My Confusion Continues...and Will Never End

I donned my game face and decided to read another post from "Mark's Daily Apple,"a glowing review of the book The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith. As much as I find exposing oneself to opposing arguments important, it is understandably difficult to accept an argument against something which one finds fundamentally obvious. This is my situation.

I try, I really do. I hear people's arguments through. I think I have the capability to digest them in a rational manner, even if they frustrate me. But after hearing the same arguments over and over again for nearly twenty years now, I begin to get a little tired.

I assumed that, after reading this book review, I would have something novel to respond to (well, I kind of do...haha, get it? Novel. Anyway...). Unfortunately, this is not the case in the slightest. Keith's argument is exactly the same as Barbara Kingsolver's--industrial agriculture kills thousands of animals anyway, so what the hell? Let's just gorge ourselves on meat. Yes, I'm exaggerating, because I know that Kingsolver at least is a "responsible" omnivore, meaning she only eats family-farmed animals, but that's the logic. And that logic, to me, makes no sense. Yes, I am aware of the devastating effects of industrial plant agriculture. I know that I step on bugs every day without realizing it and swallow spiders in my sleep. I have accidentally hit a bird with my car. I don't abstain completely from refined sugar processed with bones. I'm willing to take a chance on datem, mono- and diglycerides, and "dough conditioners." Keith used to be vegan and knew all the same things that I do, except she couldn't handle it. She couldn't stand the thought of killing anything, so she switched her diet to one of...more killing? I'll use this graphic again because I like it.

Ah! So this is the answer to all the world's environmental problems. If this is the case...USA! USA!

Right! I forgot. More death equals less death. Brilliant! Totally against any sort of logic ever used. That takes courage.

Forgive me. I'm not trying to snort-laugh in my chair while I sit and type this post (which I am), but there are fundamental, indisputable errors in this argument. There is some sort of idea among omnivores that eating fewer or no animals means eating more plants. It does, on the surface. But, as I've stated before, animal agriculture is ridiculously unsustainable. This is a clear and proven fact. Figures are different depending on where you go for the information (The National Cattlemen's Beef Association might say 4.5 pounds of grain per pound of beef, while some vegan you meet on the street would probably say 26 pounds of grain). However, the true number, according to the USDA, is approximately 16 pounds of grain per pound of beef produced. This number is true with all factors of meat production accounted for. So let's assume that 10 animals are killed per acre in the USA due to grain harvesting. There is no actual number on this that I could find, which surely is convenient for this guy, who wrote an article quaintly titled "Veganism is Murder" (murder implies intent, by the way, which I suppose is easy to forget. Words are hard). Anyway, 10 animals are killed per acre in the US, for the sake of argument. About 61.5 million acres of grain are harvested each year in the US. So, that would be about 615 million animals killed each year as a result of grain harvesting, which would be about 395,000 animals per pound of grain. Now, the average beef consumption in the US in 2007 was about a quarter pound per day per person, which would be a little over 90 pounds per year per person. And if it takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, that would be 1,440 pounds of grain per year per person used to feed the cows they eat. And if we go by our initial assumption of 10 animals per acre, that's an extra 569 million small animals killed, plus the average fifth of a cow per person that Americans eat each year.

Phew.

My point is, after that long-winded series of calculations, that no matter how you slice it, omnivores still kill more animals than vegans do. I'm not saying that vegans kill no animals at all through their eating habits, but they kill far fewer (even though, as a vegan, I obviously think that I've never killed anything ever, as the stereotype goes). Keith has a valid point and obviously knows what she's talking about, but, like Mark's other argument, her argument is irrelevant. There aren't any reasons not to be being vegan or any reasons to eat meat in her argument. It's the same argument that I've always heard, just under a different name. And I will always be confused.