The Negative Impact Of The Damage Of Animals On The Environment And Public Health

As humanity becomes more civilized, many of us perceive that eating livestock is morally incorrect, but aren’t we are designed to be an omnivore? Our teeth and digestive system serve the purpose of breaking down animal and plant foods and to bring these important nutrients to every part of the body. Despite the fact that, in 2011, U.S. meat and poultry production reached more than 92.3 billion pounds, the ethic of killing and eating animals as well as the concern of the environmental burden caused by the production of meats is debatable. However, animal based diet is necessary for the human body to function properly and we can choose the meat produced from environmentally sustainable farms to avoid the moral ambiguity.

In addition to providing the animal with shelter, and necessary supplies the natural parks can bring back a whole species from near extinction. In the passage “The Impact of Animal Protection” it directly states that keeping animals protected has proven to be beneficial and increase the population of endangered animals. Bringing animals back from near extinction can be a difficult task, however it is very beneficial. Animal protection is also used to help control animal population from getting out of control. These programs have brought back plenty of species such as black footed ferrets, California condors, red wolves, and golden lion tamarins. (Do Animals Lose in Zoos?) The community would never get to see these amazing creatures if these

Many people who think that the way that we treat animals in the process of raising those for human consumption are wrong never stop, to think what they can do to stop this problem from further occurring. Furthermore, they make impassioned calls for more “humanely” raised meat. Instead to soothe their consciences they shop for “free range” meat, and eggs; which has no importance. Even if an animal is raised ‘free range” it still lives s life of pain and suffering that all ends with a butcher’s knife. Although many know that over 53 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for human utilization they still tend to eat this meat with no problem. The simple explanation is that many don’t care what happens to animals as long as they are eating and healthy. If they did care then they would what could be a difficult choice; to go without eating meat and selling it in any form.

In his journalistic investigation into the depths of industrial agriculture, Michael Pollan analyzes “what it is we’re eating, where it came from, how it found its way to our table, and what it really cost” in an effort to provide both himself and his readers with an educated answer to the surprisingly complex question of “what should we have for dinner?” (Pollan 411, 1). However, what appears as a noble attempt to develop a fuller understanding of the personal, social, and environmental implications of food choices soon reveals itself as a quest to justify Pollan’s own desire to continue eating meat despite its undeniable detriments to animals, human health, and the environment. Indeed, the mere title of Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma as well as his assertion in the book’s introduction that “omnivory offers the pleasures of variety,” exposes the author’s gustatory preferences that prompt him to ask which meat to eat, rather than if to eat meat at all (Pollan 4). This preemptive refusal, due to mere gastronomic pleasure, to consider methods of eating responsibly that do not involve meat renders Pollan’s investigative endeavor essentially meaningless why would he take the time and effort to thoroughly examine the consequences of his food choices if he vowed at the outset to not allow his discoveries to truly shift his eating habits? Why would he write an entire book delving into the minute details of industrialized food production only to advise himself and his audience

The consumption of meat over recent decades has become more than just a means of nutrition for the body, but also a game of hunting animals for recreation and sport. Along with the popularization of hunting animals for sport came the early endangerment and extinction of certain species. With this hobby the question arose, is it ethical to hunt and or eat meat? After reading “Consider the Lobster” written by David Foster Wallace, a person may consider the history any meat goes through before it is ready for consumption. However, the consumption of meat is seen as a normal thing to do on a daily basis, especially in America because our meals are typically centered around the meat being the main item of the meal. After reading “Ethics and the

An intense, aggressive moral scrutiny has sparked interest in the meat eating community. Eating is an activity that we as humans do frequently, and the variety of food is immense. We decide what we are about to eat and how it will affect our bodies. In different societies, controversy has arisen over the morality of eating meat from animals. However, the moral and ethical arguments of eating meat is not a new debate. Roger Scruton’s essay, “A Carnivore’s Credo”, addresses both carnivores and vegetarians by using an appeal to pathos and ethos to persuade people of the need to “remoralize” eating meat, and extrapolating that to mean that human beings have the conscious ability to choose and stand up for moral right and wrong.

Humans are negatively affecting animals now more than ever in many ways. Some ways they are negatively affected by people are pollution, habitat loss, being kept as pets when they shouldn't be, poaching and being kept in circuses and zoos. People don't like acknowledge or believe, that they affect animals in a bad way.

As we can now observe, vegetarianism has become something fashionable, and the number of people who reject eating meat is constantly increasing. In Britain, for instance, over 5 million people have done it so far. It is obviously connected with the recent animal diseases, but this tendency is likely to spread on the other regions of the world. However, it is not only a fashion or fear of illnesses. I myself became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, and I can see a number of reasons why people should stop eating meat. They are mainly of ethic, economic and health type. Those who think in an ecological way should also be aware of how this meat consumption ruins our environment. I don’t have an intention

The service project I attended was at Elmwood Park Zoo, and this service had broadened my spectrum of wildlife species. As the workers at the zoo had brought in some animals and explained their story, I began to think about the ways that society can assist animals to be safe. As individuals, we take advantage of the earth being our home. Instead, we should be taught to make the earth a better place from all living organisms. Pollution is a huge issue in today’s society as it causes animals to eat our garbage, and this problem can later affect their immune system. Another issue causing endangerment in the animal world is the loss of habitats because we build over the land for our own needs. Two effective strategies I can take to advocate for

What is the ideal doneness of a burger? Some may claim that well-done is the best, others may like medium-rare. While this is one of the most common questions asked in regards to meat-eating, there is an even more important one that everyone should be asking. What are the ethical implications of eating meat? This oft-debated question has been obscured, especially in recent years, by the outcry for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. There have been many recent documentaries, books, and debates about how these animals sometimes never see sunlight before they are slaughtered, among many other abusive treatments. In his essay, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner raises this issue of the morality of meat-eating and challenges the readers to question their own views on this topic. Regardless of the morality of eating meat or using animal products, Steiner does not support his claim strongly enough to be accepted.

Consumption of meat by humans creates several problems. First and foremost, raising animals for food compromises the environment. For example, it takes a large amount of natural resources to sustain the meat industry. The use of water, land, and food to raise animals for human consumption is not an efficient use of our limited resources. In contrast, it is more efficient to feed humans directly than to use land, food, and water to feed animals to be used as food. There are shortages of fertile land, clean water, and food in several third world countries. Many of these countries’ resources are allocated to produce feed for animals in developed countries around the world. As a result, the citizens of these countries are stricken with water and food shortages, while their crops are feeding cattle from across the globe. However, this problem can be solved by adopting a vegan diet. The vegan diet will allow a more efficient use of resources that in turn can be used to feed starving men, women, and children throughout the world. Consequently, more people in the world could be fed if the land used to grow feed for animals was used to grow food for humans.

Both countries have experienced polluted waters which have had negative effects on animals in their environment. For example, in 2007, multiple sea otters were found dead in the Pacific Ocean and a marine-wildlife veterinarian, Melissa Miller, determined that these otters were poisoned by a toxin called microcystin, which is produced by blue-green algae. When fertilizers and human sewage run into rivers and lakes, these toxins start to appear because nutrients are added that cause the growth of algae known as “super blooms”. However, sea otters don’t go to the areas these blooms occur in like polluted rivers and lakes. Miller then did some research and found that super blooms occurred frequently in a lake, Pinto Lake, that eventually drains into the area of the Pacific Ocean where the dead otters were found. The toxins were also found to be in shellfish which in a part of the otters’ main diet, so after this Miller concluded that the toxin travelled downstream in the ocean from polluted lakes, where they found their way into shellfish, and eventually ended up killing the otters. A similar event occurred in South Africa around the same time frame, but this involved crocodiles. Toward the end of 2008, rangers in the Kruger National Park (KNP) reported that around 170 crocodiles were found dead in the Olifants river with a similar estimate a year later in 2009. Veterinarians who performed the autopsies for these crocodiles determined the cause of death to be pansteatitis which is a disease based on nutrients that paralyzes animals leaving them to drown or starve to death, but it rarely affects animals in the wild. After some of the veterinarians did more research and analyzed the crocodiles’ fat tissue, they discovered that phytoplankton was the source of the high intake of fats in these crocodiles. However, the crocodiles don’t feed on it directly; so they did more research and found that downstream of the Olifants was Lake Massingir which is known for plankton blooms because of eutrophication. In the end, the veterinarians came to the conclusion that the silver carp, a fish that was purposely introduced into Lake Massingir, accidently escaped and found their way to where these crocodiles

Text A, a transcript from a British radio station, is discussing how people should be more cautious about hurting endangered species especially dolphins appealing to environmentalist and listeners of the radio station. Meanwhile Text B, an entry from Encyclopedia Britannica, is informing Environmentalist and humans in general about the destruction of the environments and animals caused by humans. Both authors use the overall purpose to attract the same audience is similar in both articles, but the articles differ in overall diction, syntax, tone, and several other textual features.

Eating meat has become a staple in the modern society we live in. This has led to high levels of fuel emissions and pollution. A common belief is that a meal only exists when it has meat in it. That’s not true, but society has taught us that it is. Fad diets are pretty common in the society we live in, but many people don’t take into account the planet’s health, only their own. Although, our health is contingent on the planet’s health. To keep the planet’s health up, the human race must make sacrifices to prevent the loss of our planet which will lead to the loss of animal life, human life, and plant life. Already, the planet’s biodiversity has decreased. Switching to a diet that does not include meat, specifically beef, can help the environment by eliminating or decreasing fuel emissions and pollution in general.

I chose a news article about the human environmental impact on animals. We have made some changes by adding animals to the Red list,which has caused more exposure of the animals that are more at risk at extinction. Many reason for this decline in animals is because of human activity. The more people come together the more change they can do for the environment. While other differ in opinion, which disregard animal moral status.(Kantian Ethics)