For more than a week now the debate over the credibility of PETA, has reared its head in the pages of The Lantern. This argument has understandably branched off into such areas as animal testing, domestication, and vegetarianism. After following this series of columns I must take the chance to fill in some blanks.

A challenge often brought up in the animal rights/vegetarianism debate is how essential meat is to the human diet. The argument boils down to outspoken vegetarians believing we have everything we need to live without animal meat and that we are suffering from a societal denial. While most nutritionists will tell you that certain proteins we only acquire from meat are necessary to human development and function. Digging deeper, the debate in the evolutionary biology and anthropology communities poses the question of whether meat was a necessary component of human historical development. Any way you look at it, we either developed a need for meat because it was inherently necessary or it was readily available and we adapted to it. Whatever the case may be it looks to me like meat was essential to the evolutionary development of Homo sapiens, but that’s ancient history anyway, right? The day humans can function and grow healthily without domesticated animals for sustenance we should all re-evaluate why animals are used for our consumption.

Now onto PETA itself, nowhere is the idea of hypocrisy more prevalent than in the walls of PETA’s headquarters in Virginia. According to the non-profit, advocacy group known as the Center for Consumer Freedom, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals killed over 12,400 cats, dogs and other pets it brought in between 1998 and 2004. I must say I was shocked to hear this revelation as you might be, but upon following up on it I have not found a satisfactory response. Let me remind you of PETA’s values direct from their website: “PETA believes that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans…they are not ours to use-for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason.” I guess their best interests include what they would call murder, in order to control populations, or perhaps save a few bucks.

The position PETA takes is an admirable one, animals are living beings that suffer, share our planet and deserve our respect. Many people have varying views on what is an acceptable use of an animal; I for one still question why animals are still grown solely for their fur or pelts. If we are going to use animals in this manner, it is important to be reminded just what necessity their sacrifice is fulfilling. However, the methods PETA uses to convey this message certainly cross the line at times and one could easily make the assumption that PETA uses our fondness of animals to raise tax-exempt funds that are aimed more at perpetuating an image than upholding its goals.

It appears that both extremes of this debate over-simplify the issue without regard to weighing benefits and consequences. You can take the unrealistic view that we should never use animals ever, or you can take the easy way out and say all animals are under our dominion because we think more complexly and can convey emotions to each other. I wonder about the adamant carnivores who repeat the words of a particular online web author that “for every animal you don’t eat, I’ll eat three.” Is it really right to indiscriminately use any resource available to us? Let alone a living breathing creature. Some seem to loose perspective, becoming disconnected from what it means to take a life for our betterment. The back and forth in the Lantern opinion section shows how difficult, elusive and necessary our efforts are to always move towards what is ultimately beneficial and ethically appropriate.

Steve Ross is a senior in the Fisher College of Business. Please send questions and comments to [email protected].