Vegetarianism III

Last week I suggested that vegetarianism was intimately linked with the issue of environmental stewardship, for the simple reason that raising meat is an resource-intensive process, and most immediate problem is the deficit of water. Since the meat-raising process is energy intensive, this also has implications for global warming.

In a recent debate, the issue of climate change became a divisive topic within the Evangelical community. The opposing sides are the National Association of Evangelicals (with its embodiment being Richard Cizik, the NAE’s Washington representative), and James Dobson, his most publicly combative opponent. Dobson and about 25 other leading Evangelicals called for the resignation of Cizik in a recent letter to the NAE board (http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/NAELetterFinal.pdf). The central theme of their complaint is Cizik’s focus on climate change, a subject which they believe to be “controversial” in three respects: whether it is actually happening, whether humans are causing it, and what we should do about it.

Dobson’s concern is that Evangelicals should not go chasing around some cause promoted by the “liberal” media, especially since it might turn out to be mostly hype. His thinking is that if Evangelicals act and we are wrong, this will soil the name “Evangelical”. Certainly, there is some controversy on the issue of climate change and what needs to be done, but I believe that Dobson’s position is unacceptable for three reasons.

First, he lumps all environmental concerns into the basket of “climate change”, and then, since there is “controversy”, he throws the basket out the window. As I argued last week, even if you think that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy to ruin the already nearly impoverished oil companies, there is still the undeniable fact that we are not good stewards of our natural resources, and that the Western approach to natural resources cannot be sustained for even two or three more generations. There is no “controversy” here. This is the first reason I regard Dobson’s position as disingenuous. If he actually cared at all about the environment, he would think hard enough to recognize this very simple fact.

Secondly, he has his head in the sand regarding NAE’s position. He thinks that if it turns out that humans aren’t contributing as much as we think to global warming (for example), then everyone will laugh and point to Evangelicals for chasing after “liberal” causes. But this will not happen. Even if it turns out to be illusory, Evangelicals will lose nothing by being concerned and socially aware. If it turns out to be real, Evangelicals will lose everything. In that sense it is like Pascal’s wager. I remember that in 1999 Dobson had some special programs about the Y2K scare. Focus on the Family’s official position was that Y2K was not definite but probable, and so all churches should hoard long term supplies just in case as a public symbol of love for their communities. Why can’t they have that same position now?

However, the deepest problem here is a pride problem. Dobson has spent his entire professional life fighting “tree-huggers”, and now to join forces with them seems anathema. For him, this would be like the Americans and the Nazis taking a break in the middle of WW II to have a beer together. As he states in his letter, those who are concerned with the environment have “watered down” the three important moral issue of the day as defined by Focus on the Family: 1) abortion, 2) gay marriage, 3) sex ed in public schools. For him, the issue of “creation care” (as the NAE has taken to calling it) can only take attention away from The Big Three. The implication, of course, is that God is not nearly as concerned with environmental stewardship as with gay marriage (of course, the Orthodox Heretic spent nine blogs arguing that the conservative church is backwards on the issue of homosexuality, but that’s beside the point). Next week, I propose to look more closely at whether environmental stewardship is anything to be concerned with from a Biblical perspective.

Vegetarianism, Part II

We are living in a finite world with a finite amount of natural resources. This statement will not surprise anyone on a logical level, although we certainly live as though the world has infinite natural resources. By “we” I mostly mean Americans, for while we only make up 5% of the world’s population, we use 25% of the world’s resources on a yearly basis. Most of us root for Third-World countries to pull themselves out of poverty, but we had better be careful what we wish for. The only reason the world can survive is that there is only one United States of America! If too many Third-World countries start getting rich, watch out – they will start using natural resources in the way that we are, and this will have disastrous consequences. This is already being seen as a problem with the emergence of China and India.

Living the sort of life that we have to restrict only to ourselves is obviously unethical. But even if other countries stayed in poverty, there is still a major problem looming on many natural resource fronts, not the least of which is water. Some analysts say that fresh drinking water is on pace to replace oil as the most coveted natural resource in the latter half of the 21st century. We can bring the subject back to eating meat now, because the costs of meat-eating in terms of natural resources are immense. There are a few concerns, but I will focus on the greatest one – water. The average First-Worlder drinks 4 liters of liquid per day directly. But the average First-Worlder also eats 200 liters worth of water per day if you factor in the vast amounts of water needed to raise livestock. Or consider this: it takes 100 times as many gallons to produce a pound of beef as it does to produce a pound of wheat (2,500 gallons to 25 gallons). But even if we compare apples to apples and speak of similar protein sources, the numbers are still staggering: in terms of fossil fuels, it takes 40 times as much fossil fuel to produce one unit of protein from livestock sources as it does to produce one unit of protein from bean sources.

Fresh water is not an unlimited resource, as exemplified by the all-time lows of the main American aquifers of the Great Plains states. Some Republicans (although the number is rapidly shrinking) still believe that global warming is nothing but a left-wing scare tactic meant to turn popular opinion against big business. If you want to believe that, fine. But there can be no speculation that Americans will have to change our habits if we want a sustainable lifestyle in terms of natural resources. The world is on a collision course. If we’re not careful, people are going to start wars for the sake of access to drinking water rather than just for oil.

Finally, I want to be sure to mention that I am quite a hypocrite when it comes to using natural resources. I live in America and I live like an American. I do not wish to say that vegetarians are saints and meat-eaters are sinners. But I do wish to do what I can to push the Evangelical church to recognize that we should be the leaders on the issue of environmental stewardship, and not eating meat is one remarkably easy way to start. Weaning ourselves off of oil – now that will be difficult, and it will take a lot of time and sacrifice. But the vegetarian lifestyle requires virtually no sacrifice – this is one of those rare times when the healthier and cheaper option is the best environmental option. We should take advantage of this rare confluence of positive factors. Try not eating meat for a week. You can at least find satisfaction in the fact that you are consuming 4 liters of water per day, while the guy next door is consuming 204!

Vegetarianism, Part I

The Orthodox Heretic was taking a break to bring a new future heretic into the world - Brock Evan, born on May 29th.

Vegetarianism comes in many forms. There are those who eat eggs and those who don’t, those who eat fish and those who don’t, and those who view abstaining from dairy products entirely as a logical extension of their vegetarian beliefs. I do no wish to make distinctions between these versions here, but rather to focus on the general Evangelical suspicion of vegetarianism.

There are those who are vegetarians for health reasons, and this practice is generally accepted as valid within even the conservative community. I personally believe that this lifestyle has numerous health benefits, although I do not intend to debate the potential health benefits of not eating meat.

Instead, I want to focus in the coming weeks on two distinct moral arguments for vegetarianism, one involving environmental stewardship and one involving animal ethics. Both of these arguments, unlike the argument from health, are quite controversial. For many Evangelicals, these arguments deserve no consideration after God gave humans “dominion” over the earth and its animals in the Creation story. For them, the case is closed – no more need for critical thinking about the matter. God gave humans dominion, and now we can (and even should) do what seems right to us. After Genesis, there can be no moral restrictions on our interactions with the earth or its non-human inhabitants. It is this idea which I wish to refute.