Do you feel any guilt from eating meat?

BraziliaNZ · 18-07-2012 11:24am #1

I read yesterday that close to a billion chickens are slaughtered every year for the UK alone. I'm not surprised, given every 20 meters or so there's a fried chicken shop in London, selling ridiculously cheap meat.
I'm trying to stop eating it these days, as the whole thing is a bit daunting to me, and goes so far beyond the natural order of things that it gives me a headache. I rarely eat beef these days too, for similar reasons, so I try and get my protein from fish and turkey. I know they're not really any better than eating chicken but I'm not sure if I can phase out meat altogether.

So is the amount of meat we eat these days just another part of the super consumer society we live in? The society where we can and do get whatever we want whenever we want?
Personally I would prefer a world where we ate meat once or twice a week, the way it used to be for the majority 100 years ago.
Marine life is being totally destroyed and the way we're hoovering up animals is scary, dystopian, completely against nature in my opinion.

Do you think we can replace it with synthetic meat some day? Or is this just another symptom of our inevitable spiral towards armageddon fuelled by the modern narcissistic, consumerist way of life?

Would you consider cutting down on meat for ethical reasons?

P.S. I don't think organic meats are the answer, only the rich can afford them. It soothes their conscience alright but if everyone could afford organic meats there wouldn't be enough room and we'd need factories again, so it's not a solution. Reminds me of the rich paying indulgences to the church so they'd get into heaven...

jonniebgood1 · 18-07-2012 12:29pm

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Would you consider cutting down on meat for ethical reasons?

Are there not ethical reasons for eating meat?

For example if we all decided tomorrow that we would stop eating beef, what would happen to the animals? Would people keep cattle in their fields as pets?

That said I think most people would support the recent drive to promote better conditions for some animals, pigs and chickens from memory. It should be insisted upon that meat from outside the EU is similarly treated.

BraziliaNZ · 18-07-2012 12:34pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Are there not ethical reasons for eating meat?

For example if we all decided tomorrow that we would stop eating beef, what would happen to the animals? Would people keep cattle in their fields as pets?

That said I think most people would support the recent drive to promote better conditions for some animals, pigs and chickens from memory. It should be insisted upon that meat from outside the EU is similarly treated.

I would imagine we would stop reproducing them to the crazy populations that we breed now, no?
Is it possible for us to all be eating meat a couple of times a day while treating animals in any way fairly?

stimpson · 18-07-2012 12:41pm

I was a vegetarian from the age of 14 up until a couple of years ago. I started eating meat again on medical advice. I guess as you get older you're less idealistic, so it doesn't really bother me. Animal welfare is still important to me, so I only buy Free range chicken and ethically raised beef. If I could get free range pork products I'd happily buy those too, but I haven't seen them on sale.

Sleepy · 18-07-2012 12:42pm

Absolutely none. The vast, vast majority of the animals we eat have only come into existence for that purpose anyway. Could cows, sheep or chicken survive as wild species in the modern world? I don't think so tbh.

I'd be firmly in support of fishing quotas where they're based on protecting species from being over-fished and have stopped eating Cod for this reason. Were there a comparable situation with meat e.g. if Elephant meat was a "normal" thing to have in supermarkets, I wouldn't eat that either.

kildare.17hmr · 18-07-2012 12:50pm

Not at all! I regularly kill and butcher my own meat which gives great satisfaction to me. I think people are so far away from the process these days which is why people think like this. When my grand parents and even my parents were young it was common to get a chicken and do it all yourself, my father used to buy a sheep for the freezer when he was younger and kill and butcher it himself so iv always known where exactly it comes from

Eliot Rosewater · 18-07-2012 1:29pm

Out of curiosity OP, why did you stop eating beef? Isn't there a kind of guarantee that beef products from Ireland will have been produced in an ethical fashion, in particular with respect to their living conditions?

BraziliaNZ · 18-07-2012 1:40pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Out of curiosity OP, why did you stop eating beef? Isn't there a kind of guarantee that beef products from Ireland will have been produced in an ethical fashion, in particular with respect to their living conditions?

I don't know, the smell, the blood when you're cooking it, it makes most people's mouth water but turns my stomach. My mother is the same probably got it from her. Plus I used to stay in farm houses when I was a kid out in the country and curious cows used to come over when I was near their fence, found them to be nice friendly, creatures.

jonniebgood1 · 19-07-2012 8:34am

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I would imagine we would stop reproducing them to the crazy populations that we breed now, no?
Is it possible for us to all be eating meat a couple of times a day while treating animals in any way fairly?

with reference to comment in my earlier post I would "support the recent drive to promote better conditions for some animals, pigs and chickens"- I mentioned pigs and Chickens in particular.

Rynox45 · 19-07-2012 8:49am

Not really, it's not like I'm a primary contributor to people mistreating animals. If I stop eating meat a cow wont be let free, it'll still be killed. If there was some sort of massive movement to lower the demand for meat I'd probably join it because you need something big to touch the profits of the food industry, that being the only way to get them to take notice.

I also hate the idea of people who are vegetarians just as an affectation. Not entirely related, I know, but true nonetheless. A friend of mine is a vegetarian and I asked him if he would eat meat if it had been grown in a lab (which can be done, it's just insanely expensive) and he said no. I wouldn't mind that if he hated meat but he likes it, he just doesn't like animals being hurt.

BraziliaNZ · 19-07-2012 10:40am

Rynox45 wrote: »

Not really, it's not like I'm a primary contributor to people mistreating animals. If I stop eating meat a cow wont be let free, it'll still be killed. If there was some sort of massive movement to lower the demand for meat I'd probably join it because you need something big to touch the profits of the food industry, that being the only way to get them to take notice.

I also hate the idea of people who are vegetarians just as an affectation. Not entirely related, I know, but true nonetheless. A friend of mine is a vegetarian and I asked him if he would eat meat if it had been grown in a lab (which can be done, it's just insanely expensive) and he said no. I wouldn't mind that if he hated meat but he likes it, he just doesn't like animals being hurt.

What do you mean by vegetarian by affectation? What's wrong with not eating meat because of not wanting to harm animals?
I think your attitude is very defeatist, just because no one else is doing anything about it, why should I? Unfortunately it's that attitude that causes things to get out of hand in all matters!

Oryx · 19-07-2012 1:04pm

I was vegetarian for years as well, and I also had to start eating meat for health reasons (though I dont eat beef as I dislike it). Meat is an industry. Animals are bred to provide it. They are not species that we are wiping out in order to sate our appetite for beef, chicken or pork, we create the animals for that purpose. Fish, now thats another matter. We are cleaning out the seas, everyone knows this but it isnt being prevented in any meaningful way.

If I have an objection to the meat industry, its to do with the way productivity is everything. Make it cheap, and get it fast. They pump chicken with all kinds of fillers, and we had that huge scandal over growth hormones in cattle years ago. And still, those in the industry breed and feed for better productivity regardless of whether its best environmental or ethical practice. I think it is another aspect of our consumerist society, having what we want when we want it, and with economic growth being the priority, even when clearly, at some stage, we will reach saturation point.

Setun · 19-07-2012 3:46pm

The issue is not solely about the welfare of the animals, but the question of the supply of raw materials and land use required for x pounds of beef. Take water for example:

the production of 1 kg wheat costs 1,300 L water
the production of 1 kg eggs costs 3,300 L water
the production of 1 kg broken rice costs 3,400 L water
the production of 1 kg beef costs 15,500 L water

source=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_water

With respect to current trends in reservoir levels and the general supply of water for agriculture, beef costs an awful lot in comparison to other foodstuffs. Industrial farming of beef is unsustainable in many countries - look at the western united states for example, the Hoover Dam reservoir is half-full (or half-empty perhaps :P) due to lessened supply from the Colorado river, urging the water boards to look at tapping underground natural reservoirs that the Nevada farmers have been using in order to keep the major tourist resorts habitable. Because of this, beef production (barring any unforseen circumstances) will not be possible in regions such as this within decades. To give up beef farming and focus on grain, for example, would greatly extend the life of these reservoirs.

tmc86 · 19-07-2012 3:47pm

Maybe if it wasn't so damn tasty!

BraziliaNZ · 19-07-2012 4:30pm

tmc86 wrote: »

Maybe if it wasn't so damn tasty!

I would have posted this in AH if I wanted ridiculous comments like that

tmc86 · 19-07-2012 4:51pm

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I would have posted this in AH if I wanted ridiculous comments like that

Sorry, I had just come from over there and was in that mindset

On a serious note, no I don't feel any guilt about eating meat and to be honest it doesn't enter into my mind.

I will however make a conscious effort to buy quality assured meat and meat from producers who communicate transparency and animal welfare in their production and rearing.

I will also try to avoid cheap meat if I can because I simply don't trust the nutritional side of it and the quality. I buy Irish chicken breasts too but won't buy chicken from a butcher unless it clearly states its Irish as some if it could be Thai chicken and the likes.

So to answer your question, no I wouldn't cut down on meat for ethical reasons but instead I would actively be more conscious when buying it to see if it supports animal welfare, transparency and quality.

Mark Hamill · 20-07-2012 12:10pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Are there not ethical reasons for eating meat?

For example if we all decided tomorrow that we would stop eating beef, what would happen to the animals? Would people keep cattle in their fields as pets?

That is not an ethical reason to eat meat, its (really bad) post hoc reasoning to justify eating meat. If we stopped eating cattle or chicken or whatever, their numbers would dwindle to whatever the environment could naturally sustain - just like every animal we dont eat.

Just because we are responsible for the current over population of farm animals doesn't mean we can justify eating them, you couldn't justify abusing your kids based on the fact that they wouldn't exist if it weren't for you.

Mark Hamill · 20-07-2012 12:16pm

Sleepy wrote: »

Absolutely none. The vast, vast majority of the animals we eat have only come into existence for that purpose anyway.

Would you support slavery if the slaves were bred to be slaves?

Sleepy wrote: »

Could cows, sheep or chicken survive as wild species in the modern world? I don't think so tbh.

Of course they could, there are wild species of cows, sheep and chicken.

Kooli · 20-07-2012 12:23pm

I feel really guilty about it, genuinely.

I think of myself as someone who tries to live according to morals and ethics, and I often reflect on the choices I make and try to do the best I can. So my not being a vegetarian is something I just try not to think about.

I believe eating meat is ethically wrong, and yet I do it. I do the usual mental gymnastics of cognitive dissonance to try and make myself feel like not a bad person, but I just cannot even comprehend becoming a vegetarian, for the two obvious reasons
1) I really, really, really love meat
2) I'm lazy - being a vegetarian involves being more creative with meals, putting more effort into planning meals, perhaps shopping in different places or spending a bit more, thinking more about nights out, putting friends out when you have dinner in theirs etc.

kildare.17hmr · 20-07-2012 1:49pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That is not an ethical reason to eat meat, its (really bad) post hoc reasoning to justify eating meat. If we stopped eating cattle or chicken or whatever, their numbers would dwindle to whatever the environment could naturally sustain - just like every animal we dont eat.

Imagine how much these animals would suffer if we were to do that

Just because we are responsible for the current over population of farm animals doesn't mean we can justify eating them, you couldn't justify abusing your kids based on the fact that they wouldn't exist if it weren't for you.

probably the worst argument iv heard made:rolleyes:

Would you support slavery if the slaves were bred to be slaves?

another silly argument. your attaching human traits to animals and visa versa.

Mark Hamill · 20-07-2012 6:18pm

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Imagine how much these animals would suffer if we were to do that

They would suffer the exact same as every wild animal in existence. I dont hear you crying about them.

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

probably the worst argument iv heard made:rolleyes:

But not for any reasons you would care to explain?

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

another silly argument. your attaching human traits to animals and visa versa.

You are thinking those human traits distinguish us from animals to the point that we can eat them. Humans can be bred, just like animals.

sponsoredwalk · 21-07-2012 12:28am

Kooli wrote: »

I feel really guilty about it, genuinely.

I think of myself as someone who tries to live according to morals and ethics, and I often reflect on the choices I make and try to do the best I can. So my not being a vegetarian is something I just try not to think about.

I believe eating meat is ethically wrong, and yet I do it. I do the usual mental gymnastics of cognitive dissonance to try and make myself feel like not a bad person, but I just cannot even comprehend becoming a vegetarian, for the two obvious reasons
1) I really, really, really love meat
2) I'm lazy - being a vegetarian involves being more creative with meals, putting more effort into planning meals, perhaps shopping in different places or spending a bit more, thinking more about nights out, putting friends out when you have dinner in theirs etc.

Give the fake stuff a shot sometime.

The Corinthian · 21-07-2012 1:32pm

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Personally I would prefer a world where we ate meat once or twice a week, the way it used to be for the majority 100 years ago.

...

P.S. I don't think organic meats are the answer, only the rich can afford them.

Why do you think the majority, a hundred years ago, only ate meat once or twice a week?

There's certainly no doubt that we eat too much meat. Heart disease rates and obesity have all increased substantially in the West since the end of World War II. Even in the far east, we've seen an increase in the consumption of meat, leading to an increase in height and similar increases in both heart disease and obesity, and decreases in more traditional ailments such as blood pressure related illness.

But, if you really want people to stop eating so much meat, you need to make it a luxury again, that they can only afford to eat once or twice a week. Otherwise, people will continue eat it.

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I don't know, the smell, the blood when you're cooking it, it makes most people's mouth water but turns my stomach. My mother is the same probably got it from her. Plus I used to stay in farm houses when I was a kid out in the country and curious cows used to come over when I was near their fence, found them to be nice friendly, creatures.

So in essence your objection to eating meat is due to psychological issues developed during childhood. Wouldn't therapy be a more logical alternative to giving up meat?

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I would have posted this in AH if I wanted ridiculous comments like that

It's not such a ridiculous comment; meat tastes good for a reason - humans evolved to eat it.

Indeed, ultimately you cannot escape the inescapable truth; that while we may certainly be eating too much of it at present, we're ultimately able to do so because we're designed to do so. If you don't believe me, adopt a vegan diet and let me know how that works out, as such diets generally require we take supplements to make up for things that vegetables simply cannot give us.

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food.

sponsoredwalk · 21-07-2012 2:00pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you don't believe me, adopt a vegan diet and let me know how that works out, as such diets generally require we take supplements to make up for things that vegetables simply cannot give us.

Oh man, could you not have googled something like this before saying it?

The Corinthian · 21-07-2012 3:10pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Oh man, could you not have googled something like this before saying it?

Have you? There's Wikipedia, for a start:

"The Vegan Society and Vegan Outreach recommend that vegans eat foods fortified with B12, such as fortified soy milk or cereal, or take a supplement."
"Iodine supplementation may be necessary for vegans in countries where salt is not typically iodized, where it is iodized at low levels, or where, as in Britain or Ireland, dairy products are relied upon for iodine delivery because of low levels in the soil."
"Vegans are advised to eat three servings per day of a high-calcium food, such as fortified soy milk, almonds, and hazelnuts, and take a calcium supplement as necessary."
"Regarding vitamin D... supplements of between 400 and 1,000 IU are recommended, because most vegan diets contain little or no vitamin D without supplements or fortified foods."

And that's recommended supplements if you're not pregnant.

Now, I stated that "such diets generally require we take supplements to make up for things that vegetables simply cannot give us" and it appears that's true. Indeed, while there are vegan equivalents for many of these missing dietary inputs, I've personally never met any vegan who was able to fully cover their dietary requirements using them and inevitably a few pills would be employed.

This is not to suggest one should not follow a vegan diet - each to their own, and there are certainly health benefits - however the almost inescapable need for artificial supplements is a reminder that ultimately we're omnivores, not herbivores.

Mark Hamill · 21-07-2012 9:13pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

So in essence your objection to eating meat is due to psychological issues developed during childhood. Wouldn't therapy be a more logical alternative to giving up meat?

The guy doesn't like the smell of meat or the sight of blood, thats not a psychological issue, its just his taste.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, ultimately you cannot escape the inescapable truth; that while we may certainly be eating too much of it at present, we're ultimately able to do so because we're designed to do so. If you don't believe me, adopt a vegan diet and let me know how that works out, as such diets generally require we take supplements to make up for things that vegetables simply cannot give us.

Vegetarian for 20 years and never taken a supplement. Veganism might require supplements but just because evolved to require something doesn't mean we have to get it the most blunt way. Evolution is blind, we are not.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food.

And exactly what part of you isn't made of meat?

The Corinthian · 22-07-2012 10:02am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The guy doesn't like the smell of meat or the sight of blood, thats not a psychological issue, its just his taste.

Actually, it could well be a psychological issue. We're not just talking that he does not like meat, but that it turns his stomach - that's more akin to a phobia than simple taste.

This could be caused by numerous reasons; a traumatic event or even an over-heightened empathy with animals formed during childhood, for example.

Vegetarian for 20 years and never taken a supplement.

I never said anything about vegetarianism, only veganism. Vegetarianism is generally a perfectly balanced diet and because one avoids eating too much meat, probably a lot healthier than most modern diets.

Actually, I've never understood why it's even called vegetarianism; since when did eggs, fish, dairy products and sometimes even poultry become members of the vegetable kingdom?

Veganism might require supplements but just because evolved to require something doesn't mean we have to get it the most blunt way. Evolution is blind, we are not.

Then flap your arms and fly.

Of course, our species can, through technology, go against our evolution and much of our lifestyles do exactly this. Even veganism is perfectly viable, as long as you take your artificial supplements to make up for what lack of any animal product can give you.

Question is; does it make sense to do so? Sometimes evolution has a point.

And exactly what part of you isn't made of meat?

You missed my point.

Mark Hamill · 22-07-2012 11:33am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, it could well be a psychological issue. We're not just talking that he does not like meat, but that it turns his stomach - that's more akin to a phobia than simple taste.

This could be caused by numerous reasons; a traumatic event or even an over-heightened empathy with animals formed during childhood, for example.

Brussel sprouts turn my stomach and I never had a traumatic event with them. Why assume that he had a traumatic event with beef? Many meat eaters from this side of the world would have their stomachs turned by some of the food eaten in other countries.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said anything about vegetarianism, only veganism. Vegetarianism is generally a perfectly balanced diet and because one avoids eating too much meat, probably a lot healthier than most modern diets.

Vegetarianism avoids eating all meat, the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan is that vegetarians will eat or use products that come from live animals e.g. dairy products, while vegans wont eat or use any animal based products, even if the animal isn't killed to obtain them e.g. no wool for vegans.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, I've never understood why it's even called vegetarianism; since when did eggs, fish, dairy products and sometimes even poultry become members of the vegetable kingdom?

Fish and poultry have never been part of the vegetable kingdom. If you know a supposed vegetarian who eats fish, then tell them are a pescetarian not a vegetarian. If you know a supposed vegetarian who eats poultry then tell them they are morons. Eggs and dairy don't come from dead animals, so vegetarians can eat them (sometimes people make the distinction as "lacto-ovo-vegetarianism").

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then flap your arms and fly.

Or I could use a plane. Like I said: just because evolved to require something doesn't mean we have to get it the most blunt way.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course, our species can, through technology, go against our evolution and much of our lifestyles do exactly this. Even veganism is perfectly viable, as long as you take your artificial supplements to make up for what lack of any animal product can give you.

Question is; does it make sense to do so? Sometimes evolution has a point.

Evolution has never had a point, its a blind biological process over thousands and millions of years. Its just cause and effect. Does gravity "have a point"?

The Corinthian wrote: »

You missed my point.

Maybe you were just being ironic, but that is a point I have heard made by people, a point which seems to be ignoring how edible humans are.

The Corinthian · 22-07-2012 1:29pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Brussel sprouts turn my stomach and I never had a traumatic event with them. Why assume that he had a traumatic event with beef? Many meat eaters from this side of the world would have their stomachs turned by some of the food eaten in other countries.

I'm not assuming it, I'm taking it from what the OP has written. Brussels sprouts turn my stomach too, because of the taste and smell, but I don't feel guilty about eating them. It's pretty clear from even the title of this thread, that the OP's position stems from a largely psychological reaction to meat that invokes feelings of guilt and of a sense of over-exaggerated empathy with livestock that appears to have been developed during childhood.

Fish and poultry have never been part of the vegetable kingdom. If you know a supposed vegetarian who eats fish, then tell them are a pescetarian not a vegetarian. If you know a supposed vegetarian who eats poultry then tell them they are morons. Eggs and dairy don't come from dead animals, so vegetarians can eat them (sometimes people make the distinction as "lacto-ovo-vegetarianism").

Fair enough, I'm clearly not a familiar with the various sub-groupings of 'vegetarianism', only that I've met very few (if any) who identify as such without eating some form of meat in reality.

Personally, I can understand the health benefits and even I have now limited myself in terms of meat intake (I write as I finish off a nice Cannellini bean, tomato and mozzarella salad). I just never got this largely Anglophone preoccupation with humanizing farm livestock; perhaps I'm probably too continental.

Or I could use a plane. Like I said: just because evolved to require something doesn't mean we have to get it the most blunt way.

I actually addressed that.

Setun · 22-07-2012 3:08pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough, I'm clearly not a familiar with the various sub-groupings of 'vegetarianism', only that I've met very few (if any) who identify as such without eating some form of meat in reality.

I guess that says a whole lot more about the people you've met who claim to be vegetarians than it does for vegetarians in general. I don't know any vegetarians who secretly 'dabble' in chicken, or fish, or any other type of meat.

As a vegetarian myself, something most people can't get their head around is that I actually do not want to eat meat - I am not depriving myself of something that I enjoy, it is something I simply do not want to eat. I can also identify with these strong feelings of empathy towards animals, but it is certainly not something I will ever seek counseling for - it's not an unhealthy mental condition.

The Corinthian · 22-07-2012 6:11pm

Daddio wrote: »

I guess that says a whole lot more about the people you've met who claim to be vegetarians than it does for vegetarians in general. I don't know any vegetarians who secretly 'dabble' in chicken, or fish, or any other type of meat.

Can't be that many 'real' vegetarians, I suppose.

I can also identify with these strong feelings of empathy towards animals, but it is certainly not something I will ever seek counseling for - it's not an unhealthy mental condition.

And if someone had, due to even non-traumatic childhood experiences, an aversion to sexual intimacy, they also may consider it not to be an unhealthy mental condition. Indeed, most people with unhealthy mental conditions are convinced they're perfectly normal.

Personally, I feel that an overinflated sense of empathy for animals, to the point whereby you begin to 'humanize' them, is abnormal. And only certain animals, I've noticed, because you'll not have to go far to find someone who will refuse to eat rabbit, but will happy squash (or more likely get someone else to squash) a spider. Rabbits are cuter.

To me, it all smacks suspiciously of neurosis that has become somehow largely acceptable in modern Anglophone society.

But whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

Rev Hellfire · 22-07-2012 7:11pm

The only meat I've a slight problem eating is fish, it just seems such a wasteful industry. If the animal can be raised and disposed of in a humane manner then I've no problem with their consumption.

Macha · 22-07-2012 7:42pm

Yes, because of the god-awful regulation of our meat industries and the negative environmental impacts.

Setun · 23-07-2012 10:00am

The Corinthian wrote: »

And if someone had, due to even non-traumatic childhood experiences, an aversion to sexual intimacy, they also may consider it not to be an unhealthy mental condition. Indeed, most people with unhealthy mental conditions are convinced they're perfectly normal.

Haha, I must say I do enjoy reading your posts!

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I feel that an overinflated sense of empathy for animals, to the point whereby you begin to 'humanize' them, is abnormal. And only certain animals, I've noticed, because you'll not have to go far to find someone who will refuse to eat rabbit, but will happy squash (or more likely get someone else to squash) a spider. Rabbits are cuter.

Did you recently meet a hip youngster who wore vegetarianism like a vintage scarf, and the whole unpleasant experience has just coloured your view negative? Or do you really think all vegetarians are damaged from a childhood experience with animals? :pac: In any case, I don't see why an empathetic connection with another living thing is undesirable - we all feel this way about our pets. The example you gave above is more relevant for meat eaters in general no? Most will eat beef, or bacon, but how many will eat a "cute" rabbit, as you say? Or how many would eat a pig if it was their pet? In general, meat is conceptually disconnected from its source in the minds of most people: it is an object, and this is what enables them to eat it. When most people no longer see a disconnection between what it is, and what it was, and what happened in between, this is when a conflict arises. The conflict can result in feelings of guilt, or perhaps take the form of a general distaste for meat. I don't think it has anything to do with a childhood experience for the majority, to be honest.

The Corinthian wrote: »

To me, it all smacks suspiciously of neurosis that has become somehow largely acceptable in modern Anglophone society.

But whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

Anyway, for a moment let's forget the so-called "childhood empathy complex" that apparently all vegetarians are suffering from. As I outlined previously, the meat-heavy diet generally consumed in the west is simply unsustainable in the long-term. New York Times article, and also this in the Guardian from 2010. An over-indulgence in meat would appear to be just another issue where we're acting irresponsibly.

Jester252 · 23-07-2012 10:06am

I dont feel bad eating meet. Its what were ment to do.

The Corinthian · 23-07-2012 10:48am

Daddio wrote: »

Did you recently meet a hip youngster who wore vegetarianism like a vintage scarf, and the whole unpleasant experience has just coloured your view negative?

Not at all, although I did once get an ALF leaflet handed to me by a chap wearing a nice calf-skin jacket.

Personally, I've known a few vegans, but oddly no 'vegetarians' where it comes to the definition that's been given here as any 'vegetarian' I've met still ate some form of meat; be it fish or even chicken. If this has coloured my opinion is that if 'animal rights' were cited as the reason for their 'vegetarianism', it seemed inconsistent and more akin to a fashion than a principle.

Nonetheless, none of this has anything to do with what I believe to be the psychological reasons for aversion to any meat.

Or do you really think all vegetarians are damaged from a childhood experience with animals? :pac: In any case, I don't see why an empathetic connection with another living thing is undesirable - we all feel this way about our pets. The example you gave above is more relevant for meat eaters in general no? Most will eat beef, or bacon, but how many will eat a "cute" rabbit, as you say? Or how many would eat a pig if it was their pet? In general, meat is conceptually disconnected from its source in the minds of most people: it is an object, and this is what enables them to eat it. When most people no longer see a disconnection between what it is, and what it was, and what happened in between, this is when a conflict arises. The conflict can result in feelings of guilt, or perhaps take the form of a general distaste for meat. I don't think it has anything to do with a childhood experience for the majority, to be honest.

I disagree. My other half cannot eat rabbits because she had some as pets as a child, yet she has no problem with other forms of meat, including some that most Anglophones could never bring themselves to eat, such as horse (a much healthier alternative to beef, BTW).

It does seem clear that aversion to eating meat is for many more a psychological than practical concern. As such the roots of such an aversion will oft come from childhood experiences and upbringing. Why else will Anglophones have issues eating certain foods, such as squid and octopus, when Mediterranean have no such qualms?

Anyway, for a moment let's forget the so-called "childhood empathy complex" that apparently all vegetarians are suffering from. As I outlined previously, the meat-heavy diet generally consumed in the west is simply unsustainable in the long-term. New York Times article, and also this in the Guardian from 2010. An over-indulgence in meat would appear to be just another issue where we're acting irresponsibly.

I do not at all disagree with with the practical arguments against meat consumption, at least in so far as we eat far too much meat. I've already stated this and also stated that, whatever about a vegan diet, a (true) vegetarian one is perfectly viable.

However, this does not appear to be why vegans (or most 'real' vegetarians) don't eat meat, but a reason adopted to support a psychological inclination, after the fact.

Procrastastudy · 23-07-2012 2:28pm

Personally I do feel a bit guilty - its not because I'm chomping on a nice juicy cute lamb or bessie the cow. It comes down to globally how we manage food. I won't derail the thread by going into it but that's my own personal prangs og guilt sometimes.

Have to agree that the 'because its so damn tasty' element does seem to get me over that quite quickly.

Animal welfare is a choice currently. Every time you buy, or don't, organic / free range you vote on how you think meat should be produced. Ironically cost is the answer - the reason we have an obesity problem is because of the cost of food. A happy meal should not be cheaper than a bag of carrots.

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 2:57pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not assuming it, I'm taking it from what the OP has written. Brussels sprouts turn my stomach too, because of the taste and smell, but I don't feel guilty about eating them. It's pretty clear from even the title of this thread, that the OP's position stems from a largely psychological reaction to meat that invokes feelings of guilt and of a sense of over-exaggerated empathy with livestock that appears to have been developed during childhood.

But why is that something that would require therapy? I think a lot of Irish people would have serious issues with eating dog meat or cat meat or horse meat etc., something which is not uncommon in other parts of the world. Should people get therapy to get over their negative psychological response to eating those types of meat?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough, I'm clearly not a familiar with the various sub-groupings of 'vegetarianism', only that I've met very few (if any) who identify as such without eating some form of meat in reality.

The main issue is the people who claim to be vegetarian without understanding what it means, despite it being quite simple. If you are vegan it means nothing at all from any animal - be it food based or clothes based etc. If you are vegetarian, it means nothing from dead animals - you can eat dairy products, but not fish or chicken or beef etc (pescetarians can eat fish). Everything else is just omnivorism with taste/distastes for particular types of meat. If you only eat chicken, then you are an omnivore who only eats chicken, there is no special word for it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I can understand the health benefits and even I have now limited myself in terms of meat intake (I write as I finish off a nice Cannellini bean, tomato and mozzarella salad). I just never got this largely Anglophone preoccupation with humanizing farm livestock; perhaps I'm probably too continental.

For me its not so much humanisation, its recognising that humans are animals too, and our avoidance of eating each other is a social construct rather than a biological necessity.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I actually addressed that.

With the sentence that came after it? I responded to that too.

The Corinthian · 23-07-2012 3:34pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But why is that something that would require therapy? I think a lot of Irish people would have serious issues with eating dog meat or cat meat or horse meat etc., something which is not uncommon in other parts of the world. Should people get therapy to get over their negative psychological response to eating those types of meat?

You're confusing cultural and biological normality. Culturally there are variations on the types of meat we eat, but ultimately we eat meat because we are biologically designed to do so. An aversion to a biological desire for animal products is abnormal in the same way as an aversion to the biological desire for sex, because there are very good reasons why those biological desires are there in the first place.

For me its not so much humanisation, its recognising that humans are animals too, and our avoidance of eating each other is a social construct rather than a biological necessity.

So cannibalism is a taboo for social reasons? Tell me, how many animals, and specifically mammals, commonly engage in cannibalism as part of their diet?

With the sentence that came after it? I responded to that too.

No, I specifically addressed technology and how it can allow us to ignore the limitations of evolution. Just because we can, doesn't always mean it makes sense that we should.

Macha · 23-07-2012 3:55pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're confusing cultural and biological normality. Culturally there are variations on the types of meat we eat, but ultimately we eat meat because we are biologically designed to do so. An aversion to a biological desire for animal products is abnormal in the same way as an aversion to the biological desire for sex, because there are very good reasons why those biological desires are there in the first place.

We eat meat because it provides us with nutrition. But we can get nutrition from other sources. Not eating meat isn't 'abnormal'.

The Corinthian · 23-07-2012 4:11pm

Macha wrote: »

We eat meat because it provides us with nutrition. But we can get nutrition from other sources. Not eating meat isn't 'abnormal'.

Not what I argued.

I've said repeatedly that there are good biological why we eat meat and other animal products. If we choose not to do so for ideological or health reasons and are able to fulfil those needs in other ways, then fine, even if it means eating supplements for the rest of your life.

It is when you cannot fulfil a normal biological function because of 'guilt' that it becomes 'abnormal' and in need of therapy.

Macha · 23-07-2012 4:26pm

Or you can acknowledge that your sense of unease is based on genuine reasons and is not a cause for therapy.

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 4:48pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're confusing cultural and biological normality. Culturally there are variations on the types of meat we eat, but ultimately we eat meat because we are biologically designed to do so. An aversion to a biological desire for animal products is abnormal in the same way as an aversion to the biological desire for sex, because there are very good reasons why those biological desires are there in the first place.

There are cultures that don't eat meat (Buddhists).
Just because an act is "abnormal" doesn't automatically equate to requiring therapy to "fix" it. Abnormality is defined by context and popularity, not by validity. Going purely by numbers, homosexuality is abnormal.
Also saying the we are designed to eat meat implies that something did the designing. Evolution is blind, we evolved to eat meat.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So cannibalism is a taboo for social reasons? Tell me, how many animals, and specifically mammals, commonly engage in cannibalism as part of their diet?

Quite a few animals do, including insects, fish and chimpanzees.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I specifically addressed technology and how it can allow us to ignore the limitations of evolution. Just because we can, doesn't always mean it makes sense that we should.

And it doesn't mean we shouldn't, its a moot point.

juan.kerr · 23-07-2012 4:49pm

Only when I eat too much.

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 4:52pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Can't be that many 'real' vegetarians, I suppose.

Or you just don't know any.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And if someone had, due to even non-traumatic childhood experiences, an aversion to sexual intimacy, they also may consider it not to be an unhealthy mental condition. Indeed, most people with unhealthy mental conditions are convinced they're perfectly normal.

And if someone had, due to even non-traumatic childhood experiences, a preference to sexual intimacy with members of the same sex, would you consider them to have an unhealthy mental condition? Seems to me you are just defining those with unpopular tastes as unhealthy.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I feel that an overinflated sense of empathy for animals, to the point whereby you begin to 'humanize' them, is abnormal. And only certain animals, I've noticed, because you'll not have to go far to find someone who will refuse to eat rabbit, but will happy squash (or more likely get someone else to squash) a spider. Rabbits are cuter.

This happens with meat eaters too. How many people have no problem with eating pig but would nearly commit at the thought of eating dog.

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 4:53pm

Jester252 wrote: »

I dont feel bad eating meet. Its what were ment to do.

According to who/what?

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 4:55pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not what I argued.

I've said repeatedly that there are good biological why we eat meat and other animal products. If we choose not to do so for ideological or health reasons and are able to fulfil those needs in other ways, then fine, even if it means eating supplements for the rest of your life.

It is when you cannot fulfil a normal biological function because of 'guilt' that it becomes 'abnormal' and in need of therapy.

So we should be slaves to our biological functions?

tayto lover · 23-07-2012 5:04pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

According to who/what?

My taste buds.
#
I dare any vegetarian to go for a 20 mile hike in the mountains on a cold day and to refuse a big steak, onions and chips on return and opt for a salad.

The Corinthian · 23-07-2012 5:36pm

Macha wrote: »

Or you can acknowledge that your sense of unease is based on genuine reasons and is not a cause for therapy.

Sure. But if that 'unease' is at a level where it invokes strong feelings of guilt and even nausea, then you've a problem. Most should be able to accept that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There are cultures that don't eat meat (Buddhists).

If Ireland was a predominantly Buddhist country or you were brought up as one, then you might have a point. Or not; after all, many of the psychological hangups that Roman Catholicism in our culture has given us, for example, can hardly be referred to as normal either.

Just because an act is "abnormal" doesn't automatically equate to requiring therapy to "fix" it.

I never suggested that.

Also saying the we are designed to eat meat implies that something did the designing. Evolution is blind, we evolved to eat meat.

Now you're seriously nit picking. I am in no way promoting Intelligent Design, just because you didn't like my turn of phrase.

Quite a few animals do, including insects, fish and chimpanzees.

I asked "how many animals, and specifically mammals, commonly engage in cannibalism as part of their diet". Of mammals the answer is none. Many will kill members of the same species, but actual cannibalism is actually relatively rare, even amongst chimps, leopards and lions. If you actually read your link, you'll see this.

Especially amongst mammals, a number of taboos have developed that are evolutionary in origin, such as cannibalism and incest. This doesn't mean that the taboos are not broken, only that they are the exception rather than the rule and thus typically aberrant behaviour.

And it doesn't mean we shouldn't, its a moot point.

But if the reason we shouldn't is due to an environmentally acquired phobia or complex, then I hardly think this is a good reason to buck nature.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Or you just don't know any.

Perhaps, but given I know a few vegans, whom I have otherwise presumed would be fewer in number than 'true' vegetarians, I suspect that there are in reality fewer such 'true' vegetarians than vegans. As there aren't that many vegans out there, then I would conclude that there are very few 'true' vegetarians. QED.

And if someone had, due to even non-traumatic childhood experiences, a preference to sexual intimacy with members of the same sex, would you consider them to have an unhealthy mental condition? Seems to me you are just defining those with unpopular tastes as unhealthy.

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a product of nurture and not nature?

This happens with meat eaters too. How many people have no problem with eating pig but would nearly commit at the thought of eating dog.

I totally agree.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So we should be slaves to our biological functions?

Would you prefer to be a slave to your psychosis's?

Macha · 23-07-2012 5:52pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure. But if that 'unease' is at a level where it invokes strong feelings of guilt and even nausea, then you've a problem. Most should be able to accept that.

Why are you talking about nausea? I have strong feeling of guilt because I understand the reality of what has to happen for me to eat meat. I also feel guilty because I fully understand how much resources are wasted for a meat-heavy diet compared to a diet lower in meat or without any meat at all.

That is just reality. As Carl Sagan said: "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." There are natural tensions between what humans want and reality. To dismiss any negative emotions that arise from considering that as some sort of mental problem seems strange.

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 5:54pm

tayto lover wrote: »

My taste buds.
#

You think cannibals eat people despite the taste?

tayto lover wrote: »

I dare any vegetarian to go for a 20 mile hike in the mountains on a cold day and to refuse a big steak, onions and chips on return and opt for a salad.

Onions and chips are vegetarian.

Do you feel any guilt from eating meat?

Comments