Ending world hunger - is not a valid argument

[Eqeuls]

Hello there, haven't been very active since I signed up here (3 years ago )

Anyways, here is a point that bugs me for quite a while.

There are some vegans out there, which are convinced, that ending world hunger is a serious argument for veganism.
While the point is a noble on, I don't think this should be considered a valid argument for veganism - and here is why:

I think most of us agree with the this point: Cultivating and feeding grains (and water) straight to humans would be a way more efficent way of using our sources than feeding it to lifestock.

But what are the benefits for the food industry? What are the benefits for a first world corporation to feed a third world nation - if there isn't an economical profit for it? Or would there be an economical profit?

Lifestock for first world countries is usually cultivated in first world countries - while the lifestocks food (soy, grain) - I believe, is usually cultivated in third world countries. So, hypothetically, if we could get rid of animal agriculture - would the soy and grain that is cultivated in third world countires, be used there - or would simply the demand of first world countries go up/down and production in those countries would aswell go up/down?

Thanks you for reading and responding
Eqeuls

[miniboes]

The point to the argument is not that, if we were to all go vegan, all the grain would be redirected to the third world. That is not true, as you correctly point out. The argument is that if we do not drastically decrease our animal product consumption, there will inevitably be hunger. The important thing is that populations are growing and, given climate change, our maximum food production may decrease. You may have heard that to feed everybody in the world we need X amount of earth's. That's the problem. We should all eat in a way that could be extended to a population of 7.4 billion people (or whatever the world population is at the time). Otherwise, there will inevitably be people with insufficient food.

[brimstoneSalad]

You're right about the difference in efficiency. The complication comes in with the fact that multiple variables are involved here.

Currently, farmland is limited, and the main effect of growing animal agriculture on farmland is to use it up then clear rainforest to make more farms (to grow soy to feed cows and chickens to make meat, or provide pasture). With a vegan diet, none of that clearing would be necessary, and we could probably even reduce the amount of farmland and feed the entire world's growing population (not with organic agriculture, but with conventional processes).

As the population grows, we could just clear the rest of the forests and grow crops to feed cows, but that also has implications for climate change, and we will eventually run out of forest to clear. Starvation for a significant percentage of the population will become an issue because people are eating meat.

Even growing vegan food involves a carbon footprint, and that's multiplied for animal foods.
If we are to curb climate change while simultaneously protecting the world's rainforest and feeding the world's growing population, we have to get off meat.

"Ending world hunger" argument is mainly based on the assumption that we won't clear the world's rainforests to grow more food.
Veganism with relation to world hunger is more about preventing an impending disaster than ending an ongoing one.

The ongoing disasters it helps end are deforestation and the growing death toll from global warming... and, of course, the health effects of animal products.

It is true that if we went vegan in the West, we'd have a lot more food available, and some of that might be exported... but there's already a lot of food that's not exported for political and economic reasons. So, given the causes of much modern day hunger are not just a lack of food but political climate and GMO paranoia, simply having more food available may not go far to solve that.

[Eqeuls]

Well thanks for clarifying. I think it is a "lead by example" kind of argument in the end.

So if I understand correctly, there might come a time when the first world is faced with hunger - if we aren't going to change our habits. Which means if we could adopt a vegan "lifestyle" in the developed world, we would need and redirect our knowledge to the third world to actually decrease world hunger in one form or another.

This might be a silly question..
Now I wonder, is it harmful or helpful for the communities in developing countries if I buy soy products? Or should I stick to regional produced products and avoid buying exotic - f.e fruits, wood, products generally. Usually it is recommended to buy regionally but I'm not sure if that would mean losing jobs and opporturnities in these regions. - Would fairtrade be the way to go?

Thanks for your reply

Edit: @brimstoneSalad Your answer and mine overlapped in time, thanks for sharing!
I'm really concerned with the ongoing deforestating of the rainforest, how can I make further impact besides being vegan?

[brimstoneSalad]

Now I wonder, is it harmful or helpful for the communities in developing countries if I buy soy products?

Generally speaking, products produced closer to home will be cheaper and come with a smaller carbon footprint.
A good rule of thumb is to buy whatever is cheaper. Energy costs are passed down to the consumer, so if it's more expensive it probably took more energy to produce unless there were subsidies involved (or economies of scale or ridiculous consumer markups going on).

Or should I stick to regional produced products and avoid buying exotic - f.e fruits, wood, products generally.

Cheaper is usually better.
Look at yield per hectare for fruit; it usually maps well to price. Bananas have one of the best yields of fruit (still tend to be bad compared to grains and beans), which is why they're cheap.

Sometimes it's better to buy "exotic" fruit, like tomatoes from Mexico instead of hothouse tomatoes from the US or Canada (where energy has been used to heat the greenhouse).

Usually it is recommended to buy regionally but I'm not sure if that would mean losing jobs and opporturnities in these regions. - Would fairtrade be the way to go?

I would avoid "fair trade", it doesn't mean much, and it can even be harmful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zvSO43SOtk

The road to hell being paved with good intentions and all.

[Eqeuls]

Thank you very much I appreciate the informations you gave me!

Sometimes it's better to buy "exotic" fruit, like tomatoes from Mexico instead of hothouse tomatoes from the US or Canada (where energy has been used to heat the greenhouse).

This is a very fair point, I didn't think about that.

Cheaper is usually better

So according to the linked video, I shouldn't trust every brand that markets itself fair trade - but instead try to buy products which are generally more premium/pricier.

Can I go by this rule of thumb: If the product is regional I should go for the cheaper ones - if it is international I should try to find premium ones?

[brimstoneSalad]

Can I go by this rule of thumb: If the product is regional I should go for the cheaper ones - if it is international I should try to find premium ones?

Only if that premium comes from human labor and not energy expenditure. One is good for people, one is bad. It's hard to know where it comes from, so I suggest you just buy what's cheap unless there's strong evidence that it's bad for another reason (like animal cruelty, or environmental destruction that isn't factored into the price of the product).

So according to the linked video, I shouldn't trust every brand that markets itself fair trade - but instead try to buy products which are generally more premium/pricier.

If you want to limit yourself to doing charity through purchases, OR if you really just love premium coffee, that's fine.

It's actually better to save your money, buy cheap coffee you like, and then donate money to a charity like mercy for animals.

[viddy9]

There's also the possibility of food prices in the developing world going down if we reduce meat consumption, but again it's not clear-cut. As Carl Shulman writes:

One might hope that by reducing meat consumption grain and other crop prices would fall, disproportionately raising the incomes of the global poor for whom food makes up a larger portion of consumption. This seems plausible if one entirely eliminated all global meat consumption in one fell swoop, but for marginal changes (e.g. reducing factory farming by 10% in one country) leverage may be poor. People in rich countries consume many more calories per day than those in poor countries, and far more meat, as well as biofuels. So even if the benefits of lower grain prices are not as skewed as incomes, they are still distributed in quite unequal fashion.

[brimstoneSalad]

Edit: @brimstoneSalad Your answer and mine overlapped in time, thanks for sharing!
I'm really concerned with the ongoing deforestating of the rainforest, how can I make further impact besides being vegan?

Vegan is the biggest thing, possibly followed by reducing or eliminating palm oil consumption and maybe limiting consumption of certain tropical fruits which may compete for space with rainforests.

We also need to be concerned with global warming, but that is mainly for humans. We'll see more severe tropical storms and hurricanes, and the sea level will rise, salting soils and displacing likely billions of people in our lifetimes (nearly a billion in Nigeria, for example, with only a 0.2 meter rise, which could easily happen within the next few years, possibly by the end of the decade if we're unlucky). Severe weather, and severe heat waves, could destabilize governments and agriculture, destroying infrastructure, and causing mass famine, disease, and war.
Many estimates suggest two meters by the end of the century, which alone could be catastrophic, but even five meters is possible based on rates seen in the past on a geological time scale. It could even happen faster, we just don't know.

Here's a visualizer that covers a few key locations with major cities.
http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/cl ... me-machine

Amsterdamunderwater.jpg

I think we have a few members living around there.
This might be a reality in as little as 30 years, but almost certainly in our lifetimes.

[Eqeuls]

Many estimates suggest two meters by the end of the century, which alone could be catastrophic, but even five meters is possible based on rates seen in the past on a geological time scale. It could even happen faster, we just don't know.

This is indeed very concerning,

I'm born in Switzerland and as natives we usually are skiing in the Alps from december to march. So I actually witness the rising sea level - or rather the melting of our glaciers every year.

The first picture is a drawing from around 1900, which depicts the "middle and great aletsch glacier"

This picture is one I took with my smartphone last winter, everything is covered with snow and it looks kinda comforting

On this picture (2014), which is from the official "aletsch arena" tourist website, you can clearly see the whole "middle aletsch glacier" is almost molten down. Correction: The junction of the middle aletsch with the great aletsch is almost molten down, today the part depicted in the centre of the image is called the middle aletsch.


The "aletsch arena" website states that the glacier is currently 23 km long and melts at a rate of 50 m per year which causes a significantly retreating at the edges. If we do the math we would end up with around 5 km less glacier mass by the end of this century - but experts state that in around 100 years almost every glacier in the swiss alps will be molten down to 10% of its current mass.

The pictures above are shot/drawn from the perspective of "eggishorn"
https://www.google.ch/maps/place/Eggish ... !4d8.09431

Isn't it concerning how blind humans are to the destruction of our planet?