animals should not be killed for any reason
What is the definition of a Food Chain?
Food Chain- A hierarchical series of organisms each dependent on the next as a source of food.
As for humans, we are animals. We derived from the Homo-Sapien species that are classified as mammals. But enough with that argument.
People have always eaten animal products. Why should we stop now?
If you look throughout history at the human diet, it consists of a large amount of raw plant products, and some meat for important proteins. Not to dig too deeply into the science behind all this, but the easiest way to get all of your essential acids is by eating meat. Granted, you don’t need four steaks and a chicken breast a day, but having at least some meat on the table once a week is going to be healthier for you unless you are very carefully planning your amino acid intake. Humans didn’t evolve our incisors for chomping down on leaves, and we didn’t evolve our molars to try and rip the flesh off of a bone. Omnivorous diets are what we as a species are designed for.
All health reasons aside though, it’s important socially that we don’t confuse the ideas of vegetarianism and animal activism. There are right ways to raise animals and there are efficient ways to raise animals. These two aren’t necessarily exclusive, but if you believe the megafarms, they’re doing what they have to do in order to “feed the world,” never mind that even here in the United States 14.5 percent of households go hungry or don’t know where their next meal is coming from.
The largest reason for this isn’t the inability of farmers to produce enough food, it’s the extreme inequality in food distribution that mirrors the economic dispersion in this country. So for all the farms who raise animals that never see the light of day, where they interact almost exclusively with machines, the excuse of “feeding the world,” just isn’t going to cut it.
The same goes for all the vegetarians out there who don’t eat meat to protest these conditions. It isn’t that hard anymore to find a semi-local farmer, no matter where you live. You can meet the farmers, talk with them, and find out exactly what kinds of living conditions their animals have.
What you absolutely should not do is insist that everybody you meet share your feelings and moral position on the subject. Both sides of the proverbial electric fence have been guilty of this. Vegetarians and vegans are often seen as pushy, throwing their ideals at other people. This is very much the wrong thing to do. But this also applies to you, dear reader, if you are an omnivore who likes to “casually” suggest that any vegetarian is less of a person, or just following a trend, or “missing out,” or any number of things I hear on a fairly regular basis when a person finds out my eating preferences.
Trophic levels” is a biology term used to describe different levels of a food chain with, for example, a blade of grass being the lowest trophic level, right up through the bugs that eat the grass, the birds that eat the bugs, and the foxes that eat the birds. At each level, a large amount of energy is lost due to the energy needed for those living things to survive, the heat they put out, and the fact that not every member of a trophic level is eaten for food. Actually, only ten percent of the energy that comes into a given trophic level goes up to the next higher level.
So in the previous example, if we set the grass as receiving 100% energy from the sun, the bugs get 10%, the birds 1%, and the foxes .1% of the total energy that came in from the sun. This on its own looks like a pretty convincing ecological reason to become a vegetarian, but just imagine if everything did that.
It simply isn’t possible to survive if every living thing is competing for the same resources. Yes, it is less efficient to eat a cow than it is to eat corn, but if we were competing with animals for all the plant-based resources available, we would soon push them right out of the food web entirely, destroying any benefit the species might have of not being eaten. Even the ideal 100 percent energy directly from the sun wouldn’t be a viable solution, because then we’d be in competition with the trees for sustenance, and would eventually end up wiping them out in order to secure more sun for ourselves.
Still, that supermarket-packaged ground beef from cows who never see the light of day isn’t your most ethical food choice, or your healthiest. Truly free-range, grass-fed livestock are going to be much healthier and much better for you to consume, and they actually get to live decent lives before slaughter. And it isn’t impossible to raise your own animals, or hunt truly wild animals for food, and then you know exactly how the animal was treated, if it was killed with respect, and how you feel morally about eating it.
Throughout evolution, humans and pre-humans have been eating meat. Our digestive systems are well equipped to make full use of the healthy fats, proteins and nutrients found in animal foods.The truth is that humans are omnivores, despite what some vegan proponents would have you believe. We function best eating BOTH animals and plants. Humans have much shorter digestive systems than herbivores and don’t have the specialized organs to digest cellulose, the main fiber in plants.Humans also have canines, with big brains, opposing thumbs and the ability to make tools to hunt. Meat was one of the reasons humans were able to evolve such large, elaborate brains. Some of the earliest evidence shows that our ancestors were eating meat as early as 1.5 million years ago.
(And my brain)
Thank you Pro for your argument.
How do you know for sure whether or not Animals feel pain?
Whether animals can feel pain has been a theory, not a proven fact. Also, where are your sources for your arguments?
Types of Pain
In vertebrates, nociceptive information is collated and augmented in the brain and signals are relayed down the nervous system to alter the intensity of pain. All vertebrates possess the primitive areas of the brain to process nociceptive information, namely the medulla, and the thalamus
However, one area of great importance for pain perception in humans is the cortex and its relative size decreases as we descend the evolutionary tree. For instance, in relative terms, the cortex gets smaller going from humans, through primates, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibian and finally to fish, which possess only a rudimentary cortex.
Other animals respond to painful damage in a similar way. Their responses comprise several behavioural and physiological changes: they eat less food, their normal behaviour is disrupted, their social behaviour is suppressed and they may adopt unusual behaviour patterns (typically, highly repetitive or stereotyped behaviours, such as rocking to and fro), they may emit characteristic distress calls, and they experience respiratory and cardiovascular changes, as well as inflammation and release of stress hormones.
As these responses are complex and coordinated, it is likely that the brain is involved and they are more than just simple reflexes.
Although comparatively simple, fish have recently been shown to possess sensory neurons that are sensitive to damaging stimuli and are physiologically identical to human nociceptors. Fish show several responses to a painful event: they adopt guarding behaviours, become unresponsive to external stimuli and their respiration increases. These responses disappear when the fish are given morphine – evidence that they are, mechanistically at least, directly analogous to pain responses in more complex animals.
Although modern philosophers have debated this issue, we simply do not know whether animals experience emotional pain. In his essay ‘What is it like to be a bat?’, Thomas Nagel concluded that unless we can get inside the head of an animal and actually be it, we will never know exactly how that animal feels. An important issue in animal pain is empathy, and many arguments about what animals feel have can only be based on the human experience and, therefore, may be tainted with anthropomorphism.
Another argument against animals experiencing pain is the question of whether animals are conscious. Scientists have argued that no animals, except primates, are capable of feeling pain, as they are not conscious. In essence, consciousness is a sense of an awareness of how things affect me and how something feels. Whether animals are conscious, or possess some degree of consciousness, has been endlessly debated, but consciousness is such a subjective experience it is hard to define and to assess. Fish can certainly learn complicated tasks, remember approximately 40 individuals, and measure their size relative to an opponent’s to decide whether to fight them. Therefore, at the very least they must have a sense of how big they are.
Higher vertebrates show even more significant signs of consciousness. Some Scientists have suggested that animals may be conscious but that this is not as developed as human consciousness. Many argue, however, that consciousness is fundamentally dependent on language, something no other animal has yet been convincingly shown to possess. In contrast, Peter Singer, a bio ethicist who has championed animal rights for many years, suggests that consciousness is not even the key issue: just because animals have smaller brains, or are ‘less conscious’ than humans, this does not mean that they are not capable of feeling pain. After all, says Singer, we do not assume that newborn infants, people suffering from neurotic brain diseases or people with learning disabilities experience less pain than we would.
In practice, welfare scientists, who assess animal well being in various contexts including intensive farming, try to be unbiased and objective when monitoring behavioural and physiological responses to potentially painful events. If an animal shows the same kind of adverse reactions as humans after a painful stimulus, it is assumed that the stimulus is also painful to the animal. Inevitably, however, all welfare science on pain is essentially a interpretation based on indirect measurements.
Weighing the evidence
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|