Why do people who care about the welfare of animals continue to eat them? This seemingly simple question often leads to spirited debates about morality, nutrition, sustainability, and can even upset and enrage people who have barely spent much time thinking about the issue. When most of us find out about the dark realities of industrial animal agriculture, we typically respond to such an obviously flawed industry in ways that range from deciding to buy humane/sustainable animal products to doing absolutely nothing. What's stopping more rational and empathetic people from just opting out of the entire system that is responsible for such products as the most obvious solution? The answer may go beyond conflicting opinions we have about morality, health or environmental issues.
"We need to eat animals"
Granted, we (at least an overwhelming majority of us) love the taste of meat and by-products of animals. There's no denying this fact and although we may arbitrarily choose to live with some animals and eat others due to traditions and social norms, our appreciation for the taste of animal-based foods in general, has not diminished over the ages. To make matters worse, we've been culturally conditioned to believe that there were no alternatives to eating certain animals or that the alternatives were not practical or healthy enough. Psychologist and acclaimed author, Dr. Melanie Joy calls this invisible belief system "carnism" and points out that "There is a vast mythology surrounding eating animals, but all myths fall in one way or another under the Three Ns of Justification: eating animals is normal, natural, and necessary."
Surprisingly, even after being presented with extensive facts on the negative animal welfare, environmental and human health consequences of eating animals, a majority of us continue to cling on to this belief system by claiming that not consuming them could somehow be more harmful to our health or the environment. In a fascinating new article, Dr. Joy examines these new carnistic justifications (or "neocarnism") that acknowledge the three pillars of the argument against eating animals (animal welfare, the environment, human health), but seek to invalidate them by presenting humane and sustainable animal products as the real solution.
The choice to not eat animals seems like such a challenging one because not only does it go against what our taste buds have grown accustomed to, but it also conflicts with our deep-rooted cultural conditioning.
"Eating meat makes life worth living"
It's easy to dismiss anyone advocating avoiding animal products as a purveyor of a conspiratorial agenda to rid the world of happiness! This is because, over the years, animal products have become independent cultural symbols that are disassociated from the raw materials that they rely upon. For instance, ask anyone who enjoys eating hot dogs and they will tell you that they enjoy the taste, smell and look of the food and aren't thinking of, or necessarily associating it with the animal it came from. If anything, people generally don't want to be reminded about what went into the production of their animal-based food (especially hot dogs!) when they are consuming it. In this case, the hot dog has acquired secondary meaning in the mind of the consumer and the fact that an animal is involved is merely incidental to the idea of what they are consuming. Therefore, when someone challenges another's choice to eat a hot dog, citing morality, health or the environment as a concern, it's perceived as a threat to the idea of a hot dog (the cultural symbol), more than a threat to their choice to kill and eat living beings.
In addition, the consumption of animal products has been associated with religious traditions and can often be tied to gender and social identity as well. For example, meat eating is regarded as a symbol of affluence in the developing world and is generally associated with strength, virility and masculinity in western culture. Carol J. Adams, author of the groundbreaking book The Sexual Politics of Meat, recently wrote an excellent article examining how this stereotypical connection between meat eating and manliness continues to be reasserted even today by cultural arbiters ranging from magazines, fast food restaurants and cologne makers.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that most meat eaters don't react positively when their choice to eat meat is put into question, especially because the choice is perfectly legal, socially acceptable and in many cases, tied to their own cultural identity.
"Humans have conquered the food chain"
We have indeed, but where has it gotten us? Our exploitation of land, animals and people as economic resources is part of a long-standing human culture of domination. This cultural mindset has led to the unabashed use of animals like commodities, with complete disregard to their interests, human health or the impact on the environment. Although we may all not be directly involved in such patterns of exploitation, each and every one of us (as members of human society) implicitly participate via our consumption choices.
If we (whether we consume animal products or not) are truly concerned about creating a better future for ourselves, animals or the environment, we have to begin by challenging our culture of domination and fostering genuine respect for the interdependent nature of all life on this planet. Lee Hall, author of the book "On Their Own Terms: Bringing Animal-Rights Philosophy Down to Earth" puts it eloquently: "The deepest and most comprehensive question for our social movement is why and how modern human society has developed through patterns of domination; and the greatest challenge we face is imagining humanity without the master role." She's right in pointing out that this is a great challenge, but if we manage to rise and meet it, we will realize that relinquishing our position of perceived superiority over the planet may in fact be more beneficial to us in the long run.
Once we as a society recognize that we ought to extend our duty of care beyond our individual selves and our communities, into the environment and every living thing, issues such as environmental consciousness, wildlife conservation, human rights, animal rights and veganism turn into more than choices, and become the logical outcome of the ecologically ethical lens through which we view the world.
"But what will I eat?"
The real question is if we genuinely care about the lives of animals, can we reconcile that notion with a choice to harm them? In a state of denial, even the most rational argument for avoiding animal products will likely seem extreme, impractical or unhealthy. However, if we accept that a better way exists, and the only thing stopping us is a cultural veil that obscures our thinking, we may be able to lift it eventually. This doesn't mean that the cultural symbols associated with animal based foods have to die -- they just have to be transformed! Animal-free alternatives are not restrictive and can taste just as good (if not better) than what we've grown accustomed to over the years. In fact, most people find that the experience of aligning their choices with their virtues can be truly liberating.
We may argue 'til the cows come home (no pun intended) about the moral, health and environmental reasons why we should or should not consume animals, but we can't ignore one undeniable truth: eating animals is a choice... a choice we can learn to live without.
Follow Nil Zacharias on Twitter: www.twitter.com/zachariot
So you can take my meat products when you pry them from my cold, dead arteries.
Because some of them taste GREAT.
I like Shrimp, I like Beef, chicken and some pork. Other meats like lamb is ok but mutton not so much. Venison is good but a bit gamey if not cooked right but it can be delicious when done right.
We have an abundance of wild hogs here but they are not good to eat so I don't. I like some fresh fish but not others. So I eat say a black sea bass, red snapper, grouper, cobia and Mahi mahi I catch but not Catfish. Others enjoy catfish so they eat that.
So Why Eat Them? They are animals and they taste great. So the question I have is WHY not? Now if you dont want to that is great and your choice, just like I choose to eat some meats and vegetables and not others.
Because animals taste good. Because I am an omnivore. Because animal products are an important part of a healthy diet. Because all diets cause the death of animals. Because death and life are inextricably intertwined. Because I care about the WELFARE of animals, not about their eventual death--it happens to all of us, right?
If you care about animals so much and think humane and sustainable agriculture is so good, why not spend some time attacking factory farming, instead of attacking article that talks about not eating animals?
According to you, eating vegetables harms animals so I might as well eat animals. Is that what your whole argument is based on? You can do better than that!
How about you stop eating animals first, so we dont have to breed and kill them any longer and we'll work together to address the problem of animals killed in crop production? Sounds like a great plan to me.
That animals are killed in crop production is an undeniable fact. And yes, whether vegans like it or not, these deaths result in suffering to produce their food. And that suffering is often direct, not indirect suffering, For example, mice and rats are intentionally poisoned in grain elevators. In fact, I would wager that the piece of venison on my plate, killed and cleaned by myself, contains far less animal suffering than a piece of tofu on a vegan's plate. That is because it is the result of the death of one animal, as opposed to the countless animals that are killed in industrial crop agriculture.
And no one here has defended factory farming in any way. There are alternatives to factory farmed meat other than veganism.
But what about everyone else? They're supposed to buy it from you? Doesn't sound like a very sustainable agricultural model to me.
With regards to factory farms,, I must admit you're right. There are alternatives to factory farmed meat other than veganism. But... the only alternative to breeding and killing animals you "care" about for food is to not eat them!
He says, "the hot dog has acquired secondary meaning in the mind of the consumer and the fact that an animal is involved is merely incidental to the idea of what they are consuming". I don't disagree that for a lot of people, a hot dog conjures up images of baseball games and not slaughtered animals, but at the same time the spinach in a vegan's salad has likewise acquired a secondary meaning ("vegetables=no harm"), and the fact that animals are killed in crop production is likewise "merely incidental to the idea of what they are consuming" (if, indeed, the idea is entertained at all).
The same motif is present in Joy's article on humane meat. She admits that animals are "incidentally" killed in crop production, but the use of the rather loaded and dismissive term "incidentally" once again suggests that their deaths don't matter.
The author's argument in this article finally collapses right there in the last sentence, which is basically an admission that he has not effectively dealt with the arguments of those who support humane and sustainable meat eating.
Pasturing a grazing ruminant, far from resulting in the "incidental" death of other animals, actually preserves animal habitat, as opposed to industrial crop production, which basically destroys everything in its path. And the death of one large pastured steer would provide food for a person for years.
Regarding "intention", "directly responsible", and so on, we need to clarify terms. Animal death and habitat loss may not be the PURPOSE of crop production, but if you plow a field knowing full well that such death and destruction will result, then such death is every bit as intentional as if you ate the resulting "roadkill" yourself. In the law, for example, there are crimes of specific intent, and crimes of general intent. To borrow an analogy from a lawyer friend, an example of the latter would be if, in your search for a parking space, you drove into a crowd of pedestrians and killed someone. The law doesn't care that you were "just looking for a place to park", and that that person's death was not your purpose - you knew full well that your actions were likely to result in harm, and are just as culpable as if you drove into the crowd for the purpose of killing someone.
"It would be wrong to fail not to learn to live without not foregoing eating animals."
--------------------------------------------
It's ironic you specifically mention wildlife conservation. It is a fact that the most effective, most ardent supporters of wildlife conservation are not vegans or animal rights advocates, but rather hunters and anglers. Sportsmen contribute the majority of the funds that make effective conservation and wildlife management possible through license purchases, surtaxes on hunting and fishing equipment (Pittman-Robertson Act), use fees for state-owned wildlife areas, and donations of both time and money to sportsmen-oriented, non-profit conservation organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, and several others. A vegan activist trying to claim the moral high ground on wildlife conservation simply does not gel with the facts, sir.
It may be that someone who hunts and is selective about the food s/he buys is responsible for fewer deaths than a lot of vegans. Anyone who is serious about animal rights needs to be as cognizant as possible of unintentional harm. Palm oil, cane sugar, constantly replaced laptops & cell phones, consumerism in general: they're all problematic. We need to avoid them as much as is practical.
But we just can't choose to exploit animals in such a deliberate way as to use them for food, clothing, research, etc. For us, it would be a bit like killing humans in order to lessen our collective carbon & water footprints.
I don't know what to say to those who have concluded, after extensive research, that some livestock need to be included in sustainable agriculture. I suppose if it's based on a desire to respect as many individuals and as many species as possible, then it's consistent with animal rights, since anti-speciesism is the heart of animal rights. Not that they would even care to be in alignment with animal rights! ;) I'm just explaining ethical objections I might have.
If these objections make sense to anyone, they should look into animal rights.