Читать книгу: «Vegetable Diet: As Sanctioned by Medical Men, and by Experience in All Ages», страница 16

IV. THE POLITICAL ARGUMENT

I have dwelt at such length on the physiological and medical arguments in defence of the vegetable system, that I must compress my remaining views into the smallest space possible; especially those which relate to its political, national, or general advantages.

Political economists tell us that the produce of an acre of land in wheat, corn, potatoes, and other vegetables, and in fruits, will sustain animal life sixteen times as long as when the produce of the same acre is converted into flesh, by feeding and fattening animals upon it.

But, if we admit that this estimate is too high, and if the real difference is only eight to one, instead of sixteen to one, the results may perhaps surprise us; and if we have not done it before, may lead us to reflection. Let us see what some of them are.

The people of the United States are believed to eat, upon the average, an amount of animal food equal at least to one whole meal once a day, and those of Great Britain one in two days. But taking this estimate to be correct, Great Britain, by substituting vegetable for animal food, might sustain forty-nine instead of twenty-one millions of inhabitants, and the United States sixty-six millions instead of twenty; and this, too, in their present comfort, and without clearing up any more new land. Here, then, we are consuming that unnecessarily – if animal food is unnecessary – which would sustain seventy-nine millions of human beings in life, health, and happiness.

Now, if life is a blessing at all – if it is a blessing to twenty-two millions in Great Britain, and twenty millions in the United States – then to add to this population an increase of seventy-nine millions, would be to increase, in the same proportion, the aggregate of human happiness. And if, in addition to this, we admit the very generally received principle, that there is a tendency, from the nature of things, in the population of any country, to keep up with the means of support, we, of Great Britain and America, keep down, at the present moment, by flesh-eating, sixty-three millions of inhabitants.

We do not destroy them, in the full sense of the term, it is true, for they never had an existence. But we prevent their coming into the possession of a joyous and happy existence; and though we have no name for it, is it not a crime? What! no crime for thirty-five millions of people to prevent and preclude the existence of sixty-three millions?

I see no way of avoiding the force of this argument, except by denying the premises on which I have founded my conclusions. But they are far more easily denied than disproved. The probability, after all, is, that my estimates are too low, and that the advantages of an exclusively vegetable diet, in a national or political point of view, are even greater than is here represented. I do not deny, that some deduction ought to be made on account of the consumption of fish, which does not prevent the growth or use of vegetable products; but my belief is, that, including them, the animal food we use amounts to a great deal more than one meal a day, or one third of our whole living.

Suppose there was no crime in shutting human beings out of existence by flesh-eating, at the amazing rate I have mentioned – still, is it not, I repeat it, a great national or political loss? Or, will it be said, in its defence, as has been said in defence of war, if not of intemperance and some of the forms of licentiousness, that as the world is, it is a blessing to keep down its population, otherwise it would soon be overstocked? The argument would be as good in one case as in the other; that is, it is not valid in either. The world might be made to sustain, in comfort, even in the present comparatively infant state of the arts and sciences, at least forty or fifty times its present number of inhabitants. It will be time enough a thousand or two thousand years to come, to begin to talk about the danger of the world's being over-peopled; and, above all, to talk about justifying what we know is, in the abstract, very wrong, to prevent a distant imagined evil; one, in fact, which may not, and probably will not ever exist.

V. THE ECONOMICAL ARGUMENT

The economy of the vegetable system is so intimately connected with its political or national advantages; that is, so depends on, or grows out of them, that I hesitated for some time before I decided to consider it separately. Whatever is shown clearly to be for the general good policy and well-being of society, cannot be prejudicial to the best interests of the individuals who compose that society. Still, there are some minor considerations that I wish to present under this head, that could not so well have been introduced any where else.

There is, indeed, one reason for omitting wholly the consideration of the pecuniary advantages of the system which I am attempting to defend. The public, to some extent, at once consider him who adverts to this topic, as parsimonious or mean. But, conscious as I am of higher objects in consulting economy than the saving of money, that it may be expended on things of no more value than the mere indulgence or gratification of the appetites or the passions, in a world where there are minds to educate and souls to save, I have ventured to treat on the subject.

It must be obvious, at a single glance, that if the vegetable products of an acre of land – such as wheat, rye, corn, barley, potatoes, beans, peas, turnips, beets, apples, strawberries, etc. – will sustain a family in equal health eight times as long as the pork, or beef, or mutton, which the same vegetables would make by feeding them to domestic animals, it must be just as mistaken a policy for the individual to make the latter disposition of these products as for a nation to do so. Nations are made of individuals; and, as I have already said, whatever is best, in the end, for the one, must also be the best, as a general rule, for the other.

But who has not been familiar from his very infancy with the maxim, that "a good garden will half support a family?" And who that is at all informed in regard to the manners and customs of the old world, does not know that the maxim has been verified there, time immemorial? But again: who has not considered, that if a garden of a given size will half support a family, one twice as large would support it wholly?

The truth is, it needs but a very small spot indeed, of good soil, for raising all the necessaries of a family. I think I have shown, in another work,²³ that five hundred and fifty pounds of Indian or corn meal, or ten bushels of the corn, properly cooked, will support, or more than support, an adult individual a year. Four times this amount is a very large allowance for a family of five persons; nay, even three times is sufficient. But how small a spot of good soil is required for raising thirty bushels of corn!

It is true, no family would wish to be confined a whole year to this one kind of food; nor do I wish to have it so; not that I think any serious mischiefs would arise as the consequence; but I should prefer, for my own part, a greater variety. But this does not materially alter the case. Suppose an acre and a half of land were required for the production of thirty bushels of corn. Let the cultivator, if he chooses, raise only fifteen bushels of corn, and sow the remainder with barley, or rye, or wheat. Or, if he prefer it, let him plant the one half of the piece with beans, peas, potatoes, beets, onions, etc. The one half of the space devoted to the production of some sort of grain would still half support his family; and it would require more than ordinary gluttony in a family of five persons to consume the produce of the other half, if the crops were but moderately abundant. A quarter of an acre of it ought to produce, at least, sixty bushels of potatoes; but this alone, would give such a family about ten pounds of potatoes, or one sixth of a bushel a day, for every day in the year, which is a tolerable allowance of food, without the grain and other vegetables.

But suppose a whole family were to live wholly on grain, as corn, or even wheat, for the year; the whole expenditure would hardly, exceed fifty dollars, in dear places and in the dearest times. Of course, I am speaking now of expenses for food and drink merely, the latter of which usually costs nothing, or need not. How small a sum is this to expend in New York, or Boston, or Philadelphia, in the maintenance of a family! And yet, it is amply sufficient for the vegetable-eater, unless his family live exclusively on wheat bread, or milk, when it might fall a little short. Of corn, at a dollar a bushel, it would give him eight pounds a day – far more than a family ought to consume, if they ate nothing else; and of potatoes, at forty cents a bushel, above twenty pounds, or one third of a bushel – more than sufficient for the family of an Hibernian.

Now, let me ask how much beef, or lamb, or pork, or sausages, or eggs, or cheese, this would buy? At ten cents a pound for each, which is comparatively low, it would buy five hundred pounds; about one pound and six ounces for the whole family, or four or five ounces each a day. This would be an average amount of nutriment equal to that of about two ounces of grain, or bread of grain, a day, to each individual. In so far as laid out in butter, or chicken, or turkey, at twenty cents a pound, it would give also about two or three ounces a day!

Further remarks under this head can hardly be necessary. He who considers the subject in its various aspects, will be likely to see the weight of the argument. There is a wide difference between a system which will give to each member of a family, upon the average, only about four or five ounces of food a day, and one which will give each of them more than twenty-five ounces a day, each ounce of the latter containing twice the nutriment of the former, and being much more savory and healthy at the same time. There is a wide difference, in matters of economy, at least, between one and ten.

I will only add, under this head, a few tables. The first is to show the comparative amount of nutritious matter contained in some of the leading articles of human food, both animal and vegetable. It is derived from the researches of such men as MM. Percy and Vauquelin, of France, and Sir Humphrey Davy, of England.

Of course, it does not follow that every individual will be able to extract just this amount of nutriment from each article; for, in this respect, as well as in others, much will depend on circumstances.

The second table is from Mr. James Simpson, of Manchester, England, in a small work entitled, "The Products of the Vegetable Kingdom versus Animal Food," recently published in London. Its facts are derived from Dr. Playfair, Boussingault, and other high authorities. It will be seen to refute, entirely, the popular notions concerning the Liebig theory. The truth is, Liebig's views are misunderstood. His views are not so much opposed to mine as many suppose. Besides, neither he nor I are infallible.

VI. THE ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE

A person trained in the United States or in England – but especially one who was trained in New England – might very naturally suppose that all the world were flesh-eaters; and that the person who abstains from an article which is at almost every one's table, was quite singular. He would, perhaps, suppose there must be something peculiar in his structure, to enable him to live without either flesh or fish; particularly, if he were a laborer. Little would he dream – little does a person who has not had much opportunity for reading, and who has not been taught to reflect, and who has never traveled a day's journey from the place which gave him birth, even so much as dream – that almost all the world, or at least almost all the hard-laboring part of it, are vegetable-eaters, and always have been; and that it is only in a few comparatively small portions of the civilized and half-civilized world, that the bone and sinew of our race ever eat flesh or fish for any thing more than as a condiment or seasoning to the rest of their food, or even taste it at all. And yet such is the fact.

It is true, that in a vast majority of cases, as I have already intimated, laborers are vegetable-eaters from necessity: they cannot get flesh. Almost all mankind, as they are usually trained, are fond of extra stimulants, if they can get them; and whether they are called savages or civilized men, will indulge in them more or less, if they are to be had, unless their intellectual and moral natures have been so well developed and cultivated, as to have acquired the ascendency. Spirits, wine, cider, beer, coffee, tea, condiments, tobacco, opium, snuff, flesh meat, and a thousand other things, which excite, for a time, more pleasurable sensations than water and plain vegetables and fruits, will be sought with more or less eagerness according to the education which has been received, and according to our power of self-government.

I have said that most persons are vegetable-eaters from necessity, not from choice. There are some tribes in the equatorial regions who seem to be exceptions to this rule; and yet I am not quite satisfied they are so. Some children, among us, who are trained to a very simple diet, will seem to shrink from tea or coffee, or alcohol, or camphor, and even from any thing which is much heated, when first presented to them. But, train the same children to the ordinary, complex, high-seasoned diet of this country, and it will not take long to find out that they are ready to acquire the habit of relishing the excitement of almost all sorts of unnaturals which can be presented to them. And if there are tribes of men who at first refuse flesh meat, I apprehend they do so for the same reasons which lead a child among us, who is trained simply to refuse hot food and drink, or at least, hot tea and coffee, when the latter are first presented to him.

Gutzlaff, the Chinese traveler and missionary, has found that the Chinese of the interior, who have scarcely ever tasted flesh or fish, soon acquire a wonderful relish for it, just as our children do for spirituous or exciting drinks and drugs, and as savages do for tobacco and spirits. But he has also made another discovery, which is, that flesh-eating almost ruins them for labor. Instead of being strong, robust, and active, they soon become lazy, self-indulgent, and effeminate. This is a specimen – perhaps a tolerably fair one – of the natural tendency of such food in all ages and countries. Man every where does best, nationally and individually, other things being equal, on a well-chosen diet of vegetables, fruits, and water. In proportion as individuals or families, or tribes or nations, depart from this – other things being equal – in the same proportion do they degenerate physically, intellectually, and morally.

Such a statement may startle some of my New England readers, perhaps, who have never had opportunity to become acquainted with facts as they are. But can it be successfully controverted? Is it not true, that, with a few exceptions – and those more apparent than real – nations have flourished, and continued to flourish, in proportion as they have retained the more natural dietetic habits to which I have alluded; and that they have been unhappy or short-lived, as nations, in proportion as exciting food and drink have been used? Is it not true, that those individuals, families, tribes, and nations, which have used what I call excitements, liquid or solid, have been subjected by them to the same effects which follow the use of spirits – first, invigoration, and subsequently decline, and ultimately a loss of strength? Why is it that the more wealthy, all over Europe, who get flesh more or less, deteriorate in their families so rapidly? Why is it that every thing is, in this respect, so stationary among the middle classes and the poor?

In short – for the case appears to me a plain one – it is the simple habits of some, whether we speak of nations, families, or individuals, which have preserved the world from going to utter decay. In ancient times, the Egyptians, the most enlightened and one of the most enduring of nations, were what might properly be called a vegetable-eating nation; so were the ancient Persians, in the days of their greatest glory; so the Essenes, among the Jews; so the Romans, as I have said elsewhere, and the Greeks. If either Moses or Herodotus is to be credited, men lived, in ancient times, about a thousand years. Indeed, empire seems to have departed from among the ancient nations precisely when simplicity departed. So it is with nations still. A flesh-eating nation may retain the supremacy of the world a short time, as several European and American nations have done; just as the laborer, whose brain and nerves are stimulated by ardent spirits, may for a time retain – through the medium of an artificial strength – the ascendency among his fellow-laborers; but the triumph of both the nation and the individual must be short, and the debility which follows proportionable. And if the United States, as a nation, seem to form an exception to the truth of this remark, it is only because the stage of debility has not yet arrived. Let us be patient, however, for it is not far off.

But to come to the specification of facts. The Japanese of the interior, according to some of the British geographers, live principally on rice and fruits – a single handful of rice often forming the basis of their frugal meal. Flesh, it is said, they either cannot get, or do not like; and to milk, even, they have the same sort of aversion which most of us have to blood. It is only a few of them, comparatively, and those principally who live about the coasts, who ever use either flesh or fish. And yet we have the concurring testimony of all geographers and travelers, that in their physical and intellectual development, at least, to say nothing of their moral peculiarities, they are the finest men in all Asia. In what other country of Asia are schools and early education in such high reputation as in Japan? Where are the inhabitants so well formed, so stout made, and so robust? Compare them with the natives of New Holland, in the same, or nearly the same longitude, and about as far south of the equator as the Japanese are north of it, and what a contrast! The New Hollanders, though eating flesh liberally, are not only mere savages, but they are among the most meagre and wretched of the human race. On the contrary, the Japanese, in mind and body, are scarcely behind the middle nations of Europe.

Nearly the same remarks will apply to China, and with little modification, to Hindostan. In short, the hundreds of millions of southern Asia are, for the most part, vegetable-eaters; and a large proportion of them live chiefly, if not wholly on rice, though by no means the most favorable vegetable for exclusive use. What countries like these have maintained their ancient, moral, intellectual, and political landmarks? Grant that they have made but little improvement from century to century; it is something not to have deteriorated. Let us proceed with our general view of the world, ancient and modern.

The Jews of Palestine, two thousand years ago, lived chiefly on vegetable food. Flesh, of certain kinds, was indeed admissible, by their law; but, except at their feasts and on special occasions, they ate chiefly bread, milk, honey, and fruits.

Lawrence says that "the Greeks and Romans, in the periods of their greatest simplicity, manliness, and bravery, appear to have lived almost entirely on plain vegetable preparations."

The Irish of modern days, as well as the Scotch, are confined almost wholly to vegetable food. So are the Italians, the Germans, and many other nations of modern Europe. Yet, where shall we look for finer specimens of bodily health, strength, and vigor, than in these very countries? The females, especially, where shall we look for their equals? The men, even – the Scotch and Irish, for example – are they weaker than their brethren, the English, who use more animal food?

It will be said, perhaps, the vegetable-eating Europeans are not always distinguished for vigorous minds. True; but this, it may be maintained, arises from their degraded physical condition, generally; and that neglect of mental and moral cultivation which accompanies it. A few, even here, like comets in the material system, have occasionally broken out, and emitted no faint light in the sphere in which they were destined to move.

But we are not confined to Europe. The South Sea Islanders, in many instances, feed almost wholly on vegetable substances; yet their agility and strength are so great, that it is said "the stoutest and most expert English sailors, had no chance with them in wrestling and boxing."

We come, lastly, to Africa, the greater part of whose millions feed on rice, dates, etc.; yet their bodily powers are well known.

In short, more than half of the 800,000,000 of human beings which inhabit our globe live on vegetables; or, if they get meat at all, it is so rarely that it can hardly have any effect on their structure or character. Out of Europe and the United States – I might even say, out of the latter – the use of animal food is either confined to a few meagre, weak, timid nations, like the Esquimaux, the Greenlanders, the Laplanders, the Samoiedes, the Kamtschadales, the Ostiacs, and the natives of Siberia and Terra del Fuego; or those wealthier classes, or individuals of every country, who are able to range lawlessly over the Creator's domains, and select, for their tables, whatever fancy or fashion, or a capricious appetite may dictate, or physical power afford them.