New year's thoughts
Jan. 1st, 2008 04:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brightlywovenA very pleasant Christmas and New Year's break has been had by us. Not much in the way of excitement (I tell myself this is because I am Studying, but I am not as productive as I could be), but we had a lovely 4 day break in Brighton with family. I was pleasantly surprised by how speedy our drive was - 2 hours each way being about half the time I'd mentally allowed.
In the spirit of new yeardom, I decided to seriously examine an issue I'd not yet got to grips with. Recently I joked that I was concerned some of exactlyhalf's philosophy friends might 'turn him vegetarian.' I have always had mixed opinions on the subject of meat eating, so I thought it would be a good time to get to the bottom of some facts and decide if these should change what I do.
To clarify, we (I say we because half and I do generally come to ageement on almost everything) have no problem with killing and eating animals per se. We very rarely cook meat at home, but the reasons have largely been economic. Broadly speaking, we see a couple of possible reasons for not eating meat (apart from self-interested ones such as health or economic)
- environmental harm done by farming
- pain and/or loss of enjoyment for animals.
- global equality and poverty (eg does growing grain for animals instead of humans result in starvation
Being consequentialists, means this middle one is difficult to calculate. It depends on whether the animals would otherwise have any life (eg those bred only for farming who would have no 'life in the wild' if we didn't breed them to eat. If not, then the question is whether their life as a farmed animal is worth living before death. If farmed cattle (for example) enjoy their lives, and everyone stops eating beef, then the cessation of farming would, I think, be a net loss for the cattle. If however, it's a question of the animal living in the wild until it's killed for food, it becomes a question of how much the animal loses by having it's life ended early. If it is part of a resource limited population without other predators (eg kangaroos in Australia or the deer on Magdalen Grove), then the good gained by using the animal for food seems to come at only a small harm, compared to hunting animals whose numbers are threatened.
So in an effort to decide which animals can be ethically eaten, I've been reading today about farming practices from a selection of both highly emotive and more balanced sites. We then discussed it at length during a New Year's Day constitutional to Wolvercote, and the following seems to be the case (in the UK. In the US, you'd probably be best to avoid any meat farmed in America!)
Chickens - factory farmed chickens seem to have miserable lives, so they are off the list. As are battery farmed eggs. Free range chickens though, seem to have happy little lives until slaughter (which is only a very small part of their lives, and would seem to be ethically OK.
Pigs - also have miserable lives in factory farming. I'm not aware of any free range pig farming, so it would seem to be bye bye to sausages and bacon (small sob).
Ducks - ducks in sheds may have lives worth living. I need a bit more information on this one.
Cattle - surprisingly good! Only 15% of beef in England is 'intensively' farmed. The rest enjoy sunshine, grassy goodness and the company of their mums for at least 6 months. Again, in the UK, they largely eat grass, rather than grain, which is also good. Non-intensively farmed British beef may well be OK.
Sheep - again, happy lives!
Fish -There is an issue with farmed salmon being fed fish that are caught but not eaten by humans, but other than that farmed fish seem to have lives worth living.
We're currently mulling the possibilities, but we are thinking of this year restricting ourselves to 'ethical animal eating'. This would mean not eating
- factory farmed chickens
- pig products
- beef from outside the UK
probably not eating
- ducks
probably eating
- lamb
- british beef
- responsibly farmed fish
- shellfish
- free range chicken
Any facts/opinions about these would be good to hear.
And a happy new year to all.
In the spirit of new yeardom, I decided to seriously examine an issue I'd not yet got to grips with. Recently I joked that I was concerned some of exactlyhalf's philosophy friends might 'turn him vegetarian.' I have always had mixed opinions on the subject of meat eating, so I thought it would be a good time to get to the bottom of some facts and decide if these should change what I do.
To clarify, we (I say we because half and I do generally come to ageement on almost everything) have no problem with killing and eating animals per se. We very rarely cook meat at home, but the reasons have largely been economic. Broadly speaking, we see a couple of possible reasons for not eating meat (apart from self-interested ones such as health or economic)
- environmental harm done by farming
- pain and/or loss of enjoyment for animals.
- global equality and poverty (eg does growing grain for animals instead of humans result in starvation
Being consequentialists, means this middle one is difficult to calculate. It depends on whether the animals would otherwise have any life (eg those bred only for farming who would have no 'life in the wild' if we didn't breed them to eat. If not, then the question is whether their life as a farmed animal is worth living before death. If farmed cattle (for example) enjoy their lives, and everyone stops eating beef, then the cessation of farming would, I think, be a net loss for the cattle. If however, it's a question of the animal living in the wild until it's killed for food, it becomes a question of how much the animal loses by having it's life ended early. If it is part of a resource limited population without other predators (eg kangaroos in Australia or the deer on Magdalen Grove), then the good gained by using the animal for food seems to come at only a small harm, compared to hunting animals whose numbers are threatened.
So in an effort to decide which animals can be ethically eaten, I've been reading today about farming practices from a selection of both highly emotive and more balanced sites. We then discussed it at length during a New Year's Day constitutional to Wolvercote, and the following seems to be the case (in the UK. In the US, you'd probably be best to avoid any meat farmed in America!)
Chickens - factory farmed chickens seem to have miserable lives, so they are off the list. As are battery farmed eggs. Free range chickens though, seem to have happy little lives until slaughter (which is only a very small part of their lives, and would seem to be ethically OK.
Pigs - also have miserable lives in factory farming. I'm not aware of any free range pig farming, so it would seem to be bye bye to sausages and bacon (small sob).
Ducks - ducks in sheds may have lives worth living. I need a bit more information on this one.
Cattle - surprisingly good! Only 15% of beef in England is 'intensively' farmed. The rest enjoy sunshine, grassy goodness and the company of their mums for at least 6 months. Again, in the UK, they largely eat grass, rather than grain, which is also good. Non-intensively farmed British beef may well be OK.
Sheep - again, happy lives!
Fish -There is an issue with farmed salmon being fed fish that are caught but not eaten by humans, but other than that farmed fish seem to have lives worth living.
We're currently mulling the possibilities, but we are thinking of this year restricting ourselves to 'ethical animal eating'. This would mean not eating
- factory farmed chickens
- pig products
- beef from outside the UK
probably not eating
- ducks
probably eating
- lamb
- british beef
- responsibly farmed fish
- shellfish
- free range chicken
Any facts/opinions about these would be good to hear.
And a happy new year to all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: An update
Date: 2008-01-04 12:08 pm (UTC)