Comparison of The World Food Supply: The Damage Done by Cattle Raising and Vegetarianism: Treading Lightly Upon The Earth Articles - Essay Example

Comparison of two articles The articles d “The world food supply: the damage done by cattle raising” by Tristram Coffin and “Vegetarianism: treading lightly upon the Earth” are both direction towards a discussion of environmental issues, specifically in relation to food supplies and consumption and its impact upon the ecological balance. The major thrust of the article by Tristam Coffin is the expression of a strong opposition to the livestock industry. In eight different steps, he presents his argument against the livestock industry and supports it with a strong sub-argument laid out in ten steps to support his premise that the global livestock industry is bad for ecosystems. He provides a range of facts on the basis of which he argues that we must all reduce both our meat production and meat eating, because (a) it would considerably reduce human suffering and (b) it will also reduce environmental damage. Coffin offers a detailed description of American farming practices and discusses how these practices are damaging to the environment and interfere with the natural ecological balances. On this basis, he seeks to convince a reader that such interference with the ecological systems could be mitigated to a great extent if human beings were to refrain from eating meat. Michael Allen Fox also argues in favour of vegetarianism in his article. The objective of his article is also to achieve the same ends as Tristam Coffin, i.e, to convince readers of the advantages inherent in vegetarianism, because it would alleviate the needless suffering of animals and offer a more healthy lifestyle for human beings. But while Coffin specifically targets his argument against meat eating and the production of livestock specifically for this purpose, Fox directs his views towards encouraging vegetarianism by pointing out its benefits. His focus is on highlighting the health and environmental benefits of vegetarianism. While Coffin has undoubtedly presented a good argument, there is however a significant weakness in his arguments. His article seeks to link the facts about the damaging effects of American livestock farming to a moral conclusion and this presents certain problems. In the first instance, American livestock farming is not so prevalent on a global basis that it could be solely responsible for large scale global environmental damage. While American farming practices are undoubtedly damaging to the environment, there are many countries in the world who have not adopted such practices. Some farming practices are much less damaging as compared to others, hence the negative environmental impact of such practices may not all cause the same level of damage. Secondly, establishing facts about environmental damage cannot automatically be the basis to jump to moral conclusions. Coffin uses his arguments to link the facts about environmental damage to moral conclusions about good and bad, and prescribes restrictions on human behaviour and practices on the basis of these moral conclusions. This is a weak link in his article, because a strictly factual conclusion about the damage to the environment would have been acceptable to a greater degree than the inclusion of moral conclusions. Fox argues in favour of vegetarianism on the basis that animals feel pain when they are killed. A lack of awareness about the pain felt by animals or an acknowledgement that they have sensitivities like human beings is in effect, a refusal to question why animals also have the same kind of cerebral, physiological, neurological or biochemical structures that human beings have. He offers the view that vegetarianism offers a kinder ethic towards animals, better health and a pure spirit for human beings. But his arguments are also flawed in that while they advocate and promote vegetarianism, there is very little material offered by way of presenting the health issues associated with vegetarianism or coverage of vegetarian eating, such as recipes, etc. As a result, the author has lost the opportunity to press home his message about the benefits of vegetarianism by failing to properly articulate the associated health benefits. Fox also presents an ethical perspective on vegetarianism, arguing that culturally entrenched practices that consider meat eating to be a normal practice, in effect ignore the interconnectedness that exists between humans and animals. Some proponents of meat eating have argued that the thrust towards vegetarianism may be unjust in that it ignores the nutritional needs of vulnerable groups like old and sick people in less developed countries. But Fox has countered these arguments by offering the view that the social injustice associated with meat eating may in fact overshadow any injustices related to a shift towards vegetarian diets by vulnerable people in developing countries who do not have access to the nutritional supplements available in the West and may therefore be placed at a disadvantage in terms of their health. Hence Fox has also looked into the ethical issues associated with vegetarianism, but his views are more comprehensive and offer coverage of both sides of the issue, without attempting to arrive at any moral conclusions like Coffin’s work does. While both authors have put forward points worthy of consideration and deep, reflective thought, the question of meat eating is undoubtedly a long established nutritional practice by humans that has automatically assumed animals are of a lesser order than human beings, hence their needs and rights are to be subordinated to man’s. While it could be argued that meat eating is ecologically damaging, the arguments for and against vegetarianism cannot be separated from the ethical issues that are associated with them. It must also be borne in mind that food habits that have been established for generations and are entrenched in human practice cannot be changed overnight. While pure vegetarianism may be a viable option in developed countries where nutritional supplements and better access to food exists, it may not be adequate to ensure the nutritional needs of vulnerable groups in developing countries. Moreover, moral values may not necessarily be the same in every culture across the globe. The move towards vegetarianism is therefore likely to be a slow process and there will be a need to effectively substitute the benefits of meat eating with viable vegetarian alternatives that can match up nutritionally to meat. Till then, the issue may remain largely a rhetorical one. Reference: Pojman, Louis P and Pojman, Paul, “Environmental Ethics”, at pp 493-496 and 496-505 Read More