far better at the energy conversion ratio than cattle. If meat was to depart from the food list of humanity, beef would be the first priority to go.

You also know that I believe aspiration and information and education and open discussion are nine-tenths of the battle, and advocacy of a meat-free OR much reduced meat diet is the first step to addressing the food crisis, alongside campaigning against biofuels and arguing for fairer trade and local food being the primary preference. And, arguably, adopting a more ecological stance on a host of issues.

The bottom line, uncomfortable for some (not all) meat-eaters, is that if everyone was vegetarian, we’d have no food crisis even with the appalling inequalities we know exist. But even a reduction in meat consumption would be beneficial, and welcome. If that’s hardline, so be it. It happens to be the truth.

Moving on from responding to that paragraph I quoted, as always you make some excellent points for people to chew on.

The arguments are complex, yes, but that doesn’t mean insistence and strong campaigning should be set aside in favour of UN-style deliberations that never get anywhere. People should use their minds, and choose for themselves, based on the information getting out there. You seem to argue, in respect of meat alone, against radicalism, yet in other aspects of life a radical approach is the answer? That seems inconsistent to me. We all pick and choose, of course, what we will and won’t do and what we will and won’t advocate.

I wouldn’t lay into someone for eating meat at the same table as me. I wouldn’t suggest a person has less worth for eating meat. I will always argue in favour of vegetarianism, and have much respect for vegans.

I’ve discussed with you before about the livestock issue. The first step is a reduction in breeding numbers, and a measured withdrawal from production and sale. Nothing, even if the will were there, which realistically it is not–and whether we are fucked over the fact that the will isn’t there on a million vital issues for our survival is another topic for discussion entirely!–nothing could change overnight, not within a year. But within five years? Yes.

Weirdness is a matter of perspective, and the definition of madness depends on who you talk to. I personally think it’s weird that people cling to meat consumption on the current scale. I think it’s madness that we have no political leaders willing to take the necessary action to protect our future as a species, and that of the entire world. I don’t think green radicalism is weird, or mad. You may have stepped back from that, for entirely personal reasons, but your own decision to withdraw to what in effect you convey as a more moderate position doesn’t in itself make you right in doing so, or me wrong for heading in a more in-your-face direction as a response to the escalating crises we face. And, of course, this doesn’t mean I’m right either, apart from in my own mind–the same is true of everyone. We can only do what we think is right, but if what we do is governed not by what we think is right, but by what we think expedient or acceptable to our peers, then somewhere along the line we’ve compromised our integrity in a fatal fashion.

I agree that, with the point about kidney dysfunction, there is a case there to be made but that doesn’t act as a get-out card for everyone else who doesn’t have a terrible disease that means they can’t digest vegetables. But we also, as an aside, seem to have made little progress in treating that condition of which you speak–you might wonder, reasonably, how we can now fuse animal and human DNA inside eggs, yet people today are still on dialysis machines just the same as they were decades ago. Perhaps treatment regimes have changed, but they don’t seem to have moved on radically compared to, say, the treatment of breast cancer.

I wanted to address that point and not gloss over it. In such situations, you could argue that there would be instances where animal meat consumption is necessary.

The dairy industry–again, it’s a question of quantity and a managed withdrawal from the practices of today in terms of breeding, production, and sale. Hill-grazing sheep… Well, sheep are useful in more ways than just for their meat to those who eat it. They also provide wool, and would, given that they do not consume materials that could go straight to human mouths, be approached somewhat differently. But then, there are still only so many hills. Same as there is a finite amount of land.

Rabbits and pigeons are not consumed en masse. They once were, by rich and very often by the poor. Most people would turn their nose up at eating pigeon, certainly, and, in that paradoxical hypocritical way so many meat-eaters display, would throw their hands up in horror at eating fluffy bunnies. But meat, of course, is meat. Same applies with horse meat, or veal.

There is most definitely a case to be made for switching emphasis at the very least on the types of meat that are acceptable for consumption by those who wish to eat meat, and it is still in line with a managed reduction strategy to advocate people look at rabbits, hares, pigeons while at the same time breeding and eating less cows.

You make a most excellent point on food waste, something that is worthy of focus entirely on its own. We waste billions of tons of food in the West every year. It grieves me whenever I personally find something has gone off in the back of the fridge, forgotten until it’s too late. I’ve found the chances of that happening are much diminished by shopping weekly, not monthly as many do, and doing so on foot or by public transport. That way, you have to focus on what’s most important to buy and only get what you can carry.

Yes, once again, the car gets it!

Moderation is, I agree again, a first step for many, in all things. Driving the car, sure, but for every single journey outside the home? Eat meat, well, if you must–but why not once a week when knowing the facts on a global scale? But where I fundamentallly disagree is on the subject of radicalism or, as some are wont to call it, extremism. There is a place for it. If polarised opinions lead to many adopting a middle ground, then good has come from the situation. But many people become radicalised in the face of what’s going on around them, and being done to them.

“We have to begin to re-introduce the idea of everyone growing their own food - If every garden in Britain grew vegetables at even 1/2 the density of capacity that we did during the 2nd World War - We’d have masses more locally reared produce available to us, directly cutting carbon emissions.”

I’d agree that’s a starting point of real and substantial change, but unlike you I’m not an optimist. I believe that’s all well and good, and indeed essential, but more needs to be done across the board or we’re all fucked.

I’ve actually concluded that while it’s good for the soul to do all these things, and we can change the minds and actions of others, the status quo–that great capitalist monolith–remains and will remain secure, unchallenged and fixed. Until such time as we experience the most unprecedented and massive disaster ever in the history of our species. Then, and only then, will radicalism not be the preserve of the few, or something from which people retreat under pressure, but absolutely essential in forming new ideas and ways for living.

Sadly, it means billions more animals and people have to die before we as a species change direction. If it isn’t too late by then.

Wow, these are our longest comments EVER! But still, I thoroughly enjoy debating the issues with you in this way, as it helps me to sort out my own thoughts and feelings on this very important topic. x

My lack of response is not due to lack of counter-arguments - just lack of time to actually respond - Gonna take this offline for further discussion

Lots of thought provoking stuff … as an omnivore and the mother of a carnivore (well he will eat veg but his preference is meat, carbs and no veg) I feel this is a discussion I need to have in the home as well as in my head and with y’all. On average I think it is rare for me to have one day a week when I don’t eat meat of some kind, think I’m going to change that. By preference I already tend more to chicken, turkey or pork but I often buy beef things as that’s one of my son’s favourites.

8kg grain = 1kg beef … yep def need for conversation, discussion and changes there. I’ll be aiming for a reduction in the household meat consumption.

@Beautifu1: Afterthought… You should really ask someone like Amethyst Dragon for tips and advice on the whole meat preparation/amounts/balance thing. She’s got experience I haven’t, where meat is concerned. I don’t recall ever seeing anyone else’s meal plate at her house at dinner where meat was the biggest constituent–where meat is present, there’s always been mountains of veg as well. I’ve certainly never had less on my plate as a vegetarian guest, there’s always been plenty of choice for me as well. x