Chapter X: Section 17: Par. 3.—“Carcasses or parts of carcasses found infected (1)

with hydatid cyst (echinococcus) _may be passed_ after condemnation of the infected part or organ.”

Similar quotations could be supplied _ad libitum_; but the above will doubtless suffice for our purposes. From them we see that—all statements to the contrary notwithstanding—a very great deal of diseased meat _does_ get into the market—so much, in fact, that it becomes highly probable that a large percentage of it is diseased; and that we probably run more chance of buying diseased meat than we do of obtaining meat clean and free from infection.

These facts and figures relate only to the meat slaughtered under Federal Inspection, it must be remembered; and represent the best possible condition in which our meat is obtained. This meat is passed by expert Government Inspectors; the packing houses are considered the best and the cleanest in the country, etc. What, then, of the meat killed by local butchers, on farms, and _without_ Federal Inspection altogether? The reader may think that there are but few cattle and hogs killed in this way; and that their flesh is not disposed of upon the public market to any extent. If he is of this opinion, he is sadly mistaken, as the following figures will show. I take them from Dr A. M. Farrington’s Report to the Bureau of Animal Industry, which is published as Circular No. 154, under the supervision of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. As we have seen that the tendency of the Bureau is to under rather than over-estimate the facts in the case, the following statements will appear all the more impressive. The figures given below relate to the year 1907, but much the same conditions prevail to-day, and but little has been done to check the conditions depicted. The following is the result of a careful statistical inquiry, in tabulated form:—

────────────────────────────────┬───────────┬────────────┬──────────
ITEM │ CATTLE │ SHEEP │ SWINE
─—─—─—─—————————————————─—─—─—─—┼─——————─—─-┼————————─—─—┼─—————─—─—
Slaughtered under Federal │ │ │
Inspection │ 7,633,365 │ 10,252,070 │ 32,885,377
│ │ │
Estimated Farm Slaughter │ 1,500,000 │ 1,000,000 │ 16,500,000
│ │ │
Slaughtered by Butchers without │ │ │
Federal Inspection │ 4,972,052 │ 7,793,133 │ 10,316,300
─—─—─—─—————————————————─—─—─—─—┴─——————─—─-┴─———————─—─—┴─—————─—─—

It will be seen from the foregoing that practically 5,000,000 cattle, nearly 8,000,000 sheep, and over 10,000,000 hogs were slaughtered by butchers in 1907 without Federal Inspection, to which may be added about 3,000,000 calves. All these 26,000,000 animals were consumed by the people of the United States, and the responsibility of inspecting them rested wholly upon the State and local authorities, since they are beyond the reach of the Federal Inspectors.

And now, how about the sanitary conditions of the slaughter-houses in which these animals were killed, and how about the state of the animals themselves? Were they free from disease? were they sick? Were the surroundings filthy and poisonous in the extreme? If I should give an account of the real state of affairs in my own words, I should be accused of exaggeration—to use the very mildest term. I prefer, therefore, to quote entirely from the Report of the Bureau of Animal Industry, before referred to. This Report states in part:

“The slaughter-houses, where animals are killed for local consumption, are usually isolated or scattered about the city or town.... Such houses, in addition to being unsightly, malodorous, unclean, and insanitary in the extreme, are actually centres for spreading disease.... A recent investigation made by the State Board of Health in Indiana of those slaughter-houses which do not have Federal Inspection ... states that:

“‘Of the 327 slaughter-houses inspected, only 23, or 7 per cent., were found to fulfil the sanitary standards.... At nearly all slaughter-houses inspected, foul, nauseating odours filled the air for yards round. Swarms of flies filled the air and the buildings and covered the carcasses which were hung up to cool. Beneath the houses was to be found a thin mud, or a mixture of blood and earth, churned by hogs, which are kept to feed upon offal.... Maggots frequently existed in numbers so great as to cause a visible movement of the mud. Water for washing the meat was frequently drawn from dug wells, which receive seepage from the slaughter-house yards, or the water was taken from the adjoining streams, to which the hogs had access. Dilapidated buildings were the usual thing, and always the most repulsive odours and surroundings existed.’ ...

“One of the butchers was asked what they did with ‘sick’ cattle. He laughed and answered ‘What do they all do with them?’

“In another large eastern city there are only four slaughter-houses in the city proper which do not have Federal Inspection. The total kill at these places is about 1,000 cattle and 2,500 hogs per month. The only inspection is furnished by one inspector of the board of health, and this inspector is not a veterinarian. Previous to his employment by the board of health, he was a hotel porter.”

It need only be added that such strict economy is practised in all these slaughter-houses that the odds and ends—the “trimmings”—are now valued by the butchers at about 14 per cent. of the whole. The trimmings consist of every part of the animal except the actual refuse it contains, everything else being utilised in one way or another. As one Chicago packer proudly expressed it, when speaking of hogs, “we use everything but the squeal!”

This, be it observed, is the meat placed upon the market and eaten by the American public, to the extent of millions of carcasses yearly! Is it any wonder that the people have cancer, and tapeworm, and tuberculosis, and other illnesses, and break down prematurely and become miserable and die? It would be a wonder indeed if they did anything else!

It is well known that large quantities of diseased meat are constantly being introduced and placed upon the market—far more than the public is aware of. But, for the present argument, it is not necessary that we should force this conclusion, since we can establish the point, even assuming that all the meat eaten is from the carcasses of healthy animals—the actual content of the tissue containing toxic material, no matter how free the animal may be from what is generally known as “disease.” This being true, all the arguments advanced above will remain perfectly valid—no matter how “healthy” the animal may be.

VI

THE ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE

(_Nations and Individuals_)

“There is a difference,” observes Chalmers, “between such truths as are merely of a speculative nature, and such as are allied with practice and moral feeling. With the former, all repetition may be often superfluous; with the latter, it may just be by earnest repetition that their influence comes to be thoroughly established over the mind of the inquirer.”

These words are particularly true when applied to the subject matter before us. No matter how perfect, theoretically, an argument may be, it will never appeal to the public mind as do a few concrete facts. The arguments I have presented, drawn from comparative anatomy, from physiology, chemistry, and from hygiene, would weigh but little in many minds against the testimony of human experience. They would contend that, no matter how good the theoretical argument might be, the facts, nevertheless, would seem to prove the contrary; and show that the majority of all the more civilised people of the earth, particularly the ruling and governing nations, _do_, as a matter of fact, eat meat; and hence, practically, meat is a suitable article of diet. I propose to consider these arguments in the following chapter, and see how far they rest upon facts, and how far upon misconception.

Pythagoras, one of the most celebrated philosophers of antiquity, was one of the first to defend the “vegetable diet.” He not only totally refrained from animal food himself, but also strictly prohibited the use of it by his disciples, so that those who abstain from it at the present time are sometimes known as Pythagorians. Pythagoras flourished about five hundred years before the Christian era. He was a man of immense learning, and extraordinary powers of intellect. He was the first demonstrator of the forty-seventh problem of the first book of Euclid, and entertained correct views of the solar system. Ovid speaks of him with great admiration.

Zeno, the Stoic, Diogenes, the Cynic, Plato, Plutarch, Plautus, Proclus, Empedocles, Socrates, Quintus Sextus, Apollonius of Tyana, Porphyry, and numerous others, among the ancients, abstained from animal food and, more recently, Haller, Ritson (celebrated for his numerous works and varied talents), Dr Cheyne, Dr Lambe, Mr Newton (who wrote a splendid book, “The Return to Nature”), Shelley, Dr Hufeland, Sir Richard Phillips, and many others have both advocated and personally tried for many years a strictly and exclusively vegetable diet.

Hesiod, the Greek poet, Herodotus, Hippocrates, Pliny, Galen, and many other writers of antiquity could be quoted as defending a simple, non-flesh diet. Of late years numerous scientific men and physicians have come forward in support of this claim; and their testimony will be found in various parts of this work.

If the past has produced individual giants, mental and physical, who subsisted upon a vegetarian dietary, the present may also claim its champions; and there are doubtless more at the present day than ever before. Many athletes are now adopting a vegetarian diet, largely on account of the Fletcher-Chittenden experiments before referred to; largely because of individual study and investigation. The fact that strength and endurance are greatly increased by a strict vegetarian or fruitarian dietary cannot be gainsaid. I have adduced some of this evidence in the chapter on hygiene, and shall adduce further evidence in the present and following chapters. The frequently quoted case of the seventy-mile walking match, that took place in Germany some years ago, should at least be referred to. Fourteen meat-eaters, and eight vegetarians started on a seventy-mile walking match. All the vegetarians reached the goal, it is said in “splendid condition”—the first covering the distance in fourteen and a quarter hours. An hour after the last vegetarian came in, the first meat-eater appeared, and he was “completely exhausted.” He was also the last meat-eater to finish the race, as all the rest had dropped off after thirty-five miles. A further and almost exactly similar illustration is furnished by the Dresden to Berlin walk of 1902. For this, eighteen vegetarians and fourteen meat-eaters started, and ten of the vegetarians, but only three of the meat-eaters came in. The winner (Karl Mann) was upwards of seven hours in front of the first meat-eater. It is to be noted that Mann was a strict fruitarian, and practically never touched the ordinary vegetarian foods. The last meat-eater only just got in within the time limit, and was beaten by more than four hours by a man of fifty-nine, who had been a vegetarian for thirty-eight years. In this race the championship of Germany was decided, and the winner made two world’s records. The proceedings were watched, and the organs and circulation of competitors were measured and recorded by a committee of physiologists, for the benefit of the German government and army.

Dr Alexander Haig, in his “Diet and Food,” p. 100, says:

“A week or two after the race I had the pleasure of examining the winner, who had, to a large extent, arranged his diet by the aid of a previous edition of this book.... His circulation was far better than that of any meat-eater, which, to a large extent, explains his victory; and the records show that his heart was smaller at the end of the race than at the beginning. I have but little doubt that the meat-eaters who gave up had dilated hearts, owing to their obstructed circulation.... In my opinion, a few more hard facts like these (and plenty more of such records will be forthcoming) will quite dispel the meat-eating delusion that strength and endurance can be attained on no food but flesh. The truth is that 50 per cent. _more_ endurance and strength can be obtained with many other foods; and the chief reason for this can now be seen and gauged in a moment by the rate of the capillary circulation of the individuals concerned; and this capillary circulation is proportioned to the uric acid in the blood, and is therefore slowed and obstructed by meat, which introduces uric acid.”

Professor Baelz, of Tokio, Japan, made some experiments on vegetarian natives, and, after measuring and recording some of their feats of endurance, he gave some of them meat, which they took eagerly, and regarded as a great luxury, because it was used by the “upper classes”; but after three days they came and begged to be let off the meat, as they felt tired on it, and could not work as well as before. The Professor then made some similar experiments on himself, and he found that he also was sooner tired, and more disinclined for exertion when he took meat.

Mr Eustace H. Miles, formerly amateur champion of the world and holder of the gold prize at tennis, amateur champion of the world at racquets, and of American squash, tennis, etc., is a strong advocate of vegetarianism, and has written a number of works on this subject, defending the non-flesh diet—which books are too well known to need more than a mere reference. Mr Miles, though he must be approaching middle age, is a remarkably young-looking man, with a brilliant complexion, and thinks that he will be as good ten or fifteen years from now as he is to-day. In a conversation with me, Mr Miles stated that he considered diet the all-important factor, so far as health is concerned; and exercise, and other forms of health-getting “a luxury.” I agree with him absolutely, and defended this very position in my “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 618-621. I too think that if the food be regulated in quality, and sufficiently reduced in quantity, all other factors might be more or less neglected, and perfect health maintained.

But it would be useless to refer to a large number of individual cases of this character. However many I might cite, the defenders of meat-eating would be enabled to cite an equal number of cases in favour of their argument; and for this reason I do not think that individual cases are of value in establishing any conclusion beyond this one—viz. such cases show us conclusively that men _can live_, and _can maintain a high standard of physical health and mental brilliancy upon a diet derived exclusively from the vegetable world_. That is an important point, but would not be conclusive. In order to arrive at a definite conclusion, far larger numbers of vegetarians and meat-eaters must be investigated; and the question, therefore, becomes one of statistics and of the diets of nations, rather than of individuals. I shall accordingly turn to this aspect of the problem—after mentioning one additional point that must not be lost sight of, in this connection.

It must be remembered, throughout, that, for every vegetarian in England or America, there are doubtless 100 or more meat-eaters, so that the percentage of success in the athletic field and elsewhere _should be_ at least 100 to 1—and probably a great deal more, if the balance is to be maintained between the vegetarian and flesh-eating athletes, and others before the public eye. But, as a matter of fact, we find that the percentage is very much lower than this; and that, within the last few years, at any rate, quite as many vegetarian athletes secured successes and achieved records as did the meat-eating athletes; and in some instances, where the two ran in competition, it was found that a _larger_ percentage of vegetarian athletes achieved success than did the meat-eaters. Inasmuch as the number is so disproportioned, in the two cases, it would certainly appear that the vegetarian athletes did, on the whole, achieve a far greater percentage of successes than did the meat-eating athletes.

* * * * *

The diets of the various nations have so frequently been summarised and presented by writers upon this subject that it will not be necessary for me to do more than to mention briefly a few of the most essential points; and to refer the reader to those works in which these facts and arguments are to be found in full. Dr Graham, in his “Science of Human Life”; Dr John Smith, in his “Fruit and Farinacea”; Dr Anna Kingsford, in her “Perfect Way in Diet,” and, more recently and fully, the Hon. Rollo Russell, in his extensive volume, “Strength and Diet: A practical treatise with special regard to the life of nations”—all these writers have discussed this question of national health, as compared with national diet, and found, almost invariably, that in every nation whose diet consisted almost exclusively or even largely of meat, the natives were small in stature, depraved mentally and morally, and afflicted with diverse diseases; whereas those nations which were largely vegetarian did not suffer in the same way from the sicknesses and pestilences that affected their fellow-men; but were, on the contrary, more forceful, superior morally and mentally, and in every way higher in the scale of evolution than those nations which subsisted largely upon meat.

A striking example of this is to be found in the pigmy races of Central Africa. In his work, “The Pigmies,” Professor A. de Quatrefages has shown us that this miniature people, stunted as they are, mentally, physically and morally, subsist almost entirely upon meat. He says:

“The Mincopies are exclusively hunters and fishermen, living upon the shore of a sea filled with fishes, close to great forests where boars run at large, and which furnish them, besides, honey and nuts, they have not felt the necessity of wringing by labour from the soil, a supplement to their food supply; and this very luxuriance of food, perhaps, has been of influence in keeping them at the lowest point in the social scale. Francis Day informs us that a very small tribe of Mincopies camped near the English establishments, and receiving daily rations, took besides, in a single year, five hundred boars, one hundred and fifty turtles, twenty wild cats, fifty guianas and six bugongs.... All the descriptions agree in attributing to the Akkas, men and women, an extreme abdominal development, which causes the adults to resemble the children of Arabs and negroes.... But it is evident the abnormal development of the abdomen, among the Akkas, is not a true race characteristic, but that it is largely due to their manner of life, the quantity of their food, perhaps also to the general conditions of their habitat. This fact results from some observations of Count Minis Calchi, who has seen, after some weeks of regular and wholesome diet, the extreme development of the abdomen disappear, and the vertebral column resume its normal state.”

These people are described as cruel, cowardly and wanting in all the qualities that would raise them in the scale of evolution: yet their diet consists almost entirely of meat—the supposed “strengthening” and courage-breeding food of civilised nations! Emaciation is very common among them, under certain conditions. It cannot be objected to what I have said that this condition is brought about by their cannibalism, for we read (“The Pigmies,” p. 155) that: “Far from seeking human flesh, the Andamanese regard it as a deadly poison.”

The Esquimaux are another race which is very inferior; and in them nothing is developed, scarcely, save the mere animal nature; hence their stomachs have all the nervous power, almost, of their whole constitutions. They have virtually no mental life beyond that necessary for carrying on the affairs of daily life. One never hears of any mental achievement coming from an Esquimau; more than this, their animal nature is itself actually inferior in muscular power to that of those tribes and races of men whose general régime is comparatively free from fats and animal oils.

Throughout history the general run of the people—the natives—subsisted almost entirely upon a vegetarian diet; and any large quantity of meat was not consumed, for the reason that it could not be procured. The upper classes subsisted more or less upon meat—which might have accounted for their eventual degeneracy!—as the whole nation degenerated when meat-eating became general, as in Greece and Rome. But in the early stages of the history of these nations, and of others, meat was a luxury, to be eaten on holidays and fête days, rather than a steady article of diet; it could by no means be procured every day or every meal, as is now the case. The principal food of the natives of Egypt, India, Mexico, Chili, Brazil, Cyprus, Arabia, Bolivia, the Canary Islands, Italy, Ceylon, Japan, Sierra Leone, Greece, Malta, Turkey, China, Palestine, Algiers, the African Coast, Poland, Russia, Norway, Spain, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, Sweden, Switzerland, Scotland, Ireland, and, until recently, England—is some form of vegetarian food—bread, rice, fruits, cheese, and various grains. The details of these dietaries are to be found in Russell’s “Strength and Diet,” where a very full summary of all these dietaries are to be found. I refer my reader to that work for further information upon these lines. But one or two examples are needed to illustrate this. Thus we read:

“It is indeed surprising to see how simple and poor is the diet of the Egyptian peasantry, and how robust and healthy most of them are, and how severe is the labour they undergo. The boatmen of the Nile are mostly strong muscular men, rowing, poling and towing continually; but very cheerful and often the most so when most occupied, for they amuse themselves by singing.”

The staple food of India is, of course, rice, to which is added a poor grain called râgi, pulse, roots, fruits, and one or two other articles of diet. The men from the hilly district are described as tall—being from five feet ten inches, to six feet high. They used to carry the mail from Calcutta to Bombay by foot—but twenty-five days being allowed for this journey, an average of sixty-two miles a day.

Few people surpass the Arabs for longevity, agility, and power of endurance; yet they subsist largely upon dates, milk, and honey. The peasants of Italy are a splendid, hardy set, living almost entirely upon cakes and porridge of chestnut, bread, garlic, and a little wine. The Greek boatmen are exceedingly abstemious, their food consisting of a small quantity of black bread, made of unbolted rye or wheat meal, a bunch of grapes or raisins, figs, etc. They are extremely vigorous and active, as well as blithesome, jovial and full of hilarity. Sir William Fairbairn, in his “Report on Sanitary Conditions,” says:

“The boatmen and water carriers of Constantinople are decidedly, in my opinion, the finest men in Europe, as regards their physical development, and they are all water drinkers; they take a little sherbet at times. Their diet is chiefly bread, now and then a cucumber, with cherries, figs, dates, mulberries, or other fruits which are abundant there; now and then a little fish.”

In Dr Mackenzie Wallace’s “Russia,” we read:

“Eggs, black bread, milk and tea—these form my ordinary articles of diet during all my wanderings in northern Russia. Occasionally a potato could be had, and afforded the possibility of varying the bill of fare.... The people of Russia generally subsist on coarse black rye bread, and garlics. I have often hired men to labour for me in Russia, which they would do from sixteen to eighteen hours, for eight cents a day. They would come on board in the morning with a piece of their black bread weighing about a pound, and a bunch of garlics as big as one’s fist. This was all their nourishment for the day of sixteen or eighteen hours labour.”

The fare of the Swiss workmen is very frugal.

“They rarely taste flesh, their food being principally, bread, cheese, potatoes, vegetables and fruit, though in the towns the consumption of meat is somewhat greater. The middle classes fare pretty much as the working classes, all consuming large quantities of milk.”

Mr H. Irving Hancock, in his “Japanese Physical Training,” says of their diet:

“When making their phenomenal marches, Japanese troops often carry no food except a small bag of rice. When practicable, barley and beans are issued in small quantities, though this is only done for the sake of adding variety to the diet.... A bowl of this grain (rice) and a handful of fish is considered an ample meal for the coolie who is called upon to perform ten or twelve hours of hard manual work in a day.”

It would be possible to add quotations and references such as the above _ad lib._; but it is hardly essential for our argument, since this has been done so frequently by able writers on the vegetarian diet, that it hardly needs recapitulation in this place. Anyone may test the value of the diet for himself, and thus verify from that most satisfactory of all sources—personal experience—what has been outlined here, as a theoretical possibility. Before closing, however, I desire to call attention to one or two aspects of this question which have been more or less overlooked, or wrong inferences drawn from the facts—apparently vitiating the argument, and showing that meat-eating has a substantial basis, and that there are valid objections to the vegetarian dietary that have hitherto been lost sight of. Let us consider these briefly.

One great argument will always be raised against this theory of vegetarianism, or non-flesh-eating—at first sight a very rational objection. It will be said that all the nations who are flesh-eating are the most progressive and dominating races or nations; and that those who are largely vegetarian on principle are invariably overruled by the nations who eat meat. The old case of the Hindu and the Englishman may be cited here: it being contended that the meat-eating Englishman dominates and holds in check the vast hordes of India, and this largely or exclusively on account of his meat diet! Many other examples of this character might be referred to, and in fact a strong case apparently made out from these arguments alone. I do not think that the argument is in any way valid, however; for the following reasons, among others:—

In the first place, the Hindu is the man he is—peaceful, docile, kind—more on account of his philosophy than on account of his diet. He is opposed to killing and bloodshed in any form whatever, and will not kill any animal (except, very occasionally, a snake) because of his belief in reincarnation and the transmigration of souls. It can readily be seen, therefore, that, holding such beliefs as these, and being naturally of a philosophic and introspective turn of mind, and being, moreover, a rural, rather than a warlike people, killing their fellow-men would not appeal to them as it does to us. With them, the aim and object of life is, not to acquire material possessions, but true spiritual progress. They look upon material possessions as so much ephemeral matter, which shall count for very little, when compared with the ultimate destiny of the human soul. European nations, on the other hand, who consider the material nature only, cannot understand that attitude of mind; they are so saturated with materialism and the materialistic thoughts of the age that they cannot even conceive the viewpoint of one such as the Hindu, who considers and values only the immaterial. Both consider the other as dreamers, and as victims of illusion—people carried away by vain baubles—in the quest of mere delusions! Holding such views, therefore, it can hardly be wondered at that Hindus should view with more or less indifference the conquests and despotism of foreign nations: to them these are mere incidents in the passing of one life. This argument can, therefore, hardly be pressed against the Hindus and similar nations; it is invalid, for these reasons alone.

Again, it must be admitted that the highest evidence of civilisation—the most advanced evidences of evolution—are hardly those of war and bloodshed, but rather peace and tolerance! As a friend of mine expressed it: “If you mean that those nations are the most advanced and progressive which shoulder a gun and go out and kill their fellow-man, then I must admit that European nations are the most advanced; but if you mean anything else, this cannot be said.”

As Dr Trall, when discussing this question, remarked:

“If it be alleged, as an argument against the position I am endeavouring to occupy, that the milder and more civilised and peaceful nations are degraded and enslaved by their more ferocious and warlike neighbours, I can merely reply that human beings may, and in fact do, like predacious animals, riot upon and tyrannise over the more amiable and more lovely, as the wolf preys upon the lamb, and the vulture upon the dove. And I can see no end or remedy for this seeming cruelty—save in that law of benevolence and progress which permits suffering for a season, and as a means of development, and overrules all for good, by that law which, in due process of time, will not only exterminate from the face of the earth the beasts of prey, but also all the appetences of human beings for preying upon other animals.”

Lastly, I must contend that it is by no means invariably the case that vegetarian nations are subservient to the meat-eating; but they are, on the contrary, almost invariably superior to them physically, as well as mentally and spiritually. The Japanese have only lately given us an excellent example of this fact; and it is illustrated in the histories of all nations. It might almost be said that meat-eating nations have never stood at the head of the military world until recently. The Greeks and Romans were not meat-eating, but were strictly vegetarian, for the most part; when meat-eating and wine-drinking and debauchery generally were introduced, the Government speedily disintegrated and went to pieces. The same is true of every nation of which we have any authentic account. The great mass of the people were always vegetarian, and must have been. Even a hundred or so years ago meat was considered a luxury, and was served only on special occasions; bread and vegetables were eaten the rest of the year. Even in our own day, the majority of the peasantry in all countries are almost entirely vegetarian, and only in the large cities can the very poor buy meat. A brief glance at the “diets” of various nations will confirm this statement.

There is slightly more excuse for natives of frigid or temperate zones eating meat than there is for any inhabitant of the tropics; but, as a matter of fact, when an inhabitant of the temperate zone _does_ visit the tropics, he still clings to his meat diet—his rich, greasy dishes, his wines, and his roast beef! Even upon his own showing these should be largely sacrificed, when visiting the hot countries; and yet, as a matter of fact, they are not given up—showing the illogical stand taken by those who defend the flesh diet, and conclusively proving that it is merely a matter of habit and prejudice rather than bodily requirements. Mr Salt, in his “Logic of Vegetarianism,” has indeed tersely and wittily summed up this argument as follows:—

“_British Islander._—Vegetarianism? No thank you; not here! All very nice in Africa and India, I dare say, where you can sit all day under a palm tree and eat dates.

“_Vegetarian._—But I have not observed that when you visit Africa or India you practise vegetarianism. On the contrary, you take your flesh-pots with you everywhere—even to the very places where you admit you don’t need them, and where, as in India, they give the greatest offence to the inhabitants.

“_British Islander._—Oh, well, it’s no affair of theirs, is it, if I take my roast beef?

“_Vegetarian._—Yet you think it your affair to interfere with the cannibals when they take their roast man. And have you observed that it is in the tropical zone, not the temperate zone, that cannibalism is most rife?

“_British Islander._—Why do you remind me of that?

“_Vegetarian._—To show you that all this talk about vegetarianism being ‘a matter of climate’ is pure humbug. The use of flesh is a vicious habit everywhere, and nowhere a necessity, except where other food is not procurable.

“_British Islander._—But do we not need more oil and fat in northern climates?

“_Vegetarian._—Undoubtedly; but these can be obtained without recourse to flesh.

“_British Islander._—Then how do you account for the fact that northern races have been, to so great an extent, carnivorous?

“_Vegetarian._—Perhaps because in primitive times hunting and pasturage were less toilsome than agriculture. But I am not called on to ‘account’ for such a fact. Their past addictedness to flesh food no more proves the present utility of flesh-eating, than their gross drinking habits prove the utility of alcohol.

“_British Islander._—Can you quote any scientific authority for your contention?

“_Vegetarian._—There is one which is all the more valuable because it is an admission made by an opponent. Sir William Lawrence wrote: ‘That men can be perfectly nourished, and that their physical and intellectual capabilities can be fully developed in any climate by a diet purely vegetable, has been proved by such abundant experience that it will not be necessary to adduce any formal argument on the subject.’ ‘In any climate,’ mark! And a diet ‘purely vegetable’; whereas all _you_ are asked to do is to forego the actual flesh foods, and not the animal products. But come now, let me ask the great question!

“_British Islander._—What is that? There is only one other I have in mind. What would become of the Esquimaux?

“_Vegetarian._—Of course! I have always been profoundly touched by the disinterested concern of the Englishman (when vegetarianism looms ahead) for the future of that arctic people. Well, perhaps the question of what ice-bound savages might do or might not do, need scarcely delay the decision of civilised mankind. For that matter, what would become of the polar bears? If you cannot dissociate your habits from those of the Esquimaux, why don’t you eat blubber? At least they have a better reason for eating blubber than some people have for eating beef—they can get nothing else.”[29]

[29] “Logic of Vegetarianism,” pp. 67-68.

This whole question of diet, so far as it is decided by experience at all, can in reality be summed up in a very few words. In the first place, all that it is necessary for anyone to do is to experiment upon himself. Let him study the subject sufficiently, first of all—so that he may be sure he is balancing his diet properly, when the meat is discarded; and then give up meat, and continue the new dietary for a year or so—or even a few weeks, for that matter. The result will soon be apparent. In the next place, it is ridiculous to raise the question at all, as a matter of fact—as to its “possibility”—when we consider that seven-tenths of the inhabitants of the whole globe are vegetarians! They are not the scattered few, here and there, as the majority suppose; but the great bulk of the people in every country. The peasantry in every land have always subsisted almost exclusively upon fruits, grains and vegetables; and it is only recently, when the price of meat has been so greatly reduced, and the average wages of the people increased, that they have been enabled to buy meat at all, with any regularity. Meat-eaters have always been in the minority—and have, as a rule, shown signs of degeneracy before many centuries or even generations have passed. To anyone knowing these facts, it is little less than absurd to speak of the “impossibility” of subsisting without flesh-foods! It displays the greatest short-sightedness.

Dr Trall, in writing upon this question some years ago, said:

“They say that vegetable food is not sufficiently nutritious. But chemistry proves the contrary. So does physiology. So does experience. Indeed, it can be demonstrated that many kinds of fruit are nearly as nutritious as flesh. Many kinds of vegetables are quite as much so, and the grains and nuts several times as nutritious. They allege that human beings cannot have permanent strength without the use of animal food, right in face of the fact that the hardest work is now being done, and has always been done, by those who use the least animal food; and right in the face of the fact, too, that no flesh eating animals can endure prolonged and severe labour. I should like to see them try the experiment of working a lion or a tiger, or a hyena against an ox, a camel, or a mule. Examples exist here and there, all over the world, of men of extraordinary powers of endurance who do not use animal food at all; and history is full of such examples in all ages of the world. And again: the largest and strongest animals in the world are those which eat no flesh-food of any kind—the elephant and rhinoceros.”[30]

[30] “Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism,” p. 20. As a matter of fact,
all the work in the world is done by vegetarian animals—the horse, ox,
camel, elephant, etc.

I cannot refrain here from alluding to the most common objection to vegetarianism we meet with in this country; and I do so for the purpose of explaining it away. The objection is, that vegetarians are themselves poor specimens of health. And the answer is that the great majority of those who are the subjects of notice and comment are invalids who are restricted to a vegetable diet, because they can recover health in no other way; and many of them are living on a strict vegetable regimen because it is the only way they can live at all. At the various hydropathic establishments in this country the most desperate cases are put on a vegetable diet, simply because it affords them the best chance of getting well. The casual observer, who judges by appearances, will always find an argument in favour of flesh-eating in the fact that the best-looking persons, physiologically, are those who eat meat.

There are, however, scattered, in America, in England and elsewhere, many persons who will not suffer by comparison, either physical or mental, with the flesh-eaters of any country that can be found. In bodily vigour and in mental capacity they are equal to any meat-eaters. Let us consider this a little more fully.

It is usually thought that athletes cannot be developed upon a non-meat diet (though the fallacy of this argument has long since been disproved, in reality). It will be well to give a few instances, from among many, of the success of vegetarians over their opponents. It is true that these have not been numerous, but then, there are but few vegetarian athletes; and _proportionately_ their triumphs have been singularly frequent. A useful summary of some of these successes is given in Mr Charles Forward’s book, “The Food of the Future.” He says:

“In the latter part of the year 1880 Gaston de Bennet, a young Austrian, 17 years of age, and a vegetarian of the strictest sect, using neither eggs nor milk, won the first prize in a grand swimming contest in Lord Harlick’s Park ... against 11 flesh-eaters, most of them full-grown men. He also won the first prize in the ‘Cooler’ race, and, though well drenched, kept his wet clothes on for hours, and took no harm. As a flesh eater, he had been extremely delicate, very subject to cold, and constantly taking physic.

“In the year 1884, the Brothers Whatton and Mr A. W. Rumnay, as representatives of Cambridge, in the inter-university races, carried all before them—a fact which directed considerable public attention to their vegetarian dietary.

“The first path race of the vegetarian cycling club took place in 1891, but it was not until 1893 that the performances of Messrs S. H. Potter, H. Sharp, and W. Kilby, turned out so far in advance of previous work that the Committee decided upon issuing a Club Challenge Shield. During 1895, two of its members ... gained first and second prizes, in the North London Club’s Road Race; and, in the same year, Mr H. E. Brinning wrested the Club Challenge Shield from Mr Warlow, who had won it a year previously.

“Since then, Mr Brinning had been to Calcutta, and soon after his arrival, won from scratch nearly every race he competed in, besides becoming possessor of three challenge shields put up for competition in Calcutta, and securing the cycling championship of India.

“The achievements of the members of the Vegetarian Cycling Club were much discussed in vegetarian circles all over the world; and particularly among German vegetarians; and when, in 1893, a walking competition took place from Berlin to Vienna, several vegetarians were amongst the competitors, who numbered 16 in all. The winner was Otto Peitz, who reached the judge’s box at 4.40 P.M., on the 4th of June. About an hour later, another vegetarian, Elsässer, arrived. No other competitors arrived until about 22 hours later, when, at about 3 o’clock on the following day, Carl Nauhaus passed the post. He was not a vegetarian, but he expressed the opinion that it was a mistake to eat much flesh on a long walk. The fourth arrival was a Berlin university law student, arriving on the sixth of June, at 6.52, whilst a few minutes later Fritz Goldbach reached the Committee Box. Dr Heller, a Vienna physician, and an opponent of vegetarianism, partook of raw flesh on the journey; but on the second day he began to reconsider the task before him, and he subsequently posted a dispatch to the Committee, announcing his withdrawal from the contest, and went on to Vienna by train. Owing to a technical breach of the rules, Elsässer put in a claim for the gold medal. He had been a strict vegetarian for over four years, not even using eggs, milk, butter or cheese. All that he took during his walk was bread, fruit and water, and, on one or two occasions, a glass of seltzer. He had undergone no regular training at all. Otto Peitz, who secured the second prize, consumed bread and butter, and occasionally eggs and milk. He was a compositor by trade, and being poor, had to ‘rough it,’ not being able to pay for a bed during the walk....

“On the 21st of January, 1894, the ‘Winter Walk’ of the German Long Distance Walk Society took place, the route being from Berlin to Fredericksburg, a distance of about 30 miles. The roads were soft and muddy, and the weather rainy and windy. Of the first four competitors who arrived at the winning post, two were vegetarians—namely, Frederick Bruhn and Carl Harmann. That the result of these walking matches was no mere ‘fluke’ is clear from the fact that the vegetarian competitors have repeated their successes on subsequent occasions; and impartial students of dietetics were ready to admit the soundness of the vegetarian position.”

VII

MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS

In the five preceding chapters I have advanced a number of reasons for thinking that the natural diet of man is vegetarian or fruitarian, and have endeavoured to show why flesh-eating is injurious. We saw that, from anatomical structure, from physiological function, from chemical analysis, for hygienic reasons, and because of the past experience of nations and individuals—for all these reasons man should abstain from meat. In the present chapter I shall adduce a number of miscellaneous arguments, tending to show that flesh is not man’s natural food; and that he cannot make it an article of his diet without violating many of the laws of his organisation—mental and moral, as well as physiological. These laws are important, also, and have their rightful place, just as mental and moral considerations have their place in any other question; and I shall accordingly consider them here.

There is first of all the humanitarian argument. This argument is perfectly legitimate, so far as it goes, and a most forceful one. The idea of taking life unnecessarily is very repellant to some—those who have not become hardened, and who have thought of this matter at all. To see a cartload of young animals going to the slaughter-house is a sad if not a disgusting sight—especially when we consider that these animals are soon to be cut up, and made into human food! The ill-treatment which the animals receive, during shipment, is certainly not in favour of their flesh being in any too good condition when it is received at the slaughter-house; and, if mental conditions count for anything, in their effect upon the composition of the blood and tissue juices, there is very good reason for thinking that their bodies are pretty well poisoned before they are killed—even if they were healthy when they left the stock-farm. But, apart from such considerations, every animal has its right to live; the ox and the calf, and the sheep, and even the swine, has its mental life, just as man; and there is a universal life running throughout the animal kingdom, which it is no part of man’s duty to take needlessly. This brings me to a very important factor in the argument. It is the taking of life _needlessly_ which the vegetarian protests against so strongly. If it were necessary to kill these animals; if man could not live without flesh, then killing and eating would be perfectly justifiable. It would simply be a case of the survival of the fittest, and man would be entitled to kill and eat other animals, just as the carnivora do. But it is not necessary in any degree. Man can live perfectly well without meat of any kind; and not only live as well, but far better! My arguments in the chapter devoted to the hygiene of this subject should prove that to the satisfaction of the reader. Man can live without animal flesh; consequently the eating of this flesh is purely to gratify an appetite—and a perverted appetite at that. No normal appetite could possibly crave flesh of any kind. So that there is no possible excuse for the killing and eating of animals, than this—except, of course, ignorance. After all, that is the greatest factor!

It is against this taking of life unnecessarily that the vegetarian protests not the taking of life at all. Besides, there is a difference between killing a highly organised and sensitive animal, and one far lower in the scale of Evolution. Shedding the blood of such animals is against all normal instincts. Said a lady once, to a gentleman who was eating beef: “How can you eat a thing that looks out of the eyes?” The very plaintiveness, coupled with the helplessness of such animals, should inspire a certain pity in the breasts of all who have any humanitarian instincts.

This aspect of the controversy throws a different and a more rational light upon this question. It has frequently been contended, _e.g._, that, if this humanitarian argument were carried far enough, it would become absurd, for the reason that every drop of water we drink, and every breath of air we breathe contains living animals, which we kill within our bodies! Moreover, every vegetable we cut or pick, takes life (such as it is) and consequently this argument cannot be carried to its logical conclusion, and is consequently worthless!

The position I have indicated above answers this objection. If we cannot live without taking the lives of certain animalculæ, or that of certain plants, then we must take their lives (for the most part, be it noted, unconsciously). But there is a great difference between this and taking the lives of highly organised animals intentionally and voluntarily. Besides, the one is necessary, the other not. As I said before, if meat were a necessary article of diet, there could be no possible objection to making it an article of food; but it is _not_ necessary. That is the _crux_.

Further, it can be shown that, on a fruitarian diet, it is not necessary to take the life even of the fruit eaten! If a cabbage be cut, _e.g._, we thereby kill the cabbage—its psychic life, that is. The same is true of all other vegetables. But it will be observed that, when fruits are eaten, nothing is destroyed; no life taken unnecessarily. Fruits, when they are ripe, fall from the tree, and rot upon the ground—thus exposing the seed, and allowing it to become buried in the soil. It will be seen that the pulp of the fruit is of no further use to the seed; it has nourished it up to the time of its falling to the ground, but thenceforward, it is virtually useless to the seed. So that we might with justice feel that we were taking no life at all in eating this pulp of the fruit—which, again, would seem to indicate that fruit is man’s natural diet.[31] However, as I said before, I do not think it is necessary to split hairs so finely on this question. The valid ground to take is that it is wrong and cruel to take highly organised life uselessly; and I do not think that such an attitude is in any way open to criticism.

I may as well answer, in this place, one objection that has been frequently raised against vegetarians by the meat-eaters, which is that, if we did not eat meat, we should soon be overrun by the various animals, and there would be no room for man upon the earth! They would eventually crowd man out! This supposed argument is really absurd. In the first place, hardly one-tenth of the animals now brought into the world would be raised. They are now especially bred for eating purposes, and if the demand decreased, the supply would decrease also. Further, how is it that we are not overrun by wild animals of all sorts? We have never been in any danger from _them_, somehow; but it has invariably been found that they tend to recede before the advance of civilisation. Many survive, to be sure, but Nature seems to take care that their numbers are not unduly increased, so as to be a menace to the human race. If this be true of wild animals—which might really be a menace to the human race, if their numbers were sufficiently increased—it is certainly all the more true of the harmless domestic animals. Nature would

[31] _Cf._ Genesis i. 29, where man is distinctly told that he is a
fruitarian; and not only that, he is told the character of fruit he
must eat. “And God said. Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, _in
the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be
for meat_.” The seed-fruits are here clearly indicated, as well
as man’s originally frugivorous diet. see to it that man was not
overrun by animals of any sort, as she always has in the past. People
need not worry about the future welfare of the bovine race, if they
would only be a little more humane in their treatment of its present
representatives!