Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

IS UNIVERSAL VEGETARIANISM FEASIBLE?

IS UNIVERSAL VEGETARIANISM FEASIBLE? The psychology of the vegetarian propaganda would furnish the chapters for an entertaining story. The flame of enthusiasm for its doctrines has been fanned by the most diverse motives. At one time it has been ethical considerations, at another, economic, sociologic or physiologic arguments which have been advanced in support of what is essentially a system of diet. Considered from purely physiologic aspects, the exclusive use of food of plant origin has been objected to principally on three grounds: (1) a tendency toward poorer utilization of the nutrients contained in the vegetarian diet; (2) the “blandness” of such a dietetic regimen and its lack of desirable stimulating qualities; (3) the necessity of consuming a larger volume of food to furnish the requisite nutriment, i. e., its bulky character.1 But none of these factors furnishes serious obstacles to nutritive success and at times each presents certain advantages. Modern vegetarianism has recognized some of the more objectionable features and has met the situation by a diversity of improvements which represent a real advance in modern food preparation. To-day no one can deny the possibility of adequate nutrition and the prolonged maintenance of health and vigor on a vegetarian diet. To grant the safety of the vegetarian regimen, however, it is by no means necessary to admit its superiority. Herein the enthusiasts have often been led too far afield. The controversy now centers largely around the possible dangers of excesses in meat-eating; so that a convert has written that “for all practical intents and purposes a vegetarian is one who does not habitually make use of flesh foods in contradistinction to the habitual user.”2 In our judgment the relative merits of an exclusive animal or vegetable dietary give little occasion to assume a physiologic superiority of either. In an interesting essay just published, Professor A. E. Taylor3 of the University of Pennsylvania considers and dismisses three groups of motives for vegetarianism, those of gustatory taste, esthetic taste and physiologic opinion. At the present time, he says, “ethical vegetarianism alone remains to be considered. This is in its tenets and conclusions a logical system.” “Is it susceptible of consistent, world-wide application?” he asks. “Is the production of plant albumin on the earth sufficient to meet the albumin needs of the earth's inhabitants? What transformations would result in the customs, industry and commerce of the world, in the sociology and economics of the nations?” The question, to be sure, is a purely academic one; there is no danger that the population of the world will ever become universally consistent on vegetarianism or any other subject. The academic logic of the situation is squarely met by Professor Taylor. Consistent ethical vegetarianism would not permit the killing of animals either for food or for the products of their bodies. Mankind would have to face the problem of clothing without the aid of leather and fur. To dispense with these protective devices would be a task trivial in comparison with that of the food problem. Taylor's conclusions may be given in his own words: “Unhesitatingly it may be stated that the area of the earth's surface now under cultivation could not, with the present methods of agriculture, dependably produce enough plant albumin to meet the needs of the present population. . . . To meet these needs with plant albumin and dairy products the world's production of grains and legumins would need to be doubled at the least. It is quite certain that this could not, with the uttermost efforts of the world's population, be dependably accomplished at present. . . . The difficulties would not be technical, but human. To accomplish them the present intelligence of the human race, the dependable intelligence of the working race of mankind, would be wholly insufficient; the race has not attained to-day the scientific stature necessary to reach and pluck these fruits of knowledge. For the present, therefore, it is certain and beyond speculation that to place the human race on the basis of ethical vegetarianism would be to expose the race to the mercy of Nature, just as the vegetarian population of India is yearly at the mercy of the yield of grain.” The ever-present conservation problem will not be downed in these days! 1. Cf. Caspari: Physiol. Studien über Vegetarismus; Bonn, 1905. 2. Buttner: A Fleshless Diet. F. A. Stokes Co., New York, 1910, p. 2. 3. Taylor: Is Vegetarianism Capable of World-Wide Application? Pop. Sc. Monthly, December, 1911, p. 587. JAMA. 1912;58(3):194 Back to top Article Information Editor's Note: JAMA 100 Years Ago is transcribed verbatim from articles published a century ago, unless otherwise noted. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

IS UNIVERSAL VEGETARIANISM FEASIBLE?

JAMA , Volume 307 (3) – Jan 18, 2012

IS UNIVERSAL VEGETARIANISM FEASIBLE?

Abstract

The psychology of the vegetarian propaganda would furnish the chapters for an entertaining story. The flame of enthusiasm for its doctrines has been fanned by the most diverse motives. At one time it has been ethical considerations, at another, economic, sociologic or physiologic arguments which have been advanced in support of what is essentially a system of diet. Considered from purely physiologic aspects, the exclusive use of food of plant origin has been objected to principally on three...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/is-universal-vegetarianism-feasible-Iqf12idUEO

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.2011.1912
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The psychology of the vegetarian propaganda would furnish the chapters for an entertaining story. The flame of enthusiasm for its doctrines has been fanned by the most diverse motives. At one time it has been ethical considerations, at another, economic, sociologic or physiologic arguments which have been advanced in support of what is essentially a system of diet. Considered from purely physiologic aspects, the exclusive use of food of plant origin has been objected to principally on three grounds: (1) a tendency toward poorer utilization of the nutrients contained in the vegetarian diet; (2) the “blandness” of such a dietetic regimen and its lack of desirable stimulating qualities; (3) the necessity of consuming a larger volume of food to furnish the requisite nutriment, i. e., its bulky character.1 But none of these factors furnishes serious obstacles to nutritive success and at times each presents certain advantages. Modern vegetarianism has recognized some of the more objectionable features and has met the situation by a diversity of improvements which represent a real advance in modern food preparation. To-day no one can deny the possibility of adequate nutrition and the prolonged maintenance of health and vigor on a vegetarian diet. To grant the safety of the vegetarian regimen, however, it is by no means necessary to admit its superiority. Herein the enthusiasts have often been led too far afield. The controversy now centers largely around the possible dangers of excesses in meat-eating; so that a convert has written that “for all practical intents and purposes a vegetarian is one who does not habitually make use of flesh foods in contradistinction to the habitual user.”2 In our judgment the relative merits of an exclusive animal or vegetable dietary give little occasion to assume a physiologic superiority of either. In an interesting essay just published, Professor A. E. Taylor3 of the University of Pennsylvania considers and dismisses three groups of motives for vegetarianism, those of gustatory taste, esthetic taste and physiologic opinion. At the present time, he says, “ethical vegetarianism alone remains to be considered. This is in its tenets and conclusions a logical system.” “Is it susceptible of consistent, world-wide application?” he asks. “Is the production of plant albumin on the earth sufficient to meet the albumin needs of the earth's inhabitants? What transformations would result in the customs, industry and commerce of the world, in the sociology and economics of the nations?” The question, to be sure, is a purely academic one; there is no danger that the population of the world will ever become universally consistent on vegetarianism or any other subject. The academic logic of the situation is squarely met by Professor Taylor. Consistent ethical vegetarianism would not permit the killing of animals either for food or for the products of their bodies. Mankind would have to face the problem of clothing without the aid of leather and fur. To dispense with these protective devices would be a task trivial in comparison with that of the food problem. Taylor's conclusions may be given in his own words: “Unhesitatingly it may be stated that the area of the earth's surface now under cultivation could not, with the present methods of agriculture, dependably produce enough plant albumin to meet the needs of the present population. . . . To meet these needs with plant albumin and dairy products the world's production of grains and legumins would need to be doubled at the least. It is quite certain that this could not, with the uttermost efforts of the world's population, be dependably accomplished at present. . . . The difficulties would not be technical, but human. To accomplish them the present intelligence of the human race, the dependable intelligence of the working race of mankind, would be wholly insufficient; the race has not attained to-day the scientific stature necessary to reach and pluck these fruits of knowledge. For the present, therefore, it is certain and beyond speculation that to place the human race on the basis of ethical vegetarianism would be to expose the race to the mercy of Nature, just as the vegetarian population of India is yearly at the mercy of the yield of grain.” The ever-present conservation problem will not be downed in these days! 1. Cf. Caspari: Physiol. Studien über Vegetarismus; Bonn, 1905. 2. Buttner: A Fleshless Diet. F. A. Stokes Co., New York, 1910, p. 2. 3. Taylor: Is Vegetarianism Capable of World-Wide Application? Pop. Sc. Monthly, December, 1911, p. 587. JAMA. 1912;58(3):194 Back to top Article Information Editor's Note: JAMA 100 Years Ago is transcribed verbatim from articles published a century ago, unless otherwise noted.

Journal

JAMAAmerican Medical Association

Published: Jan 18, 2012

There are no references for this article.