English

1. Animals eat other animals

We should not base our ethics as a society on what animals do in nature. Lions eat their offsprings if they don’t have enough food, engage in violent territorial disputes and forcibly impregnate females. Dogs smell each others’ backside when they first meet. Many animals even kill members of their own species. If we say that animal behaviour is a basis for human morality, we could advocate murder, infanticide, rape and several other unethical and/or disgusting behaviour that are commonplace in nature.

Another crucial point is that animals in the wild kill to survive. We don’t need to eat other animals to survive, and doing so causes suffering, so if we can avoid it, we should. Animals are clearly not good ethical role models.

2. Top of the food chain / Circle of life

Scientists have proven that we are in fact not at the top of the food chain. This study by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States concluded that “humans are similar to anchovy or pigs and cannot be considered apex predators”. This means that everyone who uses the “circle of life” or “we’re at the top of the food chain” argument should be fine with being violently eaten by other animals higher in the food chain like lions or bears. In fact, they should be fine with having the same treatment as pigs since we are at their same level in the “food chain”.

But we are superior to pigs!?

3. Eating animals is necessary

It’s not. There are millions of vegans from all paths of life that are perfectly healthy. In fact, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , the United States’ largest organisation of food and nutrition professionals , states the following:

“It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.”

The largest study ever done on vegan nutrient profiles states the following:

“In strict vegetarians, low dietary intakes of vitamin B12 and D, calcium, and omega-3 fatty acids, in addition to iron and zinc, have often been of concern ²⁵ . In the present study, mean intakes of these nutrients were above minimum requirements ²⁶ in strict vegetarians.”

4. Eating animals is natural

It doesn’t matter if it’s natural, because this doesn’t imply eating meat is ethical or good. This is known as an “ appeal to nature fallacy”. We don’t do things solely because they’re natural. We use planes, cars, buildings, clothing, cutlery, cups, glasses, and an array of things that are not natural. There are other natural things we avoid, such as killing members of our own species and forcibly impregnating females, because nature is a violent place. Some diseases and health problems are natural, but we do whatever we can to get cured.

Our civilisation is largely focused on reducing suffering rather than in staying aligned with nature. In many cases, we strive to avoid the dangers of nature. We should do what’s ethical, not what’s natural. Killing animals when we don’t need to is unethical, period.

5. Humans are omnivores

This is still debated in the scientific community. There’s a substantial amount of evidence pointing towards us being herbivores, or at least scavengers (like rats, who eat meat after the animal’s been killed by other predators). This article by William C. Roberts, MD argues that humans must be plant eaters because only herbivores develop atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries). Technically though, we’re omnivores by definition just because we can digest meat. But this is irrelevant because we can be completely healthy as vegans, and eating meat causes harm to animals.

Having the ability to do something doesn’t mean it’s right to do so. Human beings can carry out many atrocities, and some do, but those that do face punishment because their actions are wrong. Having canine teeth or the ability to digest meat doesn’t justify eating animals in the same way having a fist doesn’t justify beating someone up.

6. Most people eat meat

This is an “appeal to popularity” fallacy which holds no true logical value. Most people in the past thought slavery was acceptable and that women shouldn’t vote. Most people usually agree with a certain oppression and it is a small group of people that fight to change the status quo.

7. Our ancestors ate meat

Our ancestors did many things that we’d find disturbing, including killing each other, and don’t do many things we do today that improve our lives. Basing our ethics on cavemen is not going to take us very far. Our knowledge has improved, and our ethical behaviour should improve accordingly.

8. Eating meat helped us evolve

It doesn’t matter if it did, because we live in a very different world and different things today will make us evolve other than eating meat. Also, that something helped us evolve doesn’t mean that such behaviour is ethical or acceptable today. Early homo sapiens used rape as a strategy for gene-promotion when they could not get access to consensual sex. This helped the human species evolve to where we are today, we cannot then say that sexual violence is in any way acceptable.

In addition, most scientists agree that it wasn’t meat, but cooking foods, that made our brains evolve. This would explain why we’re the smartest animals and the only animals that cook, while other more carnivorous animals like cats are less intelligent than us. The hypothesis is that cooking allowed humans to get more energy from the same volume of food, and to spend less time chewing, which meant this extra energy helped fuel brain growth.

9. Eating meat is healthy

We can be completely healthy eating a non-vegan diet, as long as we limit our intake of meats with high saturated fat and cholesterol and eat enough fruits and vegetables to get essential micronutrients. Many meat eaters live long and healthy lives. The vegan argument doesn’t say that veganism is right because we can’t be healthy otherwise, it merely states that given the choice of being healthy as a vegan or a non-vegan, we should choose the former since it’s more ethical.

10. Farmed animals are bred to be killed

Bringing an animal into existence for the purpose of abusing, using and harming them is not ethical under any circumstance. If we breed dogs for dogfighting, the harm inflicted on the dogs by the fight is still not morally acceptable. If we breed bulls for bullfighting, the suffering inflicted on them is never justified.

The animals that are being used and killed do not care about why they were bred, they just want to live and avoid suffering. It is not our right to go against those interest just because we brought them into existence.

11. Farmed animals would go extinct

Farmed animals have been selectively bred and modified by humans to be profitable. They suffer all kinds of health problems because they are bred to be much bigger than their natural ancestors. Continuing to breed them serves no purpose, even if everybody was vegan there would be no logical reason to keep breeding these animals, knowing they will suffer health problems due to the manner of their selective breeding.

But if we really wanted to keep pigs, chickens, cows and the animals we eat alive, we can conserve them in the same way endangered species are, i.e. not by killing them. There are many animal sanctuaries that exist today where farmed animals are rescued and enjoy the rest of their lives, so they wouldn’t go extinct.

12. Farmed animals would overpopulate

The animals we eat, wear and experiment on have been artificially bred to meet the demand for animal products. If the demand decreases, the number of animals brought into existence will decrease too. There was no problem with overpopulation of cows, chickens and pigs before humans started messing with their bodies. If we stop breeding them out of control, they wouldn’t overpopulate.

13. Farmed animals would be killed in the wild

Vegans don’t want all domesticated animals to be released into the wild. What vegans want is for animals to stop being bred. It isn’t a question of either they get eaten by wild animals, or by us. We don’t need to be breeding and eating them in the first place.

14. Animals don’t understand morality

Most animals do have at least a basic understanding of right and wrong because this is an evolutionary advantage. Altruism often results in something positive in return, and bad actions usually result in negativity. If a dog doesn’t kill other dogs, they’re less likely to be killed by other dogs.

Regardless, animals aren’t morally valuable because of their ability to understand morality, they’re valuable because of their sentience (ability to experience pain and pleasure). Some humans, like babies, sometimes cannot discern right from wrong, but they still have a right to life because they’re sentient.

15. Animals would eat you if they could

What logical conclusion follows from this? If an animal would like to eat us, does that mean we should base our morality on less intelligent animals and eat other animals too? The interesting thing is that people use this argument to justify eating herbivorous animals that can’t eat us, like pigs and cows, but they don’t use it to justify eating cats, lions and bears, that could.

16. Humans are superior to animals

In some ways, yes. We’re superior in intelligence. We’re not superior in our ability to fly or see in the dark. It could be argued that some humans are superior to other humans in certain areas. Some humans are smarter, faster, stronger, better looking and so on. By this logic, the “superior” humans could in theory abuse the “inferior” ones.

Superiority doesn’t grant us a right to abuse other sentient beings. In fact, this line of thinking is what justified many atrocities in the past, like The Holocaust, black segregation, disenfranchisement of women, and so on. Of course, nobody wants animals to have the same rights as humans, like the right to vote, because this doesn’t make sense. What does make sense, however, is to grant them the right to life because their sentience means they have an interest to live, just like us.

17. The animals are already dead

Yes. But veganism is not about saving the dead animals in the supermarket, it is about reducing the demand for animal products to prevent further animals from being bred and killed. This is the basic Supply and Demand theory from economics. If we demand more animal products, the businesses that produce them will supply more, therefore killing more animals. We have the power to vote with our money, and every time we pay for an animal product we’re indicating we want more of it.

18. I eat every part of the animal so they don’t go to waste

Animals don’t care what we do with their bodies after their death, they care about staying alive. If we’ve already committed the unethical, unnecessary action of killing an animal, what we do after doesn’t make it any better. By this logic, American cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer should have received a shorter sentence, because he used nearly every part of his victims’ bodies. He ate various parts of them and even turned some body parts into household items.

19. God put animals here to eat

No religion mandates meat-eating. We don’t have to eat animal products to be a devout Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. Therefore, we can be vegan and religious, just like we can recycle and be religious, or just like any other modern lifestyle choice we make which is not explicitly mentioned in religious texts but is also not prohibited.

Plus, why would a wise and omniscient God give pain receptors to animals and then tell us to kill them? Surely God would approve of us being vegan, therefore causing the least amount of harm possible to animals and the environment, both of which are God’s creations.

20. The dairy industry doesn’t harm animals

Cows in the dairy industry, arguably, live more miserable lives than cows raised for meat. This is because they are exploited throughout their lives for their milk and then killed.

Given that cows only produce milk only when they’re pregnant, the process begins with forced artificial insemination of cows. Farmers insert their arms into the sexual orifice of cows and pump bull semen into them. This is a necessary step for milk production and occurs in small family farms all the way to factory farms.

Once the cow gives birth, two things may happen. If the baby is male, he’s of no use for the farmers since he’ll never produce milk. Therefore, the baby is either killed at the farm, or sold to the veal industry for meat. If the baby is female, then she’ll endure the same future as her mother, going through several cycles of emotional and physical abuse. In both cases, the calves get taken away soon after birth, and mother cows tend to cry for days after their baby is stolen.

After about two or three milking cycles, the cow’s milk production rate becomes unprofitable, so the cow is killed. At this stage, the cow is usually six years old. The natural lifespan of a cow is around twenty years.

This video summarises the dairy industry: Dairy Is Scary.

21. The egg industry doesn’t harm animals

In the egg industry, only females are required since males cannot lay eggs. So at the hatcheries, male and female chicks are separated as they pass through a conveyor belt.

Males are considered useless so they are either killed at the hatchery (either by being macerated alive, drowned or suffocated) or thrown into the bin alive. Females are painfully de-beaked and sent off to farms, where they will lay a painful 300+ eggs per year due to genetic manipulation (as opposed to a wild chicken’s 20 or so per year). This process happens on any farm, regardless of it being free-range, organic or whatever.

After hens stop producing eggs at a profitable rate, they are sent to slaughter, which involves being thrown into an electric bath to be stunned, then hoisted up upside down and going along a conveyor belt to have their throats slit. Many chickens will remain fully conscious after their throats are slit and will be boiled alive in the de-feathering tank afterwards. Their slaughter happens at around two years of age. The natural lifespan of a chicken is eight years.

22. People would lose their jobs

Yes, this is a sad reality. But as consumers, we aren’t responsible for keeping all industries in business. When we go to the supermarket, we don’t buy every single product they sell to make sure nobody goes out of business. As consumers, we choose where our money goes and pay for the products we want to see more of, and we don’t buy those we dislike. We all understand this, which is why when someone quits smoking or drinking alcohol, people don’t tell them they’re putting people in the tobacco and alcohol industries out of jobs.

However, it is important to realise that jobs aren’t lost, only displaced. If we’re not buying milk we’d be buying soy milk instead, therefore creating jobs in the plant-based milk industry. While it is true that dairy farmers will have a tough time, for example, it is also true that there is a growing demand for other crops like rice, soy and oats which is putting more people into jobs in those industries, which is only for the best.

23. It’s legal to eat animal products, there are laws to protect animals

Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. Less than 200 years ago, slavery was legal in the United States.

The laws in place to “protect” farmed animals still allow significant harm to be inflicted to them. Organisations like the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) claim to work to prevent unnecessary harm to animals. But since we know that eating animal products is unnecessary, isn’t all the harm caused in the meat, dairy and egg industries unnecessary?

This is an excerpt of what the Humane Slaughter Association deems a “humane” way to kill an animal:

“Infant lambs, kids and piglets can be humanely killed by delivering a heavy blow to the head. This must only be used if no other method is immediately available.

1. Hold the animal by the back legs and deliver a firm blow to the back of the head with a blunt instrument, e.g. an iron bar or hammer. 2. Hold the animal by the back legs and swing it through an arc to hit the back of its head with considerable force against a solid object, e.g. a brick wall or metal stanchion. With both methods, it is essential that the blow is delivered swiftly, firmly and with absolute determination. If there is any doubt that the animal has not been killed effectively, the blow should be immediately repeated.”

This clearly shows there’s is nothing humane about the way we treat and kill animals. Under UK law, chickens can still be debeaked, male calves can be castrated, pigs can have their teeth pulled out, and more. Needless to say, the best way to stop most animal abuse from happening is to end animal agriculture altogether.

24. You buy products from sweatshops

Trying to invalidate veganism by saying vegans still cause harm by buying from sweatshops is a form of the “al tu quoque” fallacy. The truth of a statement or philosophy not determined by the individuals who believe in it. If a murderer says it’s wrong to commit murder, that doesn’t make murdering people right. If a vegan says it’s wrong to kill animals for food, but causes some harm elsewhere, that doesn’t make killing animals right. It is impossible to cause zero harm, and no vegan claims perfection, but we’re trying to reduce our impact as far as practicable and possible.

Plus, buying animal products is not helping workers in unfair conditions. Being vegan and buying from sweatshops is better than not being vegan and still buying from sweatshops. But what if we saw the argument the other way round? In other words, that the logical conclusion, if you’re against slave labour, is that you’re against all oppression, including animal oppression.

25. You can’t be 100% vegan

Nobody can be strictly 100% vegan. That is unless we grew our own food, didn’t accidentally step on insects, and accounted for every way we could cause animal suffering. But does this mean we shouldn’t be 99% vegan? In other words, does this mean we should not try our best to avoid harm to animals? Absolutely not.

In reality, the meat, dairy, egg, wool, fur, and leather industries alone probably account for 99% of all animal abuse. In our modern world, it is impossible to exist without coming into contact with some sort of animal-derived ingredient. So the fastest and most practical way to end animal abuse is by boycotting the big producers of animal abuse.

The main reason we find animal by-products in so many things is because of the scale of animal industries. They produce so much waste (ligaments, bones, brains, intestines, etc), that it makes economic sense to use it elsewhere. Decreasing the production of animal products, by avoiding the main industries, would make the use of these waste products impractical.

26. Going vegan doesn’t make a difference

Veganism is both a matter of principle and a practical solution to animal abuse. If we’re against paying others to torture and kill animals, then we shouldn’t do it, regardless of whether we will actually change something. However, being vegan also has real effects because of supply and demand. If someone buys vegan alternatives to meat products, every day, three times a day, for a year, they would’ve reduced the demand for meat quite significantly for one person. If we combine the thousands of millions of vegans in the world, this represents a serious drop in demand. The UK has seen a 360% increase in vegans in the last 10 years, and other indicators also show veganism is on the rise. If we want a large number of vegans to have an impact in the world, then we need to begin by becoming part of the group.

27. The whole world will never go vegan

It is very hard for the whole world to do anything. The world will always have some sexism, racism, homophobia and violence. That doesn’t mean we must tolerate these things when we see them and that we mustn’t fight to eradicate violence. Even though there will always be people that abuse animals, we should still try to end animal abuse as much as possible. The existence of people in the world doing something unethical is no reason for us to copy them. We have control over our decisions and we can choose to be ethical regardless of what others do.

28. I only buy locally grown, free-range, organic meat

In all farms, regardless of how the lives of animals are before slaughter, animals die at a fraction of their lifespan. Farmed animals get killed as soon as their purpose is served, or as soon as they reach a profitable size. The definition of grass-fed, organic and free-range animals is very loose and can vary wildly. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the animals have any quality of life, it just means the farm has to meet some arbitrary requirements to earn that title.

29. Humane slaughter

We can, in theory (and not at the large scale required to feed 7 billion humans), kill an animal without any pain. However, this does not make the act of killing morally acceptable. Killing animals, thus depriving them of their right to life, for no necessity, is wrong. The definition of the word “humane” is: “having or showing compassion or benevolence”. Synonyms include “compassionate”, “kind” and “considerate”. Therefore, “humane” and “shooting animals”, are not compatible. No humane person would want to take the lives away from animals for no necessity.

30. Animal products are tasty

Animal products are a result of the suffering and killing of animals. If we can justify eating animals and their secretions by merely saying that we like the taste, this implies we believe that unethical actions can be justified by the personal pleasure we derive from them. This is clearly problematic. Using this line of thinking, we could justify stealing, for example, because it feels good to have more money. Harming another sentient being for our own pleasure is immoral.

31. Vegan food is tasteless

Most of the food humans eat is already vegan. Fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, pasta, bread, potatoes and soy, to name a few things. We enjoy these foods every day and don’t think they’re unpalatable. In fact, the main way we condiment our food to make it delicious is by using salt, sugar, herbs and spices (all plants!). There are award winning vegan food products and restaurants all over the world. We can easily find online recipes to veganise all of our favourite meals.

But even if vegan food was tasteless (it’s not), morality trumps personal pleasure. An animal’s desire to live will always be greater than our desire to eat a steak, and deep down we all know this.

32. It’s a personal choice

Personal choices, by definition, only affect the individual making the choice. With eating animal products, there are other sentient beings involved. It is not a personal choice to harm animals for trivial and unnecessary pleasures. Our personal choice ends where someone else’s choices begin.

33. Vegans are so judgmental

Yes, some vegans are. There are all kinds of people in every movement, and veganism isn’t an exception. But the personality of adherents to a movement doesn’t determine the validity of the ideology behind it. For example, if someone against racism is a bad person, that doesn’t mean we can justify racism because some non-racist people are mean. If we don’t like judgmental vegans, becoming a vegan and being the counter-example is the best we can do.

34. Morality is subjective

Advocates of subjective morality wouldn’t tolerate such subjectivity if they were the victims. If someone kills a human, or an animal, and truly believes there’s nothing wrong with this, subjective morality states that this wouldn’t be unethical. Morality must be based on facts and reason, it can’t be completely arbitrary, or else anyone can justify any atrocity by stating that their morality is subjective. We must have at least some objective measurement of what is and isn’t ethical. Agreeing that killing beings for pleasure or convenience isn’t ethical is a good place to start to prevent violence towards humans and animals. Veganism follows from this.

Even if we believe morality is subjective, it’s likely that most people would agree that animals have some moral value and shouldn’t be harmed for no reason. So by this subjective morality, we can agree that veganism is right because harming animals unnecessarily (we don’t need to eat them to live healthily) is wrong.

35. Not everyone can be vegan

There are certain, extremely rare circumstances where people cannot be vegan due to uncommon medical conditions or living conditions. But vegans argue that everyone that can be vegan, should. If someone can’t there is nothing that can be done about it. Veganism is about doing what is practicable and possible to end animal exploitation. Most people reading this have access to a computer, which probably means they can decide to stop paying industries that harm animals right now.

36. Focus on more important issues / Human rights are more important

Veganism is a non-action. We don’t need to actively do anything time consuming to live vegan. Once you spend some time initially figuring out what to buy at the grocery store and what’s suitable for vegans, most people won’t spend additional time thinking about food than they did before. As such, we can continue to fight for human rights or other “more important” causes while eating a veggie burger or bean burrito instead of a steak. We don’t need to harm animals while we fight against human oppression.

It is also worth putting the animal suffering problem into perspective. Worldwide, 56 billion land animals are killed every year for food. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and Amazon deforestation . Nowhere in the world are humans being exploited in the magnitude and severity as non-human animals are. If they were, there would be global unrest and the issue would be addressed immediately.

Also, in many cases, animal abuse can cause human suffering. High meat and dairy diets are responsible for some of the United States’ leading killers, like heart disease and strokes. In areas where new slaughterhouses are set up, the rates of domestic violence and crime increase . Many human rights violations occur in factory farms because of the high production rate required to meet the demand for meat. For example, some US factory farm workers wear diapers to work due to a lack of bathroom breaks.

Shouldn’t we think the animal rights issue is at least as important as some human rights issues? And even if not, shouldn’t we be vegan by default to avoid causing extra suffering while we focus on solving human rights violations?

37. Plants feel pain

Let’s think about this in two ways. First, do plants actually feel pain in any way similar to an animal or human? Most honest people would agree that there is a huge difference between cutting a leaf from a tree and killing a dog. In fact, a human’s experience of suffering is closer to the animal’s experience of suffering than the animal’s experience of suffering is to any potential “suffering” in plants.

This common sense experience is backed by scientific evidence, too. We know for a fact that plants lack brains, a Central Nervous System, and anything else that neuroscientists know to cause sentience. Some studies show plants to have input/output reactions to certain stimulation, but no study suggests plants have sentience or any ability to feel emotions or pain as we understand it. We can clearly understand the difference between a blade of grass and a pig.

Second, let’s say we discovered that plants actually have something akin to what we understand as “sentience”. In this case, the crucial difference is that we need to eat plants to survive, but we don’t have to eat animals. Furthermore, more plants are used for meat production than for vegetable production because the animals we eat are fed plants, and they can eat way more than us. So if we truly care about plants, it is better to minimise plant usage by feeding humans directly with them, rather than feeding many more plants to animals to then eat ourselves.

38. Animals die in crop harvesting

This is true, and no vegan claims to cause no harm to animals. Vegans try to avoid animal deaths with practical solutions i.e. boycotting these industries. But an argument against veganism that uses this fact is an argument several times stronger against eating meat. We require about 10 times more crops to feed 56 billion farmed animals per year than if only 7 billion humans ate some of those crops directly. So if we’re truly concerned with minimising animal deaths from crop harvesting, we should be vegan. That way we minimise the torture and abuse in the meat, dairy and egg industries and also reduce the accidental deaths in crop harvesting.

We could argue that we could exclusively eat grass-fed animals who do not require grain, therefore not killing small animals in crop harvests, but this is impractical. First, most “grass-fed” animals are not actually fed 100% grass, and second, it’s definitely not sustainable to feed 7 billion people with grass-fed beef. There just isn’t enough space available in the world, and we can’t really sustain a healthy lifestyle eating nothing but meat.

39. You take medication that has been tested on animals

The definition of veganism is: “Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose”.

It is not practicable and possible to die or get ill because we don’t take medication we need. It is the law in the US, the UK and Europe that all medicine must be tested on animals before being released to the market, so vegans cannot practically avoid this since there aren’t any non-tested medicines.

But this is a different situation to eating animal products for pleasure and convenience when there are plenty of other options available at the supermarket. We’re not putting our health at risk when deciding to avoid animal products. Also, it is worth mentioning that buying the medicine is not actually increasing demand for animal testing since the medicine was tested before entering the market and never again, whereas animal products require animal deaths every time.

40. Hitler was a vegetarian

Historians are still unsure about this, and there is compelling evidence to suggest he wasn’t a vegetarian. But it is actually irrelevant if he was. Using this argument implies that everything that Hitler did was wrong and we must do the opposite. But this isn’t a sound argument. Hitler liked dogs, took showers, brushed his teeth, ate and slept. Should we avoid doing these things because he did? Of course not!

In addition, why should we solely focus on Hitler when talking about veganism? If we look at all dictators, murderers, serial killers, rapists, and terrorists throughout history, the vast majority are meat-eaters. So if we’re going with the argument that the diets of criminals should be avoided, why are we eating meat?

41. Veganism is expensive

Veganism can be expensive, but it is by no means a necessity. As with any eating pattern, a vegan diet can be as expensive or as cheap as we want it to be. Generally, however, a plant-based diet is substantially cheaper than most diets out there, given that the staple foods in a vegan diet (and coincidentally also staples in impoverished societies) are things like rice, beans, lentils, potatoes, bread, tofu and so forth. For most of the world, meat is a luxury, expensive item. It’s only cheap in developed countries because the government subsidises the industry.

42. Veganism is unsustainable

Quite the opposite, actually. Eating meat is highly unsustainable. The United Nations has been urging us for years to move towards a plant-based diet because “lesser consumption of animal products is necessary to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change”. This is because animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions, about 18%, than all the transport systems combined in the world, around 13% . It is also the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones and several other environmental degradation indicators.

In fact, we could feed more people with less land, water and resource usage if everyone was vegan than if people ate meat. A Cornell University article states that the US alone could feed about 800 million more people “if all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people”.

More information on this can be found here.

43. Protein

Protein is an incredibly bio-available nutrient. We can get all the protein we want from plant sources without the potential health risks of eating meat, dairy and eggs (some forms of cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, strokes, etc). The largest study ever done on vegan nutrient profiles show vegans on average get almost the same amount of protein as non-vegans without supplementation (see Figure 1 here ). This is because all whole plant foods contain some protein and when we eat enough calories of a variety of these we can easily meet all our protein needs. Protein deficiency is only really seen in people with chronic under-eating. Even then, it is more likely that someone dies of fat deficiency than protein deficiency in a state of starvation.

If we were to eat 2000 calories of pure white rice, for instance, we’d get 41 grams of protein . This is already the recommended daily intake for sedentary women that eat 2000 calories per day. And rice is considered to be a low protein food, so if we add vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, pasta and tofu, we’re going to get more than enough. Even in the extremely rare case that someone wants to get an amount of protein that is not achievable eating solely plants (which is probably not healthy anyway), plenty of affordable vegan protein powders are available worldwide.

Rice Nutrition Information

44. Calcium

Calcium is in no way exclusive to animal products. There are entire cultures who’ve never consumed cow’s milk that don’t have a higher incidence of osteoporosis than the developed world. Producing cow’s milk required humans to learn how to domesticate animals, which was achieved relatively recently in human history. So it is illogical to think that humans evolved to require nutrition from a fluid that they could not get in nature until centuries later.

Humans are mammals. Like all mammals, we consume milk during infancy, and after the weaning process, adults do not require their mother’s milk. If we really needed milk afterwards, wouldn’t it make more biological sense to continue drinking milk designed for our own species? If that sounds strange, consider that we’re drinking milk from someone else’s mother, and not even from our own species.

Good vegan sources of calcium include dried herbs, sesame seeds, figs, tofu, almonds, flax seeds, Brazil nuts and kale. Most vegan milks are fortified with calcium, so we could just consume those as we would do any cow milk.

45. Iron

Vegans and vegetarians don’t actually have a greater incidence of anaemia than meat-eaters. Read this quote from a study done by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

“An appropriately planned well-balanced vegetarian diet is compatible with an adequate iron status. Although the iron stores of vegetarians may be reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in omnivores.”

The largest study ever done on vegan nutrient profiles states the following:

“In strict vegetarians low dietary intakes of vitamin B12 and D, calcium, and omega-3 fatty acids, in addition to iron and zinc, have often been of concern ²⁵. In the present study, mean intakes of these nutrients were above minimum requirements ²⁶ in strict vegetarians.”

In table 3 of the same study, we can see vegans get 31.6mg of iron per day, and meat-eaters get 32.9mg, both way above the minimum daily requirement of 8-15mg.

Good sources of plant-based iron are nuts, beans and dark leafy green vegetables. The type of iron found in meat (heme-iron) is the type your body cannot regulate properly and forces its way into the bloodstream. This encourages the production of free radicals, which can damage DNA and increase cancer risk. So it is safer as humans that we consume plant-based sources of iron (non-heme iron).

46. B12

It is a common misconception that animals produce B12. In reality, it is bacteria found in animals, excrement, unwashed vegetables and dirty water that produces it. B12 is not exclusive to animal products.

Having said this, in today’s world vegans must supplement B12 with an oral supplement or by eating fortified foods, but this doesn’t invalidate veganism. Stating that because we can’t get B12 naturally from plants implies a vegan diet is bad is a version of the logical fallacy called “ appeal to nature “. Not only is it a fallacious argument, but most people that live in modern society supplement their diets in one way or another.

Most of the bread, milk, morning cereals and fruit juices we buy are fortified with vitamins during manufacturing. Table salt often has iodine added, and tap water is fortified with fluoride in some places. All these things are fortified because the vast majority of people fail to get adequate nutrition without them. Even more interesting, a B12 supplement is injected into livestock before slaughter to keep their levels up due to the soil being too intensively used and lacking in certain nutrients.

So the question becomes: would we rather take a B12 supplement and be vegan, or supplement animals with B12, and then kill them to obtain the same B12? The former choice is clearly more desirable.

47. Omega-3

We can get omega-3 fatty acids from ground flaxseeds, hemp seeds, canola oil, walnuts, algae and other plant-based sources. If someone can’t get enough omega-3 or their body can’t absorb it, an algae-based DHA supplement will solve this. Eating plant sources of omega-3 is actually superior to eating fish to get DHA. This is because fish is riddled with heavy metals such as mercury and PCBs, which damage the brain and counteract the positive effects of eating the omega-3 in fish.

A study that looked at 33 fish species and its impact on brain development concluded that “for most fish species the adverse effect of MeHg on the IQ score exceeded the beneficial effect of DHA.” Read more about why it is preferable to get omega-3 from plants here.

48. Vitamin D

Our body produces vitamin D, a hormone, when exposed to sunlight. We need about 20 minutes of sunlight exposure per day to get our daily amount of vitamin D. Most people don’t get this, which is why the UK government recommends that everyone takes a vitamin D supplement. This is because “limited amounts of the vitamin are found in foods such as oily fish, eggs and fortified cereals”.

49. Iodine

The best sources of iodine are sea vegetables (seaweed, kelp, and dulse). Alternatively, iodised salt or supplements are also an option.

中文

1。动物会吃其他动物

作为一个社会，我们不应以动物在自然界中所做的事情为基础来建立自己的道德观。狮子吃他们的子女，因为他们 没有足够的食物，发生激烈的领土纠纷并强行使女性怀孕。 狗第一次见面时会闻到对方的背影。许多动物甚至杀死 自己物种的成员。如果我们说动物行为是人类道德的基础，那么我们 可以提倡谋杀，杀婴， 强奸和其他一些自然而然的不道德和/或令人作呕的行为。

另一个关键点是野外动物会杀死以生存。我们并不需要吃其他动物 生存，这样做会造成痛苦，因此，如果我们能够避免痛苦，我们应该这样做。动物显然不好 道德榜样。

2。食物链顶端/生活圈

科学家已经证明，我们实际上不在食物链的顶端。这个(美国国家科学院的) 研究 美国得出的结论是：“人类类似于or鱼或猪，不能被视为先端。 掠食者”。 这意味着每个使用“生命周期”或“我们处于食物链顶端”论据的人 被食物链中其他较高的动物（如狮子或熊）猛烈地吃掉应该没问题。在 事实上，他们应该很好 由于我们在“食物链”中处于同等水平，因此与猪具有相同的待遇。

但是我们胜过猪！！

3。吃动物是必须的

这是不是。来自各行各业的数以百万计的素食主义者非常健康。事实上， 营养与营养学院 ，美国 最大的食品和营养专业人员组织 ，说明以下内容：

“营养与营养学学院的立场是适当计划素食者， 包括素食主义者，饮食有益健康， 营养充足，可能为某些疾病的预防和治疗带来健康益处 疾病。这些饮食适合 生命周期的所有阶段，包括怀孕，哺乳，婴儿期，童年，青春期，老年人 成年和运动员。基于植物 饮食比富含动物产品的饮食在环境方面更具可持续性，因为它们使用的动物较少 与自然资源相关 对环境的破坏要少得多。素食者和纯素食者减少某些健康的风险 疾病，包括缺血性心脏病 2型糖尿病，高血压，某些类型的癌症，和肥胖。”

的 有史以来最大的研究 素食主义者的营养素状况表明：

“在严格的素食主义者中，饮食中维生素B12和D，钙和omega-3脂肪酸的摄入量较低， 除了铁和锌， 经常引起关注 ²⁵ 。在本研究中，这些营养素的平均摄入量高于最低要求 ²⁶ 在严格的素食主义者中。”

4。吃动物是自然的

它是自然的也没关系，因为这并不意味着吃肉是合乎道德的或有益的。这是众所周知的 作为“ 对大自然的吸引力 谬论”。我们不会仅仅因为事情自然而做。 我们使用飞机，汽车，建筑物，衣物，餐具，杯子，玻璃杯和其他一些不 自然。我们还要避免其他自然事物，例如杀死我们自己物种的成员 并强行浸渍女性，因为自然是一个暴力的地方。一些疾病和健康问题是 很自然，但我们会尽力治愈。

我们的文明主要集中在减少痛苦上，而不是与大自然保持一致。在 在许多情况下，我们努力避免自然灾害。我们应该做符合道德的事情，而不是 是自然的 在我们不需要的时候杀死动物是不道德的。

5。人类是杂食动物

科学界对此仍在争论中。有大量证据表明 我们是草食动物，或者至少是清道夫（例如老鼠，它们在动物 被其他掠食者杀死）。此 医学博士威廉·C·罗伯茨（William C. Roberts）的文章认为，人类必须是植物食用者，因为只有草食动物 发展动脉粥样硬化（动脉硬化）。 从技术上讲，从定义上讲我们是杂食性食品，因为我们可以消化肉。但这无关紧要 因为我们可以完全健康地吃纯素，而且吃肉会对动物造成伤害。

有能力做某事并不意味着这样做是对的。人类可以开展许多工作 暴行，有些甚至会，但那些暴行会因为其行为错误而受到惩罚。 有犬齿或具有消化肉的能力并不能证明以食用动物的相同方式来食用动物 拳头没有理由殴打某人。

6。大多数人吃肉

这是“呼吁普及”的谬论，没有真正的逻辑价值。过去大多数人都认为 奴隶制是可以接受的，妇女不应投票。大多数人通常都同意 一定的压迫，这是一小群为改变现状而战的人。

7。我们的祖先吃了肉

我们的祖先做了很多我们会感到不安的事情，包括 互相残杀，不要做我们今天所做的许多事情来改善我们的生活。建立我们的道德 在穴居人不会 带我们到很远的地方。我们的知识有所提高，我们的道德行为也应相应提高。

8。吃肉有助于我们进化

这并不重要，如果它没有，因为我们生活在一个非常不同的世界，不同的事情今天将 我们除了吃肉以外还会进化。而且，某种帮助我们发展的东西并不意味着 这种行为在今天是合乎道德的或可以接受的。早期的智人将强奸作为一种策略 当他们无法获得同意的性爱时进行基因推广。这帮助了人类 发展到今天的状况，我们就不能说性暴力在任何方面都是可以接受的。

此外，大多数科学家都认为这不是肉，而是 烹饪食物，这使我们的大脑得以发展。这可以解释为什么我们是最聪明的动物， 唯一会做饭的动物 其他食肉动物，例如猫，比我们还不聪明。假设是做饭 允许人类从相同体积的食物中获取更多的能量，而花费更少的时间咀嚼， 这意味着这些额外的能量有助于促进大脑的成长。

9。吃肉很健康

只要我们限制高摄入量的肉类摄入， 我们就可以完全健康地食用非素食饮食 饱和脂肪和胆固醇，并吃足够的水果和蔬菜以获取必需的 微量营养素。许多肉食者健康长寿。素食主义者的论点不是说素食主义 是正确的，因为否则我们就无法健康，它只是说给定选择 无论是纯素食主义者还是非素食主义者，我们都应该选择前者，因为它更具道德性。

10。养殖牲畜被杀死

以虐待，使用和伤害动物为目的而使动物成活，这在道德上是不道德的。 任何情况。如果我们为斗犬而繁殖狗，那对狗造成的伤害就是 战斗在道德上仍然不可接受。如果我们为了斗牛而繁殖公牛，那么苦难 他们从来没有理由。

被使用和杀死的动物并不关心为什么繁殖，他们只是想生存和 避免痛苦。仅仅因为我们将他们带入了这些利益，我们就没有权利违背这些利益。 存在。

11。农场动物将灭绝

养殖的动物已被人类有选择地繁殖和改良，从而有利可图。他们遭受各种 健康问题，因为它们的繁殖能力远大于其自然祖先。 继续繁殖它们没有任何目的，即使每个人都纯素，也没有合乎逻辑的理由 继续繁殖这些动物，知道它们会因以下方式而遭受健康问题 选择育种

但是，如果我们真的想让猪，鸡，牛和我们吃的动物活着，我们可以将它们保存下来。 濒临灭绝的物种也是如此，即通过杀死它们来不是。动物很多 今天存在的庇护所，可以拯救牲畜并享受余生，因此他们 不会灭绝。

12。农场里的动物会过剩

我们食用，穿用和实验的动物都是人工饲养的，以满足对动物的需求 产品。如果需求减少，带来的动物数量将减少 太。在人类开始混乱之前，牛，鸡和猪的人口过剩没有问题 他们的身体。如果我们停止控制它们的繁殖，它们的种群就不会过多。

13。农场动物将在野外被杀死

素食主义者不希望所有家养动物被放逐到野外。素食主义者想要的是动物 停止繁殖。他们不是被野生动物还是被我们吃掉了。 我们并不需要进行繁殖，并在第一个地方吃。

14。动物不明白道德

大多数动物的确至少对是非有基本的了解，因为这是一种进化 优点。利他主义通常会带来积极的回报，而不良行为通常会 导致消极。如果一只狗没有杀死其他狗，那么被其他狗杀死的可能性就较小。

无论如何，由于动物具有理解道德的能力，它们在道德上不是有价值的，它们是 有价值，因为它们的感知力（体验痛苦和愉悦的能力）。有些人 像婴儿一样，有时无法辨别是非，但他们仍然拥有生命权，因为他们 有感觉的。

15。动物会吃掉你

由此得出什么逻辑结论？如果动物想吃我们，那是否意味着我们应该 我们对不那么聪明的动物的道德观又吃其他动物吗？有趣的 问题是人们用这个论点来证明吃猪等不能吃我们的草食动物是合理的 和奶牛，但他们不能用它来证明吃猫，狮子和熊是合理的。

16。人类优于动物

在某些方面，是的。我们在情报方面很出色。我们的飞行或视线能力不强 黑暗。可以说有些人在某些方面要比其他人优越。 有些人更聪明，更快，更强壮，外观更好等等。按照这种逻辑，“上级”人类 理论上可以滥用“劣等”的。

优越并没有赋予我们虐待其他有情生物的权利。实际上，这种思路是 过去曾发生过许多暴行，例如大屠杀，黑人隔离， 剥夺妇女的权利，等等。当然，没有人希望动物拥有与人类相同的权利， 喜欢投票权，因为这没有道理。什么才有意义 但是，这是赋予他们生命的权利，因为他们的情感意味着他们有生存的兴趣， 就像我们一样。

17.。动物已经死了

是。但是，素食主义不是要在超市中保存死去的动物，而是要减少需求 用于动物产品，以防止其他动物繁殖和杀死。 这是经济学的基本供求理论。如果我们需要更多的动物产品，企业 生产它们的动物将供应更多，因此杀死更多的动物。我们有 用我们的钱投票的权力，每当我们为某种动物产品付款时，我们都表示我们想要更多 它的。

18。我吃了动物的所有部位，所以它们不会浪费

动物不关心什么，我们与他们的死亡以后他们的身体，他们关心活着。如果我们有 已经实施了不道德，不必要的杀死动物的行动， 我们之后所做的并没有使它变得更好。按照这种逻辑，美国食人者杰弗里·达默（Jeffrey Dahmer）应该 收到的刑期较短，因为他几乎用尽了受害者的大部分 身体。他吃了其中的各个部位，甚至将一些身体部位变成了家居用品。

19。上帝把动物放在这里吃饭

没有宗教要求吃肉。我们不必吃动物产品就可以成为虔诚的基督徒，穆斯林， 犹太人，印度教徒等。因此，我们可以像素食主义者一样和进行宗教信仰 回收并信奉宗教，或者就像我们做出的其他任何现代生活方式选择一样， 在宗教文献中提到，但也不被禁止。

另外，为什么一个明智而无所不知的上帝会给动物疼痛感受器，然后告诉我们杀死它们？ 上帝肯定会同意我们是素食主义者，因此造成的损失最少 对动物和环境的危害，这两者都是上帝的创造。

20。乳制品业不会伤害动物

可以说，乳业中的母牛比饲养肉类的母牛生活更悲惨。这是因为 他们一生都被剥夺了牛奶，然后被杀死。

鉴于母牛只有在怀孕时才会产乳，所以这一过程从强迫开始 母牛的人工授精。农民将双臂伸进奶牛的性孔中 并将牛精液注入其中。这是牛奶生产的必要步骤，发生在小型家庭农场 一直到工厂农场。

母牛分娩后，可能会发生两件事。如果婴儿是男性，他对农民毫无用处，因为 他永远不会生产牛奶。因此，婴儿要么 在农场被杀， 或卖给小牛肉业做肉。如果婴儿是女性，那么她将承受与她相同的未来 母亲，经历了数次情感和身体虐​​待。在这两种情况下 小牛出生后不久就被带走，母牛在婴儿被盗后往往会哭几天。

在大约两到三个挤奶周期后，牛奶的生产效率变得无利可图，因此 被杀。在这个阶段，母牛通常是六岁。自然寿命 一头母牛的寿命大约是二十年。

该视频总结了乳业： “奶奶很可怕” 。

21。蛋产业不会伤害动物

在鸡蛋行业，由于雄性不能产卵，因此只需要雌性。所以在孵化场，雄性和 雌性雏鸡通过传送带时会分开。

男性被认为是无用的，因此他们要么在孵化场被杀死（要么被浸泡浸渍， 淹死或窒息）或活着扔进垃圾箱。女性痛苦 去喙，然后送到农场，由于遗传，它们每年会产下300多个痛苦的卵 操作（相对于野生鸡每年约20只）。这个过程发生了 在任何农场，无论它是自由放养，有机农场还是其他任何形式。

母鸡停止以有利可图的速度生产鸡蛋后，将它们屠宰，包括扔蛋 放入电浴进行打晕，然后将其上下颠倒悬挂 沿着传送带割喉。许多鸡仍将在充分意识到自己的 喉咙被割开，之后将在除羽槽中煮沸。 他们的屠杀发生在大约两岁的时候。鸡的自然寿命为八年。

22。人们会失去工作

是的，这是一个可悲的现实。但是作为消费者，我们不负责让所有行业都开展业务。 当我们去超市时，我们不会购买他们出售的每一种产品 确保没有人倒闭。作为消费者，我们选择钱去哪里，并支付 我们希望看到更多的产品，而我们不会购买我们不喜欢的产品。我们都 了解这一点，这就是为什么当某人戒烟或饮酒时，人们不告诉他们自己 使烟草和酒精行业的人们失业。

但是，重要的是要意识到工作并不会流失，只会流失。如果我们不买牛奶，我们会 而是购买豆浆，因此在植物奶行业创造了就业机会。 例如，虽然奶农确实会度过艰难的时刻，但确实存在 对其他农作物（例如大米，大豆和燕麦）的需求不断增长，这使得更多 人们只能在这些行业中找到工作。

23。吃动物产品是合法的，有保护动物的法律

仅仅因为某件事是合法的就不能使它正确。不到200年前，奴隶制在世界上是合法的 美国。

“保护”养殖动物的现行法律仍然允许对它们造成重大伤害。 像皇家动物保护协会（RSPCA）这样的组织声称 努力防止对动物造成不必要的伤害。但是既然我们知道 不需要食用动物产品，不是全部全部对肉，奶制品造成的伤害 和鸡蛋产业不必要？

这是摘录的 休曼屠宰协会被视为“人道” 杀死动物的方法：

”婴儿的羔羊，孩子和小猪可以被头部重击而被人道地杀死。这必须 如果没有其他的方法是立即仅使用可用的。

1. 用后腿old住动物，用钝器向头后部猛击。 器械，例如铁棒或锤。 2. 抓住动物的后腿，使其弯曲成弧形，用 对固体对象相当大的力，例如一堵墙或金属支柱。 使用这两种方法，必须迅速，牢固且绝对地传递打击 决心。如果怀疑该动物没有被有效杀死， 吹塑应立即重复“。

这清楚地表明，我们对待和杀死动物的方式没有人道化。根据英国法律，鸡肉 仍然可以断喙，公犊可被阉割，猪可以有自己的 牙齿拔出，等等。不用说，阻止大多数动物虐待发生的最好方法是结束 畜牧业。

24。您从血汗工厂购买产品

试图说素食主义者仍然通过从血汗工厂购买而造成伤害，从而使素食主义无效，这是一种 “人恩quoque”的谬论。陈述或哲学的真实性尚未确定 由相信它的人。如果凶手说犯下谋杀罪是错误的，那不会 谋杀人民的权利。如果素食主义者说杀死动物作为食物是错误的， 但是会在其他地方造成一些伤害，这并不能使杀动物正确。不可能导致零 损害，没有素食主义者声称完美无缺，但我们正在努力在切实可行的范围内尽力减少影响， 可能。

另外，购买动物产品并不能帮助处于不公平状况的工人。成为素食主义者并从中购买 血汗工厂是不是不是素食主义者，并从血汗工厂仍然在购买更好。 但是，如果我们反过来又看到该论点呢？换句话说，如果您是 反对奴隶劳动，就是你反对一切压迫，包括动物压迫。

25。你不能100％纯素

没有人可以严格地是100％素食主义者。除非我们自己种植食物，否则不会偶然踩到昆虫， 并解释了我们可能造成动物痛苦的所有方式。但这是 就是说我们不应该是99％的素食主义者？换句话说，这是否意味着我们不应该尽力避免对他人造成伤害 动物？绝对不。

实际上，仅肉类，乳制品，蛋，羊毛，毛皮和皮革行业就可能占全部的99％ 虐待动物。在我们的现代世界中，不存在就不可能存在 与某种动物来源的成分接触。所以最快，最实用的方法来结束 虐待动物是抵制动物虐待的主要生产者。

我们发现动物副产品如此之多的主要原因是由于动物产业的规模。 它们会产生大量废物（韧带，骨头，大脑，肠子等）， 在其他地方使用它具有经济意义。通过避免减少动物产品的产量 主要工业，将使这些废物的使用变得不切实际。

26。素食主义者没有任何作用

纯素食主义既是原则问题，也是解决虐待动物的切实可行的方法。如果我们反对付款 别人折磨和杀死动物，那么我们不应该这样做，无论 我们是否会真正改变某些东西。但是，由于供应和 需求。如果有人每天购买纯素替代肉类产品， 一年中，每天三次，可以大大减少一个人对肉的需求。 如果我们将全世界成千上万的素食主义者结合起来， 表示需求严重下降。英国已经看到了 360％ 过去十年中素食主义者的数量有所增加，而其他指标也表明素食主义者的人数正在上升。如果 我们想要大量 的素食主义者在世界上具有影响力，那么我们首先需要成为该集团的一员。

27。全世界永远不会素食主义者

整个世界都很难做任何事情。这个世界永远会有一些性别歧视，种族歧视， 恐同和暴力。这并不意味着我们必须容忍这些事情。 看到他们，我们决不能为消除暴力而战。即使总会有人虐待 动物，我们仍应尽可能地结束对动物的虐待。 世界上存在不道德行为的人的存在无助我们模仿他们。我们有 控制我们的决定，无论别人做什么，我们都可以选择道德。

28。我只买本地种植的散养有机肉

在所有农场中，无论屠宰前动物的生活如何，动物死亡的几分之一都 他们的寿命。达到目的后，牲畜就会被杀死， 或一旦达到盈利规模。草食，有机和放养动物的定义是 非常松散，变化很大。这并不一定意味着动物 拥有任何生活质量，这仅意味着农场必须满足一些任意要求才能获得该头衔。

29。人道的屠杀

从理论上讲，我们可以（无需大规模养活70亿人类）杀死没有任何动物的动物 疼痛。但是，这并不使杀人行为在道德上可以接受。 杀死动物，从而不必要地剥夺其生命权是错误的。的 “人道”一词的定义是是：“具有或 表示同情或仁慈”。 同义词包括“同情”，“善良”和“体贴”。因此，“人道”和“射击动物”是 不兼容。任何人道的人都不想不必要地把生命从动物身上夺走。

30。动物产品很好吃

动物产品是动物遭受痛苦和杀害的结果。如果我们能证明吃动物是合理的， 他们的分泌物只是说我们喜欢味道，这暗示 我们认为，不道德行为可以由我们从中得到的个人愉悦来证明。这是 显然有问题。使用这种思路，我们可以证明偷窃是合理的， 例如，因为拥有更多的钱感觉很好。为了我们的快乐而伤害另一个有情人 是不道德的。

31。素食无味

人类吃的大多数食物已经是素食主义者。水果，蔬菜，谷物，豆类，坚果，种子，面食， 面包，土豆和大豆，仅举几例。我们每天都喜欢吃这些食物 并且不要以为他们是难吃的。实际上，我们调味食物以使其美味的主要方法是 使用盐，糖，药草和香料（所有植物！）。有有获奖 全世界的素食食品和饭店。我们可以很容易在网上找到食谱veganise所有的 我们最喜欢的饭菜。

但是，即使素食是无味（这是不是），道德胜过个人的乐趣。的动物的期望 现场总是比我们的更大的愿望吃了牛排，而在内心深处，我们都知道这一点。

32。这是个人选择

根据定义，个人选择只会影响做出选择的个人。吃动物产品 还有其他的众生。这不是个人选择 损害动物的琐碎和不必要的乐趣。我们的个人选择结束于其他人的选择 开始。

33。素食主义者如此有判断力

是的，有些素食主义者。每个运动中都有各种各样的人，素食主义者也不例外。但 运动参与者的个性并不能决定其有效性 背后的意识形态 例如，如果反对种族主义的人是坏人，那并不意味着我们可以 为种族主义辩护是因为一些非种族主义者是卑鄙的。如果我们不喜欢 有判断力的素食主义者，成为素食主义者并成为反例是我们能做的最好的事情。

34。道德是主观的

如果 主观道德的倡导者是受害者，他们将不会容忍这种主观性。如果有人 杀死人类或动物，并真正相信这没有错， 主观道德说这不是不道德的。道德必须基于事实和理性， 不能完全是任意的，否则任何人都可以通过 说他们的道德是主观的。我们必须对什么是和至少有一些客观的衡量 是不道德的。同意为了娱乐或便利而杀死生物不是 道德是开始预防针对人类和动物的暴力行为的好地方。素食主义由此而来。

即使我们认为道德是主观的，但很可能大多数人都同意 一些道德价值，不应无故受到伤害。因此，通过这种主观道德， 我们可以认为，素食主义是正确的，因为不必要的伤害动物（我们并不需要他们吃饭是为了活着 健康地）是错误的。

35。并非每个人都可以素食主义者

在某些极为罕见的情况下，人们由于不常见的医疗而无法得到素食 条件或生活条件。但是素食主义者认为，每个可以成为素食主义者的人都应该这样做。 如果某人做不到，那就无能为力了。纯素食主义是关于做可行的事情， 可能终止对动物的剥削。大多数阅读此书的人都可以使用计算机， 这可能意味着他们可以决定立即停止支付对动物造成伤害的行业。

36。关注更重要的问题/人权更重要

纯素食主义是没有行动的。我们并不需要积极地做任何事情费时活素食主义者。一旦花费 最初花些时间弄清楚要做什么 在杂货店购买以及什么 适合素食主义者，大多数人不会花更多的时间在思考食物上。如 这样，我们可以继续为人权或其他“更重要”的原因而战 一边吃素汉堡或豆煎饼，一边吃牛排。我们并不需要危害动物，而我们 对抗人类的压迫。

值得一提的是动物痛苦问题。全世界， 每年 每年有560亿只陆生动物被杀死作为食物。 动物农业是 导致物种灭绝，海洋死亡区，水的主要原因 污染，温室气体排放和亚马逊森林砍伐 。在世界范围内，没有人被剥削过 就像非人类的动物一样 如果真是那样，那就是全球动荡，这个问题将得到解决。 立即。

而且，在许多情况下，虐待动物会造成人类痛苦。高肉和奶制品饮食是造成 美国的一些主要杀手，例如心脏病和中风。 在新建屠宰场的地区， 国内价格 暴力和犯罪增加 。由于满足高生产率要求，在工厂农场中发生了许多侵犯人权的事件 对肉的需求。例如， 一些美国工厂 由于缺乏洗手间休息，农场工人穿着尿布上班。

我们不应该认为动物权利问题至少与某些人权问题同样重要吗？即使 不，我们默认不应该接受素食，以避免在我们专注于解决人类问题时造成额外的痛苦 侵犯人权？

37。植物感到疼痛

让我们以两种方式考虑一下。首先，植物是否真的以类似于动物或动物的任何方式感到疼痛？ 人吗？多数诚实的人都同意，两者之间存在巨大差异 从树上砍下叶子并杀死狗。事实上，人类的苦难经验是接近，以 动物的苦难经历比动物的苦难经历 使植物遭受任何潜在的“痛苦”。

这种常识性经验也得到科学证据的支持。我们知道植物缺乏 大脑，中枢神经系统以及神经科学家知道的其他任何东西 引起感悟。一些研究表明植物对某些刺激有输入/输出反应，但没有 研究表明植物具有感知力或任何感觉情绪或痛苦的能力，例如 我们了解。我们可以清楚地了解到草和猪之间的区别。

其次，让我们说，我们发现，植物确实有一些类似于我们所理解的 “知觉”。在这种情况下，关键的区别在于我们需要吃植物才能生存， 但是我们不必吃动物。此外，更多 用于肉类生产的植物比用于肉类生产的植物 蔬菜生产 因为我们吃的动物被送到工厂，他们可以吃的办法更多的比我们。 因此，如果我们真正关心植物，最好通过直接向人类喂食植物来最大程度地减少植物的使用， 而不是将更多的植物喂给动物然后自己吃。

38。动物死于农作物收割

这是事实，没有素食主义者声称不会对动物造成伤害。素食主义者试图避免动物死亡 切实可行的解决方案，即抵制这些行业。但是反对素食主义的争论 使用这个事实的论点比不吃肉要强好几倍。我们需要大约10次 有更多的农作物 每年 每年有560亿只养殖动物 十亿人 直接吃了其中一些农作物。因此，如果我们真正关心的是最大程度地减少农作物造成的动物死亡 收获时，我们应该是素食主义者。这样我们就可以最大限度地减少肉类的折磨和虐待， 乳制品和蛋品行业，还可以减少农作物收割中的意外死亡。

我们可以争辩说，我们可以只吃不需要谷物的草食动物，因此不需要 在农作物收成中杀死小动物，但这是不切实际的。首先，大多数是“草食” 动物实际上并没有喂100％的草，和第二，这是绝对不可持续养活7十亿 用草食牛肉的人。那里只是没有足够的全球可用的空间， 我们不能真正维持健康的生活方式，只吃肉。

39。您服用经过动物测试的药物

素食主义的定义是：“素食主义是一种试图尽可能地排除在外的生活方式。 在切实可行的情况下，以各种形式剥削和虐待动物为食物， 服装或任何其他目的” 。

由于我们不服用所需的药物，因此不可行，并且有可能死亡或生病。这是法律 在美国，英国和欧洲，必须在动物身上对所有药物进行测试 投放市场，因此素食主义者实际上无法避免这种情况，因为没有任何未经测试的 药物。

但是，与有动物饲料时为了娱乐和方便而食用动物的情况不同。 超市还有很多其他选择。我们不把健康放在首位 在决定避免使用动物产品时存在风险。另外，值得一提的是买药不是 自从之前对药物进行测试以来，对动物测试的需求实际上在增加 进入市场，再也不会进入市场，而动物产品每次都需要杀死动物。

40。希特勒是素食主义者

历史学家对此仍然不确定，并且有令人信服的证据表明他不是素食主义者。 但这是否与他无关。使用这个论点意味着一切 希特勒的所作所为是错误的，我们必须相反。但这不是一个合理的论点。希特勒喜欢狗， 洗完澡，刷了牙，吃饱了睡了。我们应该避免因为他那样而做这些事情吗？当然 不！

此外，在谈论素食主义时，为什么我们应该只关注希特勒？如果我们看所有独裁者， 历史上的凶手，连环杀手，强奸犯和恐怖分子， 绝大多数是食肉者。因此，如果我们坚持认为罪犯的饮食应 避免，为什么我们要吃肉？

41。纯素食主义很昂贵

纯素食主义可能很昂贵，但这绝不是必需的。与任何饮食方式一样，纯素饮食可以 像我们想要的那样便宜或便宜。但是，通常 考虑到植物中的主食，以植物为基础的饮食要比那里的大多数饮食便宜得多。 纯素饮食（碰巧也是贫困社会的主食）就像 大米，豆类，小扁豆，土豆，面包，豆腐等。在世界大多数地方，肉是一种奢侈的，昂贵的 项目。这是因为政府补贴的行业只有在发达国家便宜。

42。纯素食主义是不可持续的

实际上 ，恰恰相反。吃肉是非常不可持续的。的 联合国 多年来一直在敦促我们转向以植物为主的饮食，因为“减少动物食用 产品是拯救世界免遭气候变化最严重影响的必要”。这是因为 动物农业 造成的温室气体排放量比所有排放量多约18％ 全球运输系统的总和约为13％ 。这也是造成物种灭绝，海洋死亡区和其他几种环境的主要原因。 退化指标。

实际上，如果每个人都是素食主义者，我们可以用更少的土地，水和资源来养活更多的人， 人们吃肉。一种 Cornell 大学文章 指出只有美国才能养活 如果目前美国用于饲养牲畜的所有谷物都是 人们直接消费”。

有关此内容的更多信息，请此处。

43。蛋白质

蛋白质是一种难以置信的生物利用营养素。我们可以从植物来源获得我们想要的所有蛋白质 没有食用肉，奶和蛋的潜在健康风险（某些形式的癌症， 糖尿病，高血压，冠心病，中风等）。的 有史以来最大的研究 素食主义者的营养素概况显示，素食主义者平均获得的蛋白质量几乎与 未经补充的非素食主义者（见图1） 此处 ）。这是因为所有的全植物食品都含有某种蛋白质，当我们吃足够的各种卡路里 这些我们可以轻松满足所有 我们的蛋白质需求。蛋白质缺乏症仅在患有慢性饮食不足的人中真正可见。即使那样 在饥饿状态下，某人死于脂肪缺乏症的可能性高于蛋白质缺乏症。

例如，如果我们吃2000卡路里的纯白米，我们会得到 41克蛋白质 。对于每天摄入2000卡路里的久坐女性，这已经是建议的每日摄入量。 大米被认为是一种低蛋白食品，因此，如果我们添加蔬菜，豆类，坚果，种子，面食和 豆腐，我们将获得更多。即使在非常罕见的情况下，有人 想要获得仅通过食用植物无法实现的蛋白质量（这可能不健康） 无论如何），全球范围内都有大量可负担的素食蛋白粉。

大米营养信息

44。钙

钙绝不是动物产品专有的。整个文化中从未吃过牛的 牛奶不要有骨质疏松症比发达国家的发病率较高。 生产牛奶需要人类学习如何驯养动物，这是相对实现的 最近在人类历史上。因此认为人类进化到需要 直到几个世纪后，它们才能从自然界中获取流体的营养。

人类是哺乳动物。像所有哺乳动物一样，我们在婴儿期和断奶后的成人都食用牛奶 不需要妈妈的牛奶。如果我们以后真的需要牛奶，就不会 它使更多的生物学意义，继续喝牛奶专为我们自己种的？如果听起来 奇怪，认为我们是从别人的母亲那里喝牛奶，甚至没有 我们自己的物种。

良好的素食主义者钙来源包括干草，芝麻，无花果，豆腐，杏仁，亚麻籽，巴西 坚果和羽衣甘蓝。大多数纯素食牛奶都富含钙，因此我们可以食用 就像我们做任何牛奶一样。

45。铁

素食者和素食者并不实际拥有比贫血肉为食的发生率更高。阅读此报价 来自于 《美国临床营养杂志》 ：

“的适当规划良好平衡素食是用适当的铁状态兼容。 尽管素食者的铁储量可能减少，但铁缺乏症的发生率 贫血素食者是不与在杂食动物显著不同“。

的 有关素食主义者的最大研究 营养成分说明如下：

“在严格的素食者的维生素B12和d，钙低饮食摄入，和ω-3脂肪酸，在 除了铁和锌，经常受到关注 ²⁵ 。在现在 学习，意思是 这些营养素的摄入量超过最低要求 严格 ²⁶ 素食者“。

在 表3 同一研究中，我们可以看到，每天铁的素食主义者GET 31.6mg，和肉食者得到32.9mg，既方式上面 最低每日需求量为8-15mg。

植物性铁的良好来源是坚果，豆类和深色多叶绿色蔬菜。发现的铁的类型 肉（血红素铁）是您的身体无法正常调节并迫使其 进入血液。这鼓励生产 免费 自由基，会破坏DNA并增加患癌症的风险。因此，我们食用的人类更安全 植物来源的铁（非血红素铁）。

46。B12

人们通常会误认为动物会产生B12。实际上，它是在动物中发现的细菌， 排泄物，未洗的蔬菜和产生它的脏水。B12并非动物产品专用。

话虽如此，在当今世界上，素食主义者必须补充B12与口服补品或通过进食 强化食品，但这不会使素食主义无效。声明因为我们无法获得B12 自然而然地从植物中暗示纯素饮食是有害的，这是逻辑谬误的一个版本，称为“ 对大自然的吸引力 ”。这不仅是谬论，而且生活在现代社会中的大多数人 以一种或另一种方式补充饮食。

我们购买的大多数面包，牛奶，谷物和果汁都在维生素强化过程中 制造业。食盐通常会添加碘，自来水中还添加了氟化物。 有的地方。所有这些事情都得到了加强，因为绝大多数人没有得到足够的 没有他们的营养。更有趣的是，B12补充剂是 注入 牲畜 宰杀前要保持水平，因为土壤使用过度而缺乏土壤 营养。

所以问题就变成了：我们宁愿服用B12补充剂并成为素食主义者，还是补充动物B12的含量， 然后杀死他们以获得相同的B12？前一种选择显然更可取。

47。欧米茄3

我们可以从亚麻籽，大麻籽，低芥酸菜籽油，核桃，藻类等中获得omega-3脂肪酸 植物来源。如果有人不能得到足够的ω-3或他们的身体不能吸收它，一个 基于藻类的DHA补充剂将解决此问题。食用omega-3的植物来源实际上优于饮食 鱼得到DHA。这是因为鱼中充满了汞和PCB等重金属， 会损害大脑并抵消在鱼中食用omega-3的积极作用。

一种 研究，研究了33种鱼类及其影响 对大脑发育的结论是：“对于大多数鱼类，甲基汞对智商得分的不利影响 超过了DHA的有益效果。” 阅读更多有关为什么最好从植物中获取omega-3的信息 此处。

48。维生素D

暴露在阳光下，人体会产生维生素D（一种激素）。我们需要大约20分钟的阳光 每天摄取维生素D的量。大多数人没有得到，这是 为什么英国政府建议 每个人都需要补充维生素D 。这是因为 “在油性鱼，鸡蛋和强化谷物等食物中发现了有限量的维生素”。

49。碘

碘的最佳来源是海菜（海藻，海带和杜乐）。或者，碘盐或 补品也是一种选择。