Review Could We Stop Killing?—Exploring a Post-Lethal Vegan or Vegetarian Agriculture Stefan Mann Agroscope, Tänikon 1, CH-8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland; [email protected] Received: 3 August 2020; Accepted: 20 August 2020; Published: 25 August 2020 Abstract: This paper explores both the necessities and the options for an agricultural system in which no animals are killed by reviewing existing literature. It first identifies a causal chain which can be labelled as vegan wave and which might generate a consensus that animals should not be killed for human consumption. By raising issues of nutrient supply, grassland management and beekeeping, the paper shows that vegan-organic agriculture, vegan-conventional agriculture and post-lethal vegetarian agriculture are three options for such a pathway. Yet, many technical and socioeconomic questions still need to be resolved. Keywords: peaceful agriculture; agricultural systems; slaughtering 1. Introduction Even before agriculture emerged 10,000 years ago, harvesting of crops and killing of animals had been the two building blocks of organizing human nutrition [1]. However, a lot has happened since then. One relatively recent development in human evolution is a decreasing tolerance for violence; an increasing number of campaigns quantify this tolerance to be developing [2,3], and scholars with a macro-perspective have been describing a more and more peaceful world [4,5]. However, could it happen that this inclination to avoid lethal actions extended to agriculture? That we, as a society, would no longer tolerate the regular killing of animals for food purposes and thus entered a post-lethal phase of farming? While this idea may sound unconventional, it is the first objective of this paper to explain and support the vision of such an agricultural system (Section2). Our knowledge about the global impact of livestock production has become considerable. We know that 70% of agricultural land is used to feed livestock [6] and that livestock husbandry causes around 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions [7]. Estimates of the land per person needed for a vegan diet range from 700 square meters to 1400 square [6,8], so it is less questionable that a vegan planet could feed a world population of 10 billion people than it is under the status quo. Springman et al. [9] emphasized the health advantages (in addition to environmental advantages) of a vegan planet. However, what such a vegan planet would look like, i.e., how production would be organized, is surprisingly an unanswered question. The fact that vegan consumption has been elaborated to much greater detail [10–12] than vegan production can be attributed to the fact that the vegan movement has its center in cities, not in the countryside [13]. Therefore, the second and main objective of this paper is the compilation of available knowledge about the main challenges and possible solutions for a post-lethal agricultural system, focusing on the substitution of animal-based crop nutrients (Section3) and on the use of grassland (Section4). In addition, we address related issues of beekeeping (Section5), before we briefly discuss available options for post-lethal agricultural practices (Section6) and point out remaining questions (Section7). While the paper is not making any moral argument itself, it should be considered as preparation for a potential society with a consensus that animals should not be killed for human consumption. World 2020, 1, 124–134; doi:10.3390/world1020010 www.mdpi.com/journal/world World 2020, 1 125 2.World Driving 2020, Factors1, FOR PEER REVIEW 2 2.1.2. DemandDriving SideFactors 2.1.When Demand Singer Side [14] introduced the concept of animal liberation, he conceded at the time that it sounded “more like a parody of liberation movements than a serious objective”. However, instead of When Singer [14] introduced the concept of animal liberation, he conceded at the time that it being bluntly rejected, Singer’s position has become increasingly socially acceptable over the decades sounded “more like a parody of liberation movements than a serious objective”. However, instead of since. Whereas Singer followed a utilitarian way of argumentation, Regan [15] soon made clear that a being bluntly rejected, Singer’s position has become increasingly socially acceptable over the decades deontological position would lead to even more radical positions: it would not only be unethical to kill since. Whereas Singer followed a utilitarian way of argumentation, Regan [15] soon made clear that animals, animals would, as humans, have the right to live. a deontological position would lead to even more radical positions: it would not only be unethical to killSince animals, that animals time, most would, philosophers as humans, have have leanedthe right toward to live. similar results as Peter Singer and Tom Regan [Since16–18 that]. As time, soon most as scholarsphilosophers began have to rationallyleaned toward analyze similar our results agricultural as Peter practices Singer and of animalTom husbandry,Regan [16–18]. they were As soon likely as toscholars conclude began that to these ration practicesally analyze were fundamentallyour agricultural unethical. practices of If moderateanimal philosophershusbandry, didthey not were go so likely far to to demand conclude veganism that th butese ratherpractices demanded were fundamentally more animal welfareunethical. [19 If,20 ], it usuallymoderate was philosophers not so much did because not go they so werefar to able dem orand willing veganism to defend but rather the killing demanded of animals, more but animal mostly forwelfare strategical [19,20], and it pragmatic usually was reasons. not so much However, because the they voices were demanding able or willing that legalto defend personhood the killing should of beanimals, given to but animals mostly so for that strategical they are and protected pragmatic from reasons. being killed However, [21,22 the] and voices emphasizing demanding how that unlikely legal it ispersonhood that the killing should of animalsbe given for to meatanimals consumption so that they can are be protected defended from on ethical being grounds killed [21,22] [23,24 and] have clearlyemphasizing become how the dominant unlikely it voices is that inthe the killing debate. of animals for meat consumption can be defended on ethicalSwabe grounds et al. [[23,24]25] in thehave Netherlands clearly become were the among dominant the voices first to in ask the adebate. representative sample of the populationSwabe about et al. the [25] legitimacy in the Netherlands of killing animalswere among for foodthe first purposes, to ask a with representative 6.4% saying sample No and of 14.1%the beingpopulation undecided. about Ten the yearslegitimacy later, of a killing German animals survey for [ 26food] indicated purposes, that with only 6.4% 72% saying of theNo respondentsand 14.1% supportedbeing undecided. the legitimacy Ten years of killinglater, a pigs.German Ri ffsurveykin [27 [26]] reported indicated that that the only share 72% ofof USthe residentsrespondents who believesupported that animalsthe legitimacy should of have killing the pigs. same Riffkin rights [2 as7] humans reported rose that from the share 25% inof 2008US residents to 32% inwho 2015. believe that animals should have the same rights as humans rose from 25% in 2008 to 32% in 2015. Very roughly, it seems that one quarter or third of the Western population objects to the killing of Very roughly, it seems that one quarter or third of the Western population objects to the killing of animals for food purposes and that this share is rather rising than shrinking. animals for food purposes and that this share is rather rising than shrinking. Other surveys, as displayed by Wikipedia [28], indicate that around 10% of the population in Other surveys, as displayed by Wikipedia [28], indicate that around 10% of the population in Western countries follows a vegetarian diet, and much less, perhaps two or three per cent, a vegan Western countries follows a vegetarian diet, and much less, perhaps two or three per cent, a vegan diet.diet. This This combination combination of of facts facts leadsleads toto thethe proposedproposed wave wave of of post-lethal post-lethal agriculture agriculture as asdepicted depicted in in FigureFigure1. The1. The expert expert opinion opinion does does not not fully fully translatetranslate toto the popular opinion, opinion, but but the the development development on on thethe expert expert side side leaves leaves its its traces traces in in the the generalgeneral discourse.discourse. Likewise, Likewise, the the grow growinging opposition opposition against against the the killingkilling of of farm farm animals animals slowly slowly and and partiallypartially translates into into the the personal personal consequence consequence of ofstopping stopping meat meat consumption.consumption. Yet, Yet, only only a a tiny tiny minority minority hashas takentaken the last last step step of of forgoing forgoing the the consumption consumption of ofeggs eggs andand milk. milk. FigureFigure 1.1. TheThe wave of post-lethal agriculture. agriculture. TheThe factor factor that that plays plays into into the the hands hands of post-lethalof post-lethal agriculture agriculture is that is that irrationality irrationality presumably presumably plays a largeplays role a large in the role delays in the between delays between the developments. the develop Itments. is unlikely It is unlikely that the that three