please write plagiarism free essay, do write an undergrad student essay Read the following short stories. Choose one of them and create an argument about how the story explores a modern concern or de
Is It Really Impossible to Be a Vegetarian?
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Is It Really Impossible to Be a Vegetarian?
Andrew Smith's article, "It’s impossible to actually be a vegetarian. Here’s why. A better plan? Eat according to your ecosystem," challenges the conventional understanding of vegetarianism by introducing the transitivity of eating. Smith contends that the interconnectedness of the food web complicates the ethical and environmental distinctions between plant-based and omnivorous diets. While acknowledging his own history as a "vegetarian" and "vegan," Smith proposes an alternative approach called sumbiotarianism, emphasizing the importance of living in harmony with ecosystems. This essay critically examines Smith's argument, exploring the ethical, scientific, and environmental dimensions he presents, while also offering a counter-argument in support of the foundational principles of vegetarianism.
Smith's central argument revolves around the concept of the transitivity of eating, suggesting that the interconnectedness of the food web challenges the possibility of being a true vegetarian. He introduces the idea that plants, often considered the primary source for vegetarians, have indirect connections to animals through the nutrients they absorb from the soil. Smith explains, "Plants acquire nutrients from the soil, which is composed, among other things, of decayed plant and animal remains. So even those who assume they subsist solely on a plant-based diet actually eat animal remains as well. This is why it’s impossible to be a vegetarian".1 This assertion challenges the moral high ground often associated with vegetarianism, as it implies that the distinction between plant-based and omnivorous diets is not as clear-cut as commonly believed.
Smith anticipates potential objections from biologists who may argue that plants do not actually "eat" in the same way animals do and that the nutrients they absorb from animals are strictly inorganic. However, he dismisses these objections, raising questions about the scientific validity of his claims. To challenge this, it is essential to assess whether the transitivity of eating has significant ethical implications and whether the inorganic nature of plant-absorbed nutrients genuinely challenges the moral foundation of vegetarianism. Moreover, Smith introduces the idea that plants may possess sentience, challenging the ethical stance of vegetarians who refrain from eating animals due to their presumed sentience. He argues, "But there’s good reason to believe that plants are sentient, too. In other words, they’re acutely aware of and responsive to their surroundings, and they respond, in kind, to both pleasant and unpleasant experiences"(11). This assertion, however, raises debates within the scientific community about the extent to which plants can experience suffering or consciousness.
Andrew Smith's article underscores concerns about environmental sustainability in vegetarian and vegan lifestyles, citing the carbon footprint of certain plant-based products and water requirements for crops like almonds. He notes, "Look no further than the carbon footprint of your morning coffee, or how much water is required to produce the almonds you enjoy as an afternoon snack"(13). However, these concerns don't invalidate the overall benefits of plant-based diets. Instead, they emphasize the need for understanding environmental impacts and refining choices to minimize footprints. Addressing these within these dietary frameworks is crucial for sustainable practices without abandoning these diets.
In response to Andrew Smith's provocative argument challenging the viability of vegetarianism due to the transitivity of eating, it is crucial to assert that while the transitivity of eating introduces a level of complexity to the ethical considerations of dietary choices, it does not invalidate the core principles of vegetarianism. The primary ethical concerns for many vegetarians revolve around the avoidance of directly causing harm to sentient beings capable of experiencing suffering and consciousness. The indirect connections between plants and animals through nutrient cycles, while intriguing from an ecological perspective, do not necessarily undermine the moral justification for vegetarianism (8). While Smith's argument highlights the intricate web of connections within ecosystems, it is essential to differentiate between direct harm to sentient beings and the inherent interdependence present in nature. Vegetarians' ethical stance is primarily concerned with avoiding the direct consumption of animals capable of experiencing suffering, and this remains a valid moral imperative.
Moreover, Smith introduces the concept of mineral recycling, suggesting that plants absorb inorganic nutrients from the remains of animals. He argues, "Are we who we eat only if we take in organic matter from the beings who become our food? I confess that I don’t understand why this should be. Privileging organic matter strikes me as a biologist’s bias"(16). This argument raises questions about the scientific validity of Smith's claims and prompts a closer examination of the ecological processes he references. The inorganic nature of nutrients absorbed by plants does not necessarily equate to a continuation of animality, as it primarily involves the recycling of essential minerals. Regarding the environmental sustainability of vegetarian and vegan diets, it is essential to acknowledge the ongoing efforts within these communities to address and mitigate environmental impacts. Sustainable agriculture practices, reduced reliance on resource-intensive crops, and increased awareness of the environmental impact of food choices are essential components of fostering eco-friendly diets. While Smith highlights concerns about the carbon footprint of certain plant-based products and the water requirements for growing crops like almonds, these issues should be viewed as challenges to be addressed within the framework of vegetarianism, not as reasons to abandon it altogether. Smith also proposes an alternative approach called sumbiotarianism, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all living beings in the food web. He suggests that sumbiotarians eat in harmony with their ecosystem, embodying the idea that the well-being of our food is a function of the health of the land. However, it is crucial to recognize that vegetarianism and veganism also embody this interconnectedness by promoting compassion and reducing harm to sentient beings. Summarily dismissing vegetarianism as impossible based on the transitivity of eating oversimplifies the nuanced ethical considerations and the ongoing efforts within vegetarian and vegan communities to address environmental concerns.
Smith's argument challenges the conventional understanding of vegetarianism by introducing the transitivity of eating and emphasizing the interconnectedness of the food web. While his perspective prompts a reevaluation of dietary choices and their ecological implications, it falls short of providing sufficient grounds to dismiss the ethical and environmental justifications for vegetarianism. The core principles of vegetarianism, centered on compassion for sentient beings and environmental sustainability, remain valid and essential in fostering a more conscientious and harmonious relationship with the natural world. As individuals strive to make informed and ethical dietary choices, the focus should be on refining existing practices and promoting sustainability rather than abandoning vegetarianism based on the complexities introduced by the transitivity of eating.
1 Andrew Smith,” It’s impossible to actually be a vegetarian. Here’s why,” The Washington Post, April 28, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/04/28/its-impossible-to-actually-be-a-vegetarian-heres-why/ para, 8. Subsequent references to this story will be given by paragraph number in parentheses.
