Tudge's A Case For Meat-Eating

Climate change undoubtedly has a monumental effect on countries across the globe, It is becoming increasingly clear that it is the most important challenge facing international relations today. Agriculture and more specifically animal agriculture is one of the biggest contributors to human made climate change. This is important for international relations because animal agriculture effects trade, global food security and the global economy. With the population growing at a rapid pace the demand on animal agricuture is also rapidly increasing. This essay will discuss the consequences of the globes meat consumption and the challenge it poses to international relations. It will then go on to discuss the way the international community should address global food security while reducing the animal agriculture industries effect on the environment.

Peering into the fridge, there’s nothing to eat. One may settle on a bag of chips. While you take a bite, you may take a glance at the nutritional facts. Ignorance covers the rest of the package with lies. You may see the fat content but you do not honestly know how much effort it took to get that bag to you. Erase that ignorance and you can change your health, your ecological footprint, and the world by simply changing what you eat. Looking at the vegetarian diet and its health benefits; the environmental effects and pollution of meat production; and the destruction of your health by meat products;there are major consequences from the production of animal products.

Since the world is consuming so much meat, more than ten times the amount of crops that would need to be grown if people didn’t eat meat is grown to feed all the livestock. After that, the animals need to be slaughtered, and the meat transported, which, Preston says, burns “ten times as much fossil fuels-and spewing more than ten times as much heat-trapping carbon dioxide-as does a calorie of plant protein.” She later adds that animal agriculture can be credited for giving off 9% of carbon dioxide emissions, 37% of methane, and 65% of nitrous oxide. These hard facts are a sturdy appeal to logos, and surprise any readers that were not aware of the damage of eating so much meat, and may change some minds. Finally, she makes an emotional appeal to the people that don’t want to drastically change their diet, by mentioning delicious vegetarian food like veggie burgers, and by giving her readers a website to get free recipes from. Preston’s argument can credit its efficiency to the fact that most people, are shocked about the damage that livestock does to the earth, and are interested in ceasing global

​In conducting a rhetorical analysis of the two articles, "Joel Salatin: How to Eat Animals and Respect Them, Too" by Madeline Ostrander and "Humane Meat? No Such Thing" by Sunaura Taylor, both articles stand in stark contrast in terms of the viewpoints of meat that they present. In order to gain a better understanding of these viewpoints, it's important to understand the persuasive techniques that both authors use in the article for the reader. More specifically, the ethos, pathos, and logos that they employ, as well the way in which the evidence and support is presented will further elucidate upon the arguments that appear in both articles.

For years vegetarian and vegan diets have been gaining popularity. This rise in popularity is due largely to the belief that a vegetarian diet has numerous health benefits and the animals being raised to be slaughtered are not being treated humanely. These are both good reasons for adopting a meat-free lifestyle, but there is an even more pressing reason. The current rate of meat consumptions, especially in developed nations, is consuming natural resources at a rate that is not sustainable. The amount of resources such as land, water, and crops consumed to support meat production is staggering. In addition to the resource consumption, meat production is also contributing to critical global environmental issues such as deforestation and ozone depletion.

In a study conducted by The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2003, it was estimated that there are approximately 2 billion people that live primarily on a meat-based diet while approximately 4 billion people live primarily on a plant-based diet (Pimentel, 2003). With this information we can deduce just how much of a difference in environmental effects there are between a vegetarian diet and a diet that consumes meat. For example, in this study it was found that the average amount of fossil fuel energy used for 1 kilocalorie of animal-based protein was 11 times more than that for 1 kilocalorie of grain protein. This statistic shows that the mass production of animal meat-based foods requires a much larger amount of the already limited amount of fossil fuels that are on Earth than plant-based food. By examining this fact, it is not a broad leap to assume that in reducing the worlds extravagant use of animal meat for consumption we could not only preserve the natural resources we have but also assist in reducing factors that add to climate change. Although the argument could be made that because both the vegetarian diet and a diet with meat in it use a large amount of resources there would be no difference in reducing the effects that the agriculture industry has on climate change but that is simply not true. While it is true that both diets use a large amount of resources, across the board the meat-based diet uses a much larger amount of resources. In fact, in the study conducted by The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition it states, “The meat-based diet requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian [vegetarian] diet.” Although both are considered unsustainable, this study provides very valid evidence that the vegetarian diet is more sustainable than that of a meat-based

Vegetarianism has been a hot topic of discussion lately, and if becoming one should be mandatory or not. Vegetarianism is a diet choice of eating absolutely no meat, fish, or poultry. It can be a healthy and environmentally friendly decision, but vegetarianism is not for everyone. It can be hard for people to completely cut themselves off from eating meat. However, humans can slim down on meat to help the environment and live a healthier, more balanced lifestyle with smaller portions. “Opportunities for higher efficiency can be found all along the meat production–consumption chain” (Smil). However, mass meat production can be harmful to the land. Speaking on meat production, Smil quotes “This

This paper is going to address Peter Singer’s first argument for vegetarianism, which was described in much greater detail in his book Animal Liberation. The first part of this paper is going to explain the argument under consideration. The second part of this paper is going to contain critical discussion of the argument. The third part of this paper is going to contain objections to the critical discussion of the argument in the second part.

Timothy Perrine Siddharth Kharbanda 11/14/2014 Singers Utilitarian Case for Vegetarianism SECTION-I (EXPLANATION OF THE ARGUMENT) In this essay, I will be considering Peter Singer’s Utilitarian Argument/Theory for Vegetarianism. For Singer ‘Utilitarian’ word means “The morally right act whose consequences maximize the total balance of pleasure (interest satisfaction) minus pain (interest frustration) when considering all beings affected” Singer explains that the suffering of livestock animals is a real and great evil and directs individuals to become vegetarian (or vegan if they can) on the grounds that this will undermine the economics of industrial farming and thereby reduce the amount of animal suffering in the world.

Our goal for this project was to show the arguments that both sides use to support their reasoning behind why eating meat or no meat is better or why each person on both sides prefer one or the other. For each side we all chose an argument one might use to explain why their choice in diet is better and more preferable than the other. Each member of each group chose a side to argue for and then discussed different aspects of the argument; those being the economic, the health, the ethic and the environmental side. The vegetarian side would argue on what vegetarians contribute to these for aspects of the debate and also defend why their position is better compared

At the same time, the notion that an ideal form of food production operating with a minimal environmental impact should exclude meat – nothing less than enacting “vegetarian imperative” (Saxena 2011) on a global scale – does not make

Veganism has become a trend in the dietary realm, but its ideals extend farther than being a food fad. It is a lifestyle which promotes the progression of a better future for animals, the environment, and society. Veganism is an ideal which has a more beneficial impact on the world than an omnivore diet because it is better for the environment, it helps to promote a healthier lifestyle and being, and it is less harmful to animals in many aspects. The overall impact of veganism is great and has a substantial change on the world.Veganism discourse is becoming more common. The defending side, which is for veganism, uses arguments which mainly concentrate on how the consumption of meat will negatively affect our future and also addressing the

Today, society has entered into some truly interesting yet important times. None more so that with regards to the origin of the food provisions people consume. Bringing a debate to the forefront of mainstream attention, in regards to the mass consumption of meat, and the ethical dilemmas faced with the current model of harvesting of meat, in particular the harvesting of beef cattle. Concurrently major scholars and research institutions, are developing studies and examining the current state of health to humans whereby they are comparing those who regularly consume meat, to those who abstain from animal products to varying degrees. While studies are in the infancy stages, enough progress has been shown to offer some basis of debate. Considering the health of the consumer of beef, or the people who eat it, offer two general yet major stakeholders in the debate of meat, and the first tiered look into the ethics of eating meat. Aside from the health of the consumer, the practice of which the animal is farmed is quintessential to the well being of the animals while influencing the economics of the industry. Modern animal harvesting, or the life cycle of the animal, offers a commercial source to a large portion of the country, affectionately known as the Heartland of America or the Midwest. All the while non-traditional animal friendly farms, where a multitude of animals live in cohabitation of each other, that convey the impression of an animal product-producing utopia, while an

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

In many societies, most people today consume meat and other types of food that came from an animal, yet there is a growing controversial debate regarding whether or not it is ethically right to eat any kind of animal. A commonly used argument against eating meat is that it is not necessary to survive or improve your health by eating meat and killing animals just for the sake of the taste that eating meat gives, is unjustifiably wrong. Those against eating meat also believe that the meat production resembles animal husbandry and it is one of the many alarming concerns involving animal welfare and their rights. Those in support of eating meat have responded with cultural, nutritional, scientific, and religious reasoning for their support of meat eating. Some meat eaters will not consume animal flesh if the animal is killed cruelly in a factory farm slaughterhouses or avoiding particular meats such as fois gras.