A certain friend is not a vegetarian; nor does he eat all meat. His ethically-informed diet is not as comprehensive as Jain vegetarianism, but does seem morally superior to "bacon tastes good; pork chops taste good." He only eats the flesh of animals which themselves consume other animals.
I found that this perspective has a founding father, who illustrated the philosophy with a memorable anecdote.
- I believe I have omitted mentioning that in my first Voyage from Boston, being becalm'd off Block Island, our People set about catching Cod & hawl'd up a great many. Hitherto I had stuck to my Resolution of not eating animal Food; and on this Occasion, I consider'd with my Master Tryon, the taking every Fish as a kind of unprovoked Murder, since none of them had or ever could do us any Injury that might justify the Slaughter. All this seem'd very reasonable.
But I had formerly been a great Lover of Fish, & when this came hot out of the Frying Pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanc'd some time between Principle & inclination: till I recollected, that when the Fish were opened, I saw smaller Fish taken out of their Stomachs:
Then, thought I, if you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you. So I din'd upon Cod very heartily and continu'd to eat with other People, returning only now & then occasionally to a vegetable Diet. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for every thing one has a mind to do.
I'm skeptical of this. What makes a carnivorous animal any more valid a meal? The only rationale I can think of is something along the lines of, "this animal elects to eat other animals, therefore it has surrendered its right not to be eaten." This presumes the carnivore had any choice in the matter, which is another complicated conversation. In what other context does the sin of one party make it fair game to be sinned against? Justifying 'crime' against your victim with their guilt of a similar 'crime' reeks of hypocrisy.
From a personal health standpoint, it's no better or worse than omnivorism. From a moral standpoint, one could argue against carnivorophagism by saying that carnivores have evolved in such a way that presently, they do not have a choice but to eat meat, whereas we have the choice to or not to, and that gives us an option they cannot consider. Environmentally, carnivorophagism would be almost certainly worse than omnivorism, because of the second law of thermodynamics.
Well, you can still eat vegetables. Preferring poultry and fish over red meat might give some health benefit. Old Ben might argue that humans have evolved in such a way that we can come up with inventive rationales to justify the things that we want to do. I am not saying this is the case. I'm just contemplating the ifs. I have heard that eating meat has far greater environmental effects than following a vegetarian diet. How does entropy come into it?From a personal health standpoint, it's no better or worse than omnivorism.
From a moral standpoint, one could argue against carnivorophagism by saying that carnivores have evolved in such a way that presently, they do not have a choice but to eat meat, whereas we have the choice to or not to, and that gives us an option they cannot consider.
Environmentally, carnivorophagism would be almost certainly worse than omnivorism, because of the second law of thermodynamics.
So, the second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system entropy always increases. A different way of saying this is that no process is ever 100% efficient- some energy is always going to be lost as heat. Now, when herbivores eat, they convert the energy stored in the plant material they eat, the air they breathe, and the water they drink (minus the excrement they get rid of) into 1) the energy they use to stay alive, and 2) the chemical bonds of the tissues of their own body. But as they do this, some energy from their food inputs is lost as heat. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits this process (or, in general, any other process) from being completely, totally, 100% efficient. At most it can be 99.9999...(and so on)% efficient. -- So in the real world, how efficient are actual animals? In fact they're no where even close to 99.999...% efficient. On the ecosystem level, on average only about 10% of the energy available to one level of the food chain is transferred to the next level. So when a herbivore (or herbivore population) eats a plant (or a plant population), very very roughly, it's only getting about 10% efficiency. And when a primary carnivore eats an herbivore, that process is only 10% efficient, so the primary carnivore is only getting (0.1*0.1) = 1% of the total energy of the original plants. And now, we can talk about carnivorophagism. When, in turn, a secondary carnivore eats a primary carnivore, its actions capture again only about 10% of the energy available in the primary carnivore. So in total, secondary carnivores capture (0.1*0.1*0.1) = only 0.1% of the original energy available in the original plant. This is why in ecosystems plants always generally exist in huge amounts in comparison to herbivores, and herbivores exist in huge amounts in comparison to the primary carnivore that preys upon them, and so on. Think of an African savanna. How much grass exits there? A humongous amount. How many primary herbivores that eat the grass, like gazelles? Much fewer, but still quite a high number, herds of them. How many primary carnivores of those gazelles exist, say, lions? Much fewer, now only a couple. What about predators of lions? Why is the lion an apex predator of the savanna? It might not be necessarily because lions are large, strong, fearfully fast creatures. It's possible they aren't eaten by something else because it's too inefficient to (exclusively) eat them. -- This is one very general, very simplified reason why carnivorophasim is never going to be completely as efficient as the consumption of primary carnivores or herbivores or plants, and thus not as environmentally friendly.I have heard that eating meat has far greater environmental effects than following a vegetarian diet. How does entropy come into it?
That's an interesting point. It is simplifying, but quite interesting, to look at the steps in the consumption chain -- the crops, chickens, and pigs -- as stores of energy, basically as batteries. I would think that the author's point that "the organisms must expend energy to stay alive" would be more significant than the inefficiency of conversion from consumed to consumer flesh. Adult organisms continue to consume but do not significantly change their body chemistry. I suppose this is mitigated by the goal in commercial farming to fatten up the products as quickly as possible and then slaughter them without wasting any more resources on them. I always thought the corresponding process in cars interesting.
That makes a certain amount of sense. Does that mean your friend can eat pork though? Commercial hogs are fed mostly corn, I think. However, in the wild, pigs hunt and eat small animals. In fact, I had a pig that ate two ducklings and a very young rooster one time.
I think he might say he don't dig on swine, that's all. I tried to catch him on eating chicken, but he was ready with an answer: "bugs and worms." So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for every thing one has a mind to do.Does that mean your friend can eat pork though?
Uh oh... Could a person then decide to eat "The Most Dangerous Game"? Perhaps with a nice chianti and some fava beans, a la Hannibal Lecter? I've got to imagine the typical American would be full of trans fats and high fructose corn syrup. Probably an unlikely scenario based on health reasons alone.