An intelligent discussion of this lesson leads us directly into a subject commonly-known as "vegetarianism." The question whether man should eat the flesh of animals is especially fascinating for those who give attention to the food they eat. There are many standpoints, however, from which the subject of vegetarianism may be discussed.

In the first place, nearly all religious teachings that have wielded such a powerful influence over the civilization and destiny of men, have laid some restrictions upon the flesh-eating habit. Some religions require man to refrain from all animal products, while others interdict only the flesh of certain animals. Coupled with man's world-wide search for food, these religious teachings have played a conspicuous part in the question of human nutrition.

Influence of religion on man's food.

The second phase of the question that merits attention is the moral side, or vegetarianism from the animal's standpoint; in other words, the cruelty involved in the slaughter of our dumb friends and helpers, for whose presence here we are largely responsible. That the practises and customs which train humanity in cruelty toward animal life, are to be discouraged, cannot well be disputed, but this phase of vegetarianism is one which is somewhat without the realm of applied food chemistry, hence is mentioned only as a factor in the general discussion.

I will now consider vegetarianisn from the standpoint of true food science, or the welfare of the physical man. It will be observed that in the lesson entitled Vegetarianism from animal's standpoint.

"Evolution of Man," one of the first considerations taken up is the scientific discussion of man's natural adaptation to the use of flesh foods. By natural adaptation I mean Nature's evolutionary plan of fitting the physiological organism to the food man is able to procure. The organism of man will, to a certain extent, adapt itself to a given diet within the brief period of one generation, just as, in the long ages of evolution, the digestive organs of any species of animal become adapted to such diet as may be procured. Thus it is of especial importance for us to know the diet of primitive man at a time before his intellectual resourcefulness made it possible for him to gather his bill of fare from the four corners of the earth.

The diet of our related anthropoid apes, of every primitive savage tribe, and of our ancestors, indications of which have been found in fossils and caves - all three throw light upon the subject. The consensus of these various studies indicates that the original or natural diet of man was one drawn chiefly from the vegetable kingdom, but not entirely so. Fruits, nuts, green vegetables, edible foliage, tubers or roots were all included in man's primitive diet. The foods of animal origin were varied, and consisted of such articles as birds, eggs, shell-fish, many insects, and other forms of lower animal life, of which our modern habit of eating frogs' legs, eels, escargoes (snails), etc., is merely an inheritance.

Vegetarianism from standpoint of scientific living.

Since the digestive, the assimilative, and the excretory organs of man have been constructed from, and adapted to, the use of vegetables, it is obvious that the flesh of animals is unnecessary, especially in view of the fact that there is nothing in flesh that cannot be secured from the vegetable world in its best and purest form. Man's primitive diet does not prove that he is by nature a vegetarian, as is the cow, and therefore entirely unsuited to digest any material of animal origin. The anatomy of man's teeth and of his digestive organs, however, indicates that he is by nature a vegetarian, and that his digestive organs are prepared to dissolve and to assimilate a diet that is somewhat more bulky than that of carnivorous animals, but, on the other hand, less bulky than the diet of animals which subsist wholly upon succulent plants, as do the purely herbivorous species.

Primitive diet of man.

Why flesh-eating is unnecessary.

Man is by nature a tropical animal, and so long as his habitat was confined to that section, he could live from the prodigality of Nature, but when he began his early migration northward, his food was the greatest problem he had to solve. He was often forced to choose between eating the flesh of animals and death from starvation. It was this fierce struggle for food, not the character of his food, which exercised both the physical and the mental powers, and caused the Aryan or northern races to think, and therefore to develop into people so much superior to their tropical brothers.

Food problem of the Aryan races.

The defenders of flesh food often point to the fact that flesh-eating people have achieved the highest civilization. Man's superior achievement in northern countries can no more be credited to flesh-eating than to the wearing of fur caps or leather boots. To meet the exigencies of his environment, he was forced to think and to work, and thinking and working developed the brain and laid the foundation for his present stage of civilization.

Another reason for the early habit of flesh-eating is found in the fact that in order to sustain the required amount of body-heat in cold climates, a liberal consumption of fat was necessary. Vegetable fats not being available, his only-source of supply was from the body-fat of animals.

Forced to think and to work, man became civilized.

Aside from fat, protein is the only nutritive element meat contains. With the variety of vegetable and butter-fats, and vegetable proteids available in this age, supplemented by our knowledge of chemistry as a guide in their use, the consumption of flesh as an article of human food is entirely unscientific and wholly without reason.

A diet composed exclusively of flesh contains fat and nitrogenous compounds only. These two classes of foods can, of course, maintain life, as was explained in our sixth lesson, as proteid is capable of forming blood, sugar, and body-fat. The fact, however, that the proteid or the fat of meat can be made to fill, in the physiological economy, the place naturally supplied by the carbohydrate materials of vegetable food, does not prove that such a diet is without its harmful effects. The living body has many wonderful provisions whereby life is maintained under unfavorable influences. Just as a blind person develops a sense of touch which in a way acts as a substitute for sight, so the ability of the body to convert either proteids or fats into sugar, may be utilized in cases of emergency, but the using of this emergency or substitute function of the body cannot develop and energize the human machine as well or as perfectly as can a naturally balanced diet. The fact that some people exist largely upon a meat diet does not prove that this is without its handicapping and evil influences, any more than the use of alcohol and tobacco proves that man is benefited by indulging in intoxicants and sedative poisons.

Use of meat unscientific.

Life MAY BE maintained by meat.