Thesis: Economic success in the rising of social classes increase the demand of meat to end poverty causes ecological disasters.
Poverty has been an issue for many centuries and slowly the economy has helped bring the poor out of poverty. Agriculture, mainly meat production has helped provide for many of these poor families but the consequences further damage the World. Meat is the main protein for many countries. The amount of land used for livestock and pastures are increasing to accommodate the growing population. With more agriculture land the more greenhouse gas emissions and pollution it brings, causing ecological disasters.
The world needs better food systems. Where independent farmers are not controlled by large corporations that use synthetics crops and pesticides. These farmers can create incomes from organic and sustainable resources. The meat industry puts out millions of workers out of employment, making them fall into poverty. Production is made on a global scale based on the assumed needs of people and economy. Animal agriculture was endorsed by several organizations because it was believed to be the solution to end world hunger but now with scientific evidence of the rippling effects it has different approaches are made to balance out the risks.
Large corporations profit from industrial animal agriculture instead of local independent farmers in rural communities. This system only benefits the urban population. Low cost imported food should help decrease hunger but instead the poor are forced to move out into cities to work in factories with low wages that they barely can pay for meat. It also occupies space for growing feed like corn and pastures. It takes more land to feed an animal than one person. The land used for agriculture can feed the whole world and end poverty. “It takes, on average, ten pounds of grain or soya to produce one pound of meat. Land used to grow rice can support 19 times more people than land devoted to egg production.” (Cox 2007) The amount of space needed to raise one animal can feed more people. Understanding this concept will help create new practices for food systems and land use efficiently.
Many natural resources are depleted by the industrial animal agriculture. Water supply can become limited because livestock requires high amounts of water. Unlike plant based proteins who don’t need much water or land for growth. It’s better to move forward to new forms of protein and sustainable practices than increasing animal production to end poverty. “The International Food Policy Research Institute estimates that a 50% reduction in meat eating in the developed world by 2020 could mean 3.6 million fewer malnourished children in developing countries.” (Cox 2007) Solutions to end poverty should be addressed on a global scale and the future of the planet as well as generations be taken account.
Establishing efficient farming practices will conserve natural resources and provide more access to the people. Cutting down food, health, transportation costs are benefits that come with better food conversion yields. Animals consume more energy and food than what it provides for when sold for meat. Around 50% of habitable land is used for agricultural uses like raising livestock, growing animal feed or grazing. The land used for growing crops supply more protein and food than the land used for animal agriculture which is four times more larger. Livestock makes up 77% of that 50% while 23% is used for crops. (Roser) Land used for arable crops can feed the world instead of overproducing meat and dairy products.
The evolution of global food systems in agricultural practices has impacted the world but it has become one solution to end poverty. Natural resources are finite and are quickly decreasing due to the meat industry. As well as climate change, which can affect crop seasons for farmers. Reducing food waste will increase the food supply available for those in need and causes no risk of gas emissions. This change in the economy will help reduce transportation costs and food prices that will target the lower social classes in order to afford food. “Climate-smart agriculture-higher agricultural productivity, greater climate resilience, reduced GHG emissions is essential to permanently end poverty and hunger.” (Thompson 2015) The growing population needs higher crop yields to produce the amount of food demand. With the expansion of this practice then there will be a reduction of greenhouse gasses and stop future ecological disasters.
Cox, Janice. “Industrial Animal Agriculture Part of the Poverty Problem.” World Animal Protection, World Society for the Protection of Animals, 2007, http://www.worldanimalprotection.ca/sites/default/files/ca_-_en_files/wspa_poverty_report_tcm22-3744.pdf.
Roser , Max, and Hannah Ritchie. “Yields and Land Use in Agriculture.” Our World in Data, documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/700061468334490682/pdf/95768-REVISED-WP-PUBLIC-Box391467B-Ending-Poverty-and-Hunger-by-2030-FINAL.pdf.
Townsend, Robert F. “Ending Poverty and Hunger by 2030.” The World Bank, World Bank Group, 2015, documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/700061468334490682/pdf/95768-REVISED-WP-PUBLIC-Box391467B-Ending-Poverty-and-Hunger-by-2030-FINAL.pdf.
As demand for meat increases on a global scale, the environment suffers the consequences. The products in agriculture increases when demand is high but when it’s not, production still continues and causes damage to the market. It all started when the need of ending poverty arised and the economy decided that the demand for meat was greater and cheaper to produce than crops. The overproduction of meat releases toxic chemicals like methane and carbon oxide. These chemicals are harmful and effect global warming. Economic success in the rising of social classes increase the demand of meat to end poverty causes ecological disasters.
In 2016, the pork demand in China was a driving force for the global production to feed lower social classes. The “ global demand” made Chinese hog farmers earn record breaking profits due to the rise of prices the consumer would pay. As this need for meat rises the social classes increase therefore decreasing poverty yet the high price makes it harder for lower classes to buy. Due to this demand, it causes ecological disasters but little efforts are made to decrease overproduction because it’s all about the economic success. The writer Austin Alonzo said “in the long run animal agriculture, and the pork industry, will shine due to the growing global population and rising middle class.” (Alonzo 2016) This further examines how animal agriculture will continue to exist as the global population increases and the market produces profits for farmers.
Yet if expansion increases at an exponential rate then farmers must adjust prices to meet demand. This problem can cause the market to crash and meat will no longer be viewed as a “rich only” product. When a person’s income is greater than others then their able to afford meat while others don’t have the necessary income to afford it, making meat more rarer to get. Not really rare, since social classes are becoming richer and richer as the economy grows. The concept of global demand is viewed differently from the market and consumer point of view. The market adjusts it’s value and consumers create the demand. As the pork industry increases the price of corn is decreasing. Depending on the market and demand the production in crop and agriculture needs. The production necessary for livestock is greater than what the crop yield can feed the poor. Resources are not being assigned correctly and all the crops goes into animal agriculture, leading an overproduction and waste.
In the World Bank article, the consumer and the market are evaluated. For example, if a farmer loses some of their livestock then they are forced into selling whatever they have at a low price due to the low economy, just to survive that day. That will affect them in the long run when the profits they could’ve had were made from their thriving livestock production and now will remain poor. Making poverty harder to come out of if the market delinces. As interventions to end poverty and help climate change arises the economy will stabilize.
Due to the climate change caused by the production in animal production, the lower social classes suffer the most. They have limited resources and can’t adapt if the economy declines or a ecological disaster occurs. It’s counterintuitive that the helping the poor and the rise of social classes causes ecological problems as well as the economy causes the original problem in a never ending cycle, making all the efforts to end poverty just increases the numbers and causes pollution. New climate policies are being formed to help reduce emissions and help the poor to climb up the social ladder. “When British Columbia created its carbon tax, it used the revenue to lower income and business taxes and to create a low-income climate action tax credit that provides quarterly support to the poor to help with energy costs.” (World Bank 2015) This carbon pricing used the revenue to stream money to help energy costs to help the poor and decrease greenhouse emissions. With some countries, like Indonesia, creating subsidy reforms it changes the increase of energy prices with aid for healthcare and cash for low-income households and students. Creating these “social safety nets” it will prevent the poor into falling even further in the social class ladder. Animal agriculture will should have a net zero to lower emissions caused by the overproduction of the global demand.
Alonzo, Austin. “China Hogs World’s Pig Market in 2016.” WATTAgNet, WATTAgNet, 24 June 2016, http://www.wattagnet.com/articles/27386-china-hogs-worlds-pig-market-in-2016
“Climate Change Complicates Efforts to End Poverty.” World Bank, 6 Feb. 2015, http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/02/06/climate-change-complicates-efforts-end-poverty
Source 1: Bosh tools sawstop lawsuit
- “On top of all this, in terms if table saw safety, kickbacks are certainly more dangerous, and cause far more injuries each year, than cutting off fingers.”
- This new technology is making other companies to raise their prices even when their tools are not safe.
- Evaluative claim- it makes the reader question whether companies should make better tools to match the price or reduce the quality for a different price.
- I don’t support this company in particular because they seem to care about profit and they don’t believe in their products and its safety.
Source 2: Feds might force table saw makers to adopt radically safer technology
- “The CPSC predicts switching to the safer saw design will save society $1500 tp $4000 per saw sold by reducing medical bills and lost work”
- Timothy Lee examines the self retractable table saw which prevents accidents and low cost to replace blade.
- Evaluative numerical claim- The article provides numerical data to demonstrate the savings from using this tool. Yes the saw costs more and must be replaced if need be but it will save much more than when accidents happen using basic technology.
- I support this new technology. I think its the right step into the future. I also like how the creator believes in his craft and defends it against critics in the market.
Source 3: The saw that won’t cut your fingers has arrived
- “I would say that the first time you accidentally trip the blade it’ll take you a couple of minutes to get everything sorted out and get the saw running. Either way it beats sawing into your thumb“
- The bosh saw costs more than other saws but the saw blade can be replaced for a smaller amount of money compared to medical bills when your finger gets cut off.
- Proposal claim- Bosh tries to convince the audience as well as the market retailers to use his saw because its safe and ensures that one won’t get hurt. The bolded part of the quote describes his proposal claim to use his saw instead of others.
- I think it persuades to the audience because he illustrates how different ones live would be with this technology.
Source 4: U.S. consumer product safety commission
- “For more than a decade, flesh-sensing safety technology has been available that could prevent almost all table saw injuries. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it.”
- Suggests that the table saw causes many injuries to customers.
- Causal claim- It indicates fault in manufactures because they didn’t want to produce the sawstop and due to this still causes injuries around.
- I think they are taking his guilt claim too far. Blaming the manufactures instead of blaming companies to make better and safer technology.
0:01 A Father and Daughter are seen playing ball at the beach. It appears to be during the sunset. They probably went to the beach just to play since they are wearing jackets and no summer beach items are pictured.
0:04 A single father is shown outside of his house, throwing a baseball. Perhaps his kid is a boy. Seems to be a meadow. Around sunset once again. Maybe the sunset background adds some warmth into the scene to show love.
0:05-0:06 A father throws a beach ball at his dad. The little girls is caught off guard yet manages to catch the ball. They are playing in their backyard, since a grill is seen.
0:07-0:11 A little girl dressed as Cinderella is in the kitchen catching an orange. The kitchen is modern and sleek. Probably middle class. Stickers on the fridge and roses on the counter. Portrays a loving home. In between seconds it cuts to a young man playing at night.
0:11-0:12 Father and daughter playing catch outside in their front lawn. Houses close together. House is accessorized with decorative pillows yet no curtains at the front window. Occurs slightly before sundown.
0:13-0:14 A little girl chasing a white ball outdoors, perhaps in a park.
0:15 A father is playing volleyball with his teen daughter. Sky is dark blue, almost nighttime. They’re playing outside their house and outdoors lights are on.
0:16-0:18 A teen daughter jumps to catch a ball and falls in the pool. The pool is in their fenced house. Once again during sunset. Must be a warm day due to the daughter wearing a bathing suit.
0:19-0:21 Another teen daughter has a baseball glove on her left hand and spins to throw the ball at her dad. The father has a glove as well and catches the ball successfully. They seem to be training due to the dad pointing at her and sending a positive message of her throw skills. Also during sundown, at a park. A baseball team is practicing in the background. Somewhere around spring.
0:22- 0:23 Father and daughter are seen outside playing catch in the middle of the road. Street lights are on and some lights are off inside the houses. Looks like a nice and safe area. A lot of family vans parked outside.
0:25 cuts to a black screen with this message ” It only takes a moment to make a moment.” Also contains their website fatherhood.gov and logos of sponsors like Ad Council and ACF. The video is targeted to fathers who don’t spend much time with their kids. Most scenes were at sundown or night, meaning that theirs time to play after the father comes home from work. Families are middle class. Most were daughters, so maybe dads spend more time with their sons than daughters and with this video it tells fathers to play with them as well.
It seems counterintuitive that the US has enough money to support families during their decision of a loved ones end of life care. One of the biggest problems in this country is healthcare. Many families don’t have any healthcare and has to pay out of pocket. These families can’t afford two days of intensive care like the author, they have to make a decision as fast as they can. Charles Ornstein and his family had multiple days to make a decision on whether to keep his mother on life support. They had different doctors review her case as well as additional testing done to see if there was any hope. In conclusion they decided to all life support as her wishes stated. Ornstein was tormented making this decision but in my point of view he had more time to think and spend time with his mother than others who are not insured. Fisher, a expert of medicine theorized that the US helps families by covering the health costs during the decision making in order for the family to make the right decision on end of life care. He further explained that his this applied to a patient who has unknown wishes and who have been treated with bad treatments. Ornstein with this theory but believed it was much harder to actually be in a situation to follow Fishers theory.
It seems counterintuitive that elderly animals are being photographed for their emotions but not humans because it felt wrong to the photographer. Isa’s photographs captures raw moments of emotions from elderly animals. The photographs honor the experience between the animal and Isa. She didn’t want the photographs to risk the animals sentimentality because it felt disrespectful of the animals life and how it felt in that moment. Once the elderly animal has died, the caregivers takes comfort in these photographs. It reminds them of the life they spent together and captures their animals essence. Isa captures the fine line of mortality and aging and are testaments to the animals survival in life. Before starting this project, Isa refused to take photographs of her sick parents and family. A year later, she found Petey, an elderly horse who she photographed all day. This was her therapy. I find it difficult to understand why she can exploit these old animals but felt wrong to photograph her family. Although the photographs honor and showcase an animals emotion it’s still wrong to purposely choose those who don’t have the ability to refuse being photograph than to her family.
It seems counterintuitive to force organ donation when it can help organ donation. A member of a patient who is waiting for an organ believes no one should be forced to donate and would rather wait for their turn in the registry. Rob Linderer, CEO of Midwest transplant network agrees that involuntary organ donation will increase lives saved but not eliminate the need for organs. I am not a organ donor but my whole family is. Some people have difference points of view on this subject and I think there is no right answer or solution.
- Greenhouse gas emissions
- Agriculture increases gas emissions
- Livestock agriculture produces and releases methane
- Reducing livestock production to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions
- Eliminating livestock and crop production will reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
- Eliminating agricultural activities like livestock and crop productions will decrease greenhouse gas emissions due to the reduction of methane and nitrous oxide. UPDATE: Eliminating agricultural activities like livestock production will decrease greenhouse gas emissions due to the reduction of methane and nitrous oxide and therefore stop climate change.