Eating meat environment essay

I look forwards to reading the section on why our evolution as omnivorous creatures requiring certain essential amino acids found almost exclusively in animal fats shouldn't prevent us from being vegetarian. Natman talk , 20 June UTC. It tastes fucking great. Your "animals eat meat, but they do plenty of bad things and shouldn't be taken as an example" might not be a strawman, but a bit too simplistic for me. You could expand on what is natural, what is ethical, and when do they overlap.

Environmental Impact of Meat Consumption and Production | Bartleby

Not really an argument against eating meat as much as it is against eating a lot of meat, but still, there's no way the planet could sustain meat-based diets for all of us. This is why I dislike vegitarians, because many of them insist on preaching to everyone the evils of eating meat. There is nothing that pisses me off more than being in wholefoods and having some jackass come up to me and call me evil because I bought my self a steak. Many places that raise animals for meat treat the animals like shit, yeah we get that, but a growining number of places now raise their animals in a humane manner.

The Consequences Of The Globes Meat Consumption

I have yet to hear a compelling argument beyond that as to why I should not eat meat, so please if you don't want to eat meat then good for you, mad respect, but please leave those of us who do want to eat meat the fuck alone-- BenB talk , 21 June UTC. No, seriously, I just don't care. I try to eat ethically but I really can't get worked up about the welfare of cows, or pigs, or sheep or Also I think you overstate the suffering in farming.

OK, so factory farmed chickens have an apalling life but the average sheep lives quite nicely until it's time for mint sauce. The underpinning assumption here is that causing pain to an nonhuman animal with a purpose, is inherently wrong. I would flatly disagree with this. I think causing an animal pain with no purpose is wrong but don't consider it a particularly egregious wrong. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to cause humans pain either, although the situations where it's okay are much more narrow.

But in situations where there is a reason, it then depends on what that reason is. I consider exposing oneself to and appreciating life's diversity to be, if not quite a moral purpose, at least integral to the human experience. And while it's only a small part of the diversity of life, eating meat is part of that diversity. The argument as written here doesn't strike me as particularly appropriate for a rationality wiki either, since it seems to really heavily on what feels wrong.

So fucking yummy.

The Effects of Meat-Based Diets on the Environment Essay

That it is all. Although, I will mention I am not a huge beef eater- I prefer chicken. They're smaller, and there are many more of them, which make them more environmentally friendly due to less methane released compared to cows; not to mention they're leaner in fat and very high like all meat in protein. I can't live on soy protein.

How is this morally wrong? Your references to pain assume that pain is a black and white, yes or no, condition; that if pain is there, it's always as bad and should be avoided at all costs. I disagee, all creatures experience pain and suffering at some point, and to not eat an animal on the off-chance that its death was slightly more painful than that time it banged its leg on the ground is a little pedantic. Most and I mean most farmed animals live lives of unparralled luxury compared to their wild counterparts, they are better fed, get medical treatment and avoid the stresses associated with predation.

If their entire purpose of existence is to die to provide meat, the animal is totally unaware of this and probably remains so, at least until those microseconds before death. Animals are not humans with the ability to envisage the future and imagine their fate and the varieties that we've created using thousands of years of selective breeding are deliberately thick-witted and docile. I'll repeat it, in case you think I'm totally opposed to your arguments - I think in more populated, affluent parts of the world, where land use is critical and we have the economics of choice, eating meat is a luxury that we could avoid if we so wished and, from an efficiency viewpoint, probably beneficial.

To try and make this argument on moral grounds, however, is never going to work. Humans are a predatory species, our psychology is set-up to enjoy the thrill of the hunt it's fun to give people a fright, yes? Yes we can provide suitable alternatives using modern farming and production, but that should make your argument one of practically, not morality. Morality is always subjective and you'll never convince some people like me that killing animals to eat them is any worse than killing bacteria using antibiotics or killing a potato for chips.

If we ever develop meat grown in a vat, cloned and nerve-less, would that solve your own personal ethics of eating meat? Or would that provide you with different ethical issues?


  • Benefits of Vegetarianism.
  • do my coursework for me.
  • Environmental Impact of Meat Consumption | Open Case Studies.
  • essay on an hour in a school library.
  • Expertise. Insights. Illumination.?
  • physics coursework resistance wire help.
  • francis bacon essays summary of discourse!

Natman talk , 23 June UTC. What about them? Scientifically they are animals not plants, but to me they seem more plant-like than animal-like. So, AD, do you also oppose the use of animals, such as rats, for laboratory experimentation of things such as pharmaceuticals?

Also and this is where my examples become more localized to my region of the world , how do you feel about people who hunt and meat as a means of ecological control? For example, catching and eating certain species of fish here in Minnesota that are invasive species or the annual deer hunt which helps control an otherwise overpopulous deer population? Would hunting and eating meat in these cases be in-humane? And what about the ecological costs and again, these may be examples localized to Minnesota of mass-scale vegetable farming? To my knowledge, one of the greatest and hardest to control water pollutants in this region is chemical fertilizer and pesticide runoffs that then flow from the crops into the water table and currently are the single largest pollutants of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers.

The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! Hi AD. I agree with a lot of what you say and questions of animal welfare and environmental concerns are obviously important - but you seem to have a big issue with "killing" itself.

A Vegetarian Diet is WORSE for the Environment Than A Meat-Eating Diet

But surely every animal dies sooner or later. If we kill it to eat it than it dies earlier than it would have otherwise, but we don't create any "additional" deaths.

Furthermore, it almost certainly wouldn't even have been alive if we hadn't brought it into being in order to kill it and eat it. So I'm not quite sure that I agree that the killing thing is such a big issue. I'd be interested in your response. OK - this question and answer system isn't the best.

When I have a moment I'll write an essay on this point. Incidentally I think it's a very important point because it makes the difference between "Eat less meat" which would be the consequence of the two logical arguments and "Eat no meat" which is the consequence of the final moral argument. But I'll write it up later when I have time. What about Peter Singer's argument, that it is OK to painlessly kill non-human animals, because they or at least many of them don't understand what death is this and so can't be said to prefer life to death.

Despite this, Singer still favours vegetarianism, on the grounds that real world food production is unlikely to result in painless deaths, and is likely to cause painful lives as well.


  • Related Topics.
  • whats a analytical essay.
  • cons and pros of technology essay.

But Singer is a different type of vegetarian in terms of justifications from those who base their vegetarianism on the wrongfulness of killing. I think I would like to know more about your stance as a whole in order to continue to be able to debate you on these issues, as it appears that I've had some misconceptions about where exactly you stand on animals rights vs.

For example, how far do you take your vegetarianism? To the vegan level or not quite? If you are not a vegan, do you eat things like eggs which are not actual animals and drink milk? And how far do you take your animal rights stance? To the level of not even using wool , or do you draw the line somewhere before that leather and fur perhaps? I'm just asking these questions because they are of relevance to understanding where you're coming from, AD. But I used to play cricket with a guy who was a veggie most of his life because he disagreed with the inhumane way most meat is produced.

One day he thought to himself "am I actually making a difference by not eating meat? His reasoning was that if more poeple supported the farmers who raise animals in good welfare conditions, demand for ethically farmed meat would be driven up and eventually push the unethical farms out of business or make them change their methods. I guess the point is that people are always going to eat meat and therefore it's better to try and push the market in the right direction rather than abstain completely.

Economic Sustainability: the employment of various strategies to. One of the biggest controversies with livestock production is that the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that get released into the atmosphere. Its assumed that cars produce most if not all the greenhouse gas emissions however livestock has a big say in air pollution.

According to Cassandra Brooks, writer for the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, 18 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions are due to livestock production. This is because there needs to be room for the livestock to roam and crops to feed the animals. However, although cattle seems to be the most detrimental livestock factor to the environmental problem, they are not alone. Chicken, lamb, turkey, milk, pork, eggs, fish, etc. The fossil-fuel energy consumption to protein output for these livestock are as follows: chicken has a ration, lamb , turkey , milk protein , pork , and eggs at a ratio.

In addition, each animal has its own benefits and downfalls.

Related Documents

Pigs propose a lower carbon footprint but if raised in ideal free-range environments they can pollute the soil with nitrogen Goffman 5. Show More. Read More. Rogerian Argument On Vegetarianism. But they are not enough. We, as environmentalists, are grieving the progressive destruction and extinction of wildlife, oceanlife, coral reefs, deserts, forests, wetlands, prairies, tundra, jungles We fear for the future survivability of our own species Yet we are so obviously ignorant, if not hypocritical , when we, as earth-loving individuals , continue to support and justify our treacherous dependence on the livestock and fishing industries.

The bottom line is: Saving the planet begins with the fork and the plate. We who see ourselves as high spiritual beings while chowing down a tuna sandwich , we who conduct our fundraising events over a roast beef banquet or burger barbecue Every living thing on earth is suffering because of our food choices.

Even if are living ecologically correct in every other aspect of our lives, we who continue to eat flesh foods are responsible for the impending death of the planet. We pat ourselves on the back for reducing, reusing, recycling, living more in harmony with the earth. We work towards overcoming nationalism, racism, ageism, sexism, homophobia This is speciesism.

We condemn killing of humans Oppression, violence , and murder extend to all that lives. All animals feel pain and suffering

admin