Veg*n philosophy, in my experience, is a lot like a wormy apple. From the outside it looks appealing and tasty - and parts of it are still good - but large chucks of the inside are still spoiled and rotting.
The person giving up meat rests easy knowing that he or she is no longer consuming the nasty growth hormones, enjoying a nice hormone-free soy burger.
However, soy is anything but hormone free. There were no hormones added to it, but the soy plant produces phytoestrogens - plant chemicals that act like estrogens in the body. Many plants contain some phytoestrogens, but soy contains extremely high quantities.
Remember the "Soy Brings Joy" campaigns? Consider this: Asian monks ate soy in an effort to decrease their libido. Japanese wives fed it to their amorous husbunds to cool their passion. There is also other research indicating that soy is hard on your body and is a poor replacement for real meat indeed.
In order to avoid patronizing the death of cute and fuzzy animals, furs and leather are replaced with synthetic lookalikes. But the comfort that one gains from wearing such materials is a vain one indeed. Once these products wear out and are thrown away, they will break down into harmful toxins and pollutants. The processing methods that make synthetics release harmful toxins that pollute the air and soil and sicken the workers at the factories. On the other hand, fur, leather, and wool is completely biodegradable. Real leather is also more durable than its synthetic replacements, and so does not need to be replaced as often.
Many change to a veg*n diet in search of better health and well-being. There are many who do very well on such a diet, but there are also many who don't. Some find themselves facing the very health problems they were told they would avoid. Studies have shown that heart attacks can happen even if your arteries are squeaky-clean. In some cases veg*ns may (and have!) become obese and even diabetic due to the diet's inherent carbohydrate-laden nature and relatively low quantities of satiating fats and proteins to curb their appetites.
They remember the statement that vegetarians live ten years longer than omnivores, but do not realize that this is a statement with no proof. One oft-cited study conducted on a group of vegetarians ignored the fact that they were more prone to exercise and less inclined to drink and smoke. The only possible conclusion is that something factored into their superior health, but precisely what it was could have been one of several factors.
Some may believe that killing animals, even animals who have lived natural lives or were farmed in a more natural environment, is murder and that by eating only plants they no longer patronize the killing of animals for food. What they do not realize is that the only real difference is that they no longer have to look at the remains of the animals that died for their food. They are blissfully ignorant of the death toll accumulated in pest control and the accidental (and assuredly brutal) deaths of countless tiny creatures that feed or make their home in the farmer's field. This death toll is most certainly higher than if they ate a responsible omnivorous diet. Even a diet comprising of only organically-raised vegetables grown by local farmers results in the death of thousands of creatures.
Thus the moral superiority they claim is only in their minds . They are no better off than the fictional/hypothetical rich elite who live in luxury, unaware that their comforts come at the expense of an unseen dreg caste.
Some will argue that meat is an inefficient use of land, but this is a faulty argument. Consider an orchard: only a very tiny amount of the ground is taken up by the trunk of the tree. The orchard is used more efficiently when animals are allowed to graze on the weeds using up the rest of the ground, which serves the dual purpose of controlling the weeds and feeding the animals. They also aid in pest control by eating early windfall fruits that are more likely to contain insect larvae.
There are also large quantities of land that is impossible to cultivate due to a variety of reasons, but can graze a significant number of animals.
Land must be cleared to grow crops, but the hunter can acquire his meat without harming a single tree or destroying anyone's natural habitat.
Some argue that the grain grown to feed livestock could directly feed people in starving nations. This does not work out so well for two reasons. The first is that that they are starving because they have no money to buy food. In a vegetarian world, grain prices would go up due to increased demand, but the poor would still be poor and could not afford the food.
Secondly, even if we were to feed the starving millions with the wheat we were no longer feeding to our cows, the most likely result would be a nation of starving people transformed into a nation of obese and diabetic people. This has happened before in the case of the North American Pima tribe, and it is happening now in India.
People complain that we're wasting wheat on cattle, but do they realize why we feed it to our cattle? We feed wheat to our cattle not because it's particularly nutritious (it certainly isn't), but to fatten them up shortly before the slaughter. If we start eating the wheat instead, what will happen to us?
Most food consumed by livestock is not suitable for human consumption due to it being too low in nutrients or simply inedible. Animals can convert this into a superior nutrient bundle that is far more filling. People who have adequate amounts of animal foods (a bit bigger than the 'deck of cards') in their diets and cut down on the grains actually eat smaller portions and fewer calories because it satiates their hunger faster and keeps them full longer.
Some proclaim meat to be unnatural, citing that we do not have fangs or claws. In order to meet their dietary needs, they turn to grains and legumes.
The irony here is that there is nothing more unnatural in our daily diets than grains or legumes! We are fully capable of eating animal products without a single tool (EG, bird eggs, tadpoles, arthropods), but grains and legumes are not possible without tools to cook, crush, or hold them long enough to sprout into something our jaws can chew.
When one looks closely at Nature, one discovers that a lack of fangs and claws are not that much of a hindrance to eating meat. Rats and mice more than make do with their enlarged incisors and articulate paws in order to gobble down insects. Vultures have claws that could not grasp and hold live prey, but these are unnecessary as they feed on the freshly dead. Likewise, we have traits that render characteristics of the "typical" predator redundant and unnecessary.
A straw man often used to decry meat as unnatural is to state that humans cannot eat it without cooking it lest death occur. This is a problem with modern preparation methods which often result in the meat contaminated by the animal's own waste, not a problem with the human digestive system. We actually digest meat quite well, especially raw meat. (And no, it does not putrefy in the gut.) Those who would decry meat on grounds of potential contaminants would do well to remember ergot, a deadly fungus that infects grains, as well as many plants raised for food that contain deadly toxins unless processed correctly (for example, the cassava root), as well as cases where part, but not all of the plant is toxic, such as in potatoes and rhubarb.
In conclusion, many veg*n philosphies are self-defeating in the end. This is not to say that they do not raise some valid points, but when all things are considered, their grand ideas just don't hold as much water as they think.
If you are interested in my sources, click here to peruse them for yourself.