Meat - Facing the Dilemmas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

e made. But even the most optimisticassessments of what can be achieved inthis way do not allow us to roll out thecurrent conception of what it meansto lead a ‘developed’ lifestyle acrossa population of 6 billion people. Mostanalysts argue that, in industrialisedcountries, climate change-related energyconsumption needs to come down 80-90percent in the next ten or at most 15years.5WorldviewsSo what’s behind the pickle we’re in? Inpart, how we see the world. If we reallywant to make a go of ‘one planet living’we need to change our worldviews, andthe ethics that go with them, in threemain ways.make the most of these resources. Grabas much of them as you can, as fast aspossible!The first change on our agenda, then, is toacknowledge that the earth’s biophysicalsystems have limits. We cannot endlesslyextract resources at one end and endlesslyemit pollution at the other withoutconsequence.b) The allotment mindsetAcknowledging these environmental factstakes us to what has been called ‘shallow’environmental ethics. This tells us thatresources are finite and that we reallydo need to look after them. It asks us toact within the earth’s limits: to use finiteresources carefully and not to overusesometimes accompanies this. So long,earth, and thanks for all the fish – butnow we can make our own.This, of course, is absurd. So thesecond key change in our mindset isto acknowledge that we have a muchmore profound relationship with naturalsystems than the need to marshal themas a set of resources from a position ofdetachment. We are not on the outsideof ecological systems looking in. We arepart of ecological systems, not apart fromthem. Our experience of life may distanceus from the source of all our basic needsin ecological systems. But however manylayers of technical brilliance intervenebetween natural resources and our endproducts, we cannot detach ourselvesfrom our ultimate dependence onecology. For all our technology, weremain earthbound creatures, relying onecological systems for our basic needs, asthe MEA report points out.iStockphoto © Steve Manna) Infinite earth and frontier ethicsFirst, modern industrialised societiesare inclined to see the earth as a “sortof gigantic production system, capableof producing ever-increasing outputs”,6or as a vast repository of resources.Crucially, this earthly production systemor repository is often assumed to beinfinite – both in terms of its capacityto provide us with resources and itscapacity to absorb the pollution that ourconsumption of resources produces. Thismeans that industrialised societies tend tooperate in ways that ignore unavoidabletruths about biophysical systems. Someforms of farming, astonishingly, haveto be included in this. Ray Andersondescribes this as “the linear, take-makewasteindustrial system, driven by fossilfuel derived energy,” operating as if theenvironment has no limits.7 This kindof mindset inclines us towards ‘frontierenvironmental ethics’, which tell us torenewable ones. Our responsibilitiestowards the environment, in this view,are those of carefully managing a suite ofnatural resources in our own interestsand those of future generations.Constraining our activities in relation tothe earth’s limits is clearly crucial. Butshallow environmental ethics, importantthough it is, is not enough.For one thing, it doesn’t challengeanother of our worldview’s assumptions– that humans are somehow on theedge of ecological systems. This is theallotment mindset. The environment isout there, and we go out and take fromit when we need to. We have to lookafter it – but we are not really in it. Anextraordinary techno-optimism – theview that sooner or later we won’t needto be so careful because we will find waysof manufacturing our own resources –14 Winter 2007 | Volume 2 Issue 4 | www.foodethicscouncil.orgc) Human-centred, resource valuesThe third worldview problem is the viewof earth and other living things as a vaststore of resources for humans. This isat the heart of shallow environmentalethics. The ecologically informed versionof this mindset recognises biophysicalsystems as a source of resources and ofother ‘ecological services’ such as cleanair and water. A sophisticated version ofshallow environmental ethics could eventake interdependence on board, acceptingthat we are part of ecological systemsand that harm done to them will reboundon ourselves. But the bottom line is thesame. The value of other living things,of habitats, of ecological and biophysicalsystems is considered to be instrumental,and only instrumental. Any value theyhave exists only in relation to theirusefulness, in various ways, to us: and thisis our sole reason for caring about them.Of course, the environment is a resourcefor humans, and like all species, we haveto relate to it partly in this way. But it isnot only a resource. The vast complex ofastonishing diversity, energy and sheerwill to live that is ‘the environment’ hasvalue far beyond its usefulness to us.Basking sharks and blue tits, savannasand rainforests, clouds, stars and streamshave value beyond the extent to whichone species amongst millions happensto need them. To deny this is to take anastonishingly arrogant stance, positioninghumans as the only species of true worthand the rest of relevance only in relationto ourselves. This is a pre-Copernicanview of ethics; the values equivalent ofbelieving the sun spins round earth.
The third key change is to acknowledgethe intrinsic as well as the instrumentalvalue of other living things and systems– and to act like we mean it. We can callthis ‘earth ethics’. Earth ethics tells us thatthe ultimate source and measure of valueis not ourselves, and certainly not oureconomic systems, but the bigger contextof which we are a part – the earthitself on which we, and our economies,inescapably depend. We are, in effect, partof a community and for it to continueworking, and the members of it flourish,we need to act accordingly. A pragmaticsensitivity towards others in the face ofinterdependence and a deep respect forothers in their own right are implied bythe community metaphor.More of the same only louderSo what about the argument that furtherintensification of animal based agriculturewill be a necessary part of our responseto climate change? Is climate change sourgent animal welfare becomes a luxurywe simply cannot afford?Leaving aside the highly contestedquestion of whether furtherintensification and the correlativecontinued high dependence on fossil fuelbased energy will actually enable us toreduce our carbon footprint, it shouldalready be clear why this suggestion isso profoundly mistaken. The worldviewand ethics identified as contributingto environmental collapse are exactlythe same as those underpinning theproblematic treatment of animals inintensive farm systems.Like any major industry, the primarygoal of modern livestock systems is tomaximise profit. One way to do this isthrough economies of scale – makingfarms larger and keeping more animalson them, managed by fewer people. If theanimals are confined, less of the food fedto them is ‘wasted’ by the animal movingaround, and more is turned into meator eggs. The result is highly mechanised,industrial-scale systems that keepenormous numbers of animals in confinedsituations. Attendant animal welfare issuesinclude severe reduction in behaviouralrepertoires, boredom, stress, socialdeprivation or social crowding, high levelsof surgical and drug based interventions,stereotypical behaviours, and other ‘vices’such as tail biting, as well as pain andfear. These problems are not caused byindividual farmers, but are the inbuilt logicof the system that so many farmers arenow part of.Animals in these systems are viewed andtreated as components in a productionline. They are part of a process that aimsto turn animal feed into human foodas efficiently as possible. ‘Advances’ inmodern farming methods mean we nolonger have to understand and respectanimals as sentient living beings to achievethis. The underlying ethic of this kindof farming endorses this treatment ofanimals as commodities or things ratherthan as living, feeling, experiencing beings.So the treatment of other animals andother living things purely as humanresources, as things or products, is at theheart of both problems – environmentaland animal welfare. And, as Einstein said,you can’t fix a problem with the samekind of thinking that caused it. Dealingwith climate change by bringing aboutmore of the same can never work.Intensifying agriculture as a response toclimate change cannot be the solution. Itis as if, having learned that a loud noiseis making us deaf, we respond by turningthe sound up even higher.Big bold solutionsThe wake-up calls of climate change,the accelerated extinction of our fellowspecies and systematically poor levelsof animal welfare have a shared rootcause in the mindset that sees othersin purely instrumental terms as a set ofresources for humans, and ourselves asdetached and separate managers of theseresources. These issues are all connectedand cannot be tackled separately. To takethem together is to see that industrialisedsocieties are heading in the wrongdirection and that profound changes areneeded.Farming is both implicated in this andstrongly positioned to show the wayforward. Farming affects all of theseissues. And we all have a stake in itsfuture. What sort of farming with whatsort of ethics, underpinned by what sortof worldview, do we want? One that leadstowards ecological disaster or one thatleads us towards a saner, healthier, fairerfuture for all? The general answer is clear.To get there, we need to understandourselves as members of a livingecological community in which others aretreated with respect. This does not meantreating them as sacrosanct and unusablebut it does mean treating animals assentient beings with social, behaviouraland other needs, and it does meanworking with the grain of living systemsrather than against, ensuring that farmingis compatible with biodiversity andminimising its climate change impact.What this means in practice is beingworked out by some of the farmersand researchers contributing to thismagazine, and many others. Onerepeated conclusion is that, overall, theworld’s farming needs to involve feweranimals, leading a higher quality of life.This apparently goes against consumerdemand. We are told that consumerswant more, cheaper meat. But we alsoknow that this is not compatible with asustainable future in any sense of thatphrase. Consumers as citizens clearly dowant there to be such a future. Sooneror later this will be translated intomarket demand. Farming is compelledby business imperatives but in addition itcan and should demonstrate leadershiphere – ethical and sustainable leadership.It should promote agricultural systemsbased on respect for other forms of lifebecause that is the right ethic, and alsobecause we need to think like that tocontinue our tenancy on the planet.And farming can help us experience aswell as know what this means. We canintellectualise ourselves into a betterenvironmental ethic only so far. Weneed to feel it too. Modern ways ofliving leave us feeling disconnected fromecological systems and other forms oflife. Anyone who has been involved in thehusbandry of fulfilled animals on farmsthat co-exist with a rich diversity of wildspecies knows how truly and powerfullyfarming can reconnect us with meaningful,sustainable and ethical ways of makingour living on this, one, earth.1 This article is based on a chapter in The future of animalfarming, edited by Marian Stamp Dawkins and RolandBonney, to be published by Blackwell in 2008.1. UNEP (2007) Global Environment Outlook 4. MillenniumEcosystem Assessment (2005) www.millenniumassessment.org.2 Steinfeld, H. et al. (2006) Livestock’s long shadow. FAO.3 Rowlatt, J. (2007) Meet daisy the cow – global climate’senemy number one. www.bbc.co.uk.4 WWF (2004) Living planet report. WWF.5 Henson, R. (2006) The rough guide to climate change.Rough Guides Ltd.6 HRH The Prince of Wales (2007) A sense of harmony.Resurgence 242.7 Anderson, R. (2007) Mid-course correction.Resurgence 242.www.foodethicscouncil.org | Volume 2 Issue 4 | Winter 2007 15
Page 2 and 3: Contents050607080913161718192021030
Page 4 and 5: Morecambe Bay- three years on Super
Page 6 and 7: John WibberleyProducersRural liveli
Page 8 and 9: Meat: the challengeTara GarnettEnvi
Page 10 and 11: Henry BullerIn 2050, we should be f
Page 12 and 13: Jason MathenyI hope and expect that
Page 16 and 17: Roland BonneyMeat productionWe need
Page 18 and 19: Where next?Steve SuppanMeat tradeFo
Page 20 and 21: Punishing our pinta?We should face
Page 22 and 23: eview readingStuffed and starved: m
Page 24: upcoming events4th - 5th Dec ‘075

Meat - Facing the Dilemmas

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?