Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phang
I'm sure a fair amount was also cut down for arable land. Biased question.
|
Evidence suggests that with less meat consumption (and without the biofuel boom), deforestation for arable land would not be required to supply world food demand. [1][2][3]. Lower meat consumption means less land used for farming (although I think that everyone going vegan would be a stupid idea because there is a lot of land which works for pasture but not for arable land)
Quote:
|
This is such a horrifically loaded question its unreal. You can only tick the 'unethical you say? Why, fetch me a steak knife!' box rather than the 'I would contest that claim' box.
|
I would disagree with your interpretation of the answer. The answer is what you would do when presented with this argument; your reasoning is immaterial in terms of what the survey is trying to find out.
Most answers so far (including mine) have been point 2, with a handful of point 1s and point 5s. This suggests that this argument affects a very small number of people, but affects them very strongly. Campaigning on this argument is unlikely to be effective; the sort of thing we want to find out.
I agree with your points about wealth & health, plus the phrasing of the 'fashion' statement, however. I'll suggest an alternate phrasing when I work one out or have one given to me.
Thanks for your input; but I do feel you might have misinterpreted what the survey is trying to do. It's not to judge people or find out
why they react this way, just to find out
how they tend to react.
1 - 'Livestock's Long Shadow' (2006) - report for the European Union, United States & United Nations, H Steinfeld et al
2 -
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html (accessed 1850, 20/07/07)
3 -
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-30610-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html (accessed 1850, 20/07/07)
No journal articles as I'm away from uni where I have access to them.