Eisenstein makes a compelling case for respecting plant life. Vegans/Vegetarians/PETA activists make the mistake of going after a fundamental component of human diet, and alienate the majority of the population from the larger cause of environmental destruction. They don't care about those subsistence farmers in Africa destrying virgin forest to plant crops to feed themselves. Human overpopulation is destroying the earth, and all these PETA idiots can talk about is people eating meat and drinking milk. Does any of these vegans give a s*** about the rainforests being cut down to make their furniture and their morning newspapers?

I do. However when considering the amount of rain forest destroyed for crops, you also have to take into consideration the amount of this wheat/corn/soy/etc that is used to produce feed for farmed animals. One thing you have to keep in mind is that when consuming an animal, you are also consuming everything that he or she has consumed in the past. It is the grain that they eat which turns into the muscle you fry on the grill. Their energy is converted by the plants they eat, into their own cells which you then consume to provide your own cells with energy. In essence if you where to "cut out the middle man", you could use the initial food source to create your own cells, instead of processing it first through the cow. You should also consider the vast number of vegans and vegetarians who purchase local produce, grains and flours. In fact many vegans/vegetarians come to their lifestyle choice solely out of environmental concerns.

With love
B.A.D.

That there are many vegetarians who are (in one way or another) not in step with PETA for any number of reasons.  Please try void painting broad generalizations Anon. There is no monolithic "vegetarian philosophy" as such.

I can hardly breathe from the silliness of this! Charles, again, you kill *more* plants, and therefore use more environmental resources, when you eat meat than you do if you eat plants directly. What is so difficult about that to comprehend? It doesn't matter where or how the animal is raised. When you eat the animal, you are gobbling up all of the plant and water resources the animal consumed in his or her life. That adds up, depending on the animal in question, to 5 to 20 pounds of grain or soy for every pound of meat. As for water, the average vegetarian indirectly consumes 300 gallons per day while the average meat-eater consumes 4,200 gallons per day! All told, 20 people can eat a healthy vegetarian diet on the resources used by one meat-eating omnivore, whether he calls himself "ethical" or not. Too bad for you if you don't care about the feelings of animals. Too bad for you if you believe the sensual pleasure you take in certain tastes or textures is worth more than the lives of other beings with wishes of their own. But if you only care about the environment, or if you only care about people, you still have to go vegan if you want to be ethical in deed as well as word.

Plant-human communication?

Please.

Can someone please tell me how many vegans you see out chopping redwoods? I don't get that part.

Are there any sources for this claim? It seems like a good point for vegetarianism that I don't hear much about.

"All told, 20 people can eat a healthy vegetarian diet on the resources used by one meat-eating omnivore, whether he calls himself "ethical" or not"

I'm just going to out myself here, since I'm one of the Jewcy team's two vegetarian proselytizers. I'm a PETA-supporting ethical vegetarian with not much interest in environmental issues, and a good deal of suspicion about the hysteria surrounding climate change. If I had to choose between a redwood and Daisy the Dairy Heffer, I'd have a chainsaw going through that redwood so fast its mycelial networks and volatile aromatics would be going feckin' crazy.

I'm not bragging, or putting forth an argument, just describing myself. 

I think the awe you feel standing in front of the redwood tree has more to do with sensing your own insignificance. That tree has been around for a very long time. The tree's great age or size makes you realize that maybe you're not so important. Of course a cow doesn't inspire the same feeling. The cow doesn't make you reimagine your place in the universe. But it doesn't make sense to compare the cow to the tree.

"All told, 20 people can eat a healthy vegetarian diet on the resources used by one meat-eating omnivore, whether he calls himself "ethical" or not"

Are there any scientific studies that support this claim? Obviously not, since this is a lie cooked up by vegans to support the claim that meat-eaters use more resources. Just living in the US, where we use 25% of the earths resources makes you a culprit, whether you are vegan or not.

Also, humans did not significantly alter the earth's ecology till they invented agriculture. The major ecological disasters are happening in Africa and India, where most people do not consume meat.

Vegans/vegetarians can work with ethical omnivores to reduce the human population and cut down on the ecological fooprint we leave on the earth, but instead they choose to make ad hominem attacks on all meat-eaters, while reveling intheir own perceived superiority.

"I'm just going to out myself here, since I'm one of the Jewcy team's two vegetarian proselytizers. I'm a PETA-supporting ethical vegetarian with not much interest in environmental issues, and a good deal of suspicion about the hysteria surrounding climate change. If I had to choose between a redwood and Daisy the Dairy Heffer, I'd have a chainsaw going through that redwood so fast its mycelial networks and volatile aromatics would be going feckin' crazy."

Just goes to show that ethical omnivores are much more responsible stewards of the earth than those vegetarians who pretend to be so superior. After all, Hitler was a vegetarian.

The UN came out with a study this past year stating that cattle had the greatest effect on global warming. Here's a link to the report by the UN http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

Eisenstein:

What possible scenario would cause anyone to choose between the death of a cow and a 300 year old redwood? What about a 300 year old cow? Heck, bet that there would be far less of them around and they would possess at least an equally 'great and wise spirit,' huh? Just so you do not think i am belittling trees, i have hugged a couple of trees. I have watched in awe as the morning light bathes them in nutrients. I have stood beneath them and wondered and marveled at the life the have experienced. Of course it is a life imagined from the perspective of how a human would suppose life to be. Afterall, understanding a tree's perspective is a matter of the one do the interpreting.

So just to get this point crystal clear. No plant including trees are here simply to provide us with food shelter and clothing.

Grazing lands not suitable for horticulture? So what. Is grazing land suitable for something else, like maybe grass, perhaps the Giant Prairie Grass, Hemp, or any number of other plants that the commercially raised animals were grazing upon, those plants might just havea stake in helping an eco system regain some equalibrium. Just because so-called grazing land is not suitable for growing plants for food does not mean that they are completely without function. what about a nice walk across a prairie or perhaps some other purpose that could help to aleviate the depndenceon oil?

Shamanic experience? What the hell?! You have co opted the shamanism of what a thousand different cultures? Your generic usage suggests that you have taken a little belief from this group of people a bit from that group found some other beliefs that seemed quite nice and put it all together in some sort of order and called it the Shamanic Experience and used it to justify your position on diet. There is no way you understand the so called way of the Shaman. It does not exist. It became homogenized when the Native peoples were killed, raped, enslved, and split up in the quest for wealth. Then what was left became further bastdardized through commodification and new age interpretation. This is not a logical base to draw your support.

Symbiosis? only in the broadest sense of the word. You seem to imply that there is a give and take that we work together with our food. The relationship with our animal food is unlike most animals, we are parasites. We have no competition. Whereas a lion may get hurt while trying to capture and eat a gazelle, that problem does not concern the average meat eater. Which takes us to your Shamanistic Experience.

Animals raised for meat spirits are not respected by your own belief system. They are slaughtered in the most efficient way possible, which is anything but quick and caring. If your argument was to look your food inthe face before killing it and thanking it for giving its life so that you might eat. your aregumetn would have some merit. however, unlike the lion, we live in a society where we can find and make all the nutients we require from plants. So taking the life of an animal is not neccessary to ensure your survival. It is merely selfish and hedonistic.

The natural world does exist, it has become transformed through our mismanagement and ignorance yet it is the only world we have. Your argument of plants over animals is ridiculous. Most of the plants that are eaten will coniue to grow if given the chance, Most plants will die and rot on the vine if not picked. As for animals, they will not overrun the earth if not eaten. they will die the same as any animal, but dying on your own terms is far different than dying at the hands of someone that is merely eating you because they can not because they need to eat you in order to survive.

I can't go over this. i am at work.

you make a valiant effort but it just does not follow.

Charles, If I understand your two articles correctly, you are arguing that "ethical omnivorism" is MORE ethical than veganism because it spares plants (including redwoods) and thereby avoids trhe fallacious reasoning that animals are superior to plants. Am I reading this correctly? If yes, then I disagree that animal consumption is more ethical and that vegans have no concern for plants, even majestical trees.

When I first decided to become a vegetarian, I loved the idea of idyllic agriculture as you describe it. I was objecting to the way animals are treated on factory farms, that labels such as "free range" did nothing to improve a chicken's life before slaughter and I was heavily influenced by environmental concerns that can surely be aided by organic and balanced farming methods. At this point, I favor veganism as a personal choice. I believe that your system can help, but not solve our world's problems. Also, you should not attack me for my choice just as I do not attack all of the people in my life who are meat eaters.

I have no soft stomach when it comes to causing the killing of an animal for food as you've assumed all veg*ans do. I did it for years and was and am guilt free. But now I've decided that I am more connected to my diet by avoiding animal foods and products. I challenge meat eaters to analyze the shear volume of meat products they consume and purchase. I'm also making a social/ political statement by not spending my dollars on animal products since I have no sway with the US government or factory farm laws. This makes me feel less like a "little" person because I can control my own spending and actions. I do not believe that enough land and water exist on earth for all wealthy populations to eat the quantities of meat that we eat, even when farms are "balanced". For example, both Asian and Indian populations are beginning to consume more meat as they become more wealthy (not counting religious vegetarians). [My only support are a recent talk I attended by a microbiologist working in ag engineering who projected a doubling in food, especially meat demand, even with only a 30% rise in population over the next 20 years due to increases in wealth. Also, speaking with an Okinawin who says that they eat all of the foreign foods now, including lots of meat.]

I don't have time to look up sources and write up a research paper, but here are some things I've seen or heard: PBS recently had a show about burning rain forest for agriculture. I believe that 80% of agricultural land on earth is set aside for grazing animals. This is not the balance that you are imagining meat eating is causing. If no grazing land exists, humans will burn lands to get it and thereby destroy beautiful, CO2-consuming, oxygen-generating trees and ruining the soil wrt plant crop usage.

It's a fact that cattle are inefficient consumers of our plant and water resources. People on this thread have doubted it. It's something I learned in Biology 101 and Microbiology 101 over 10 years ago, not from PETA. Just look at a cow's biology. Also, that cow drinks up our water and creates too much manure, thereby creating dangerous runoff that pollutes the remaining water and not to mention CO2 production....

Finally, to everyone on this thread- don't assume that you know why people choose veg*ism. The reasons are diverse and personal, although they center around the three principles of ethical beliefs, environmental concerns and health. Also, don't be defensive! As a former meat eater, I was never once heckled by a veg*an and as a person who's managed near veganism (still working on it), I don't judge or heckle others.

From reading Jewcy, I now know the definition of a Jewish neo-con:
1) Must support the war in Iraq, or as is the fahion nowadays, argue that early withdrawal will be disastrous for the Iraqis (so was the invasion, but nobody cares to acknowledge that)
2) Defend the neo-con high priest Paul Wolfowitz because he is "one of us"
3) Be a Libertarian, not a liberal (dirty word)
4) Express scepticism in environmentalism and Global Warming
5) Refuse to recycle

But hey, we are vegans, so that absolves all our previous sins. We get upset at the killing of animals for food, but become blase about the daily massacre of Iraqis and Palestinians. Talk about hypocrisy.

6) Defend free love, Britpop, drugs and pornography

I found it ironic that Eisenstein calls his website "The Yoga of Eating" while arguing for eating meat, thoroughly disregarding the principle of Ahimsa. In the classical yoga system the first stage (or limb, as they are generally called) of yoga is Yama (ethical disciplines) and of these, Ahimsa is the first.  Ahimsa is one of the central tenets of Hinduism, within which it is applied to all living beings, who are believed to be of the same essential quality (atman). The main schools of Hinduism do not differentiate between the soul within a human body, or within that of an animal. 

Perhaps Eisenstein's understanding of Hinduism is as flimsy and incomplete as his understanding of the Shamanic Experience (TM Toddx). 

As for his response to Isa tonight - I echo the "Oy vey! I can't even breath from the silliness."   But, based entirely on his photo above, he is quite cute. 

Hitler was not a vegetarian, he was advised to eat a vegetarian diet by his doctor for stomach problems, but did not.

This argument is always trotted out to somehow 'disprove' that vegetarians can be ethical. Not only is it wrong, but it doesn't make sense.

It's like me saying Osama Bin Laden is a meat eater (I actually have no idea if he is or not), it's not relevant.

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html He wasn't veggie dammit!

Well, Singer's response covers much ground, but I cannot resist in yelling against the gross misabuse of Descartes and science here. Let me comment on some particular points in a linear fashion."As much as half of all food is wasted today." -any serious reference for this claim?"Logic says, hey, it’s just a bunch of wood, just a collection of cells that are themselves composed of inanimate carbon, nitrogen, and so on. But this is precisely the same logic that Descartes’ followers used to justify their grisly experiments on animals, explaining cries of pain as nothing more than the wheezing of bellows and the creaking of wheels." -woooooa, wait a minute here. What "Descartes' followers"? The dude was dealing mostly in thought-experiments, for which not much else than locking yourself up in a room in Holland was required (screw the maid, quite literally), and as for the 'scientific' experiments -what, you're gonna say next that we should feel the pain of the light 'rays' being bent out of shape? Or maybe the spirits are still present in corpses, and we should do away with autopsies altogether?"At bottom, it’s all just force and mass, right? In our despoliation of the planet, we routinely use such logic to trump our innate biophilia, the love of all life that resides in our hearts." -this seems like a criticism addressed to modern science. In which case you seem to have missed out a lot about modern science. Newtonian mechanics give us a good approximation of reality on our scale, but little more in terms of an understanding of the deep nature (or functioning) of things. But I don't want to bring in quantum mechanics or relativity as I feel this will certainly lead to some exceedingly new-agey 'vision' of it; rather, let me just say this: in the present-day, there are no fiercer defenders of nature than scientists. If you're not convinced, you obviously haven't been reading many scientific journals in the past 50 years. (And no, I don't mean 'Scientific American'.)" question your assumption that a plant doesn’t have the “necessary hardware” for sentience. Shall we dismiss millennia of shamanic experience that says otherwise?" -Well, errrrr, yes. It's all good and well that you want to have some spiritual beliefs of any kind, but this certainly doesn't prevent you from ALSO believing in modern science (some call it Western, I'm willing to dispute this qualifier), as Paul Farmer has demonstrated with regards to healthcare. And as far as I'm aware, millennia of 'shamanic experience' haven't brought about a radical change in human knowledge regarding the world, whilst decades of functional MRI have brought in some understanding (completed by research in biochemistry, etc.) of so-called "shamanic" experiences. Again, this is not to diminish a psycho-social 'healing' value of particular (if erroneous) beliefs -although Sam Harris would probably disagree here."As a matter of fact, the intricate non-linear feedback loops of a central nervous system are rivaled if not exceeded in complexity by plant interactions mediated by root networks, mycelial networks, volatile aromatics, and other vectors." -uh? Sure, and if I draw lines on a paper, they'll be exceedingly complex too. Your point?"Most of our plant and animal food species are in a sense no longer "natural." A modern chicken wouldn’t live very long in the wild, and modern corn cannot even reproduce without human assistance. Like other species, we live in symbiotic dependency with our food sources." -nice paradox here. "The wild,"  as you seem to point out yourself, doesn't mean that there isn't an interdependence of species, on the contrary. Would you say that aphids are no longer "natural"due to the influence of the ants?"Suffering comes from resistance and attachment, and in a sense no one can make another person suffer." -this being a Jewish site, I feel compelled to mention the Holocaust here, but any other genocide would probably do."My answer is that we have an innate ability to recognize what is balanced, beautiful, harmonious, and right. The heart knows that a complex rainforest ecosystem is more beautiful than a parking lot." -so why do many people keep building parking lots on rainforests, killing not only trees but indigenous populations in the process?"Unfortunately, our culture has so alienated us from our natural wisdom that we no longer choose what is right. We have been intimidated by powerful economic and ideological forces that have marooned us in a realm of narrow self-interest and rationality." -same response as above; or as someone said in response to Singer (sorry, cannot remember your name, pepper-wielding poster), there are enough examples of human cruelty, in this case in sufficiently different cultures and degrees of 'civilization' to invalidate this claim."Reason has its place, but it is the heart that knows." -try living in the wild using your "heart" alone. Good luck, I'm sure some creature will be grateful for the free dinner.By the way, I choose organic food as much as possible too, although I don't need to justify this by bashing on  modern culture, which has made the incidence of wars diminish, or on modern science, which has made things such as widespread famine exceedingly rare; actually, I'm quite grateful to understand why organic food is better thanks to those. I'm willingly not including 'local' organic food here, as I believe that globalization is a thing of wonder, and that it can help build an even more sustainable agriculture (and industry) whilst satifying my all too easily bored palate. Meanwhile, what do you make of such delicacies as "foie gras"? It's very local and very organic, and the French maintain the birds don't even suffer (that much).

Hitler considered himself a vegetarian from at least 1931 onwards, and preached vegetarianism and predicted a vegetarian future. He also discussed the issue in ethical terms at least some of the time. And though he was erratic about it in earlier years, I don't think there's any evidence or reason to suspect that he ever willingly consumed animal products in the 1940s. Based on Martin Bormann's notes from the Berlin bunker, it seems Hitler spent much of his final time torturing Goebbels and his other captive underlings with lengthy harangues about the issue.

In summary: Sorry, team, if we get to disavow Hitler, then we don't get to claim Einstein or others whose names we trot out in defense of the cause but whose vegeterianism was less solid than the fuhrer's.

Einstein went vegetarian, what, the last year of his life?
http://www.ivu.org/history/northam20a/einstein.html

As for Hitler, it's well documented that his personal chef said he enjoyed eating pigeons and sausages, even after claiming to be vegetarian. So how about we call Hitler a flexitarian and put this baby to bed? It really has nothing to do with anything.

Most people have forgotten that a person's reason to become a vegetarian is not limited to the prevention of suffering and death of animals.A lot of the vegetarians out there are for the enviroment.They want to stop the vast amounts of water being used up for the production/raising of animals for meat.Being a vegetaran myself, I do care a lot about the enviroment and that was another reason that I chose a vegetarian lifestyle.
I will also point out that the destruction of the rainforest is partly due to the fact people are cutting it down to make room for..what else.. the raising of livestock.Not all of that is substaintle farming, either.
Most Vegetarians do give a s*** about the enviroment.

Isa, well-documented that a hotel chef said Hitler had eaten pigeon in the early 1930s, which would put it within the first couple years after his big veggie turn in 1931. But once you get to the late 1930s his veggie-ism looks pretty solid.

But I agree with you, it's no more relevant than Pol Pot or Stalin's omnivorism. That's why I'm annoyed by the obsession of so many vegetarians to refute it. Vegetarians aren't an elect. Monsters are capable of vegetarianism and wonderful people are capable of joyously devouring charred flesh. Life is feckin crazy like that. Veggies need to quit the mass circle jerk, and I think if we can do that we'll be more effective in persuading people that we've found our way to the right moral position on this issue, and that they ought to do so, too.

I think Charles' entire argument is simply one big naturalistic fallacy.

To claim that sentience is necessary for suffering is not too controversial, I think the burden of proof is on the one who claims that sentience is not a necessary component for suffering to occur.

As to his defense of the redwood tree - it comes from a purely subjective spiritual epiphany. Not quite good moral philosophy. I hope no one would take me seriously if I felt compelled to fell a redwood that I felt was emanating evil.

Lastly, Charles, where do you draw the line? Do you eat pigs? How about horses? Elephants? Monkeys? Monkees? Chimps? People? And in your answer, please refrain from trotting out the naturalist fallacy - remember, you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is."

Those who believe that plants are sentient ought at least to be horrified that they are compelled to be mass murderers in order to feed themselves. And why doesn't Charles Eisenstein just eat people (local, organically fed people like himself, of course)?

Eisenstein is at least correct to suggest that the appeal to reason will only take us so far, and that ultimately it is the heart that will have the final say. Meat-eaters can always find ways to argue against vegetarianism: perhaps plants are sentient, look at these incisors we have, animals eat each other, God says it's okay, they're only animals anyway, it's nature's way, we've clawed our way to the top of the food chain, they wouldn't exist anyway if we didn't breed them, don't try to shove your values down my throat, once we deal with world hunger, AIDS, and all the other human problems then perhaps we'll have time to think about animals, I say thank you to the animal's spirit before I pull the trigger, what are you -- a sissy? Ultimately, it's about compassion: if that's not there, all the good arguments in the world aren't likely to tip the scales.

Joey Kurtzman is quite right that Hitler's dietary preferences are no more relevant than Stalin's or Pol Pot's. But for anyone who is interested in the historical record, here's more info:
http://www.vegsource.com/berry/hitler.html

I guess it's kinda reassuring that the arguments for eating meat by this Jewish hippy guy are the same as those of a thoughtless jock at a summer barbecue: "Did that carrot scream when you ate it?" It's no coincidence that in the end Mr. Eisenstein's argument boils down to just doing what "feels right," as with the other 99 percent of people who haven't figured how to turn a sojourn into vegetarianism into a meal ticket (so to speak)...

But seriously, sir, doesn't your argument just imply that we should stop eating meat and plant life...? How does your contention that organic farming is better than factory farming (which is obvious) also imply that eating meat is ethical and vegetarianism unecessary? I found your article totally devoid of any usefull information for the debates about vegetarianism or ecology. Instead, it's quaint and new-agy and, as somebody earlier said, rather frustrating.

Plenty of mass-murdering d-bags have been omnivores- Hussein ate meat!

As for the tree/cow comparison, it is sooo entertaining, the lengths that omnivores go to in order to justify their gluttony! Is it really so hard to just tell yourself no, instead of stuffing whatever tastes good into your gullet?

I apologise if I am off-topic a little here, but it seems that this discussion is as much about ecology as it is about dietary preference, and the two are directly linked via our ability to chose what we eat..

I suppose where some of us have gone astray here is to assume that we as humans deserve to have any more say in how we live or what we eat than we are personally willing to acting upon.

It appears that the popular belief is that there exists an evolutionary pecking order, ranked by which species is the most dangerous killer and most successful at dominating other species through force. Why, I wonder, do we no longer give value to those species that are instead well adapted to changes in climate or diet? Eventually, it is utterly inevitable that our earth will undergo substantial climatic change that will no doubt bring about considerable hardship to our many currently overpopulated continents. This is not really a matter for debate, however, since dramatic climate change is upon us right now, even if there are those who would argue as to how serious it is, whether it's natural or brought about by man, etc.

So what happens to the guy living in his Manhattan apartment when first the price of food rises steeply as a result of lower crop yields due to crappy weather and unusually cold annual temperature averages for five years in a row? When eventually many food products simply disappear from the shelves as they lose economic viability? What can he do to fill his stomach now that the local and national environment no longer provides sustainable food for the larger population? His national government could import more, but what if other nations are having a tough time coping also? Could there be a time in the foreseeable future when, say three of the 6.2 billion humans have to deal with the fact that they're going to die hungry, and sooner than they thought?

I sure hope so. Balance will return in the end.

Where's your choice now, human?

Ramones!

If hungry meat eating aliens ever land on this planet I hope Charles Eisenstein door is the first they knock on.

We All Have Our Reasons

1. I am a meat eater.

2. I am a hunter. If you are looking for a sustainable source of food come look at the over population of dear in New Jersey. They are delicious. Men began hunting long ago and it is part of our instinctual nature. I am opposed to factory farming, it is disgusting. What I am more deeply disturbed by is the level of hormones in cow products today. That is why I enjoy hunting and fishing as much I can (but even fishing is risky because of levels of pollution).

3. All of us have our reasons for eating one way or the other but it is up to us to co exist with each other. I don't think there is an argument to even have here. I choose one way and you choose another. I am not going to force my beliefs on you and many of my vegan and vegetarian friends coexist quite peacefully with me. I don't go into their houses and cook a steak and eggs breakfast. I respect them and they respect me.

4. I do not think there is anything wrong with amalgamating different belief systems to fit with modern times. I also believe Science and Spirituality are one in the same.

5. Notice that I believe and I think, I do not expect any one else to possess the same thoughts or beleifs. The fact that any of of can have these debates is what makes being human beautiful.

Love and Respect to all Humans

when you discuss the psychological reasons for eating meat, or animal products, versus eating plants you forgot to think about the ecosystem's food chain and natural selection processes. How do humans fit into natural selection? Well, they don't, and they pull other species, such as cows and pigs, from it too. The cows people eat are not the strongest surviving cows, they are in fact the weakest, never learning survival from their parents, or getting to leave the "farm". The prey that would normal feed off the cows, which does not include our herbivore selves (i'll get to this momentarily), are chased away from the "farm". This gets me to the point that our bodies are meant to eat plant life only. Look at our teeth, non-pointy, flat on top surfaces, perfect for grinding plant life. Next look to our large intestine. It is long, and therefore not good for disgesting meat, which takes a lot longer than plant life. Next, look at the fact that in order to eat meat, we must cook it, or process it. I doubt that any other animals cook their meat. They just rip it off the bones of their prey. Which leads me to the next point. PIgs in the wild are called boars, and most 13 year old hot dog toting children wouldn't be able to catch one, let alone kill one. The boars would outsmart 95% of the population these days, seeing as how hunters hunt animals pinned to tiny forests, and the rest just go to the supermarket--a task which doesn't allow for very much strength or agility. The fact that you compare animals and plants is not surprising, because what other argument is there to eat meat, it tastes good? What if your sister tasted good, would you eat her too???

EAT MEAT!!!!!!!!!!!KILL DEER!!!!!!!!

And I eat cows, chickens, ducks, animal droppings, etc...

This is plain silly. Who the f*ck eats a goddang tree? The green f*cking giant!?

Look here, if you make an argument lets at least be sensible.

"The cows people eat are not the strongest surviving cows, they are in
fact the weakest, never learning survival from their parents, or
getting to leave the 'farm.'"

I'm quite certain that there's not a lot of intergenerational education happening among cows, even in the wild. Even if there were, it's a fallacy to associate what cows may learn in their lives with the genetic viability of their offspring.

Einstein was also a vegetarian. And yes, many Vegans care about the rainforest and the oceans and the air. As humans we have the ability to care about multiple issues... lucky us.