All societies that consume damage the environment. The extent
to which they do usually depends on how much fossil fuel they
consume and meat they eat. (It is usually estimated that
20,000 lbs of potatoes can be grown on a single acre of American
farm land--but some pesticides would probably be used to obtain
this yield--)That's a LOT of food. Using this food for direct
human nutrition would feed FAR MORE people than animals. That's
the essence of the argument against inefficient animal protein.
I drive a car, therefore I pollute and am responsible for the
deaths of some people, as well as the destruction of resources
that could be used for other more "humane" purposes. This is the
conundrum of all those who participate in a consumer economy.
McDonalds is the "essence" of the consumer economy and is
therefore a good target. I applaud those interested in
shocking the public to realize what it MEANS to participate in
a consumer economy.
As a vegetarian, I am not interested in anything that McDonalds
sells. I don't know if they still sell salads, but would not
eat them there because I can't tolerate the smell of the place.
However, I am not specifically an animal rights activist. I
do realize that some animals can and should be used to further
human health research. I also wear leather shoes. Being a
vegetarian is probably the best diet for any middle aged man--and
most women after menopause. It is simply a fact that is very
hard to refute. The low fat vegetarian diet would save hundreds
of thousands of American and UK lives simp