Meet Meat Research Paper

...

Pets have been part and parcel of our lives for a long time. The human-dog relationship is a strong historic example. Dogs have been genetically separated from wolves for over 100,000 years, associating us with them for as long as we have been around (Barber). We refer to dogs, many times, as mans best friend. The average pet owner, not for a minute however, would tolerate the various observations that Safran makes at KFC’s suppliers, if they were carried out on their pets. But is this an answer to why we do not like animal suffering but like consuming meat? Does the situation have to do with direct interaction? Is this the buffer that restaurants, kitchens and supermarkets provide?

According to Rothgerber, a higher reason for our justification of eating meat should be considered. He states “meat consumption is a symbol of patriarchy resulting from its long-held alliance with manhood, power, and virility,” and that “meat eating is linked to strength” (364). Consequently, does this mean that we are accepting animal suffering in search of dominance? Do we feel that without meat, we show some kind of weakness? This may very well be the case, I can personally relate to it. Every year my family celebrates Christmas with the eating of a specially prepared pork dish, a common Portuguese tradition; well at least in Trinidad and Tobago. I know suffering takes place for this meal, but I cannot think amount rejecting the meal. I cannot afford to lose respect among family members neither compromise the reassurance it gives me; I am part of the family, I am one of them. At the same time, I consider myself a morally good person, therefore, am I a hypocrite?

Safran and Engel both provide insight in variety of areas, but natural instinct and the search for some sort of dominance or strength that Rothgerber brings up seems to be out of their understanding, or at least scope of work. In Eating Animals there seems to be no sign of biological reasoning, more inflicting of guilt. At the same time however, Safran may question the difference between a pig and a dog. Why does one hold this special rank among owners and not the other? Does it relate back to the disconnection, the lack of interaction?

Mayell in Evolving to Eat Mush: How Meat Changed Our Bodies, points towards the evolution of human beings. She notes that natural selection and competition are reasons that human beings started eating meat. Drawing on an example of gorillas, she highlights that, if they are given a meat diet of today, their lifespan drops almost 30 years. She states that the high cholesterol and fat associated with meat is something that humans have evolved to tolerate, not something that is natural. Since our bodies can now handle meat almost as well as other products, there is a natural tendency to crave it. But how far does this craving go? How far do we push this craving to ignore other things? Is our natural tendency to crave meat, which Mayell speaks about, enough to ignore the inner vegetarian that Engel says we have? Are we even ignoring an inner vegetarian voice speaking to us, or can we just not simply come to terms with it?

Insight to how far our cravings go, Wallace, in his article Consider the Lobster points to individuals leaving the kitchen as lobsters frantically cling to the lid while being boiled. This may possibly be the inner vegetarian that Engel speaks about. This may also put Rothgerber points out in front for questioning. Where does our dominance and/or strength stop? It seems that, well at least in the case of lobsters, we give up that dominant position for a little while, maybe for our inner vegetarian self OR because we are hiding to fill the later craving that Mayell says we evolved to have. Taking a couple of steps back, it surely makes me consider the Christmas pork once more. If I had to witness the slaughtering of the pig, possibly rejecting the pork in front of the family may not turn out to be half as bad. I am not sure if I would need to prove my worth. I think my whole family may have a change of expression on their face, maybe not the Christmas one that has been there for years. Wallace’s example could be the reality of removing barriers. When we remove the restaurant setting and the aisles of the supermarket, placing ourselves in contact with the animal may reveal hidden behaviors and traits.

It is possible to look at the situation from various angles, but the understanding that meat consumption has large contributions to environmental degradation is unlike hiding while cooking lobster. These are real imminent dangers that manifest themselves on our everyday lives and don’t have the same buffer that animal suffering has. But is there a way to fall in the middle? Maybe.

If one is not willing to become a vegetarian, they are sometimes accepting to continue their meat eating but from humanely raised animals. Increased family farms and those that abide by sustainable agriculture would be helpful to the environment. Animals raised with less abuse than factory farms and under less stress would mean fewer pathogens, fewer unknowns seeping into our meals. Animals would be fed differently and injection of various hormones would be an uncommon practice. Large industrial equipment and the pollution associated with them may be less of a worry. So is this the way out? Is this a happy medium? Can we be satisfied with this alternative?

As mentioned, non-factory farmed meat (in the United States) and therefore animals that have not experienced suffering amount to only 1% (Safran 201). If we are to denounce factory farming and the suffering of animals for the alternative of ethically raised animals, we are either searching for meat in the 1% area or raising the animals ourselves. Odds seem to be against the average individual when they consider the options.