Food without spilling blood .Essay on vegetarianism (by S.)

Nothing will benefit human health and
increase chances for survival of life on
Earth as much as the evolution to a
vegetarian diet. ~Albert Einstein



Vegetarianism is a more convenient diet option for human kind than non-vegetarianism because it improves health, has minimal negative impact on the environment and on animal welfare. But despite that, this diet is likely to raise controversy and concerns for the majority of people in our society. Various common arguments objecting vegetarianism are analyzed in this essay.
Some of the objections regarding health issues to the nutritional value of vegetarianism originate from the fact that “theories of the nutritional superiority of a vegetable diet have been historically shaped by moral convictions” (Whorton 1103). This fusion between morality and nutrition elicits confusion in people that adhere to a purely biomedical perspective of health. Even though people may doubt about the nutritional value of vegetarianism because it is not mainstream, vegetarianism is the diet that better suits human beings:
On the bigger scheme of things, a diet based on plant foods is actually the
most ordinary way of eating in the world. What’s more, a diet centered on
grains, bean, vegetables, and fruits, is the natural diet of humans and the
one that best supports our optimal health (Messina 1). [However it is just
recently], from the mid-20th century onward that vegetarianism acquired
general recognition as a healthful dietary alternative. (Whorton 1103)
The American Dietetic Association (ADA) confirms what is usually seen by the non-vegetarians as anecdotal evidence, "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate for all stages of the life cycle, promote normal growth, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases” (748). Often people object that such careful planning as the ADA advocates for vegetarians implies too much work. Or that it is too complex to eat well as a vegetarian. The ADA recommends such careful planning for all dietary choices: "Vegetarian diets, like all diets, need to be planned appropriately to be nutritionally adequate" (760). Meaning, that it also takes some work to maintain a healthy diet that contains meat. According to the ADA, "Scientific data suggest positive relationships between a vegetarian diet and reduced risk for several chronic degenerative diseases and conditions, including obesity, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and some types of cancer" (756-758). Again, "Studies indicate that vegetarians often have lower morbidity and mortality rates from several chronic degenerative diseases than do non vegetarians" (756). This evidence ultimately demonstrates that in spite of the fact that a diet that includes meat might be healthy, the typical omnivorous diets are by no means appropriately planned. It will be rightly objected that vegetarians tend to lead healthier lifestyles in general, and that attributing these health benefits to diet is problematic. The ADA's position, however, is that "Although non dietary factors, including physical activity and abstinence from smoking and alcohol, may play a role, diet is clearly a contributing factor" (748) That is to say, the fact that vegetarians do not eat meat reduces their risk of contracting and dying from the diseases previously mentioned. Given the fact that all nutritional needs can be met without eating meat, and that the typical north-American diet appears to put humans at greater risk than the typical vegetarian diet, it is easy to conclude that a vegetarian diet is definitely healthier than the typical north-American omnivorous diet.
In addition, from the ecological point of view “vegetarianism seems clearly to be the best way to reduce the environmental harm and degradation caused by humans’ quest for nourishment” (Allen 167). Meat production is a major source of environmental damage. Traditional farming practices can no longer satisfy the huge demand for meat. One of the main reasons for the deforestation and desertification of tropical rain forests, with the great loss of unique plant and animal life is to make huge beef farms. Of all agricultural land in the United States, nearly 80% is used to raise animals for food. More than 260 million acres of forest have been cleared to create cropland. (PETA) “In Latin America, 20 million hectares of tropical forest have been converted to cattle pasture since 1970 driven by rich countries’ demand for cheap beef” (Gussow 1114). Water usage is greater in the production of animal products than in the production of vegetable foods. “It is calculated that between 400 and 2500 gallons (1691 and 10570L) of water are required in the overall process by which one pound (2.2kg) of meat is produced, a pound of wheat by contrast requires only 60 gallons (254L)” (Allen, 2000, p. 165). Another issue is water pollution. Farm Animals generate 86,000 pounds per second of excrement (PETA) that inevitably end up in the water supply, ruining it or making it more expensive (financially and environmentally) to treat for human consumption. Global warming is also a result of the massive amount of animal feces because they generate methane that traps heat in the atmosphere. A common opposing view against the vegetarian environmentalist argument is that if everyone adopted vegetarianism, the world would not revert to equilibrium. The world is far too crowded for universal hunting and gathering; humans would need to grow crops, and would be obliged to slaughter, even if they did not eat, the resurgent wild animals would compete for their harvests” (Gussow 115). This argument presumes a simultaneous adoption of vegetarianism. Realistically speaking, a gradual modification of the diet is more likely to occur. The adjustments in the ecosystems can be done gradually as well since we have the knowledge and technologies available to control the growth of the animal populations with minimal ecological damage.
A wide spectrum of arguments has been used to justify the indiscriminate use of animals ranging from the biblical argument to evolution. No matter the approach, it is undeniable that harming others (even non-humans) for no reason is morally unaccepted in our society. Every year, millions of animals are slaughtered for human consumption. Since humans do not need to eat meat, the animals are harmed for no reason. Killing is one of the ultimate forms of harm, and, since we believe that harming others (even non-humans) for no reason is wrong, killing animals for food (i.e., for no reason) is wrong. There is no justifiable moral distinction between killing an animal and having someone else kill it for others. “It has often been said that if we had to kill the animals we eat, the number of vegetarians would rise astronomically” (Robbins 135). Commonly, non-vegetarians are not willing to deprive themselves from meat, on the grounds that they love its taste too much. Technically, this argument leaves open the possibility that any sensation that brings pleasure is something that is acceptable to enjoy, regardless of the costs and consequences for others. The taste principle does not justify the current brutal treatment of animals. It also implies to eat anything and treat the being/thing as badly as desired. If this argument can justify current practices of raising and killing non-human animals for food, then it justifies raising humans in the same way. “The behavior of our species toward other species reflects our moral character and that the raising of animals for human exploitation, even if humanely done, is antipathetic to the development of true human goodness” (Gussow 1110) Pleasure is not a good reason to cause harm to other beings.
The “Darwinian” argument is another very common reason given in the defense of eating meat “The process of evolution has placed humans, the stronger, in a position to be able to use the weaker for our eating and other pleasures. Other animals besides us eat meat and that is not morally wrong. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat” (Tanke 88). This line of argument ignores relevant facts: the animal has no alternative; it kills to live. Humans do have alternatives; we kill for pleasure. That seems like a very simple and highly relevant distinction. Another fact that is overlooked is that we typically don't speak in terms of what an animal does as being moral or immoral. An animal simply does not appear to have the cognitive apparatus necessary to make moral decisions. Vegetarianism promotes respect towards animals by acknowledging the fact that we are superior and certainly not equal to them. Based on these differences we must use “the principle of equality as a moral prescription not description” (Tanke 81) in the sense that human superiority cannot justify animal abuse, on the contrary, humans must, as more evolved species provide human treatment and good care to animals since they are weaker.
In conclusion Vegetarianism offers us the chance to re-establish contact with nature and to think of ourselves as part of it. The vegetarian vision recognizes the importance of ecologically sustainable human activity. It maintains the requirements that we seek to minimize our impact on the planet and the amount of harm we do in the course of meeting our basic needs. Since vegetarianism is beneficial for human health, the environment and animal welfare, it is easy to conclude that Vegetarianism is worthwhile to adopt not only as a scientifically proven valuable diet, but also as a philosophy of life.