This article examines the definition of vegetarianism, the various arguments for and against it, and explores its potential as an alternative to address health, ethical, environmental, and poverty issues. Logical arguments and debates are presented on whether vegetarianism can be a sustainable way of eating in the modern world.
Introduction
The phrase “I’m a vegetarian” has many layers of meaning. Some people eat fish and eggs, while others don’t even drink milk or honey. But when we define vegetarianism as an idea, the core of it is not eating meat. For the purposes of this article, we’ll define vegetarianism as not eating meat.
In most cultures, meat-eating is a universal paradigm. People accept eating meat as natural, and it’s deeply rooted in cultural traditions and economic factors. Vegetarian advocates therefore oppose this universal practice, and seek to make their case by criticizing meat-eating. However, the criticisms are not always well organized. At best, they’re varied, and at worst, they’re muddled. Some of the criticisms range from diet to adult disease issues, to unethical slaughtering practices or even the killing itself, to environmental or poverty issues. If you were to ask three vegetarians why they are vegetarian, you might get three different answers. Even in this land of self-evident poison, you need to have a rationalization ready. Likewise, if vegetarianism is the only alternative to modern dietary habits, then there needs to be a more organized logic. To date, the well-known arguments for vegetarianism can be divided into three main areas: health, ethics, and environment/poverty. In the following, we’ll examine each of these.
Vegetarianism as health
Vegetarianism as a health practice is a relatively easy sell. It’s a common belief that the meat-eating Western diet leads to excessive fat intake. The problems associated with eating too much fat, especially saturated fat, are also well known, but objective information doesn’t exactly support this.
The most popular meat eaten by humans is pork, and 100 grams of pork contains about 4.5 grams of fat, of which 1.5 grams is saturated fat. The WHO recommends no more than 87 grams of fat and no more than 29 grams of saturated fat per day, which translates to 2 kilograms of pork per day. For comparison, South Koreans eat 42.7 kilograms of meat a year, or 120 grams per day. That’s not enough to blame fat and saturated fat as the problem with meat. In fact, the problem child of Western eating habits is not BBQ, but hamburgers. A single McDonald’s Big Mac contains 27 grams of fat and 10 grams of saturated fat.
Of course, it’s self-evident that eating a lot of meat is bad for your health, but this argument can only be pushed so far, and while it may get you to reduce your meat intake, it won’t get you to stop. It’s a problem when you eat too much, not a reason to quit altogether. Vegetarians need to find other strategies if they want to build their kingdom.
Ethical issues and animal rights
Ethical issues have always been vegetarians’ strongest weapon; in fact, 58% of vegetarians say they became vegetarian because of animal rights. The fastest way to convert someone to vegetarianism is to watch chickens suffering in cramped cages and pigs squealing as they’re slaughtered, which is certainly effective, but it’s a rather emotional way. If you want to convince someone, there has to be a rational basis.
The most underlying idea is likely to be respect for life – it’s universal and easily resonates with everyone, but unfortunately, broccoli and potatoes are also lives. We need to find reasons why animal life is more valuable than human life. Traditionally, Buddhists don’t eat meat because they view animals as sattva, which translates to sentient life or sentience in Sanskrit, while plants and minerals are said to be impermanent. In other words, animals have the same sentience as humans. You don’t have to be a Buddhist to understand this, and it’s easy to relate to. When we look into the eyes of animals, we sometimes assume that they have minds and thoughts just like us.
But as a modern citizen who believes in science and rational thought, I can’t let that kind of neat explanation define my beliefs. So what is mind? Since living things are divided into five kingdoms, is there something special about the animal kingdom that makes it different from the other four? Is it memory? Or is it emotion, thought, consciousness, or sensation? According to Dawkins, evolutionary theory explains “memory” as follows. In a simple creature like an anemone, its sensory organs are directly connected to its muscles. This means that the anemone’s behavior depends solely on external stimuli in the here and now. But in order to act in a more precisely timed manner, it needs to refer to stimuli it has received in the past, rather than simply reacting to current stimuli. So it evolved to be able to store past stimuli in some sort of way, and this is the birth of memory. There’s nothing mysterious about emotions, consciousness, or sensations. Why should animal life be favored based on these features that evolved for survival?
Let’s take a step back and say there is a rationale somewhere. For example, let’s say there’s a consensus that animals shouldn’t be killed because they have memories. Even then, we’re still left with a problem of scope ambiguity. As the example above shows, sea anemones and lower animals don’t have memories, so should we eat them? What about ants or mosquitoes, which have a brain capacity of only 0.001 mL? What about tendrils or mimosas that cringe when you touch them? Or amoebas? If you take emotions out of the equation, it’s hard to see what makes animal rights special.
Furthermore, there will always be a conflict between recognizing animal rights and securing food for human survival. For example, some animals harm crops, and humans maintain agricultural productivity by removing them. From this perspective, it can be questioned whether the logic of animal rights will always prevail. Ethical arguments like these often don’t cover all situations.
Vegetarianism as an alternative to environmental and poverty issues
Perhaps an alternative can be found in the environment-poverty issue. A long-ago UN report cited animal agriculture as one of the most significant contributors to the environmental crisis: it is responsible for 9% of carbon dioxide, 65% of nitrous oxide, and 37% of methane, the three major greenhouse gases. Animal agriculture also destroys soil, with livestock farming now covering 30% of the Earth’s land surface, 70% of the cleared Amazonian primary forest has been converted to grazing land, and even more land is used to grow livestock feed. Animal agriculture is also a huge consumer and polluter of water resources. Trillions of gallons of irrigation water are used to grow livestock feed each year in the U.S. alone, which is about 85% of the country’s freshwater resources. Animal agriculture also uses 37% of pesticides and 50% of antibiotics, which are major contributors to water pollution.
Of course, agriculture has its own problems, including land degradation from chemicals and water depletion. But the issue is efficiency. Calculations show that to produce one calorie of protein, beef protein uses 54 calories of petroleum energy, compared to just two calories of fossil fuels for soy and three calories for corn and wheat. With the resources that go into one serving of meat, you can serve 15 servings of vegetarian food.
This makes vegetarianism more than just a personal choice, but an essential alternative for the sustainability of our planet. Vegetarianism can also play an important role in addressing global food imbalances. With a large portion of the world’s population still going hungry, a vegetarian diet could be a way to feed more people with fewer resources.
The bottom line
Vegetarianism is a trend in modern society. For most people, even non-vegetarians, vegetarianism is a positive thing. However, unfounded beliefs are no different from religion. Before you start a vegetarian diet, you should look for logical reasons and be thoroughly convinced before recommending it to others. Furthermore, you should continue to research and strengthen your logical foundation so that vegetarianism can be positioned as a better choice for the environment and the future of humanity.
