Peter Singer's dumb quote

Veganism: Veganism is the best lifestyle to follow if you are concerned with your health, animal rights, environmentalism, and third world countries.

“Those who claim to care about the well-being of human beings and the preservation of our environment should become vegetarians for that reason alone. They would thereby increase the amount of grain available to feed people elsewhere, reduce pollution, save water and energy, and cease contributing to the clearing of forests.”

“When non-vegetarians say that ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for human beings that compels them to continue to support the wasteful, ruthless exploitation of farm animals.”
- Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, 1990.

Why is it that because someone is a philosopher, who sits around and thinks, it is assumed that what he thinks is logical and moral? Just because that same philosopher writes a book and a few crazy jackasses read it and decide it is the truth the world has been waiting for, and they make the philosopher their God and follow his every word, does it make that philosopher any more credible?

A philosopher isn't a geographer, an anthropologist, a scientist or an agriculturalist, he's just a person who follows a certain set of beliefs rationally and calmly regardless of their truth.

How can anyone so well educated (the guy has 3 degrees, BA, MA and B. Phil) be so lacking in knowledge?

I don't have a degree in anything but here, now, for your entertainment and amusement I shall dissect his crazy logic.

Here we go:

First of all "veganism" is a totally flawed concept that exists only in the minds of those who adhere to it. Consequently the word "veganism" will appear in quotes.

Veganism is the best lifestyle to follow if you are concerned with your health, animal rights, environmentalism, and third world countries.

"Veganism" is not a good diet for your health. Only a diet containing meat can provide sufficient complete proteins and most importantly vitamin B12 which cannot be obtained from non animal sources.

Most "vegans" will admit that they take vitamin and mineral supplements - what they won't admit is that many of those, come from animal sources.

While I would be the first to agree that we would be healthier if we were to cut down our meat consumption, no way would I advocate cutting it out completely.

The healthiest diet to follow is one that contains a wide variety of foods, red and white meats, dairy products, fish, fresh and dried fruit and vegetables, nuts, grains, legumes and lots of water to wash it all down.

In no way does "veganism" help animals.

Without a need for animals to eat, there would be no animals (at least not land animals). No cows, sheep, pigs or chickens, no wildlife no birds, no cats or dogs. Food would be such a precious resource that all animals would have to be killed to prevent them damaging crops and stealing human food.

Meanwhile, crop production is responsible for the deaths of thousands of animals yearly. Animals that have the potential to damage crops are trapped and poisoned, birds and insects are killed by pesticide use and small (and sometimes large) creatures are killed during the harvesting process.

"Veganism" is not environmentally friendly.

Animals provide nutrients to the earth through both their dung and their decomposing bodies.

Insects and some animals provide the vital service of fertilization for plants.

Animals eat much of the plant by-products that humans cannot digest and turn it into valuable protein that they can.

Animals keep "wild"vegetation under control.

Animals can be raised in areas where human edible crops will not grow, therefore allowing a local food source, without which many people would starve because they cannot afford to import non animal foods.

Animals provide not only nourishment but also clothing, lubricants and glues amongst other things, which would otherwise have to be made from petro-chemical products that are bad for the environment, expensive and available only in finite quantities.

Animals are esthetically pleasing and enhance the landscape.

Veganism does not help third world countries.

There is already more than enough food to feed everybody in the world right now; in the year 2050 there will still be enough food for everyone. And yet more than 700million people are malnourished (I'm sorry but it was taking too long to try and find an accurate number, if I find one I'll correct it). It is primarily in the third World that malnutrition kills 10 million people (mostly children) every year.

The problem is not a world shortage of food. The problem of malnutrition in the Third World is a complex one that most Americans have no experience with and thus do not understand well. Yes, weather extremes and pests can contribute to poor harvests, but it is a result of wars, corrupt governments, export policies, debt, poverty, lack of education, interference by NGO's, and AIDS.

The root cause of malnutrition is inadequate distribution of the available food, for the world produces enough grain to provide 3,000 calories per person per day. Such an excess amount in fact, that large quantities are now being diverted to produce bio-fuel. However, we are not able to get the food to the people who need it most. I'm not referring to food handouts, but to policies that influence purchasing power, food prices and distribution practices.

The lack of food is due not to acts of nature but to acts of people.

“Those who claim to care about the well-being of human beings and the preservation of our environment should become vegetarians for that reason alone. They would thereby increase the amount of grain available to feed people elsewhere, reduce pollution, save water and energy, and cease contributing to the clearing of forests.”

Our philosopher obviously doesn't know that south american rain forests are being clearcut to make way for the soyfields to feed his "vegan" friends.

Soybean fields are not only replacing jungle and savanna land along the Eastern and Southern borders of the Amazon rainforest but also around cities that have sprung up deep within the rainforest such as Santerem and Boa Vista. Once towns and roads are built, an inevitable migration of homesteaders and other opportunists will occur. More jungle will be cleared for new towns and cities. Suburban sprawl, ranches and farms will cover the area where Brazil nut, mahogany, samauma and capirona trees once stood. Jaguars and spider monkeys will live in zoos, not jungles. (direct quote from http://www.mariri.net/content/view/28/1/).

Although the huge amount of vegetative waste can be turned into compost for soil amendment this is not nearly as efficient as using natural manure from animals, resulting in an increased dependence on environmentally unfriendly artificial fertilizers.

Save water and energy? Don't crops need to be watered? They certainly need considerable processing to make them fit for human consumption, and lengthy transport to get them to the consumers, both huge users of energy.

Pestecides applied to crops, especially in south and central America where non native crops are being grown are some of the biggest polluters on the planet.

“When non-vegetarians say that ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for human beings that compels them to continue to support the wasteful, ruthless exploitation of farm animals.”

Slaughter plants throughout the world are some of the most efficient and astute businesses there are. No part of an animal is ever wasted. Everything is utalised and what's more animal muscle is ready for immediate consumption further processing is required to make it edible which is more than can be said for soy.

So there you have it. "Veganism" is the biggest blight on the face of the planet right now.

Save animals and the planet - Eat Meat.