without slaughter as it is to eat flesh without slaughter. There are
probably as many bulls born as cows. One bull for breeding purposes
suffices for many cows and lives for many years, so what is to be done
with the bull calves if our humanitarian scruples debar us from
providing a vocation for the butcher? The country would soon be overrun
with vast herds of wild animals and the whole populace would have to
take to arms for self-preservation. So it comes to the same thing. If
we did not breed these animals for their flesh, or milk, or eggs, or
labour, we should have no use for them, and so should breed them no
longer, and they would quickly become extinct. The wild goat and sheep
and the feathered life might survive indefinitely in mountainous
districts, but large animals that are not domesticated, or bred for
slaughter, soon disappear before the approach of civilisation. The Irish
elk is extinct, and the buffalo of North America has been wiped out
during quite recent years. If leather became more expensive (much of it
is derived from horse hide) manufacturers of leather substitutes would
have a better market than they have at present.
VI
CONCLUSION
'However much thou art read in theory, if thou hast no practice thou art
ignorant,' says the Persian poet Sa'di. 'Conviction, were it never so
excellent, is worthless until it converts itself into Conduct. Nay,
properly, Conviction is not possible till then,' says Herr
Teufelsdrockh. It is never too late to be virtuous. It is right that we
should look before we leap, but it is gross misconduct to neglect duty
to conform to the consuetudes of the hour. We must endeavour in
practical life to carry out to the best of our ability our philosophical
and ethical convictions, for any lapse in such endeavour is what
constitutes immorality. We must live consistently with theory so long as
our chief purpose in life is advanced by so doing, but we must be
inconsistent when by antinomianism we better forward this purpose. To
illustrate: All morally-minded people desire to serve as a force working
for the happiness of the race. We are convinced that the slaughter of
animals for food is needless, and that it entails much physical and
mental suffering among men and animals and is therefore immoral.
Knowing this we should exert our best efforts to counteract the wrong,
firstly, by regulating our own conduct so as not to take either an
active or passive part in this needless massacre of sub-human life, and
secondly, by making those facts widely known which show the necessity
for food reform.
Now to go to the ultimate extreme as regards our own conduct we should
make no use of such things as leather, bone, catgut, etc. We should not
even so much as attend a concert where the players use catgut strings,
for however far distantly related cause and effect may be, the fact
remains that the more the demand, no matter how small, the more the
supply. We should not even be guilty of accosting a friend from over the
way lest in consequence he take more steps than otherwise he would do,
thus wearing out more shoe-leather. He who would practise such absurd
sansculottism as this would have to resort to the severest seclusion,
and plainly enough we cannot approve of such fanaticism. By turning
antinomian when necessary and staying amongst our fellows, making known
our views according to our ability and opportunity, we shall be doing
more towards establishing the proper relation between man and sub-man
than by turning cenobite and refusing all intercourse and association
with our fellows. Let us do small wrong that we may accomplish great
good. Let us practise our creed so far as to abstain from the eating of
animal food, and from the use of furs, feathers, seal and fox skins, and
similar ornaments, to obtain which necessitates the violation of our
fundamental principles. With regard to leather, this material is, under
present conditions, a 'by-product.' The hides of animals slaughtered for
their flesh are made into leather, and it is not censurable in a
vegetarian to use this article in the absence of a suitable substitute
when he knows that by so doing he is not asking an animal's life, nor a
fellow-being to degrade his character by taking it. There is a
substitute for leather now on the market, and it is hoped that it may
soon be in demand, for even a leather-tanner's work is not exactly an
ideal occupation.
Looking at the question of conviction and consistency in this way, there
are conceivable circumstances when the staunchest vegetarian may even
turn kreophagist. As to how far it is permissible to depart from the
strictest adherence to the principles of vegetarianism that have been
laid down, the individual must trust his own conscience to determine;
but we can confidently affirm that the eating of animal flesh is
unnecessary and immoral and retards development in the direction which
the finest minds of the race hold to be good; and that the only time
when it would not be wrong to feed upon such food would be when, owing
to misfortunes such as shipwreck, war, famine, etc., starvation can only
be kept at bay by the sacrifice of animal life. In such a case, man,
considering his own life the more valuable, must resort to the
unnatural practice of flesh-eating.
The reformer may have, indeed must have, to pay a price, and sometimes a
big one, for the privilege, the greatest of all privileges, of educating
his fellows to a realisation of their errors, to a realisation of a
better and nobler view of life than they have hitherto known. Seldom do
men who carve out a way for themselves, casting aside the conventional
prejudices of their day, and daring to proclaim, and live up to, the
truth they see, meet with the esteem and respect due to them; but this
should not, and, if they are sincere and courageous, does not, deter
them from announcing their message and caring for the personal
discomfort it causes. It is such as these that the world has to thank
for its progress.
It often happens that the reformer reaps not the benefit of the reform
he introduces. Men are slow to perceive and strangely slow to act, yet
he who has genuine affection for his fellows, and whose desire for the
betterment of humanity is no mere sentimental pseudo-religiosity, bears
bravely the disappointment he is sure to experience, and with undaunted
heart urges the cause that, as he sees it, stands for the enlightenment
and happiness of man. The vegetarian in the West (Europe, America, etc.)
is often ridiculed and spoken of by appellations neither complimentary
nor kind, but this should deter no honorable man or woman from entering
the ranks of the vegetarian movement as soon as he or she perceives the
moral obligation to do so. It may be hard, perhaps impossible, to
convert others to the same views, but the vegetarian is not hindered
from living his own life according to the dictates of his conscience.
'He who conquers others is strong, but the man who conquers himself is
mighty,' wrote Laotze in the _Tao Teh Ch'ing_, or 'The Simple Way.'
When we call to mind some heroic character--a Socrates, a Regulus, a
Savonarola--the petty sacrifices our duties entail seem trivial indeed.
We do well to remember that it is only by obedience to the highest
dictates of our own hearts and minds that we may obtain true happiness.
It is only by living in harmony with all living creatures that nobility
and purity of life are attainable. As we obey the immediate vision, so
do we become able to see yet richer visions: but the _strength of the
vision is ours only as we obey its high demands_.
NUTRITION AND DIET
I
THE SCIENCE OF NUTRITION
The importance of some general knowledge of the principles of nutrition
and the nutritive values of foods is not generally realised. Ignorance
on such a matter is not usually looked upon as a disgrace, but, on the
contrary, it would be commonly thought far more reprehensible to lack
the ability to conjugate the verb 'to be' than to lack a knowledge of
the chemical properties of the food we eat, and the suitability of it to
our organism. Yet the latter bears direct and intimate relation to man's
physical, mental, and moral well-being, while the former is but a
'sapless, heartless thistle for pedantic chaffinches,' as Jean Paul
would say.
The human body is the most complicated machine conceivable, and as it is
absurd to suppose that any tyro can take charge of so comparatively
simple a piece of mechanism as a locomotive, how much more absurd is it
to suppose the human body can be kept in fit condition, and worked
satisfactorily, without at least some, if only slight, knowledge of the
nature of its constitution, and an understanding of the means to
satisfy its requirements? Only by study and observation comes the
knowledge of how best to supply the required material which, by its
oxidation in the body, repairs waste, gives warmth and produces energy.
Considering, then, that the majority of people are entirely ignorant
both of the chemical constitution of the body, and the physiological
relationship between the body and food, it is not surprising to observe
that in respect to this question of caring for the body, making it grow
and work and think, many come to grief, having breakdowns which are
called by various big-sounding names. Indeed, to the student of
dietetics, the surprise is that the body is so well able to withstand
the abuse it receives.
It has already been explained in the previous essay how essential it is
if we live in an artificial environment and depart from primitive
habits, thereby losing natural instincts such as guide the wild animals,
that we should study diet. No more need be said on this point. It may
not be necessary that we should have some general knowledge of
fundamental principles, and learn how to apply them with reasonable
precision.
The chemical constitution of the human body is made up of a large
variety of elements and compounds. From fifteen to twenty elements are
found in it, chief among which are oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen,
calcium, phosphorus, sodium, and sulphur. The most important compounds
are protein, hydrocarbons, carbohydrates, organic mineral matter, and
water. The food which nourishes the body is composed of the same
elements and compounds.
Food serves two purposes,--it builds and repairs the body tissues, and
it generates vital heat and energy, burning food as fuel. Protein and
mineral matter serve the first purpose, and hydrocarbons (fats) and
carbohydrates (sugars and starches) the second, although, if too much
protein be assimilated it will be burnt as fuel, (but it is bad fuel as
will be mentioned later), and if too much fat is consumed it will be
stored away in the body as reserve supply. Most food contains some
protein, fat, carbohydrates, mineral matter, and water, but the
proportion varies very considerably in different foods.
Water is the most abundant compound in the body, forming on an average,
over sixty per cent. of the body by weight. It cannot be burnt, but is a
component part of all the tissues and is therefore an exceedingly,
important food. Mineral matter forms approximately five or six per cent.
of the body by weight. Phosphate of lime (calcium phosphate), builds
bone; and many compounds of potassium, sodium, magnesium and iron are
present in the body and are necessary nutrients. Under the term protein
are included the principal nitrogenous compounds which make bone, muscle
and other material. It forms about 15 per cent. of the body by weight,
and, as mentioned above, is burnt as fuel for generating heat and
energy. Carbohydrates form but a small proportion of the body-tissue,
less than one per cent. Starches, sugars, and the fibre of plants, or
cellulose, are included under this term. They serve the same purpose as
fat.
All dietitians are agreed that protein is the essential combined in
food. Deprivation of it quickly produces a starved physical condition.
The actual quantity required cannot be determined with perfect accuracy,
although estimates can be made approximately correct. The importance of
the other nutrient compounds is but secondary. But the system must have
all the nutrient compounds in correct proportions if it is to be
maintained in perfect health. These proportions differ slightly
according to the individual's physical constitution, temperament and
occupation.
Food replenishes waste caused by the continual wear and tear incidental
to daily life: the wear and tear of the muscles in all physical
exertion, of the brain in thinking, of the internal organs in the
digestion of food, in all the intricate processes of metabolism, in the
excretion of waste matter, and the secretion of vital fluids, etc. The
ideal diet is one which replenishes waste with the smallest amount of
suitable material, so that the system is kept in its normal condition of
health at a minimum of expense of energy. The value, therefore, of some
general knowledge of the chemical constituents of food is obvious. The
diet must be properly balanced, that is, the food eaten must provide
the nutrients the body requires, and not contain an excess of one
element or a deficiency of another. It is impossible to substitute
protein for fat, or _vice versa_, and get the same physiological result,
although the human organism is wonderfully tolerant of abuse, and
remarkably ingenious in its ability to adapt itself to abnormal
conditions.
It has been argued that it is essentially necessary for a well-balanced
dietary that the variety of food be large, or if the variety is to be
for any reason restricted, it must be chosen with great discretion.
Dietetic authorities are not agreed as to whether the variety should be
large or small, but there is a concensus of opinion that, be it large or
small, it should be selected with a view to supplying the proper
nutrients in proper proportions. The arguments, so far as the writer
understands them, for and against a large variety of foods, are as
follows:--
If the variety be large there is a temptation to over-feed. Appetite
does not need to be goaded by tasty dishes; it does not need to be
goaded at all. We should eat when hungry and until replenished; but to
eat when not hungry in order to gratify a merely sensual appetite, to
have dishes so spiced and concocted as to stimulate a jaded appetite by
novelty of taste, is harmful to an extent but seldom realised. Hence the
advisability, at least in the case of persons who have not attained
self-mastery over sensual desire, of having little variety, for then,
when the system is replenished, over-feeding is less likely to occur.
In this connection it should be remembered that in some parts of the
world the poor, although possessing great strength and excellent health,
live upon, and apparently relish, a dietary limited mostly to black
bread and garlics, while among ourselves an ordinary person eats as many
as fifty different foods in one day.[3]
On the other hand, a too monotonous dietary, especially where people are
accustomed to a large variety of mixed foods, fails to give the
gustatory pleasure necessary for a healthy secretion of the digestive
juices, and so may quite possibly result in indigestion. It is a matter
of common observation that we are better able to digest food which we
enjoy than that which we dislike, and as we live not upon what we eat,
but upon what we digest, the importance of enjoying the food eaten is
obvious.
Also as few people know anything about the nutritive value of foods,
they stand a better chance, if they eat a large variety, of procuring
the required quantity of different nutrients than when restricted to a
very limited dietary, because, if the dietary be very limited they
might by accident choose as their mainstay some food that was badly
balanced in the different nutrients, perhaps wholly lacking in protein.
It is lamentable that there is such ignorance on such an all-important
subject. However, we have to consider things as they are and not as they
ought to be.
Perhaps the best way is to have different food at different meals,
without indulging in many varieties at one meal. Thus taste can be
satisfied, while the temptation to eat merely for the sake of eating is
less likely to arise.
It might be mentioned, in passing, that in the opinion of the best
modern authorities the average person eats far more than he needs, and
that this excess inevitably results in pathological conditions. Voit's
estimate of what food the average person requires daily was based upon
observation of what people _do_ eat, not upon what they _should_ eat.
Obviously such an estimate is valueless. As well argue that an ounce of
tobacco daily is what an ordinary person should smoke because it is the
amount which the average smoker consumes.
A vegetarian needs only to consider the amount of protein necessary, and
obtained from the food eaten. The other nutrients will be supplied in
proportions correct enough to satisfy the body requirements under normal
conditions of health. The only thing to take note of is that more fat
and carbohydrates are needed in cold weather than hot, the body
requiring more fuel for warmth. But even this is not essential: the
essential thing is to have the required amount of protein. In passing,
it is interesting to observe the following: the fact that in a mixed
fruitarian diet the proportion of the nutrient compounds is such as to
satisfy natural requirements is another proof of the suitability of the
vegetable regimen to the human organism. It is a provision of Nature
that those foods man's digestive organs are constructed to assimilate
with facility, and man's organs of taste, smell, and perception best
prefer, are those foods containing chemical compounds in proportions
best suited to nourish his body.
One of the many reasons why flesh-eating is deleterious is that flesh is
an ill-balanced food, containing, as it does, considerable protein and
fat, but no carbohydrates or neutralising salts whatever. As the body
requires three to four times more carbohydrates than protein, and
protein cannot be properly assimilated without organic minerals, it is
seen that with the customary 'bread, meat and boiled potatoes' diet,
this proportion is not obtained. Prof. Chittenden holds the opinion that
the majority of people partake greatly in excess of food rich in
protein.
No hard and fast rule can be laid down to different persons require
different foods and foods and amounts at different times under different
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|[Transcriber's note: It is regretted that a line has been missed by the|
|typesetter.] |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
regulate the amount, or proper proportions, of food
material for a well-balanced dietary, as amounts, and the same person
requires different ferent conditions. Professor W. O. Atwater, an
American, makes the following statement: 'As the habits and conditions
of individuals differ, so, too, their needs for nourishment differ, and
their food should be adapted to their particular requirements. It has
been estimated that an average man at moderately active labor, like a
carpenter, or mason, should have (daily) about 115 grams (1750 grains)
or 0.25 pound of available protein, and sufficient fuel ingredients in
addition to make the fuel value of the whole diet 3,400 calories; while
a man at sedentary employment would be well nourished with 92 grams
(1400 grains) or 0.20 pound of available protein, and enough fat and
carbohydrates in addition to yield 2,700 calories of energy. The demands
are, however, variable, increasing and decreasing with increase and
decrease of muscular work, or as other needs of the person change. Each
person, too, should learn by experience what kinds of food yield him
nourishment with the least discomfort, and should avoid those which do
not "agree" with him.'
It has been stated that unless the body is supplied with protein, hunger
will be felt, no matter if the stomach be over-loaded with
non-nitrogenous food. If a hungry man ate heartily of _only_ such foods
as fresh fruit and green vegetables he might soon experience a feeling
of fulness, but his hunger would not be appeased. Nature asks for
protein, and hunger will continue so long as this want remains
unsatisfied. Similarly as food is the first necessity of life, so is
protein the first necessity in food. If a person were deprived of
protein starvation must inevitably ensue.
Were we (by 'we' is meant the generality of people in this country), to
weigh out our food supply, for, say a week, we should soon realise what
a large reduction from the usual quantity of food consumed would have to
be made, and instead of eating, as is customary, without an appetite,
hunger might perhaps once a day make itself felt. There is little doubt
but that the health of most people would be vastly improved if food were
only eaten when genuine hunger was felt, and the dietary chosen were
well balanced, _i.e._, the proportions of protein, fat, carbohydrates
and salts being about 3, 2, 9, 2-3. As aforesaid, the mixed vegetarian
dietary is, in general, well-balanced.
While speaking about too much food, it may be pointed out that the
function of appetite is to inform us that the body is in need of
nutriment. The appetite was intended by Nature for this purpose, yet how
few people wait upon appetite! The generality of people eat by time,
custom, habit, and sensual desire; not by appetite at all. If we eat
when not hungry, and drink when not thirsty, we are doing the body no
good but positive harm. The organs of digestion are given work that is
unnecessary, thus detracting from the vital force of the body, for there
is only a limited amount of potential energy, and if some of this is
spent unnecessarily in working the internal organs, it follows that
there is less energy for working the muscles or the brain. So that an
individual who habitually overfeeds becomes, after a time, easily tired,
physically lazy, weak, perhaps if temperamentally predisposed, nervous
and hypochondriacal. Moreover, over-eating not only adds to the general
wear and tear, thus probably shortening life, but may even result in
positive disease, as well as many minor complaints such as constipation,
dyspepsia, flatulency, obesity, skin troubles, rheumatism, lethargy,
etc.
Just as there is danger in eating too much, so there is much harm done
by drinking too much. The evil of stimulating drinks will be spoken of
later; at present reference is made only to water and harmless
concoctions such as lime-juice, unfermented wines, etc. To drink when
thirsty is right and natural; it shows that the blood is concentrated
and is in want of fluid. But to drink merely for the pleasure of
drinking, or to carry out some insane theory like that of 'washing out'
the system is positively dangerous. The human body is not a dirty barrel
needing swilling out with a hose-pipe. It is a most delicate piece of
mechanism, so delicate that the abuse of any of its parts tends to throw
the entire system out of order. It is the function of the blood to
remove all the waste products from the tissues and to supply the fresh
material to take the place of that which has been removed. Swilling the
system out with liquid does not in any way accelerate or aid the
process, but, on the contrary, retards and impedes it. It dilutes the
blood, thus creating an abnormal condition in the circulatory system,
and may raise the pressure of blood and dilate the heart. Also it
dilutes the secretions which will therefore 'act slowly and
inefficiently, and more or less fermentation and putrefaction will
meanwhile be going on in the food masses, resulting in the formation of
gases, acids, and decomposition products.'