FA-RM

Bloggers
Monica Hughes
Guy Adamson
Diana Hsieh
Blog Links
RSS Feed
RSS by E-Mail
Blogroll
Archives
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
September 2009

Monday, March 9, 2009

The Cow Tax and PeTA's Dishonesty
By Monica @ 12:55 PM
I've written previously on the EPA's grand scheme to tax farm animals because they emit "greenhouse gases." Even Fox News reported on this story awhile back. Both a PeTA spokesperson, and the owner of Nature's Harmony Farm in Georgia, were interviewed with regard to the "cow tax". I can't find a way to embed the video of the interview in this post, so be sure to click here and view the video yourself before reading further.

OK, did you watch it? You may be surprised to hear me say that I don't disagree with most of the points that the PeTA spokesperson presents. (I wholly disagree with the philosophy that farmers need to "give back". Wouldn't it be easier to just not let them take taxpayer dollars in the first place?) There are a few minor errors, but mostly, he's correct that tens of billions of dollars are poured into factory farming yearly, and that we have a socialized factory farming system.

Before I get on to my analysis of his statements, let me say that one thing I found very interesting was the PeTA spokesperson's use of certain terms to appeal to people on both sides of the political spectrum. Instead of sound reasoning, this is a trick more and more people are using to disarm their opponents, and it borders on ad hominem argumentation. The term "socialized" appeals to the conservatives. The term "factory farming" appeals to the liberals. If you use these code words, you can subconsciously get a variety of people on your side who might otherwise oppose you. Clever.

The dishonesty isn't in what facts were presented. The dishonesty is in what facts that were conveniently left out. Sure, cows emit methane and alter the biodiversity of natural ecosystems, and feedlots contribute to water pollution. However, it's extremely deceptive or ignorant to argue that one is aiding the environment simply by avoiding meat, as I've described in detail before.

Let's get to the criticisms.

First, which factory farmers are subsidized? Let's have a look at the agricultural products that get subsidies, shall we? Let's see... it looks like roughly 15 billion of the 177 billion in farm subsidies go to livestock production, a whopping 8 percent or so. Where does the rest of the 92% of the subsidy money go? To all the other crops and the chief behemoths of the USDA food pyramid : corn and wheat. None of these crops and the carbon released from tilling the soil to produce them, nor the darling of the vegan movement -- soy -- gets a mention by PeTA. He knows that soy is about as equaly subsidized as all livestock, erodes the soil, and poisons the Gulf of Mexico. However, he'd rather not share that due to his ideological bias.

The second delusion is in thinking that farming is (or was, even 50 years ago) sustainable long term without animals. I ask any vegan reading this to please supply me with an example of an ecosystem where nutrients aren't returned to the soil via primary through tertiary consumers. Without domestic animals, where would this fertilizer come from? Humans, presumably? I'm all for that, but the fact is that we're not doing it. We have divorced animal fertilizer from the farm and replaced it with nitrogen that is pulled from the air and turned into fertilizer using incredible amounts of fossil fuel. We violate those laws of nature by not returning the other nutrients to our food as well, and we cannot continue that process indefinitely. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

Do vegans care about soil fertility? Apparently not, or they would not suggest that healthy food can be grown without domestic animals, which they'd like to wipe from the face of the Earth. Remember, domestic animal extinction is PeTA's goal. Their goal is not just vegetarianism for everyone and the abolition of meat eating, and they are not particularly concerned about environmental quality or human health, either. While other vegans may be so deluded into thinking that agriculture is possible and sustainable without animals, PeTA is not. Their goal is ending any exploitation of animals whatsoever, including animals for any purpose in agriculture. Don't be fooled. Their goal isn't mere vegetarianism, it's veganism -- because if you want to make domestic animal species extinct that necessarily eliminates any source of non-meat animal products such as butter, milk, or eggs OR animal fertilizer. Vegans who are vegans for ideological reasons don't even eat honey because they believe they are exploiting the bees. (Obviously it goes without saying that this is a complete deviation from the evolutionary history of human foodways.)

If you need some convincing that PeTA's goals are that radical, that they want to eliminate domesticated farm animals entirely and for any purpose whatsoever, here are some quotes of people from various organizations, most notably Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), with known alliances to PeTA:

"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993
"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US, formerly at Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996.
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to call ourselves advocates of animal rights." Gary Francione, The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
"...the animal rights movement is not concerned about species extinction. An elephant is no more or less important than a cow, just as a dolphin is no more important than a tuna...In fact, many animal rights advocates would argue that it is better for the chimpanzee to become extinct than to be exploited continually in laboratories, zoos and circuses." Barbara Biel, The Animals' Agenda, Vol 15 #3.

"It's not about loving animals. It's about fighting injustice. My whole goal is for humans to have as little contact as possible with animals." Gary Yourofsky, founder of Animals Deserve Adequate Protection Today and Tomorrow (ADAPTT), now employed as PeTA's national lecturer

"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed.
"If that means going onto their farms, releasing their animals and burning the place to the ground, that's morally justifiable, in our opinion…There were always innocent people who got hurt somewhere along the way but it was important that those who oppressed one group of people be stopped, and we don't see the animal liberation struggle being substantially different from these [apartheid and slavery] other struggles.… A sustained campaign against a particular industry or a particular organization has the potential to be quite effective." Jerry Vlasak, in response to indictments of 11 ALF/ELF arsonists. AP, January 20, 2006.
These true goals of PeTA align pretty well with such onerous schemes as the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and the cow tax. NAIS won't really hurt factory farmers since they are the ones who have been pushing for this program for 20 years and are the only ones who will benefit. But if you can shut down family farming of animals through a cow tax or NAIS, and if you can create extinctions of certain animal breeds through NAIS, then you can eventually shut down factory farming of animals, too. The goal of the animal rights activists is the elimination of animal agriculture, not factory farms. That's why PeTA supports the cow tax, which will only possibly be afforded by those producing animals at a huge economy of scale. Don't be fooled. PeTA are a group of bald-faced liars with an obvious agenda.

I've already discussed the cattle emissions issue in a previous post, so if you haven't read it, it bears mentioning. As for the issue of biodiversity, I think I'll leave that to an excellent comment from a man named MikeL in this Mark Sisson post on veganism:

And finally, anyone who argues that farming soy and grains is more sustainable than, for example, huge herds of free-ranging cattle and bison, has completely forgotten—or never knew—that the prairies of the American midwest were once home to some of the richest plant diversity in the temperate latitudes. But it’s gone now, ripped away to feed our insatiable appetite for cheap and unhealthy carbohydrates. And the residues of that farming is drifting down the Mississippi, killing life at the delta. Think about that the next time you bite into a faux-meat soy burger.

So my advice to vegans and vegs: dump the sanctimony and eat some meat. We’ll all be better off for it.
Indeed.

Labels: Bison, Buffalo, corn, Ethics, Global Warming, Grains, Heritage Varieties, Meat Myths, NAIS, Nutritional Guidelines, soy, Subsidies

E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Thoughts on the Environmental Effects of Carnivory and Veganism
By Monica @ 5:24 PM
The popular press is awash with stories these days of how meat contributes to global warming and how many people are turning to veganism to reduce their "carbon footprint". There is even a proposed EPA tax on emissions from farm animals. From Scientific American articles, change.org pieces, and statements like this from respected nutritionists: "The more rice, corn, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and beans you eat, the trimmer and healthier you will be – and with those same food choices you will help save the Planet Earth too", environmentalists, vegans, and animal rights activists are attacking any and all methods of raising animals -- whether for meat, dairy, or any other use -- as contributing to "climate change." But is it true?

Before I deal with actual truth or falsehood of such statements, I'd like to state my position on "climate change" so that I can be as transparent as possible here. First, I do believe the globe is probably warming, and that it might be happening at least partly from human activities. I honestly don't know. However, I don't believe that this in any way justifies the political "solutions" being proposed to "climate change" (cap and trade, coercive laws, etc.). I haven't actually investigated the global warming issue seriously from a scientific standpoint and don't really have time to do so right now. I used to be a dyed in the wool member of the global warming camp and have gone back and forth on the issue over the past, but the fact is that wherever the truth lies, my knowing it would make very little difference in my day to day activities, and thus, it ranks pretty low on my list of self-education priorities. If that disqualifies me in your mind from commenting on the issue of carnivory vs. veganism as it relates to "climate change", so be it. I believe peoples' actual arguments, and whether they are logical or not, are the things that we should be dealing with.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's consider the issue.

First, let's be honest. Vegans and vegetarians raise a number of valid points when it comes to meat production. Some of these are actual problems and some may not be problems but the facts remain: feedlots often contribute to waterway pollution, cattle release methane, and that the way in which the animals are raised (indoors, confined, unsanitary conditions, fed antibiotics as a routine measure because of the immense crowding and wrong food which both foster illness) is, by and large, inhumane. I've blogged on each of these points before, including the absurdity and wastefulness of subsidizing this inefficient method of raising animals through the EQIP program.

Further, it is absolutely true that as we increase in each level of the food chain from primary producer (plants, algae) to primary consumers eating primary producers, to secondary consumers (animals that eat primary consumers), to tertiary consumers (this last category are the top predators in any ecosystem and eat both primary and secondary consumers: wild cats, dogs, humans, eagles, etc. are examples) about 90% of the energy ingested as food is lost as heat and only 10% is converted to biomass. There are some variations in those numbers, but those are the basics: lots of energy lost as heat or waste products as you go up in the food chain/food web. This all makes perfect sense from the standpoint of physics and basic physiology/metabolism. It's so well-documented in the literature that I see no reason to provide references. No one disputes that most of the energy from the fuel in the internal combustion engine is lost as heat rather than converted into mechanical power. It's the same principle in living organisms.

This is the reason that in any given ecosystem, there's an immense amount of biomass of primary producers and hardly any biomass, comparatively speaking, of tertiary consumers, i.e. top predators. This is also the basis for claiming that meat contributes to global warming. After all, if you are running grass or grain through an animal before that animal food gets to a human, lots of the energy is lost as heat or waste. Waste products of respiration are CO2 and water (or CO2 and ethanol or lactic acid if you're a fermenter). One of the waste products of the bacteria in ruminants is methane. Of course, we all know that CO2 and methane are the alleged "bad actors" of "climate change." The logic of the vegan argument is that if you bypass eating the ruminants (or any other animal, for that matter) you are more efficient at converting the calories of primary production (plants) into biomass and you avoid the energy "wastage" and extra CO2 and methane production.

But there are just a few problems with this very simplistic line of argumentation. Let's address them.

First, the assertion that humans evolved as vegetarians, or that their most recent common ancestor was vegetarian, has been blown out of the water. Personally, I think a good vegan diet with proper supplementation and avoidance of processed food is probably head and shoulders about even the standard American diet. But that's not the point. The point is, should people have the right to eat the diet they are designed evolutionarily to eat, the diet that is in their own best interest? Or should they eat a vegan diet to "save the planet", in the words of Dr. McDougall? It's a valid question. If you believe a vegan diet is optimal, that's fine for you, but there are serious issues with the scientific basis of such an argument from an evolutionary and nutritional standpoint. And certainly such a diet shouldn't be foisted on humans everywhere for political reasons if the point of morality is to teach us how to enjoy life to its fullest (as opposed to sacrificing for someone or something else, ultimately suffering or dying sooner than necessary).

Let's take the issue of energy loss. Yes, it's true that lots of food energy is lost as heat when we eat animals. However, there are more subtle points to consider. How does the caloric intake differ between vegans and carnivores or even vegans and meat-heavy omnivores? If Good Calories, Bad Calories is any indication, those with carb-heavy (read: plant-heavy) diets are driven to ingest more calories. I've certainly found this to be true in my own experience. A meat-heavy diet, at least as far as my own personal experience, results in spontaneously reduced caloric intake of as much as 800 calories daily. That's something that is never accounted for in the "carbon footprint" calculations. And honestly, what quantity of greenhouse gases are produced by grain- and legume-fed vegetarians? Beans, beans, the musical fruit, the more you eat the more you toot. Seriously, eating high-carb plant foods causes the production of more intestinal gas. I'm not sure what the chemical composition of that gas is, but the presence of the gas is something everyone who has switched from a high carb to a low carb diet, or spends a lot of time around bean-eating vegetarians, can amply attest to.

Moving on. Is most of the world's land arable and suitable for crop production? It is not. I've blogged about that before. In fact, this is considered a major problem of plant biotechnologists who develop breeding programs to develop crops for less than optimal conditions. Lots of the earth's land, however, is rangeland and quite suitable for animal production.

Another problem is the simplistic assumption about modern-day vs. ancient production of CO2 and methane from cattle. Actually, I'm not even sure the vegan "climate change" activists or their followers want to consider this. There are currently about 100 million head of cattle in the United States. Most of our cattle are grain-fed for at least part of their lives and grain-fed cattle produce about twice as much methane as grass-fed cows. However, they are not grain-fed their entire lives. My best estimate is that at any given point, around 25 million head are being fed this way. Estimates of the number of bison present in pre-settlement times is also as high as 100 million head, with bison being about twice as big as cows. I'm sure many people find it difficult to believe that the American continent could foster twice as much ruminant biomass as it currently does, but the fact is that the Americans plains soil was extremely fertile before modern grain- and soy-based agriculture washed much of it into the ocean, with enormous amounts of primary production (much of it underground in the form of prairie grass). I'm not sure how many head of bison were turned over yearly to predation or hunting. Today, approximately 1/4 of the national herd of cattle makes its way into the food chain yearly. But assuming that grass-fed bison produce similar amounts of methane to grass-fed cows, and that there could have been twice as much bison biomass as current cattle biomass, that means there were probably very similar amounts of methane being produced all along and that this hasn't changed much historically. This pretty much blows away the argument that we should consider cattle per se a significant problem when it comes to global warming.

Finally, let's consider the darling of the environmentalist/vegan movement: soy.

Let's be fair -- soy is a nitrogen fixing plant, meaning it can pull useless nitrogen gas from the air and turn it to valuable, fertilizing ammonia with the aid of bacterial endosymbionts in the root tissue. Even Thomas Jefferson recognized the value of using legume crops such as vetch to restore fertility to depleted soil. Still, soy is a plant with a shallow root system that results in soil erosion when grown in monoculture. Soy is often shipped up from South America, grown on land where rainforests once grew. Then, if the pure soybeans aren't eaten, and they usually aren't, they are processed in an extruder. Here is a picture of a soy extruder:

Hint: that puppy doesn't work on solar or wind power.

Now let's consider the grain-based diet that the vegans want us to go on. Any crop grown in the US today post-1950s in the era of subsidy-powered commodity agriculture requires vast amounts of ammonia fertilizer input through the Haber process. Animals could provide a much more balanced source of fertilizer, and played an important role in agriculture besides meat production prior to the 1950s. Long-term, there is simply no way to completely amend soil without farm animals if we want optimal plant (and thus, human) nutrition. These are the very animals many vegan activists would like to see eliminated to solve "climate change". Even that is absurd. Let's consider the Haber process, shall we? It is responsible for 1/4 of the world's nitrogen fixation and works by burning nitrogen and hydrogen gas through four rounds of heating to between 300-550 degrees C, to produce NH3.

Hint: the fuel for the Haber process does not come from solar or wind power.

OK, vegan activists for climate change. Please tell me which of the two options you think uses more fossil fuel: 1) The Haber process and the fuel required to transport the products of the Haber process to the fields? Or 2) locally raised animals depositing their dung directly on the fields, with all the necessary nutrients (not just nitrogen), as they did 50 years ago and as they still do on many family farms in the United States?

I hope I have demolished the idea that you have any idea how much carnivory vs. veganism truly contributes to "climate change" or "greenhouse gas" production without doing a lot more in-depth calculation in all of the areas mentioned above. Personally, I think my locally raised real bacon is a lot more environmentally friendly than the soy-based Smart Bacon grown with Haber-produced ammonia, shipped to the US, and then processed in an extruder which uses petroleum products. Here are the ingredients in Smart Bacon: Water, soy protein isolate, wheat gluten, soybean oil, textured soy protein concentrate, textured wheat gluten, less than 2% of: natural smoke flavor, natural flavor (from vegetable sources), grill flavor (from sunflower oil), carrageenan, evaporated cane juice, paprika oleoresin (for flavor & color), potassium chloride, sesame oil, spice extractives, fermented rice flour, tapioca dextrin, citric acid, salt. Look at the amount of processing involved. Many of the substances in bold are produced or extracted through an industrial process. How much fossil fuel is used to produce "environmentally friendly" products like Smart Bacon vs. real bacon? Want to bet?

Having fallen prey to "meat is bad for the environment" arguments myself in the past, it disturbs me to see these arguments advance. More and more people are adopting the idea that they will "save the planet" through veganism, often at the expense of their own health. It's fine if their choices stop with them, but ten years ago "cap and trade" would been inconceivable to most people. Today it's being offered up as an actual political "solution", and not a voluntary one. If someone had told me five years ago that the EPA would even consider taxing emissions from farm animals, I'd have laughed in your face.

In light of that, ask yourself whether any of the following is truly an exaggeration:

How long before our animal protein is rationed for the sake of "saving the planet"?

How long after that before vegans, animal rights activists, and environmentalists seriously push to limit or forbid raising livestock in the name of protecting the environment?

And how long after that before we're all forced to be vegan?

In my practical experience, many of the followers of the vegan movement who do so for environmental reasons are, for whatever reason, unable to understand or investigate the science behind the claims for their action. They are simply woefully ignorant. They aren't actually evil people. But the originators of such claims (PETA and others), those who can understand science and who either knowingly start or perpetuate lies for their own ideological ends at the expense of the truth, are hopelessly corrupt.

These lies need to be exposed. More than the simple truth is at stake. For some of us, our very sustenance depends on it.

HT for soy extruder picture: Cheeseslave
Labels: Bison, Buffalo, Ethics, Global Warming, Government Idiocy, Grass-fed, Individual Rights, Meat Myths, Pastured, Subsidies

E-mail Monica    PermaLink    4 Comments

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Thoughts on the Morality of Meat Eating
By Monica @ 10:50 AM
There are a few commenters that have left some witty or otherwise enjoyable comments in one of Dr. Eades' most recent posts. These comments have to do with Michael Pollan's personal prescription for a healthy diet:

Though I loved Michael Pollan’s “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”, I avoided reading his latest book “In Defense of Food”, mainly because I was turned off by the mantra “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Sounded like the usual dogmatic nonsense to me.

Then there's this, from a different commenter:

I modified it a little: “Meat food, Not too lean, Mostly leaf plants”

I think you can see where this is going. Now this, from yet another person in the same thread:

“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Sounds like a living hell to me. If you don’t live forever it will certainly feel like it. Someone–I think it was MSNBC–ran a contest for viewers to come up with their own 2-3-2 guide to eating. Winner: “Ate plants. Lots of them. Still hungry.”
These comments above are telling. I, too, expressed concerns in a previous piece that this "eat mostly plants" schtick seems to be the take-home message of Pollan's work, rather than the other excellent points he so often makes.

There's a reason I spend so much time on the nutritional myths of meat on this blog, and that is because there are various motivations to attack meat in our society. No one out there wants to outlaw vegetable eating for the sake of vegetable rights, human health, or the environment. There are definitely problems with the way meat is produced. Dr. Eades has pointed that out himself on at least one occasion, and he echoes my own thoughts on the industrial production of meat. However, recognizing those problems and unpleasantries doesn't mean we have to fall down the "fat is evil" rabbit hole or become vegans. That's why I spend a lot of time on the meat issue, and would likely still do so apart from my personal dietary preferences.

I've tried to treat the issue of meat eating and meat production objectively on this blog. I firmly believe that humans need meat for optimal nutrition but also believe they should be completely free to avoid it if they so choose. Unfortunately, that's not the view of so many vegetarians, vegans, animal rights activists, and environmentalists who want to force their select foods on others through the law by outlawing meat. This article, written by a farmer, is a good analysis of such concerns.

Defending meat doesn't mean defending ignorance or even widespread practices. In fact, people should be fully aware of what is required to produce their food and far too many are ignorant about it, willfully or not. However, there's a crucial distinction between revealing the truth about meat production in the United States today and claiming that it's a universal ethical issue. Food choices are particularly not a completely free will choice so long as the government influences farm and food policy, makes unhealthy products of all types cheaper, and restricts access to certain foods through various methods.

That shouldn't be taken as any kind of support for Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that result in sick animals, bacterial resistance, and obnoxious odors and water pollution for local residents. Diana wrote an excellent article about feedlot production yesterday and some of the potential free market solutions to this problem. Personally, I think feedlots would remain with us even in a free market if consumer demand doesn't shift, but I think there would be a natural tendency for them to be smaller without the EQIP program. Spending on EQIP has risen dramatically each year since the program's inception in 1996.

If a resident sues a local CAFO, all the owner has to do is apply for an EQIP grant to clean up the pollution. That's morally wrong. It's also an indication that the current cost of grain-fed feedlot beef does not reflect what the true market price should be. I don't believe that means that grass-fed meats would be excessively more expensive in a free market, though. USDA inspection regulations are much more costly to smaller producers that are producing grass fed meat. Those regulations, too, need to go. They would dramatically cut the cost of locally and humanely raised meats.

Michael Pollan largely agrees that CAFOs should bear the cleanup costs themselves without being propped up by taxpayers. But here's where he goes wildly wrong:

The government should also throw its support behind putting a second bar code on all food products that, when scanned either in the store or at home (or with a cellphone), brings up on a screen the whole story and pictures of how that product was produced: in the case of crops, images of the farm and lists of agrochemicals used in its production; in the case of meat and dairy, descriptions of the animals’ diet and drug regimen, as well as live video feeds of the CAFO where they live and, yes, the slaughterhouse where they die. The very length and complexity of the modern food chain breeds a culture of ignorance and indifference among eaters. Shortening the food chain is one way to create more conscious consumers, but deploying technology to pierce the veil is another.

It's very frustrating to see someone like Pollan nail the problem (government interference in agriculture) and call for a "solution" of yet more government interference. It's particularly frustrating since he is so widely read and people then bandy about these ideas without thinking critically about them. I simply cannot agree to the "deployment of technology", which means the deployment of my money, which means the deployment of legalized theft, to "educate" other consumers about their food. Too many Americans agree with this erroneous line of reasoning that yet more government programs are the solution to all of our ills.

I don't like feedlot practices, either. That's why I attempt to sponsor local producers so that I know exactly how my food was produced and where it came from. I certainly don't need a "live video feed" to tell me about the local farm I've visited or the local slaughterhouse where the animal is killed. To force me to pay for an incredibly expensive system in an attempt to educate others about their food is morally wrong.

In any case, can acknowledgment of the reality of meat production really be forced on an individual? It cannot, no matter how much money is spent. Evasion of reality is morally wrong but no one can force a mind, and too often such "public education" projects designed to do just that only result in indifference and resentment rather than the desired "educational" goals. People either wish to be educated about their food or they do not -- besides the more fundamental point that it's not the government's job to do so. If consumers do wish to be informed, there are far better sources of education than an expensive government program.

Further, a picture is not an argument. Should the Type II diabetic in the middle of Windsock, Nebraska -- with only one grocery store around for miles on end -- feel guilty at the cash register for choosing feedlot bacon over pasta when he sees a live video feed of a slaughterhouse? Morality is contextual. This reader over at Eades' blog hits it straight on:

At the end of this work (Omnivore's Dilemma) he moralizes extensively after shooting a feral pig. Absent was any recognition that killing is sometimes a necessity. He would have felt differently if he had to feed a hungry family.

While I don't agree with everything said in this essay, this statement from Garrett Hardin in Tragedy of the Commons is appropriate:

In passing, it is worth noting that the morality of an act cannot be determined from a photograph. One does not know whether a man killing an elephant or setting fire to the grassland is harming others until one knows the total system in which his act appears. "One picture is worth a thousand words," said an ancient Chinese; but it may take ten thousand words to validate it. It is as tempting to ecologists as it is to reformers in general to try to persuade others by way of the photographic shortcut. But the essence of an argument cannot be photographed: it must be presented rationally -- in words.

Update: 12PM, fixed some typographical errors and added a link.
Labels: Ethics, Individual Rights

E-mail Monica    PermaLink    2 Comments