Argument Between Vegetarianism And Omnivorism

A prominent recent controversy is the argument between vegetarianism and omnivorism. Vegetarians are those who do not eat meat (Merriam-Webster, n.d.), and omnivores consume both meat and vegetables as part of their diet (Oxford English Dictionary, n.d.). The debate is heated and passionate, with different opinions for both sides. Leo Tolstoy (1886) once said, “a man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite”. Conversely, there are those who think that “not eating meat is a decision, eating meat is instinct” (Denis Leary, 1993). It is argued that consuming animal meat is the most common and easily sourced protein, that animals can be ethically and humanely sourced, and that it tastes so good, eating anything else would be nearly impossible. Conversely, the arguments for vegetarianism are compelling in that they argue the diet brings better health, a reduced environmental impact, less cruelty to animals, and is economical. Reasoning for both is vehement and enthusiastic,

This leads to the ability to raise many more animals in one acre than by traditional farming, with farmers able to increase profit without acquiring more land. This practice, while at first is seemingly efficient, with less land used and less impact on the soil, is actually making environmental matters worse. These production facilities have grown at twice the rate of traditional farms, and with so many more animals per acre, have vastly increased the resources needed worldwide to continue the upkeep of these operations. This has led to even more environmental problems even though this type of farm was originally designed to reduce