In the article “The Six-Legged Meat of the Future”, authors Marcel Dicke and Arnold Van Huis explain that due to the environmental effects that is caused by meat, people should begin to consume insects instead of meat. They also argue that due to the rise in production costs of livestock, the rise of human population and using insects in our food would solve some of the problems that are “associated with livestock” (Dicke and Van Huis 345. In addition, the article is not persuasive because even though both Dicke and Van Huis use statistics and evidence to establish their credibility and to build a bridge to their audience and make the audience emotionally involved, their argument is weakened by the use of fallacies.
In their article, “The Six-Legged Meat of the Future,” Dicke and Van Huis argue that due to the decline in the supply of meat in America, we should begin to use insects as an “alternate animal protein”
…show more content…
An example is “For instance, swine and humans are similar enough that they can share many diseases” (Dicke and Van Huis 345). The authors create a Hasty Generalization fallacy by concluding that because humans and swine are similar, they share diseases. Furthermore, this makes the audience feel lost because the authors do not provide evidence of how “swine and humans are similar” (Dicke and Van Huis 345). Similarly, the author says that “Because insects are so different from us, such risks are accordingly lowered” (Dicke and Van Huis 345). Again, the author fails to provide a connection between how the risk of getting an infection is lowered because humans and insects are different. The authors also create a Hasty Generalization fallacy because they conclude that the risk of humans getting infected is lowered just because insects and humans are different. In summary, the use of fallacies without providing evidence and makes the readers feel
The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian
Lundberg describes how the demand for animal protein was incredibly higher than the production. She quoted Marlow’s article stating, “A nonvegetarian diet requires 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticide than does a vegetarian diet and the greatest difference comes from beef consumption” (Lundberg 483). She then questions: "Do we really want to wait until it’s too late to change our way of eating?” (Lundberg 485). These two points will make readers subconsciously pause to answer this question themselves, put themselves in the situation imagining the products used and having an immediate reaction to it.
...oss’ paper. Therefore, this objection is not sound because the number of naïve people are rapidly dwindling. The second objection stated that one person has no effect on the factory farming industry, so giving up meat is pointless because the industry is too large to feel the effects of someone converting to vegetarianism. I refuted this objection by saying that, yes, one person alone will not make a difference, but when more and more people become vegetarians, the industry will be forced to respond by producing less animals, therefore, preventing more animal suffering. Although these two objections were strong and valid, I believe I was able to successfully defend Norcross’ argument that factory farming is wrong and cruel.
I will first show the lack of validity and soundness to Howard’s claim that A) a vegan lifestyle is a healthier choice and B) his claim that one must switch to that lifestyle to enjoy these said benefits. To the claim made in A, Howard uses his own health problems he endured on his meat diet, and uses it as a constant variable comparing it to his now relative healthy lifestyle as a vegan. On first glance anyone who eats a calorie-laden, unbalanced diet and ends up weighing 300 pounds, as Lyman himself admitted, will have health problems regardless of his orientation to meat or vegetables. With this said his comparing analogy is inertly flawed and must be disregarded from the argument he presents. On march 8 before the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Mary K Young, MS.,R.D,NCBA Director of Nutrition Research and Information, presented the benefits of eating meat. Using Data from the 1995 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSI) she confirms that red meat enhances one overall diet quality. Young goes on to point out that red meat is the number one source for protein, B12, and zinc, number 2 source for B6 and third greatest source for iron, niacin and potassium. She also pointed out that red meat alone has the greatest concentrates of iron and zinc together. Also included cited in Young’s report was the research recently published in the Journal of the American...
On the topic of environmental impacts due to “industrial farming”, Bill McKibben and Blake Hurst share completely different perspectives. McKibben believes that industrial farming has simply left an unexcusable bad impact on the environment, saying that it is unethical and that the meat we eat is potentially killing our environment and us as well. McKibben states that “we should simply stop eating factory-farmed meat, and the effects on climate change would be one of the many benefits.” (page 201). McKibben addresses that the techno fixes brought in industrial farming are simply not enough to help our environment.
Food, especially meat is such a central part of human society that it cannot be ignored. Just as big minds came together in the 60’s to make a better chicken, they can come together to solve a crisis that harms every person living in this country. Jonathan Safran Foer’s book gives an important look into what goes on behind the scenes of factory farms, and offers logical solutions. However, it will take more than this, and more than just vegetarian encouragement to make any lasting changes. It will take the votes of consumers both in the supermarket and on ballots to evoke a better system. Take a look at what is on your plate next time you sit down for a meal. Did you vote well?
In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a stand against factory farming, and if we must eat meat then we must adapt humane agricultural methods for meat production.
Since Michael Pollan received his Master’s Degree in English (“Michael Pollan: Biography”), he has written top shelf extraordinary books, some of which are New York Times Best Sellers: Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A History of Four Meals, and many others (“About Michael Pollan”). Michael’s writing has won awards such as the World Conservation Union Global Award and the Genesis Award from the American Humane Association for his writing on animal agriculture (“About Michael Pollan”); therefor is credible enough to be writing about food and animals because he has been awarded in this subject. Moreover, Pollan is named one of Time’...
“An Animals’ Place” by Michael Pollan is an article that describes our relationship and interactions with animals. The article suggests that the world should switch to a vegetarian diet, due to the mistreatment of animals. The essay includes references from animal rights activists and philosophers. These references are usually logical statement that compare humans and non-human animals in multiple levels, such as intellectual and social.
Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Much argument has arisen in the current society on whether it is morally permissible to eat meat. Many virtuous fruitarians and the other meat eating societies have been arguing about the ethics of eating meat (which results from killing animals). The important part of the dispute is based on the animal welfare, nutrition value from meat, convenience, and affordability of meat-based foods compared to vegetable-based foods and other factors like environmental moral code, culture, and religion. All these points are important in justifying whether humans are morally right when choosing to eat meat. This paper will argue that it is morally impermissible to eat meat by focusing on the treatment of animals, the environmental argument, animal rights, pain, morals, religion, and the law.
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that their treatment has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."(Schopenhauer). I always wondered why some people are not so drawn to the consumption of meat and fed up with only one thought about it. Why so many people loathe of blood, and why so few people can easily kill and be slaughter animal, until they just get used to it? This reaction should say something about the most important moments in the code, which was programmed in the human psyche. Realization the necessity of refraining from meat is especially difficult because people consume it for a long time, and in addition, there is a certain attitude to the meat as to the product that is useful, nourishing and even prestigious. On the other hand, the constant consumption of meat has made the vast majority of people completely emotionless towards it. However, there must be some real and strong reasons for refusal of consumption of meat and as I noticed they were always completely different. So, even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to resemble that of its roots, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not merely a matter of personal health.
In this paper I will look at the argument made by James Rachels in his paper, The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism supporting the view that humans should be vegetarians on moral grounds. I will first outline the basis of Rachels’ argument supporting vegetarianism and his moral objection to using animals as a food source and critique whether it is a good argument. Secondly, I will look at some critiques of this kind of moral argument presented by R. G. Frey in his article, Moral Vegetarianism and the Argument from Pain and Suffering. Finally, I will show why I support the argument made by Frey and why I feel it is the stronger of the two arguments and why I support it.
For several years the issue of eating meat has been a great concern to all types of people all over the world. In many different societies controversy has began to arise over the morality of eating meat from animals. A lot of the reasons for not eating meat have to deal with religious affiliations, personal health, animal rights, and concern about the environment. Vegetarians have a greater way of expressing meats negative effects on the human body whereas meat eaters have close to no evidence of meat eating being a positive effect on the human body. Being a vegetarian is more beneficial for human beings because of health reasons, environmental issues, and animal rights.
However, many people still refuse to be a vegetarian for different reasons. Some people prefer the taste of meat, and some people believe that they are born to eat meat. Despite that about 2 billion people in the world live basically on the meat diet, around 4 billion people live mainly on a plant-based diet because of food shortage(Pimentel ＆ Pimentel, 2003, pp660S). As everyone knows, the number of population is growing. For example, the total U.S. population doubled in the previous 60 years, and it may double again in the next 70 years (Pimentel ＆ Pimentel, 2003, pp660S). People won’t have enough meat to eat in the future. On the other hand, a well-planned vegetarian diet offers many health benefits. Therefore, people should become vegetarian because it benefits to huma...
As we can now observe, vegetarianism has become something fashionable, and the number of people who reject eating meat is constantly increasing. In Britain, for instance, over 5 million people have done it so far. It is obviously connected with the recent animal diseases, but this tendency is likely to spread on the other regions of the world. However, it is not only a fashion or fear of illnesses. I myself became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, and I can see a number of reasons why people should stop eating meat. They are mainly of ethic, economic and health type. Those who think in an ecological way should also be aware of how this meat consumption ruins our environment. I don’t have an intention to force anybody to become a vegetarian, but I hope that my argumentation would be strong enough to make some people think about it, at least. In this essay I will try to present this point of view, expressing my personal feelings and showing scientific facts about the problem.