While 25 gallons of water are needed to produce a pound of wheat, 5, gallons are needed to produce a pound of California beef. The Cancer Argument against meat-eating Those who eat flesh are far more likely to contract cancer than those following a vegetarian diet. Careful combining of foods is not necessary.
Ahimsa is the highest friend. The following presentation is designed to turn the tables on such discussions by showing the devastating effects of meat-eating both on individuals and on our planet.
To the extent that our society translates high value into high price, meat should be expensive. The temperature of the earth is rising.
We have an obligation to do something to help them. Observe nonviolence in mind, speech and body. Mahatma Gandhi As long as human society continues to allow cows to be regularly killed in slaughterhouses, there cannot be any question of peace and prosperity.
Their destruction is a major cause of global warming and top soil loss. Ramana Maharshi, June The mansahari, "meat-eater," is poignantly described in the following passage from the obscure Mansahara Parihasajalpita Stotram: Nations, like individuals, are responsible for the wrongs they cause. In my forty years of ministry it has become quite evident that vegetarian families have far fewer problems than those who are not vegetarian.
That is, plants would likely still be the least-cruel option. Yes, one might argue, but the idyllic farms of yesteryear are insufficient to meet the huge demand of our meat-addicted society.
Ahimsa is the highest self-control. In fact, I think the environmental argument is the most compelling. Counter-examples are easy to generate.
The pain and suffering endured by the hungry outweighs the inconvenience the well off experience when they give money to relief organizations.
This economic incentive impels these nations to cut down their forests to make more pastureland. The book Food for the Spirit, Vegetarianism in the World Religions, summarizes this point of view as follows. VE, To the heavens be peace, to the sky and the earth; to the waters be peace, to plants and all trees; to the Gods be peace, to Brahman be peace, to all men be peace, again and again-peace also to me!
If it is in our power to prevent hunger we have a moral obligation to do it, if we do not have to sacrifice anything morally comparable.
What is good enough for any living creature is good enough for me. The scientific legacy of Newton and Descartes holds that we are finite, separate beings; that life and its events are accidental; that the workings of life and the universe may be wholly explained in terms of objective laws applied to inanimate, elemental parts; and therefore, that meaning is a delusion and God a projection of our wishful thinking.
From an energy point of view, meat is an incredibly inefficient way to feed people. Preventing and reversing diabetes. Production and Productivity Such an argument rests on the unwarranted assumption that our current meat industry seeks to maximize production.
Renunciation is the priestly honorarium. The main point of the article, however, is to make an attempt to marshall a range of arguments specifically in favour of meat eating, generally. Yielding to desire and acting differently, one becomes guilty of adharma.
Currently, the average meat intake for someone living in a high-income country is g a day, far higher than the g recommended by the United Nations.Food industry arguments.
The food industry has long argued against regulation to protect children from junk food marketing. Given the huge profits they make from selling unhealthy products, it’s not hard to see why.
out of 5 stars Not an argument against meat, but an argument against the meat industry. By Zach on October 4, Format: Paperback Verified Purchase. This definitely pushed me over to the vegan side of the fence, after being on the fence for so long.
Foer doesn't argue against eating meat entirely, he argues against eating "farmed" meat. Arguments Against Humane Meat There is no such thing as humane meat. Using an animal for food violates the animal’s right to life and freedom, and cannot be humane. Arguments for Eating Meat.
Taste. If you like the way meat tastes there is no reason to deprive oneself. Therefore, you should be allowed to eat meat. Replies. It is not really an argument about taste but about rights. We should. 2. The Environmental Argument against meat-eating. Many of the world's massive environmental problems could be solved by the reduction or elimination of meat-eating, including global warming, loss of topsoil, loss of rainforests and species extinction.
The temperature of the earth is rising. OK, so much for critique. Let’s move on to the arguments against meat. There are three or four main kinds of ethical objections to meat, different reasons given by different people in advancing either philosophical or casual arguments against eating animals: 1) If animals have rights (e.g., a right to life), then it would be wrong to eat them.Download