The food products we see in super markets contains label for vegetarian content(green color) and non-veg content(deep brown color). But foods cannot be classified into only two categories. In fact it is not feasible to classify into any finite number of categories. Labeling should not be a discrete quantity wrt veg/non-veg but should be an analogous quantity.
The reason are as follows. There are different types of vegetarian. There are still inconclusive debate regarding egg and milk product's classification. Some foods derived from plants e.g roots and vegetables which makes our body heated are considered non-veg. There is nothing called 'pure vegetarian'. A vegan may eat so called 'pure vegetarian' diet, but wears a leather shoe, belt or bag is not a vegan at all. A food product labelled as veg may be produced in a way where some animal is killed or exploited. The food may not be contaminated with animal product but the process of producing that food may affect animals in a negative way. When humans build farms(or settlements for living) by clearing forests we are depriving many animals their food and home.
Having said these by no way it is encouraged that we start eating animals since it is practically impossible to lead life as a vegan. Here the concept of 'coefficient of vegetarianism' is useful. This coefficient will have a value say from 0 to 5. Zero for pure veg and five for absolute meat. The coefficient value cannot be strictly 0 or 5. Any value between 0 and 5 but not 0 or 5. A very complex mathematical and statistical model endorsed by a recognized organisation has to be developed to arrive at the value of the coefficient. We no longer have food-chain or food-cycle but food-web.
Typically in a veg vs non-veg debate the non-vegan argue that since plants have life they too sense pain when cut, one should make no distinction between animals and plant. Probably that non-vegan will later argue we should eat humans as well. Here comes 'coefficient of vegetarianism' to rescue. Non-vegan's coefficient value will be near 4 and the vegans score would be around 1. Raising an animal requires fodder. So when an animal is killed we are killing the plants from which the fodder has come as well as the animal. Moreover animals are more close to humans in terms of biological and physical anatomy. Cutting a branch of a tree will not kill the tree altogether nor will it hamper its day to day functioning(the branch can regrow), but cutting a limb of an animal is as good as killing it. In fact trimming a tree's branches is advisable for better growth. Give a child a chicken and apple. The child will play with the chicken and eat the apple. If a stray animal comes on our way suddenly while driving we try to save the animal even at the cost of our life. This shows humans in nature are very compassionate. Just because meat is coming to our dinner table wrapped in a glossy packet we are not realizing the bigger picture. There are other environmental and health issues which arises because of non-veg diet. Lastly, color of blood is same for animals and humans.
So given an alternative one should try to keep the coefficient value as low as possible. A person living in polar, desert or coastal region might not have plant based food. In their case eating meat is understandable.
What is the future? How do we meet our ever increasing food demand? We can try to embed chlorophyll into our body. So by drinking mineral water and moderate sun's ray we can produce our own food to some extent. Use animal's service for example a snake's poison as medicine, a horse as a means of transport. No exploitation or killing.
Kindly google search for 'veg vs non-veg'. There are many more reasons in favour of veg diet.
Lets maintain nature's balance. Going meatless(as much as possible) does not make oneself weak.
The reason are as follows. There are different types of vegetarian. There are still inconclusive debate regarding egg and milk product's classification. Some foods derived from plants e.g roots and vegetables which makes our body heated are considered non-veg. There is nothing called 'pure vegetarian'. A vegan may eat so called 'pure vegetarian' diet, but wears a leather shoe, belt or bag is not a vegan at all. A food product labelled as veg may be produced in a way where some animal is killed or exploited. The food may not be contaminated with animal product but the process of producing that food may affect animals in a negative way. When humans build farms(or settlements for living) by clearing forests we are depriving many animals their food and home.
Having said these by no way it is encouraged that we start eating animals since it is practically impossible to lead life as a vegan. Here the concept of 'coefficient of vegetarianism' is useful. This coefficient will have a value say from 0 to 5. Zero for pure veg and five for absolute meat. The coefficient value cannot be strictly 0 or 5. Any value between 0 and 5 but not 0 or 5. A very complex mathematical and statistical model endorsed by a recognized organisation has to be developed to arrive at the value of the coefficient. We no longer have food-chain or food-cycle but food-web.
Typically in a veg vs non-veg debate the non-vegan argue that since plants have life they too sense pain when cut, one should make no distinction between animals and plant. Probably that non-vegan will later argue we should eat humans as well. Here comes 'coefficient of vegetarianism' to rescue. Non-vegan's coefficient value will be near 4 and the vegans score would be around 1. Raising an animal requires fodder. So when an animal is killed we are killing the plants from which the fodder has come as well as the animal. Moreover animals are more close to humans in terms of biological and physical anatomy. Cutting a branch of a tree will not kill the tree altogether nor will it hamper its day to day functioning(the branch can regrow), but cutting a limb of an animal is as good as killing it. In fact trimming a tree's branches is advisable for better growth. Give a child a chicken and apple. The child will play with the chicken and eat the apple. If a stray animal comes on our way suddenly while driving we try to save the animal even at the cost of our life. This shows humans in nature are very compassionate. Just because meat is coming to our dinner table wrapped in a glossy packet we are not realizing the bigger picture. There are other environmental and health issues which arises because of non-veg diet. Lastly, color of blood is same for animals and humans.
So given an alternative one should try to keep the coefficient value as low as possible. A person living in polar, desert or coastal region might not have plant based food. In their case eating meat is understandable.
What is the future? How do we meet our ever increasing food demand? We can try to embed chlorophyll into our body. So by drinking mineral water and moderate sun's ray we can produce our own food to some extent. Use animal's service for example a snake's poison as medicine, a horse as a means of transport. No exploitation or killing.
Kindly google search for 'veg vs non-veg'. There are many more reasons in favour of veg diet.
Lets maintain nature's balance. Going meatless(as much as possible) does not make oneself weak.
