A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet

Hello. Firstly, let me compliment you on a well presented and well researched debate. Unfortunately I do not have either the time or the inclination to be as fastidious in my response. As I stated previously, what you are actually referring to is not preference. My dietary preferences are as individual as yours and as individual as everyone else's. What you are actually suggesting is that a vegetarian diet is better than an omnivorous diet. Better with regard to physical health, environmental impact and human morality. But of course, an individual will always have a preferred dietary regime, irrespective of what may or may not be good for them or good for the planet or good for their mental wellbeing. Therefore, it is not possible to question individual preference using scientific data or third party subjectivity. However, statistical evidence does prove that approximately 78% of the world's population has a meat inclusive diet, which conclusively backs up my assertion that globally an omnivorous diet is thought to be preferable by the majority of people. Nonetheless. Are increased health benefits and consequent longevity, beneficial to society and the environment? Population growth as it is, is exponential. Further adding to this problem will only increase human pressure on the environment. The expectation of an ever increasing life span, could be regarded as being just as immoral as eating meat. Food production is one of many human actions that impact on the environment. I would suggest that maintaining our energy dependant and materialistic lifestyles, has a far greater impact. Morals are subjective and human-centric and a cannot be subjected to a greater judgement. That is to say, it is arrogant to proclaim that killing and eating sentient creatures is immoral. Ultimately eating meat is a personal decision, based on personal interpretation of acquired knowledge and acquired conditioning. Lifestyles vary greatly and nutritional requirements vary accordingly. A "well balanced" diet for one person may not be a "well balanced diet for another. Health problems are as much a consequence of lifestyle choice as they are about food choice. In simple terms, a sedentary person, who consumes a poorly balanced diet excessively will inevitably have greater risk of long term health problems and a shorter life expectancy. Whereas an active person who eats a sensible well balanced diet has a much greater chance of leading a healthier, longer life. But of course that does not take into account all the many other non-dietary factors that may or may not impact upon our physical wellbeing and life expectancy. On a level playing field where all people are equal, it might be fair to suggest that a vegetarian diet could in the long term be marginally healthier and therefore better than an omnivorous diet. But as things stand at this moment in time, all people are most definitely not equal, therefore nutritional requirements vary greatly and cannot be judged or set using one standard. One final consideration: Is vegetarianism a lifestyle choice, based on sound scientific information. Or is vegetarianism primarily a moral judgement, that uses appropriate and selective scientific information to back up that judgement? I would suggest that vegetarianism is quite often a very fickle moral judgement, with little or no regard ever given to scientific information or dietary implications. Of course, we must not overlook the fact that in certain regions of the world people are vegetarians out of necessity rather than choice.