Commentary by Jim Walker
Originated: 05 Sept. 2006
Additions: 01 Oct. 2009
COMMENTARY INDEXEvolution dictates our lot in life with the undisputable fact that in order to survive, all animals, including us, must consume the by-products of DNA (i.e., living things). Since living things provide the only DNA sources available, we must eat the flesh of life (plants and/or animals) to continue our existence. This presents a dilemma and a moral problem if we consider killing life as immoral and conserving life as moral. I hope to clarify some of the problems and to dispel some of the myths about eating plants and animals both from a health and moral perspective.
We can have no argument about the following: all animals consume either plants, animals or both. Every specie of animal falls into the category of either carnivore, herbivore, or omnivore (other classifications exist such as frugivore, granivore, insectivore, etc. but these fall under sub-classes of the three major groups).
Eating high concentrations of protein (meat) has evolutionary benefits for carnivores. Meat serves as an efficient way to build a body and to economically replenish lost muscle tissue. Carnivores usually have lean, fast moving bodies, good for running down or overpowering prey. They have short digestive tracts, good for quickly eliminating unnecessary mass and allowing a high-muscle, low-fat balance. Humans do not fall into the carnivore group.
Herbivores (vegetarians), on the other hand, need longer intestines to break down and assimilate tough-to-break-down plant fibers. This means that the food stays in the gut for long periods of time. Most herbivore mammals have higher fat concentrations than carnivores and they don't have the speed compared to carnivores. Just observe the large bellies of the great apes, and ruminants (oxen, cattle, sheep, etc.), and you will see how obese they seem compared to hunter-carnivores. Humans do not fall into the herbivore group either.
Homo sapiens, of course, fall into to the omnivore class. Through natural selection we evolved the teeth of omnivores, good for grinding grain, stripping leaves, and eating meat. We have long intestines (somewhere between carnivore and herbivore intestinal tracts), and a digestive system that will break down both acidic and alkaline based foods (protein, carbohydrates, and fat). Our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, also have an omnivore diet (not only do they eat plants and fruits but they hunt and eat monkeys, for example).
Humans beat all other omnivores by a large margin (omnivore comes from the Latin: omni, or everything). People will eat anything including bacteria, fungus, plants, and animals. From the plants we will eat roots, bark, sap, leaves, berries, fruits, nuts, flowers, and seeds. We will eat any animal, including worms, insects, crustaceans, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (and in some cases, people). We will eat their meat, fat, eyes, brain, organs (including testicles), bones and shells (for calcium), milk, and blood. Humans will even eat rotten food such as cheese and sour cream (due to decomposition from bacteria). Risen bread and alcohol drinks made by fermentation comes about from the waste products of yeast. Japanese people eat nattoo, a form of rotten fermented soybean. Ræst kjøt comes from rotten mutton. Humans eat lots of rotten fish. The Icelandic delicacy hákarl comes from rotten shark; the Swedes love surströmming, a rotten herring dish; Ræstur fiskur describes a half-dried rotten fish delicacy; the Russian tresca comes from decomposed codfish. Some humans even drink urine. Yes urine*.
* The ancient yogi religious practice known as "amaroli" involves drinking one's own urine everyday (still practiced by millions of people). This odd practice comes from the yogi text, "Damara Tantra" called Shivambu kalpa vidhi (auto-urine). Urine contains the hormone melatonin secreted from the pineal gland in the brain. This hormone probably accounts for the meditative "spiritual enlightenment" experienced by Indian shamans. The Bible even records humans eating their own feces and piss (II Kings 18:27). Egads! What won't we eat? We even eat supernatural meat, such as meat from human-god flesh in what Christians call, "Jesus," during "Holy" communion. Catholics believe this as real flesh and blood, and if you don't believe it, the Church curses you (according to the Council of Trent).
Advantages and disadvantages of eating flesh
Just because an omnivore specie eats plants and animals does not mean that all animals in that species must eat both flesh and plants. Nor does it mean that an omnivore must eat equal parts of animals and plants. Humans can live off animals only or plants only, but excluding either does not necessarily mean a healthier life, regardless of the claims of vegetarians. In spite of our omnivorous nature, human diets lean more toward plants than meat. Our long digestive tract resembles that of vegetarians more than carnivores, and the knowledge of early humans shows a more agricultural, plant eating dietary tendency than it does hunting and eating animals. Most herbivores require the aid of bacteria to digest cellulose and as a result, they evolved a caecum in the gut that houses bacteria that acts like a fermentation chamber. Some think that the human appendix "devolved" from a larger caecum from our ancient vegetarian ancestors. I suspect that when humans began cooking their food, it further reduced the need for a large caecum because heat naturally breaks down cellulose, or perhaps our bigger brains and tool making abilities enabled us to separate the cellulose from our food. There also exists some evidence to suggest that human meat eating came later from scavenging rather than hunting (hunting evolved even later when we developed big brains).
The main health problem with eating animals comes from the fat. Most animals contain high levels of saturated and trans fat that when eaten, correlates with hardening of the arteries, heart disease, and stroke. Dairy products especially contain high amounts of fat. As odd as it may seem, not eating enough meat might also increase the risk of strokes in some people. A study among Japanese people has shown that Asian populations (poor in animal consumption, and thought to explain the high rate of strokes), showed that a higher intake of animal fat and cholesterol can significantly reduce the risk of cerebral infarction death (stroke). Whether the higher rate of stroke in Japanese people comes from eating saturated or trans fats from plants instead of meat, or from a poor source of the vitamin Bs, or other things, remains a mystery.
The bad form of animal fat not only comes from the flesh but also from milk and cheese. Dairy products probably accounts for more allergies and high cholesterol than any other source. From personal experience, I lowered my 220 LDL cholesterol to 170 by simply eliminating all cheese from my diet! The dairy industry wants us to believe that the best source for calcium comes from dairy products, yet Americans, who consume large quantities of milk and cheese have among the largest problem of osteoporosis in the world (probably due to hard-to-digest large molecules in milk). Only Homo sapiens drink milk after weening, and from another species milk! Interestingly cows and goats, who give us dairy products, get their calcium entirely from plants.
We know that we need some amount of cholesterol in order to live. In fact our animal bodies make cholesterol regardless of what we eat. Fat foods with high density lipoproteins (HDL) describes the GOOD cholesterol. Low density lipoproteins (LDL) describe the BAD cholesterol. Eating some fats have known benefits while others show a danger. Atherosclerosis comes from the fatty deposits due to LDL clinging to the walls of arteries. Saturated fats raise both LDL and HDL levels of cholesterol, and trans fats (the worst of all fats) raise LDL while lowering HDL (not a good thing).
Both plants and animals have saturated and trans fats, so simply eliminating animal fat does not necessarily reduce bad fat consumption. In fact, some vegetarian diets yield higher levels of saturated and trans fats (including hydrogenated oils) than meat-vegetable diets! So what to do?
If you wish to lower your bad cholesterol and increase your good cholesterol, you should generally eat unsaturated fats (monounsaturated and polyunsaturated) and steer away from saturated, trans fats, and hydrogenated oils.
The better unsaturated fats come in the form of Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Omega-3 derives mostly from three types of oily foods: seeds (especially flaxseed), nuts (especially walnuts), and fish (especially salmon). The Omega-3 family comes in at least two varieties: short-chain and long chain (a 'chain' refers to the length of its molecular structure). Long-chain Omega-3s serve as the best form because of the way the body processes them, and only animals produce long-chain Omega-3s. Long-chain Omega-3s act faster and more efficiently than do short-chain Omega-3s. By far the best source of Omega-3 fats come from fish, especially wild salmon. The short-chain Omega-3s occur only in plant foods.
The evidence so far shows that fish provides the best source of unsaturated fats, something almost guaranteed to lower the bad cholesterol and raise the good cholesterol, especially if you eliminate the saturated fats.
This means that the healthiest diet known, must include some animal flesh, and yet because some animal fats contain the worst forms of fat, one can also construct an unhealthy diet by eating the wrong forms of flesh.
Moreover, the best B vitamins come from animal products (yes you can get vitamin B12 from Brewers yeast and other B vitamins from other plants but the Bs from animal products prove far superior).
The point of all this aims to show you that just eliminating animal products does not necessarily make you healthier nor does it allow you to live longer. I have yet to see good evidence that shows that vegetarians live longer on average than non-vegetarians. Much evidence suggests that an optimum diet should have some amounts of vegetable and animal products (not surprising from an animal that evolved into an omnivore). The major problem of eating meat comes with eating too much meat and fat. Americans, for example eat so much meat and fat that many of our diseses stem from this.
If you wish to eat the heathiest diet, you cannot use Aristotelian two-valued-logic to determine your diet. Becoming exclusively a vegetarian simply does not provide you with the best health solutions. Nor does eating too much meat.
Moreover, research has begun to improve the health benefits of meat by means of better feed, and genetically altering animals to produce healthier meat. Sheep farmers in Wales, for example have boosted Omega 3 levels in lamb. Pig genetics company JSR has succeeded in developing a feed high in Omega-3 for pigs. Researchers have cloned Omega-3 producing pigs that should reduce the risks for heart disease. Perhaps one day soon we can eat Omega-3 bacon and reap the same benefits of eating salmon!
One disadvantage of eating animals, though, comes from having to kill them. Not everyone thinks this as bad, of course, but if you've ever contemplated killing animals which you love, then this becomes an ethical problem.
The ethical problems
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
--Mahatma GandhiAnyone who has observed a cow, sheep, or pig, or bird close up, knows how delightful these creatures can seem. We instinctively impinge our own antromorphic feelings toward them, and many times we want to protect them instead of killing them for our own "selfish" reasons. Many people become vegetarians solely for this reason. Does this antromorphism represent something real or do we simply misjudge? We certainly don't have an inborn instinct to kill animals the way carnivores do. Humans must teach other humans to kill (and that means killing humans as well as animals).
Theologians and philosophers, for centuries, have assured us that animals have no feelings. Aristotle didn't recognize animal's feelings at all. He elevated reason above feelings as the prime reason for human existence. in his Politics, he wrote, "Plants exist for the sake of animals, and brute beasts for the sake of man - domestic animals for his use and food, wild ones for food and other accessories of life, such as clothing and various tools. Since nature makes nothing purposeless or in vain, it is undeniably true that she has made all animals for the sake of man." René Descartes associated thinking with feeling and because he thought animals don't think, they can't feel. He thought that the seemingly painful cries from animals as nothing more than "broken machinery." Only man can achieve consciousness, thought and feelings, he "reasoned." Immanuel Kant in his Lecture on Ethics wrote, "so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Animals are not self-conscious, and are there merely as a means to an end. The end is man." Theologians, of course, for centuries taught that only humans possessed a soul (whatever that means) and animals don't deserve the same respect. The belief in the Bible's dominion over all species have excused the worst and indifferent behavior toward animals. And this includes the treatment of slaves who Christians thought of as sub-humans, and not capable of reason and feelings. Even today, we label our enemies as beneath us. For example, many people from Western countries consider citizens living in Islamic "terrorist" countries as somehow less human, calling them barbaric animals. They see no problem in killing thousands of innocent civilians, as long as they don't have to listen to their cries. The same goes with killing animals (out of sight, out of mind). All of these believers got it wrong.
Of course we cannot measure directly the feelings of animals, but then again, we cannot directly measure the feelings of humans either (after all, we exist as animals too). Yes, we can listen to the expression of feelings through the language of humans but this has no more direct evidence for feelings than do the cries of animals when they suffer pain. Only through deduction, by comparing our own feelings with those around us (including animals), can we evaluate their feelings. And then we have the growing science of neurology and biology that has overturned the incorrect beliefs practiced throughout centuries.
All mammals and birds have social lives. That means complex brains. Mammal brains, especially, resemble our own mammal brains. The structure and function of non-human mammal brains do exactly what the structure and function of human brains do, with only a matter of degree.
The difference comes mostly from the large cerebral cortex and language centers of human brains. The cerebral cortex involves our higher ability to think and plan which, of course, appears larger in humans. But for the emotional and feeling part of the brain, namely the limbic system, the function and relative size appears the same in mammals.
Scientists generally think that brain size relative to body size relates to intelligence. Therefore animals with larger brain to body size, generally have higher intelligences than those with smaller brains. Humans, chimps, and dolphins, for example exhibit large brain to body sizes, and this derives mostly because of their larger cerebral cortexes. But when it comes to the emotional, feeling part of the brain, mammals have just as large a limbic system to body weight as do humans!
The philosophers associated thought and reason with feelings and emotion, but brain physiology proves this wrong. One can feel, and exhibit strong emotions without a frontal cortex at all! (This comes from extensive examples of brain damaged people). If you have a well functioning limbic system, you will feel regardless of your lack of intelligence. (This applies to presidents too.)
Mammals, like humans, form special bonds with their kin that involve special obligations of care. They must interact with each other and this involves sensing what their kin feel. Although they do not communicate through abstract language like we do, they communicate their feelings through sounds, barks, bleeps, chirps and physical movement. Anyone who has owned a pet knows more about how animals feel than all the theologians and philosophers combined.
Scientists have gone farther. Studies of farm animals have shown that they have the capability of feeling strong emotions such as pain, fear, anxiety and even happiness. Moreover the studies reveal that their emotions resemble those of humans! (see The secret life of moody cows). Biologists have even found evidence for the perception of pain by fish (see Fish do feel pain, scientists say).
The evidence overwhelms. Animals feel pain and at least the higher animals (including farm animals), have highly developed emotional centers.
So what to do about the ethics of killing animals for food if they can feel emotions like we do?
Unfortunately in the short term, no solution exists. If you wish to determine the killing of animals as the sole basis of wrongful actions, then no solution exists. However, if we use pain, emotions and cruelty as the moral hinge-pin to determine ethical behavior then, at the very least, we can eliminate the pain and suffering of animals while still enjoying the benefits of animals for human consumption.
The debate about animal ethics involves how we should treat non-human animals. In the United States, we already have a few laws regarding the treatments of animals, especially pet animals. But why shouldn't we treat farm and wild animals any different? If your neighbor treats your pet in a cruel fashion, they can end up in jail. But if a farmer does the same to his pig, or if a scientific researcher tortures a mouse, the law remains silent.
The animal rights problem resembles the ethical problems of slavery, the treatment of women, and minorities. Our ethical thoughts evolve along with our culture and our bodies, and the same can happen in regards to animal rights. Of course by rights, we do not mean voting rights or freedom of speech, but as Michael Shermer suggests, "We can begin with the most basic rights granted by the U.S. Constitution: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
We cannot blame ourselves for immoral behavior just because we eat animal flesh. We evolved as omnivores. We can't help our evolutionary past. But we did not evolve as cold blooded carnivore killers like sharks or crocodiles, either. We must teach our young to kill animals. Our ability to hunt and kill animals does not come from instinct but rather from social conditioning. And this gives us reason to modify and evolve our ethical behavior without contradicting our animal nature.
Consider this: domestic farm animals evolved to live with humans. Through artificial selection their genes have altered to adapt with us. They can no longer live in "natural" wild environments without us. Our genes, likewise, have adapted to living with them. We can tolerate their disease causing germs and have adapted to consume their milk (lactose intolerant people usually have a genetic history free from dairy farming). This evolutionary bargain benefits both them and us. Without humans, cows, sheep, and other farm animals would not have survived as well without us, and perhaps not at all. Some domesticated animals have already met this fate such as the aurochs (Bos primigenius). They became extinct because of competition on its feeding ground by domesticated cattle, disinterest, and other factors. The last aurochs disappeared in Poland in 1627. Today, according to the World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity, one third of farm animal breeds face extinction. So if you really care about the fate of domesticated animals, you might want to consider a campaign to get more people to consume them.
We provide domesticated animals protection from predators, food, and the ability to raise their young. In return, they provide us with food and clothing. Nor should you argue against eating them because they can't communicate their reasons for staying alive. Animals can't communicate, and they don't have the capability to reason. They can only express their instincts to live through feelings and desires. If we kill them without their ability to feel pain, or discomfort then we have gone a long way to solve the ethical problems.
So the first step in a workable ethical solution involves allowing animals the same basic rights as human animals. Give them life, protection, the ability to live their lives according to their nature, at least past reproduction age, and when it comes time to kill them, do it quickly, without pain, and without upsetting the animals around them. This Faustian bargain may not provide the ultimate ethical solution but it does provide a step in the right direction.
"I think using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we've got to do it right. We've got to give those animals a decent life and we've got to give them a painless death. We own the animal respect."
--Temple GrandinIf you practice a vegan life style and still think vegetarianism represents the most ethical position, then think again. If everyone on earth converted to a pure vegetarian diet, then what need do we have for domesticated farm animals? They can't live without us and if we no longer need their meat or hide, then we have no reason to raise them (except for a few to keep in zoos). If you think the free cattle roaming around the streets of India represents a solution, then you have not thought it through. These poor diseased starving creatures hardly represent an ethical solution any more than free-roaming feral cats and dogs, and they still require humans to keep them barely alive.
In human terms we would call this genocide. Ironical as it may seem, by eating animal meat we keep their species thriving. And what about those precious cats and dogs that we so dearly love? They live strictly as pure carnivores! Now what? The question for vegetarians then becomes: "Should I allow an animal live a short but generally happy life, rather than no life at all?"
Also consider the life spans of wild animals compared to domesticated animals. Wild animals don't have the protection against prey and diseases as do domesticated animals and they usually live short lives. White-tailed deer, for example, have a life expectancy of up to 15 years, but in the wild, males live an average of 2 years, and females live around 3 years. I don't know the expectancy of pre-historic wide cattle and sheep, but I'll bet domesticated animals live as long or longer than the pre-historic versions (not counting veal, which would violate the animal rights argument presented here).
The question that should really concern us involves the mis-treatment of animals rather than their eventual demise, and this includes the cruelty of present-day confinement farming. Most people do not realize the horror that occurs in slaughterhouses and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Putting birds in electrified cages, cows in disease filled pens, and darkened rooms and feeding them a cannibal diet, cannot possibly serve to produce a contented, much less a happy animal.
Scientists also know that raising animals for food affects the environment. About one-fifth of all greenhouse gases comes from methane, due mainly from raising livestock (more than transportation). Also consider the land degradation, pollution, water shortages, and many more problems that derives from raising livestock for food. Over consumption of animal products produces these problems. We eat too much meat! According to Mark Bittman, "there's no way to treat animals well when you're killing 10 billion of them a year.
So if you want the best of both worlds (heath wise and ethically), we have to learn to consume less meat which would result in less livestock production which would allow us to begin to treat animals (and us) better.
Of course one could also argue that most of these problems stem from human overpopulation and we could best solve them by simply reducing our numbers by ethically reducing the population, not by war or disease, but by conscious birth control.
Future solutions
The ethical treatment of animals and genetically altering them, provides us with healthier alternatives and solves many of the moral problems of eating meat, but the ugly fact that we have to kill these living creatures give us the remaining ethical problem.
Fortunately science might solve this one too. Scientists have already grown small amounts of edible meat in a lab (also see New Harvest). Someday we may have the ability to grow meat in abundance without having to kill an animal to get it. Imagine eating the most succulent steak, genetically altered to produce Omega-3 fat instead of high cholesterol fat. Vegetables grown as meat!
This, of course, would not solve the animal problem because if we could grow meat we would not need farm animals and, again, we face the farm animal genocide problem.
In the far future, perhaps we could genetically alter animals so that they would want us to eat them. Douglas Adams explored this scenario in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, (in the episode, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe) where a very obliging Ameglian Major Cow, a species of dairy animal specifically bred to not only have the desire for someone to eat him, but also capable of speaking English so as to communicate his desire. As the Dish of the Day, the Ameglian Major Cow offers his diners various ways to eat him.
We might also alter ourselves genetically or by evolving into a cyber sapien (as briefly described in Death and Time Traveling). The point here aims to show that we can evolve our behavior while reducing or eliminating the ethical problems of eating meat. The ultimate vegetarian solution involves evolving into an energarian, a pure energy consuming life-form that can think and feel but thrives on pure energy-- just like a vegetable.
An E-prime document
