Scrolling social media, I came across a shared article, see the picture, about eating less meat. But, what really caught my attention was the blurb atop the article link.
The sharer, a page that identifies as intellectual, boldly claims that not eating meat, thus decreasing the demand for meat, has saved lives.
This is a common misconception regarding many different social justice wars. The idea is that warring against some industry saves the lives of the highlighted animal, which is unfounded and inaccurate.
How can that be?
Cause the oversimplified call to hashtag onslaught slogans and the single-sided sob stories, to tug at your heart strings, do not give the complete or full story of those being attacked or the true and accurate implications of having the desired results achieved. In this complex and interconnected world there is never a one-size-fits-all solution to anything that does not have consequences, usually resulting in different problematic issues or even worse conditions for the protected poster child of the campaign.
In this article we will primarily focus on the topic of the shared picture, just as it is. I have not and do not intend to read the article, as this article is not directed at the article or any of its facts or positions, it just happened to be the share, it is the blurb that is the focus.
It is apparent from the blurb that, the sharer is of the opinion that ranchers, that raise cattle for the meat packing industry, do not control the population of their herds and will maintain the happily ever after life of any and all cattle not sold for consumption. This could not be further from the truth!
Cattle ranchers that produce livestock for consumption are very hands-on about the population control of their herds. To put it bluntly, no cow becomes pregnant, unless the rancher “does the deed himself” either, by specifically letting a bull near the cow, to do his thing, or more commonly, by artificial insemination. Thus NO calf is born without its final destination already planned out. To think otherwise is to have no idea about the cause that you have taken up arms against.
If you think some hashtag war is worth your time and effort, then take the time to research it and find out just what you are advocating and what you are attacking. In this hashtag war, you are attacking ranchers and farmers and slaughter houses and butchers and chefs and grocers and a host of others that either directly or indirectly make a living based on the raising and butchering and consuming of cattle. And you are NOT saving a single cow’s life by doing it.
If a rancher determines that 1000 head of cattle will meet the meat industry’s need, then there will only be 1000 head of cattle bred and raised for that purpose. So if half-a-billion fewer head are needed globally, then that just means that half-a-billion fewer head were born, not that you saved their lives. A life never begun, is not a life saved, it is a non-life, a non-existence. Breeding, birthing, and raising cattle or any other livestock or animal takes money, a lot of money, money that does not grow on trees, by the way. So, while the top ranchers can live well and a large number can live comfortably, none of them can afford to, just for your desire to save lives, breed and feed and care for cattle that do not provide any return to the ranch.
Thus, your campaign has not saved lives, it has, maybe, reduced the number of calf births that would supply the meat industry. However, what your campaign has more probably done is to push subsistence and hand-to-mouth (or paycheck to paycheck) small family ranchers out of business and thus, in lots of cases, more than likely, led to, not only, their loss of livelihood, but, also, their loss of family land and the loss of their traditional and cultural significance and identity.
There are some good things about ranching and other livestock raising; first and foremost it tends to either, leave the land undeveloped or it maintains some specific form of under development and that does lend to the continued existence of natural habitats of indigenous species. In addition, it also maintains a certain amount of greenery that helps reduce the CO2 in the air and the negative impact of CO2 on the environment. It also, provides employment and improved standards of living for those who are employed, not only, on ranches, but, also, in an untold multitude of dependent occupations, as well, that would be at risk if there were no cattle industry. Not to mention, the economic security in the communities that depend on cattle or other food related livestock for their own survival.
Is ranching a complete positive? No, but, neither is not ranching.
The information for the above article is based on a 5-month long mission in Afghanistan that was, based on the numbers, a complete failure! The complete exposé can be found at The Intercept. The original article states what EVERY American should be thinking, but seems completely unfazed by. “This outrageous explosion of watch-listing — of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield – it was, from the very first instance, wrong,” the unnamed source told The Intercept. Luckily for some of those that have been detained as our enemy or the families of those death-listed there is someone in the States that is working for justice and not revenge being served. 
As a matter of record, the countries, in which the drone program has been the primary weapon of choice, have seen greater violence and instability. In addition to having less security and democracy and living in constant fear, their citizens have been deemed unworthy to have any access to any proper legal process. This ‘justification’ that a group of people, no matter how ‘evil’ they appear to the world, is not allowed access to the legal process of justice to determine guilt or innocence is completely immoral and by action shows the unworthiness of those justifying and carrying out these executions without the order of a proper and public conviction of crimes.
In 2013, Obama declared that no drone strike was taken without “near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured.” adding that “nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties” and said “those deaths will haunt us as long as we live.” Apparently, based on the continued use of these weapons and the continued skirting of accountability, the haunting only lasts till the next morning when he signs the next day’s “kill list”. It seems that the label of ‘national security’ like a spoonful of honey makes it sweet enough to swallow.
While it is true that drone attacks have killed alleged terrorists, they have also killed innocent civilians, American citizens, misidentified targets, and victims of the terror groups. Military and intelligence officials argue that in most cases they were confident that they were killing only dangerous militants. However, when they are questioned about the misses and civilian casualties, they insist they did not know that the civilians were present and or that the target was absent. This proves that the intelligence on the ground is haphazard at best and that the method of drone attacks needs to end until such time as it can be carried out within the bounds of proper legal precedent without civilian casualties being the norm and in great excess of the actual stated intent.
There is absolutely NO limit to the hatred of Political Correctness!
When the people allow the government to restrict any previous freedom for the sake of security the overall safety of the public has been diminished. That is a really scary environment to live in. Americans like to hold themselves up as examples that the rest of the world should strive to be…..but what exactly is America today???
If you have ever looked at ‘questionable’ police arrests, you will find that a majority of those arrests, especially during protests or civil disobedience acts, as defined by the government, result in a majority of the arrests being for the sole charge of ‘resisting arrest’. Isn’t it ironic that you can be arrested for nothing more than resisting being arrested. But what is more concerning is that what is defined as ‘resisting’ is left up totally and completely to the discretion of the arresting police officer. Which means that you can be arrested, for anything from physically defending yourself from law enforcement members to merely asking ‘what am I being arrested for’. Being arrested for the latter is actually a violation of the individual’s civil rights as defined by the Constitution. Also, a majority of these arrests never see the inside of a courtroom so no REAL justice can be served. There is NO real recourse for the individual that was illegally detained for exercising their rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Freedom of Speech is the basis of the story! There are people that say Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to insult people or say things of ‘hate’! I say, who decides what is insulting or hateful? Censorship by ANY outside force is destructive and NEVER the enlightened or intelligent or real way to handle discourse that is uncomfortable.
We have become a world filled with over grown toddlers in constant temper-tantrum mode cause the whole world isn’t meeting all our demands instantly!!! GROW UP!!!
If you want less hate and more understanding…then stop forcing others to do what you want and start listening to them with understanding and compassion. If you want people to stop insulting and hating then speak with kindness and intelligence. If you want less violence and pain then show more mercy and patience.
RANDOM THOUGHT 