Can a nation be convinced to go vegetarian?

I would say almost impossible. To me it seems that regardless of how you present it, there will always be someone who says "Forget how it effects the environment, I like steak."

Considering how many people smoke despite their own admission that its terrible for them-- you're really not going to convince people to go veggie based on the environment.

A route to try to explore is to attempt to tarrif or tax an "environmental cost" onto goods and services, which would make environmentalism the less expensive choice.

Start small w. yourself, which I assume you have done. If you can persuade ad hominem one other person, you will be lucky. Join the green organizations that have some muscle...eat "within 100 miles," support the local farmers markets, use cloth bags ostentatiously when you shop, leave all extraneous containers at checkout counter (cardboard that holds toothpaste, etc), hang your laundry outside to dry, ride a bike,etc. It all adds up. Volunteer at the local grade school. If you get 'em young, you have a fighting chance.

a tax on non environmental stuff would make me happy. I'm tired of shelling out a little more to help the environment instead of going cheap and hurting it.

:Perhaps there are other ways to reduce one's contribution to global warming that you could explore that would be easier than getting a species of meat eaters not to eat meat. What about exchanging light bulbs, turning off unnecessary electrical appliances, walking more, Those are some easy ways to cut back on usage that are relatively painless and straightforward. I think that until water is lapping up on people's front steps, the seas have five fish left, or there is no more ice, most of the people are not going to see a reason to alter the things they do that they like to do.

@skfinkel, Thanks for the comment. Yes, the steps you mention are important, but as the article (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/20/1985/) said (sorry I didn't provide the link before), "Vegetarians in Hummers do more for the planet than do meat-eaters who cruise around in hybrids..." Personally, I think the problem is such that we need to be doing everything we can think of to reduce carbon use. I'm no saint in this regard, for sure. I'm just curious about the collective's thoughts about making change on a societal level. Is it even possible? I think it might be easier in a place with a relatively small population like New Zealand (where the gov't has a stated goal of national carbon neutrality) or Sweden (where the goal is to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels by 2020).

As optimistic as I'd love to be, I still think people would insist on eating meat regardless of the government's stand. If it was "banned" a black market would form. Honestly I think seqdeha is absolutely right, we should do as much as we can. And after doing a lot of research I believe we're probably on the verge of sealing the fate of our planet, but we can still try.

I wonder if the nation could be convinced to go Carnivore(itarian?)
Meat > *. Yummmmmmmz

Liked this comment/answer? Click 'Great answer' below! Thanks d-:

New Zealand is already that. Thanks for playing.

Haha sorry I didn't read the whole question, I'm not exactly vegetarian friendly. d-:

But yes I've heard a LOT of good things about NZ lately... standard of living etc. I was more thinking America though, I'm really tired of seeing greenie BS sprouted everywhere.

I think if we slaughter all the animals in a country, the country will go veggie. Also, we'll reduce the global warming caused by cow farts...

Okay. I understand that you to might not agree with the ideas being discussed, but I encourage you to do some research. Don't be petty.

Agree w. Perchik. We have kept the level of discourse polite and on-point most of the time. Let us not change that..

Another issue about eating animal flesh, at least in the USA, is that they are generally tortured in the rearing and slaughtering..and are mostly corn, IAC. Read Eric Schlosser, Michael Pollan and John Singer for horrifying and repellent details.

Well, I'm being a bit sarcastic, but I eat strictly meat. I happen to come from a culture where vegetables and other plants are hardly eaten. So it's a bit of a problem when people discuss forcing everyone to eat vegetarian. Sure, it may be a trendy opinion right now, but there is a big difference between a personal opinion and forcing that opinion on others.

See what I mean? And I don't mean this aggressively, just my opinion.

I would suggest reading the link that was posted earlier. That explains how eating meat contributes to global warming.

I do understand what you are saying though, however I think there comes a point when we have to stop doing something for ourselves in order to save the planet.

Perchik, I think the planet is just fine. A rocky ball of a planet is just as happy as a parasite covered planet. What you want to save is "life", not the planet. You are under the impression that "life", particularly lower viral life (like trees) are valuable in some cosmic universal sense. I don't see how. Life exists because of its viral nature. Why should it be saved for its sake?

If you say you want to save human beings, then I'll agree with you more. Yes, human beings should be saved. But in the end, will we not die anyways? Will the sun not burn out? And long before the sun burns out, the climate would have changed by a lot more than a few degrees.

You see the point? This is like when your house is burning, and someone suggests putting off a candle so it's not quite as hot.

Global warming is good. We need to suffer now that we have technology so that we can work out how to save ourselves when the REAL global warming comes.

Get it?

Well then I want to make sure that the human species does not go extinct. Yes in the end we will die off eventually, but why not make that as distant as possible?

And if you want to use the burning house example, this would be like suggesting that we build the house out of brick instead of wood, so it doesn't burn down as fast.

But this is not on topic. Feel free to start a question about global warming and go at it.

@max, You said, "So it's a bit of a problem when people discuss forcing everyone to eat vegetarian." I'd like to point out that my question was never about forcing anyone to do anything; it's about *convincing* people to do something that is good for life on the planet.

You could turn around your argument as, by eating meat you are *forcing* other people (most often people in developing countries who have the least choice about where and how to live) to accept rising sea levels, more catastrophic weather events, etc. etc. Why would you do that just because you choose to eat meat?

One place to start might be simply convincing people to eat less meat. Eat meat in moderation. It doesn't have to be the bulk of every meal. If we just made meat a side dish rather than the main course, we'd be healthier, we'd save some carbon, and we'd still get to eat some delicious animal flesh.

@bob, That's a great point. I know for me, I had been reducing the amount of meat I ate for a long time before I went vegetarian. When I finally made the decision, it wasn't that big of a stretch. Is the answer really "moderation in all things"? Maybe I'll pose that one to the Fluther community...

If everyone stopped consuming animals though, wouldn%u2019t cows, pigs, fowl etc all go extinct? Is there a distinction between raising livestock - to be consumed - and raising the same animals outside of the meat industry; with regard to the environment?

To elaborate on this, cows have been bastardised through centuries of human farming and as such have no predatory skills, they would inevitably go extinct without human intervention.
Using our powerful position as intelligent beings atop the food chain, surely we have a responsibility not to let creatures that we domesticated go extinct?

The premise for the argument concerning the environment seems to allude to the fact that by not eating meat we do not endorse the rearing of animals which cause global warming through methane emissions.
By supporting this are we supporting the extinction of cows?

I%u2019m a vegetarian for a number of reasons but I could never fully understand the tact in this facet of vegetarianism with regard to feasible and humane social outcomes.
If anyone could shed any light on the issues I%u2019ve raised I%u2019d really appreciate it.

Before I tackle the extinction issue I want to address the "premise" you bring up. To me (and a lot of what I've read) it's not only the methane emissions, but also the gas used by the trucks in transport. Cows are transported very large distances between being raised, to being slaughtered, then being shipped to various places. Of course this argument applies to every industry, but I think I read somewhere that the meat industry is a large chunk of this.

About extinction. I think you're right. We have successfully turned the cow into a human bred meat sack, thus depriving them from any kind of predatory (or defense) skills. Therefore there is no place in nature for the cow. We would have to shoulder that responsibility, either create small sanctuaries for cows, or begin breeding them with more "wild" cows such as longhorn bulls. However this raises another question, what do you do with the abundant number of cows? I think it might be in the cow's best interest to just let the species go extinct. It'd be cruel to release them in the wild.

Personally I think this issue will never arise, because there's no way to eliminate meat from a whole countries diet.

It's a red herring to say that because humans domesticated cows we have a responsibility to prevent their extinction. (By the way, the same goes for chickens, pigs, and sheep.) If factory farming was stopped tomorrow, it's not like the ranchers would just open the gates and let billions of farm animals wander off.

@Perchik, while there may be no practical way to eliminate meat from a whole country's diet, I wouldn't say it's not possible. In fact, global environmental conditions may force humans to take this approach simply for the survival of the (our) species. That, or we'll go back to raising our own meat and/or buying it from local sources.

I'm as humanist as anyone else but I wouldn't consider it a red herring for a vegetarian to be concerned about entire species going extinct because of my species' actions.
How is this coherent with ethical vegetarianism? We disagree with the treatment of animals in factory farms but would also like said animals to reach extinction?

I see your point Perchik but transport issue isn't really germane to the argument, the fact is that cows cause more environmental damage than cars. Methane is 21 times more detrimental to the environment than Co2.

If factory farming was stopped tomorrow, you're right, animals wouldn't just be allowed to wander off. They'd all be slaughtered. The land would support a different use. Also, there isn't actually a benefit to the environment by raising animals organically, in fact organic cattle produce more methane per cow than factory farmed cattle.

Whatever this issue represents to some, I certainly don't consider it an element of ethical vegetarianism.

The original question wasn't phrased as an ethical issue, but as an environmental one. There are nearly as many reasons for adopting vegetarianism as there are vegetarians. The question behind my question was why would people continue to eat meat if they understood that not eating meat could help the global environment in a significant way?

I appreciate that, Sir. I was just ensuring that everyone here fully understood the ramifications of absolute environmental vegetarianism. I speculate that a number of vegetarians reading would have assumed this stance to automatically lend itself to their connotations of themselves as vegetarians. I would personally consider it hypocritical to champion the cause of mistreated livestock yet support environmental vegetarianism in the absolute sense: the subject matter this thread discusses.

Methinks you're picking a fight where there need not be one, ExplodingBoy, by calling me hypocritical and my question indicative of "environmental vegetarianism in the absolute sense" (whatever that means). I am in no way advocating inhumane treatment of animals. I'm simply advocating that we don't eat them! It sounds more like you have an axe to grind than that you want to address the actual question: what would it take to convince a large population to go vegetarian?

I didn't imply that you personally were being hypocritical. You stated that there were differing reasons to become vegetarian. I stated that some can be contradictory. I can't guess what facets of vegetarianism you endorse. In your first post you spoke of the effects on the environment not eating meat could have and wondered with regard to that could you convince an entire nation to go vegetarian. I never suggested you advocated the inhumane treatment of animals. I stated that you advocate animal extinction.

I'm not going to repeat my points. The syntax is appropriate so I don't really get why you didn't understand it if you read my posts....but... absolute would mean extinction. The inevitable end product of an entire nation going vegetarian. Your question's answer comes in the form of ramifications and I was outlining them. I don't have an interest in the question itself really. When did I express an interest in answering that question or how is it necessary to the points I was making? I just took issue with the environmental issue you raised as someone who opposes animal extinction.

I'm not trying to pick a fight at all. Simply explaining my stance.

@ExplodingBoy: You raise an interesting ethical question: do we have a responsibility to continue to keep animals that we've domesticated? I do think the question is academic, in that I don't think any nation will go vegetarian any time soon.

I will also say that the extinction of livestock is not a necessary effect of vegetarianism (even vegetarianism on a global scale). Some livestock will continue to be kept, even if it's only in zoos. Probably more livestock than that will continue to be kept. The ethical dilemma, as you present it, is easy to resolve, and vegetarians can continue to be concerned with the treatment of livestock without being branded as hypocrites.

It is certainly true that vegetarians do want fewer cows to be bred. If vegetarianism becomes more popular, there will be fewer cows. By itself, that's not an ethical dilemma.

At any rate, I think your stance in the above post seems a little disingenuous. It's not difficult to imagine a vegetarian society which has decided to continue to breed livestock in order to prevent animal extinction. So raising that argument, even if you meant it sincerely, can easily be construed as a deliberate red herring meant to disrupt consideration of the actual question at hand.

Bob, great feedback.
I agree with you, livestock would be kept in zoos and I fully support fewer animals being farmed. None in fact. I think it's important to remark upon this fact though, animals should be kept alive.
It is possible to avoid an ethical dilemma. To be vegetarian and not support the unfair system of factory farming but to harbour a desire to drop the number of livestock considerable in the interest of humankind.
Since this is speculative though, academic as you put it yourself, this distinction must be made.

I can see why you thought it disingenuous, I apologise. It was particularly disingenuous to use the word hypocritical as these convictions are arbitrary for the most part. It was a red herring, my discussion could have been completely avoided by adding "these animals should be kept alive on a far smaller scale". Looking back it seems convoluted, vebrose and misdirected! Again, sorry for the lack of clarity.

That’s not going to work. There will always be people who prefer to eat meat. I would suggest just trying to influence people to eat less meat. Maybe try to get people to dedicate one or two days out of the week to eating vegetarian food, that would be doable, maybe not for the entire country unless you’re very influential.
Start with your friends and family and invite them for a veggie potluck once a week and encourage them to do the same if they like the idea, or start a group that meet once a week for a veggie potluck and invite people you know are dedicated meat eaters :)

I read a book a few years ago by an academic economist of great intelligence and wisdom who was addressing your exact question: is societal change possible? His book’s title answered the question, “How DO people change?”

“ONE BY ONE FROM THE INSIDE OUT” by Glen Loury

It cannot and will not work when changes are imposed, forced, legislated, when people are cajoled, indoctrinated, manipulated.

Regardless whether the changes are judged to be “good” or “evil”, attempts at forced change foster rebellion, subversion, hatred, mistrust. Real change is not generated from outside a person. Real change is a personal, internal choice. It is inviolable. Anything contrary to this contributes to an explosive response.