Roughly 3-4 percent of the U.S. population is vegetarian. Whether or not people should consume meat is a very debated issue. Most people in the world do eat meat, but there is a faction of people who are of the opinion that it is better to live off of a primarily plant based diet. While vegetarianism has many benefits, an omnivorous lifestyle doesn’t have to be detrimental to the environment and can be as healthy as any other diet..
Vegetarians’ main argument is that a no-meat diet is healthier, greener (better for the planet) and less cruel. All these arguments have evidence to back them up.For example, Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin of the University of Chicago stated, “The adverse effects of dietary animal fat intake on cardiovascular diseases …show more content…
Cave people hunted and ate meat and the only plant life consumed was what they could gather. Many doctors argue that the human digestive system evolved to consume meat and that their are essential substances in meat like vitamin B-12 that are not found in plants (D’Amico). D’Amico argues that it isn’t meat that makes a diet unhealthy, it is how they eat meat, and how much they eat. As for being bad for the environment there is some truth to that, but the impact is not necessarily worse than that of a vegetarian diet. Archer points out how production of grains and wheat can harm animals more than raising livestock. To grow crops in a place like Australia (and many other areas), farmers have to clear the land of most native flora. The trees are cut down, the grasses pulled up, any swamps drained. The result is that a huge amount of biodiversity is loss, and any animals that called that area home are either dead, or will soon be dead because they have no place to live. Archer then says the issue is that if we were to shift our diet to entirely plant based, the amount of land necessary would be far greater than what is currently available. This means we would have to destroy more natural habitats. Raising livestock isn’t the perfect solution; unchecked, herds can overgraze and cause erosion. However, Archer concludes, livestock can graze on native plants and grasses, so a whole ecosystem needn’t be destroyed. In addition …show more content…
Maybe more people should strive to be conscious omnivores; not eating huge amount of meat, don't make any one food the bad guy. Perez believes there is a moral middle ground; people must weigh the benefits of eating meat with the cost, not just for the animals, but for people as well. Perez then says, scientists predict that in order to sustainably support the estimated population for 2050, people will need to reduce their meat intake by 25%. Instead of being solely a vegetarian or carnivore, perhaps people should try to be conscious omnivores: eat less meat and only that which is humanely raised and not excluding anything from the diet
Vegetarians’ main argument is that a no-meat diet is healthier, greener (better for the planet) and less cruel. All these arguments have evidence to back them up.For example, Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin of the University of Chicago stated, “The adverse effects of dietary animal fat intake on cardiovascular diseases …show more content…
Cave people hunted and ate meat and the only plant life consumed was what they could gather. Many doctors argue that the human digestive system evolved to consume meat and that their are essential substances in meat like vitamin B-12 that are not found in plants (D’Amico). D’Amico argues that it isn’t meat that makes a diet unhealthy, it is how they eat meat, and how much they eat. As for being bad for the environment there is some truth to that, but the impact is not necessarily worse than that of a vegetarian diet. Archer points out how production of grains and wheat can harm animals more than raising livestock. To grow crops in a place like Australia (and many other areas), farmers have to clear the land of most native flora. The trees are cut down, the grasses pulled up, any swamps drained. The result is that a huge amount of biodiversity is loss, and any animals that called that area home are either dead, or will soon be dead because they have no place to live. Archer then says the issue is that if we were to shift our diet to entirely plant based, the amount of land necessary would be far greater than what is currently available. This means we would have to destroy more natural habitats. Raising livestock isn’t the perfect solution; unchecked, herds can overgraze and cause erosion. However, Archer concludes, livestock can graze on native plants and grasses, so a whole ecosystem needn’t be destroyed. In addition …show more content…
Maybe more people should strive to be conscious omnivores; not eating huge amount of meat, don't make any one food the bad guy. Perez believes there is a moral middle ground; people must weigh the benefits of eating meat with the cost, not just for the animals, but for people as well. Perez then says, scientists predict that in order to sustainably support the estimated population for 2050, people will need to reduce their meat intake by 25%. Instead of being solely a vegetarian or carnivore, perhaps people should try to be conscious omnivores: eat less meat and only that which is humanely raised and not excluding anything from the diet