Bruger:Lhademmor/kød

Fra Wikipedia, den frie encyklopædi

Skabelon:Not verified Skabelon:Weasel

While many people have no ethical objections to eating meat, others object to the act of killing and eating an animal and/or the agricultural practices surrounding the production of meat. Reasons for objecting to the practice of killing may include a belief in animal rights, environmental ethics, or an aversion to inflicting pain or harm on other living creatures due to conscience. Many people, while not vegetarians, refuse to eat the flesh of some animals, such as cats, dogs, horses or rabbits, or warm-blooded animals generally. Some people eat only the flesh of animals who have not been mistreated, and abstain from the meat of animals reared in factory farms or from particular products such as foie gras and veal. Others believe that the treatment which animals undergo in the production of meat and animal products obliges them never to eat meat or use animal products.

Indholdsfortegnelse 1 Scope 2 Personal or public ethical issue 3 Arguments for why eating meat is unethical 3.1 Cause least harm 3.2 Animals have feelings and can suffer 3.3 Animals are not treated well 3.4 Sanctity of life 3.5 Damage to the environment 3.6 Religious opposition 4 Arguments for why eating meat is ethical 4.1 Eating meat is like eating vegetables 4.2 Eating meat is a natural behaviour 4.3 Animals feel no pain 4.4 Being respectful to animals 4.5 Overpopulation 4.6 No moral responsibility, no rights 4.7 Health 4.8 Necessity 4.9 Farming plants harms animals 4.10 Farming animals keeps them alive 5 References 6 See also 7 External links

[redigér] Scope

The total global production of meat from land animals was 229 million metric tonnes in 1999, and is projected to grow to 465 million tonnes by 2050. ^[1] Annual fish, shellfish, and aquatic animal production totals almost 120 million tonnes.^[2] While some see no problems with this level of production and consumption of animals for food, others view it as one of the most pressing ethical issues facing humanity.

Unless otherwise stated, the issues dealt with in this article are about the consumption of the flesh of animals insofar as those animals are capable of sentient . Life-forms that are animals in the biological sense but are not sentient are generally not seen as posing specific ethical problems.^[3]

[redigér] Personal or public ethical issue

An ethical issue may or may not be seen as having potential legal consequences. Not all unethical behaviour is illegal.

Some may view the choice whether or not to eat animals, or certain animals, as necessarily a personal issue, to be left to the free choice of each individualSkabelon:Fact Others believe that like many cases of infliction of serious harm on another being, the treatment of animals is in the scope of the law. Skabelon:Fact A number of countries, for instance, have banned the production of foie gras. Skabelon:Fact

[redigér] Arguments for why eating meat is unethical

[redigér] Cause least harm

Philosopher Peter Singer believes that if alternative means of survival exist, one ought to choose the option that does not cause unnecessary harm to animals. Singer believes that everyone (with the exception of a small minority of people such as nomadic, hunting and herding societies) is free to choose not to eat meat or use animal products without sacrificing their health.^[4]

Rebuttals

• Not eating any meat can be harmful if adequate alternatives are unavailable, see Necessity.

• It can be argued that a diet without meat does not reduce harm to animals, see Farming plants harms animals.
• Many people disagree that humans have an obligation to avoid eating animals even if alternative means of survival persist, on the grounds that animals are not moral agents and cannot claim rights (nor can they be charged with crimes).
• It is not clear that the interest of an animal to survive trumps the interest of a human being to consume it, anymore than it is clear that the interests of a mosquito to feed and survive on human blood trump the interests of the human being bitten to thwart it.

[redigér] Animals have feelings and can suffer

John Webster, a professor of animal husbandry at Bristol University has been quoted as saying "People have assumed that intelligence is linked to the ability to suffer and that because animals have smaller brains they suffer less than humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic, sentient animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and are motivated to seek it, you only have to watch how cows, pigs and lambs both seek and enjoy pleasure when they lie with their heads raised to the sun on a perfect English summer's day. Just like humans."^[5]

In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer developed a list of qualities in sentient creatures that he believes gives them consideration under utilitarian ethics. This list has been widely referenced by animal rights campaigners and vegetarians. Singer provides a number of reasons to bestow moral consideration on an animal, such as that the animal does not want to die and is given no choice, that the family and friends of that animal may suffer because of its death, that the animal has expectations of future enjoyment which are denied, that the animal enjoys living, and that the animal experiences fear and pain when killed. Some would say that killing an animal could only be justified in extreme circumstances and that the creation of a meal for its taste, convenience or nutritional value is not sufficient cause.

Rebuttals

• This is not an argument against eating meat, rather against making animals suffer, which meat eaters do not necessarily agree with.

• Arguments of this sort may be motivated by simple anthropomorphism, or the grafting of human feelings and desires onto animals. Skabelon:Fact

• The simple act of living brings human beings into conflict with literally thousands of animals, including parasites, worms, mosquitoes, pests, rats, and the like, all of which have interests that often directly conflict with the interests and survival of humans. In this respect Singer's reasoning that killing an animal is unethical because "it does not want to die" applies equally to mosquitoes and tapeworms, and on utilitarian grounds, it is not very clear where to draw the line between the interest of a thousand tapeworms vs. that of one human being trying to survive.

[redigér] Animals are not treated well

Vegetarianism for ethical reasons has become popular in developed countries particularly because of the spread of factory farming. Factory farms are widely believed to have reduced quality of life for animals compared to their quality of life on traditional farms. Some people question whether the current demand for meat can be satisfied without a mass-production system that disregards the welfare of animals. Others believe that practices like well-managed free-ranging and consumption of game could substantially alleviate the demand for mass-produced meat.

Rebuttals

• Because meat can be produced without factory farms, avoiding eating any meat is the logical fallacy of guilty by association.

• This is not an argument against eating meat, rather against making animals suffer.

[redigér] Sanctity of life

Regardless of whether animals are treated well or badly, meat eating involves taking away life, even if by painless means. The Sanctity of Life (SL) principle ("Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben") posits that the inherent sacrosanctity of life is unchallengable and has to be accepted as a first principle. Albert Schweitzer was a major exponent of the SL principle. Ethics, according to Schweitzer, consists in "the compulsion to show toward the will-to-live of each and every being the same reverence as one does to one's own."

Schweitzer's reasoning was as follows: (a) I have a will to live (Will to Live Thesis), (b) When I am healthy and sincere towards myself, I feel reverence for my will to life (Self Affirmation Thesis), (c) All other organisms have a similar will to live (Analogy Thesis), (d) I experience empathy with other life as I reflect honestly, dwelling on its similarity to my own life (Empathy Thesis), (e) My empathy generates sympathy, caring, and a "compulsion" to approach other life with the same reverence I feel for my life (Life Affirmation Thesis), and (f) Hence, reverence for life is a fundamental virtue that consists in "preserving life, promoting and developing all life that is capable of development to its highest possible value" and in not "destroying life, injuring life, repressing life that is capable of development."

Rebuttals

• This approach implies that our belief in SL is an outcome of our own self-centered fear of death, and not an ethical precept.
• Empathy has an emotional appeal, but desires and feelings may be misguided. Just because they are natural does not mean they are justified.
• This principle could be applied to all life, and not just sentient life.

[redigér] Damage to the environment

Skabelon:Main

A combination of the Conservation ethic and the supposed environmental benefits of vegetarianism, this argument claims that consuming meat is less ethical than vegetarianism because it is more damaging to the environment. Proponents argue that meat-eating is immoral from an environmental ethics point of view. Based on Kurt Baier's work (The Moral Point of View, 1994) they argue that if the behaviour in question is such that (a) the consequences would be undesirable if everyone did it, (b) all are equally entitled to engage in it, and (c) engaging in this sort of behaviour is an indulgence, not a sacrifice, then such a behaviour should be prohibited by the morality of the group. They cite that human density on Earth is now one person to about 2 hectares of land, and when domestic animals are added, the density is one population equivalent (Borgstrom, 1965) to about 0.3 hectare.

It is well known that the transfer of energy and nutrients accross trophic levels in an ecosystem is inefficient. In fact only about 10% of the nutritive value is transfered. This means that producing a unit of biomass in any particular level in the ecological pyramid will require ten times the investement in energy and nutrients than the one immediately below it. Put another way, one kilogram of food derived from animal sources will require ten times the resource investement (land, water and energy) that one kilogram of plant-derived food requires. This is balanced somewhat by the fact that meat contains a higher nutritional content than vegetable matter. ^[6]

If meat consumption doubles in the next forty years, then there will be only half an acre to supply all the needs (water, oxygen, minerals, fibers, living space, as well as food) for each 50-kilogram consumer, not including pets and wildlife, which would be a catastrophic consequence. They further add that 87 percent of US agricultural land is used to raise animals for food, which feed on more than 80 percent of the corn and 95 percent of oats the US produces. Meat animals of the world alone consume food equal to calorific needs of 9 billion people. The additional strain on natural resources is also cited. They also point out that the spread of cattle farming is closely related to deforestation.Skabelon:Fact

A study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago, found that consumption of meat may be as detrimental to the environment as it is to human health ^[7]. Relatedly, the production and consumption of meat and other animal products is associated with the clearing of rainforests, resource depletion, air and water pollution, land and economic inefficiency, and species extinction.

Rebuttals

• The above figures are largely for a western-style diet and cultivation. In fact, in many Asian countries where rice is the staple diet, it takes 5,000 litres of water to produce a Kg of rice, whereas one Kg of broiler chicken requires only 3,500 litres.^[8] Freeranging cattle and goats/sheep in developing countries require even lesser water requirements since little or no crop is solely cultivated directly as livestock fodder and many goats have water requirements next only to camels making them very significant to the economy of small-scale farmers.^[9]

• Much of the land used to raise animals is unsuitable for food crops but is suitable for grazing.
• Meat obtained from wild sources, such as through hunting and fishing, does not add any burden to the local environment so long as its harvest is regulated to maintain healthy population levels. In so much as these practices replace a portion of the diet that would otherwise be produced through commercial means, they actually reduce the ecological footprint of an individual.
• This is an argument concerning the environmental effects of livestock farming, and therefore can be countered with the rebuttals outlined under the preceding section.

[redigér] Religious opposition

Skabelon:Section stub

People's spiritual belief system or religious doctrine lead a person to the position that eating meat is immoral. Some religions offer reasons why eating meat should not be practised. In the Dharmic religions, Karmas play an important role. Hinduism and Jainism are such religions that support a vegetarian diet and oppose meat eating.

"You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human or animal."(Yajur Veda, 12.32)

"By not killing any living being, one becomes fit for salvation." (Manusmriti, 6.60)

"Eight people are considered killers: Advisers in matter of meat, the Cutter, the Killer, the Seller, the Buyer, the Cook, the Server and the Eater." (Manusmriti, 5.51)

"The purchaser of flesh performs himsa (violence) by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts of the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it-all of these are to be considered meat-eaters." (Mahabharata, Anu. 115:40)

Sikhism is one religion that is divided over the issue of meat eating with some section firmly supportive of vegetarian, and others hold that vegetarianism is desirable but not mandatory. Both camps do agree that only a "Fool Wrangles Over Flesh".

According to some people Christianity and Judaism are opposed to eating meat. They use a number of passages from the Old and New Testament to support them. This is described more precisely in the article Christian vegetarianism.

Most Muslims believe that their duty is kindness to animals (because of passages from the Quran and Hadith). Many vegetarian Muslims use these passages to advocate abstinence from meat.

Rebuttals

• A belief system can also find eating meat to be moral, or even mandatory. A verse in the Jewish Tanakh (Christian Old Testament) states "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs." ^[10] Similarly, the Christian New Testament says "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for the earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." ^[11].

[redigér] Arguments for why eating meat is ethical

[redigér] Eating meat is like eating vegetables

Animals, like plants, all find ways to keep from being eaten. People eat vegetables for their nutrients in the same way people eat meat. In addition, farming damages the environment, especially by the clearing of forests. Clearing of forests by burning also releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and is a major contributor of global warming.

Rebuttals

• Farming does indeed damage the environment, but it should be noted that 70% of grain production in the U.S. is for animal feed[1]. Therefore most deforestation and pesticide use associated with farming results from the cattle industry.

[redigér] Eating meat is a natural behaviour

Some argue that because meat eating is a natural or traditional behaviour, in some cases necessary for survival, it is excluded from ethical consideration.

Evolutionary scientists have proposed that meat-eating and hunting are major factors in the evolution of humans: "Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat." Scientists have found "stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago". ^[12] Further evidence comes from the fact that pre-agricultural societies lived in nomadic tribes or clans that subsisted through a hunting and gathering lifestyle. Hunter-gatherer societies that subsisted into the 20th century all relied on significant portions of meat in their diet and all hunted in order to survive. ^[13]

Human biology is such that several essential nutrients are far easier to obtain from a diet that includes meat and meat products. Furthermore, some scientists have concluded that the human small intestine is far too short to indicate a solely herbivorous diet, as compared with other primates such as the gorilla (which is almost solely herbivorous). ^[14] Additional evidence comes from the fact that chimpanzees eat significant portions of meat (approximately 4-10% of their diet) and will organize hunts to catch and eat prey such as colobus monkeys. ^[15]

Rebuttals

• It can be argued on physiological and psychological grounds that eating meat is not a natural behaviour for humans at all, with regard to inadequate stomach pH levels, and more importantly, our lack of strong claws and teeth. Nor do our so-called "canine teeth" in any way imply meat-eating; many other vegetarian primates and other herbivores possess them, and they are useful for piercing fruit but not hide.

• Many natural behaviours would be appalling if exhibited by humans.
• Humans are considered morally conscious of their behaviour in a way other animals are not.
• Natural, traditional or evolutionarily beneficial behaviour is not necessarily good.
• This argument qualifies as an example of the appeal to nature or appeal to tradition logical fallacies.
• Some people believe that the choice to eat meat or not is often not a conscious ethical decision, but a reaction to upbringing and society.

[redigér] Animals feel no pain

Meat eating has been defended on the belief that animals feel no pain or cannot think and thus are not worthy of ethical consideration. In particular some religions Skabelon:Fact (especially from Christian tradition) believe that animals cannot think because animals have no soul. This view was shared by Descartes, who held the dualist belief that thoughts and feelings such as pain occur in the incorporeal soul rather than the brain. According to Descartes animals have no soul, their actions being the simple cause and effect responses of automata and they are therefore incapable of feeling pain. Many believe, however, that because these animals would not even exist if we did not breed them for the sole purpose of eating, we have no moral obligations to them. We gave them life to be eaten, they would not be roaming freely if we did not eat them, they would just be killed anyway.

Rebuttals

• The denial of animal pain has been largely refuted, especially for higher order animals, by neuroscience, behavioral and evolutionary biology ^{[16] [17]}. Conclusive evidence has been found to support the theory that fish and other highly evolved animals do feel pain. In 2003, an article on the BBC website stated that "the first conclusive evidence of pain perception in fish is said to have been found by UK scientists" and "this complements earlier findings that both birds and mammals can feel pain..." ^[18]. Research and debate on animal intelligence, however, continue to be controversial for their ethical implications.

• Other religions such as Hinduism (see the concept of Karma) and animist traditions believe that not only do animals have souls but that those souls may transmigrate back and to human beings therefore to eat meat might be to kill and eat a deceased human relative. Islam supports the concept of animals having consciousness and even an awareness or worship of God, that animals have the ability to suffer and that human actions to cause animal suffering are not only strictly prohibited by the Prophet but seen as punishable in this life and the nextSkabelon:Fact.
• Animals in suffering or stress produce endomorphines the same as human beings and benefit from palliative treatment ^[19].

• To counter Descartes, other philosophers from Aristotle through to The Peripatetics and his contemporary De la Forge all support the idea of an animal soul. De La Mettrie wrote that " the soul of an animal must be either mortal or immortal, whichever ours is",^[20] and Rouseau argued the case for animals' sentience and right not to be needlessly suffer.

[redigér] Being respectful to animals

Many hunter gatherer tribes will apologize to or thank an animal which has been killed, excusing themselves on the basis that they had to eat the animal in order to survive. Skabelon:Fact

Rebuttals

• Animals have interest in their own lives and want to live. They don't know that they are being apologized to or thanked.

• Unlike people of hunter gatherer tribes, modern man does not need to kill animals in order to survive. Thus, he cannot be forgiven on this basis.

[redigér] Overpopulation

In some areas, certain species of animals have become overpopulated. This overpopulation can cause serious environmental damage. A common example is an excess deer population, which causes damage to forests and gardens, and can lead to starvation within the animal population when conditions become less optimal. Killing animals in this case might alleviate the suffering of others, and provide food without causing undue suffering.

Rebuttals

• While food provision might be a side-effect of culling, and might even be morally defensive in this regard, this argument can be seen as diversionary as the effects of population management of this kind account for only a miniscule fraction of global food production.

• Morally legitimating the acquisition of food from culling could very possibly lead to deliberate overpopulation.

[redigér] No moral responsibility, no rights

Another argument in favor of meat-eating involves ascribing any kind of rights only to creatures with free will. This theory argues that since animals lack free will, they are unable to exercise 'rights' in any sense. Since the notion of rights, like the notion of morals, cannot be applied to animals, it need not be applied to their being killed. That is, animals that lack rights, free-will, or the ability to reason abstractly, and thus lack any right to life.

Rebuttals

• Free will is a debated concept. Depending on how the concept is defined, and on whether it is seen as valid at all, it is either not evident that non-humans have no free will, or that humans do have free will.

• The concept that in order to have a right, one must be able to take on responsibilities, i.e., social contract, is specious. Human infants, or those who suffer severe mental illness, for instance, are granted rights but no responsibilities. Those with rights and responsibilities are obligated to apply their responsibilities to all, not just others with equal rights.

• It is not evident that the ethical issue of eating meats depends on granting rights to animals. Utilitarian philosophers such as Peter Singer argue that all beings' interests must be given consideration; without any reference to rights.

[redigér] Health

Some argue that the fats obtained from eating meat are necessary for brain development. ^[21] Moreover, Omega 3 which improves the life expectancy and reduces medical problems are found in large amounts in fish and many studies have associated a positive health benefit for those eating seafood regularly. ^{[22] [23]} However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have warned that some fish may contain high amounts of toxic heavy metals (for example, mercury). Pregnant women are sometimes recommended to not eat certain types of fish during pregnancy. ^[24]

Some suggest that refraining from eating meat causes Vitamin B-12 deficiencies. They say that Vitamin B-12 is essential to human life, as it is essential to the formation of nucleic acids and nearly all body tissues. Vitamin B-12 cannot be obtained from plants, and that most of the Vitamin B-12 found in cereals and pills could be uselessSkabelon:Fact, as Vitamin B-12 occurs in many analogues, and only one analogue can be used by humans. The deficiency of B-12 has been linked to Alzheimer's disease, and can cause mood swings, depression, mental slowness, weakness, fatigue, and memory problems. Some studies have shown that vegetarian mothers are more likely to have children with low cobalamin (Vitamin B₁₂), elevated tHcy and methylmalonic acid ^[25]. Other studies have gone as far as claiming that vegetarian mothers are more likely to have children with birth defects.Skabelon:Fact

The belief that it is not healthy to abstain from meat, and that abstaining from meat during pregnancy could harm a child, could outweigh ethical consideration for animals.

Studies also have shown that soy could, in fact, be linked to cancer ^[26]. In fact, at the Gerson Clinic, an oncology specialist clinic, soy is banned because it is suspected of causing cancer. Also, many say that because soy beans are dipped in alkaline and heated to create soy milk, and that the alkaline processing produces the carcinogen lysinoalaline.^[26]

Rebuttals

• Eating fortified foods, B12-tablets or dairy products and eggs may prevent or reduce these health problems.

• The American Dietetic Association states, “Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.” ^[27]

• Many believe that if the cost of health, or even life, is the suffering of others, then this is far too high a price to pay.
• Meat is not the only source of Omega 3. It is also found in high amounts in flaxseed, walnuts amongst others. ^[28] However, this is not the same kind of Omega 3 found in fish, and the ability of the human body to convert the different types of Omega 3 to those it needs, such as DHA, is unclear. ^[29]

[redigér] Necessity

In certain cultures, such as the Inuit, surviving without meat is not possible due to the climate and local flora and fauna. Certain areas, particularly mountainous areas, are not suitable for producing human crops, yet are still useful for allowing livestock to graze.

Rebuttals

• This is no justification for people who have a choice of diet to eat meat.
• Land that is only suitable for grazing has only been made that way by the damage to the land and water supply caused by previous raising of livestock. Therefore using this land will exacerbate the problem of land shortage, not solve it. Perhaps such land is best left to wildlife (which is in desperate need of more land).

[redigér] Farming plants harms animals

Some argue that vegetarianism actually doesn't reduce the number of animals killed; while vegetarians may reduce the demand for meat for consumption, animals might be killed in indirect ways. For example, critics like Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argues that the number of wild animals killed in crop production is greater than those killed in ruminant-pasture production^[30]. Whenever a tractor goes through a field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, and harvest, animals are killed. Davis gives a small sampling of field animals in the U. S. that are threatened by intensive crop production, such as: opossum, rock dove, house sparrow, European starling, black rat, Norway rat, house mouse, Chukar, grey partridge, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, gray-tailed vole, and numerous species of amphibians. In one small example, an alfalfa harvest caused a 50% decline in the gray-tailed vole population. According to Davis, if all of the cropland in the U. S. were used to produce crops for a vegetarian diet, it is estimated that around 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually. ^[31]

Rebuttals

• Most meat consumed by humans is not from pasture animals but from animals fed food from crops, the production of which implies the same kind of indirect harm to animals as the production of crops for direct human consumption. However, much larger crop surfaces are needed for a meat-based diet than for a plant-based one, because of the poor energy conversion ratio from plant food to animal flesh. Indeed, 70% of grain produced in the U.S. is fed to cattle[2]. Thus the total amount of harm entailed to field animals is certainly much greater for a standard meat-based diet than for a plant-based one.

• The above figure given by Davis of 1.8 billion animals that would be killed annually in the field in the U.S. if everyone went vegetarian is actually much smaller than the number of animals currently slaughtered in the U.S. (approximately 10 billion "poultry" animals),^[32] not to mention the animals who are killed in the field if crops are used to feed the animals raised.

• It may be true that a few forms of meat consumption -- perhaps, eating the meat from animals raised on pastures -- kills fewer animals than some, or even most, forms of plant production. Such meat production might then be ethically preferable. However, eating meat may also have a symbolic value, as a statement that the life of the animal eaten is of little worth. Only in a society where the interests of other sentient beings are given due consideration can methods be devised to minimize the harm done to animals in the production of crops. To work towards such a society, it is necessary to forgo the consumption of the flesh of animals.Skabelon:Fact

• The animal populations and death caused in Davis's studies are artificially high due to the industrialisation of agriculture on one hand and harvesting methods on the other. The issue is one of intent. Vegetarianism does not intend to kill animals, and it is entirely within conception to evolve or revert to a more sustainable or cruelty limited system. Davis's critique is actually a critique of the practises of industrial agriculture feeding the meat industry and has little to do with vegetarianism.

• Pollution resulting from animal farming also poses a risk to wildlife, especially through the contamination of rivers and lakes from untreated manure[3]. Livestock production is also an important source of greenhouse gasses; in particular, it has been estimated to be responsible for 20% of global methane production[4].

[redigér] Farming animals keeps them alive

Some critics of vegetarianism believe that human society has a responsibility to maintain the animal species that have become dependent on human husbandry for survival. They suggest that hundreds of years of selective breeding in domestic animal species has made them dependent on human farming. An expansion of this argument is that if a society had a sudden and drastic conversion to vegetarianism, there would be no economically viable reason for keeping certain livestocks--meaning the only viable way to free land for arable farming would be the mass culling of animals.^[33] While critics argue that some level of animal husbandry would be maintained for other animal products like wool, milk, eggs etc., supporters of this argument point out that selective breeding has created breeds of animals which have been bred specifically for their meat.

Rebuttals

• Humans do not have a responsibility to maintain any specific breeds and that they will increase naturally as people turn towards vegetarianism because of the market shift. Freeing land, if needed, can be made by other means.

• Species of animals are constantly being driven to extinction by human actions--including the land use practices that eating meat leads to. The same tactics that are used to protect other endangered species could be used to protect domestic animal species, and a vegetarian diet might result in the extinction of fewer species in the long run.

• It is unethical to create a life for the purpose of killing it. Once a life is created, it should be cared for by its creator and thus ethical treatment of animals that were already created for human consumption is required.

[redigér] References

[redigér] See also

• Speciesism
• Antispecism
• Animal rights
• Meat
• Food guide pyramid
• Economic vegetarianism
• Environmental vegetarianism
• Veganism
• Vegetarianism
• Vegetarianism and religion
• Vegetarian nutrition

[redigér] External links

• The moral basis of vegetarianism (1959) e-book by Mahatma Gandhi