Is Reducing but Not Eliminating Meat Consumption More Ethical than Not Reducing It?

[Debater Slayer]

Many people, including many meat eaters, agree that there are many thoroughly documented abusive, inhumane, and environmentally unsustainable practices in industrial meat farming, such as mistreatment of animals, keeping them in extremely tight spaces, killing them in ways that prolong suffering, and destroying forests to make more room for farmlands.

If you are a meat eater, do you believe that reducing but not eliminating meat consumption for food would be a more ethical choice than eating meat without worrying about the details of how it was produced? For example, if someone eats meat four or five days a week, do you think it is more ethical for them to reduce that to two or three days if they find out that their main meat supplier, such as their local supermarket, buys from industrial farms?

Edit: Given that I have added a few more poll options after starting the thread to make sure all posters in the thread have an option representing their views, I have also clarified the main purpose of the thread in these two posts:

Is Reducing but Not Eliminating Meat Consumption More Ethical than Not Reducing It?

I can see bolts being just as reliable & humane. Also, I don't know if there are other problems associated with decapitation. Any experimentation with how it would work in actual abattoirs? In industrial slaughterhouses? I don't know, probably not, as least how I'm thinking of it. However...

www.religiousforums.com

Is Reducing but Not Eliminating Meat Consumption More Ethical than Not Reducing It?

I can see bolts being just as reliable & humane. Also, I don't know if there are other problems associated with decapitation. Any experimentation with how it would work in actual abattoirs? In industrial slaughterhouses? I don't know, probably not, as least how I'm thinking of it. However...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Yerda]

Reducing meat is reducing the harm, so yes, I think so.

 

[metis]

I chose Curtain #1 for the reason mentioned.

 

[Koldo]

Many people, including many meat eaters, agree that there are many thoroughly documented abusive, inhumane, and environmentally unsustainable practices in industrial meat farming, such as mistreatment of animals, keeping them in extremely tight spaces, killing them in ways that prolong suffering, and destroying forests to make more room for farmlands.

If you are a meat eater, do you believe that reducing but not eliminating meat consumption for food would be a more ethical choice than eating meat without worrying about the details of how it was produced? For example, if someone eats meat four or five days a week, do you think it is more ethical for them to reduce that to two or three days if they find out that their main meat supplier, such as their local supermarket, buys

I vote the first alternative, just because you didn't add the following alternative to the poll: "I eat meat and I believe meat production should be banned."

 

[Debater Slayer]

I vote the first alternative, just because you didn't add the following alternative to the poll: "I eat meat and I believe meat production should be banned."

Added.

Why do you eat meat if you believe its production should be banned? (I know people who agree with vegetarian arguments but still eat meat, and I understand that there are many possible and different reasons for that. I'm just wondering what the reasons are in your case, if you don't mind sharing.)

 

[ChristineM]

We have a vegetarian in the family so theres a 20% reduction in meat consumption right there.
Poor conditions for meat animals worries me. Being brought up on an ethical farm i know how animals should be treated. With that in mind i only buy AB meat. AB (or Agriculture Biologique) is a french certified standard for organic food stuff. For livestock it includes welfare and animal feed to certify it as organic produce.
Also, twice a week we have a meat free day.
I chose the 1st option because it fits our family meat consumption.

 

[Koldo]

Added.

Why do you eat meat if you believe its production should be banned? (I know people who agree with vegetarian arguments but still eat meat, and I understand that there are many possible and different reasons for that. I'm just wondering what the reasons are in your case, if you don't mind sharing.)

I have been meaning to become vegetarian for quite some time, but I would be significantly inconvenienced by becoming one and it wouldn't make much of a difference on the large scale of things.

 

[icehorse]

I'm no officially a vegetarian. But I eat only small amounts of meat - probably 4 ounces / month of bison. Chicken maybe once a week.

I think free range meat is far more ethical (we all get eaten in the end).

BUT, we should stop all subsidies related to producing meat, free range included. I'd guess that beef would jump to maybe $50 / pound, which is closer to what it costs our environment to produce it.

 

[Heyo]

I have been meaning to become vegetarian for quite some time, but I would be significantly inconvenienced by becoming one and it wouldn't make much of a difference on the large scale of things.

I have been a vegetarian for quite some time when I could easily afford it.

BUT, we should stop all subsidies related to producing meat, free range included. I'd guess that beef would jump to maybe $50 / pound, which is closer to what it costs our environment to produce it.

I second that.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I know your questions in the OP and poll were directed at meat eaters, but the title question wasn't so I'll respond to that. Besides, I doubt many meat eaters would be able to select options 4 and 5 in the poll.

While I personally think that anyone that is not willing to kill an animal and butcher their own should be eating that meat, I'm also a realist and realize that that's not a realistic expectation give today's societal ethics.

I think quality of life (and death) of an animal is an important consideration when it comes to ethics. There is also evidence that free range-meat is superior in quality over traditional husbandry practices. But sadly, this comes at an additional cost to the consumer and many weigh the decision to sacrifice quality over cost and go with the less ethical choice.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I eat meat because I have to in order to stay properly healthy. We are omnivores after all and our bodies are evolved that way.

I do think reduced consumption is advisable since meat shouldn't be eaten in the frequency that it is consumed today so I can certainly see an ethical way to proceed as it relates to us and what we prey on.

I am also a proponent of cultured meats where no animal dies and its suffering is limited to the collection of cells required to make cultured meat. A win win when its perfected and affordable.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I eat meat because I have to in order to stay properly healthy. We are omnivores after all and our bodies are evolved that way.

As has been alluded to elsewhere many times on this forum, one can "stay properly healthy" without consuming flesh.

Should Humans Eat Meat? Biology, Nutrition, and Culture

There's heated debate on both sides concerning whether humans are supposed to eat meat. This article examines the evolutionary, biological, nutritional, and cultural approaches to the topic of eating meat.

www.healthline.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many people, including many meat eaters, agree that there are many thoroughly documented abusive, inhumane, and environmentally unsustainable practices in industrial meat farming, such as mistreatment of animals, keeping them in extremely tight spaces, killing them in ways that prolong suffering, and destroying forests to make more room for farmlands.

If you are a meat eater, do you believe that reducing but not eliminating meat consumption for food would be a more ethical choice than eating meat without worrying about the details of how it was produced? For example, if someone eats meat four or five days a week, do you think it is more ethical for them to reduce that to two or three days if they find out that their main meat supplier, such as their local supermarket, buys from industrial farms?

To me it seems that the proposed "solution" of reducing meat consumption does not follow from the identified "problem" of abuse and maltreatment of animals on farms (industrial, or otherwise).

Why couldn't we merely treat animals better and still consume meat?

Aside from maltreatment of animals, sure there are also environmental issues with meat farms. But it's not like vegan food is in the clear there.
Farmland is required for growing plants also. Bees are seriously maltreated to grow the vegan hipster's avocado's also.

When it comes to environmental impact of farming in general, the main problem seems to be the amount of mouths to feed?

 

[Revoltingest]

I like industrial meat.

 

[wellwisher]

Many people, including many meat eaters, agree that there are many thoroughly documented abusive, inhumane, and environmentally unsustainable practices in industrial meat farming, such as mistreatment of animals, keeping them in extremely tight spaces, killing them in ways that prolong suffering, and destroying forests to make more room for farmlands.

If you are a meat eater, do you believe that reducing but not eliminating meat consumption for food would be a more ethical choice than eating meat without worrying about the details of how it was produced? For example, if someone eats meat four or five days a week, do you think it is more ethical for them to reduce that to two or three days if they find out that their main meat supplier, such as their local supermarket, buys from industrial farms?

I would suggest that you first go to an industrial farm, and see for yourself. Do not take the word of those who engage in propaganda, who are often shills for competing businesses. Those businesses have been bullied by animal activists for decades and are following the laws that were created. I have a few chickens for pets and two sister chicken pairs, stay close to each other, even with room to roam.

Domestic food animals have it easy, compared to having to fend for themselves in the wild. Have you even seen a pack of wolves eat a cow while still alive? The same people who complain about beef, would accused that farmer of animal cruelty for not building a pen and shelter to protect their cows. In those pens, where they are protected, they have square meals and fresh water every day, safe from the wolves and mountain lions. Their natural contract is to be pampered until they are ready to help humans with food. Each generation does not fear humans. If food animals feared us, they would not be easy to raise and this could become cruel.

Domestic food animals are not the same as dogs and cats; domestic pets. The higher pet animals get full VIP treatment and are not to be eaten, since that is not their natural contract with humans. They are helpers. Food animals are not animals who dwell in the future, fearing their own death. Human projection is not the same as how a food animal feels. They live in the moment and enjoy their days, safe and fed.

I remember a study where scientists wired plants to electric sensors, and then pulled off leaves. There is an electrical spike; plant awareness and reaction. When you boil or eat fresh broccoli, maybe you can wire it up, to see its cries, as you boil or maw the life out of it.

Some plants have obvious sensory abilities, such as the Venus flytrap and its incredible traps that can close in about half a second. Similarly, the sensitive plant rapidly collapses its leaves in response to touch, an adaptation that might serve to startle away potential herbivores. While these plants visibly display a clear sensory capacity, recent research has shown that other plants are able to perceive and respond to mechanical stimuli at a cellular level. Arabidopsis (a mustard plant commonly used in scientific studies) sends out electrical signals from leaf to leaf when it is being eaten by caterpillars or aphids, signals to ramp up its chemical defenses against herbivory. While this remarkable response is initiated by physical damage, the electrical warning signal is not equivalent to a pain signal, and we should not anthropomorphize an injured plant as a plant in pain.

Do Plants Feel Pain?

We are told not to anthropomorphize plants, but only animals, since the plants do not have audio output. All they have is electrical output, without any output device for our humans to hear. Plants need a blue tooth speaker to help their voice be heard.

My guess is plants have to stay quiet to pain, since noise would give them away in terms of their position. They are stuck in the ground and cannot escape. Cries of pain would draw herbivores animals to eat them and their neighbors. The best they can do is stay silent, hoping the animals will pass by or not totally eat them. The silent life of plants.

Maybe someone could amplify a plants electric reaction signals, with a computer and then a blue tooth speaker, and let the vegetarians hear; morphed sounds, so they can better anthropomorphize the silent world of plants. We are allowed to project human traits onto food animals whose brain are wired differently, since they have an output device. This output device allows them to call for help among moving critters. But the plants who are equally important as food, live in a silent world, just to survive.

Some people play music for their plants, since plants can hear; their purr with an electrical reaction, that makes them grow better. But they are mute and silent. We never hear the purr, but see the results of a happy plant.

Some people will not kill bugs, due to anthropomorphizing; empathize being inside their shell. Not all bugs are quiet. Let us give plants a voice too. This will be like the transgender push, where we add something not in their DNA, so they can better express themselves, for us to hear.

Let me add one more thing. Grain plants, good for bread, etc., use the mature seeds of dying plants. This is interesting, in that this behavior, needed for civilization; grain stockpiles, crested the least harm to the silent plants. This behavior would be encouraged by the plants, to help spread their seeds and care for them; contract between plants and humans.

 

[Heyo]

Why couldn't we merely treat animals better and still consume meat?

Because ...

Aside from maltreatment of animals, sure there are also environmental issues with meat farms. But it's not like vegan food is in the clear there.
Farmland is required for growing plants also.

It requires at least five times the land and water to produce meat than vegetarian food, depending on the meat and the vegetables.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

It is simply a personal or sometimes even medical choice. Eating or not eating meat doesn't make anyone morally or environmentally superior or inferior. I believe the animals should be treated better and killed as quickly as possible. Sustaining crops also destroys wild lands too. I've been discovering that every conservation solution isn't perfect and brings with it, its own little sets of problems.

 

[Revoltingest]

It requires at least five times the land and water to produce meat than vegetarian food, depending on the meat and the vegetables.

Meat is worth it to me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If you are a meat eater, do you believe that reducing but not eliminating meat consumption for food would be a more ethical choice than eating meat without worrying about the details of how it was produced? For example, if someone eats meat four or five days a week, do you think it is more ethical for them to reduce that to two or three days if they find out that their main meat supplier, such as their local supermarket, buys from industrial farms?

A few months ago I tried a carnivore diet, and it did not work for me. In this the animals were fortunate. At the same time I believed that the suffering of animals was not good, and I did feel for them. Sometimes we care a lot about one thing and are blind to other things which need our attention. I'm concerned about staying healthy, because I have some responsibilities to live up to. I'm getting older, but I have a lot left to do. I have to stay healthy, and I put aside other concerns.

I love animals, because I love myself. I also see flaws in them, because I see flaws in myself. As a human being I have limited compassion to distribute, but I would not cause an animal to suffer. Over a lifetime I have learned that I care about animals, even though they are like myself imperfect creatures.

I have no control over industrial farms. Recently there have been situations in which our federal government and also the governments of some states have oppressed small farmers. Oregon Main forced 50 farms out of business and bought their land. The Pennsylvania Dept. of Agriculture decided all of a sudden to seize all of an Amish farmer's assets, lock it all down while it rotted. These concerns bother me far more than the plight of cattle, however they are related. These small farmers ought to be supported and permitted to keep running their small time operations. Where is the concern for them? Well it is...the same concern. If I am not terribly concerned about one thing its because I have limited ability to be concerned about all things at once. Terrible things are happening in multiple locations.

 

[Debater Slayer]

To me it seems that the proposed "solution" of reducing meat consumption does not follow from the identified "problem" of abuse and maltreatment of animals on farms (industrial, or otherwise).

Why couldn't we merely treat animals better and still consume meat?

It seems to be largely an issue of scale: when millions of people in a given country demand meat in their diet multiple days a week, the industrial farms, in an attempt to keep up with the demand, often end up forgoing a lot of animal welfare practices and cramping more and more animals into tight spaces.

Is it possible to have such large-scale meat production and reduce suffering? I suppose it should theoretically be possible, but in practice, this often hasn't been the case. There's also the environmental impact, as you mentioned:

Aside from maltreatment of animals, sure there are also environmental issues with meat farms. But it's not like vegan food is in the clear there.
Farmland is required for growing plants also. Bees are seriously maltreated to grow the vegan hipster's avocado's also.

The environmental footprint of producing meat is still far bigger than that of producing plants. For example:

https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/img/1.png

Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?

Food production accounts for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. It takes up half of the planet’s habitable surface.

interactive.carbonbrief.org

It's true that any food we produce will have an environmental and ecological cost, but scale and proportionality are factors too.

When it comes to environmental impact of farming in general, the main problem seems to be the amount of mouths to feed?

From what I have read, that seems to be one of the main problems, albeit not the only one. Since the environmental impact of meat farming tends to be so outsized compared to plant farming, the number of mouths to feed would need to be multiple times lower if we were to maintain the same environmental footprint but eat meat rather than plants. It seems to me analogous to the idea that if everyone on Earth had the same consumption footprint as a reasonably well-off person in a developed country, we would need multiple Earths to sustain such a lifestyle.