Matt in a Tux

I felt the urge to post this. It is regarding vegetarianism and a friend's discussion with another friend.

My friend's friend made the claim that there are no direct effects on the environment coming from an individual's decision to not eat meat. The claim is that all efforts are only for selfish reasons. The simple argument is that the cessation to eat meat by one person will not impact the industry. When one person stops eating meat, the store which they do not buy from will still be ordering the same amount from the supplier. The supplier will continue to fulfill this quota. Therefore, there is no direct effect, but merely hypothetical promises for bettering the environment. He also made the claim that direct effects can be seen in other situations, such as taking shorter showers, changing out light bulbs, etc.

I partly agree with the selfish reasons. Many probably start out for health reasons or to feel better for not eating Mr. Moo-moo. However, I see greater effects coming from this. As my friend pointed out, when a store does inventory they will notice that less meat is being purchased and will therefore order less from the supplier. If his friend were to disagree with this, then he surely would not be able to agree with his own argument that his taking shorter showers directly helps, for somewhere else someone may be taking longer showers, thus making his efforts moot.

Furthermore, we can see historically that more people eating meat contributes directly to more animals being slaughtered for consumption. If one person stops eating meat, it will not save an entire slaughterhouse, but if that one, plus another, plus another and so on cease eating meat then there is a higher chance that animals will not face these deaths. Granted, it will not be instant due to the fact that animals are raised directly for consumption and therefore there would be a period between the efforts and the actions. Breeding for food would have to decline first.

Let me offer a last analogy to support the individual efforts. Say your friend murders another person. You have no direct relation to this act, until he asks you to help him hide the body. Here you have two choices: (i) help him hide the body, or (ii) refuse to help him hide the body. (This obviously forgoes other responsibilities to report him to the police.) (i) seems perfectly viable since you still do not have direct affiliation with the murder – the person is already dead so you would not be harming them. However, this does not seem right. It does seem like you have some kind of connection to this murder if you help hide the body. If you help hide it well, your friend may go without punishment. Furthermore, what if he decides to murder again and again you aid him in disposing the body? Your lack of individual efforts directly contributes to further harm being committed.

Much more could be said on this, especially based on animal rights alone. I've also left out all of the environmental and economical positives of being vegetarian as that is not the main topic at hand here in my opinion. It is simple logic that is being argued, and I fail to see the sense in the other side.