Why driving a Prius is really not enough

[Rae Vynn]

A Very Inconvenient Truth - by Capt Paul Watson

The meat industry is one of the most destructive ecological industries
on the planet. The raising and slaughtering of pigs, cows, sheep,
turkeys and chickens not only utilizes vast areas of land and vast
quantities of water, but it is a greater contributor to greenhouse gas emissions
than the automobile industry.

The seafood industry is literally plundering the ocean of life and some
fifty percent of fish caught from the oceans is fed to cows, pigs,
sheep, chickens etc in the form of fish meal. It also takes about fifty
fish caught from the sea to raise one farm raised salmon.

We have turned the domestic cow into the largest marine predator on the
planet. The hundreds of millions of cows grazing the land and farting
methane consume more tonnage of fish than all the world's sharks,
dolphins and seals combined. Domestic housecats consume more fish,
especially tuna, than all the world's seals.

So why is it that all the world's large environmental and
conservation groups are not campaigning against the meat industry? Why did Al
Gore's film Inconvenient Truth not mention the inconvenient truth that
the slaughter industry creates more greenhouse gases than the automobile
industry?

The Greenpeace ships serve meat and fish to their crews everyday. The
World Wildlife Fund does not say a word about the threat that meat
eating poses for the survival of wildlife, the habitat destroyed, the wild
competitors for land eliminated, or the predators destroyed to save
their precious livestock. .

When I was a Sierra Club director for three years, everyone looked
amused when I brought up the issue of vegetarianism. At each of our Board
meeting dinners, the Directors were served meat and only after much
prodding and complaining did the couple of vegetarian directors manage to
get a vegetarian option. At our meeting in Montana we were served
Buffalo and antelope, lobsters in Boston, crabs in Charleston, steak in
Albuquerque etc. But what else can we expect from a “conservation� group
that endorses trophy hunting.

As far as I know and I may be wrong, but my organization, the Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society is the only conservation organization in the
world that endorses and practises vegetarianism. My ships do not serve
meat or fish ever, nor do we serve dairy products. We've had a
strictly vegan menu for years and no one has died of scurvy or malnutrition.

The price we pay for this is to be accused by other conservation
organizations of being animal rights. Like it's a bad word. They say
it with the same disdain that Americans used to utter the word
communist in the Fifties.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is not an animal rights
organization. We are exclusively involved in interventions against illegal
activities that threaten and exploit marine wildlife and habitat. We are
involved in ocean wildlife conservation activities.

Yet because we operate our ships as vegan vessels, other groups, and
now the media dismiss us as an animal rights organization.

Now first of all I don't see being accused of as an animal rights
organization to be an insult. PETA was co-founded by one of my
crew-members and many of my volunteers come from the animal rights movement. But
it is not accurate to refer to Sea Shepherd as animal rights when our
organization pushes a strict conservation enforcement policy.

And secondly we do not promote veganism on our ships because of animal
rights. We promote veganism as a means of practising what we preach
which is ocean conservation.

There is not enough fish in the world's oceans to feed 6.6 billion
human beings and another 10 billion domestic animals. That is why all the
world's commercial fisheries are collapsing. That is why whales,
seals, dolphins and seabirds are starving. The sand eel for example, the
primary source of food for the comical and beautiful puffin is being
wiped out by Danish fishermen solely to provide fish meal to Danish factory
farmed chickens.

This is a solid conservation connection between eating meat and the
destruction of life in our oceans.

In a world fast losing resources of fresh water, it is sheer lunacy to
have hundreds of millions of cows consuming over 1,000 gallons of water
for every pound of beef produced.

And the pig farms in North Carolina produce so much waste that it has
contaminated the entire ground water reserves of the entire state. North
Carolinians drink pig s**t with their water but its okay they say, they
just neutralize it with chemicals like chlorine.

Most people don't want to see where their meat comes from. They also
don't want to know what the impact of their meat has on the ecology.
They would rather just deny the whole thing and pretend that meat is
something that comes in packages from the store.

But because there is this underlying guilt always present, it manifests
itself as anger and ridicule towards people who live the most
environmentally positive life styles on the planet – the vegans and the
vegetarians.

This is demonstrated through constant marginalization especially in the
media. Any organization, like Sea Shepherd for example, that points out
the ecological contradictions of eating meat is immediately dismissed
as some wacko animal rights organization.

I did not set the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society up as an animal
rights organization and we have never promoted animal rights in the
organization. What we have promoted and what we do is oceanic wildlife and
habitat conservation work.

And the truth is that you can't practise solid and constructive
conservation work without promoting veganism and/or vegetarianism as
something that promotes the conservation of resources.

A few years ago I attended a dinner meeting of the American Oceans
Campaign hosted by Ted Danson. He opened the dinner by saying that the
choice he had to make was between fish and chicken for the dinner, and what
was the point of saving fish if you can't eat them?

Guest speaker, Oceanographer Sylvia Earle put Ted in his place by
saying she did not think that he was being very funny. She said that she
considered fish to be her friends and she did not believe in eating her
friends. So neither Sylvia nor I ate dinner that night.

I met Sylvia again at another meeting, this time of Conservation
International held at some ritzy resort in the Dominican Republic. Harrison
Ford was there and the buzz was what could be done to save the oceans. I
was invited as an advisor. I sat on a barstool in an open beachfront
dining plaza as the conservationists approached tables literally
bending from the weight of fish and exotic seafood including caviar. I
looked at Sylvia Earle and she just shook her head and rolled her eyes.

The problem is that people like Carl Pope, the Executive Director of
the Sierra Club, or the heads of Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund,
Conservation International and many other big groups just refuse to accept
that their eating habits may be just as much a part of the problem as all
those things they are trying to oppose.

I remember one Greenpeacer defending his meat eating by saying that he
was a carnivore and that predators have their place and he was
proud to be one.

Now the word predator in relationship to human beings has a rather
scary connotation having nothing to do with eating habits, but for any
human being to describe themselves as a carnivore is just plain ridiculous.

Humans are not and have never been carnivores. A lion is a carnivore as
is a wolf, as is a tiger, or a shark. Carnivores eat live animals. They
stalk them, they run them down, they pounce, they kill, and they eat,
blood dripping, meat at body temperature. Nature, brutal red in tooth
and claw.

I've never met a human that can do that. Yes we found ways to run
down animals and kill them. In fact we've come to be rather efficient at
the killing part. But we can't eat the prey until we cut it up and
cook it and that usually involves some time between kill and eating. It
could be an hour or it could be years.

You see our meat eating habits are more closely related to the vulture,
the jackal or other carrion eaters. This means that we can't be
described as carnivores. We are better described as necrovores or eaters of
rotting flesh.

Consider that some of the beef that people eat has been dead for months
and in some cases for years. Dead and hanging in freezers, full of
uritic acid and bacteria. It's a corpse in a state of decomposition. Not
much that can be said to be noble about eating a cadaver.

But a little dose of denial allows us to bite into that Big Mac or cut
into that prime rib.

But that one 16 ounce cut of prime rib is equal to a thousand gallons
of fresh water, a few acres of grass, a few fish, a quarter acre of corn
etc. What's the point of taking a shorter shower to conserve water as
Greenpeace is preaching if you can sit down and consume a 1000 gallons
of water at a single meal?

And that single cut of meat would have cost as much in vegetable
resources equivalent to what could be fed to an entire African village for a
week.

The problem is that we choose to see our contradictions when it is
convenient for us to see them and when it is not we simply go into a state
of suspended disbelief and we eat that steak anyway because, hey we
like the taste of rotting flesh in the evening.

Have you ever thought why it is that with a person, it’s an abortion
but when it comes to a chicken, it's an omelette?

Does anyone really know what's in a hot dog? We do know that the
government health department allows for an acceptable percentage of bug
parts, rodent droppings and other assorted filth to go into the mix.

And now tuna fish comes with a health warming saying it should not be
eaten by pregnant women or small children because of high levels of
mercury. Does that mean mercury is good for adults and non-pregnant women?
What are they telling us here?

Eating meat and fish is not only bad for the environment it's also
unhealthy. Yet even when it comes to our own health we slip into denial
mode and order the whopper.

The bottom line is that to be a conservationist and an
environmentalist, you must practise and promote vegetarianism or better yet veganism.

It is the lifestyle that leaves the shallowest ecological footprint,
uses fewer resources and produces less greenhouse gas emissions, it's
healthier and it means you're not a hypocrite.

In fact a vegan driving a hummer would be contributing less greenhouse
gas carbon emissions than a meat eater riding a bicycle.

May be freely distributed, reproduced and published with permission of
the writer.

Paulwatson@earthlink.net
Captain Paul Watson
Founder and President of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (1977-
Co-Founder - The Greenpeace Foundation (1972)
Co-Founder - Greenpeace International (1979)
Director of the Sierra Club USA (2003-2006)
Director - The Farley Mowat Institute
Director - www.harpseals.org

[slair]

For every cow you dont eat, I'll make sure I eat 3. Why do you think animals are here? To be retards and not develop their society? If animals had a purpose other than food, you'd be working next to one.

[tripp]

Humans are not carnivores. We're omnivores. A quick look at our dentition will tell you that. You certainly won't get scurvy from a veggie (vegan or otherwise) diet but what about proteins and fatty acids? To have an active lifestyle you need protein, complete protein and a fair amount of it. How do you get complete proteins from a vegan diet without supplements? Most herbivores eat quite a bit. How many meals do you have to eat a day? I'm not trying to be a bugger, I'm just curious how it can work.

Clearly our practices are not sustainable and you bring up an excellent point. One that is too often overlooked, given the impact that it has on us.

[Marlin]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Jul 18 2007, 12:36 PM) [snapback]480953[/snapback]</div>

Humans are not and have never been carnivores. A lion is a carnivore as
is a wolf, as is a tiger, or a shark. Carnivores eat live animals. They
stalk them, they run them down, they pounce, they kill, and they eat,
blood dripping, meat at body temperature. Nature, brutal red in tooth
and claw. [/b]

And neither are we herbivores. We are instead omnivores.

[SSimon]

If not for saving our environment and our planet, we need to rethink our food consumption for the sustainability of our protein sources. We're abusing our ocean food sources immensely. Harvesting goes unchecked and more often than not catch thresholds are not enforced. The rate at which we withdraw our seafood is not sustainable and the manner in which we do so is usually very irresponsible. A significant portion of the catch is maimed and discarded overboard to suffer death. Unfortunately, little is being done about it.

So I concur, if someone wants to take a step in which they are engaging in perhaps the most significant single thing with the farthest reaching benefits to the planet and humanity, adopt a vegetarian diet. Or, cut back on your intake of these protein sources.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Slair @ Jul 18 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]480968[/snapback]</div>

For every cow you dont eat, I'll make sure I eat 3. Why do you think animals are here? To be retards and not develop their society? If animals had a purpose other than food, you'd be working next to one.
[/b]

Ugh. You define the purpose of a living being by their ability to work?

[SSimon]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jul 18 2007, 12:00 PM) [snapback]480970[/snapback]</div>

I'm just curious how it can work.

[/b]

Diversity, in a nutshell (no pun intended).

[qbee42]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jul 18 2007, 01:02 PM) [snapback]480974[/snapback]</div>

And neither are we herbivores. We are instead omnivores.
[/b]

And if we are not supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? :P

Tom

[efusco]

Why does the animal food industry take up such large blocks of land and utilize so many resources?
Could it be because humans have taken over vast areas of land and squeezed out the resources previously used by wild animals, our original source of meat.

Perhaps the better solution is to start razing cities and towns and restoring the natural world as it was before humans started encroaching upon it. We'd need to, necessarily take out all the people along with the structures of those razed cities since their population would, otherwise, need to be fed.

Then, once the wild animal population is restored, we'd go back to our hunter-gatherer roots that we gave up on some 10,000 years ago.

Please. The answer isn't to stop eating meat (that'll NEVER happen on a wide spread basis), but to work to improve the way large scale breeding and raising operations are run. We can't save the world in one huge sweep, it has to be done one reasonable step at a time setting priorities.

Now, where's that ribeye.....

[Rae Vynn]

I posted this to remind people to look at the bigger picture.
This is the environmentalism forum, so take a look at the global environment.
Even Al Gore ignores the impact of unsustainable agricultural practices, around the world, on our dwindling resources.

Also note that I didn't write this, I just brought it here for discussion.
But, yes, I am a vegan, and believe me, I am NOT protein deficient!
I get my protein the same way all herbivores do... from the food I eat.

People may not be biologically "herbivore", but we can do quite well eating as one, and when you really look at how "meat" (dead animals) are raised and processed in modern agricultural and meat processing plants, it is totally disgusting, and dangerous (disease is rampant in factory farmed animals).

Thanks for getting a good discussion going on this issue!

[Devil's Advocate]

Remember....
If GOD didn't want us to eat the animals,
then he wouldn't have made them so damn tasty!!!