Yes, it would be ideal for everyone in first world countries to become vegan- it's better for the environment, it's less cruel, it's better for the health of the individual, and so on.
So yes, everyone in the first world *SHOULD* be vegan. However, we should not force people to become vegan- it's something which they have to come to in their own time.
There may be a few rare exceptions, rare diseases mainly, but overall I think adult people should be vegan. There is no excuse for adults in 1st world countries. Why should we submit animals to needless suffering? There is no excuse, we have the resources.
Not only that but we could save on the environment and on medical costs. Imagine all those chronic diseases that would be mitigated by people becoming vegan. This would offset the economic loss from losing the meat industry.
I excluded children because their nutritional needs are constantly changing. I still think we need more information before it is safe enough to put children on vegan diets.
Every argument which denies this proposition implies that the happiness, comfort or wellbeing of humans is more important than every other species. There are no defensible philosophical, moral or scientific arguments to support this assertion, and a number to refute it. As Mohandas Gandhi famously said - "violence begins with the fork", and before him, Pythagoras - "For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love".
There are many benefits of veganism such as;reduced saturated fats, larger amounts of carbohydrates,fiber, magnesium, Folate and Antioxidant. However it should not be forced that would be restraining citizens and first world LEDC countries are free and democratic. In conclusion adults in first world countries SHOULD be vegans IF it is their personal choice
If a person does not care about farm animals, why should we expect them to act on their behalf? There are several flavors that can't be replicated with vegan alternatives. Equating violence against animals to violence against people is pointless because animals do not have nearly the same emotional and intellectual levels us humans do.
Sure, in third world nations, they may not have access to the vegan alternatives that first world countries may have. Thing is, just because it is a option, does not make it a good one. You see, humans are natural omnivores meaning that eating both plants and animals is natural to us. Because our bodies are designed to process both to sustain our lives, the best option is to eat both. Are there other vegan options to fill these needs? Yes, but our bodies are not designed to process them as efficiently. This puts vegans at a higher risk of vitamin B-12 and D, calcium, Omega-3, iron, and zinc deficiency. Not only is there not enough information about the nutrition needs of children to consider it safe for them but clearly a vegan diet of a pregnant woman would not be safe for the unborn fetus. This would not just risk the life of the unborn but also the mother. (1) Because of this, it would actually increase medical costs as a result.
Tho vegans often claim that harvesting meat and other things from animals is causing them to suffer, animals in first world nations are harvested in humane ways with little if any suffering involved. If we compare that to how animals would meet their end in nature, (attacked and killed by their natural prey) clearly if humans eat them, it is causes much less suffering.
What I think is hypocritical is the numerous substitutes such as simulated meats used in things like veggie burgers. Do they like the idea of eating meat or not? If you don't like the idea, then why eat something that give you the idea that your eating meat? If you do like the idea, they just eat meat. It's like a vegan wearing fake fur.
Is it possible for an adult to have proper nutrition without eating animals or animal products? Yes but it's very difficult to create a balanced diet and may also require you to take dietary supplements and risk other health issues if you fail. This means that, tho it is an option, it is far from a good one.
I am so glad it was only one person who voted in this to achieve 100% on affirmative. This is exactly like the Nationalist Socialist regime. Unless you want a totalitarian government that descends into a revolution that turns into temporary anarchy, then you should be against this. If governments enforced this, it will not abide well with the constitution and is a stripping of human freedom. A world like this is completely dystopian. The suffering of animals is not a good reason to want to change a government to be comparable to the German Reich.
Humans are omnivores by genetic design, meaning that we need meat simply because we have evolved to need it. It would be like taking away an entire food choice from any other animal. Not to mention "vegan" instead of "vegetarian" would mean not using any kind of animal products. We use horse blood for sea snake anti toxin (it's complicated) but I guess those humans saved don't matter at all. Eggs that are completely unfertilized are vital for hundreds of dishes, but I guess we don't need cookbooks either. Not to mention the economic impacts. Tens of Millions if not billions of dollars are made off of animal products, and millions of people work in the industry. Any stocks a person had in that field would be lost, and that alone would be critically unfair. Then we come to the realization that we simply can not those animals free, and no farmer would keep them if he couldn't sell them, causing a genocide of animals the size of unknown proportions. It would be too expensive to ship them anywhere as well, just in case that thought came to mind. Simply doing this because you "don't want animals to suffer" is totally overlooking the absolute devastating impact to the world's economic livelihood, human nutritional needs, and ironically the lives of the very creatures you wish to save.
First and foremost,embracing vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism is not something you decide,but a basic orientation that has been ingrained in you right from the beginning of your growing years.Even if an adult gives up on his lavish eating habits and chooses to turn vegan doesn't really imply that our animals are risk-free(something that PETA ambassadors unecessarily endorse again and again).Why not make the laws vigil enough to forbid poachers from continuing their unethical activities??There isn't any denying fact that 1st world countries have proper agricultural setups and produce to boast of.But that shouldn't force people to become vegetarians just because these stuff are produced in surplus owing to timely rains and favourable weather conditions ,something we people,living in a third world country have been deprived of.It is upto a person to decide whether or not to stop consuming meat once he turns 18.Meats are a rich source of proteins(red meat especially can be used to cure anaemia,which more than 20% of the population is currently suffering from.Fish too is rich in proteins and there is a long list).After having had non-vegan food all his life,it is difficult for a person to give it up when he reaches adulthood.It is absolutely okay when one is not allowed to touch meat since the age of 1.But to give it up,just on the pretext of getting carried away by people around and watching those ads of TV is not going to anybody any good. .Does a balanced diet comprise green leafy vegetables,mushrooms and things alike only?Certainly not.It is mixture of both vegan and non-vegan diets in balanced amounts.To ensure that the youth of today is spared from all sorts of unwanted health conditions ,diet is something that cannot be compromised(taking into account the numerous diseases that have come into picture today).Just because yours is a developed country practising high-end agricultural mechanisms doesn't mean you have only fit,resistant and well-built people around or even if you have been a non-vegetarian all your life and suddenly plan to convert,where is the assurance that your body has ample amount of protein that'll sustain for another 40 years.There should be no compulsion on a non-vegetarian in his 20's or 30's to stop intake of meat if his body resistance mechanism dissuades him from doing so. Also,what about the numerous fast food chains operating all over,they'll run out of money in no time.
Frankly, the morality of the issue isn't of much importance to me. If some dude wants to stuff his face with the greasiest, gnarliest meat he can find, he can go right ahead, regardless of how it came into production. There was a study somewhere that said plants can tell when they're being eaten, so no matter what you do, you're screwed. Granted, I do agree that the treatment of produce animals could be much, much better, but that doesn't change the fact that we, humans, are omnivorous animals, and like other omnivorous animals, we can eat and a lot of the time enjoy eating meat and other products from animals (though I do question what the dude who discovered cow milk tastes good was thinking when he found that out). Also, despite the apparent health benefits (if those are true; I don't know enough about apparent 'vegan health benefits' and whatever controversy or debate surrounds them), people have the right not to indulge in those benefits. It's like how people SHOULD avoid fast food, but they aren't required to, nor are they morally superior if they do. It's a matter of personal opinion and whether or not you're willing to give up that sweet, delicious steak, egg and cheese sandwich for some health benefits, according to your own moral compass - not someone else's.