Many people are psychologized with the idea that one can not live without animal or flesh food.

To prove the contrary requires no argument; it is merely a matter of fact that millions of people live on a vegetarian diet all their lives.

It is also a clear matter of historic deduction, that for countless ages our prehistoric ancestors lived on what is termed "innocent" food - fruits, nuts, vegetables, cereals, roots, etc.

It may be argued that they had no weapons and were not able to procure flesh food, and it is true that man in his most primitive condition was weaponless, but nature provided him, as she provides every animal. with just the food he needed.

The using of fish as food came only after the fear of fire had been conquered and mankind had learned to control and use it to his own advantage, - a long and interesting chapter in human history not to be told in this connection. (Read "The Story of the Giants and Their Tools," by same author.)

To get right down to brass tacks, all animal organisms are sustained by the vegetable kingdom. It is only a question as to whether you will eat "first hand" or "second hand" vegetables - most people draw the line on "third hand" vegetables.

Here is the idea: if you eat a chicken, the chicken ate corn, and it is the corn, not the chicken, that is the original source of life-sustaining energy; as stated above, the chicken is only second-class vegetable matter.

If you eat cow, the cow ate grass, and you are eating second-hand grass.

Now, from this, you may argue: "Seeing I am not able to eat grass first hand, and seeing I am able to eat cow, then is it not wisdom for me to let the cow eat the grass, that I may eat the cow?"

The logic seems to be good, at least it has convinced many who wanted to be favorably impressed, but it is not conclusive.

Why does the cow eat grass?

The answer the cow would give, were she able to speak, would be that she is hungry, and grass satisfies her appetite, it is her natural food.

The answer science gives is that the grass supplies the cow with energy which she consumes, and while some of this energy is still in her body when she is killed for food, in the form of new life cells, there are also dead cells that are not food, but refuse that the cow can't use, or rather that the cow has used, and that the human who eats the cow must use over again.

By the above is meant that in every animal organism there is a constant process of decay going on, dead cells are being replaced by live ones, and flesh is composed of both.

Flesh food, then, is not the best food, because the energy has already been used by the animal, and the flesh is full of waste that can not be utilized, nor is it good for other reasons equally important.

In the first place, it is not the natural food of man, for man is not naturally a carnivorous animal, but belongs to the fruit and nut eaters.

Flesh alone will not sustain human life. The dire results that come from a purely flesh diet, when such a diet is enforced, are a matter of record, and horrible to contemplate. Flesh can only be used in connection with other vegetable and real food, and when used a great many undesirable if not serious physical results are sure to follow.

Flesh is not a "humane" food; it requires cruelty to procure it. The "butcher" business is not elevating or ennobling. The man who makes a business of striking helpless cattle in the head with an ax and then cutting their throats is brutalized by the work he does, and the society that requires this work to be done is also brutalized.

The ripe peach drops from the tree into the hand; its food element may be consumed, and its pit may be planted and bring forth another tree. In other words, by plucking and eating the peach you but assist the process of nature. To grow peaches, to make two grow where one grew before, this is ennobling; the man who works at it is a public benefactor. To gather nuts, to sow and reap grain, to cultivate corn, - all these pursuits are pleasant and uplifting, they bring man close to old Mother Nature, they fill his lungs with the breath of life, and provide food for his body that is full of life-giving energy.

To "stick" a hog and listen to its piteous squealing and death gurgle is brutal; it deadens the faculty of pity; it hardens the heart of compassion; it sears the very soul and helps to make mankind what it is today, a community of carnivorous animals, preying upon each other, shrewd, cunning, merciless, bestial, and thirsting for blood.

If it were necessary, it would be different.

But it is not necessary, nor is it desirable, nor is it economic.

It takes about eight pounds of good corn to make one pound of what has been politely designated as "sow-bosom"; and any one of these eight pounds of good corn will supply far more life energy to the human body than will one pound of filthy flesh, for when flesh is considered in its proper light, as food it is really filthy in that it contains dead cells, and further, that it makes the body into which it is taken filthy and unclean.

If flesh is good food, why not eat animals that eat flesh, thus getting "third hand" vegetables? It must be admitted that many people do eat carnivorous animals, but they are generally eaten at a time when the animals are living on vegetable food. The darkey prefers his "possom" in persimmon time, and the white man prefers his "hog" corn fed, but he doesn't always get him that way. I have seen hogs fattened from the refuse of a slaughter house that were wallowing in blood and offal, and no more fit for food than the buzzards that got their food from the same supply.

A carnivorous animal brought up on milk and innocent food can be kept tame, but once he gets the taste of blood, he becomes dangerous. Carnivorous animals are supposed to live on flesh, we are making no argument to the contrary; but the fact remains that the kind of food that an animal eats affects its disposition, and this will apply absolutely to the human animal.