To several commenters on my early post:
When I speak of 'rationalising' farm policy, what I mean is getting rid of most of it. The government has no business telling farmers how many of them should be planting what; nor should they subsidize them growing particular crops; nor, especially, should they be paying them not to grow crops. (I swear I'm not making this up: The US government does this.) Farm policy should at this point be about phasing out farm management by distant bureaucrats. I can see having regs concerning health issues, both in terms of food chain and in terms of types of fertilizer, pesticides, etc. that may be damaging when it enters the water supply or just hits the local lake. But the whole "let's manipulate the foodstuffs market so we can Keep The Family Farm" is ridiculous, counterproductive, and a waste of taxpayers' money.
I agree with most of that - I don't think it's because "the government has not business", but rather, because it's counterproductive for the government to interfere - at least in the way that it has been. So, again, basically, I agree.
On the subject of Global Warming being the excuse and not the reason for various wrong-headed projects and legislation, I'm old enough to remember when these same projects and laws were proposed for other reasons.
That doesn't show that this time it's not for the reason given - or even that it wasn't in the past.
I'm not saying you're wrong - just that you may be - we'd have to discuss individual laws to make that judgement, and the thing is that for
some laws, polices, whatever, you're likely right - politicians often take advantage of the issues of the day to advance their agendas - that doesn't mean that everything they do is.
Not to mention that there's no rational basis for having an executive order stating that by 2030 the "number of passenger car miles being driven should be half of what it is today" if the goal is emissions reduction. If that were the motive, you'd be talking about emissions. As written, the executive order would demand removing absolutely clean electric vehicles (most of the Northwest's power is hydro, so it doesn't generate carbon like coal-fired plants); cars that get 87 miles to the gallon; vehicles used only for carpools that run on hydrogen...you see my point.
Your point is that it's not the optimal strategy, and I likely agree. That doesn't mean that it won't have some affect. That governments enact sub-optimal policies toward their goals doesn't mean that they aren't interested in those goals - it just means they're ineffecient.
Now, for the sentence where I make lots of you hate me: I don't think that there's a moral case for living "green". It might make you feel good; it might be smart; it might be a prudent choice for a long-term thinker. But that's being smart, not being moral.
So, what is moral, then? If someone is choosing to live their lives a certain way, not for the sake of their own happiness or comfort, but because they think it's right, what would you call that?
I don't see the choices as either: 1) Being a heedless generator of earth, water, and air pollution who shoots buffalo to eat the tongues and leaves the rest to rot; or 2) Living "carbon neutral" and eating only plants that volunteer for it. There's a whole continuum between blatant disregard for the rights of your neighbors and your grandkids, and being so Green that you put your nosehair trimmings in the compost bin.
Neither do I, nor, I think, does anyone else I've ever interacted with.
What does that have to do with whether people who care about their affect on the envirnoment (perhaps because they know that these indirectly affect other people, or for other reasons) and who because of that try to limit their affect, aren't making a moral decision? What kind of decision is that if not a moral one?
And when I say that I'm not putting any value judgement on it - it could be that they are misinformed, or not. It could be the right decision, or not. But clearly it's one based on a moral viewpoint.
I believe we need to be aware of the choices we're making, what the longterm and short-term impacts are; and I think we need to be prudent.
I agree.
But there's also a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be made,
Well, of course there is!
which most "moral" arguments sidestep. If we could stop putting out greenhouse gases tomorrow, at the cost of killing 65% of humanity, would that be moral? If we can reduce manmade carbon in the atmosphere by 3%, at the cost of 70% of global GDP, would that be worthwhile? (I'm pulling these numbers out of thin air, of course; but they serve to demonstrate the point.)
I don't understand your point here - is anyone suggesting that we should do this?
The only thing I've seen suggested in this thread is that choosing not to eat meat could have a beneficial affect on the environment. If you can show a negative affect (either envirnomental, humanitarian, economic, or otherwise) then do so. I have no interest in ignoring negative consequences, but before you suggest that we're ignoring them, please show what they are.
Most arguments for green living operate off the implicit assumption that subsistance farming is the preferred condition for the human race. Given how hard the people who live that way are trying to get out of that lifestyle, I think you should question that assumption.
Some people do feel that way. I certainly don't, and I don't see that it's implied by the argument that choosing to eat less meat is a good thing from an environmental perspective.
If eating vegetarian makes you feel better, great. But without knowing what farming practices are used to grow your veggies; how, and how far, they are transported; what the actual status of your trace mineral, iron, calcium, potassium, etc. values are--don't jump to the conclusion that it's necessarily an intelligent, reasoned choice.
Why not? That's how we make choices all the time - if eating meat is
on average more damaging than not eating meat, then it's an intelligent choice. Now, if I want to spend more time, I can find out more and maybe make an even better choice, but that's a cost, and I'm only willing to spend so much on my decision making process.
I have a very hard time believing that it can be construed as moral in any sense.
What else is it?
The only moral argument for vegetarianism is to say, "All animals are morally equivalent to humans, so meat is murder!" And I don't buy that one at all.
Well, neither do I, as it's ridiculous.
Luckily, it isn't the only moral argument. For instance, one could say "while other animals don't have the same moral standing as humans, they do have some moral standing, and as such I think it's wrong to be responsible for their suffering." One could even add sophistication to the argument by pointing out, "some animals have more moral standing than others, thus I'm less worried about the suffering of fish (which may have less mental capacity for suffering) than that of sheep."
But as you say:
(That whole argument is for another day, and most likely another thread.) Again, I don't mean by that that wanton cruelty to living creatures is moral, proper, or smart; it's not an either/or question.
I agree - I don't know why you presented it as an either/or question just a moment ago, however.
But as you said, that's outside the scope of the thread. I only want to suggest that the "eating meat is murder!!" idea may be held by some, but it's certainly not held by all those who make a moral argument for vegetarianism, nor is it the only possible one.
