Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay on cannibals
Cannibalism is a concept that is foreign to modern society despite its pertinence in recent human culture. In the essay “Cannibalism: It Still Exists,” Linh Ngo explains the concept of cannibalism, discussing in further detail and comparing and contrasting the different types of cannibalism and the situations in which it was utilized. By incorporating devices such as definition, illustration, and cause and effect, the essay was effective in relaying the idea that cannibalism is still around. Ngo utilized definition to enhance the audience’s understanding of the existence of cannibalism to this day. By incorporating the definition, “Cannibalism, the act of eating human flesh,” Ngo shed light onto the way in which he wanted to convey his central message of cannibalism (par. 5). This gave a clear view of what he viewed as cannibalism and how he wanted others to see it, allowing for a concise portrayal of the topic. Similarly, Ngo applied definition when describing …show more content…
Narrowly escaping the attack of the coast guard on the Vietnamese refugees, the refugees were stranded on an island and unable to escape starvation. Some of the survivors had to turn to “human flesh as a source of food” in order to avoid imminent death (par. 3). The limitation on food was the cause that led to the people participating in survival cannibalism. The effect was that “there was only one survivor” who was found (par. 4). When faced with death, people adopted unorthodox behaviors to increase their likelihood of existence. This example of cause and effect emphasized that cannibalism is not always a choice, but sometimes a necessity. Such a situation could theoretically happen to anyone, if placed under certain circumstances. Once having to put themselves into that place, people truly realize that cannibalism isn’t only a myth, but a possible survival
Many families in America can’t decide what food chain to eat from. In the book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan lists four food chains: Industrial, Industrial Organic, Local Sustainable, and Hunter-Gatherer. The Industrial food chain is full of large farms that use chemicals and factories. Industrial Organic is close to it except it doesn’t use as many chemicals and the animals have more space. Local Sustainable is where food is grown without chemicals, the animals have freedom and they eat what they were born to eat. Lastly, Hunter-Gatherer is where you hunt and grow your own food. The omnivore's dilemma is trying to figure out what food chain to eat from. Local Sustainable is the best food chain to feed the United States because it is healthy and good for the environment.
Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives 18, (2004): 229-245.
Millions of animals are consumed everyday; humans are creating a mass animal holocaust, but is this animal holocaust changing the climate? In the essay “ The Carnivores Dilemma,” written by Nicolette Hahn Niman, a lawyer and livestock rancher, asserts that food production, most importantly beef production, is a global contributor to climate change. Nicolette Niman has reports by United Nations and the University of Chicago and the reports “condemn meat-eating,” and the reports also say that beef production is closely related to global warming. Niman highlights, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides are the leading greenhouses gases involved in increasing global warming. A vast majority of people across the world consumes meat and very little people are vegetarian, or the people that don’t eat meat, but are there connections between people and meat production industry when it comes to eating food and the effect it has on the climate? The greenhouse gases, methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxides are not only to blame, but we should be looking at people and industrialized farming for the leading cause of greenhouse gases in agriculture and the arm-twisting dilemma we have been lured into, which is meat production itself.
In the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan talks about 4 different models that we consume, purchase, and add it to our daily lives. Michael Pollan travels to different locations around the United States, where he mentions his models which are fast food, industrial organic, beyond organic, and hunting. I believe that the 3 important models that we need to feed the population are fast food, industrial organic, and beyond organic. Fast food is one of the most important models in this society because people nowadays, eat fast food everyday and it is hurting us in the long run. We need to stick to beyond organic or industrial organic food because it is good for our well being. Ever since the government and corporations took over on what we eat, we have lost our culture. In the introduction of the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan states that we have lost our culture:
The three variables influencing female behavior related to cannibalism are aggressiveness, food deprivation, and male-female interactions. Female’s aggressiveness is related to the aggressive spillover hypothesis. This suggests that sexual cannibalism emerges as a product of selection and sexual cannibalism could be a facet of aggressiveness. Selection that favors aggressiveness can indirectly increase incidence of sexual cannibalism. Under these circumstances, sexual cannibalism threatens to sterilize highly aggressive females. With male-female interactions, mate choice hypothesis comes as a theory. Sexual cannibalism may represent an extreme form of mate choice. This is when females attack undesired males but allow preferred mates to copulate. Lastly, food deprivation can occur in aggressive and nonaggressive females.
Environmental advocate and cofounder of Eatingliberally.org, Kerry Trueman, in her response to Stephen Budiansky’s Math Lessons for Locavores, titled, The Myth of the Rabid Locavore, originally published in the Huffington Post, addresses the topic of different ways of purchasing food and its impact on the world. In her response, she argues that Budiansky portrayal of the Local Food Movement is very inaccurate and that individuals should be more environmentally conscious. Trueman supports her claim first by using strong diction towards different aspects of Budinsky essay, second by emphasizes the extent to which his reasoning falls flat, and lastly by explaining her own point with the use of proper timing. More specifically, she criticizes many
Olson, Kirby. "Gregory Corso's Post-Vegetarian Ethical Dilemma.(Gregory Corso)(Essay)." Journal Of Comparative Literature And Aesthetics 1-2 (2004): 53. Academic OneFile. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
In McCarthy’s novel The Road, one of the main issues deals with cannibalism and the moral/ethic issues of survival. Though McCarthy depicts cannibalism negatively in this post-apocalyptic world, it is apparent that cannibalism is necessary for humans to survive when there is no real food to eat. Whether they know what’s actually good vs what is actually bad, they still have a reason to try and stay alive even though things are absolutely terrible around them. Staying alive, to carry the fire for the good of humanity. In a world where everything is just coming to an end, people resort to eating each other in order to stay alive. Where there are bad and good people, but what does it actually mean to be bad? Eating human beings or not helping those people in need of help?
Filial cannibalism is a biological phenomenon where an adult or a parent of a species attacks and consumes all or some of its offspring. This behaviour is quite common among fish species, the family poeciliidae in particular. Filial cannibalism in poeciliids is very well documented due to their commercial popularity as aquaria fish. Poeciliids are live-bearers and engage in partial clutch cannibalism where the parents only cannibalise on some of their offspring (Manica 2002). Scientists do not fully understand as to why this behaviour exists as it is seemingly disadvantageous since the act decreases their reproductive success and ability to pass on their genes. Yet, if the behaviour was to the detriment of the poeciliids the trait would not have been favoured, evolutionarily speaking. Filial cannibalism is so widespread among poeciliids, which means that there must be benefits to this behaviour. However, does this behaviour only benefit those in captivity or is it as prominent in wild poeciliids?
Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical
Due to the use of Anthropophagy for leisure purposes, it is evident that cannibalism is a topic of much interest among humans, aside from its label as a social taboo. Technically, a human’s eating of another human has a chemical effect on the blood. Too much human meat causes a build up of vitamin A and amino acids such as homocysteine in the bloodstream, which could cause congenital defects in future offspring. However, if human organs which are rich in B vitamins and folic acid are eaten along with the human meat, homocysteine is not able to metabolize in the bloodstream. This means that cannibalism could hypothetically be the basis of a healthy diet (“Natural Food”).
Vegetarians are uncomfortable with how humans treat animals. Animals are cruelly butchered to meet the high demand and taste for meat in the market. Furthermore, meat-consumers argue that meat based foods are cheaper than plant based foods. According to Christians, man was given the power to dominate over all creatures in the world. Therefore, man has the right to use animals for food (Singer and Mason, 2007). However, it is unjustified for man to treat animals as he wishes because he has the power to rule over animals. This owes to the reality that it is unclear whether man has the right to slaughter animals (haphazardly), but it is clear that humans have a duty to take care of animals. In objection, killing animals is equal to killing fellow humans because both humans and animals have a right to life. Instead of brutally slaying animals, people should consume their products, which...
“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.
Virginia Woolf once said, “One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.” This is one of the many arguments behind legalizing cannibalism. If the act of eating other human beings was legalized and regulated it will solve all the problems of modern society. Cannibalism has been around since the Neolithic times. It is not currently practiced, but I think a revival of this age-old practice would benefit everyone. Cannibalism can solve world hunger. It can improve our criminal justice system. Cannibalism will also put an end to over population and spice up some of the current cooking shows. The legalization of cannibalism is what our modern world needs to turn itself around.