MAURICIO, Omar Kareem V.

| 2007-63289 Eng1 THU5

October 1, 2009 Mr. Raymund Vitorio

Why be (or not be) meat eater? The human diet has been a subject of dispute since the dawn of various religious and advocate groups. The dispute lies primarily in the difference between each groups prescription of what the ideal human diet is. On the one hand are groups which advocate that human beings ought to consume plants and plant products only, and that human beings must refrain from eating animals and animal products. In this group belong the vegetarians, vegans, fruitarians and religious groups like Hindus. On the other side of the dispute are the meat eaters. Although no collective group represents the meat eaters, people who claim to belong this group posit that human beings are not limited only to eating plants and plant products but are also fit to consume animal and animal products; meat eaters claim not to see any negative implications in the consumption of animal meat and other animal products. It is the aim of this paper to dissolve the dispute between the two dietary lifestyle prescriptive groups and reduce the dispute to a mere difference in preference which ought not to bear any imperative hold on the dietary lifestyle of the whole human race.

Why do human beings eat meat in the first place? Anthropologists and Evolutionists answer that environment, evolution, and the natural selection process must have something to do with this. According to these scientists, meat eating dates back 2,300,000 to 1,500,000 B.C. when Homo Habilis, one of the earliest human ancestors in the line of evolution, started scavenging for animal meat and flesh. There are speculations that Homo Habilis adapted to this from of diet due to the increasing need for protein in its body as a result of its slowly evolving brain and brain functions. Another theory states that this might be due to the large competition in plant and scavenged resources brought by the increasing population of herbivores and omnivores in the animal kingdom (Murti). This diet evolved to the consumption of larger animals as a more available and viable source of protein. Hence, modern man has adapted and continuously practiced this diet. Vegetarians and proponents of the strictly-plants diet argue that Evolutionary and Anthropological evidences which show human beings as consumers of animal meat cannot be used as valid justifications of consuming animal meat and products in this day and age (Murti). They argue that pre-historic men had no knowledge of alternative sources of the nutrition they needed, hence, they resorted to that which is

readily available. Moreover, if pre-historic men induced their diet only at a certain point in the evolution process, man, must not have been natural carnivores or consumers of animal meat. Zoologist Desmond Morris supports this in saying that this form of consumption must only be a result of desperate attempts to provide adequate nutrients for its growing and evolving body in the midst of uncontrollable environment. Since resources and food production can now be regulated and controlled, and since plants and vegetable resources are no longer scarce, animal meat is no longer a necessity in the human diet. T.X. Huxley, an Evolutionist and staunch defender of Darwinism, favors the plant diet in arguing that man has different physiological features and eating behaviors compared to carnivores in the animal kingdom. Digestion of animal meat, according to Huxley, comes easier for carnivores since their gastric juices contain ten times stronger hydrochloric acid concentration compared to human beings. Carnivores are also able to get rid of animal meat waste easily as they have shorter intestinal tracts. Human beings, on the contrary, have long intestines intended for longer digestions food that usually requires long digesting hours are plants and plant products. Also, human saliva is an enzyme which hastens digestion of starch a sugar compound found only in plant and plant products. Unlike humans, carnivores have a sharp and elongated set of teeth while omnivores have an alternating set of sharp and blunt teeth. Hence, human beings, having neither a set of sharp elongated teeth nor a set of alternating blunt and sharp teeth, are not apt to meat eating which is contrary to the widespread notion that human beings are carnivorous and omnivorous. Meat eaters argue that although it is true that human beings have no strongly significant digestive characteristics to carnivores or omnivores, humans have, nevertheless canine teeth which are used primarily for meat tearing. Plant diet advocates answer this in saying that apes and camels also have canine teeth but are more accustomed to eating plant and plant products. However, it may be argued that apes and chimpanzees, which have similar sets of teeth with human beings, include insects for protein in their diet, making them omnivorous animals (Murti). If humans are not apt to eat animal meat, then how come human beings continue to exist as a species? Evolutionists argue that if meat was not a proper and natural nutrient source for human beings, the human species must have perished in the animal kingdom as soon as negative implications start to manifest reflecting the species diet. Nutritionist even side by the meat eaters claiming that protein, phosphorous and iron needs in the body are not amply replenished in a days vegetarian diet.

In a meat diet, proper consumption of red and lean meat would replenish the body amply for a day. In fact, a 100 grams of liver contains 6000mcgm of iron compared to 100 grams of carrots which only contain 325mcgm iron. Nevertheless, nutritionists and dieticians find it necessary to include vegetables and plant products in a diet. However, most dieticians find it unhealthy to scrap meat altogether in a diet since a large percent of nutrients is stripped off in a persons diet, and these must be compensated with other plant product alternatives. Other studies, however, suggest that meat actually increases risks of serious health problems such as heart attacks and cancer while a high vegetable diet reduces these very same risks. Plant diet advocates use these studies to their advantage and claims that a plant diet offers lower health risks while replenishing the body with the nutrients it needs. (T.R.S.M.D.) Besides biological, medical and evolutionary basis, plant diet advocates claim that eating animals are either unethical or are cruel. Hinduism, for example sees that eating and slaughtering of animals are immoral and cruel in their belief that their loved ones are reincarnated as animals depending of the kind of life they lived. This is recognized in the world as the law of karma. On the other hand, are religions like Christianity which sees no wrong in slaughtering and eating of animals. Christianity argues that animals were made by God to be of service and of help human beings. Immanuel Kant, a famous Western philosopher, partially provides arguments as to whether ethical and moral principles are to be applied to animals as well. Adherent to the notion of rationality and reason, Kant says that animals cannot be considered in the ethical and moral circle since, in the first place, they cannot be admitted to have rationality and decisive thinking as seen in the case of human beings. Hence, eating and slaughtering of animals cannot be deemed moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. Nevertheless, Kant makes it clear that animals must not be unnecessarily maltreated since doing so would lead to dire consequences for humans. Hence, under Kants philosophy, eating and slaughtering of animals using proper means is justifiable and acceptable. However, another side of the issue is raised by the question: Are you willing to eat your own pet? Since dogs and cats and sometimes pigs are treated as pets, would one be willing to slaughter a homegrown pet for food? They are, after all, animals and are no different from cows, chickens and pigs that are slaughtered for food. Peter Singer answers that human beings would naturally not agree to the slaughter of their pets for food because human beings have the ability to empathize with animals, thus understand their pain and suffering. Hence, Singer claims that ethical and moral basis must be grounded on the capacity of

a being to afflict pain and the amount of pain the afflicted suffers from a particular action. Considering this, animals will now be part of the ethical and moral community. Animal killing and slaughtering would, therefore, be unethical and immoral since it would afflict pain and suffering to the animal. However, if ethics and morality would be based on this philosophy, dire problems and implications would result, not to mention that this philosophy would not really be an answer as to whether human beings must exclude animal meat from its diet. For one, human beings, and even animals have different tolerance when it comes to pain. To complicate things even more, it is hard to determine pain and suffering benchmarks in animals. Other animals, such as fish, are even found not to be able to feel pain. Hence, such ethical and moral philosophy would lead to greater complications since pain is immeasurable and hard to determine in both human and animal. The dogma also seems to offer only a pseudo-defense of the exclusion of animal meat in the human diet since any method that would not induce pain to animals would be seen as ethical and moral, hence, not giving a definite imperative to exclude animal meat in the human diet. (Singer) Given the arguments presented, the consumption of animal meat as part of the human diet cannot be resolved as far as medical, biological and philosophical discourses are concerned since diet is a matter of preference and choice. Studies may show that the human diet may have resulted from a series of evolutionary processes yet it could also be shown that behaviors developed thru evolution are poor determinist of future actions by the species. Biological discourses also fail to properly present definitive answers as to what human beings ought to naturally consume. Medical and nutritional studies, on the other hand, also present inconclusive imperatives as to what ought to be included in the human diet. Philosophical and academic debates also show unsuccessful attempts to provide sound prescriptions as to what comprises the proper human diet. Hence, one could look at prescriptions and imperatives as to what ought to comprise the human diet as mere expressions of choice and preference. The current diet which the human species has engaged in has not done harm to such extent that it has abolished functionality and productivity in the species, yet an all plant & vegetable diet, as studies show, seem not to be of harm either. Hence, the struggle between meateaters and all plant and vegetable diet dissolves into a false dilemma.

REFERENCE LIST

Murti, Vasu. "Evolution of the Human Diet." The South African Vegan Directory. 1 October 2009 <http://www.vegansa.com/veganism-diet-and-human-evolution.php>. Singer, Peter. "Peter Singer: Ethics and Animals." 2007. Korea Animal Rights Advocate. 1 October 2009 <http://animalrightskorea.org/essays/peter-singer-ethicsand-animals.html>. T.R.S.M.D. "What are the benefits of meat, beef, chicken and pork especially?" August 2008. HubPages.com. 1 October 2009 <http://hubpages.com/hub/What-arethe-benefits-of-eating-meat--beef--chicken-and-pork-especially>. Timeline of Dietary Shifts in the human line of evolution. 19 March 2008. 1 October 2009 <http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml>.