Consider this Case Study information:
As he decided what to do, Andy studied and considered an ecological argument for vegetarianism. Although the sources he consulted all cited different figures, they did agree that producing vegetables to support vegetarian diets requires significantly less energy and resource consumption than producing livestock to support carnivorous diets. Many of the sources also argued that livestock production is a significant cause of top soil erosion, deforestation, water depletion, fossil fuel consumption, and pollution in the form of livestock manure. Others argued that ecologically and economically inefficient meat-based diets contribute to global famine.
Note: Although these assertions are not universally accepted, Andy's research has convinced him that they are credible and he accepts them as true.
How, and to what extent, should ecological concerns about energy and resource consumption influence Andy Stewart's choice?
If it could be shown that vegetarian diets are ecologically preferable to meat-based diets or demonstrated that meat-based diets contributed to American Dependency on foreign oil products or contributed to global famine, would that mean that a vegetarian diet is necessarily morally preferable?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 4:55 am ad1c9bdddf
Throughout history, man and other species have evolved. Each animal and plant had to adapt to the ecosystem that it frequented. Fires, earthquakes, tornadoes and other natural occurrences have had devastating effects on various regions of the planet. Each round of destruction provoked the species and environment to adapt. In the same way, using and over-using natural resources in a pattern rather than an isolated frequency will be the catalyst for serious big-picture problems for all species ...