The article that is being reviewed is titled “Can Artificial Meat Save the World?” This article is written by Tom Foster, with pictures and firsthand accounts by Brian Klutch of “The Meat Labs”. Tom Foster is a very successful and experienced editor. He is an Editor-at-large at Inc. Magazine, as well as a contributing editor at popular science. He is responsible for bringing this article to the public. Some of Foster’s past experiences as include being an editor in chief at Jetsetters.com, executive editor at Arthur Frommer’s Budget Travel, and article editor at Fast Company. Brian Clutch a professional photographer, took the pictures for the article. Brian has from a young age loved photography . He uses ordinary objects in unconventional ways and drives out innovation from his artwork. “Can Artificial Meat Save the World?” is written through the eyes of an editor of numerous different magazines. In the article the author presents the argument about the need to efficiently create meat or something sufficiently like meat. He argues that this will be progressively more important in coming years as the world may suffer from a shortage of protein . The article is intended to target vegetarians who may have never been exposed to meat in their diet, meat lovers and industrial meat companies that may be unaware of this global issue.
Foster and Brian describe their journey through the world of artificial meat and technology to be eye opening, yet unstable. During their time inside numerous laboratories where these false meat like products were being mass produced, they did manage to develop compelling arguments for this article. To begin, they describe a clean slaughter-less process. The two authors argue that it will be very b...
... middle of paper ...
...ich opened up a target audience nationally and internationally. The targeted audience for this article would be the general population, if more specifically the General Western population who are the biggest meat and poultry industries in the world, other than that, a large portion of eaters, other cultures that slaughter and produce meats in large quantities. Not only is this a business opportunity, but it is also an opportunity to broaden our search scientifically speaking to find better ways of solving this global situation. Globalists also get the opportunity to understand a future is recommended for everyone to read and understand but directed towards it mean audience. This makes it useful for him or her to understand the options of artificial meat. What say you? Would you give up meat for something that looks and tastes the same, knowing that it isn’t?
The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian
Lundberg describes how the demand for animal protein was incredibly higher than the production. She quoted Marlow’s article stating, “A nonvegetarian diet requires 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticide than does a vegetarian diet and the greatest difference comes from beef consumption” (Lundberg 483). She then questions: "Do we really want to wait until it’s too late to change our way of eating?” (Lundberg 485). These two points will make readers subconsciously pause to answer this question themselves, put themselves in the situation imagining the products used and having an immediate reaction to it.
Food, especially meat is such a central part of human society that it cannot be ignored. Just as big minds came together in the 60’s to make a better chicken, they can come together to solve a crisis that harms every person living in this country. Jonathan Safran Foer’s book gives an important look into what goes on behind the scenes of factory farms, and offers logical solutions. However, it will take more than this, and more than just vegetarian encouragement to make any lasting changes. It will take the votes of consumers both in the supermarket and on ballots to evoke a better system. Take a look at what is on your plate next time you sit down for a meal. Did you vote well?
Though vegetarianism was never a taboo subject as are some other controversial topics, The question of whether or not human beings should live off meat still is highly discussed amongst all types of people. Spiritual leaders, activists, scientists, and doctors have spoken up on behalf of their group’s opinion. Amongst the arguments of what is right when it comes to the food chain, resonating on many a mind is where the concept of vegetarian came from. Was it started as a religious virtue or a moral decision? Perhaps it was a forced lifestyle or a diet trend gone wrong (or right depending). Health wise, which is better for us? Educating ourselves by answering these questions helps us answer the, perhaps, most important question of all. Which lifestyle will we, as individuals, choose?
In To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, Atticus Finch says, "Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit em', but remember it's a sin To Kill a Mockingbird." This quote demonstrates Atticus's firm belioef in the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is to treat others how you want to be treated. Atticus follows the Golden Rule throughout the novel, including while defending Tom Robinson, a local African American accused of raping Mayella Ewell. Due to Atticus's firm belief in the Golden Rule and the fact he must live with himself before others and tries to teach his children the right thing to do, it makes sense for him to defend Tom Robinson.
However, Hare’s pro demi-vegetarian argument provides an unequivocal view on the discussion of economic, ecological, and moral topics. While the look into market trends of meat is lacking Hare discusses a reality of the meat industry and its food competitors, that being the cost behind animal rearing and husbandry. While the high costs incurred does not entail permissibility the surrounding circumstances do. If fodder is grown on terrain only suitable for a pasture, then as a result husbandry and animal domestication (and later slaughter) is permissible because the economic consequences of harvesting crops would greatly outweigh the benefits and as such the community improves more from the meat/animal byproduct industry. This economical and ecological argument is one of several that Hare provides in his article Why I Am Only A Demi-Vegetarian, in addition to the market term being coined and reasoning behind
In the article “The Six-Legged Meat of the Future”, authors Marcel Dicke and Arnold Van Huis explain that due to the environmental effects that is caused by meat, people should begin to consume insects instead of meat. They also argue that due to the rise in production costs of livestock, the rise of human population and using insects in our food would solve some of the problems that are “associated with livestock” (Dicke and Van Huis 345. In addition, the article is not persuasive because even though both Dicke and Van Huis use statistics and evidence to establish their credibility and to build a bridge to their audience and make the audience emotionally involved, their argument is weakened by the use of fallacies.
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that their treatment has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."(Schopenhauer). I always wondered why some people are not so drawn to the consumption of meat and fed up with only one thought about it. Why so many people loathe of blood, and why so few people can easily kill and be slaughter animal, until they just get used to it? This reaction should say something about the most important moments in the code, which was programmed in the human psyche. Realization the necessity of refraining from meat is especially difficult because people consume it for a long time, and in addition, there is a certain attitude to the meat as to the product that is useful, nourishing and even prestigious. On the other hand, the constant consumption of meat has made the vast majority of people completely emotionless towards it. However, there must be some real and strong reasons for refusal of consumption of meat and as I noticed they were always completely different. So, even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to resemble that of its roots, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not merely a matter of personal health.
In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a stand against factory farming, and if we must eat meat then we must adapt humane agricultural methods for meat production.
In less than 30 years, when the world population reaches its carrying capacity, how will we feed everyone? Unless we start planting crops on the moon or go all out for cannibalism, we’ll need some new technology to feed the world. A large portion of humans’ diet is meat. In vitro meat or artificial meat offers a way to undo the food and environmental setbacks caused by traditional meat. Someday it will be in stores and if it’s a hit it might be the solution to how to feed people.
In Western society today meat in many different forms is readily and economically available, yet the current trend shows a growing number of voluntary vegetarians around the world. In the United States, roughly 3 to 4 percent of the total populations are considered vegetarian. The origins of modern day Vegetarian philosophy and its influences can be traced back nearly three thousand years. . Most vegetarians are people who have understood that to contribute towards a more peaceful society we must first solve the problem of violence in our own hearts. So it's not surprising that thousands of people from all walks of life have, in their search for truth, become vegetarian. Many well known influential philosophers have both preached as well as practiced its inherent advantages.
Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Much argument has arisen in the current society on whether it is morally permissible to eat meat. Many virtuous fruitarians and the other meat eating societies have been arguing about the ethics of eating meat (which results from killing animals). The important part of the dispute is based on the animal welfare, nutrition value from meat, convenience, and affordability of meat-based foods compared to vegetable-based foods and other factors like environmental moral code, culture, and religion. All these points are important in justifying whether humans are morally right when choosing to eat meat. This paper will argue that it is morally impermissible to eat meat by focusing on the treatment of animals, the environmental argument, animal rights, pain, morals, religion, and the law.
For several years the issue of eating meat has been a great concern to all types of people all over the world. In many different societies controversy has began to arise over the morality of eating meat from animals. A lot of the reasons for not eating meat have to deal with religious affiliations, personal health, animal rights, and concern about the environment. Vegetarians have a greater way of expressing meats negative effects on the human body whereas meat eaters have close to no evidence of meat eating being a positive effect on the human body. Being a vegetarian is more beneficial for human beings because of health reasons, environmental issues, and animal rights.
As we can now observe, vegetarianism has become something fashionable, and the number of people who reject eating meat is constantly increasing. In Britain, for instance, over 5 million people have done it so far. It is obviously connected with the recent animal diseases, but this tendency is likely to spread on the other regions of the world. However, it is not only a fashion or fear of illnesses. I myself became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, and I can see a number of reasons why people should stop eating meat. They are mainly of ethic, economic and health type. Those who think in an ecological way should also be aware of how this meat consumption ruins our environment. I don’t have an intention to force anybody to become a vegetarian, but I hope that my argumentation would be strong enough to make some people think about it, at least. In this essay I will try to present this point of view, expressing my personal feelings and showing scientific facts about the problem.
However, many people still refuse to be a vegetarian for different reasons. Some people prefer the taste of meat, and some people believe that they are born to eat meat. Despite that about 2 billion people in the world live basically on the meat diet, around 4 billion people live mainly on a plant-based diet because of food shortage(Pimentel ＆ Pimentel, 2003, pp660S). As everyone knows, the number of population is growing. For example, the total U.S. population doubled in the previous 60 years, and it may double again in the next 70 years (Pimentel ＆ Pimentel, 2003, pp660S). People won’t have enough meat to eat in the future. On the other hand, a well-planned vegetarian diet offers many health benefits. Therefore, people should become vegetarian because it benefits to huma...