What makes it unethical for some but ethical for others? Merely being in a first world country rather than a 3rd world one doesn't seem to be a related criterion. Is it because we are often widely divorced from the animals we eat? (as you noted, we tend to eat a lot more meat than we ever see the living version thereof). Or it is because of the amount we eat, which produces a significant negative impact on the environment? Or something else?
It's a matter of weighing our impact on the environment, for the most part; first world countries have a much greater one, and can afford more meat, and as such, their meat consumption is a stronger concern. In third world countries raising one's own animals is far more common, as well, and those animals generally live a far better life than the ones raised in meat factories. Inhumane treatment of animals in third-world countries is still very important, of course, but relatively speaking we are doing worse by the animals and by nature. And anyway, the difficulties of habit-changing are not to be underestimated, but it's highly doable for us to educate ourselves and gradually implement a new diet. Who knows what resources they have at their disposal to do so?
I do consider being divorced from the animals we eat an ethical and psychological concern; I think it's in humanity's best interests to cultivate an awareness and, for lack of a better phrase, psychological connection to the environment. That is a whole nother massive post, however!
A term that you might be interested in, if you have not already heard of it, is "ethitarian." It is a commitment to eating foods that are produced in an as ethical way as possible.
That's a great word! "Vegetarian" tends to invite a lot of strong responses and straw men, so I'm glad to hear it.
I had no idea that certain vegetables were genetically distasteful to certain people, either. That may explain why I absolutely loathe cucumbers and pickles beyond all meaningful description.
s that just because Kiwi aren't native to, well, anywhere but China, and thus (even if grown locally in a climate controlled area) aren't really local? If so, then I am afraid I have some bad news about the Italian food you love so much
I should have clarified. Kiwis are not local to my area -- most of the ones I see here come from Florida-- and I find it fairly obvious that a Texas farm would not be able to grow them. Nonetheless, they are at several of our farmer's markets. They are the exact kiwis you'd get at any nearby grocery store. And people think they're local. So yeah, it's not so much that they are eating kiwis -- I do that too sometimes -- it's that they're patting themselves on the back for doing something they're not doing. Sigh.
And the major reason I loved Italian food was not Italian dishes (though they were awesome, and as you may imagine, generally very different from the American versions). It was because they have so much wine, fruit, and cheese in their diet, and I never, ever, ever get tired of consuming those things in large qualities. Also, Nutella. But that is an import
People crave and often need meat, and there's nothing wrong with that--nor should it somehow become wrong just because meat is plentiful or people are denizens of a first-world country
Hmm, maybe I'm not being clear -- I agree with that statement, in principle. My major objections are to the environmental impact and the animal rights issues, not people eating meat in the abstract.
In our particular situation, I think it is not ethical to eat meat in excess. The ancient Vikings had every reason to do so, as do the Somalians.
More broadly, I am not interested in any solution to environmental problems that inflicts poverty or deprivation on people.
I have enough faith in human adaptability to say that we'd be able to function with less meat in our diets on both a personal and broadly economic level. We would also, in my opinion, enjoy meat a great deal more for its being rarer and of better quality.
As for the healthfulness or unhealthfulness of eating whatever kinds or quantities of meat, while we don't know the most intricate truths we do know from demographics that meat-heavy diets can only be, at worst, moderately unhealthy for most people or very unhealthy for a few people.
It's certainly true that a number of different kinds of diets can be effective at what they do, but it is also true that in our culture, most people do not have the time nor awareness to eat a whole lot of meat in a way that does not support the unethical majority of the meat industry, and that they would be healthier if they ate less of it. How much healthier may be in question -- I haven't looked at comparisons in awhile, and as Zeality notes, there is epic amounts of politicking and misinformation in the health field -- but I must believe that's generally true based on what evidence I've seen.
Decreasing the amount of meat in one's diet also encourages one to explore other foods, as we've been discussing. Because of the way I was raised, I was highly reliant on meat in my diet for a long time. I've gotten to the point where I don't miss it at all. I am not every other person on the planet, but I'm sure this is quite possible for a lot of Westerners who believe they need a lot of meat.
Additionally, health trolling is no basis for controlling other people's choices in life unless there is a clear and serious danger to the public.
Agreed, and it often becomes a convenient way for people to dodge the animal rights and environment issues; it does irritate me when people make the health argument when they should be just arguing that nonhuman life has value. I didn't mean to derail the topic with it, but there is a great deal of misinformation. Perhaps it's because I live in Texas, but I hear a lot of "but meat is good for you, you need it, vegetarians are the unhealthy ones!" -- which is one of those, sigh, where do you begin? things.
