Why Eating Meat is WRONG- Environmentally and Morally
Every time PETA tweets about choosing a vegan alternative, there is a backlash. Most of the criticisms against PETA are with regard to its political inclination and intention. Recently, PETA urged Amul to go vegan and produce vegan milk and milk products. For a few days, PETA and Amul were trending on Twitter. Most of the tweets we attacking PETA's intention to destroy the Indian dairy sector and Indian society's basic fabric.
Similarly, there is backlash when someone suggests that goats must not be slaughtered for Eid. And with the Indian society's heavy reliance on dairy products, it has become a moral crime to even utter anything in support of the animals being tortured in these industries.
What is even more grave is the meat industry. In the 21st century, where even the rights of unborn human beings are talked about, some non-human living beings are slaughtered for mostly taste. There are several arguments FOR non-vegetarianism put forth by non-vegetarians. And I will counter some, if not all, points raised in support of meat-eating.
However, before delving into the intricacies of the impact of meat-eating, it is pertinent to know some statistics to get a bigger picture of the animal farming industry.
How
many animals are slaughtered for food in a year?
According to a World Economic Forum article, on average 50 billion chickens are slaughtered each year. This figure does not include the male chicks that are killed by the egg industry because they are useless and the “unproductive” hens.
The total number of animals that are killed by humans solely for the purposes of eating is in billions. There are 19 billion chickens, 1.5 billion cows, 1 billion sheep, and 1 billion pigs in factory farms at every moment, ready to be killed. In contrast, there are just 7 billion human beings on earth.
The following chart shows the number
of animals killed from 1961 to 2018-
The number of animals being killed for food is unimaginably high. 60 billion chickens were killed in 2018. That is more than 8 times the human population. Is this natural? Had we been living in a forest where we killed to survive, slaughtered 60 billion chickens? Undoubtedly, no.
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Green House gas emission
The environmental impact of animal farming is often underplayed by meat-eaters. It might either be because of genuine ignorance or indifference. However, the statistics speak for themselves:
It is abundantly clear that meat production emits more greenhouse gases than non-animal farming industries. The only vegetarian food product with high greenhouse gas emissions is cheese. However, on average, the emission due to vegetarian food production is significantly less than non-vegetarian food. Therefore, considering global warming, it is better to go vegetarian or vegan.
Now one might argue that meat has more calories and therefore the emissions are justified and proportional. Unfortunately, this argument does not hold water.
Water consumption for meat production
To produce one kilogram of chicken meat, takes 4,325 litres of water, whereas one kilogram of fruits takes just 962 litres of water. Nuts take a lot of water too, and therefore, we must reduce nuts production in areas with water scarcity.
Land use for meat production
Many may argue that growing vegetables, cereals, and fruits take up a lot of land and causes deforestation. Therefore, even a vegetarian diet causes environmental harm and if everyone adopts a vegetarian/vegan diet then more forests will have to be cut down for growing crops. This argument is incorrect.
The feed for animals in the factory farms also needs to be grown somewhere. So, even if everyone turns vegetarian, the food required for humans will not be more than the food we grow to feed these animals. We will not have to feed 60 billion chickens or millions of cows, pigs and goats if everyone adopts a vegetarian diet.
Therefore, if everyone turns vegan, fewer forests will have to be destroyed. The following statistics make this clear:
77% of all agricultural land is used for livestock (including the land used for growing their feed). Only 23% is used to grown plant-based food products. A combined reading of the last two data on global calorie and global protein supply along with land use for agriculture shows that even though 77% of the land is used for livestock, only 18% calories and 37% protein is supplied by non-plant based food.
Carbon emission from livestock
According to the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, total emission from livestock across the world is 14% of all human-caused emissions.
MORAL ARGUMENT FOR NOT EATING MEAT
To make a moral argument that animals must not be slaughtered for taste, one must make the following assumption: "suffering is bad".
As Peter Singer argues in his seminal book 'Animal Liberation', there is no rational reason to justify killing animals for food. Is it because they are less intelligent than human beings? If so, then is it justified for Albert Einstein to kill lesser intelligent human beings for food? And what about a human being in a coma, someone who has been declared brain dead? Is it justified to kill that person for pleasure?
So, what differentiates us and them is that we are humans and they are not. This is what Singer calls speciesism. However, even this is not entirely applicable to all human beings. Most of us are enraged at someone throwing sticks at dogs and cats, while holding a packet of dead chicken in our hand. The irony here does not require an explanation.
What is common between "us" and "them" is the ability to suffer. Every animal suffers pain. The degree of suffering might differ, but the fundamental nature of suffering is always present. Every animal wants freedom, no animal likes to be trapped in cages until they are slaughtered, often with a brutal blow to their head or by cutting their throat. Therefore, even a painless death is not justified, since their lives are a living hell in these factory farms, and death is more peaceful.
Another argument put forth is that in the animal world, we are more powerful and higher up on the food chain and thus killing animals for food, even if it causes suffering, is justified. This is a flawed argument too. If we were in the natural world, then killing humans for food also is justified. But do we allow cannibalism in our civilised societies? If we were in the natural world, then we will be hunting for food. Not cage billions of animals for being slaughtered. In the animal world, kilograms of dead animals are not stored in refrigerators. In the natural world, we do not have medicines to treat the ill and old people are left behind.
However, as sentient beings, we have realised that reducing human suffering is beneficial for human society. Further, since suffering is bad and non-human animals also have the capacity to suffer, it is only logically consistent to not kill animals for food (i.e. taste buds).
CAN PLANTS SUFFER?
In short, no. Plants do not suffer. Plants do not have a nervous system. They do not have receptors to detect pain. Of course, they may release chemicals when being cut. They may be aware of their existence. They may be even capable of sending threat signals when their leaves are being eaten by a beetle. But that is a reaction. Not an experience of pain or suffering.
For example- when you put your arms in water for a long time, your palms become swollen. That is a reaction. Not pain or suffering. Similarly, when there is an infection in your body, the production of white blood cells increase. This again is a reaction, not pain or suffering.
However, even if we assume that plants feel pain (which they don't). Still, the pain and suffering of animals are qualitatively different from that of plants. Animals know that they are going to be killed. Animals like to move around and not remain in dark cages their entire lives.
THE BOTTOM LINE
The bottom line is- if you believe that suffering is bad, there is no justification to eat animals. Now even the dairy industry causes significant suffering to animals. And being a vegetarian (not a vegan), I acknowledge that by consuming dairy I am causing suffering and even death of innocent animals. And that is why I don't call myself an animal lover.
The first step to change is the realisation that change is required. Turning into a vegan or vegetarian is not an easy task for most, and justifiably so. However, merely because one is unable to do something does not mean it is okay to do it- merely because one cannot stop smoking, does not mean smoking is okay.
Millions of people will lose their jobs if the meat industry shuts down. Like how millions of people lost their jobs when the slave trade was prohibited, like how millions will lose jobs as we move from coal-based energy to renewable energy. But new jobs will be created in plant-based diet industries with its increasing demand.
The statistics are clear, eating meat is harmful to the environment. There is plenty of research that shows how a plant-based diet is healthy and adequate for human well being. Most important is the immorality in killing animals for taste.
You might not be able to give up meat but the acknowledgement of suffering and violence being committed on animals and the environment by not adopting a vegan diet is the first step towards a more moral and logically consistent life.
Comments
Post a Comment