itstartswithu

[itstartswithu]

THIS WAS A DIFFICULT WEEK.

I’ve decided I am going to simply give my body what it needs, when it needs. As a result of this, I’m changing my change-in-practice from pescatarian, to simply ensuring my meat intake is minimal-as-optimal. I did touch on this last week, so perhaps my decline in health (which was not related to meat intake) was a sign for me to change my ways in more aspects than one. I believe this is a much more sustainable option for myself long term - that is, something I know I can stick to which I hope will benefit both me and the environment. 

I suppose the good thing about change in practices is that they are not set in stone. We can adapt. And I’m sure things will change again when my health differs, and research grows.

[itstartswithu]

PERHAPS IT IS SELFISH.

Despite the ethical production - the struggle still relates to the fact that meat is being consumed and that is against the justice of the animal for a right to life. Although I really struggle with this now (through all the research I’ve been doing and the general image in my mind of an animal being slaughtered just so that I may consume it for my health), I think I must move past this in a sense of the food sovereignty movement that food does exist for people. While, yes, this movement does include produce that is not meat, my personal experience is that my body really struggles without having some minimum meat consumption (low iron, fatigue, waiting on confirmation re: anaemia). I know part of this is, in fact, a lack of motivation/commitment to research the foods that have higher iron content (that aren’t meat-related) in order for my personal optimal sustenance. At the same time, I think if I try to move towards more sustainable outsourcing of my meat products (when I feel like I need to consume meat) then at least I’m on the way to still make some sort of difference.

This week touched on the food sovereignty movement again and it clicked in my mind that perhaps not eating meat is also selfish, as this movement does, in fact, encourage sustainable production of meat. Not only this, but it is a lot of these sustainable industries that actually have the potential to further the knowledge and skills of communities about food and nature, whilst also creating jobs and income (US Food Sovereignty Alliance). 

Instead, opting into locally sourced and produced food not only support those who are struggling (due to the higher demand of chain supermarket produce) but also encourage the positive treatment of animals, henceforth implementing a social justice mindset. My concern with this though is that if there is a major shift for locally sourced, organic and sustainable food sources, that these agricultural communities will be under a lot of pressure and may result in unethical production methods, making them no better than those producers for chain supermarkets. It would require a lot of planning and use of resources and reintegration of campaigns (such as the point under the six pillars regarding food as good for health from the lecture) to ensure that doesn’t happen.

[itstartswithu]

COW FARTS MAKE OUR EARTH WARM.

At least that is how I interpreted the numerous articles I’ve been reading regarding the impact of increased cattle production on GHG emissions. While writing my research paper, I’ve been looking into animal agriculture quite a lot. http://www.fao.org/3/a-ax747e.pdf

The impact of industrial agriculture has been severe on climate change through the output of greenhouse gasses that come from agricultural production. On a broader scale, there is a domino effect here, as agricultural products then need to be processed, transported, packaged and distributed which also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Despite these broad factors, my paper has mainly been focusing on how a decrease in animal consumption will result in a decrease in production and ultimately a decrease in GHG emissions. 

On a social justice level, this week outlined that there are two sides regarding animal welfare and rights and whether or not it is a social justice issue. 

The side that suggests animal welfare and rights aren’t a social justice issue outlines that animals have the capacity to be viewed as economic goods, which ultimately takes away from their livelihood and existence as living beings. This expression of animals as nothing more than property.

The alternative side outlines animal welfare and rights as a social justice issue upon understanding that animals are not a commodity, but beings with a capacity to think, feel and exist; once again linking back to Regan’s ‘subjects-of-a-life’ I touched on last week.

Since I can remember, I’ve seen animals as beings. Whether this is my upbringing or learned experience overtime, I can’t be certain. I feel that perhaps I have been close-minded to the alternative perspective. This is not to say I agree with animals as a commodity, for my original perspective still stands and grows, but I have learned to understand that there are people who do not believe in animal rights and welfare exist or are a social justice issue.

[itstartswithu]

LET'S TALK ABOUT FISH.

I kind of feel like I’ve been avoiding the question that’s been on my mind since the first lecture around pescetarianism; and that is, why do we (they) still eat fish? Health reasons? The consideration that fish don’t feel?

Reflecting upon this week’s lecture with Dinesh, something that really captured me was our talk on “unnecessary suffering”, especially regarding our discussion of the treatment of fish during the farming process. I think this part really got to me because I didn’t realise to a full extent (perhaps because I haven’t really thought deeply about it) that fish basically have the same experience as we would when it comes to pain and suffering. When I combine this knowledge with the knowledge I have of mass fish farming, it honestly just makes me really sad.

On the other hand, I also feel frustrated because I still cannot seem to work out whether I lean more towards animal rights or animal welfare. Regan’ approach to subjects-of-a-life really struck me, as it is in fact fish are included within this.

Regarding pescetarianism, some general googling resulted in me finding what I basically know already; people are pescatarian for health reasons and/or environmental or ethical reasons. The environmental reasons touch on what I discussed last week, regarding the high level of methane output contributing to global warming. The ethical touches on the animal welfare/animal rights touched on the past two weeks. 

From what I have read, even down to some Reddit posts, a lot of the ethics behind being a pescatarian, vegetarian, vegan and so forth really comes back to the anthropomorphic and biocentric theories we touched on in earlier weeks of the course. It really does feel like the circle of life.

[itstartswithu]

THIS WEEK WAS A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT.

After coming back from the Melbourne trip, we all got hit pretty hard with the flu. With me being sick and basically sleeping for four days straight, my body needed nutrition; which included homemade chicken and beef soups. It didn’t feel good straying from what I made a commitment to, but I needed to recover.

Reflecting on the lecture in terms of animal rights and animal welfare, I’ve found myself a little stuck in between. 

Garner’s (2015) argument that ‘persons have a greater interest in life and liberty than nonpersons’ feels incredibly selfish, but the aspect that it isn’t realistic to stop the institutional use of animals has me stuck. It does feel as if society has dug themselves a set path in the way we treat and produce meat for human consumption. I was talking to my brother (who studies environmental science), and he made a point that society seems to rely on three main ‘meat groups’: fish, cattle beef, chicken and pork. Since the methane output that comes from cattle production is so high, he made the point that society should look into sourcing meat from other animals that do not produce as much.

I looked into this a bit more, and the methane output from cattle is between 70-120kg of methane per cow per year. That’s a fart load (pun intended) of greenhouse gasses when multiplied by 26.2 million cattle in Australia alone (MLA, 2018) https://www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/prices--markets/documents/trends--analysis/fast-facts--maps/mla_beef-fast-facts-2018.pdf

The issue of methane, according to the National Geographic (2019), is that it has properties that traps heat; which contributes to global warming. It is important to note that although cattle do contribute to a large amount of the methane released into our atmosphere, it is not the only cause. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/methane/

My brother mentioned that deer, for example, don’t produce anywhere near as much methane, which is 31.5g per day on average (Swainson, Hoskin, CLark, Pinares-Patino and Brookes, 2008) which is over 4 times the amount that a cow would produce. Furthermore, the life span of deer is shorter; that is, for a whitetail deer, their average lifespan is 4.5 years (Lopez et al., 2003 in UWSP). https://www.uwsp.edu/wildlife/Ungulates/Pages/White-tailed%20Deer/White-tailed-Deer-Life-History.aspx. When we compare this to cattle, who live anywhere between 18-22 years, we could take an ethical approach for human consumption of deer, an argument could be made from an animal welfare perspective (and perhaps lightly touching on an animal rights perspective) that it is possibly more ethical to use deer for human consumption for numerous reasons.

Firstly, the lifespan of deer is shorter, and they reach mature age (often post procreation) at around 2 years of age, therefore to kill deer after 2 years allows the animal to have more of a chance at life since it would have had its prime time to procreate and live throughout the first two or so years of its life. Cattle, on the other hand, take a lot longer to mature and be reared for meat.

In terms of nutrition level, deer actually appears to be healthier. The screenshot below from an article roughly outlines this below. 

I know I’ve gone on a tangent here, but the concept of whether or not being a vegetarian; or pescatarian, has really been ingrained in my mind. I really enjoy discussing this with my brother each week as he really makes me think about other options and I can relate it a lot to the lecture content (namely, animal rights and welfare from the past week’s lecture).

On a small note of reflection, I’ve found that telling people around me about what I’m doing and why I am doing it actually assists me in not only ensuring that I stick to what I’m doing, but also ensuring I am becoming more informed about why I’m doing it and whether or not it is beneficial to reducing the effects of global warming.

[itstartswithu]

SO, I ATE MEAT...

And I didn't feel guilty.

But then I felt guilty for not feeling guilty.

I went on a little trip for my best friend's 21st birthday to Melbourne. We went to Nobu and spent way too much money on what was basically (really damn good) sushi, and we ordered these wagyu taco things. I think the lack of guilt perhaps stemmed from the fact that I haven't been consuming a lot of meat, which perhaps comes the thought I ended on last week regarding how much good I am doing by being vegetarian.

Before I continue that thought, I want to step back and assess why I am doing this. I think my concern is similar to that of the overconsumption.  I want to entertain the concept of how much benefit being a vegetarian is. Hypothetically, say everyone becomes vegetarian, won't that largely disrupt the current life cycle? Will there not be for some time, large amounts of food wastage since the level of animal production-for-consumption is so high? Will there then be too much livestock which will create an environmental imbalance and an inability to create fulfilling lives for animals due to inability to feed and a lack of land? The first thing I found was from https://www.worldanimalprotection.org.au/news/not-convinced-you-could-become-vegetarian-eating-less-meat-still-better-farm-animals-planet-and?gclid=CjwKCAjwnf7qBRAtEiwAseBO_G8jSYazYAYcKHqL6WjcNcsNHnu3kUbkpR7h0-20ukF8aUih0elXExoCzYsQAvD_BwE world animal protection.org, which actually didn't say the solution to animal protection and welfare was to become vegetarian or vegan but to eat a little less meat, which flows on from my research last week. Not only eating less meat, but also ensuring that the meat that does get consumed is humanely sourced. This same source also outlines that of the 70+ billion animals farmed per year, only 20 billion or less of them are not factory farmed; bred and raised inhumanely. If support is shifted towards humanely bred and raised meat products, and consumption is lowered, then I believe there would be a natural shift to a biocentric way of living. worldanimalprotection.org believe that supermarket chains such as coles would have major power in Australia to make this shift, as it would only take them outsourcing their meat from humane farms only would largely shift the consumer market. 

What I also did not realise is that 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions contributions actually stems from livestock production (worldanimalprotection.org), as a result of methane production. I had a feeling that animal production would disrupt the environment, but on a global-warming scale I didn't think much of it - although it does make sense since such a large percentage of livestock are factory farmed, not 'free-range.' 

If I link this with what I could gage from this week's lecture slides, there are two main points I resonate with. Firstly; the common good. Generally speaking, I feel as if we each have a duty to act in a way that treats humanity as an end in an of itself. This is almost exactly what Immanuel Kant describes in his theory of deontology; that is, duty to act for that of the common good since it is this sense of good which encompasses fulfilment and flourishing. As for biocentrism and even anthropocentrism, flourishing is necessary. So now it appears that if flourishing is a part of both theories and embedded within CST, why is the world so full of overconsumption? 

If we then think about solutions, and I stick to that which I thought in the previous week regarding the individual reduction of meat consumption per week, would this not be seen as a responsibility? Is there potential that each country permits a legal amount of meat to be purchased if the micro solution to resist excessive consumerism is not ratified? Although I feel so passionately about this, I do not know how to get others to feel the same way and understand the massive effect that meat consumption has on the environment.

And, as a side note, with the devastating effects of the Amazon - the lungs of the earth - burning as we speak, this seems like a more timely topic than ever.

[itstartswithu]

SO, I'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF THINKING...

I've been doing a lot of thinking about anthropocentrism and biocentrism. I really want to be able to say I'm biocentric, but anthropocentrism seems to be my current way of life, and I know I'm not alone. Even then, I feel as if anthropocentrism is even a stretch in current society. Nowadays, it can sometimes feel like humans can be overly self-centred. I say humans as if that does not include me, but I know it does. 

If I delve into the specifications of vegetarianism and anthropocentrism alike, there is one thing I can't get out of my head. Although a biocentric way of living would be ideal, anthropocentrism is not completely the 'devil' side. This theory/way of living still encompasses a right to use the environment for sustenance as long as it does not degrade the environment to fulfil present and future human needs.  The thing is, humanity appears to twist this in so far as consuming more meat than what is necessary. Every Wednesday morning, my brother and I go out for breakfast and we had a big discussion about this. He said there's apparently a study in the US that showed that people within the US eat on average over 220 pounds (99.7kg) of meat per person per year. I was honestly astounded. I did some of my own digging. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/agricultural-commodities/mar-2019/meat-consumption Agriculture.gov revealed that meat consumption across the globe has increased by 58% in the past two decades and is expected to continue rising. Poultry in both Australia and the US is the highest of meat consumptions, at over 40% per person. This to me just seems so unnecessary. 

https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/five-food-groups/lean-meat-and-poultry-fish-eggs-tofu-nuts-and-seeds-and outlines that to have a healthy diet, we should consume 1-3 serves of leans meats, poultry, fish, eggs, nuts/seeds and legumes a day. Let's say someone only ever ate lean meats, poultry and fish for a whole year. Those standard servings every day still only add up to 89.4kg, which is 10kg over current U.S. consumption and does not take into consideration consumption of eggs, nuts and legumes which are likely still part of many daily diets. We really are a society of overconsumption and I find this increasingly worrying. 

I think the concept of being a vegetarian is great, but I'm also wondering how much good I am doing by being a vegetarian. When I think about biocentrism even, humans are still encouraged to flourish and, similar to the discussion we had in class, should I still eat a reasonable serving of meat in order to personally flourish and hope to make a difference in other ways by perhaps 'preaching' the importance of not overconsuming, or should I become vegan in an attempt to balance out the amount of overconsumption that occurs across the globe?

[itstartswithu]

SO, A CHANGE IN PRACTICE...

This is possibly the most interesting task I've ever gotten.

It wasn't too hard to come to a choice of what I want to change. I've always been interested in becoming a vegetarian; specifically, pescatarian but I've never put much further thought into it because I have low iron (let's be honest, who doesn't these days!). I ended up talking to my brother about it, and guess what! He's on board too (although he's cheating - he's only a 'weekday' vegetarian). My brother knows a lot about food, from what foods contain iron, to the mercury levels in fish, so it'll be a great thing to get him helping me here.

There are a few things I'm interested in and want to research over the next 13 weeks.

I'd like to look into whether it is / how beneficial it is for animals and the environment to become vegetarian, or whether it will have a negative consequence on the natural course of the environment. 

I also want to look into why people are pescatarian; that is, why aren't fish included? Is it for health reasons? Same with eggs and dairy products and so forth.

On the side, I'm interested in the effects this will have on the body so I'm thinking about getting a blood test before and after.

This will be a wonderfully interesting experience.

2/8/2019

[itstartswithu]

Source