"Yes. Duh, that makes me judgmental."
Girl #1: You know what? I don't respect anyone who chooses to just not eat something because they don't want to, when there are so many people out there that wish they could but can't eat the things they want.
Girl #2: Uh, aren't you a vegetarian?
-- Fox and the Fiddle, overheard by Ashley
Girl #2: Uh, aren't you a vegetarian?
-- Fox and the Fiddle, overheard by Ashley
posted by Overheard at Western at 3:37 PM
17 Comments:
Vegetarians help end world hunger... so really, we should thank them. I think the first woman probably meant that she doesn't like people who don't eat certain things for no good reason. She does say "anyone who chooses to just not eat something because they don't want to." It seems to me that the just could have been misplaced there, either by the original speaker or the person who submitted the comment.
Yes, yes, I just ruined your fun... blah blah.
Has this girl considered the implications of her statement?
Muslims don't eat pork, after all...
I'm not sure what you mean by "vegetarians help end world hunger".
^yeah exactly...aren't vergetarians just eating more than their fair share of rice, thus leaving the people of 3rd world nations with even less?
clearly I realize that vegeatrians don't solely eat rice, but that comment "Vegetarians help end world hunger" was stupid
"Vegetarians help end world hunger"
...it could be true...if everyone else started eating vegitarians....
are you all serious? One of the main environemental arguments for not eating meat is that vegetarianism can help end world hunger because the amount of land and resources used to feed cattle is extraordinary. If you chose to grow food on the land that we rear cattle on, you could feed a tremendous amount of people.
Have you all been living in a David Suzuki free world this whole time?
David Suzuki is a paranoid hippie.
Every 5 minutes he comes up with something else that is going to mean the end of the world....and he is always wrong.
There is more than enough agricultural land to produce all the food the world needs, meat included....the real problems are with efficent farming and distribution.
I've heard all of the David Suzuki arguments, and I don't buy them. Sorry.
Yeah, he should just stick to cars.
Suzuki is a paranoid hippie, you're a delusional yuppie. It works out.
Here's some food for thought...
In 1984, there was a famine in Ethiopia due to poor harvests.
At the same time, acres upon acres of their land was being used to grow grain. Grain for the sarving people? No. Rather than redirect this land to grow food for the Ethiopians, linseed cake, cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal (which are all not suited for human diets) were grown to feed cattle in Europe so that the people of the First World could eat their steaks.
I think the story about Ethiopia just goes to show that there is land to grow enough food for everyone, but there's a problem with corrupt governments. During the potato famine in Ireland, some food was actually exported to England while the Irish were dying on the roads.
But the question is not about land enough for food, but land enough for farming certain kinds of food, like meat.
Most people around the world do not eat as much meat as the average North American. Perhaps it's not necessary for us all to become vegans, but cutting back on meat certainly does help the environment and world hunger.
But cutting back on meat isn't really necessary to deal with world hunger; world hunger would disappear very quickly if:
1)developed nations ended agricultural subsidies. These keep produce from the developing world out of major markets, making it harder for farmers in developing nations to earn a living and upgrade their technology/techniques.
2) A major effort was made to help developing nations invest in argricultural technology. Modern techniques and new plant varieties can increase crop yields exponentially (see green revolutions I & II), if farmers can afford them.
3)Governments must stop using food as a political tool. Government hoarding of the food supply is a major source of many famines. Zimbabwe is a recent example of this.
Summary: World hunger isn't caused by individuals eating meet. It is caused by greedy and corrupt governments.
suzuki went to my highschool. whee.
"World hunger isn't caused by individuals eating meet."
Ah, but it is caused by eating meat. ;-)
In all seriousness... the Ethiopia case shows the motives of the First or Northern World, and the corporations therein. Why would a corporation (or a government, for that matter) give up opportunities to make a buck for any altruistic reason? Keep eating meat, keep fueling the demand, keep feeding exploitation, not people.
yeah, my spelling sucks...stupid f'ing typo, I know :)
But in response to your subastantive point:
The funny thing is, in the long term, investing in the agricultural capcity of developing countries makes sense economically....if farmers in developing nations can produce more, they can turn a profit, which means they can buy more manufactured goods from developed nations, in addition to lowering food prices b/c of the increased supply....so really the problem isn't the fact that there is a market for meat, but a fundamentally shortsighted investment/trade policy in (most) developed countries...
financial assistance and vegetarianism are both good steps to ending world hunger.
here's the main difference:
the first option is somebody sitting around full of big mac and ideas of how other people should spend their money.
the second is somebody making a small personal sacrifice to help fix our sick little world
.....if only there were less talkers and more do-ers...
Post a Comment
<< Home