Meat isn’t murder. Meat is tasty. And not particularly bad for you unless you eat it soaked in sugar-coated sources and so frequently that your stomach assumes it’s an abattoir. Mind you, sugar isn’t so bad either according to current research and is being re-introduced in place of various corn alternatives in cookies and sodas. Much better, of course, than artificial sweeteners that we were once told were the best thing since sliced bread. Then again, sliced bread is out-of-fashion and rye considered far more healthy. Rye bread that is, as opposed to rye whiskey, because alcohol is nasty and brutish and leads inevitably to carnage on the roads and genocidal violence.
Or to put it another way, the cult of the experts and the moralising food-fanatics was exposed and exploded long ago. We live longer, we’re healthier, and our food is better and more various than at any time in human history. Organic eating is incredibly expensive and there is no consistent proof that it has positive long-term effects; and vegetarianism is generally a silly social statement rather than a valid lifestyle choice.
There are now a number of cases of post-hippie parents depriving their children of animal flesh and animal products such as milk and cheese to such an extent that the poor kids are malnourished and lack sufficient vitamins and minerals; the ultimate irony of rich, elitist North Americans starving their families when they can afford not to, while African and Asian parents are desperate to feed their children properly but cannot do so, not because of their lifestyle, but their life story.
The human body was designed to consume meat as well as vegetables and to deny it the former is just as ridiculous as depriving it of the latter. If we genuinely object to mass breeding techniques and modern slaughter methods, eat meat from small or family farms – they’re desperate for the support. If you’re squeamish because you saw Watership Down when you were small, think animal liberation is cool, or assume that chickens have rights: Grow up.
It’s all a symptom of privilege. In Africa, for example, there exists a grass that disguises some of the pains of hunger. Because of this it’s given by mothers to their babies so that the poor things won’t cry as much. The same grass has been turned into tablets to give to obese North Americans and Europeans to help them control their binging and lose some fat. In Peru, the fish-catch is one of the largest in the world but the Peruvians cannot adequately feed their people. One of the reasons is that much of the fish stock is exported to the United States and Canada to be used as cat food.
So how dare we indulge in oatmeal, veganism, and new-age food fetishes when the real issue is one of exploitation and the horribly unfair distribution of wealth and food. Consuming an animal as food is morally neutral while consuming the goods made by third world men and women who cannot afford a steak or a pork chop is certainly an ethical challenge, unless we’re one of those types who think baby cows and little pigs are so much cuter than those dreadful foreign people who are always complaining.
No, meat isn’t murder, but it’s murder having to explain to people who should know better that a beer, a scotch, a hamburger, an ice-cream or, God forbid, even the occasional cigar is only harmful if you don’t like it. The new puritans are as bad as the old ones, but rumour has it they taste great in a sandwich.
Image courtesy stock.xchng.
Comments
Ok I don't make a habit of this, but I'm going to write a very long response. I hope there isn't a space limit or something.
I'm a vegetarian, by the way.
I think what I'll do is try to "translate" your article, paragraph by paragraph (in bold), and then comment on each paragraph. The "translating" is my attempt to cut away the rhetoric and put down what I think you're actually saying.
Here goes (my apologies for typos):
It's not immoral to eat meat. Meat is tasty, and not bad for you unless you eat too much. Sugar is not that unhealthy, and is much more healthy than artificial sweeteners. [sarcasm] Alcohol is bad and contributes to car crashes and violence. [/sarcasm]
Comment: Ok, you said it's not immoral to eat meat. That's ok, but you should probably attempt to explain why. I know it's difficult to have justifications for moral claims, because they're kind of axiomatic, but at least try maybe? If you have a religion, I suppose you can just point to that. But there are other ways. For instance, someone claiming eating meat is immoral might point out the fact that the majority of people would be perfectly willing to do certain things with a knife to a tomato that they wouldn't do to a live pig. So to the extent that non-violence against animals seems to accord (to an extent) with human nature, that could be a basis for morality. (Of course there are many problems with that example, but I'm just trying to demonstrate what attempting a justification of a moral claim would look like).
Then you make some empirical claims, without any footnotes. Meat isn't that bad, sugar isn't that bad (aspartame is worse), alcohol isn't' that bad. Maybe you should footnote or something? Because it sort of seems like you aren't attempting to educate your readers with proven, factual claims (the kind supported by peer reviewed journal articles). It kind of looks like you just have taken a certain position, and are making bold claims based more on what you want to be true rather than what you can justifiably say is true.
I understand that footnoting is very rarely done in this type of writing. But it should be. I understand that the majority of readers won't look at the footnotes. But: if YOU are making the claim, YOU should be legitimately confident in it. And you cannot be legitimately confident without having read a reputable paper on the subject. So as long as you are making legitimate claims, it shouldn't really be any more work for you to throw in some footnotes. (And if you are making claims NOT based on reputable papers... maybe you shouldn't be making the claims in the first place?)
People who have advanced degrees in subjects relating to food are wrong. So are people who are passionate about making moral claims regarding food. We live longer and have better food than at any time in history. Organic food is expensive and there is no proof that it has any health benefits. Vegetarianism is a silly social statement, not a valid lifestyle choice.
Comment: this whole paragraph is pretty much a non sequitur. We live longer, but why? We're healthier, but why? Our food is better, but what do you mean by "better", and how do you know? I think you're trying to say that more meat has made us healthier, but without actually having to say it.
Organic food IS expensive. I recall reading that the balance of evidence says there are no positive long-term effects, but you should probably footnote this.
"vegetarianism is generally a silly social statement rather than a valid lifestyle choice." I have no idea what this even means.
There exist "a number" of parents who don't feed their children animal products, causing malnutrition. This is ironic because they could afford meat, while poor people have malnourished children because they are poor.
Another empirical claim. Footnote. Also, you seem to be implying a causal relationship: that the lack of meat is what causes the malnutrition. But imagine that there is a particular essential mineral that is available in only meat and carrots. A parent who fails to provide EITHER certainly has done something wrong, but it's just as much the failure to provide the carrots as it is the failure to provide meat that is the problem.
It may be relevant to consider the position of the American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada on vegetarian diets. In a helpfully titled paper (Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets) they state (in the abstract):
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."
and
"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals."
Read the whole thing here: http://www.adajournal.org/article/S0002-8223(03)00294-3/fulltext
Hmm. So it seems like these malnourished rich kids (if they exist!) are not simply suffering from an intrinsically insufficient diet...
The human body was designed to eat meat and vegetables. If factory farming is wrong, eat meat from small farms. If you think killing animals is immoral, you are immature.
OK. We've understood evolution for 150 years, there is no excuse to still be getting it wrong. I know that it's conceptually easier to think about things being "designed", but unfortunately, that's just not how it works. This is just another empirical claim. Actually two. 1) People have eaten meat in the past 2) it is more healthy to eat meat.
I think you want the first claim to somehow imply the second. It doesn't.
Then you throw a bone to people who don't like factory farming, perhaps recognizing that there is something a little bit disconcerting about it (I'm sure you've seen the videos). Then you go back to saying that empathy for animals is somehow immature.
Thinking that killing animals is immoral is caused by being rich. For example...
I don't understand how your examples have anything to do with the point you are trying to make.
How dare we worry about animals when there is unequal distribution of wealth! It is not immoral to eat animals. Buying things from poor people may be ethically wrong. [attack on straw men].
I don't quite follow how it's bad to be compassionate about one thing, when there are other (more important) things to be compassionate about as well. Is there a finite supply of compassion? And again, you're just SAYING that eating animals is ok. At least attempt to justify it.
It isn't immoral to eat animals. But it's annoying to explain that an occasional indulgence isn't unhealthy.
Just saying it isn't immoral to eat animals over and over isn't an argument. This doesn't further any discourse or make people think, or anything.
Anyways, my humble thoughts.
Sincerely,
-Cameron
It's always sad to see someone so angry about progress - you're only going to become more angry. I'm embarrassed for you that this was published. Making someone else more wrong doesn't make you more right. Women's Post should do you a favour and never publish anything you write again.
Post new comment