Week 6 - Assigned Reading - Why I Don't Eat Faces

It seems to me, after reading Why I Don't Eat Faces, that one of the only truly logical arguments for vegetarianism from a materialistic point of view is that which relates to the central-nervous-system. Or, if you wish to be more precise, the argument of pain. If we feel pain, then so do the rest of the animals who have evolved to the point, or in the direction, of developing a central-nervous-system. Fine, that's fair enough, but if what you take offense to is the pain, then we can by all means remove it; Pain is not mutually inclusive with killing (that might seem odd, but it does happen to be the case). Remove the pain, remove the problem. That sounds oddly similar to a quote I read recently from Joseph Stalin, “Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.” You could take offense to the apparently heartless eye I have cast over this issue or you could understand that I am simply attempting to refute the argument. Devil's advocate, if you will.

One hypothetical situation I find quite amusing is that of the more neurologically advanced species than the human, the “transhuman” of this article. It is commonly used in defense of animals, but seems to work to varying degrees depending on the situation at hand. If we are going to be hypothetical, then why not think of a time in the future where plants have evolved to develop central-nervous-systems and can feel pain just like us? What do we eat then? I understand that the article also pointed out that animals need to eat what they need to eat based upon their circumstances, but the whole point behind making assumptions about our universe is to “know,” in relative terms, that this universe is what it is. We could come up with any number of hypothetical situations, all just as unlikely as the next, but that doesn't make it the truth. If people wish to assume that they are more intelligent than other animals, then maybe they are right? We do have a higher form of thought process known as consciousness; animals don't have this and they are unlikely to ever develop it. Again people, Devil's advocate.

This article also cited the health and economic benefits of a vegetarian diet. I'm not really sure of how this would affect anyone economically for the good or the bad, so I will skip that argument and go right into the one on health. First off, there are no health benefits to a vegetarian diet there are simply health benefits to a balanced and healthy diet. In fact, a true vegetarian diet is very restrictive and the “abundance” of proteins that are said to exist in plant sources is the truth, but from a slightly skewed perspective. Yes, you can get a complete source of protein from plants, but it requires a lot of different plants. If you don't get a complete chain of amino acids to form a complete protein then it is all for not. You don't get anything from a near complete chain of amino acids except a trip to the hospital. And proteins are not the only nutrient lacking from plants, although I explained that before so I'm not going to waste your time again.