Synopsis of “Unnatural Predation: North America, Meat, and the Healthy Alternative”

By Christopher Michael Burns

Thesis Statement: When looking objectively at the current state of North America, a vegetarian lifestyle is superior to an omnivorous lifestyle because animal suffering is reduced, a dangerous industry is eliminated, and a more nutritious diet is consumed.

Counter Argument 1: Humans do not have any moral obligations to animals. Our evolutional history gives us moral permission to eat meat.

Evidence:

  • “Humans, but never cows, confront choices that are purely moral. Humans, but certainly not pigs or chickens, lay down rules, moral imperatives, by which all moral agents are thought to be rightly governed, ourselves along with all others. Human beings are self-legislative, morally autonomous.”[1]
  • Animals do not have rights because the concept of right is essentially human[2]

Analysis: These arguments do not go any distance because they do not consider the current state of society, which is important when considering the best lifestyle.

Supporting Argument 1: The practise of human raising and killing animals for food is morally indefensible.

Evidence:

  • It is wrong to cause pain unless there is good enough reason, and the enjoyment of eating meat is not one.[3]
  • Not everything ingrained in human nature is morally permissible. A tendency among males to engage in rape may, after all, have conferred adaptive advantage on our early ancestors that contributed to the evolution of our species.[4]

Analysis: There is a compromise. Of course, along with the claim that meat eating is immoral, one must offer a morally acceptable alternative. It would require humans to sacrifice the luxury of eating meat. If North Americans adopted an ovo-lacto vegetarian lifestyle (dairy products and eggs), animals would not be unnecessarily slaughtered to feed humans.

Counter Argument 2: North America heavily depends on the meat industry for employment and revenue; eliminating it would be devastating to the economy.

Evidence:

  • “The McDonald’s corporation has become a powerful symbol of America’s service economy, which is now responsible for 90 percent of the country’s new jobs…McDonald’s is the nation’s largest purchaser of beef, pork, and potatoes-and the second largest purchaser of chicken.”[5]

Analysis: To suggest that North Americans stop eating meat is to suggest that the meat industry be erased. This would cause millions of job losses and would have a huge impact on the economy. The American economy would suffer a huge plummet. However, this industry is putting people in harm’s way, which costs billions of dollars in health care.

Supporting Argument 2: Modern North American mass meat production processes cause incredible harm to workers and consumers.

Evidence:

  • “For eight and a half hours, a worker called “sticker” does nothing but stand in a river of blood, being drenched in blood, slitting the neck of a steer every ten seconds or so, severing its carotid artery.”[6]
  • Huge feedlots, slaughterhouses, and hamburger grinders have enabled the widespread of E.coli 0157:H7

Analysis: It is not an option to tighten the laws regarding the safety of the meat industry, because any changes (such as eliminating growth hormones and increasing working standards), would greatly reduce productivity and cost efficiency within the industry. The meat market’s demands would not be met, and millions of dollars would be lost. The solution is clear. This dangerous industry must be eliminated and replaced by a wider vegetarian industry. This would demand higher living standards from North Americans.

Counter Argument 3: Meat is essential to a healthy diet and a vegetarian diet cannot meet nutritional needs sufficiently.

Evidence:

  • Stages of life (pregnant and breast-feeding women, teens, infants) require large amounts of certain nutrients such as iron and protein that a vegetarian diet cannot provide

Analysis: An important question to ask regarding all of these nutritional and health concerns in a vegetarian diet is: Are these educated responses, or are they just myths used to campaign for meat?

Supporting Argument 3: A lacto-ovo vegetarian diet has many health benefits and is far superior to an omnivorous diet.

Evidence:

  • Animal protein destroys calcium in bones, requiring a higher intake of dairy products, which are high in fat and cholesterol. [7]
  • “A 2000 report from the United Nations Commission on Nutrition Challenges of the 21st century warned that unless major changes are made, 1 billion children will become disabled over the next twenty years from inadequate caloric intake…Between 1950 and 1980, childhood growth rates and adult stature in China increased steadily as the consumption of a diet extremely low in animal-based foods remained constant. Controlling parasitic diseases and supplying adequate calories-not adding meat to the diet-were leading factors in resolving the country’s most pressing public health threats.”[8]

Analysis: North Americans would benefit from a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet because it eliminates the dangers of meat and provides sufficient supplementation and benefits.

Closing words: It may sound idealistic and unpractical at first, but the proof will be in the improvements vegetarianism will bring to North America. All people have to do is try it. Eating meat is just as much nurture as it is nature, so perhaps it is time we began nurturing vegetarians.

[1]Carl Cohen, “A Critique of the Alleged Moral Basis of Vegetarianism”, Food For Thought: The Debate Over Eating Meat, Ed. Steve F. Sapontzis (New York: Prometheus Books, 2004) 160.

[2]Carl Cohen, “A Critique of the Alleged Moral Basis of Vegetarianism”, Food For Thought: The Debate Over Eating Meat, Ed. Steve F. Sapontzis (New York: Prometheus Books, 2004) 155.

[3]James Rachels, “The Basic Argument for Vegetarianism”, Food For Thought: The Debate Over Eating Meat, Ed. Steve F. Sapontzis (New York: Prometheus Books, 2004) 70.

[4]Jennifer Everett, “Vegetarianism, Predation, and Respect for Nature”, Food For Thought: The Debate Over Eating Meat, Ed. Steve F. Sapontzis (New York: Prometheus Books, 2004) 310.

[5]Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American Meal (New York: Harper Collins, 2001) 4.

[6] Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American Meal (New York: Harper Collins, 2001) 171.

[7] Neal Barnard and Kristine Kieswer, “Vegetarianism: The Healthy Alternative”, Food For Thought: The Debate Over Eating Meat, Ed. Steve F. Sapontzis (New York: Prometheus Books, 2004) 46-56.

[8] Neal Barnard and Kristine Kieswer, “Vegetarianism: The Healthy Alternative”, Food For Thought: The Debate Over Eating Meat, Ed. Steve F. Sapontzis (New York: Prometheus Books, 2004) 46-56.