One issue that is frequently discussed and debated in India, and with much lower but increasing frequency across the world, is that of vegeterianism/veganism. Lots of arguments are put forth by a small but extremely vocal group of people who advocate shunning of meat/animal products. A large fraction of them are Hindus from India, who have been born in vegeterian families to start with. Also in developed Western countries, where non-vegeterian foods from a large number of animals form a very large proportion of the diet, some people are voluntarily taking up vegeterianism, and some of them are also vociforously campaigning for the cause. As is the norm in my blog, I will analyze the major arguments one by one, and finally express my personal opinion.
1) Philosophical/Religious argument: Killing is unethical/a sin. Some recent philosophers say that killing "sentient beings" (beings that are aware of their surroundings) is unethical. But immediately we are faced with the question- What about plants? Why is killing them NOT unethical/a sin? Just because we think plants are insentient, do we have the right to kill them? And why at all should sentience be the criteria in this regard? Why not any other criteria- either more restrictive or less?
2) Cruelty argument: This is PETA's main argument. Lots of videos are available showing the pathetic conditions in which animals are reared in the large-scale, mechanized meat industry, particularly in US. Many animals are so much overfed that their legs break under the weight of their bodies, and in some cases animals are skinned alive. These are facts, but not sound arguments for vegeterianism. Their demand should be to make the rearing houses and slaughterhouses more sensitive to the livestock.
3) Emotional argument: "How can u eat such sweet little creatures?" or "Don't u feel that these are sons/daughters of someone else?" - Well of course these can appeal to some people, but once again it is not a sound argument. Nonvegeterians will quickly point out that there are many carnivorous animals as well, and food chain is a natural phenomena. Claims like "human beings are naturally vegeterians- they take meat only out of greed" are baseless- human beings learned to hunt long before agriculture, and many tribals, who are the most "natural" human beings are non-vegeterians.
4) Health arguments: Both types of diet have their benifits and drawbacks. Studies do not show any marked difference between health standards of vegeterians and non-vegeterians.
5) Environmental arguments: At least in the US, where animals are reared for meat on a very large scale, a lot of land is taken up by this large-scale meat industry. Slaughterhouses emit large amounts of Carbon Dioxide and other harmful gases. Rearing animals requires utilization of water several times higher than that required for cultivation. Moreover, to feed the livestock and make them fleshy, lots of foodgrains are required, which could have been consumed by human beings themselves- hunger and poverty still exist in shocking degrees in developing countries including india. It is too fantastic to expect that if all or most of the meat industry closed down, the foodgrains would be distributed among the poor- that is a different issue altogether. But this environmental argument does carry a lot of merit. However there is a rider: if the animals being reared for food were released, and the industry closed, these animals will continue to exist freely, and graze, eat and drink..... what will be the environmental impact of that? Has it been studied? Unless it is, the argument will not be complete.
Although I have systematically contradicted the arguments for vegeterianism, I am myself vegeterian. Not by religion, but by choice. I had made the choice in early 2010 mainly because I felt guilty somewhere inside that beings are killed for my food, but soon I got confused when the "plant angle" (discussed in point 1) came t mind. Still I continued the vegeterian diet as a personal choice, without appealing to others to follow suit. There are many arguments for vegeterianism- though often unsatisfactory as shown above, but there is no satisfactory argument for non-vegeterianism either!! And the Point 5 as above seems to tilt the scale towards vegeterianism. So I am continuing to be on vegeterian diet. But i am critical of the self-righteous and often effusively sentimental views of the veggie activists- as individuals they are free to do whatever they believe, but they can't expect others to follow unless they have valid, universally acceptable reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment