Charles argues that a central principle of all vegetarianism is an objection to death. However, there are many other philosophical reasons for living a vegetarian lifestyle.  I, for one, live a vegetarian life because of specific objections to the ways in which the meat industry itself operates, treats its animals and wastefully utilizes any number of resources.  In fact, as someone who keeps kosher, it seems like the only logical way to live; the principles that exist for kosher slaughtering (particularly regarding the treatment of animals, as well as the intent of a schochet) clearly do not exist in our mass produced, factory-based world.

Charles' argument with vegetarianism rests on the formulation that the vegetarian objects to death. But this is not accurate.

I hail from the Peter Singer school of veggie-dom. His (and now my) objection is suffering. Beings suffer in proportion to their consciousness. That's why it's wrong to kill and eat a cow, but not a stalk of broccolli.

Death, yes, suffering, no.

Now, when they genetically engineer a brainless cow, I'm back on the filet mignon train, baby. And I miss corned beef and kosher hot dogs. Mmmm... brainless and tasty.

just like the last two people have said, this suggests vegetarians are totally against killing altogether, that is not the truth, I love the idea of a flourishing food web or eco system, even if it does involve animals eating eachother. And that is exactly my point, that is a natural eco-system, that is a natural process, that happens among CARNIVORES in the wild. We are not carnivores, despite many pathetic arguments you may hear, humans are in no way designed to eat meat any more than say a gorilla, or a marmoset monkey, okay maybe a few insects from time to time but I'm sure the idea of that puts the majority of us off! I found a great site that has a huge amount of evidence for this; here is the link: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html .Anyway, apart from any science you could come up with, which in every case seems to be on our side, at the end of the day, in this society and with our intelligence and technological abilities we are able to supply ourselves with every sort of nutrient and enough food without killing or causing the suffering of animals. And the idea of meat eating being spiritual is complete and utter bullshit, I'm pretty spiritual and the way I see things is that, okay spirit may run through plants too, but they are not physically sentient in the way that animals are, so little externally caused spiritual damage could be caused and, if we are looking at it on a deeper spritual level, the fact that animals are physically sentient means that causing them pain or death would cause some sort of spiritual disturbance in the overall divinity of the earth. Think that's it.

You both say you stopped eating meat basically because of the suffering of the animals. If you go back and read what Charles wrote you will find that he has this statement in his reply to the original No Death No Dinner post. : "And so the problem with today’s meat industry is not that animals die; it is that they are living a hellish life."
I think that most of us agree, that animals that are mass produced simply to stock meat counters at the local markets are living hellish lives. They suffer, and they are pumped full of drugs, made to eat unnatural things, kept in small pens, and then slaughtered so that someone can have that prime cut of meat for their dinner.

Should we touch on the waste not just of the life but of the physical remains as well? How about the factories themselves? How much pollution is made from this practice from start to finish? The same can be tracked from factories that mass produce veggies. How many recalls have come out this year for veggies that are contaminated? This is becoming a trend it seems.

May I suggest growing your own veggies when possible? This way you can be sure that what you are consuming is free of chemicals. I would suggest the same for buying meat and eggs, if you do not have the space to raise your own, at least try to buy with some sort of consciousness as to where the meat or eggs you are consuming came from, and how the animals are treated.

I am not a vegan, but I respect those who have made the decision to live without meat. I do not feel that consuming meat is wrong, as long as it is done in a responsible way. Just as being a vegan is not wrong as long as it is done in a responsible way.

Choosing not to eat meat can significantly impact your overall footprint on the earth, since the meat industry requires all sorts of fossil fuels, is very wasteful with energy and tends to pollute more than other food industries.

Not only that, it's healthier if it's done right.

One question, if we are not designed to consume meat, then why do we have canine teeth? Even gorillas consume meat, and yes they have canine teeth. True herbivores do not have canine teeth. Omnivores and carnivores do. So please enlighten me as to why, we have canine teeth?

I think this whole article misses the point of why a lot of people become vegetarian of vegan, but I see some people already explained this earlier. Let's just all agree that whatever you eat, it's always wrong to disrespect nature or any creature and treat like an object without emotions and feelings.

Canine teeth are not in and of themselves an indication of which diet is best for us--they could also just be an evolutionary holdover. Some of our primate relatives have canine teeth, yet have an herbivorous diet.

But having canine teeth is not a justification for eating meat, anymore than owning a handgun is a justification for shooting people. If we can be healthy on a vegetarian diet, then the question of whether we ought to eat meat is still relevant.

I'm curious as to what Hindu vegetarians have to say about this, since Hindus have been vegetarian for millennia.

Yes, I agree Cricket.  I suppose part of my argument also hinges upon the intent involved in slaughtering an animal (something not covered in this article but...I mean this is Jewcy so I feel like it is legitimate to bring up).  Short of living in a small community, or slaughtering my own meat (umm, which I would never be able to do even if I ever felt ok with eating meat again) I would never feel sure in knowing that animal's essence or value in life was respected in the slaughtering process.

Wow that made me sound like far more of a hippie than I actually am...

I am sorry but I have to disagree here. I think that as humans we have always been meant to consume meat be it fish or chicken. Canine teeth are an indicator as to what the species should or can consume safely. Cows lack canine teeth and when they are forced to cannibalize they come down with Mad Cow disease, why? because they are not physically set up to safely digest meat of any kind. We as humans can digest meat of any kind. So yes canine teeth do indicate what we can and maybe should be eating.

I do not have to justify eating meat, it is my choice. I do however, have to justify whether I am eating meat the comes from a well treated animal or one that is mistreated from birth. I do need to thank that animal for giving it's life so that I may continue mine.

Someone earlier posted that plants do not suffer when they are harvested, hmmm I wonder just because you can't hear them does not mean they do not suffer I mean it has been proven that plants grow better when they are talked to or music is played for them, so what makes you think they do not suffer? In truth you should give just as much respect to the life of that plant you are eating as you would to a fish or chicken, because in the end, each gives up it's life so that you can live.

Think about this, if you cut a tree branch off of a tree, it bleeds, the blood may not be red but it is that trees life blood. If you break the stem on any plant that plant bleeds it may bot look like your blood, but it is blood none the less. All life is precious and all life is to be respected and cherished. To look at anything as merely food is wrong, be it plant or animal.

To stand in judgment over others because you feel like you are better than based on what you eat is pure arrogance, and Oh so human. We are a very arrogant, self righteous, self centered race are we not?

Shouldn't we instead of arguing on what is right to eat, be arguing on how to fix the damage that has and is being done to this plant? And please don't throw the old raising animals is harsher to the environment than raising plants. Have you farmed? Do you not realize that each costs the environment in it's own way. Each depends on the other. If that bean your stuffing in your mouth isn't raised without using irrigation, chemicals, tons of water to process for market.How about the packaging that it came in, and the production costs and processing for it. Is it all from recycled material? Is that bean truly organic? If it is organic, but in none recycled packaging what is the point? If it is shipped from over seas or another state what is the point? Shouldn't you instead buy from local farmers to cut out the cost of all the shipping, manufacturing etc...? Buy fresh in season and can yourself, or freeze for yourself..or like I said earlier grown it yourself is possible.

Each food source can cause the same environmental problems as the other, but plants grown with pesticides, leave much more of an impact and a much farther reaching impact than cow poo.
Think Bald Eagle and DDT.

His criticism of Charles's opening e-mail, here.

Cricket: Why do you care what we were designed for? Why does that even enter the argument? If you believe that we are "designed" for some purpose that we should all be working towards then I think there are other aspects of life that you should reconsider before worrying overly much about your diet.

If "designed" was not what you intended, and you meant to ask why we evolved to have teeth such as canines, then you are asserting that behaviour should follow the effects of evolution. This is not the case, evolution is a product of the intermingling of behaviour, environmental variables and different permutations of DNA. Luckily, we have evolved a locus of behavioural control other than our canines ...

The argument that we are "intended" for any specific diet is boring: Although often discussed in evolutionary terms the essential argument is that we find ourselves born into some state of being, and our conjectures about the purposes of the various aspects of our current state should guide us. This doesn't sound like a good way to choose how to behave (and sounds a bit too much like the argument of someone who believes in intelligent design for my taste).

Anyone who argues that we can't eat meat is a fool, likewise anyone who argues that we can't eat exclusively vegetables is a fool (although I'm pretty sure eating exclusively meat is bad). Science and experience tell us that we can thrive on many diets. Evidence for the superiority of any specific diet is inherently correlational, not generalizable beyond the study population, not controlled (such designs leave a multitude of variables unaccounted for), and hence not very relevant.

So we are left with a philosophical choice, it is a tough one and I sincerely doubt that it can be boiled down to something so simple as the shape of the enamel coated protrusions in our faces.

Respect your body...listen to your soul...eat what you need...meat or no meat, all depends on balance. Eat is not a political act...but it's true that it's harder to get healthy food nowdays, and it's harder to know the truth too.
So eat right! and fight "monsanto"...

Cows get BSE from cannibalism, sheep get Scrapie, Humans get Kuru (discovered among the fore tribe in New Guinea ...

1. Our "canine" teeth are only named thus because of their minor resemblance to actual canine teeth, which are more of the fang variety. Our "canine" teeth are actually cuspids. Big difference. Not to mention the myriad other differences between human physiology and that of omnivores and carnivores. Ever notice that the rate of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cancer, etc. increases as a society eats more flesh? Yeah, that means we were MEANT to eat it. Right.

Why, also, if humans are indeed omnivores, do we have to thoroughly cook flesh before we can consume it, or, in the case of the raw flesg dishes, do we have to be so incredibly careful to avoid bacteria? Perhaps it is because we aren't built to handle raw, decomposing flesh, as omnivores and carnivores in the natural world do.

2. Which brings up the vegetable contamination scares. These contamination incidents were caused by factory farming of animals, in case you hadn't noticed.

3. On to the overused bit about growing vegetables and grains being just as harmful - The majority of soy and grains grown in the US and abroad is fed to animals that are raised for their flesh. The majority of cutting of rainforest land is to grow soy that is fed to animals raised for their flesh. The majority of small field animals that are killed in the harvesting of grain are killed because of animals being raised for their flesh. The majority of starvation in areas where farmers still own their own land is because agribusiness convinced the farmers to grow the grain for animals that are raised for their flesh.

4. It's not arrogant to wish that people would wake up realize that making excuses is not going to save the world.

Nate: I am not the one who brought the canine teeth into the discussion. In fact I did ask the question why we have canine teeth. I also have not said that we are designed for any one diet. So maybe you should re-read all of the posts. We are in fact omnivores if you want to classify the human species in any diet class.

I will not hash with anyone my spiritual beliefs, Just as I will not judge someone based on their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. Why bring that into this discussion? That being said if you read all of what I wrote, I do not think that you would say I believe in any intelligent design. I believe in intelligent decisions. If you have a problem with people that do believe in intelligent design then, that's your problem. I do not think one spiritual belief is better than another, I simply will not judge people based on their spiritual beliefs.

I also do not believe that I have said that we should eat just meat or just veggies. I believe I said that I respect people who are vegans but I am not one myself. I do eat and enjoy my veggies, but I do include meat in my diet.

As I stated before I did not bring in the enamel shaped protrusions from our face someone else did, I simply asked a question and responded to an answer.
To try to simplify this discussion to what type of teeth we have would be rather silly.

Here is something for you to chew on Nate, trying to pen me down to one belief would be a big mistake. Trying to infer that your beliefs are better than someone else's is just arrogant. Each of us is entitled to our own beliefs, to try to say that one is better than another is just foolish. Who are we to know what is best for another? To believe in intelligent design might be just perfect for some. To believe that a cow is sacred is perfect for others. To try to insult someones beliefs because you do not agree with them is just your own insecurity coming out.

If you want to discuss spiritual beliefs find a discussion about those and join it.

If I want to say designed and you are not comfortable with that term, that is on you. Just do not turn it into some kind of religious debate. Trying to read more into one word than is meant by that word, just shows an argumentative spirit, in my opinion.

If Nate I did think or feel we are designed for a purpose, then why would you feel that I would have other aspects of my life that I should be working on and not worrying about my diet? First of all I do not worry about my diet. I eat what I like fruits, veggies and meat. I suppose that you would also be the perfect one to educate me as to why the belief in being designed for a purpose is so wrong. Wrong for who? You maybe but not those who believe in it. Are you one of those that tries to shove your beliefs down others throats because yours is the best belief system? How arrogant. What is right for one may not be right for another. It's called being open minded. It's kind of like live and let live. I do not think I would ask you for spiritual advice. You sound a bit too closed minded for my tastes.

Have you people no starhumping impulse whatsoever?? Unreal!

'...and the human community they serve'

for me, this is the reason why i disagree with the entire premise of this defence. i do not eat meat precisely because i do not wish to exploit animals, regardless of whether i have been 'designed' for it or not. they should not 'serve' me or anyone else. 'the ultimate crime is ... preventing another creature from fulfilling its life purpose'. exploitation (and the killing that eventually follows) does just that.

Cricket: By your reply I see you are taking what I wrote to heart. Sorry, none of that was directed at you but at the class of argument (I only put your name up so that the discussion could be followed across posts), I tried to be non-specific for the most part but it seems that you took it all to be directed at yourself.

I don't have beliefs so I don't try to cram them down anything. I try to figure things out by dispassionately looking at scientific evidence. Intelligent design/creationism aren't scientific theories and can't be used in any cogent discussion. I dismiss the ideas out of hand because there is no evidence, but plenty for evolution. I am not arrogant, and I know I don't have it figured out, I don't know where you got that idea from.

I'm not uncomfortable with the term design, but it has a meaning and I discussed what you said, you can't expect me to “know what you mean”, you have to write precisely. I simply wrote out my interpretation of the class of argument you put forth by stating it as you did. You shouldn't get upset at this simple discussion, parry/correct me if you will but don't make it personal ... it is counterproductive.

The pith of what I wrote is not specific to anyone, I meant that we should stop looking for evidence to support what we “should do” and work from a philosophical/scientific standpoint. Your comment on Mad Cow disease (BSE) was more along the lines of an appropriate response, and I already responded to that with scientific fact.

>Cows get BSE from cannibalism, sheep get Scrapie, Humans get Kuru >discovered among the fore tribe in New Guinea ...

These are prion based diseases that can be passed across species, there are a number of others to which humans are susceptible so by your logic we are not meant to eat meat right?

... to all of those omnivores out there: biologically and comparitive-anatomically speaking, we would be best categorized as frugivores, and most certainly not carnivores or omnivores. However, I agree with the previous posts on the point that we should not let our anatomy be the sole determinant of our ethical choices; the issue is obviously much more complex than that.

Lavajin: excellent points, and well put!

Awesome discussion, all; this is a very interesting debate.

Lavajin: You can't blame obesity, diabetes, and cancer all on meat. Rather you could place more blame for these conditions on: Sugary snack foods,more and more fast food joints,processed foods, soda pop, refined sugar, refined flour, and yes meats and vegetables. So if you want to make the statement that meat alone is responsible for all those problems you listed, then I would have to say your wrong. Certainly too much meat will cause heart disease. I do not remember ever seeing meat alone being the sole cause of cancer. Refined sugar has been linked to diabetes and most assuredly obesity. Pesticides used in agriculture have been linked to birth defects, cancer, environmental problems etc. So I could say we were MEANT to eat refined sugar and flour yeah right! You can't be so flip and blame one food source. In actuality, Bison meat has been shown to reduce diabetes in Native American nations that traditionally lived on that food source. Processed cow meat however, has just the opposite effect. Maybe the food we eat and how it effects us has more to do with our heritage than the food itself. I do not however think that refined sugar, or bleached flour is good for anyone, it just isn't natural. Just as cow meat pumped full of antibiotics and hormones is not good for anyone. Neither would I say vegetables that have been genetically changed, or grown with pesticides are good for you.

Whatever you call the human canine tooth: canine or fang it is the only tooth with a single cusp, and they got their name, because they are especially anchored prehensile teeth in the group from whence they got their name Carnivora. I'll let you look up the definition of Carnivora.

You can eat raw meat ever heard of sushi? There are lots of raw meat dishes, of course I would not touch them. I notice you point this out, but you fail to point out that you can not eat soy raw, nor whole grains.

Yes, the vegetables were contaminated by Ecoli which they feel is the run off of septic pools from cattle farms. It could also have been in the fertilizer that was used to grow the vegetables. I do not think that large meat producing farms are good for the environment. I did notice this, and have read on the subject, just as I read about the fact that whatever caused the contamination, it was inside of the actual plant leaves and not on the outside. Which means it was adsorbed through the root system. I personally would lean towards run off from large cattle ranches.

Actually the bulk of soy beans raised are used for vegetable oil, then the defatted soy meal is used for animal feed. I do not agree with it being used in animal feed since it is too new an additive to know what the impact on animals will be. We know it is a primary ingredient in many processed foods. I do not dispute that the mass production of soy beans is an environmental hazard. However it isn't grown just as feed for livestock, that is it's secondary function.

No, it is not arrogant to wish people would wake-up and realize that making excuses will not change the world. Excuses never change anything and often just lead to more excuses. Action is what changes things. If you are a vegan which I assume you are then that is your choice and your form of action. You could go further, and maybe you have, and do go further by standing up and speaking out against the hazing of Yellowstone Bison, or the aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska, or the planned killing of the wolves in Yellowstone. How about speaking out and taking a stand against genetically altered crops? There is so much going on that is wrong in this world, that to bicker over what someone else eats seems just too simple. The argument isn't just about what is consumed it is about how the product, be it meat or vegetables or fruits are being raised and the impact this has on the environment. So yes, take your stand and do not eat meat, I applaud you and respect you for your choice, just do more than not eat meat. Also show respect for what stand and choices others make, even if you do not agree with them. Respect is something that most people seem to lack in todays world, respect and courtesy.

I think the basic premise, "Even vegetarians must kill to eat," is rather misguided. Yes, some vegetarian foods when harvested kill the plant. However, many of the foods in the vegetarian diet are not living entities in and of themselves, were "meant" to be eaten (looking at it from the plant's standpoint), and eating them harms the plant in no way whatsoever. For example, if an apple is not picked and eaten, it will fall to the ground and rot. It is a "fruit" -- a product of the plant, not an organ or organism, even though it is grown through living processes. The same is true of all fruits and grains, and many vegetables.

The whole thrust of the article is a bit silly. There are many reasons to be vegetarian besides the "death" topic. Besides the issue of suffering, some of us just think a vegetarian diet is safer and healthier.

Nate: I apologize, I did tend to take what you said personally since you put my name before what you wrote. No I do not agree that we are not meant to eat meat. We are not meant to eat each other, but this does happen. This is where the disease comes from in the New Guinea tribe.
I do agree with you when you state that arguing that we can't eat just meat or just vegetables is a fool. I happen to agree that how food that you eat effects you based more on heritage or genetics than the food itself. Some places in this world you can not get meat, introduce meat and you will see problems in those people, the same can be said for vegetables, certain grains etc..

I have friends that are vegans and I respect them and their choice, when I am out to eat with them I do not order meat. This is my way of showing respect for their choice and also my way of not making them uncomfortable. I do not expect them to order meat simply because I eat meat, I am quite happy eating a veggie meal. I do not personally know anyone who eats strictly meat, although I am sure they are out there.

I tend to like to debate and pick peoples minds, I love to hear different views on one issue, it is very enlightening and educational. Like the whole soy issue, I had to actually look into the statement to find out if it were true. It is almost true, but no soy isn't primarily for animal feed that is the secondary use. Still it makes you wonder. I am new here and I am enjoying the learning process. It is fantastic to see people that will actually stand up and speak out for their beliefs. If only all people would do more and be less lazy about their choices.

I am sorry also that I took you for being arrogant, I suppose it came from your choice of words or the way you phrased things. The phrase "it sounds to much like someone who believes in intelligent design." I guess is where I assumed that you were arrogant, judgmental, and close minded . So that makes me guilty of judging you based on words, which can be written, but the meaning not fully understood unless you are the one who has written them.

I tend to be someone who doesn't just take someone's word for anything, I like to research things and find out for myself. I do not blindly follow anyone or anything. Where is the wisdom in that? How do you learn anything if you do not question and dig for an answer? So too anyone here that I may have offended, I am not meaning to offend just trying to learn, just digging for answers, and sharing what I have learned or found out for myself. I hope that if I am incorrect about something I will be corrected, but when you correct me please expect that I will research what you have said and I will let you know what I have found. It is my way of sharing what is out there.

Wheew.. glad we solved that one..

Exactly where is the waste? The planet just cycles the same material over and over anyway. I am a geological omnivore. I eat whatever the hell I want, remain fit and seek to enjoy this snippet of life I get to have on my planet. I say, F anyone who wants to add yet another restriction on liberty. Go get a real hobby. Climb a mountain. Scare the crap out of yourself. At the end of the day you just might discover that spirituality and life are not the domain of cages.

So we can eat meat.
It's obviously that we don't have to eat meat, but it's an available choice.

...because it is my choice to do so!
i could walk to work, but i prefer to drive.
i never recycle; fuck that noise!
i like to wipe my ass with four fistfuls of charmin, know why? because i CAN! i'm a human, and i think that means i am in charge.
mwah-ha-ha.
meat is delicious and it's my perogative to shove as much of it into my hole as i please. i'm a carnivore! i like MEAT. BRING ON THE MEAT.
consequences? implications? bah!

Well, it appears this discussion is coming to a close...

The strangest thing about being vegetarian is encountering all these meat-eaters who seem certain you'll be horrified and stunned by bland cookie-cutter ejaculations like "i like MEAT. BRING ON THE MEAT."

What's that about?

I always seem to find myself smiling when I read debates where one side knows they are right and thinks the other side are idiots. I will admit that I am an omnivore (well I don't eat carrion) and further that I could care less what anyone else eats. I have friends on both sides of this fence and we all have learned to get along anyway. There are a few things that were posted that I do have a problem with as far as science is concerned.

As far as evolutions goes, we are not really designed for anything. We are actually more like effect statements. We had teeth that were good enough to tear and chew meat. We tried to eat meat and it was advantageous to us. People also had teeth that were good for chewing plants, which was also of an advantage to us. Because of those factors we now have teeth that are good for chewing both meat and plants. Obviously this is a little over simplified. There are matters of mutation to consider, breeding populations, and thousands of other variables that make evolution such a complicated matter.

The part about raw meat is an interesting one. As said above, we can and still do eat raw meat today. I tend not to eat meat raw, but not because I can't. Cooked meat is easier to digest than raw meat and is safer. I also find that cooked meat tastes better to me. This is where biology and intellect seem to meet to make Humans what we are today. Most people are smart enough that they could not eat meat and still survive in the modern world. I choose to eat meat because I like it.

This is for the idiot who said apes are vegetarian. All apes are omnivores. Baboons are some of the most ferocious hunters around. Even chimpanzees, our closest relatives, are omnivores. Vegetarianism is unnatural for our species.

I am not vegan because I hate death. This makes me sound like a mad scientist who is fiendishly working on ways to make people live forever, forever!!! Plants die. Animals die. People die. Very natural. Very zen. Return to the earth, etc. (Unless you get shot into outer space.)

As many have pointed out, there is a difference between death and killing.

What of the plants we kill, you ask? My answer is: plants have no nervous system. Seriously, none whatsoever. I object to animals suffering before their death, and I object to their death itself, because I believe that animals, possessing nervous systems (centralized ones, even!) have the ability to enjoy life. Perhaps not the same way that we enjoy life, but anyone who has seen a dog hopping around because he's so glad to see you can recognize joy. Or who has seen a horse shy away in fear, or a cat mope because its friend died. I don't think it's right to kill an animal- or give it a non-enjoyable life full of suffering- when they are somewhat sentient beings who know joy & pain. Especially since vegan food is so yummy.

I don't object to milk & eggs on principle, as long as you're not constantly impregnating the cow to make the milk, or starving the chickens. I do object to the factory farming involved, and the terrible treatment of the animals. If I can get eggs from chickens that I know, firsthand, are treated kindly, I'll eat them. This has happened, oh, once. Many vegans wouldn't agree with me on that one, though.

Dennis Leary already wrote a song about all that :)

Wolfie!

There are 16 taxonomical points of comparisons between non-human herbivores and humans. Also, take a look at carnivores, and you will see some real canine teeth. Our canines are not named because they are designed for biting into living animals, snapping their necks, and tearing their throats out to kill them and eat their raw flesh. Carnivores have short digestive tracts, jaws that cannot move from side-to-side (a trait humans share with herbivores), and they are not sickened by meat. Rather, TRUE carnivores need meat to survive. People don't, and it's becoming clearer with every medical study (as if we needed more proof) that meat consumption is harmful to our health. That should be evidence enough that we are best suited for a plant-based diet.

And I'll second commenters above who object to the notion that vegetarians have a thing against death. Far from it. We have the moral capacity to understand the consequences of our decisions. Knowing that meat is not necessary for survival, and understanding how animals are like us emotionally (familial bonding, fear of death, etc.), it is incumbent upon us to respect the rights of other creatures to live, and to not treat them as means to our ends. Commodifying animals for our use is inherenly inhumane.

No moral objection to meat eating. Every moral objection to modern agricultural production of meat. Pressure for productivity drives us to forget these are animals (as opposed to chocolate chips). They shouldn't be confined, mutilated, terrified, monocultivated, exterminated and feed their own kind just to make industrial levels of profit. Not healthy for them, not health for us.

Meat is fine, just not the way we gouge ourselves on it. Over consumption and consumerism is the root of the problem.

I have never heard a vegan or vegetarian explain their choice by saying that their diet "natural" or "how we were meant to eat." Why is it that omnivores are often so eager to point to our pointy teeth and explain how natural meat eating is? We live in houses, we wear clothes, we use medicine. These things are all unnatural and yet most of us would agree that there is nothing wrong with them. Out of respect for present company, I won't go into all of the "natural" things that we all find disgusting. Natural does not mean better.

In any case, the issue here is ethics, not biology. I agree with Isa and others that Mr. Eisenstein missed the boat on why most most of us are vegans or vegetarians. Also, I would argue that whatever is fulfilling to a cow or chicken, ending up dead on Mr. Eisenstein's plate isn't a part of it.

Gorillas, for example. 97 percent of their diet is plant-based.

But that's mostly beside the point. Striving to be as kind and respectful as possible to all creatures is an ethical obligation, not a physiological determinant.

what about the animals' liberty?

Being bred just to be killed as soon as economically profitable; being forcibly impregnated multiple times and having your babies stolen from you; being genetically altered to grow so quickly your heart may give out when your're six weeks old; being packed in a truck for 24 hours in sweltering heat with no food or water; being alive and conscious as your neck is cut and you're plunged into boilling water and drowned - all these are far more drastic restrictions on liberty than voluntarily refraining from eating meat, dairy, and eggs. We can end all these violations of liberty, at any time, by choosing a vegan diet.

And with the profusion of delicious vegan foods and recipes now available, and with the epectation that it will only get better as more people go vegan, giving up animal products is a small sacrifice, indeed. In fact, I don't see how giving up cruelty - and all the rationalizations that go with it - is really a sacrifice at all; it's more of a relief.

Okay, this may have been mentioned, but I havn't got time to read every single comment, and I would just like to say that our "canine" teeth are quite frankly bollocks. Try to rip raw flesh from the corpse of a cow (Which I'd like to see a human kill bare handed) and you'd have a job doing it I think. Our "canines" are more suited to helping us eat the flesh of fruits and vegetables, which I don't think cows etc. eat much of so they don't have "canines" like us, or canines like carnivores.

I agree with "can think of a good name" our canine teeth are truly bollocks. biting through raw meat is nearly impossible with the feeble, useless canines we have in our mouths. the canines may have once been superior in times when the human was faced with real survival problems in history but now we have little or no use for them. the very idea that just because we have canines means we are supposed to eat meat is ridiculous. i have never eaten meat and now i am actually unable to physically so i maybe we are not supposed to eat meat because i literally can't digest it. this is just like the king that took poison every day to avoid being assassinated with poison and then was unable to kill himself with it after becoming immune. so maybe the meat is just like the poison, you can survive when you become immune to it after introducing yourself at an early age but we are not actually supposed to be eating it at all.

I think its obvious that certain plants were made for human consumption more so than animals. Although commercial bought fruits and veggies were not treated with the respect they deserve, it is far less evil than treating animals like they are conscious-less machines. One needs only look at the human digestive system to learn that humans are herbivores. A banana was obviously made for human consumption... it's easy to digest, fits perfectly in your hand, it's healthy, etc etc.

Anyone here ever hear of Scurvy? It's what early explorers died of because they refused to eat the raw meat..yes I said RAW meat that the natives were eating. Hmmm imagine that humans eating raw meat. I don't suppose they used their canine teeth to bite into that meat at all, no they just tucked them away into their pockets. Get real people. No our canines are not as long as say a lions, but we the human race from the primitive days on have been hunters. I don't think that corn and soy patties were available back in those days, growing crops wasn't a priority. I think just surviving was the goal. So do not get on your high horse and tell me that we were not meant to hunt or eat meat,. If we are meant to eat nothing but veggies and greens then why don't we have a cud to chew, or two stomaches?

I'll say it again, I think that what you eat and how it effects you has more to do with your genetics than anything else. The person who brought the whole canine teeth into this was a vegan people not a meat eater. Now you all are stuck on teeth.

I do not see anyone here changing what others eat. My choice is my choice your choice is your choice. My ancestors hunted, and killed Bambi, and ate him, used his hide for clothing and shelter, his bones for tools. Kind of hard to make warm clothes out of fig leaves. And last time I looked a green bean couldn't be used to sew with.

So to say that we are meant for one or the other is just foolish, we are meant to do what is right for us, and what is right for me doesn't have to be what is right for you.

So now you look back in history and tell me that humans were not hunters and meat eaters.

LOL I can hear it now...so you are saying because our primitive ancestors killed animals that had central nervous systems, that we should too? I mean we are far more intelligent than they were. Also, I wonder since fire hasn't always been around how do you suppose they ate the meat from the animals they killed? Had their pet saber tooth chew it up for them first?

So maybe in the future those of us that eat meat will get bigger canines and those who only eat veggies will get cuds to chew and another stomach. Who knows?

So call your canine teeth fangs...which by the way makes me think of vampires, who drink blood yuk! I'll call mine canine, thank you.

I think that the point is, that what one eats is a personal choice, but no matter what you eat you should make responsible decisions.

Whoever said that primates such as Gorillas Chimps etc do not eat meat need to buy an idiots guide to primates....although American TV shows images of chimps swinging from branch to branch with twigs in their mouths, this is not the be all and end all of their behaviour. I suggest that who ever believes such an ignorant view do a little research before using such "evidence" in an ethical/biological debate...which this is by the way!

Secondly, as an evolutionary biologist (yes, i am qualified to label myself with this description), the process by which the hominid dental structure came about (if one where to believe in evolution - as i believe most of you may be American, this is highly unlikely - Believe what you will, it doesn't change our dental make up..) by many changes in diet. The Canines you all refer to are not used to bite through raw meat...The canines are used to grip prey - If you have ever watched a Lion eating a Kill (not sure if this word is taboo or not) you would notice that the canines are not used to mechanically reduce chunks of meat (mastication - or chewing), this is done by premolars and incisors (Molars are used to crush). If you have a cat at home, take a look in its mouth - what you would see is a perfect example of a carnivores dentition. If you were to take a look at your own teeth you would realise that our teeth are not as sharp - more rounded surfaces, reduced canines. This is because, biologically speaking, we are omnivores (our diet consists of fruit, nuts, vegetables and meat - from reading the above, I'm beginning to wonder if excrement has become a common human intake as well, it seems quite a few people are regurgitating it in this blog). So, our dentition suggests that we are designed to eat meat in our diet. If the digestive tract of a human were to be studied it would also become evident that we consume meat - This is due to the length of our digestive tract, herbivores all have longer (relative to body size) digestive tracts, this is due to the high quantity of cellulose in vegetative matter (greater length = more time to digest dietary intake).

In terms of biological design, we are perfectly designed for the consumption of meat - understand, we are not carnivores, but omnivores!)

The reasoning behind whether or not to eat meat is an individual choice, with ethical reasons that justify your reality, a person who consumes meat will find ethical reasoning for doing so as well as a person who chooses not to eat meat(from an ethical point of view, i think its great that so many people do not want to harm animals as i view them as equals - from a biological point of view i think its "bollocks" - used frequently above). I personally eat meat, but understand the view of those who choose not to. I must admit that I have respect for people who have participated in this blog as it indicates a level of questioning and reasoning. Those who believe blindly are welcome to do so, I just don't understand how one could!

one of the most important points, not yet stated, is our brain. we have the highest intelligence, and we are able to work out thoughts through congnitive processes that no animal is capable of.

the "robin" example in the article is easily the worst part of his argument because it provides a massive flaw to leverage --> humans can evaluate the CHOICE between being vegetarian or not, robins cannot. case closed. to compare a bird's instinctive behaviour, to that of a human's complex, well thought-out decision, is simply trying to confuse people, and comparing apples to oranges. the robin is simply responding to millions of years of speciation, deep in their dna.

within our human dna, lies the ability to reason. and reason far beyond that of a robin.

why allow these ridiculous, badly thought out arguments to have such a strong voice, they are nonsense. it doesn't make sense to say....some animal does this, therfore, humans should do that. totally stupid.

consider, chimpanzees are omnivores. humans are not chimpanzees. conclusion: nothing.

vegetarianism creates an ecological impact in favour of the planet, in favour of creating a sustainable food system for the whole planet, and reducing world hunger. meat systems are wasteful, even a terse look at the practices involved can see that so much energy is lost, compared to humans eating grains, beans, and other immediate foods.

i love this poor argument about freedom of choice too. it's staggeringly stupid. people defending their right to make a scientifically unsound choice, just because they can. please. of course you are free to choose - that's part of the beauty of being human. you can learn, evaluate, consider, choose. you can go back, re-evaluate, re-think, re-choose.

i choose to see the article as a failure on many levels. it undermines logic and facilitates people of lesser reasoning to choose badly. reducing global starvation is ummm....good. reducing pollution is ummm....good. it's simple really. being vegetarian is not TAKING AWAY a choice, it is GIVING a choice.

ego. no one wants to be told anything, we have built a society of such arrogance, such high high arrogance, that if you tell people to stop doing something bad, they will demand to do it more often, all in the name of freedom of choice. what a waste of time this discussion is. link bait.

i know the kind of people who defend their right to kill and eat animals, they claim it is because humans are superior animals, because we simply have the ability, then we have the right. well, wow. i have the abilty to murder, to be cannibalistic - but should i? ethics, morality, human.

in fact, because we ARE superior animals, is EXACTLY why we should reason it out and see that vegetarianism is a superior choice, for the global community, for the earth, for animals, for compassion, for being just cool.

humans today are mostly descended from a category of violent homo sapiens that survived and flourished due to their violent nature. but, like yeast, their way is unsustainable, and we will all die from our own waste - because we were too arrogant to stop making foolish choices. standing with our heads so high, so proud, saying - I CAN CHOOSE WHATEVER I WANT! I AM HUMAN AND I CHOOSE TO BE STUPID!

well, that's your right, the force is strong. choose as you may.

Even if you don't believe in killing vegetables, you have to eat something to live. Because it takes more vegetables to feed livestock than to feed you, you actually kill less plants by eating vegetarian...so, since you care so much about the "feelings" of plants, go veg! ;)
Plus, plants don't have brains or nervous systems. They can't feel pain. No plant can feel pain. None at all. They are not designed to because they are plants, not animals.
Humans have a choice. We don't have to eat other feeling creatures to live. Aren't we lucky?

caused by lack of vitamin c. The explorers ended up with scurvy because fruits and vegetables didn't last very long out on ships with no freezers. No fruits and vegetables, no vitamin c = scurvy. Some of the North American natives taught Columbus(?) a neat trick of boiling up some tree bark(?) for a quick potent vc fix to help with the bleeding gums, teeth falling out and general malaise. Might not have been Columbus actually. But it was one of those guys. And I'm not sure it was bark - could have been leaves. Or small branches...well I can't remember everything I learned in grade 9 history anymore, but I'm 99% sure it wasn't raw meat.

"Whoever said that primates such as Gorillas Chimps etc do not eat meat need to buy an idiots guide to primates....although American TV shows images of chimps swinging from branch to branch with twigs in their mouths, this is not the be all and end all of their behaviour. I suggest that who ever believes such an ignorant view do a little research before using such "evidence" in an ethical/biological debate...which this is by the way!"

I assume this is directed at my comment above, but here is what I actually said:

"Some of our primate relatives have canine teeth, yet have an herbivorous diet."

'Some' would be the operative word there--and no mention of apes at all. The howler monkey would be a good example of a primate with canine teeth and an herbivorous diet.

I apologize for any confusion--the point of that post was simply that canine teeth are not particularly good indicators of diet in and of themselves.

Right. Cricket, you could have at least had a quick read over the scurvy Wikipedia entry first. Which type of raw meat are you suggesting we consume for vitamin C? All the vegetarians and vegans you've met had scurvy?

Perhaps you should look into your history before you start spouting off. Early Eskimos never suffered from scurvy and had maybe vegetables or fruits in 2% of their diet. The Early explores that refused to add any form of traditional native foods to their diets DID get scurvy others that adopted the diet did not. Meats high in Vitamin C: In traditional Eskimo diets of old. Would include, Penguin meat, Walrus meat and blubber,and fish. Beluga Whale skin contains as much vitamin C as oranges. May I suggest that you read about the early explorers: Vilhjalmur Stefansson, Scott or Shackleton, or talk to any Anthropology student in a local college or perhaps the professor.

The Eskimos knew that to cook the meat leeched the vitamins out of the meat. So in fact scurvy is prevented by consuming certain raw meats. Of course modern Eskimos have more or less adopted the same diet as the rest of the world, they get their Vitamin C from orange juicelike you and me.

What does this line of argument about scurvy have to do with anything? Yes, it's true--you can get vitamin C from raw meat. So what? We've had cutting implements for just about as long as we've been around as a species, so it doesn't follow that we were tackling cows and tearing them apart with our powerful teeth. These days, the health risks associated with eating raw meat make it less attractive than the various other sources of vitamin C available to us.

Nobody (as far as I can tell) is arguing that we were *meant* to eat a vegetarian diet. It's obvious that we can eat a wide variety of foods. The question is whether we can be healthy on a vegetarian diet, and then whether we *ought* to eat meat, given the answer to the first question.

Personally, I prefer to eat as though I lived in the 21st century, and not in some kind of tribute to when we used stone tools to crack open bones to get to the marrow left by predators.