Vegetarianism, Buddhism and the Climate Crisis
by Danny Fisher
In a post last month, I recounted a conversation with my friend Phil about the important role vegetarianism can play in dealing with water and sanitation problems in the developing world. In an article published yesterday at CommonDreams.org, Bruce Friedrich writes about a connected global crisis that vegetarianism would also help discontinue:
- …the UK’s Environment Agency has acknowledged that humans can significantly help stop global warming by adopting a vegetarian diet.
Of course, the science could not be more clear. When U.N. scientists looked at all the evidence, they declared in a 408-page report titled
Livestock’s Long Shadow that raising animals for food is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all vehicles in the world combined. And scientists at the University of Chicago showed that a typical American meat-eater is responsible for nearly 1.5 tons more carbon dioxide a year than a vegan.But for someone in government to admit this is something special, since even Al Gore refuses to talk about it…
I agree with Friedrich: it is very significant indeed that the Environment Agency has begun to talk to about how vegetarianism can help stop global warming. The truth is, though, that a lot more people need to start talking about this particular issue. That includes us Buddhists.
Let me say a bit more…
The first precept of Buddhism is to refrain from killing. The question of whether or not meat-eating violates this precept has been pondered over by all of the various Buddhist traditions, with most taking the view that it does not. (Chinese Buddhists, who adhere to a strict vegetarian diet, are an especially noteworthy exception.)
But, speaking as a Buddhist, it seems to me that it has gotten to the point where eating meat violates the first precept on so many different levels, there can no longer be any logical excuse for doing it.
A Buddhist buying a chicken breast or a pound of hamburger could say, “I’m not killing the animal myself, so I’m not really breaking the first precept.” On the other hand, though, that same practitioner should ask him- or herself, “By making this purchase, am I not encouraging an industry to kill?” The answer seems to me to be an unequivocal “yes.” Whether or not you kill the animal yourself, eating meat makes killing happen. Ninety-five animal lives are saved each year by one vegetarian. That’s how the meat industry responds to just one vegetarian: it kills ninety-five fewer animals per year. Obviously, one’s diet dictates whether or not quite a few animals live or die.
Furthermore, in the aforementioned post from last month, I explained how crucial vegetarianism is if we are to address the lack of clean water and the problem of inadequate sanitation in the developing world. Among other factors, the exorbitant agricultural costs of meat-eating explain why it is that over one billion people in the world lack access clean water and why it is that a child dies every fifteen seconds from a disease associated with lack of access to safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene. Clearly, the process that results in meat under cellophane at the grocery contributes greatly to the immense suffering of human beings.
Now, some of the smartest people in the entire world are telling us that the meat production is a major contributor to the killing of the planet. In last month’s post, I quoted from Livestock’s Long Shadow:
- [The raising of animals for food is] one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity. Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale…
I’ve meditated on the precepts with all of this information in mind, and I’ve come to conclusion that refraining from killing has to include vegetarianism. It has to. It cannot just be refraining from fly-swatting when in sitting meditation, or being mindful of ants when in walking meditation. It’s bigger than that.
For the sake of the world, may we learn to see the virtues of the practice of vegetarianism.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I understand why the people of Tibet did not choose to keep this precept, as their home environment does not allow for an abundance of produce, etc. However, for those Buddhists who are a part of the Tibetan diaspora – it seems to me that with the change in their location, that they would be more interested in eating in a vegetarian manner. I guess it just goes to show you how deeply ingrained cultural eating habits can be.
In terms of our own culture, having been vegan for a while now, I’ve come to the conclusion that gentle and intelligent persuasion are the order of the day. There are many who argue for a change in our eating habits more … forcefully … and I think that this does not, in the long run change many minds. Perhaps it’s a matter of “leading by example?”
EdaMommy:
Thank you. You reminded me: I meant to say something about the different Tibetan situations by way of linking to a past interview.
I agree with you: I think it’s mostly a matter of leading by example. For example, finding out that people like Gandhi, John Lennon, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Mr. Rogers, Alberts Schweitzer and Einstein, and others were all vegetarians did more to encourage me toward the practice than being called a “murderer.”
Your blog is great, by the way!
Coming from you, that’s a great complement! ^_^
I understand what you are talking about, but, and of course my mind comes up with a but. The main problem seems to me to be the growth of human population. The more we conserve and allow the planet to heal the more people arise to use up this extra resource. At a conference with scientists and religious leaders recently we talked about the necessity of taking responsibility of what we teach and advocate.
Many of the Christian leaders will not deal with family planning because it goes against their sense of God’s will.
This is not to say that looking at vegitarianism is not good but that we need to look at the bigger picture also.
Kathy:
Of course, there are a lot of factors involved involved in both environmental degredation and extreme poverty (which I do say in the post). Still, I think this issue is very much a part of the big picture. As the U.N. says in the 2006 report I referenced, the raising of livestock is one of the “top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems.” And as the University of Chicago found in the study I linked to, “the food that people eat is just as important as what kind of cars they drive when it comes to creating the greenhouse-gas emissions that many scientists have linked to global warming.”
I would beg to differ somewhat, for several reasons.
First, it does seem that humans are descended from hunter gatherers, and that the development of agriculture reduced humans’ life spans. Keeping the First Precept can be tricky, and if one has a metabolism such as mine, a high carb diet just won’t be conducive to good health.
Secondly, if one thinks that if one goes vegetarian that they are minimally harming the earth they should think again. Modern agriculture itself consumes a ridiculously large amount of resources in and of itself.
Having said that, there are clear crises, especially in fishing, mass production of livestock, etc.
There are fish and meat-eating cultures that have a much smaller ecological footprint than that of many modern vegetarian cultures.
While I respect vegetarians’ choices, I would expect that others respect the choices non-vegetarians make, especially when they are made on moral grounds.
The anthropology degree in my past urges me to respectfully point out to Mumon that hunter gatherers get an average of 80 percent of their diet from non-hunted sources. The rewards of a hunt are more infrequently enjoyed, as it is effort-intensive and a less frequently successful endeavor.
Mumon:
It is certainly true that there is no such thing as a “harm-free” diet. The fact remains, though, that if one is looking for an immediate way to leave a much, much smaller ecological footprint (1.5 tons of C02 less per year, to be precise), one might go vegetarian.
Also, with regards to modern agriculture in general, I’d like to refer to some other facts and figures: among the resources used in the production of livestock are “38% of the world’s grain harvest, 50% of all the water used in the US, 60% of Brazil’s grain harvest, 70% of US grain harvest, 80% of US corn harvest, and almost half of all energy expended in US agriculture.”
Danny,
Of course you’re right that the centralization and mass production of livestock is an environmental moral nightmare.
But hey, everything is that way in the West it seems.
I cannot – I would eventually get sued by my Homeowner’s Assocation – convert my lawn area entirely to a vegatable garden (which I would really love to do; I just don’t see the point in a grass lawn).
Obviously, I think that things have to be done in a way that is not wasteful, but as I said before, it’s possible to not be a vegan and consume animal products and leave a small environmental footprint.
It’s just not as profitable in the economy as it’s currently constructed.
Danny- I love you and hope you are well. As a Buddhist who’s gone through most phases of this debate-from mostly involuntary veganism to my current life, getting ready to create a small farm using animals extensively for meat, eggs, milk and other products, let me first say that I respect where you are coming from. I’ve come to a few conclusions on this debate as well. 1)The humane utilization of animals for food is critical to the survival of humans on this planet. I certainly agree that the current system of industrial animal agriculture, with its killing factories, pens, and unsafe working conditions, is inherently inhumane and ultimately unworkable. But, done correctly, animals convert land that is unusable for row crop agriculture into high-quality calories. I refer you to Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel for an explanation of how critical a diversity of domestic animals has been to different societies’ success or failure (in addition to many other explanations!). To me, it is a simple reality that humans are meant to consume a diverse range of foods, and I practice the first precept as refraining from unnecessary killing and causing of harm. And the ending of animal agriculture would cause unspeakable harm to living beings, humans and animals alike. If you magically ended animal agriculture, what would happen to the billions of domesticated animals? They would starve, a much more grisly end than humane slaughter. What would happen to the many cultures dependent on animals to survive? 2) I have concluded, having seen sped-up film of a plant growing, and studied communication between humans and plants, that plants are equally sentient to humans and animals, and that if you are sincerely concerned about taking sentient life, you will starve, given our bodily makeup. Modern plant agriculture, including organic, biodynamic, etc., kills many animals in the plowing, disking, planting, harvesting. I agree that if you are a vegan you will kill less, but I assert that that is a marginal number. It is not acccurate to say, omnivore=92 vegan=0. 3) Third, and most sassy, the bulk of the people in the world who currently consume animals (which is the overwhelming majority) will never change based on arguments one way or another. I refer you to Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon, or the Weston Price organization (http://www.westonaprice.org/) for more info on how humans are just built to consume and process animals, how animal fats and cholesterol (yes! cholesterol!) are critical to human health, and that is why animal agriculture flourishes everywhere it can (and some places it shouldn’t!) Now I can’t speak to the climate impact of animal agriculture as if we could somehow stop animal agriculture, because, as above, I don’t think that will ever happen. With love for you and the animals—Eric
Danny – thank you for this post and thanks to all for an engaging discussion.
I myself am a vegetarian on Buddhist moral grounds, agreeing that in some circumstances meat-eating is perfectly acceptable, but that in my life it is generally unnecessary and a violation of the 1st precept. I also realize, through lived experience, the myriad complexities of the first precept: I still drive a car and I still eat cheese, for instance. I’ve begun more and more to think of spectrums of behavior: in our society one extreme is the guy who drives his hummer through the McDonalds drive through, the other is the vegan on her bicycle. I’ve met many people of both ends, and certainly aspire to move more every day toward the latter.
I agree that edamommy’s “gentle and intelligent persuasion” and your leading by example are the way to go here. I would only add that in this, like most cases, that meditative practice is as important as anything. Really being still & looking within is the only way to see for yourself the harm you create. I’ve found that lots of things I thought were ‘inevitable/necessary’ harms in my life really weren’t.
Meditation has helped me ‘see’ much of my conditioning: I was raised on meat, potatoes and soda and really believed my body ‘needed’ the meat to be healthy. Of course, when I cut it out I was unhealthy until I learned to eat healthy as a vegetarian.
Two final points: I do still eat meat sometimes, most commonly around Tibetan lamas for whom it is part of their culture. I heard recently that H.H. the Dalai Lama and others are urging Tibetans in exile to adopt vegetarian lifestyles: bravo, but so long as it is offered to me by people of other cultures, I feel it is best to oblige. When I am a guest at American or European friends’ homes I am usually asked if I eat meat and I respond ‘no’ (saving them the complicated story unless they inquire).
Lastly, eric brings up a point that I found invalid. He notes the sentience of plants, which I don’t disagree with, and asserts that vegetarians kill only a ‘marginal number’ less than meat eaters. But, eric, look up at Danny’s reply to mumon! Look at the numbers! To eat a cow means not only that you kill the cow, but you kill all creatures that had to go into raising that cow! If you worry about vegetarians killing plants and animals to raise our grain or corn, look at the fact that meat eaters consume the death-karma of all the grain and corn that the cow ate, not to mention the pollution-related deaths and harm caused by the meat industry. If it were simply a matter of meat eater = cow and vegetarian = grains/etc then your point would be valid, but the fact is that the meat eater eats the cow AND all its grains/etc.
Oh, and I can’t resist – mumon, arguing that everything seems to be a moral nightmare and therefore (so seems your argument) you don’t need to confront your conditioning seems incorrect. I see this too often with my students: “there are too many problems for me to solve, so I’ll just listen to my ipod.” NO!!!! See the problem – meditate – see your connection to the problem – change! And enjoy the new you – less karma, still great tasting.
Eric, my friend! I love you too, and hope also that you are well these days. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Knowing you as I do, I know that you certainly bring a lot of unique experience and education to this disussion, so I appreciate your input.
I guess my concern around discussions about the “humane utilization of animals for food” is that I don’t see major, industry-changing steps being taken in such a direction. It’s a nice idea, but is it any more than that? Even if there are particular farms or communities doing things humanely or sustainably, it’s frankly not enough. The majority of livestock production is clearly doing irreparable harm to the environment. A lot more has to change than just a few farms.
Also, I would quibble with your statement that “It is not acccurate to say, omnivore=92 vegan=0. 3.” In fact, it is. The average number of ninety-five animal lives saved by one vegetarian is based on figures that suggest how the meat industry scales back in response to the growing number of vegetarians. Obviously, if fewer people are buying a pound of hamburger, it makes sense not to produce as much.
I would reiterate that I don’t think there is such a thing as a “harm-free” diet, but it is definitely the case that a vegetarian diet is nowhere near as ecologically devastating as a non-vegetarian diet.
As far as your third point, I think that remains to be seen. If forecasts about the long-term effects of the climate crisis prove true, we may soon see things that demand we look more deeply at the cost of our habits.
*
Buddhist Philosopher: Thanks for the assist! : )
*
I really appreciate all of the comments and thoughts presented here. Thank you all for writing.
At present, I think there is only one thing left for me to do. (Although who knows what turns the conversation may take next!) That one thing is to note a few things that remain irrefutable facts:
1.) The climate crisis is real and not a matter of opinion.
2.) The livestock industry and meat-eating play an enormous, central role in the climate crisis.
3.) The practice of vegetarianism is an immediate and highly effective way to address the climate crisis.
Danny – This is my first visit to your site, as I was Googling my way to find some opinions about practicing Buddhism and omnivorism concurrently. Thanks for the fascinating post and all the conversation it has sparked!
I was a vegetarian for 17 years, and a vegan for some of that time. After lots of reading, studying, meditating, and experiencing, I have come to the conclusion that an omnivore’s diet is the healthiest diet for me – physically, emotionally, and spiritually. It is so because I’m being honest with myself about where my food comes from, and I do extensive research to make sure that I know exactly who is raising it, and how they are treating the animals they raise.
I no longer believe that abstinence from all animal products is the way to go for me. Vegan agriculture disrupts the balanced nature of a biodynamic agricultural landscape, and actually supports the depletion of the soil. A vegan diet also tends to lean heavily on non-local foods and soy, which wreaks all sorts of havoc on our bodies. Soy is perhaps the most toxic food commercially available today. Finally, the vegan diet leaves us depleted of vital vitamins and nutrients that simply can’t be supplies by a plants-only diet. As I’m getting ready to have a baby in the next year, I decided that I couldn’t take a chance on doing harm to my baby by staying vegan.
I also no longer believe that including eggs and dairy is less cruel than including meat – at least when we’re talking about supermarket food. Far from it. The dairy and egg-laying arms of the factory-farming engage in some of the cruelest practices on the animals providing these products – debeaking, forced molting, crowded conditions, the horrific killing of male chicks who aren’t necessary because they can’t lay, forced laying which depletes the chickens’ bodies of calcium so their bones fail…that’s just for eggs. The dairy industry also has some awful practices, most notably the feeding of grains to a grass-eating animal, which results in malnutrition, immune suppression, and gastrointestinal agony for the animals. Veal is a primary by-product of the dairy industry, as male calves are unnecessary on a dairy farm and so are sold off to veal ranchers. I could go on. The animals suffer horribly, and the products are inferior nutritionally. What’s the point of that? This choice just doesn’t feel right to me.
Finally, I do not believe that vegetarianism is the answer to minimizing cruelty to the animals (including ourselves), the plants, or the planet. I’ve decided that taking responsibility for myself, and opting out of the factory-farming industry altogether, is my best answer. Like Eric, I follow the guidelines found in “Nourishing Traditions”. I get my eggs and dairy from farmers I know by name, who take excellent care of their animals and treat them with the respect they deserve. I am working to get to the same point with my meat producers. I am getting to know the ranchers, I am connecting to their treatment of the animals, and I am being honest with myself about the fact that animals die and can nourish me in ways that plant foods cannot.
Whew! Thanks for allowing space for my tirade.
I’m still working out for myself how Buddhism and omnivorism can work together. I’ve heard that the Buddha himself ate meat throughout his life. I’d really like to hear more about that if it’s true; I haven’t done much research about it.
Maggie:
I appreciate your sharing your thoughts here. I do have a few of responses, though…
1.) Please qualify the statement, “Vegan agriculture disrupts the balanced nature of a biodynamic agricultural landscape, and actually supports the depletion of the soil.” This seems an erroneous charge to me. I want to know where you’re getting your information.
2.) Not to quibble, but a healthy vegan diet does NOT lean heavily on soy. It leans heavily on fresh fruits and vegetables. Any vegan making soy products the cornerstone of his or her diet is going to have health trouble. I quote Dr. Joel Fuhrman, a New Jersey-based M.D. specializing in nutrition: “A vegetarian whose diet is mainly refined grains, cold breakfast cereals, processed health food store products, vegetarian fast foods, white rice, and pasta will be worse off than a person who eats a little turkey, chicken, fish, or eggs but consumes large volumes of fruits, vegetables, and beans. That combination of little or no animal products with a higher consumption of fresh produce is the crucial factor that makes a vegetarian diet healthful…A strict vegetarian diet, then, may be the healthiest diet, but it also may not be. One can choose to be on a healthy vegetarian diet, with careful planning; and one can choose to be on a healthy omnivorous diet, with careful planning too. Both ways of eating still require knowledge about the most nutritious food to eat to assure excellent health and disease protection.”
3.) As far as the comment that a vegan diet also leans heavily on non-local foods, this is fallacious and misleading. Sure, if you’re not following the above prescriptions from Dr. Fuhrman, then maybe. But I’m a vegan, and most of my food is local. The produce I am currently eating (which constitutes the majority of my diet) comes from the local farmer’s market.
4.) I agree with you that eating eggs and dairy is no less cruel than eating meat. It’s one of the reasons I’m a vegan. I emphasized abstinence from meat-eating in particular because it helps to make my point about the first precept. To reiterate… For every one person that chooses not to eat meat, the livestock industry spares 95 animals. The agricultural costs of meat-eating help to explain why over one billion people in the world lack access clean water and why it is that a child dies every fifteen seconds from a disease associated with lack of access to safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene. And, regarding the role of meat-eating in global warming, I quote again from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’s report Livestock’s Long Shadow: “[The raising of animals for food is] one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity. Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale…” [Emphasis added.]
Hi Danny,
Thanks for your feedback. My apologies for not providing more back-up for my claims. First, here is a link for one of the best articles I’ve read about the dangers of veganic agriculture: http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/wasteland.html. Another good resource is “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” by Michael Pollan, which investigates a number of different farming methods.
I apologize for making a generalized statement about vegans’ food sources. Almost all the vegans I know (or have known) have tried very hard to focus on fruits and vegetables, but have inevitably found themselves steering more toward foods that feel and taste more “hardy” to them – this has tended to lead them toward meat and dairy analogs. I fell into this trap, too. If you don’t, then that’s great! I personally believe that a lot of vegans do, and it may be because their bodies are craving the nutrients that can only be had from animal foods.
In answer to your fourth assertion, I would point you again to the article I linked here. My research has simply not convinced me that veganic agriculture is the answer to pollution, unhealthy drinking water, and global warming.
I understand that many have interpreted the first precept to point to veganism, and this certainly does seem like the cleanest interpretation. My health was unfortunately quite compromised on a vegan diet (whether I was using soy or not) and in the end it has not been feasible for me as a long-term way of eating. More reading about the vital nutrients that simply can’t be obtained on a vegan diet have convinced me that it’s not a healthy choice for me. So I’ll continue to see how I can follow the first precept from more of a “middle way” approach. I absolutely respect others’ choices (although I do hold concern for pregnant and nursing vegan mothers – but I own it as my “stuff”) and I sincerely hope that vegans and vegetarians can hold respect for omnivores’ choices. This has not been my experience in the past, incidentally – in veg*n circles both locally and on the internet, I regularly came up against dogma, rigidity, and competition to see who is the best follower or who be the most virtuous. I haven’t felt that here, and I’m very grateful for that.
Thanks again, Danny, for the vibrant discussion.
Namaste’,
Maggie