Can you be an environmentalist and still eat meat?

Question

I know the production of animals for food is very energy costly and has a considerable impact on the environment, but does that mean you should go vegetarian if you want to help save the world?

Answer 1

Yes- but if eating meat is a concern reevaluate your position on the matter.

Answer 2

I would never call myself an environmentalist or allow anyone else to so lable me.  Environmentalists are crazy whack jobs with no understanding of real world issues.  I am a conservationist.  And yes, I eat meat, some of which I kill myself.

Answer 3

Basically, the problem is that humans can't seem to stop themselves from breeding. The world's population has probably doubled in the last couple of hundred years which is putting a huge burden on world resources. That is where the problem lies. We are natural omnivores and there was never a problem until recent decades. We could live quite happily off the land in farming communities eating animals and vegtables. We live in a throwaway society now where things are used once then thrown away. That is the major cause of damage to the environment not to mention chemical waste from factories.

Answer 4

Of course.  The original environmentalists were hunters and sport fishermen.  They fought to keep developers, loggers, professional hunters and fishermen from ravaging the woods and waters.

President Theodore Roosevelt, an avid hunter, campaigned constantly for conservation and began the establishing of national parks and forests.  Ducks Unlimited purchased and promoted wetland habitats before the current ecology movement was rolling.

Beyond that, what you heard is wrong.  Cattle are usually raised where crops are not the most productive.  They eat what doesn't nourish us much because it's mostly indigestible (for us) roughage.  They "process" it for us within themselves.

Considering the nourishment returned, I doubt a great cost difference.  Even if there is, so what?  You get a different set of nutrients.  You cannot compare root, leaf, and stalk vegetables with seeds, fruit, or meat directly.  They all have different nutritional value even within each group.

One answer mentioned population.  That's the problem.  A few billion are manageable.  8 billion today and 15 in a century or so puts the earth in trouble.  We're eating up a lot of it with today's 8.

Answer 5

...I love "animals" !!!  I think "they" are so delicious !!! especially with vegetables...ummmm, good

Answer 6

impact on world by being herbivour,,,,,,,,,,,

or being carnivore,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...

that is not the question,

that' the mind of humanity.

we all are part of foodchain,

i thought by not eatig meat u don't became a true environmentalists.

Answer 7

Of course you can care for the environment and still eat meat.

Eating meat isn't a pre requisite for being someone that wants to damage the environment.

I'm pretty sure there are some vegetarians out there that do as much harm as meat eaters !!!

Answer 8

You could make NO possible difference. The companies will continue whether or not you are even here. There are thousands of newbys born every day, most will eat meat eventually. So enjoy a good steak if you want one.

Answer 9

Well, i hv read somewhere that we can sustain a larg number of people by reducing the levels in food chain, i.e. being herbivores. But hman body is designed to be omnivores. I dont whether they can meet their needs without being eating meet.

Answer 10

Well if you are a meat eater you would end up being to smart to be a card carrying, banner waving environmentalist.

Answer 11

It is true that the large scale commercial production of meat animals is energy costly, especially during the "finishing" stage of fattening. This mostly happens in confinment yards where the animal is not on pasture, or free ranging for food. One thing you can do to lessen the environmental empact of eating meat is to try to find (or become a)small local farmer who is raising meat animals on a small scale in a free range manner, such as grass fed beef, scrap and table waste fed pork and chickens for instance. And who returns the animal manure back to the land as ferterlizer. I am such a farmer... so I know they exist.

However I agree with the other posters above, that the real problem is population growth, I am sure that the the best thing you can do for the world, at this point, is not have any kids.

It is the number of people on the planet which is putting the strain on our enviorment. And that number of people is increasing faster than one would imagine. Here is a link to an interesting artical about the math of population growth... and how the math of  population growth directly connects to declines in available resources...

http://globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts...