Re: Eating less meat, part 2

[John Giezensomething]

I've noticed some themes in the dissenting comments on Hank's video. They mostly go like this:

1. "We can't stop eating meat because if we did the animals would overpopulate and we'd be overrun! Their soaring populations would surely cause a lot of environmental damage in itself, and then we'd have to shoot them anyway."
2. "PETA? Those people are crazy! I can't stand PETA, so I'm not going to give up meat."
3. "We can't cut back too much because people are designed to eat meat and need it to be healthy."
4. "Oh come on, meat tastes too good! I could never give it up."

Response:

1. You have to realize that meat industries have complete control of their animals' reproduction. You think cows make babies by having sex? That hasn't happened in a long time. Sperm is collected from males, frozen, sold, and females are artificially inseminated. Overpopulation of domestic animals would NOT be a problem if demand for meat went down, because we could simply stop breeding them. Their population would go down, not up, naturally as the animals died of old age. We could use some of the subsidies that now go to meat production to support the animals for the rest of their lives, and then divert that money to something more useful than making meat. Even if some operations did simply shut down and open the gates, leaving the animals to their fates, it isn't likely that cows or chickens would establish any self-propagating populations in the wild because they are, as a result of breeding for domesticity, fat, slow, and pretty defenseless. Farmed animals would certainly never become so numerous that they'd overrun your front yard.

2. Your feelings for PETA don't really have anything to do with Hank's argument. Whether or not you agree with the tactics of a particular environmental organization doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you should choose to eat less meat. PETA is not the reason to eat less meat. The validity of individual arguments such as those offered by Hank and others are what you should consider when deciding whether you can ethically continue eating as much meat as you do.

3. Animals that need to eat meat have teeth that are designed to eat meat. It's a misconception that canine teeth are an indication of meat eating -- gorillas, for instance, have huge fangs and are vegetarians. The sign of a true meat eating mammal is the carnassial tooth, a premolar/molar that is shaped specifically to shear meat from bone and chew it. It is, in fact, what defines a member of the order Carnivora. It's what dogs, cats, bears, raccoons, weasels and skunks all have in common. And humans have no such tooth. Our teeth are best suited for slicing fruits and vegetables and grinding seeds and nuts. Just because we are capable of eating meat doesn't mean that we are meant to. And all the perfectly healthy vegetarians like me are evidence that we don't need to eat any meat to be healthy, and certainly not as much as the average American does.

4. This argument is a copout, and you know it. Ethics doesn't care one bit how good it tastes. Ethics asks you but one question: Is it right? If you can consider all the reasons why one might eat less meat and still honestly think that your current level of meat consumption is justified, if you can bite into that quarterpounder knowing full well all the environmental, animal and social costs involved without feeling a twinge of guilt, then so be it. But I don't think you can, once you've seen all the facts on the table.

I couldn't, and I offer myself as a rebuttal to this extremely common response. I was a consummate meat-eater. I despised vegetables and ate meat in every meal if I could from childhood up to the age of 20. I had never eaten a salad. I picked the lettuce and tomatoes off my hamburgers so that I could enjoy the meat and bun on its own. And I spent several years after I knew how bad it was telling myself that I couldn't possibly give it up because it was just too good. But then I did give it up, first cows, then pigs and shrimp, then all seafood, and finally chicken and turkey. It took a few years, but I transitioned to a vegetarian diet, and soon found that I did indeed like vegetables, and that the thought of eating meat had become repulsive to me. I found that even if a hamburger could somehow be produced within my standards for environmental protection, I still wouldn't want it. I wouldn't want to kill the cow. I can't believe now that I ever enjoyed meat. My weight stayed the same and my health, if anything, improved. I haven't thrown up or even been sick to my stomach in six years, since the time when I was mostly weaned off of meat. So don't shrug off the environmental catastrophe that is industrial scale meat production by saying that you can't consider cutting back because you like the taste of meat too much. When you do that you identify yourself as someone who won't listen to reason, no matter how compelling, simply because you are set in your ways and unwilling to consider change, no matter how beneficial. That, I think, is not something that nerdfighters do.

And besides, Hank's only advocating a reduction in meat consumption, not a total cessation of it! If everyone just gave up one meat meal per week, that would be a big benefit to the environment that sustains our life and civilization. I think eating less meat than the average American does now should be considered the same as recycling -- that is, something that everyone can do without greatly inconveniencing themselves, and something every reasonable, responsible person should do.