I weep for the carrot, for its rights are without a champion.

Some people don’t like the taste of meat. I like a good steak, but I can’t argue with someone who doesn’t. There are, of course, those whose religion prohibits them from eating flesh. There can be no debate over the tenets of faith.

And then there are those, in increasing number, who abstain from eating meat for reasons that have to do more with fashion and half-witted self-righteousness than anything else.

Meat, the argument goes, is murder: A human, constructed of flesh, can’t in good conscience eat the flesh of another creature. All life is sacred, so I’ll have another soy burger, please.

This argument is rubbish, of course; the respect for life that protects a side of beef from human teeth does nothing in defense of Streptococci against antibiotics, does nothing to protect a slice of cucumber from a salad bowl. Those who attack carnivores as murderers destroy as much life as the most zealous steak lover - but the corpses in their wake are those of vegetables and bacteria.

Why does this disparity exist? Why are those who rush to protect the cows and chickens so eager to slaughter plant and microbial life? Because certain vegetarians do not act out of regard for pure life as much as they act out of regard for life that resembles their own. Even the most ardent animal-rights activist feels their brotherhood is limited to those creatures that are cute, or who appear naturally forlorn, or who are closely related to us.

The same feelings that make cannibalism distasteful to most of us make hamburger repellent to these vegetarians. I will not consume human meat because it is too similar to my own, and some will not eat cattle or chicken flesh for the same reason; the only difference is one of degree.

This point does not keep some vegetarians from feeling superior. The same lack of logic fuels much of the environmental movement in America.

With the recent campaign by the White House to allow oil drilling in Alaskan wilderness preserves, the fundamental arguments of the environmentalists must be considered. We must re-examine why it is presumed to be a good thing to protect nature from the actions of man.

The loudest voices of the environmentalists proclaim humanity must protect nature simply out of obligation to the rest of the universe. We must reclaim our position in the global biological balance. We must live in harmony with all creation. We must play our part in the great and large ecological chain of being.

The hubris behind such statements is almost unbelievable.

There is not and never will be a state of harmony within. Nature is not pleasant and cooperative, it is violent and competitive. The global biological balance is not pretty flowers being pollinated by happy bees to the benefit of both; it’s syphilis and Dutch Elm Disease.

A good example is the human body. Your immune system is happily massacring thousands of nature’s beloved fungi and bacteria every day simply to maintain your life. Take away that defense, and your body would soon become a buffet for yeast and microbes. Make no mistake: Nature would kill us if it could.

Humanity is not free of the bloodlust that motivates the remainder of life on Earth.

The same arrogance that makes vegetarians believe they act out of a universal respect for life makes others believe humans are so far above all other animals that we can remove ourselves from the death match that is life on Earth.

The truth is we can’t serve as the guardians of nature because we are in nature. We do not look down on the biosphere because we are within it. We are struggling against every other living thing on the planet.

We are, of course, doing quite well. The human race has expanded and spread to every point on Earth and some beyond. We have adapted beautifully to every condition nature has given to us, and, with the exception of some bacteria and viri, stand unchallenged.

Before you shrink away from this statement in disgust realize the only reason you are able to go daily without wondering if you will be able to eat, the only reason you do not find your life threatened by a paper cut, is because humanity is able to kill whatever we need to. Our survival on Earth is enabled by our ability to destroy whatever stands in the way of our welfare.

What guide, then, do we have in deciding what should be destroyed? The same rule all life has: We should preserve life only so far as it serves us. We should protect the environment only so far as it protects, amuses and entertains us.

We do not owe the rest of nature anything because we are not its keepers. We are not the benevolent custodians of life; rather, we are the conquerors of a ruthless land, and to survive, we must also be ruthless. To believe anything else is arrogance.

Rishi Kundi, graduate columnist, can be reached at kundiris@msu.edu. This column may or may not reflect his views - regardless, if you disagree, you should know why you do.