Vegans are often confronted with the circle-of-life argument. Animals in the wild eat other animals, so why must one abstain from participating in this cycle? I explore two angles in addressing this question: first of survival and then of morality.
Do we need to eat animals to survive?
The circle of life automatically conjures up images of one animal eating another animal, and that first animal being eaten by another animal, so on and so forth, as if the size of one species is the sole determinant for which other species it can consume with rightful entitlement. Lest we forget, not all animals are carnivores, and that circle of life includes animals like cows and monkeys who rarely, if ever, consume animal carcasses.
Human beings are not carnivores. We can eat animals to survive, yes, but we certainly don’t need to eat animals to thrive. On the contrary, eating animals increases the likelihood of contracting a long list of health problems such as obesity, stroke, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, kidney stones, gallstones, osteoporosis, and diabetes. These are the same diseases that true carnivores will not be subject to with the same kind of high-fat, high-cholesterol, animal-flesh diet. I intentionally omitted any mention of animals consuming other animals’ excrements because of its irrelevance. It is only us humans who consume the milk of another species.
Comparative anatomy also shows that humans resemble the physiology of herbivores more than carnivores or even omnivores.
• Carnivores have sharp front teeth with no molars and limited side-to-side motion that enable them to tear up animal flesh and swallow them whole. Herbivores have no sharp front teeth and their jaws can move both in up-and-down and side-to-side motion to enable them to grind up fruits and vegetables with their molars. Humans have similar flat back molars as other herbivores, and humans do not have anterior teeth suitable for tearing animal flesh.
• Carnivores have shorter intestinal tracts that allow animal flesh to pass through quickly without causing illnesses. Carnivores have intestinal tracts 3 to 6 times their body length while humans have intestinal tracts 10 to 12 times our body length, similar to herbivores. Eating animal flesh poses a greater danger of colon cancer to humans, as our longer intestines provide more time for bacteria in animal flesh to multiply and rot.
• Carnivores do not need fiber to move food through their digestive tracts. Herbivores need fiber to digest food in their long intestinal tracts. Humans, without fiber, will suffer from digestive constipation.
• Carnivores have acidic stomachs that kill bacteria present in raw animal flesh. Herbivores have weaker stomach acids as fruits and vegetables do not require so much acidity. Human stomach acidity resembles that of herbivores. This is why we are at risk of being contaminated with e.coli, listeria, and campylobacter when we eat raw or even undercooked animal flesh.
The default psychology of humans also strengthens the position that we are herbivores. We are not like sharks who are drawn to blood and guts. When human toddlers see animals, they gaze in fascination, wanting to pet them, not eat them. The fact that most humans still eat animals is not an indication that it is natural. It is because it has been the accepted norm, because it is a matter of taste and preference, because it is a habit born out of modern capitalism.
Is it morally acceptable for humans to eat animals?
Given that eating animals is not a matter of survival, the answer becomes a resounding no. We are not entitled to kill other animals. More than that, it is to our detriment that we do. And if we expand the definition of morality to include our obligation to other human beings and to our environment, the morally acceptable position is still to abstain from consuming animals. World hunger, human violence, and environmental destruction are all topics that need a separate discussion altogether.
Gary L. Francione, Professor of Philosophy, Animal Rights and the Law at Rutgers University, refutes the circle-of-life argument succinctly. “It is interesting that when it is convenient for us to do so, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed ‘superiority’. And when our supposed ‘superiority’ gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.”
Entitlement is a key concept here. We do not have the physiological entitlement to make eating animals morally excusable. We are not wild animals. For many of us humans, our wildest venture into food may be a donkey we mistakenly ate cooked well-done in an industrial-quality stove at a so-called exotic restaurant. Were we to hunt for animal flesh with our bare hands and eat them raw, we are likely to be repelled by the very same process which is natural to physiological carnivores.
Might does not make right. Just because we have found ways to eat animals does not mean we are meant to do so. We are capable of committing arson too, but that capability does not give us the license to go ahead and commit arson. Abstaining from animal flesh – and more comprehensively veganism as a whole – is not about charity or kindness or compassion or heroism or purity. It is not morally equal to using our time and resources to build houses for the homeless. Rather, it is morally equal to not stealing money from the homeless. It is the minimum requirement.
In conclusion, we should not take the circle of life literally. It is not about the smaller animal being eaten by the bigger animal. It is about how we survive and thrive. It is about respecting our role and causing the least disruption in others’. I would like to think that as morally conscious beings, our participation in the circle of life is an enlightened one, where our moral blind spots are shed to light, where we are able to scrape away our desire for conformity and appeal to our true sense of ethics, away from what is convenient and accepted and normal. I would like to hope that one day, you – dear reader – will be at the receiving end of the circle-of-life question, and that you will find the question as irrelevant as the answer is obvious.
References:
http://pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vsk/veg_foods.html
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/frequently-asked-questions-part-two/
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html
the fact that the means of obtaining meat for humankind's consumption is flawed does not make the act of eating meat immoral itself
hi nancy! i dont think that you can force inuits and eskimos to become vegan. for thousands of years they've been living in the arctic hunting seals and small whales and whatever animals they could get there. i don't think you could grow anything on ice. and it was the same for all of our ancestors before we discovered agriculture. we then thrived on the day's catch and the occasional fruits that happened to be in season.
also, as i look inside my cats mouth i see that they have flat front teeth then canine teeth and sharp back teeth.. same as my dog's but if you do observe them in your garden or if you get to walk your dog, they too love munching on young sprouts of grass. (my cat likes to eat the young bamboo leaves perched from our window) so they do need SOME fiber. each species has their own ideal mix of nutrients and you just have to find a balance for yourself and your lifestyle. an example would be that you cannot feed dog food to cats even if they like it because your cats would get kidney stones from it (first hand experience). this could be applied to us humans as well for our varying backgrounds and cultures. so, like i said you cannot impose veganism to people who have been thriving healthily in the arctic or dessert for millenia and call them immoral. we've started as hunters before and spread out of africa chasing migrating herds, only later to settle permanently and learn to domesticate plants. the strawberries that you enjoy today have only been around from the 16th century, and we've only started agriculture itself some 10,000 years ago. so i dont think that just because you've chosen a lifestyle where you get your food mostly from domesticated plants you can call other people who choose a mix of both plant and meat diet or those who thrive solely through pastoralism or hunting immoral.
i'm just wondering, setting aside the human survival and man as an "omnivore", do you consider manual laborers and professional athletes who need a high-protein diet as immoral? can a vegan diet sustain them?
Most people seem to thrive on vegan diets just fine. Professional athletes like John Salley, Mac Danzig, Keith Holmes, Brendan Brazier are all vegan. Some other athletes on the list here:
http://www.veganathlete.com/vegan_vegetarian_athl…
For me, morality is about intention. People who still eat animals today are not necessarily immoral because they may not have access to complete information. I believe many people belong to this category. With billions of advertising money spent to make us believe consuming animal products are not only ok but good for us, it's easy to understand how. And even if someone knows, it might not be about immorality, it could be about a disconnection, a blockage in seeing the truth. The person can be a good person and still not make the connection. I was a meat-eater for 30 years of my life and I enjoyed all the animal products then (I lived on liempo and tocino practically). I didn't know what I didn't know then, but I am not beating myself up now.
As for manual laborers, I understand the economic implications. To eat healthy today is not as cheap as eating fast and cheap. (But they also say, you can choose to pay now or pay later- via hospital bills). Anyway I cannot pretend to know their personal struggles. I mean, if they have 5 kids they have to send to school, animal cruelty could be the furthest thing from their minds. So my personal belief is that when more people go vegan, there will be more demand for healthy plant-based food and it will make it more accessible to the rest of the population, whether they think about the issue or not.
so what is it you're fighting against: the killing of animals per se or the grounds for killing them?
I am against any killing and any use of animals in the normal everyday context of human lives- my position is abolitionist.
Jaemi pointed out a very valid point. Eating vegan does not have to be expensive. I guess I'm a bit guilty of not eating so cheap sometimes because I am thinking of my vegan ice cream and whatnot. Like this: http://coconutbliss.com/coconut-bliss-products
But if one depended laregely on fresh fruits and vegetables and took in processed food minimally, it can be much cheaper than a non-vegan diet.
BTW I have pics of food that I cook in case anyone is interested.
Lets not put Professional Athletes in the same bracket as Laborers. Their Income disparity is pretty big. Laborers do not have the income to get the same Diet as Professional Athletes.
Can a professional Athlete live on a low paid Laborer's Veggie Diet?
Sadly, they do.
Try asking some of the members of the track and field team we sent during the last olympics. They were eating CANNED GOODS, damn it 🙁
"To say that eating a baby is horrific and absurd but eating an animal is moral and normal suggests that you may have not examined the depth of your speciesism (which I also did not examine for most of my life)."
Who said eating babies is absurd? It's natural? Some animals do it all the time.
Are babies part of YOUR regular diet?
@Nancy
They go well with a side of buttered toast, coffee, and pancakes 🙂
http://improbable.com/2007/12/30/babies-so-cute-y…
Haha thank you for being so thoughtful, but no. You can have my share of cholesterol 🙂
Just finished watching "Earthlings" after you asked us to watch it probably to shed some light to where you were coming from. Some of it was pretty educational but most of it was like "meh!". I clearly understand where vegans now on where they're coming from. I am not however convinced that stopping omnivorous species from eating meat would help ease the point vegans are making( which in my opinion is screwed up by hate and competition against meat eaters or should I say "normal" people or those of us that have not "chosen" their desired path).
Your replies however have not addressed the point we are all trying to make that it is against our nature to not eat meat. Our earliest ancestors who were either already omnivores or more distinctively frugivore do prefer this kind of diet from meat. However as we have stressed out we have branched out from that part of evolution and nature chose the best way our species should survive and obviously that is through eating meat AND vegetations. Yes I believe we can live through vegetations alone and probably survive with it but not without our body SUFFERING. When we shift our balanced diet to a vegetation only diet our body suffers as we adjust to this. You need to be able to convince yourself that what you are doing will help you. You need to choose and then suffer, I know you experienced this.
Let us also be clear about one thing, not all of us enjoy the suffering of animals. I am against needless suffering of all animals specially when it involves the use of accessories and in the case of the fashion industry. I think what we should all be focusing is not abstaining from the diet but finding ways to ease their suffering through science. I also don't think that the quote used in the movie that "if we made our own food everybody would be a vegetarian" is true in any sense and defeats the fact that we were once hunters.
In closing, thank you for the docu info I was not aware of such a film. Keep 'em coming you might shed more light to me although it is not necessarily dark in here. Also to add or help to your argument on the person above economic issues is not a hindrance to becoming a vegetarian…you just need to follow the Hindu diet which is originally vegetarian. India as you know has the poorest of people but sustain vegetarian diets fine.=)
Thank you for watching the film, and more importantly, thank you for keeping an open mind. 🙂
If it's natural for us to eat animals, why does eating animals make our health deteriorate? For example: Common diseases of our time are the diseases linked to animal consumption- cancer and heart diseases. On the other end of the spectrum, it is a common misconception that vegans are protein-deficient. The disease of protein deficiency is called kwashiorkor, which is practically unknown because very few people have it- perhaps in places where food itself is an issue, not choice of food. A group of vegan doctors have formed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine to promote nutrition information. Their website is http://www.pcrm.org/.
Human beings ate fruits and vegetables, then incorporated animal flesh and secretions, but more and more research are saying that animal flesh and secretions are actually bad for us (ask any cancer patient- they've been told to abstain from meat and dairy) and will kill us.
Of the vegans I know, none seem to be acting in hateful ways. We, however, admittedly sound like freaks and fanatics to you "normal" people 🙂 If there are hateful vegans out there, well, there is no excuse for their behavior as well, and no one should tolerate disrespect.
I am sure people, just like you, are against needless suffering of animals. But as long as we use them, welfare is an illusion. It will make people feel better, but will change nothing for the animals.
I don't quite understand what you meant by "You need to choose and then suffer, I know you experienced this." Please clarify.
My own experience is that transitioning to veganism took a little work (sort of like moving to a new country where you have to create new habits) but the rewards were worth it.
Thank you for your point on the Hindu diet =)
>If it’s natural for us to eat animals, why does eating animals make our health deteriorate?
did you know that 100% of all people who drank water, died or will eventually die? ¬_¬
Everyone that is a Freethinker has an open mind, which is why we are freethinkers. If you posted this on a non freethinker site you would gotten a range of answers that would not seem thought was applied to the answers.
(For this statement)I don’t quite understand what you meant by “You need to choose and then suffer, I know you experienced this.” Please clarify.
(You answered it with this so I close my case on it on grounds that there should be no transition physically only psychologically)My own experience is that transitioning to veganism took a little work (sort of like moving to a new country where you have to create new habits) but the rewards were worth it.
To answer the "natural" issue again, I refer you again to evolution I seem to be not getting through or is the study to evolution not really acceptable or clear to Vegans? All you are pointing to is "modern times" or "our time" consumption of meat. Again and probably this will be the last time I am saying this "Evolution" dictated, embedded and instilled in our "natural" bodies that we eat meat. The reason why people get diseases linked to meat is because of poor diet! Poor diet leads to worst case scenario health issues. If your argument and probably the argument of all vegans is true then why aren't people dropping dead in an alarming rate? And to support facts against that, billions of people are STILL eating meat and not having cancer. To say that meat alone causes these things is a fallacy in its own.
Again, evolution answers or refutes many arguments you have presented. Evolution is undeniable and cannot be fought even by force of human intervention or we end our species in a snap. The argument of vegans IMHO on the naturality of eating meat is debunked by evolution period. Physicians and medical studies can do whatever studies they want but Science takes it's stand on evolution. The only thing we have to change is our "modern" consumption of meat which is now to the point of appalling and disgusting but it doesn't mean we have to put a stop to it.
The noted vegans who practice preventive medicine are Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Dean Ornish, and Dr. John McDougall. Meanwhile, Dr. Robert Atkins (of the high-animal-protein diet) is rumored to have died of his own diet. There is much controversy about this, and the vegan doctors are accused of promoting the vegan agenda. Nonetheless here are the articles and you be the judge: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/nyregion/just-w…
Additional resources on vegan nutrition and why plant-based is healthier than animal-based food.
Books:
Healthy at 100 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345490118/ref=s…
The China Study http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-N…
Movie
Forks Over Knives http://forksoverknives.com/
Thank you for reading the article.
I would like to add a few more points in response to your comments:
– Eating animals is a moral question because other sentient beings are involved. It cannot be compared to abstaining from sex. Sex is not a moral issue when there is consent. If there is force, then it becomes a moral issue. In the case of consuming animals, the animal is not volunteering for slaughter. Force is involved. Our consumption of them requires that they suffer and die against their will.
– Have you spent some time with a non-human sentient animal? Can be a dog or a cat or a pig or a cow or any other animal. Have you noticed that they too are individuals who have their own preferences, personalities, and desire to be free from pain? If you have a dog or a cat, do you ever notice that they are sad when you leave and are in pain when sick?
– Are you aware of the process by which we humans consume nonhuman animals for gain? Do you know how they are bred, how they live, how they die? I suggest watching Earthlings (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142#) to have a better appreciation of what really goes on, what price they pay for our convenience. These are industry standards, not isolated cases.
– We have evolved today because of omnivorism, yes, but it doesn't mean that we have to continue to do what we did just because we have always done it. There are traditions we have to question and consequently change when we realize they are wrong and does not fit our values as human beings.
– More and more research such as "The China Study" (http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Implications/dp/1932100660/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1284950166&sr=8-1) are showing that people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease while people who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. You might be interested in the book because malnourished Filipino children were studied as well.
– Genopocalypse shows that what one eats today affects the survival (or non-survival) of his/her offspring generations down the line. These are preliminary but the results are interesting. It seems that individuals consuming junk food and animal-heavy diets will have fertility problems in a few short generations (Around 4:27 in the video of Natural News http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=0985DE77D4487C0…. Our current evolutionary process, it seems, is one that claims that if we continue to consume animals, we will eventually make the human species extinct.
– The discovery of fire is what enabled humans to start consuming animals without dropping dead (not on the spot anyway). And it is only with modern-day capitalism that human beings are able to consume as much animals as it ever had. Capitalism, by way of factory farms (again refer to Earthlings to witness the conditions) is what made such a huge supply of animal products available. If we had to rely on the small-farm setup where cows graze freely and pigs frolick in the mud, there won't be enough land to breed the massive amount of animals to supply our current demand for animal flesh and secretions.
– The food industry is so corrupted that nutrition information are distorted in the name of "marketing". Consumers are kept in the dark to perpetuate this cycle of supply and demand. Watch Food, Inc. (http://www.foodincmovie.com/) or read The Food Revolution (http://www.amazon.com/Food-Revolution-Your-Diet-World/dp/1573247022) to know more about the corruption involved. Do you know, for instance, that Howard Lyman and Oprah are sued for a show they did? Howard Lyman is a former cattle rancher and during his guesting at Oprah, he revealed the industry secrets to which Oprah said she will not eat another burger again. There are also many past and ongoing attempts by food industries to have laws enacted that will make it illegal to show undercover videos, to patent the word "milk" so it only refers to cow's milk and not soy milk, nut milk etc. Consumers are kept in the dark and it is the intention of these food industries that the status quo remain. Why? If people knew the truth, most of us would stop eating animals and animal secretions -I did. Do you know, for example, that broccoli is a good source of calcium? The reason why most people associate calcium with milk is because of advertising money spent, not because of any inherent nutritional value of cow's milk.
– Morality to a large degree is personal. It asks that at the minimum, we do what we must in the context of our own lives. If the rest of the world cannot do it, it does not mean we should conform. So for the eskimos or Tibetans or other people who truly do not have access to plant-based food, they are morally excused because it is a matter of their survival. But their choice does not excuse us from our own choice. I may have a survival vs moral issue IF I were trapped somewhere and my only choice is to eat an animal. I do not have that dilemma now- neither do you. That is precisely why I entitled the article "Survival AND Morality", not "Survival VS. Morality". I highly doubt that any eskimos are reading this article right now.
– To me, the question of eating animals and eating human beings is the same. To say that eating a baby is horrific and absurd but eating an animal is moral and normal suggests that you may have not examined the depth of your speciesism (which I also did not examine for most of my life). I again suggest watching Earthlings or at least reading some of Gary Francione's work. A good introduction on the views of abolitionist vegans is here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/introdu…
– On a personal note (this goes out to you Sliver), my life is not sendentary. I walk my (vegan) dog at least 30 minutes a day on weekdays and 1 hour a day on weekends. I also do yoga regularly (not to boast, but I recently learned how to do headstands). On occasions, I hike and not too long ago, while swimming at Caramoan, I got off the boat and swam about 1.5 km to the shore. That's just me despite my desk job. As for professional athletes, here are a few vegan athletes I read about recently: http://www.takepart.com/news/2010/09/08/top-6-veg…
If you've read this far, thank you. I don't care if you discredit what I wrote or my sources, but I urge you to do a comprehensive research of your own. The fact that you read the article and took the time to comment, to me, means that you are at the very least, thinking about your own choices and their morality- even if you don't agree with me.
=)
about morality:
it is moral to kill lower forms of beings for the benefit of higher forms being. it is easy to see that it is moral for the doctor to kill bacteria in the body of the patient because the patient is a higher form of being than the bacteria. it is also moral for people to eat animals for their survival. i think we conveniently ignore "for their survival" to justify our eating animals when eating plants (lower form of beings than the animals) would suffice. another cunning justification is by contending that we can't get enough energy from vegetables alone, yet we don't ever wonder why cows aren't weak at all yet all they have for food is grass.
Plus: bacon. Mmmmmmm. Can't argue with that. Or sisig.
Actually, we are omnivores. Not carnivores. So this article is moot in the first place.
i think associating morality with the food we eat is misplaced especially if we associate your contention to the Eskimos who eat fresh meat of seal for the sake of their survival. The source of heat, food and nutrition is limited to their diet especially since you cannot plant veggies on the snow.
This article reads like a Sunday morning in the church – sermon with vegetarian apologetics, scientific errors, morality, and even economics!
Being a herbivore or carnivore is not a mutually exclusive outcome of evolution. There are are plenty of omnivorous species. And while humans can survive on purely vegetarian diet, humans are by taxonomy omnivores not carnivores – so you are at least correct about humans not being carnivores but your assertion that humans are naturally herbivores is plain false without citing the obvious.
Evolution "favored" the species that had adapted to the environment and omnivores are abundant in nature because plants and animals is a bigger set than just plants or just animals. Humans eating animals and vegetation was an outcome of evolution not by choice. (I wont comment on capitalism because it's too much not to mention irrelevant, but admittedly funny. First time I heard about capitalism being demonized for yet another, of all things, the cause of humans eating flesh.)
If humans evolved as omnivorous creature then, being vegetarian is the conscious choice and you should rather celebrate its own merits, and I think it has its own merits. The way I see it, being vegan is like being celibate. Humans by nature have sex. Avoiding it on any ground (e.g., morality, capitalism) is by choice.
And so we go to entitlement issue. According to your article, humans are not entitled to eat other animals – but because it's not a matter of survival? To put it another way, if it's a matter of survival, we'll be entitled to eat meat? You know where this leads to. But anyway, the entitlement argument can only be made today than, say, ten thousand years ago. Because 10,000 years ago, morality was, presumably, quite different from today. So, if vegetarianism is to be possibly upheld as morally good, it's only because we have modern, and more sophisticated ideas about morality. That should be your main argument because the science you have cited so far are misguided if not wrong. Or to push your logic about a matter of survival, it will not be immoral to eat your pet if it's a matter of your survival. What absurdity.
it's perfectly okay to use other beings for your nourishment; for someday your remains will likewise be used as manure to this earth for other beings to thrive, so that life will go on and on and on….
Though there are studies that those who do not eat meat and eat less (of everything else) actually get to live longer… But they can't be as active. Maybe if I were just a person content with a deskjob, that wouldn't be much of a problem. But I walk a lot, I run, I bike. I need my meaty protein! :/
Meat takes way much less energy to digest than vegetables. I think we wouldn't have evolved large brains(which require a lot of energy to use) if we spent most of our energy digesting leaves. It was when we started eating meat that we could afford to have larger brains.
>> Human beings are not carnivores. We can eat animals to survive, yes, but we certainly don’t need to eat animals to thrive.<<
I agree we are not carnivores, we ARE OMNIVORES. I disagree with the sentence after. Individually,you can claim some people do not need to eat meet to thrive. As a Generalization, not everyone can afford the economic costs (be it time, money, opportunity etc.) of a NON-meat diet.
Meat has a lot to do with our physiology. In the economy of biology, a more bang for buck energy source allows species to attempt to evolve more complex and risky aspects: in our case brain mass and complexity. Without meat, we would not have evolved such a high brain mass to body mass proportion. This is not just evolutionary history, this is also in Bio Physics.
I find it strange that it is ignoring the basic calorie to density aspect of carnivorous diet vs herbivorous. It is easier to go longer without eating with meat, the reasons for that illuminate the basic advantage of opportunity other than just continually foraging.
Even looking at food history going back 4000 BC, meat meant the person can do other things in 4-5 hour intervals before hunger, than pure cereal or vegetation diet of 1.5-2.5 hour interval. Even food preparation takes valuable effort.
Its only because of modern technology and international trade that this herbivorian diet is possible without great loss of quality of life.
>>Entitlement is a key concept here. We do not have the physiological entitlement to make eating animals morally excusable.<<
Entitlement is not bad, especially when It can be proven without reasonable doubt that Meat is what allowed us this high brain to body ratio. That it is an easier lifestyle that grants one a higher quality of life, and you have to prove how sentient animals are and how you can most effectively make a successful win-win strategy for animal and man.
>>Might does not make right. Just because we have found ways to eat animals does not mean we are meant to do so. <<
No it doesnt, but neither does it apply to general situation of humans and animals. A herder is not a carnivore because he is stronger than the animal, although that is an aspect, but is so because the animal grants nutrition in the form of food FIRST before the herder profession comes into being. As it is so much a choice to be a pure herbivore, it is also a luxury to have certain choices particularly in food when the body, as complex as it is need variety and high density sources.
>>Gary L. Francione, Professor of Philosophy, Animal Rights and the Law at Rutgers University, refutes the circle-of-life argument succinctly. “It is interesting that when it is convenient for us to do so, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed ‘superiority’. And when our supposed ‘superiority’ gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.”<< Superiority is an advantage, if we didn't have it we couldn't eat the animal. So as reasons of objective animal superiority in the ability to kill the other, Superiority by it self in Not a reason… but it is Neither the only reason people eat meat. As a gain, some people cannot afford the luxury of eating something every 2-2.5 hours, that is mostly starch and fibre, and balancing it with jobs that require 4-5 hours of straight concentration. Not everyone has biological advantage of Low Acidity, allowing them to survive longer than 2-2.5 hours. Also some people need Muscle mass, sooner than other people. Asking them to deny that in lieu of vegan.
I don't see how a Cargador, Porter, athlete, Power lifter, Soldier etc. will have an easier life when he is purely vegetarian. It just ignores so much of human diversity, to a point of narrow minded view of what people are and should be. Especially since restricting Diet, is not just a Life style but asking a basic need to be restricted.
I also disagreee with this part.
“The fact that most humans still eat animals is not an indication that it is natural. It is because it has been the accepted norm, because it is a matter of taste and preference, because it is a habit born out of modern capitalism.”
Whats wrong with capitalism? It may not be a perfect way to trade or exchange goods but as human beings who needs another human being to live capitalism is the best way to have in our system.. Com'on!!!!!!!
It seems wrong to put the question of morality with respect to meat eating by humans. Meat eating has nothing to do with morality, it only has something to do with survival. Around 2.5 Million years ago when proto-humans discovered meat to be part of their diet, meat eating provided the needed nutrients (which plants lacks) and catalyst for the evolution of our brain, http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/… and body.
Also, meat eating has provided human the necessary genes to offset the cholesterol and chronic diseases associated with meat eating. It is of human's fault to over eat and not exercise that brings him to the demise of obesity etc. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-03/uo…. Furthermore, although meat would really stay longer on our stomach and intestines, this could be solved by cooking the meat very well to avoid long term digestion http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0… and the nasty things you subjectively pointed out arising from this. In summary, meat eating was discovered and was found to be needed by early humans to survive during the winter and drought million of years ago and has proven to give benefits to the advanced evolution of our species, it is therefore not a question of abstaining from eating meat, but a question of moderation and sustainable consumption of meat by humans with emphasis to exercise. Is it more moral to have remained vegetarian and let our species die of hunger and be extinct and not be here to discuss about it, or eat meat, survive and flourish as we are now?
I disagree with this part:
"The fact that most humans still eat animals is not an indication that it is natural. It is because it has been the accepted norm, because it is a matter of taste and preference, because it is a habit born out of modern capitalism."
It is not an accepted norm or a habit born out of modern capitalism. I believe you co-related the mass production and mass domestication of animals for consumption in modern capitalist environments to why some of us still eat meat when clearly as you stated in your article that we are herbivores in more aspects than that of a carnivore. The reason why modern humans still eat meat or have the appetite to do so is not because it is a "habit" forced upon us by social ideologies but by our history and evolution. Early humans were hunter-gatherers and as early as the Paleolithic period or even earlier there is already evidence that we were Omnivores. Evolution permits that our bodies are not just for vegetables and fruits but for both. This is defined through millions of years of evolution of early human behaviors. Modern humans would not exist on this planet if it weren't for our omnivore nature. There was no knowledge of agriculture or storage back then so the entire human species would have suffered and died come the winter season. So eating meat was needed for survival back then. We also did not stick to small animals we also hunted the largest of them. Some evidences also relate that our omnivorous behavior was essential for the emergence of language and culture.
So all I am saying is that we do not choose to eat meat, our bodies can handle meat that one is a fact. What must not happen in my most honest opinion is the choice between meat or vegetables and fruits. For me this should not happen since like I said our bodies are evolved as an omnivore. Peace =)
One thing that gets me about pro-vegan and pro-vegetarian sites is the misinformation that they post. First off fresh meat does not cause all those diseases of civilization that you list. They are caused by grain consumption and probably trans fats and possibly processed meats. Then the comparative anatomy is completely hokey. We don't have sharp teeth as we developed tools and we were not meat eaters prior to tool development 2.5 million years ago. But we were insectivores. The high protein and nutrition that insects provide would have been needed for us to have developed into such brainy creatures.
Then the rest of the comparison is bogus. You cannot selectively compare us to carnivores as we are not carnivores. A more complete comparison can be found in this chart: http://paleodiet.com/comparison.html
As for the moral issues raised, everyone is entitled to their own moral values. If one feels consuming animals is wrong, no one should argue otherwise. But you can't twist the facts to argue that we have not evolved to eat meat.
It seems wrong to include the question of morality with respect to meat eating by humans. Meat eating has nothing to do with morality, it only has something to do with survival, and importantly, Evolution.
When proto-humans discovered meat and become part of their diet, it has given humans an evolutionary advantage as eating meat provided the needed nutrients (which plants lacks) and catalyst for the abrupt (in terms of evolutionary perspective) evolution of our brain, http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/… and body.
Contrary to your claim, meat eating actually provided humans evolutionary, the necessary genes to offset the bad effects of cholesterol and chronic diseases associated with meat eating. It is of human’s fault only to have over eat and not exercise that brings him to the demise of obesity etc. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-03/uo….
Furthermore, although meat would really stay longer on our stomach and intestines, this could be shortened by cooking the meat very well to avoid or mitigate the long term digestion of meat http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0… and the nasty things you subjectively pointed out arising from this. As the article link suggest, we are actually evolving to digest meat quickly.
In summary, meat eating was discovered and found to be needed by early humans to survive during times of winter and drought millions of years ago and even now, it was also proven beneficial to the advanced evolution of our species. It is therefore not a question of abstaining from eating meat, but a question of human moderation and sustainable consumption of meat with emphasis to exercise.
Is it more moral to have remained vegetarian and let our species die of hunger and be extinct and not be here to discuss about it, or eat meat, survive and flourish as we are now?