Arguments for Vegetarianism - Essay Example

Vegetarianism

Vegetarianism remains a controversial topic in today's society. The lifestyle is increasingly described as a multi-faceted concept that produces multiple benefits. Organizations such as Vegetarian Society have played a crucial role in propagating the phenomenon. Other entities such as Beyond Meat and Gardeins have also introduced faux meat as an adequate substitute for meat products given that they have the same texture and flavor. Consequently, the number of vegetarians has been increasing around the world. Indeed, approximately three percent of Americans, 40 percent Indians, eight percent Canadians, and nine percent Germans identify as vegetarians.[1] Nonetheless, the global demand for meat and its products has quadrupled within the past 50 years with the world producing 320 million tons of meat every year. With the average person consuming around 43 kilograms of meat in a year, 80 billion animals are slaughtered annually to meet this demand.[2] Hence, proponents of vegetarianism have re-introduced topics about the concept in public sphere to elicit a change in habits. Although the opponents of vegetarianism argue that meat is a source of a majority of proteins, vegetarianism reduced the environmental impact of livestock keeping, is morally and ethically right, and promotes distributive justice.

To begin with, proponents of vegetarianism argue that the concept reduces environmental pollution. Livestock farming results in the production of manure, which, when mixed with nitrogen, releases harmful nitrates that pollute ground water. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide, which are produced through the storage of manure, affect global warming 28 times and 265 times higher than carbon dioxide respectively.[3] Cattle feedback also act as a source of organic pollution, and they form a significant percentage of the toxic organic pollutants that are found in water sources. According to research, each cattle produces approximately 9000 kilograms of waste per year.[4] When the demand for meat reduces, the impact of livestock on the environment would decrease with farmers forced to reduce their stock to reflect the diminishing demand. The grazing of animals has also caused the damages of streams and riparian areas, particularly in the United States, which has caused harm to native plants and animals that associate these places as their habitat. Abstaining from eating meat would reduce the demand for livestock farming, which, in turn, would reduce the strain on the natural ecosystem and cause the restoration of vast lands that will provide habitat to these endangered species. Therefore, embracing vegetarianism would eliminate the strain of livestock farming on the natural ecosystem, which will lead to environmental conservation.

Moreover, vegetarianism promotes an ethical and moral way of living. Every year, 80 billion animals are slaughtered in order to meet the increasing demand for meat and its products.[5] Given that animals are sentient beings, it is cruel to kill them for food when alternatives such as faux meat are available. Many philosophers have also argued that because people are morally superior to other animals and have a higher moral consciousness, they should abide by a higher standard.[6] These moral consideration should refrain them from eating diets consisting of meat or their products. Of particular concern to many vegetarians is the suffering that animals that are kept for meat production endure. Utilitarian principles promoted by Peter Singer urge the public to consider the interests of every sentient beings before consuming meat.[7] Most animals are locked in cages and slaughtered in the most inhumane ways in order to satisfy unnecessary dietary preference that can be found from existing alternatives. Through vegetarianism, the public will reduce the demand for meat and its products, which will reduce animal suffering. In such a way, moral and ethical principles demand that people should stop eating meat because they are sentient beings and to avoid promoting the suffering of animals.

Lastly, vegetarianism promotes the concept of distributive justice. This argument was first made by Francis Moore in 1971, and it has been repeated by many other philosophers. Moore argued that one pound of beef was produced after a cattle consumed 16 to 21 pounds of grain, one pound of pork was produced after a pig consumed six to eight pounds of grain, one pound of turkey meat was produced after a turkey consumed four pounds of grain and soy, while one pound of chicken meat was consumed after the consumption of three pounds of grain and soy.[8] Based on these figures, the conversion of grains and soy into meat was a wasteful process. Given that millions of people around the world suffer from the lack of adequate supply of grains and legumes, choosing to indulge in meat consumption when substitutes are readily available perpetuates a profligate lifestyle. These grains and soy that are wasted on the animals could be distributed around the world to alleviate hunger. Members of affluent nations should consider those suffering from starvation and malnutrition and boycott eating meat and its products as provided by the principle of distributive justice. This concept excoriates the moral character of meat eaters by highlighting their selfish desire to squander agricultural wealth to support their unnecessary dietary habits instead of sharing it with those in need. Therefore, vegetarianism urges people to consider the wasteful agricultural resources that are used in meat production that could have been channeled to those facing hunger in the society.

Nonetheless, opponents of vegetarianism argue that meat consumption provides a majority of proteins in one serving, which includes the required amino acids, iron and Vitamin B. While vegetarians can replace meat with other high-protein source foods, they have to consume a large variety of plant-based foods to meet the same nutrients.[9] In such a way, the adoption of vegetarianism can result in overfeeding due to the need to consume more plant-based foods, which can cause weight gain and obesity in the long-term. Nonetheless, research has demonstrated that certain plant-based foods, such as soy and soy foods, are rich in protein content and can supplement a vegetarian diet without any repercussions.[10] In fact, research has indicated that people who consume foods high in vegetable proteins, such as legumes, faced reduced risk of contracting metabolic disorders or cardiovascular diseases.[11] With the increased availability of these plant-based foods in grocery stores, people should embrace vegetarianism. Therefore, although meat consumption provides many proteins in one serving, suitable alternatives such as soy and legumes should convince more people to practice vegetarianism.

In conclusion, opponents of vegetarianism argue that meat is the only convenient source of proteins. Consequently, each year, billions of livestock are slaughtered to meet an increasing demand. However, research has proven that suitable alternatives are readily available in local markets. Indeed, product such as faux meat have the same taste and flavor such as meat, while soy and legume are rich in proteins. Given the amount of resources that are fed to animals and the impact of livestock farming on the environment, more people should embrace vegetarianism.