(no subject)
Since our ancestors started hunting thousands of years ago, people have been eating meat. And since right after that, some have refused to eat meat for various reasons. Some people don't eat meat for health reasons, or because they're pacifists, or because they think meat is gross. Modern vegetarians, however, tend to give up meat because it's trendy or even just to get attention and claim to have better morals than others. In spite of their claims to moral and environmental superiority, most modern vegetarian lifestyles are not much better than omnivorous diets for animals or the environment.
Carl Cohen makes a good point in his essay, The Case For The Use Of Animals In Biomedical Research, when he asks "Does a lion have a right to eat a baby zebra?"[1] In nature, carnivorous animals are designed to eat meat. Herbivores also benefit from the hunting of carnivores. Predators kill off the weaker prey animals, giving stronger ones a better chance at finding food and passing on their genes. Not only that, many animals (starfish, for one) have the ability to grow back lost limbs. To me, it seems kind of insulting to animals that animal rights activists assume animals are these helpless things being taken advantage of by humans. Maybe animals raised for meat are helpless against humans, but in nature, they've had to live with the threat of disease, bad weather, lack of food; they've had to compete with other animals for mates. Often, animals will kill the young of their species. Alpha wolves may kill the cubs of lower wolves in the pack. Last semester, I had to write an analysis of a letter from some kind of "Save Wolves from The Evil Hunters" charity. The letter seemed to forget that wolves can easily take down an adult deer and will not hesitate to kill a fawn if they're hungry. It also conveniently forgot that wolves, while they can improve the gene pool of a species, can also overhunt deer, which will affect local ecosystems and hurt other animals. Basically, no matter what happens, some animals are going to end up dead. It's unfortunate, but that's nature.
One blogger who makes a good argument against vegetarianism is Christopher Cox. Hemakes the case for eating oysters by explaining that they cannot feel pain, and that the way they are grown may actually be good for the environment, saying "there are even nonprofit projects devoted to cultivating oysters as a way to improve water quality."[2] The only problem with his article, however, is that he claims eating oysters is vegan, and that there is no reason any vegan should feel uncomfortable eating oysters because they don't suffer and eating them isn't environmentally unfriendly. He mentions that there are other reasons people might stop eating meat, but never says what these reasons are. There are many religions that include vegetarianism, and others that exclude certain types of meat. For examples, orthodox Jews do not eat any kind of seafood that doesn't have scales. Lobster, oysters, crab, catfish and shrimp are out, so Cox’s argument is irrelevant to many people. I would also like to add that at least the Walrus and the Carpenter weren't in denial.
The way PETA attempts to bring attention to its cause, as many people know, is by saying inflammatory things. For example, one headline on their media page reads "PETA'S 'HOLOCAUST ON YOUR PLATE' NATIONAL TOUR COMES TO NEW YORK."[3] What could they be trying to accomplish by naming something that, and what was the reaction when this came to New York? I seriously doubt that PETA believes meat eating is like the Holocaust, but even if they do, this comparison is extremely inaccurate. For one, the main reasons the nazis sent Jews (and others) to death camps was because they needed someone to scapegoat for Germany's problems. On the other hand, carnivores don't generally eat meat out of an irrational hatred of animals. There are also many people who need to eat meat to get enough iron and vitamin B-12 in their diets. Some omnivores can't give up meat even if they want to. I also find it interesting that although PETA considers this genocide, they haven't done much to stop it beside occasionally throwing pies at people or dumping paint on fur coats. If they really considered this genocide, wouldn't they take some kind of action to prevent it from continuing? Sure they'd be severely outnumbered by omnivores, but why aren't they trying to prevent what they consider murder? In reality, they don't care about this "Holocaust;" they're just a group of irrelevant hipsters begging society for attention.
I've heard some vegetarians claim that it is wrong to eat meat since many animals have the intelligence of young children, but animals are not the same as young children. If a dog is mean, it can't really be sent to therapy. Also, children don't have to potential to harm others in the same way dogs do, nor would we treat an incident in which a child kills someone and an incident in which a dog kills someone the same way. With a child, it could be an accident, the fault of abusive or neglectful parenting (for example, if a parent left a gun where the child could get it) or sociopathic behavior. But when a dog does this, it's likely to do it again. The dog could even be rabid. Either way, the dog can't just be sent to a kennel for the rest of its life. The best thing to do would be euthanize it. Though I'm sure this wouldn't go far enough for PETA, because according to Newsweek, between 1998 and 2008, "PETA ... killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued."[4] I don't know how many animals the average Humane Society or pound puts to sleep in the same period, but for a supposed animal rights group to do this is ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous when considering these three things: One, many PETA members are wealthy. If they wanted to, they probably could have adopted these animals and given them happy, loving homes. Two, Earthlings, a documentary on animal rights, narrated by PETA member Joaquin Phoenix, shows animal shelters brutally killing dogs and cats in a gas chamber, but I'd be willing to bet this is the exact same way PETA does it. Three, the Newsweek article on PETA goes on to say that "Instead of zero kills, PETA claims to be shooting for zero births." So they're taking in thousands of animals and killing them, apparently sterilizing others, and then accusing meat eaters of being like the nazis? I'm not saying they're like Hitler, but he was also an insane vegetarian.
Following the earthquake in Haiti, $1.1 million was donated to help the 5 million effected by the disaster. And by 5 million, I mean the 5 million animals there.[5] The article on this mentions that some of the money is being used on rabies vaccines, but it also says the money is being used "to treat injured and sick animals with medications including antibiotics and de-worming medicine." Animal rights groups are right when they say the suffering animals farmed for meat, milk, eggs and so forth go through is wrong. But to give $1.1 million to animals when so many people have been left homeless, separated from their children and families, wondering where they will sleep, where their next meal is coming from, whether their loved ones are even alive, is ridiculous. I'm sure some of these people must be missing pets or farm animals, but I doubt that would be the main concern of those affected. I just don't understand how anyone can justify giving money for animals over people after a disaster like that.
Vegetarianism is not always good for the environment, either. According to Ben Webster of the Times Online, "Tofu can harm [the] environment more than meat," since "many meat substitutes were produced from soy, chickpeas and lentils that were grown overseas and imported into Britain."[6] Judging by what I've seen in local grocery stores, the same is unfortunately true in America. As the article quotes Donal-Borken Murphy as saying, "For some people, tofu and other meat substitutes symbolise environmental friendliness but they are not necessarily the badge of merit people claim." Although it does take far fewer resources to produce vegetables rather than meat, buying vegetables from half way around the world kind of negates any environmental benefits there may have originally been. Eating local and vegetarian could be an option, but locally grown food is often much more expensive and I doubt I could ever find a locally grown pineapple in Wisconsin. I suppose some imported vegetables could be somewhat better for the environment, but unless everything is locally grown, there might not be a huge difference between meat and vegetarian foods in terms of being eco-friendly, especially foods like cheese and eggs.
I realize that not all vegetarians are pro animal rights just because they want to feel superior to others, though I do think this is the case with PETA. Most of them care about both human and animal rights, or about the environment (it is easier to find local foods in summer, and it is possible to can them for winter). Also, I haven't eaten meat in about a year now. The reasons I became a vegetarian don't have much to do with the issues in this essay (okay, I do feel kind of bad for the animals; I watched Earthlings, and it was... enlightening). But the main reason I stopped eating meat was because the thought of eating something dead was gross. After reading Cox's article, I was seriously considering eating meat again, but then I came to English class last week* and I won't be eating it any time soon. The oysters are grateful.
*My English professor told us some stories about how he used to be a gravedigger that week.
Carl Cohen makes a good point in his essay, The Case For The Use Of Animals In Biomedical Research, when he asks "Does a lion have a right to eat a baby zebra?"[1] In nature, carnivorous animals are designed to eat meat. Herbivores also benefit from the hunting of carnivores. Predators kill off the weaker prey animals, giving stronger ones a better chance at finding food and passing on their genes. Not only that, many animals (starfish, for one) have the ability to grow back lost limbs. To me, it seems kind of insulting to animals that animal rights activists assume animals are these helpless things being taken advantage of by humans. Maybe animals raised for meat are helpless against humans, but in nature, they've had to live with the threat of disease, bad weather, lack of food; they've had to compete with other animals for mates. Often, animals will kill the young of their species. Alpha wolves may kill the cubs of lower wolves in the pack. Last semester, I had to write an analysis of a letter from some kind of "Save Wolves from The Evil Hunters" charity. The letter seemed to forget that wolves can easily take down an adult deer and will not hesitate to kill a fawn if they're hungry. It also conveniently forgot that wolves, while they can improve the gene pool of a species, can also overhunt deer, which will affect local ecosystems and hurt other animals. Basically, no matter what happens, some animals are going to end up dead. It's unfortunate, but that's nature.
One blogger who makes a good argument against vegetarianism is Christopher Cox. Hemakes the case for eating oysters by explaining that they cannot feel pain, and that the way they are grown may actually be good for the environment, saying "there are even nonprofit projects devoted to cultivating oysters as a way to improve water quality."[2] The only problem with his article, however, is that he claims eating oysters is vegan, and that there is no reason any vegan should feel uncomfortable eating oysters because they don't suffer and eating them isn't environmentally unfriendly. He mentions that there are other reasons people might stop eating meat, but never says what these reasons are. There are many religions that include vegetarianism, and others that exclude certain types of meat. For examples, orthodox Jews do not eat any kind of seafood that doesn't have scales. Lobster, oysters, crab, catfish and shrimp are out, so Cox’s argument is irrelevant to many people. I would also like to add that at least the Walrus and the Carpenter weren't in denial.
The way PETA attempts to bring attention to its cause, as many people know, is by saying inflammatory things. For example, one headline on their media page reads "PETA'S 'HOLOCAUST ON YOUR PLATE' NATIONAL TOUR COMES TO NEW YORK."[3] What could they be trying to accomplish by naming something that, and what was the reaction when this came to New York? I seriously doubt that PETA believes meat eating is like the Holocaust, but even if they do, this comparison is extremely inaccurate. For one, the main reasons the nazis sent Jews (and others) to death camps was because they needed someone to scapegoat for Germany's problems. On the other hand, carnivores don't generally eat meat out of an irrational hatred of animals. There are also many people who need to eat meat to get enough iron and vitamin B-12 in their diets. Some omnivores can't give up meat even if they want to. I also find it interesting that although PETA considers this genocide, they haven't done much to stop it beside occasionally throwing pies at people or dumping paint on fur coats. If they really considered this genocide, wouldn't they take some kind of action to prevent it from continuing? Sure they'd be severely outnumbered by omnivores, but why aren't they trying to prevent what they consider murder? In reality, they don't care about this "Holocaust;" they're just a group of irrelevant hipsters begging society for attention.
I've heard some vegetarians claim that it is wrong to eat meat since many animals have the intelligence of young children, but animals are not the same as young children. If a dog is mean, it can't really be sent to therapy. Also, children don't have to potential to harm others in the same way dogs do, nor would we treat an incident in which a child kills someone and an incident in which a dog kills someone the same way. With a child, it could be an accident, the fault of abusive or neglectful parenting (for example, if a parent left a gun where the child could get it) or sociopathic behavior. But when a dog does this, it's likely to do it again. The dog could even be rabid. Either way, the dog can't just be sent to a kennel for the rest of its life. The best thing to do would be euthanize it. Though I'm sure this wouldn't go far enough for PETA, because according to Newsweek, between 1998 and 2008, "PETA ... killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued."[4] I don't know how many animals the average Humane Society or pound puts to sleep in the same period, but for a supposed animal rights group to do this is ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous when considering these three things: One, many PETA members are wealthy. If they wanted to, they probably could have adopted these animals and given them happy, loving homes. Two, Earthlings, a documentary on animal rights, narrated by PETA member Joaquin Phoenix, shows animal shelters brutally killing dogs and cats in a gas chamber, but I'd be willing to bet this is the exact same way PETA does it. Three, the Newsweek article on PETA goes on to say that "Instead of zero kills, PETA claims to be shooting for zero births." So they're taking in thousands of animals and killing them, apparently sterilizing others, and then accusing meat eaters of being like the nazis? I'm not saying they're like Hitler, but he was also an insane vegetarian.
Following the earthquake in Haiti, $1.1 million was donated to help the 5 million effected by the disaster. And by 5 million, I mean the 5 million animals there.[5] The article on this mentions that some of the money is being used on rabies vaccines, but it also says the money is being used "to treat injured and sick animals with medications including antibiotics and de-worming medicine." Animal rights groups are right when they say the suffering animals farmed for meat, milk, eggs and so forth go through is wrong. But to give $1.1 million to animals when so many people have been left homeless, separated from their children and families, wondering where they will sleep, where their next meal is coming from, whether their loved ones are even alive, is ridiculous. I'm sure some of these people must be missing pets or farm animals, but I doubt that would be the main concern of those affected. I just don't understand how anyone can justify giving money for animals over people after a disaster like that.
Vegetarianism is not always good for the environment, either. According to Ben Webster of the Times Online, "Tofu can harm [the] environment more than meat," since "many meat substitutes were produced from soy, chickpeas and lentils that were grown overseas and imported into Britain."[6] Judging by what I've seen in local grocery stores, the same is unfortunately true in America. As the article quotes Donal-Borken Murphy as saying, "For some people, tofu and other meat substitutes symbolise environmental friendliness but they are not necessarily the badge of merit people claim." Although it does take far fewer resources to produce vegetables rather than meat, buying vegetables from half way around the world kind of negates any environmental benefits there may have originally been. Eating local and vegetarian could be an option, but locally grown food is often much more expensive and I doubt I could ever find a locally grown pineapple in Wisconsin. I suppose some imported vegetables could be somewhat better for the environment, but unless everything is locally grown, there might not be a huge difference between meat and vegetarian foods in terms of being eco-friendly, especially foods like cheese and eggs.
I realize that not all vegetarians are pro animal rights just because they want to feel superior to others, though I do think this is the case with PETA. Most of them care about both human and animal rights, or about the environment (it is easier to find local foods in summer, and it is possible to can them for winter). Also, I haven't eaten meat in about a year now. The reasons I became a vegetarian don't have much to do with the issues in this essay (okay, I do feel kind of bad for the animals; I watched Earthlings, and it was... enlightening). But the main reason I stopped eating meat was because the thought of eating something dead was gross. After reading Cox's article, I was seriously considering eating meat again, but then I came to English class last week* and I won't be eating it any time soon. The oysters are grateful.
*My English professor told us some stories about how he used to be a gravedigger that week.