To Bruce, at PETA

On Friday the VP of PETA came to BYU to debate about whether Vegetarianism should be a tenant of the LDS faith. I was questioned afterward as to how I would have responded. I am not going to take the time to outline PETA's case, I should be able to get to video of it soon and then I'll edit that in.

1. Vegetarianism not best nutritionally.
(U) PETA claims that Vegetarianism is by far the healthiest diet.
(L) If it isn't then a major tenant of PETA is invalidated.
(IL) If vegetarianism was then professional nutritionists wouldn't advise people to eat meat. I used to not eat meat for personal reasons but stopped because every nutritionist I have seen (quite a few) told me I should and I was suffering ill effects from it.
(!) PETA's position that no one should eat any meat is actually counter-nutritional.

2. Our bodies not meant to be Vegetarian.
(U) Following any human origin theory (Creationism, Evolution or genetically grown by aliens etc.) our bodies were designed to optimise survival. We have all purpose hands to make and use technology rather than claws and talons like animals do. We have enormous brain power to help us make shelter, tools, weapons etc. We have all kinds of natural instincts to help us, (procreation, fight or flight, security seeking) as well as ones that make us human (Love, altruism, guilt, compassion)
(L) Under Creationism our bodies were made this way by God and under Evolution by trial and error. On this Evolution theory, in the distant past, one branch of humans went for all meat, one for Vegetarianism and one for a hybrid. Under Alien Astronaut theory the SOB Anunnaki from the wandering planet Nibiru genetically made us this way so we would have miserable lives. (I am not making that up)
(IL) We have the teeth of omnivores, made for a diet of both meat and non-meat.
(!) If you believe in either of the two mainstream theories then forces far greater and wiser than us (God or Natural selection) want us to eat meat and vegetables. If you believe the third, don’t look now, but your tin foil hat is slipping.

3. Animal Cruelty.
(U) Lots of sad stuff needlessly happens to the animals we eat. Tons of bad stuff also needlessly happens to people. We need to decide how to spend our limited philanthropic resources.
(L) Human suffering is far more damaging to society than animal suffering as we see it and wonder if we will be next. Those living in the middle of it (pretty much anywhere in Africa) lose faith in humanity and lose their own humanity as they try to just survive.
(IL) While we should do something about the animals it is far more important to help other humans first. An animal just does not have the same worth as a human.
(!) Mass death, dehumanization and social decay.

4. Distribution, not food shortages the problem.
(U) PETA blamed world wide hunger on the meat industry, saying that there was not enough food production for meat eaters and the rest of the world. World hunger is wholly a distribution issue. Man-made famines are the norm in Africa and a lot of the time when there is a food supply problem men make it worse. Even in the Irish Potato Famine things would have been ok had not selfish distribution issues arisen. The most classic example of a man-made famine is Somalia in the early '90s. PETA even had the gall to blame this on the meat industry.
(L) Cross-apply my last argument about the destructiveness of human suffering and need to tackle human problems first.
(IL) As long as we refuse to acknowledge what the problem is we won't find a solution. All the food in the world is useless unless distributed.
(!) PETA's claim that food shortages are the problem when it's distribution prolongs the problem and delays the solution.

5. Even if the problem is shortages, US Agriculture policy the problem, not production capability.
(U) US agricultural polices have a great effect on production in the rest of the world.
(L) We can have a large impact by changing US policy.
(IL) We are hurting farming industry in developing countries. World wide food production is not at it's peak. With a policy change we could make more food.
(!) We should change farm policy if it really is a food shortage problem. A policy change could take effect overnight while slow conversion to Vegetarianism will take several years.

6. Even if mass Vegetarianism does increase food production eventually without policy changes the gains will be obliterated by governments keeping the prices up for their economies.
(U) We are not at production capacity now because of farm policies.
(L) If we free up more capability by vegetarianism the forces that keep us short of full production now will simply adjust.
(IL) We will have spent years wasting our efforts all while more needless deaths have occurred because we didn't look at what the real problem.
(!) Death, Famine, Dehumanization, disillusion with vegetarianism.

In closing, given a choice between telling people that world hunger is caused by a lack of production capability and leading them to think Vegetarianism will fix the problem when it won't and discussing the real problems to find real solutions that would save lives which is more ethical?