Counter Arguments to Out-dated Rebuttals

The issue of consumption of sentient beings is extremely contentious.
This article will primarily focus on the reasons often given by meat eaters for their consumption, also paying highlighting the ramifications of such consumption in the world at the moment, were the current meta theory promotes large scale industrialization and has heralded in an age of economic rationalism and neo-liberal ideology.
The contention that ‘meat is murder’ is often a marginalized stance, but the reasons behind peoples dismissal of animal rights should really be the views held up to serious scrutiny, as with all matters related to infliction of pain and death, the onus of truth lies with those responsible for such actions.
I will now attempt to effectively dismiss the main arguments given forth by meat eaters, and show the serious repercussions of meat consumption in the world as it stands.

Rebuttal 1: Eating meat is natural
Rebuttal 2: Eating meat is okay, because we are human
Rebuttal 3: Eating meat harms no one, and is environmentally sustainable
Rebuttal 4: Eating meat does not harm the environment

Rebuttal 1: Eating meat is natural back

It is true that through evolutionary time, homo sapiens have acquired certain adaptations to meat consumption. Physically speaking these adaptations include slightly enlarged canines, forward eye sockets, and the development of certain enzymes for the breakdown of meat. It is also true, however, that we still possess many herbivorous adaptations from the vast majority of human evolution in which we were herbivorous, such as the structure and length of our intestines. It is for these reasons that homo sapiens are categorized as ‘omnivores‘. The fact that we have acquired these adaptations often causes people to take the stance that meat eating is a natural process. I am not going to argue any different, animal consumption is seen throughout the animal kingdom, but does this hold a moral truth? Other practices seen in the animal kingdom include rape (ducks among other species) genocide (as seen in wolves and Chimps) and intra-specific competition (as seen in nearly all species). Now does the fact that these are ‘natural’ processes make them morally acceptable? The short answer is no. Rape has been outlawed in most modern societies, the reason for this rejection is generally of a utilitarian/egalitarian basis, that is, people generally reject rape as it causes immense pain and gender inequality. The horrors of genocide were seen during the holocaust, to which the majority of the world were morally outraged by, once again due to the senseless pain caused by these action. Intra-specific competition refers to competition of conspecifics (individuals within the same species). Darwin’s theories of natural selection, gave rise to an ideology known as ’Social Darwinism’, which basically states that the rich should allow the poor to perish in order to keep genetic fitness of the human species as high as possible. Clearly this ideology ignored the fact that wealth does not correlate very well with genetic fitness. Another theory which promotes intra-specific competition is individualistic anarchism (not to be confused with collective/social anarchism) which states that the removal of the state is required to eliminate protection of ‘the weak’. These theories are not taken overly seriously in today’s modern societies as they ignore human rights. They too, are regarded as morally reprehensible by most, BUT they appeal to the natural process of life as seen in the animal kingdom. Therefore, the argument that eating meet is morally acceptable because it is natural ignores the fact that this premise also deems acceptable other actions already outlawed in most modern nations. Another argument against this rebuttal is the fact that many meat products are currently produced in factory farms, which basically treat living sentient organisms as machines, or products. These animals live inhumane lives and die inhuman deaths, and their living conditions are anything but natural.

Rebuttal 2: Eating meat is okay, because we are human back

This argument hold a number of religious assumptions, which I do not wish to enter into. Myself being an atheist I would whish not to offend any theists by laying claims about faith. What I can argue is the similarities between humans and animals. To categories one species as ‘human’ and the thousands of others as generically ‘animal’ simply makes no sense. This categorization implicitly states that humans and chimpanzees which share over 98 percent of our genes, are less closely related than a Gorilla and a Caterpillar. Any logical person would admit that this grouping is erroneous at very best. All of our characteristics deemed uniquely human have animal possible precursors, from language, to art and even drug abuse. The removal of humanity from the animal kingdom, to allow a dominion over nature, only fosters an unsustainable ethos. Of course, it is clear to see that human beings are unique in some respects, for example an adoption of morality and the invent of agriculture, but these characteristics are just extremes of activities and characteristics seen in the animal kingdom. Should then, if we are just another species of great ape, ignore morality and dismiss it as a highly extreme version of self interest with obvious animal precursors? If your answer is yes, then you are basically stating that the afore mentioned ruthless acts such as genocide and rape are acceptable, which we know them not to be. So, humans are just another species of animal, however they have evolved (or been given depending on your views of origins) a seemingly (though not necessarily) altruistic adaptation to life which generally rejects pain. Another argument often put forward is that animals do not have souls hence eating them is morally acceptable. This argument is grounded in faith, but it is interesting and important to note that not all religions adopt this philosophy. I, once again, will not enter this debate because of my own views on life which would bias any argument.

Rebuttal 3: Eating meat harms no one, and is environmentally sustainable back

I must admit, this argument is not often brought up with me, as generally meat eaters are ignorant to the repercussions of meat production, but here we go anyway…. Worldwide a cattle consumes a massive 736 billion kilograms of grain annually! To give an analogy, if this grain was put into a train with carriages, it would be long enough to span the equator at least six times! Almost a third of this feed is grown in the Third World. These people rarely can afford to consume the meat produced by the cattle they feed! meat consumption expends far, far more water than the production of vegetables or fruit. 100,000 liters of water for 1 kg of steak. As I’m sure your all aware, water though plentiful in first world nations, is not so abundant in other places. In the third world, water is a very scarce resource, people regularly die of thirst, or from drinking contaminated water, yet we continue to waste water on cattle production, rather than sharing it between other people who are dieing because of a lack of it. Compare meat water consumption to that required for a kg of soy (~2-3000L), or a kg of potatoes (~500 L). Here is some perspective, a country like Holland consumes enough water through bovine production to supply drinking water to nearly a third of the worlds population…get it! Cattle and Swine etc are secondary producers, plants are primary producers, this explains the disparity in consumption. We must first grow a primary producer, in order to feed a secondary producer.

Rebuttal 4: Eating meat does not harm the environment back

In western nations the main factor causing acid rain is stock farming and trafficking. This acid rain is detrimental to the health of water bodies and forests equating to a greater amount of lives lost. In order to graze cattle large areas are usually cleared, regularly this happen in areas with highly fertile soils…and what areas have the most highly productive and fertile soils? Rainforests. So rip go the woodchips rip, rip, rip! and another forest dies. This causes further erosion causing water pollution and the destruction of many water ways (further reductions in water availability). Also if plants are by chance re-grown in the area, massive amounts of water is used by the saplings and juveniles as their leaves are often dorsi ventral and require high water input for growth and development.

The latter two rebuttals are more informative based, and not often used in actual discourse, but they are important nonetheless. I accept that there are certain situation when meat eating IS necessity, such as for peoples with ailments, or indigenous peoples. My arguments are aimed at the affluent members of the world, who can afford not to, but continue to eat meat for essentially selfish reasons.

By Comrade Nimmo