Thomas Bacas

Philosophy of Food

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Dr. Williams

The Unnecessary Carnivore[U1] GRADE: 79

November 30, 2014: Fox News posts a video to their website entitled “Udder-ly Adorable,” a short six minute video recounting a mother’s interaction with her 5 year old daughter who has mistakenly let a cow into their living room. While the video tugs on some heartstrings as the young girl sits and cradles the cow’s head, it brings about a more sobering topic. The faceless camerawoman, who is indicated as the girl’s mother, drops the tagline of all anti-meat advocates: “we’ve got to stop eating beef.” The original purpose of this video was not to argue that eating meat is wrong, but it did, however, stir some discussion on the belief. The child in question is not lying on a cow-sized hamburger, softly caressing it. Instead she is interacting with another living mammal, which experiences life in many ways that a human mammal does. Killing animals for consumption is immoral because it unnecessary. While often hidden from the public, the factory farms that produce the constant supply of meat for a culture dependent on animal protein are the sole factor in this abuse of animals. The success of these ranches, farms and stockyards are supported by the American belief that animal protein is necessary for human survival. I will attempt to deconstruct the popular belief that the mass harvesting of animals is a necessary evil.

Factory farming is a disease that has plagued the economy of the United States. The dangers of these factory farms are increasing as the population increases and therefore the demand for meat increases. However the public is sheltered from the processes that get their hamburger to their grill. The public turns a blind eye to what would be considered horrific animal violence by many Americans. For instance, whaling. The hunting of whales on the open ocean, has almost globally been outlawed and is seen as an immoral mistreatment of animals. Until relatively recently whaling was a widely accepted practice, so what has changed? Unlike the factory farmers, whalers had no control over the breeding ability of these animals. The hunting of certain species has led them to dangerously low populations. Similarly, buffalo in the midwest were a thriving species very similar to that of modern day cattle. However after Americans nearly drove them to extinction, the United States quickly ratified laws to ban the open hunting of these animals.

Popular opinion would agree that killing animals on the endangered species list is immoral. However, the mass slaughter of the cattle, pigs, sheep and chickens that are so heavily controlled is considered permissible. Does a species have to be driven to the peak of extinction to have a right to live? People feel an obligation to support the lives of animals forced to extinction by humans, but then neglect the fact that humanity is abusing animals institutionally on a grander scale. At what point does the line get drawn between slaughter and cruelty?

A utilitarian could argue that the slaughter of these animals feeds starving humans therefore the benefits outweigh the costs and the sacrifice of these animals is morally permissible because it serves the greater good. However this is working under the common misconception that humans require meat to survive. Humans do not need meat to survive. While we are equipped with the capability to consume and retain nutrition from eating meat, it is not required to survive.

Consider the performance of vegan athletes. Those who follow all vegan diets can produce the same if not better results as those who eat meat. There are countless examples of athletes who maintain their health with an entirely vegan diet. The notion that humans require meat to survive is false. Let us consider human anatomy. The human body is designed to meet any sort of food need, therefore we have a longer intestinal system than a carnivore, e.g., a lion. A lion that exclusively eats meat, has a significantly shorter intestinal track, one designed for the quick digestion of meat. Humans however have a long intestinal track so it has the capability of consuming plant matter as well as meat. Consider this as well, carnivores eat rotten and decaying meat, yet humans do not. Allow me to propose the example of a child, unaffected by societal norms and trends. Were one to present this child with an apple and a duck, the child is not going to take a bite out of the duck. Instead the child will eat the apple. This claim that humans need meat is mistaken and consuming it is unnecessary.

One could object, as before let us consider other aspects of human anatomy. Why would humans have canine incisors if we were not designed to eat meat? Why would humans have an appendix organ, widely accepted to be used to breakdown and combat the bacteria found on raw meat, if we were not designed to eat raw meat. Certainly, animals who have canine teeth also incorporate meat into their diets.

While it is true that humans do indeed have canine incisors, the claim falls short because they are not essential to the human body. In many cases, the appendix is removed and considered a “useless vestigial organ.” They are results of evolutionary changes to the human body. It is very plausible that early human ancestors depended upon meat for survival. However, evolution has evolved to make these body parts unnecessary. Useless organs and appendages are not a new phenomenon (e.g., hind leg bones on whales, wings of flightless birds). “Goosebumps” are another example of a useless evolutionary adaptation. Erector Phili, the muscles responsible for making your hairs stand straight when nervous, exist in several species as a defense mechanism to look larger to potential predators. However now that humans have evolved past having thick body hair the Erector Phili serve no real purpose. Claiming that the human body is designed to be carnivorous may have been true once but it is no longer. American meat-eating culture is based on a misconception. Humanity currently has no need to consume meat.

Consider the interaction of the five year old girl in the video “Udder-ly Adorable.” That animal was not just some steak under cellophane in the grocer’s aisle. It was a living being. However when in a setting like a factory farm these animals are solely considered to be human food. It is logically inconsistent for people to feel some sort of empathy for the species on the endangered species list then ignore the animals being abused by factor farmers. Humans are not in need of meat to survive. It is illogical for people to believe that eating animals is necessary. For one to say that humans need the meat from these animals would be the same argument made by whalers in the late 1900s. Whale oil was not necessary to humanity, it was merely convenient. The International Whaling Committee (IWC) saw this and began to set bans that exist today. However humanity stubbornly clings to the desire for meat. Alternatives for meat exist, however meat is convenient for those who produce it and those who consume it. Convenience and profits does not make it morally permissible. Believing that whaling is immoral while justifying the slaughter of farm animals is incongruent. Regardless of the animal, it is a living being and deserves our compassion.

Sources:

[U1]