Tangentially related but I just discovered Clarkson's Farm yesterday, where I get to enjoy watching the misadventures of senior motorhead trying to get his impatient head around farming. It's...
Tangentially related but I just discovered Clarkson's Farm yesterday, where I get to enjoy watching the misadventures of senior motorhead trying to get his impatient head around farming.
It's extremely hard work and there's a lot of danger (physical and financial).
I understand why many farmers sell their farms to the massive factory complexes that the article mentions. And why it isn't that farmers don't believe in free running chickens: it's that a chicken raised like that costs many times more than what consumers are willing to pay. And that's to say nothing of the conditions and potential moral harm for people who work in slaughtering meat processing facilities.
Enjoy meat. But perhaps all kids should be required to raise a baby animal, participate (or at least observe) its humane slaughtering, at some point before they graduate out into the world.
However, one should ask what purpose that serves in practice. For one, it would create a false sense of what the meat industry looks like. Keep in mind that in the US ~98.7% of animals are factory...
However, one should ask what purpose that serves in practice. For one, it would create a false sense of what the meat industry looks like. Keep in mind that in the US ~98.7% of animals are factory farmed and the figure is similarly high globally
Some people, like our family boycott industrial meat. Choosing whether to eat meat at all is one moral choice. Choosing whether to support factory farms and industrial scale processing is a...
Some people, like our family boycott industrial meat. Choosing whether to eat meat at all is one moral choice. Choosing whether to support factory farms and industrial scale processing is a different moral choice that is also important.
This is a key distinction IMO. The only reason customers won't buy ethically raised chickens is because industrial chickens are an option and they can't afford to make that ethical decision. This...
This is a key distinction IMO. The only reason customers won't buy ethically raised chickens is because industrial chickens are an option and they can't afford to make that ethical decision.
This is what the Luddites were protesting. Small farmers ethically raising chickens dismantling industrial chicken farms would be a much more akin movement in the modern age than the public's perception of the Luddites.
Sure they can: They can just not eat meat. If you can't afford something, the answer is not to ignore any ethical considerations and do the bad thing. The answer is to do without it. I understand...
they can't afford to make that ethical decision.
Sure they can: They can just not eat meat. If you can't afford something, the answer is not to ignore any ethical considerations and do the bad thing. The answer is to do without it.
I understand that the issue is more complex. People were raised with meat being an important part of their diet. Meat is delicious and it's not easy to stay abstinent, especially when you're leading a life of financial hardships and all the woes that come with it. But stealing the newest iPhone because I can't afford to buy one is not a good excuse.
This is a vastly oversimplified take, I think. I'll get disagreements over this, but for one, I actually think it can be cheaper to eat meat. If you're living on the breadline, you might not have...
This is a vastly oversimplified take, I think. I'll get disagreements over this, but for one, I actually think it can be cheaper to eat meat. If you're living on the breadline, you might not have a huge amount of choice. Let me expand on this.
So to clarify, not eating meat can of course be very cheap. Beans and rice is maybe one of the cheapest vegetarian meals you can make, and while probably not nutritionally complete is fairly healthy. Beans and rice everyday is completely soul sucking though. From my experience as sombody who has shifted in and out of vegetarianism, it's important to maintain a good variety of meals, both because its healthier and because it can be really boring otherwise. For me, I actually found this process more expensive than cooking with meat. Adding even a little bit of meat to the meal is an easy way to improve taste, satisfaction, and nutrition to a meal, even if it's only half a serving per person. I found that I didn't enjoy my meals nearly as much unless I found some way to replace meat, so that meant buying a lot of meat alternatives, eggs, nuts, cheeses, tofu, etc (are eggs and cheese off the menu too though, as these are also often factory farmed). The way I was cooking meant I ended up spending significantly more on vegetarian meals than I would on meat meals. I'm not saying this is always the case, or even that it has to be, it's just my experience. But this leads me to my second point. People, especially working (class) people often don't know how to cook vegetarian meals. Learning to cook new meals takes time and effort, and often people on the breadline simply don't have this luxury. To make things worse, often when eating out (in both supermarkets and restaurants), the cheapest/most filling thing on the menu is meat. Im my area for example, the cheapest meal on the menu at McDonald's is meat.
All this to say, I do see your point in that nobody has to eat meat, but I also think that in our current world it's can be a lot harder and even more expensive at times, which can make it less accessible to some people.
Meat aside, I'm not sure I agree with the whole principle of if you can't afford the ethical thing, simply go without. Take for example clothing. We know for example that the vast majority of fast fashion is unethical, either unethically produced or unethical in the sense that it's terrible for the environment. Unfortunately, buying ethical clothing is expensive, and can even be time consuming to do the research yourself. Again, this is often something people cannot afford, yet nobody is arguing that poor people should wonder around naked. (Of course clothing is a need and meat isn't, but as I've previously mentioned, eating is a need and there isn't always a choice as to what you eat)
On the topic of ethical consumption, I do find it slightly amusing that you've chosen to reference iPhones as the thing that you might want, purely because they're not exactly known for their ethical production either. Owning an iPhone is okay, but eating meat isn't?
I realise now as I'm coming to the end of this comment that I may be coming across as a bit aggressive and I just want to clarify that's not my intention. As you said in your comment the situation is complex and I just wanted to elaborate a bit on what makes it complex, and why I think although your rule is in theory a sound rule, in practice there are a lot more things to consider than just if something is ethical or not.
It's much more expensive to produce meat than to produce plant-based food. Sure, meat is heavily subsidized, but in my experience, going vegetarian or even vegan doesn't have to be more expensive....
I actually think it can be cheaper to eat meat.
It's much more expensive to produce meat than to produce plant-based food. Sure, meat is heavily subsidized, but in my experience, going vegetarian or even vegan doesn't have to be more expensive. Maybe this is different in the US (or wherever you're from), I don't know.
buying ethical clothing is expensive
It's actually not that expensive. If you can afford a T-shirt with a brand name on it, you can also afford an off-brand ethically produced T-shirt. This is because wages are a very small factor in the production. If you increase them by 100 %, the consumer price is only a few pennies more. (I can't find the source right now, sorry.)
Owning an iPhone is okay, but eating meat isn't?
Maybe that's a bad example. My point was that we live in a consumerist world where the desire to own something for the sake of owning it is incredibly overvalued compared to the basic human needs of those who produce that thing. Replace the iPhone with ethically produced shoes if that makes more sense to you.
I think the problem is that small scale artisanal production and affordability are fundamentally opposed. Before clothing manufacturing, a single article of clothing would cost days or weeks'...
I think the problem is that small scale artisanal production and affordability are fundamentally opposed.
Before clothing manufacturing, a single article of clothing would cost days or weeks' worth of wages for the average person. Now an average westerner can afford to buy a shirt and some socks with just one hour of earnings.
Before industrial animal farming, meat consumption per capita was a small fraction of what it is today. According to Our World in Data, the average American consumes ~127kg of meat a year. Other high and upper-middle income countries have similar meat consumption.
The average human consumes roughly 2x as much as meat as they did a half century ago.
I think consumers can afford to make that ethical decision, it'd just mean eating a lot less meat, and most people prefer to eat more meat. Similarly, people could choose to buy ethically and well-made clothing and hold onto them for a long time—those options exist!—but many people prefer keeping up with fashion and having lots of outfits, so they'll buy bagfuls of clothing from problematic companies like SHEIN or Zara.
I find it somewhat easier to buy clothes that are ethically manufactured locally than I do to cut down animal product consumption (though I’m a guy and was never particularly fashionable which no...
I find it somewhat easier to buy clothes that are ethically manufactured locally than I do to cut down animal product consumption (though I’m a guy and was never particularly fashionable which no doubt biases my experience).
Becoming mostly-vegetarian (with special attention going into sourcing of eggs and dairy) feels within reach but mostly or all vegan would be a real struggle. There’s just so much being given up.
And that article of clothing would last a lifetime, because it was well made using techniques that made it easily repairable. So yes, We can buy disposable cotton/poly blends for a pittance now....
Before clothing manufacturing, a single article of clothing would cost days or weeks' worth of wages for the average person. Now an average westerner can afford to buy a shirt and some socks with just one hour of earnings.
And that article of clothing would last a lifetime, because it was well made using techniques that made it easily repairable.
So yes, We can buy disposable cotton/poly blends for a pittance now. They fall apart inside a few months or years and then can't be recycled. Not a win in my book.
There's no reason machines can't make artisanal goods....its just that we allow companies to make crap, so they do.
Consumers can still buy clothing that lasts a lifetime. There are many options. And people used to be in the habit of frequently repairing and patching their clothes. I personally go get my...
Consumers can still buy clothing that lasts a lifetime. There are many options.
And people used to be in the habit of frequently repairing and patching their clothes. I personally go get my clothes repaired when holes appear. It costs me about $20–25 per patch with my tailor.
People allow companies to make crap because they demand crap. The average American buys 68 articles of clothing a year, 5x more than they did in 1980.
People could choose to buy 5x less clothing and spend 5x more per article (and still spend the same gross amount) and get quality stuff.
What child does not understand this, assuming they are of the age where they know meat comes from animals? I'm not sure first hand experience in killing an animal would be very useful given that...
What child does not understand this, assuming they are of the age where they know meat comes from animals? I'm not sure first hand experience in killing an animal would be very useful given that killing an animal in a humane way at home is vastly different than the way animals are killed on factory farms.
There's a difference between knowing something cognitively and understanding or feeling it intuitively. Witnessing death and violence toward animals right before you, with all your senses...
There's a difference between knowing something cognitively and understanding or feeling it intuitively. Witnessing death and violence toward animals right before you, with all your senses viscerally attuned to the act, is very different than being told that it happens elsewhere or even watching a video of it.
Some literature is successful in demonstrating the grotesqueness of inhumane animal killings, such as Melville's account of the whale's extraordinarily violent, bloody, and drawn-out demise in Moby-Dick, but even such incredible and shocking descriptions are ineffective compared to personal experience.
I don't believe that most people, children or adults, understand what goes into even a "humane" killing of an animal. They do not know livestock; they know packaged foods at the grocery store, or at most a chunk of meat from the butcher. Whether "humane" or factory farming is demonstrated in person, having any such experience would probably inspire more awareness toward consumption.
"Understand" can be pretty loose at that age. For a lot of kids, they still understand Santa is "real" at that age; despite the fact that they understand it would be impossible for someone to do...
"Understand" can be pretty loose at that age. For a lot of kids, they still understand Santa is "real" at that age; despite the fact that they understand it would be impossible for someone to do that. I became a vegetarian for about 4 years after seeing the Simpson's episode where they highlight the brutality of factory farming. Knowing something and experiencing it are very different.
I think the point would be to shift that percentage down significantly. I think most folks just don't know or understand the impacts of their diets. Not everyone would change their habits, but I...
I think the point would be to shift that percentage down significantly. I think most folks just don't know or understand the impacts of their diets. Not everyone would change their habits, but I would be surprised if instituting education on food systems and industrialized husbandry in k-12 a didn't have a significant impact on our food systems.
Before one can understand impact, they first have to understand what their diet consists of. This may seem like a given, but it definitely isn’t. For example, in the past I’ve had discussions with...
Before one can understand impact, they first have to understand what their diet consists of.
This may seem like a given, but it definitely isn’t. For example, in the past I’ve had discussions with people who had no idea what meats hot dogs were most commonly comprised of and as a result didn’t know why they might pose issues to those following some diets.
I also enjoyed that show l, very interesting and I've always liked Jeremy. I also agree that people are too far removed from food now. I'm pretty transparent if my son asks about animals and food,...
I also enjoyed that show l, very interesting and I've always liked Jeremy.
I also agree that people are too far removed from food now. I'm pretty transparent if my son asks about animals and food, he's only 3 but id like to normalize how the food cycle works. I say this as a vegetarian who actually really enjoys meat.
Somewhat coincidentally, I had recently finished reading Michel Pollan’s Eater’s Manifesto, which as one of its points recommends eating traditional cuisines, and that had prompted me into finding...
Somewhat coincidentally, I had recently finished reading Michel Pollan’s Eater’s Manifesto, which as one of its points recommends eating traditional cuisines, and that had prompted me into finding historical recipe books. Skimming through them has given me a perspective about the history of why we eat the way we do now in the US.
One thing to realize in regards to animal cruelty in particular is that Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle was published in 1905. That means the meat packing industry has been cruel to humans and animals alike for over 100 years, and there is not a human left alive today who knows what life was like before that.
Back to the recipe books, I’ve only skimmed through a few of them but the most interesting part about them so far is the recipes that are not in them. For the most part they do not have anything simple in them; there are very rarely any vegetable-forward recipes except in the case of catsups or pickles. Given the relative rarity of meat at the time, I don’t believe that this is because people were not eating plants, but rather that it was just socially accepted to eat them relatively plainly, perhaps seasoned by some sort of homemade sauce, and it was such a no brainer to our ancestors they would rather not waste the paper and ink. Most critically none of them had any baked recipes, presumably because either people would rely on a local baker or bread was a largely traditional food your parents would have certainly taught you if necessary.
I have come to something of a conclusion that there is probably no such thing as a “traditional American diet” insofar as Pollan would have described it. I recently watched Modern Times, shot in the mid 1930s, and it’s interesting how many characters are fat even though they are supposed to be poor and don’t have access to all of the same high calorie density, processed foods we have today.
And the thing about today’s meat consumption is that for a large swath of people there is no way for them to actually make sure that their meat is actually being produced ethically. To raise, euthanize, and process a cow into meat is a huge and involved process, which automatically makes it infeasible for city-dwellers to supervise the process. And as others have mentioned, animals raised and processed ethically are much more expensive. In some ways, I think there isn’t a realistic way for many city-dwellers to source cruelty-free animal products, except perhaps for eggs.
Well, you have to bear in mind there was no refridgeration to speak of. Pickling was one of the primary preservation techniques to get you through the winter, and the one hardest to integrate with...
Well, you have to bear in mind there was no refridgeration to speak of. Pickling was one of the primary preservation techniques to get you through the winter, and the one hardest to integrate with regular meals. Pickled carrots are very different from fresh. Vegetables were usually seasonal and regional...so I agree that spilling paper was likely a waste of time. Roast, steam, or pan-fry...you can teach an elementary child to do these things, and frankly I find most veggies taste best with one of those with a splash of fat, pepper, and salt.
I wouldn't say meat was exactly a rarity either, but it wasn't an everyday thing either...there's a reason 25% of America was farmers even as late as the 1930's. And you'd definitely want to fatten up over the spring/summer/fall when crops were plentiful because the winter might be harsh. (not to say your assessment was wrong).
One thing I found insightful was reading the original Boxcar Children books, because I think that gives a decent glance to what meals looked like before 1920 in America.
Of course they had access to meat. To say that our ancestors were all vegetarians would be a rather blatent lie. That’s why I mentioned it was relatively rare; many Americans today eat meat for...
Of course they had access to meat. To say that our ancestors were all vegetarians would be a rather blatent lie. That’s why I mentioned it was relatively rare; many Americans today eat meat for two meals a day, and it’s not uncommon to eat three.
I’ve only scanned through about 5 cookbooks, but there are some vegetable recipes. One I found had some very basic veg recipes (it had an interesting milk-boiled cauliflower preparation), but it’s one of the only that I found that was more like a book and less like a pamphlet like most of the other sources I read through.
The only thing I would add to your thoughtful comment is that if you live in a city near farmland, it can be straightforward to identify a small meat producer, buy a quarter or whole pig or beef...
The only thing I would add to your thoughtful comment is that if you live in a city near farmland, it can be straightforward to identify a small meat producer, buy a quarter or whole pig or beef and have it butchered for you. In my part of California, doing it this way, the price averages five dollars per pound, which is competitive.
This solution will not scale if a large percentage of people try it, but for now it is an option and it allows the purchaser to visit and see how the animals are treated.
Bit off topic, but I ran into Cooking from the Archives a while ago — it’s a blog dedicated to reproducing old recipes. I must admit to not being adventurous enough to try any of them myself, but...
Bit off topic, but I ran into Cooking from the Archives a while ago — it’s a blog dedicated to reproducing old recipes. I must admit to not being adventurous enough to try any of them myself, but there are a handful of vegetable based recipes if that’s of interest :)
Is consumption of meat ethically even possible? Like I feel like if something died to get you food when it didn't have too. Then that's just unethical period. There's no way around that.
Is consumption of meat ethically even possible? Like I feel like if something died to get you food when it didn't have too. Then that's just unethical period. There's no way around that.
I think that is more of a question of personal morality. Ethics are social views of permissible and impermissible behaviors. Most of us live in societies where meat eating is not only allowed, but...
I think that is more of a question of personal morality. Ethics are social views of permissible and impermissible behaviors. Most of us live in societies where meat eating is not only allowed, but expected in some cases.
There are many philosophical questions to go over when considering the morality and ethics of animal consumption. I heard of a good book about it a few months ago and I can look it up if you would like.
Edit: I looked it up anyways. It was Justice for Animals by Martha Nussbaum.
Tangentially related but I just discovered Clarkson's Farm yesterday, where I get to enjoy watching the misadventures of senior motorhead trying to get his impatient head around farming.
It's extremely hard work and there's a lot of danger (physical and financial).
I understand why many farmers sell their farms to the massive factory complexes that the article mentions. And why it isn't that farmers don't believe in free running chickens: it's that a chicken raised like that costs many times more than what consumers are willing to pay. And that's to say nothing of the conditions and potential moral harm for people who work in slaughtering meat processing facilities.
Enjoy meat. But perhaps all kids should be required to raise a baby animal, participate (or at least observe) its humane slaughtering, at some point before they graduate out into the world.
However, one should ask what purpose that serves in practice. For one, it would create a false sense of what the meat industry looks like. Keep in mind that in the US ~98.7% of animals are factory farmed and the figure is similarly high globally
Some people, like our family boycott industrial meat. Choosing whether to eat meat at all is one moral choice. Choosing whether to support factory farms and industrial scale processing is a different moral choice that is also important.
This is a key distinction IMO. The only reason customers won't buy ethically raised chickens is because industrial chickens are an option and they can't afford to make that ethical decision.
This is what the Luddites were protesting. Small farmers ethically raising chickens dismantling industrial chicken farms would be a much more akin movement in the modern age than the public's perception of the Luddites.
Sure they can: They can just not eat meat. If you can't afford something, the answer is not to ignore any ethical considerations and do the bad thing. The answer is to do without it.
I understand that the issue is more complex. People were raised with meat being an important part of their diet. Meat is delicious and it's not easy to stay abstinent, especially when you're leading a life of financial hardships and all the woes that come with it. But stealing the newest iPhone because I can't afford to buy one is not a good excuse.
This is a vastly oversimplified take, I think. I'll get disagreements over this, but for one, I actually think it can be cheaper to eat meat. If you're living on the breadline, you might not have a huge amount of choice. Let me expand on this.
So to clarify, not eating meat can of course be very cheap. Beans and rice is maybe one of the cheapest vegetarian meals you can make, and while probably not nutritionally complete is fairly healthy. Beans and rice everyday is completely soul sucking though. From my experience as sombody who has shifted in and out of vegetarianism, it's important to maintain a good variety of meals, both because its healthier and because it can be really boring otherwise. For me, I actually found this process more expensive than cooking with meat. Adding even a little bit of meat to the meal is an easy way to improve taste, satisfaction, and nutrition to a meal, even if it's only half a serving per person. I found that I didn't enjoy my meals nearly as much unless I found some way to replace meat, so that meant buying a lot of meat alternatives, eggs, nuts, cheeses, tofu, etc (are eggs and cheese off the menu too though, as these are also often factory farmed). The way I was cooking meant I ended up spending significantly more on vegetarian meals than I would on meat meals. I'm not saying this is always the case, or even that it has to be, it's just my experience. But this leads me to my second point. People, especially working (class) people often don't know how to cook vegetarian meals. Learning to cook new meals takes time and effort, and often people on the breadline simply don't have this luxury. To make things worse, often when eating out (in both supermarkets and restaurants), the cheapest/most filling thing on the menu is meat. Im my area for example, the cheapest meal on the menu at McDonald's is meat.
All this to say, I do see your point in that nobody has to eat meat, but I also think that in our current world it's can be a lot harder and even more expensive at times, which can make it less accessible to some people.
Meat aside, I'm not sure I agree with the whole principle of if you can't afford the ethical thing, simply go without. Take for example clothing. We know for example that the vast majority of fast fashion is unethical, either unethically produced or unethical in the sense that it's terrible for the environment. Unfortunately, buying ethical clothing is expensive, and can even be time consuming to do the research yourself. Again, this is often something people cannot afford, yet nobody is arguing that poor people should wonder around naked. (Of course clothing is a need and meat isn't, but as I've previously mentioned, eating is a need and there isn't always a choice as to what you eat)
On the topic of ethical consumption, I do find it slightly amusing that you've chosen to reference iPhones as the thing that you might want, purely because they're not exactly known for their ethical production either. Owning an iPhone is okay, but eating meat isn't?
I realise now as I'm coming to the end of this comment that I may be coming across as a bit aggressive and I just want to clarify that's not my intention. As you said in your comment the situation is complex and I just wanted to elaborate a bit on what makes it complex, and why I think although your rule is in theory a sound rule, in practice there are a lot more things to consider than just if something is ethical or not.
It's much more expensive to produce meat than to produce plant-based food. Sure, meat is heavily subsidized, but in my experience, going vegetarian or even vegan doesn't have to be more expensive. Maybe this is different in the US (or wherever you're from), I don't know.
It's actually not that expensive. If you can afford a T-shirt with a brand name on it, you can also afford an off-brand ethically produced T-shirt. This is because wages are a very small factor in the production. If you increase them by 100 %, the consumer price is only a few pennies more. (I can't find the source right now, sorry.)
Maybe that's a bad example. My point was that we live in a consumerist world where the desire to own something for the sake of owning it is incredibly overvalued compared to the basic human needs of those who produce that thing. Replace the iPhone with ethically produced shoes if that makes more sense to you.
Nah, you're good. :) Thank you for your thoughts.
I think the problem is that small scale artisanal production and affordability are fundamentally opposed.
Before clothing manufacturing, a single article of clothing would cost days or weeks' worth of wages for the average person. Now an average westerner can afford to buy a shirt and some socks with just one hour of earnings.
Before industrial animal farming, meat consumption per capita was a small fraction of what it is today. According to Our World in Data, the average American consumes ~127kg of meat a year. Other high and upper-middle income countries have similar meat consumption.
The average human consumes roughly 2x as much as meat as they did a half century ago.
I think consumers can afford to make that ethical decision, it'd just mean eating a lot less meat, and most people prefer to eat more meat. Similarly, people could choose to buy ethically and well-made clothing and hold onto them for a long time—those options exist!—but many people prefer keeping up with fashion and having lots of outfits, so they'll buy bagfuls of clothing from problematic companies like SHEIN or Zara.
I find it somewhat easier to buy clothes that are ethically manufactured locally than I do to cut down animal product consumption (though I’m a guy and was never particularly fashionable which no doubt biases my experience).
Becoming mostly-vegetarian (with special attention going into sourcing of eggs and dairy) feels within reach but mostly or all vegan would be a real struggle. There’s just so much being given up.
And that article of clothing would last a lifetime, because it was well made using techniques that made it easily repairable.
So yes, We can buy disposable cotton/poly blends for a pittance now. They fall apart inside a few months or years and then can't be recycled. Not a win in my book.
There's no reason machines can't make artisanal goods....its just that we allow companies to make crap, so they do.
Consumers can still buy clothing that lasts a lifetime. There are many options.
And people used to be in the habit of frequently repairing and patching their clothes. I personally go get my clothes repaired when holes appear. It costs me about $20–25 per patch with my tailor.
People allow companies to make crap because they demand crap. The average American buys 68 articles of clothing a year, 5x more than they did in 1980.
People could choose to buy 5x less clothing and spend 5x more per article (and still spend the same gross amount) and get quality stuff.
What child does not understand this, assuming they are of the age where they know meat comes from animals? I'm not sure first hand experience in killing an animal would be very useful given that killing an animal in a humane way at home is vastly different than the way animals are killed on factory farms.
There's a difference between knowing something cognitively and understanding or feeling it intuitively. Witnessing death and violence toward animals right before you, with all your senses viscerally attuned to the act, is very different than being told that it happens elsewhere or even watching a video of it.
Some literature is successful in demonstrating the grotesqueness of inhumane animal killings, such as Melville's account of the whale's extraordinarily violent, bloody, and drawn-out demise in Moby-Dick, but even such incredible and shocking descriptions are ineffective compared to personal experience.
I don't believe that most people, children or adults, understand what goes into even a "humane" killing of an animal. They do not know livestock; they know packaged foods at the grocery store, or at most a chunk of meat from the butcher. Whether "humane" or factory farming is demonstrated in person, having any such experience would probably inspire more awareness toward consumption.
Participating in hunting provides similar visceral awareness. Some do that once and never again.
"Understand" can be pretty loose at that age. For a lot of kids, they still understand Santa is "real" at that age; despite the fact that they understand it would be impossible for someone to do that. I became a vegetarian for about 4 years after seeing the Simpson's episode where they highlight the brutality of factory farming. Knowing something and experiencing it are very different.
I think the point would be to shift that percentage down significantly. I think most folks just don't know or understand the impacts of their diets. Not everyone would change their habits, but I would be surprised if instituting education on food systems and industrialized husbandry in k-12 a didn't have a significant impact on our food systems.
Before one can understand impact, they first have to understand what their diet consists of.
This may seem like a given, but it definitely isn’t. For example, in the past I’ve had discussions with people who had no idea what meats hot dogs were most commonly comprised of and as a result didn’t know why they might pose issues to those following some diets.
I also enjoyed that show l, very interesting and I've always liked Jeremy.
I also agree that people are too far removed from food now. I'm pretty transparent if my son asks about animals and food, he's only 3 but id like to normalize how the food cycle works. I say this as a vegetarian who actually really enjoys meat.
Somewhat coincidentally, I had recently finished reading Michel Pollan’s Eater’s Manifesto, which as one of its points recommends eating traditional cuisines, and that had prompted me into finding historical recipe books. Skimming through them has given me a perspective about the history of why we eat the way we do now in the US.
One thing to realize in regards to animal cruelty in particular is that Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle was published in 1905. That means the meat packing industry has been cruel to humans and animals alike for over 100 years, and there is not a human left alive today who knows what life was like before that.
Back to the recipe books, I’ve only skimmed through a few of them but the most interesting part about them so far is the recipes that are not in them. For the most part they do not have anything simple in them; there are very rarely any vegetable-forward recipes except in the case of catsups or pickles. Given the relative rarity of meat at the time, I don’t believe that this is because people were not eating plants, but rather that it was just socially accepted to eat them relatively plainly, perhaps seasoned by some sort of homemade sauce, and it was such a no brainer to our ancestors they would rather not waste the paper and ink. Most critically none of them had any baked recipes, presumably because either people would rely on a local baker or bread was a largely traditional food your parents would have certainly taught you if necessary.
I have come to something of a conclusion that there is probably no such thing as a “traditional American diet” insofar as Pollan would have described it. I recently watched Modern Times, shot in the mid 1930s, and it’s interesting how many characters are fat even though they are supposed to be poor and don’t have access to all of the same high calorie density, processed foods we have today.
And the thing about today’s meat consumption is that for a large swath of people there is no way for them to actually make sure that their meat is actually being produced ethically. To raise, euthanize, and process a cow into meat is a huge and involved process, which automatically makes it infeasible for city-dwellers to supervise the process. And as others have mentioned, animals raised and processed ethically are much more expensive. In some ways, I think there isn’t a realistic way for many city-dwellers to source cruelty-free animal products, except perhaps for eggs.
Well, you have to bear in mind there was no refridgeration to speak of. Pickling was one of the primary preservation techniques to get you through the winter, and the one hardest to integrate with regular meals. Pickled carrots are very different from fresh. Vegetables were usually seasonal and regional...so I agree that spilling paper was likely a waste of time. Roast, steam, or pan-fry...you can teach an elementary child to do these things, and frankly I find most veggies taste best with one of those with a splash of fat, pepper, and salt.
I wouldn't say meat was exactly a rarity either, but it wasn't an everyday thing either...there's a reason 25% of America was farmers even as late as the 1930's. And you'd definitely want to fatten up over the spring/summer/fall when crops were plentiful because the winter might be harsh. (not to say your assessment was wrong).
One thing I found insightful was reading the original Boxcar Children books, because I think that gives a decent glance to what meals looked like before 1920 in America.
Of course they had access to meat. To say that our ancestors were all vegetarians would be a rather blatent lie. That’s why I mentioned it was relatively rare; many Americans today eat meat for two meals a day, and it’s not uncommon to eat three.
I’ve only scanned through about 5 cookbooks, but there are some vegetable recipes. One I found had some very basic veg recipes (it had an interesting milk-boiled cauliflower preparation), but it’s one of the only that I found that was more like a book and less like a pamphlet like most of the other sources I read through.
The only thing I would add to your thoughtful comment is that if you live in a city near farmland, it can be straightforward to identify a small meat producer, buy a quarter or whole pig or beef and have it butchered for you. In my part of California, doing it this way, the price averages five dollars per pound, which is competitive.
This solution will not scale if a large percentage of people try it, but for now it is an option and it allows the purchaser to visit and see how the animals are treated.
Bit off topic, but I ran into Cooking from the Archives a while ago — it’s a blog dedicated to reproducing old recipes. I must admit to not being adventurous enough to try any of them myself, but there are a handful of vegetable based recipes if that’s of interest :)
Thanks! I’ll check it out some time soon.
Is consumption of meat ethically even possible? Like I feel like if something died to get you food when it didn't have too. Then that's just unethical period. There's no way around that.
I think that is more of a question of personal morality. Ethics are social views of permissible and impermissible behaviors. Most of us live in societies where meat eating is not only allowed, but expected in some cases.
There are many philosophical questions to go over when considering the morality and ethics of animal consumption. I heard of a good book about it a few months ago and I can look it up if you would like.
Edit: I looked it up anyways. It was Justice for Animals by Martha Nussbaum.
Thanks for the book suggestion.