Comfortably Unaware (14 page)

Now that we have a better understanding of which factors led us to the point where we are today, it should be easier to identify calculated predictions as well as further exploring solutions. Production of meat and dairy is expected to double in the next ten years, rising from 229 million tons to 465 million tons.
¹⁶²
Our planet simply cannot sustain this because it cannot sustain our current levels of raising animals for food. There are two principal ways we can move forward with our food choices regarding animal products and global depletion. First, we can evolve to the point of not eating them by correcting the issues presented earlier in this chapter. Second, we can move forward with legal coercion, because, most likely, the first avenue is idealistic and with the potential of excessive delay. We will reach a point in time where legislation will be forced to enact sanctions that make it illegal to eat meat more than once a week and then, ultimately, at all. This may seem a radical thought at first, but when we reach the point of urgency, it will be one of the necessary corrective measures.

The end result is necessary to halt the global depletion that is currently out of control with our food choices. I call it the “K-Pax” theory. In the 2001 movie
K-Pax
, Kevin Spacey plays a visitor from another planet, one that is vastly more developed and advanced than Earth. There are many subtle references throughout the movie that indicate that his character and all individuals on his planet are vegetarians and do not eat any animal products. It is clearly implied that as a civilization evolves, it must become vegetarian in order to survive and become advanced. Although this was simply a movie, it is intellectually on target, which is
why Einstein pondered the thought frequently and arrived at the very same conclusion: “Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.”

The first way of change through evolution involves correction of all the reasons of why we are here to begin with. Opening the pathways of communication regarding the reality of food choices would be a start. Those who have platforms in the media—celebrities, authors, talk show hosts, and politicians—all must assume a higher level of awareness and then convey the realities to their audiences. Information regarding the benefits of a plant-based diet to our health and that of our planet must be made available to everyone and repeated on a daily basis in the media. Likewise, the ill effects to our health of consuming animal products and the devastating effects it has on our environment must be made available to the public and reinforced just as often. Only accurate, unbiased information must be free-flowing and disseminated to everyone.

There must be a balancing or equating of the reliance we place on health professionals with their level of knowledge regarding our food choices. In other words, if physicians or dieticians are to remain in a position of counseling other humans as to nutrition and food choices, then they must fully understand and be able to communicate the realities of such decisions. Physicians must be required to complete, in either graduate or post-graduate studies, courses on food choices as they relate to our health and the health of our planet. Similarly, dieticians must reread, fully understand, and be able to fully communicate portions of their own position statement on vegetarian diets and the health benefits to their patients. They must do the same with the ill effects
that animal products have on our planet—anything less is malpractice. Blood-letting was a common practice for physicians in medieval times, but they would certainly lose their license if they performed that practice today. It is time to move forward with guidance with regard to unhealthy food practices as well.

Government involvement with subsidies and assistance programs for the meat, fish, and dairy industries must come to a halt. If financial support is given to any agricultural industry, it should be to all those crops grown in organic fashion for us to consume. Our government should also be involved in supervising the establishment of proper food education in our school systems, from kindergarten through high school. This could begin by removing all milk and dairy advertisements, and replacing the antiquated and misleading Food Pyramid and food guidelines as established by the USDA with some form of a new pyramid that reflects the revisions established by the PCRM. Promotion should be allowed only for those food choices that are factually healthy for us and for our planet.

There is a perception that our natural resources have no monetary value attached so they can easily be used to create short-term gains by logging forests, misuse of water, wasting land, killing marine wildlife, and polluting. At some point in time, just prior to the enactment of laws against consuming meat, we will need to place an economic value on these resources that have been used so heavily but so freely by the livestock and fishing industries. Specifically, an ecotax, or price, as proposed earlier, should be established and attached to each and every resource that is destroyed or used during the animal-for-food production process. That means that every bit of land, water, and resource used; pollution created; fish species caught inadvertently or that
has become endangered; and ancient tree that is cut in the rainforest must be accounted for. Most rainforest trees are over one hundred years old and come with endemic species and diverse ecosystems that are lost as well. What should that price be? And with water, what dollar amount should be placed on the billions of gallons used by the livestock industry, especially when it is from glacier water that could be used by humans directly and that is not readily renewable? When the fishing industry clears a seamount or other area of the ocean of marine life that eliminates communities and destroys the complex ecosystems that have been in place for hundreds of years, what should they pay? Although these resources are essentially priceless and irreplaceable in our lifetime, there must be a form of ecotax in the thousands of dollars for their use, in order to encourage more accountable and sustainable ecological practices.

If I intentionally drove my car off the road and through someone's front yard, destroying every plant, animal, and structure they owned, shouldn't I be responsible for at least paying the cost to replace those items lost? In actuality, it should be my duty to completely restore
everything
, alive or otherwise, back to its original condition and to do so immediately. That should be the case with the fishing and livestock industries. It is unacceptable—economically, philosophically, or otherwise—for a business to use any resource at will and to wipe out species of plants or animals.

The United Nations Committee on Livestock, Environment, and Agricultural Development has stated: “Ultimately, reaching a sustainable balance of demand for livestock and the capacity of ecosystems to provide goods and services in the future will require adequate pricing of natural resources.” An ecotax
should be levied upon all those that take or destroy our planet's resources, and in turn, this tax should be translated into the final asking price of the product.

In addition to the ecotax, there is reasonable justification to go one step farther by imposing a health-risk tax. This would be the cost a business would have to pay to produce and offer for sale any food item that is associated with a risk for developing chronic disease. Recent estimates place our health care cost burden per year, due to various food choices, at over $100 billion.
¹⁶³
Because all animal products contribute to the risk of developing the four most prevalent chronic disease conditions, it makes sense that those businesses that offer these food items should help pay for the medical and hospital bills to which it contributes. It is very well documented that the Tarahumara Indians, Seventh-Day Adventists, and other groups of individuals who have eaten only plant-based foods their entire lives do not suffer from adult onset diabetes, triple bypass heart surgery, or colon cancer. Obviously, if all food items made from animal products carried with them this proposed health-risk tax, which is a true reflection of the economic damage created, no one could afford to produce or buy them. This would then help solve the global depletion problem and also vastly improve our health care system, by stimulating less costly health insurance to the consumers who subscribe to consistent, enlightened food choices. It would solve many issues that we, as a civilization, have failed thus far to properly address.

Education must take place in other countries as well. Initial emphasis should be placed on those countries where demand for meat is escalating and also in those countries where indiscriminate destruction of resources occur to support demand for livestock or fish products. A change in demand for animal products is
most dramatic in Asia, where consumption of livestock products by humans has increased by 140 percent.
¹⁶⁴
Although strong cultural hurdles exist, education of these people to the detrimental effects that animal products have on our planet and to their own health should be the starting point. Equally challenging but necessary is the education of native people in rainforests, where clear-cut logging and erosive, non-sustainable agricultural techniques occur at rampant rates to support the livestock industry and the Western demand for meat. It is mandatory that they understand that the rainforests are invaluable as one of the earth's treasures and, as such, are certainly worth much more economically to them, long-term, by keeping them intact and protected. Global and local education for rainforest economics must be established. It must be understood, for instance, that rainforest land that is converted to cattle operations yields $60 per acre to the landowner for harvested timber, and then the land is worth $400 per acre.
¹⁶⁵
However, this same land can produce more than $2,400 per acre if the naturally growing fruits, flowers, and medicinal plants are harvested in a renewable and sustainable manner.
¹⁶⁶
Land used in this fashion would be worth substantially more than $2,400 per acre, if it were also used for ecotourism. This could easily be accomplished by combining preservation, sustainable harvesting, and education with controlled tourism. It is vital for local societies to recognize and understand the greater value of natural ecosystems for retaining biodiversity. This would then serve as the impetus toward adequate policy enactment and ultimate preservation, rather than continued destruction.

Once these things are in place, evolution to a more enlightened and healthier route is possible. However, the reality is that this process would require an elongated period of time, during
which we would witness continued depletion. Because further global depletion of some category could be devastating, legislation—or a combination of the two—would be the more predictable approach.

So, yes, legislation that bars the raising of animals for food and eating of meat will happen, because it is inevitable that resources such as water, land, food, and energy will be depleted from raising livestock and harvesting fish, to the point where our lives will be affected on a daily basis. Water may very well be the first resource to be affected.

As an example, more than half of the available freshwater supply in the United States is used to grow feed for livestock. Because of this and the fact that this water is nonrenewable, water tables in the Midwest and Great Plains are quickly being depleted, while surface water in the western states is running on borrowed time. Shortages are beginning to occur and will become commonplace, especially in western states. Although consumers in all of these states have been forced occasionally to ration water, they have not been told that the reason they are running out of water for showering or drinking is because most of it has been or is being pumped off for livestock—to grow their feed, for them to drink, or in the slaughtering process.

Soon, a city or municipality somewhere will find itself with a water shortage that cannot be blamed solely on drought. Beyond the narrow view of enforcing rationing, policy-makers for that area will be forced to take a closer look at just where all the water is going. This will inevitably reveal that the vast majority of the water is going to livestock, which then will lead to exposing the reality of our food choices and the true impact on our planet.

Laws may be enacted initially that ensure less use of animals
for food, as it would be asking too much of our population to eliminate it entirely. Eventually, however, we will come to the conclusion that only food of plant-based origin can be allowed. Even though this is needed right now, it may take years for the proper wheels to be set in motion for accomplishment.

When logically discussing solutions to the global depletion situation, there are always questions posed by those concerned about the effect these solutions would have on various aspects of life, especially with the point that everyone should just stop eating meat, effective today. The three concerns that are the most common are:

1.  What happens to all the animals that are currently being raised for meat if we just stop eating them?

2.  What would happen to all those people who make their income by doing something with the livestock or fishing industry? It would be devastating economically.

3.  Why can't we just produce and eat organic, grass-fed (pastured) livestock, because isn't this method sustainable?

Regarding the first concern—what happens to all the animals?—a phased-in scenario would occur. There is no likelihood whatsoever that everyone in the world would stop eating meat on one given day. Therefore, a steady decrease in demand would result in steadily fewer and fewer animals raised and fish caught or farmed, until we would be at zero production, which would equate to a near zero environmental footprint from a food production standpoint, with the establishment of sustainable systems.

With regard to the second concern—what would happen to all the people who make their income …?—this is no different than what has happened with changes over time in technology or with our economy forcing industries that have operated for over one hundred years to either adapt by reinventing themselves or terminate. This would not be the first time it has happened, as we have seen this with countless industries. Most recently, microfiche, various filing systems, and the typewriting businesses had to move over with the advent of computers, and the newspaper industry had to close numerous companies that had been in business since the 1800s, due to advancement of media and advertisement mechanisms like the Internet. This is called progress. And it would be called
proper
progress if these newer industries also cleaned up our planet.