For millions of years, humans and their descendents have been eating meat and finding ways to coincide with animals in ways to continue growing the human population. The uses of animals have long been ingrained and accepted in our society and it still continues to happen. However, a small minority of people have thrown out these common beliefs and adopted a new culture of no use of animals. In Gary Steiner’s column, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, he attempts to open up the reader’s eyes on how he believes animals should be treated and how modern day culture should review the use of animals in everyday practices. In regards to Steiner’s column, many readers wrote whether they agreed, qualified, or disagreed based on their opinions of Steiner’s
…show more content…
He shows disbelief in the idea that intelligent people are able to cast away the animals that are being raised in such a ruthless and cruel society. Steiner even goes as far as saying that people who say they are deeply concerned with the well-being of animals don’t actually care when it comes to the topic of animal practices in this society. One individual, L. David Peters, tossed in his opinion on the matter when he expressed his fact, “Indeed, many paleoanthropologists maintain that the evolution of the large, energy-hungry human brains depend on a transition of our ancestor’s diet to include meat.” (850). Steiner’s previous statement of how he is in disbelief based on the number of intelligent personnel who turn their backs on the harsh practices of animals in modern day society was refuted with Peter’s idea. The only reason we, as human beings, are intelligent enough to decipher between right and wrong is due to our ancestor’s dietary need of meat. Peter’s argument gives rise to the fact that Steiner and his followers are only able to come to their conclusions based on the very thing they are trying to persuade people not to partake in; meat.
Steiner’s ideas on how society needs to view animals and the treatment they receive is morally a good view point to have. His point of view has been able to help shine light on how people react to his ideas, and vice versa. However, based on his ideas, in a modern day culture that depends on meat so much, this is something that most likely cannot be accomplished soon or possibly even ever. Animals have been such an integral part of mankind's history, and present, that it is hard to see a future without
He shows disbelief in the idea that intelligent people are able to cast away the animals that are being raised in such a ruthless and cruel society. Steiner even goes as far as saying that people who say they are deeply concerned with the well-being of animals don’t actually care when it comes to the topic of animal practices in this society. One individual, L. David Peters, tossed in his opinion on the matter when he expressed his fact, “Indeed, many paleoanthropologists maintain that the evolution of the large, energy-hungry human brains depend on a transition of our ancestor’s diet to include meat.” (850). Steiner’s previous statement of how he is in disbelief based on the number of intelligent personnel who turn their backs on the harsh practices of animals in modern day society was refuted with Peter’s idea. The only reason we, as human beings, are intelligent enough to decipher between right and wrong is due to our ancestor’s dietary need of meat. Peter’s argument gives rise to the fact that Steiner and his followers are only able to come to their conclusions based on the very thing they are trying to persuade people not to partake in; meat.
Steiner’s ideas on how society needs to view animals and the treatment they receive is morally a good view point to have. His point of view has been able to help shine light on how people react to his ideas, and vice versa. However, based on his ideas, in a modern day culture that depends on meat so much, this is something that most likely cannot be accomplished soon or possibly even ever. Animals have been such an integral part of mankind's history, and present, that it is hard to see a future without