I.C. Update Again

I've decided to discuss whether or not the environmental consequences of factory farming are worth the cheap prices and wide-spread availability.

Now I'm having trouble finding sources that aren't extremely radical believers in their cause. The books I'm using, Vegan Freak, Vegetarian Manifesto, Generation Green, and a few others, as well as my web sources, PETA, GoVeg.com, and some others all have an agenda. Their statistics seem to match, but they are all trying to achieve the same thing.

On the other hand, the only pro-meat industry sources I can find only discuss why animal rights activist are stupid or they relate somehow to health. There is nothing that defends that the environmental issues are a necessary evil.

I've written the opening paragraph of my paper and plan on writing at least a full page tonight.

I.C. Update

I've been trying to find information on the benefits that come from the meat industry, but I'm afraid that what I've found is pretty weak. This is what I came up with:

1. People like the taste of meat, and people need protein. The problem here is that new research has found that only 10% of your daily caloric intake should come from protein sources because carbs are a more efficient energy source.

2. The factory farming methods, which in the meat industry are the biggest polluters and most unethical methods, allow for meat/eggs/dairy to be produced more cheaply, so they're cheaper for the public.

3. If we didn't keep killing cows for food, they'd die off because they wouldn't be making profit, so no one would take care of them? This has almost no weight at all.

Another problem that I'm running into is that none of these things relate back to the effect of the meat industry on the environment. Maybe weighing the ability to make meat cheap and the ethics of the price that comes at would work, but I don't know if that would be too much of a stretch.

Paper Update

I've decided that the topic I posted earlier will probably be too broad for me to write concisely, so I'm only writing about the impact of the meat industry on the environment.

I checked out a book called "Vegan Freak" from the library. It provides a lot of information about reasons to go or stay vegan, and there is a chapter about the environment. I learned that it takes 16 lbs of grain to produce 1 lb of beef. All of that grain had to be taken care of somehow, so a person who eats that beef is responsible for the pollution and waste associated with those 16 lbs. That means all of the herbicides and pesticides that seep into the soil, all of the water used to grow it, and all of the gas used to transport it are multiplied by 16 for every meat meal consumed instead of a vegetarian meal. There were statistics about exactly how much this was, but I can't remember them right now. One that I do remember is that 260 tons of CO2 emissions are released in the meat process (including transportation) alone, to feed a family of 4 for a year. Also, 80% of all the water used in the Western states goes directly to meat processing. The book also discussed the volumes of methane, ammonia, and nitrous oxide released from animal waste not properly disposed of. All of that waste ruins soil and once it gets into the water supply endangers aquatic life and humans.

Proposal Update

So, I just found out today at morning meeting that my original argument is actually already being done. Instead, I've decided to discuss factory farming.

The goal of the meat industry is to cheaply produce meat, obviously. However, to obtain this goal, many sacrifices are made, including the welfare of the animals. Poultry are confined in areas so small they cannot walk, crammed in with other birds. Chickens, injected and fed growth hormones and never having room to exercise their legs, become so weak that they are unable to lift themselves on their own legs. They are kept in such tight quarters that occasionally, factory farmers cut off the ends of their beaks to prevent them from pecking each other to death. They, as well as pigs and cows, often spend their entire lives with no sunlight. They are also typically kept in such unclean areas that huge amounts of waste pile up, and the animals are given extensive exposure to harmful things like ammonia.

This is not only inhumane, but also unhealthy for the humans who eat these animals. Growth hormones injected into cows, whose milk later goes on sale, are believed to be the reason for developmental problems in small children. All development happens too rapidly: getting teeth at younger ages, growing too fast for bones to become strong enough, and young girls starting their periods as young as 8 or 9.

There are also harmful environmental effects associated with the factory farming. The meat industry is the source of 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. Fertilizers and pesticides used in crops to feed the animals contaminate the water supply through the soil and animal waste. The meat industry uses far too much water, and between that and the land degradation, biodiversity is at risk.

Proposal Progress

For my paper, I'm going to write about how University should have lunch options other than fast food, for multiple reasons. First of all is health. America is combatting a nation-wide obesity problem, and evidence points to heat-and-eat and fast food meals as the primary culprits. Fast food meals have high calorie and fat counts with low nutritional value, and often come in servings far larger than normal people should eat. Second is for environmental reasons. When you order a meal at a fast food restaurant (or have it delivered to you), you also receive tons of unnecessary wrappers, packaging, silverware, and napkins. 170 kids eating fast food every day for lunch generates way too much waste. Lastly, it is more costly to get fast food every day than it would be for University to have a lunch program. Although it may require hiring a lunch staff, the food would cost a fraction of the price for students, and the pay for the new staff, if included in the lunch program, would easily be covered, while the students would still have to pay less than before.

Let a Thousand Licensed Poppies Bloom

In "Let a Thousand Licensed Poppies Bloom," Maia Szalavitz establishes a convincing argument. She makes a casual claim saying that legalizing opium production will provide more benefits than totally eradicating the crop. She adequately describes the problem, proposes a solution, and justifies her claim.

In paragraph 4, Szalavitz provides convincing facts demonstrating the futility of eliminating drugs as a result of ending opium production. By following that statement with another citation about the suffering going on in the world due to lack of availability of pain relievers, she strengthens her appeal to pathos. Not only does the reader feel sympathy toward those who are in pain, but also resentment for the clear availability of the drugs that could put an end to that pain.

Another thing Szalavitz does to enhance her argument is to nod to an opposing idea. By acknowledging the fact that there would be potential problems in the Senlis plan, she shows her ethos appeal. It shows that she considered all options and proves that she isn't a blind believer in her cause.

C.P. Ellis

C.P. Ellis's story about overcoming the racism he'd felt all his life seems credible. Terkel helped him to establish his credibility by keeping that narrative in Ellis's own language. By retaining the dialect, the reader was able to better connect with the uneducated, poor older man. In the beginning, Ellis described his encounter with two young black men downtown, where he put a gun up to one of their heads. By admitting this shame, he strengthens the idea of how big of a change he endured. Sitting down and talking about family and common problems with his enemy, Ann Atwater is what finally pushed him to find that black people are just as human as he is. Although it doesn't seem like a situations that many people would have the opportunity to experience, I think that that is a perfectly reasonable way for a man to change his opinions about race.

However, I don't believe that this is possible on a larger scale. Ellis was distinguished from others because he was actually willing to work with Ann Atwater, even though she was black. When he walked door to door, he found that many white people were calling him a sell-out and slamming the door in his face. This was the same response that Atwater faced walking to the black households. Ellis's epiphany was sitting and having a conversation with a black woman, but based on other peoples' reported reactions, I don't think that they would be willing to o so far. Most of those people are probably the type who would feel more comfortable sticking to their own blind beliefs. As Ellis said on page 521, the people he met in the KKK were mostly individuals who were poor and felt oppressed by the system. They were unwilling to surrender their scapegoat. Ellis faced feelings of inferiority, and for many of these individuals, to deprive them of a more oppressed people than themselves would have caused many to fall into a deeper depression. I'm not saying that this justifies their racism, but it does prevent a complete reverse of societal perceptions of racism or other prejudice.