After the presenters have posted their statements pro and con and their rebuttals to each other for Debate 10.2 , classmates are required to write a paragraph response. First, before reading the debate, note if you are for or against the statement (before reading the debate, do you agree more with the pro or con position?). Then note if your position changed or remained the same after you read the debate (after reading the debate, do you agree more with the pro or con position?) Give any insights on the debate or debate topic.
Debate 10.2 First Group Presentation on The Omnivore’s Dilemma (304-363)
Presenters for this Debate: Hiroki Mase and Fuyuki Kobayashi
- On this discussion board, the presenters on this section of The Omnivore’s Dilemma will post their presentation and discussion questions for the class, by Sun. 10/27. Presenters, or I, will post the statement, or proposition, that they have chosen to work on. Each presenter will post the equivalent of 1.5 pages on their position, labelled “pro” (for) or “con” against their chosen statement. After reading their opponent’s statement, the presenters should post their rebuttal (response to; attempt to argue against) their opponent’s presentation and a discussion question for the class, labelled “rebuttal and discussion question”.
- Students, you are required to write a paragraph response to debate 10.2 and send it to the debate 10.2 classmate responses by Tues. 11/5 (note additional days due to the midterm). First, before reading the debate, note if you are for or against the statement. Then note if your position changed or remained the same after you read the debate. Give any insights on the debate or debate topic.
- After I read students’ paragraph responses to the debate, I’ll send out a summary.
- Presenters, after I send out the summary, send a paragraph about your experience doing the debate and my summary to debate 10.2 classmate responses. This will be a week after I send you the summary, so your response won’t be counted as late.
Debate 10.2:
Topic: While eating meat is not required, it is natural in that it has played an important part in human evolution (314). PRO
Before starting, I want to say that I am not vegetarian. In the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan describes him as vegetarian but not vegan (Pollan 313). Pollan describes him being less socialize because vegetarians are still a minority. In addition, he said that he also feels “alienated from traditions”(314).
Human has evolved in many ways by eating meat: teeth and brain. I am currently taking Biological Anthropology in DVC and carnivore has canine teeth but herbivore has flat teeth to eat grasses. Human has both teeth because we are an omnivore. According to Pollan, he said that “Meat eating helped make us what we are in a physical as well as a social sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, anthropologists tell us, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the hearth where the spoils of the hunt were cooked and then apportioned, human culture first flourished” (314). We all have bigger brain capacity because our ancestors started hunting, using tools to cut meat, and cooking meat. In addition, our ancestors will not be able to evolve our brains without eating meat. According to TIME,” A brain is a very nutritionally demanding organ, and if you want to grow a big one, eating at least some meat will provide you far more calories with far less effort than a meatless menu will”(Kluger). The brain needs energy and we produce energy by eating and digesting food. Nowadays we have protein but at that time, there wasn’t any substitute for gaining protein and meat was the only choice for our ancestors. Australopithecus first started this diet about 2.6 million years ago (Kluger). At that time, it would be much easier to become an herbivore because vegetable does not move (Kluger). However, a vegetable like a potato was hard and not calorie-dense. On the other hand, meat was easy to chew(by slicing, pounding or flaking) and had high calories (Kluger). According to TIME, Zink and Lieberman who are evolutionary biologists at Harvard University did an experiment and found out that “it required from 39% to 46% less force to chew and swallow processed meat than processed root foods.” Our ancestors got more free extra time and cranial capacity by eating meat.
In conclusion, I feel that vegetarian people are less socialize because they have to choose a meal. In addition, eating meat played a huge role in evolving because it saved energy to chew, gave extra free time, and gave brain capacity. People did not have any substitute for meat and because of the meat, our ancestors were able to evolve to homo sapience. Hence, I think “while eating meat is not required, it is natural in that it has played an important part in human evolution.”
Works Cited
Kluger, Jeffrey. “Sorry Vegans: Here’s How Meat-Eating Made Us Human.” Time, Time, 9
Mar. 2016, https://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/ (Links to an external site.).
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivores Dilemma: a Natural History of Four Meals. Penguin Press,
2016.
Reply from CON:
Rebuttal and Question
Rebuttal:
In his article, he states that humanity has evolved in many ways by eating meat which is easy to digest and chew. The pressure of hunting improved the human brain, and human culture flourished around the hearth where they did the exchange of the spoils of the hunt. But today, a completely different environment from prehistoric times, eating meat no longer has the adaptive advantage that once was important for humans because there are, for instance, a mixer that makes it easy to eat vegetables and a protein bar that you can eat anytime. In addition, as I mentioned in my article, stating an idea based on very different things than our common sense, such as past events and events which frequently happen in nature, would lead to drawing wrong conclusions. For example, plenty of dogs are eaten a year in China, while dogs are treated like families in the United States. In the United States, millions of cattle are killed each year, but in India, even if only one cow is killed, it becomes a criminal. Like this, not only in the past but also in the present, humanity has large different common senses. Because it is natural that recent common sense is different than the past, it is wrong to conclude that meat-eating is natural just because it has been important to humanity in the past. Eating meat is not wrong, but in the present age when the inevitability of eating meat has disappeared, carnivorous is just one of the many options, and it is by no means a natural choice for us, recent humans.
Question:
If past humanity did not have a meat-eating culture, what do you think about how humanity has evolved?
CON post :
Debate 10.2: Choice 3. While eating meat is not required, it is natural in that it has played an important part in human evolution (314).
Con.
I do not think that meat-eating is natural in that it has played an important part in human evolution. Some studies state that eating meat is an essential element for us, one of the species. Certainly, scientific research says that early humanity developed their brains with high density and complex nerves by consuming meat. However, a fact that meat was essential for human development on evolutionary history does not mean that the fact obligates us to eat meat for moral and physical reasons. The reason why carnivorous was an advantage for developing was that our ancestors were able to save energy and time by eating meat than eating root vegetables like sweet potatoes, potatoes, and carrots. In the ancient days when humans and animals fought for survival, time and energy were precious sources and reducing their consumption improved human viability. However, there are no those advantages which humans were able to obtain by eating meat in recent days when it is a completely different environment than past days. Our survival as a species no longer depends on carnivorous.
In addition, it is weird to justify carnivorous compared to the human evolutionary process and other animals. Carnivorous is natural in that it has played an important part in human evolution, or some people say that it is natural in that natural animals do so. However, this justification is a classic example of a “naturalistic fallacy” or “appeal to nature” as described in textbooks. “The naturalistic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy which argues that if something is ‘natural’ it must be good. It is closely related to the is/ought fallacy – when someone tries to infer what ‘ought’ to be done from what ‘is’” (THE ETHICS CENTRE).
“An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that “a thing is good because it is ‘natural’, or bad because it is ‘unnatural'”. It is generally considered to be a bad argument because the implicit (unstated) primary premise “What is natural is good” is typically irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, or is an opinion instead of a fact. In some philosophical frameworks where natural and good are clearly defined within a specific context, the appeal to nature might be valid and cogent.” (Wikipedia).
The fact that a thing happens frequently in nature does not mean that it is moral in human society. Stating an idea based on very different things than our common sense, such as past events and events which frequently happen in nature, would lead to drawing wrong conclusions. Although rape and infant killing are frequent in the animal world, no people would argue that humans should mimic such natural behavior.
In summary, I do not think that “While eating meat is not required, it is natural in that it has played an important part in human evolution”. Carnivorous that once was essential for us to survive in harsh environments in terms of saving time and energy to eat and digest is now not so important element to live a life in a recent world where there is no life crisis due to wasted time. It also does not make sense to develop a discussion by comparing the human race with other animals or comparing the past with the present. Our survival as a species does not need to depend on carnivorous.
Works Cited
“Appeal to Nature.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Oct. 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature (Links to an external site.).
Centre The Ethics Centre, and Ethics Centre. “What Is a Naturalistic Fallacy? The Ethics Centre Article.” THE ETHICS CENTRE, 12 Dec. 2018, https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-naturalistic-fallacy/.
Gander, Kashmira. “This Is Why We Pet Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 6 Sept. 2017, https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/carnism-why-love-dogs-eat-pigs-wear-cows-leather-pork-dr-melanie-joy-vegan-psychology-a7932621.html.
Reply from PRO:
Hi, Fuyuki, Thank you for the post. You wrote “Certainly, scientific research says that early humanity developed their brains with high density and complex nerves by consuming meat,” and I thought that this statement shows that you agree with the idea that our ancestors evolved because of eating meat. You also explained why eating meat played an important role. I got that your statement is nowadays people do not have to rely on meat anymore. However, still vegetarian are a minority and most of us consume some kind of animal. According to Pollan, he said he was vegetarian but he said how inconvenient to live in a society without eating meat (314). You also stated that it “does not make sense to develop a discussion by comparing the human race with other animals or comparing the past with the present.” I think eating meat is ethical because this is how the food chain works. What I studied in my anthropology class, according to Darwin, he stated that “not everything survives,” in the natural selection. Eating both meat and vegetable is how we survived this harsh environment. You also said, “Although rape and infant killing are frequent in the animal world, no people would argue that humans should mimic such natural behavior.” I think this is off the topic because we kill the animal but we eat it. In addition, we did not try to mimic animals. It was our basic instinct and part of how humans evolved.
You stated that eating meat is no longer needed but I think it is needed. I want to ask you where to get nutrients from. For instance, Vitamin B12 can be only taken by eating meat. I want to know how you are going to cover all the nutrients.
0 comments