Vegetarian Vs Omnivore

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.

More than ever before, our planet is one filled with meat eaters. In fact, the average American consumes 270.7 pounds of meat per year. And, as one might have guessed, the question of where this food set before them on the table came from is often unregarded or ignored altogether. As more media forms commercialize extremely unhealthy versions of double cheeseburgers and meat lover’s supremes, the consumer’s demand for meat spikes up and companies in the food industry are faced with the ethical dilemma of benefiting themselves, their companies, increasing profits...and doing right by the animals- who without, they would not even be where they are today. Needless to say that animal rights and the humane treatment of their precious lives have been disregarded. Why do we, as a

a vegetarian for the past four years. Her personal nutrition habits and values can be attributed to her favorable stance towards plant-based diets. The essay’s context is set in the middle of the rising veganism fads popularized by celebrities and mainstream media. As a student, Breslaw’s main audience are her fellow peers, professors and those concerned with lessening their carbon

In my first year of college I have been introduced to copious amounts of new information and topics that had never crossed my mind. Becoming familiar with new ideas, food production and it’s impacts of the environment both locally and globally became of interest to me. I have been a vegetarian for about four years and as I have attended college I have learned more about the state of the issue with food production and sustainability. When presented with the list of books for our independent project Omnivore 's Dilemma immediately jumped at me. When Pollan stated in the introduction, “Farming and food industry produces even more greenhouse gases than all forms of transportation put together; the way you eat affects the world more than anything else you do,” I was hooked.

Brought up in the southern of China, I often heard about that people from there “eat anything with four limbs except tables, anything that flies except aero planes, and anything that swims except ships”. Nevertheless, I eat more fruit, vegetables, nuts, and whole grains but less meat to make careful choices for environmental protection. Similarly, Kathy Freston argues that animal agriculture is one of the top contributors to global warming. In her Huffington Post selection “Vegetarian Is the New Prius,” Freston lists how many emissions of greenhouse gases people make when they eat meat and illustrates the consumption of tree in animal agriculture. She effectively convinces her audiences that the livestock results in the most serious environmental problems and encourages people to lead a greener diet to protect our environment. However, ardent craving, poor health, and perpetual hassle and cost prevent all Americans from being vegetarian.

Over fifty-six billion animals are slaughtered yearly for consumption, but because we are conditioned from a young age to view animals as resources, we neglect that they are passionate and intelligent living beings. Cows want to enjoy their lives, pigs want to enjoy their lives, and many other farm animals want to enjoy their lives but instead are abused and confined in small cages. Ironically, though, when someone does likewise to a cat or dog, they’re prosecuted. The sole solution to these inhumane acts is Veganism. Veganism is the ideal diet because plant-based foods are plentiful, and it recognizes the unethical treatment of animals.

Vegetarianism is a custom practiced in six out of the seven continents and has become more popular over the years. Vegetarianism can be defined as the exclusion of animal products such as meat and fish from one’s diet. Dairy products and eggs are often times excluded as well. Although there are many reasons one may decide to become a Vegetarian or follow such a code of ethics, the most common include: moral, religious or health reasons.

There are two main lifestyles that we as human beings practice that impact our eating habits. One being a Vegetarian, a person who chooses not to eat meat. The other being a Meat Eater (also known as an Omnivore), a person who chooses to eat both meat and vegetables. A controversial debate continues to go on, evaluating the pros and cons of each group, along with the reasons behind their choice. In the end it all depends on the individual’s outlook on life that makes the decision.

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.

We are a nation of meat eaters. We are socialized from a young age to consume high levels of animal products. This deeply ingrained meat-eating tradition is a big part of the American standard diet. A visit to the local grocery store shows that there is no shortage of animal products. Isle by isle you see a plethora of meats, neatly packed and ready to be cooked, dairy products neatly shelved, and even candies that contain animal by-products. This is an omnivore’s utopia, allowing for a lifestyle that involves the overconsumption of meats and animal by-products. The rampant meat industry has managed to condition people to disassociate the meats in our grocery markets and the animals from which they came. Most people have become unaware omnivores, consuming whatever meats are available to them. This shift of moral degradation is evident in how we process and consume our meats. We have become a selfish society that values our own convenience and affordability of meat rather than the consideration of the animal. This begs the question, is eating meat inherently wrong and should we forbid meat consumption under any and all circumstances? To fully address this issue, we must first define the moral status of animals. So, are animals equal to humans in worth and value and should they receive similar treatment?

Can it be morally permissible to eat meat when plant-based foods are available? In this paper my aim is it to explain why this is morally wrong to do. One problem with eating meat is humans are putting animals in unnecessary pain. Another problem is that the majority of our environmental destruction on our planet is due to agriculture. Philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both back up this view with their own arguments.

Veganism is a food lifestyle based on diet of vegetables, grains, seeds, nuts and fruits. People are being vegetarian because they think it is healthier to only eat vegetables without eating meet or chicken, and they think that they will get a perfect body shape, free of diseases. As in vegetarian, where they feed on foods that do not fit into animal flesh, whether from wild or marine animals. They also don’t eat food that comes directly from the animal, such as: egg that’s comes from the hen, milk that comes from cows, goats and honey that comes from bees. In India, Ethiopia and Jamaica there are a lot of vegetarian people, because they don’t have enough food to feed themselves, so they decided to eat vegetable. This paper argues that veganism is a harmful lifestyle for three major reasons.

As different crazes and fads are appearing each day, we have come to expect them to simply fade away as the hype passes. However, veganism has stood the test of time in our fad society and is still increasing in popularity. Originally only thought to be a religious lifestyle, many people from different walks of life are becoming vegans. However, this poses many questions and sparks heated debates, mainly from omnivorous people who believe that veganism is against life’s natural order. Vegans, then, argue against an omnivorous lifestyle by bringing up facts about humans’ biological makeup and how humans are, contrary to popular belief, herbivorous by nature, not omnivorous. While both sides present good arguments to some, the veganism lifestyle contains more benefits and less harmful cons than an omnivorous lifestyle.

In “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner argues against the eating, or using, of animals and animal products. Steiner is the author of multiple books on topics similar to this, and a dedicated vegan of fifteen years at the time of this article. The author begins with an allusion to the recent outcries for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. However, he points out, no one seems to be concerned about the animals being slaughtered, merely that they were not abused beforehand. Steiner then goes on to explain the two main

For human, to master agriculture and trade about 10,000 years ago widely expanded their food options that enable modern human to become a vegetarian (Corliss). A vegetarian does not eat meat not only because it tastes bad, but also it means something to him or her. The more one has faith in vegetarianism, the more one restricts one’s food choice in reality. Henry David Thoreau, who is known as one of the first environmental writers of the 20th century in the U.S. and had lived in woods alone, writes in his essay Walden that hunting and eating animals had bothered him because it seemed as it degraded himself to a beast. For him, eating animals is “not agreeable to [his] imagination” (Thoreau 169) as Thoreau strongly believed that “to leave off eating animals” is “a part of the destiny of the human race” (Thoreau 170). While his belief and the reality he faced had conflicted each other, he tried his best to find a way to live without relying much on meat. Even in a wild, what drove Thoreau was anthropocentric thinking that human can control nature. This dilemma in food choice that bothered Thoreau is what Michael Pollan calls the omnivore’s dilemma. He puts it in his same-titled book in this way: “When you can eat just about anything nature has to offer,