23 votes

Why is it becoming increasingly more wrong to kill animals for food?

Probably in the majority of history people used to hunt, or kill farm animals for food without a second thought. But in the recent years it looks like the public opinion is shifting in a way when perception of eating meat is kinda like perception of homophobia or racism. Arguments against eating meat and for preserving farm animal lives are actively upvoted, and with this tendency being non vegetarian is already becoming "uncool" and eventually will be frowned upon, like littering.

Is that because hardcore vegetarians and animal rights activists got their voices spread in social media? Or it's mostly an environmental problem, particularly with large farm animals? Or humans are quickly becoming better, more civilized? If so, why meat eating is such a high priority issue to address when issues of people to people interactions are still far from being solved?

26 comments

  1. [8]
    Catt
    Link
    I believe it's due to factory farms. At least in my circle, it's not about killing animals for food, but about the absolutely cruel environments they are born, raised and slaughtered in.

    I believe it's due to factory farms. At least in my circle, it's not about killing animals for food, but about the absolutely cruel environments they are born, raised and slaughtered in.

    39 votes
    1. [3]
      Supernova
      Link Parent
      This is one of the reasons for me. The industrialization of the whole process changed it from humans simply hunting (as other animals do) or killing farm animals, as it was in the past, to the...

      This is one of the reasons for me. The industrialization of the whole process changed it from humans simply hunting (as other animals do) or killing farm animals, as it was in the past, to the literal sausage factory that it is today. We've also become more sensitive to the fact that animals feel pain. And when you look at it from an environmental perspective, just how much goes in to raising and slaughtering these massive amounts of animals and the impact that has on the environment, eating less meat as a race because of that is just a bonus.

      16 votes
      1. [2]
        Catt
        Link Parent
        Industrialization is a great way to put it. I also feel we, as a whole, eat way more meat than we use to, and have normalized it.

        Industrialization is a great way to put it. I also feel we, as a whole, eat way more meat than we use to, and have normalized it.

        8 votes
        1. Amarok
          Link Parent
          Indeed. Give it a few decades and we'll be into tube-grown meat, then we can leave this ugly chapter of animal exploitation behind us. Thankfully its days are numbered.

          Indeed. Give it a few decades and we'll be into tube-grown meat, then we can leave this ugly chapter of animal exploitation behind us. Thankfully its days are numbered.

          7 votes
    2. [2]
      Akir
      Link Parent
      I'd like to add another layer here. There have been "factory farms" for quite a long time before they were given that name. We are just more aware of them now that groups against the consumption...

      I'd like to add another layer here. There have been "factory farms" for quite a long time before they were given that name. We are just more aware of them now that groups against the consumption of meat products have put them as the highlight of their narritives.

      Personally speaking, I don't think this is a good reason to stop eating meat altogether. Rather, it's a reason to pass legalation to improve the quality of life for the animals. California, for instance, already has laws outlawing the sale of eggs from producers that do not meet a certain standard.

      6 votes
      1. Catt
        Link Parent
        Depends on your definition of a "long time". Factory farms are really an invention of the mid 1900s, and the demand really driving them from the popularity of fast food, which really increased...

        Depends on your definition of a "long time". Factory farms are really an invention of the mid 1900s, and the demand really driving them from the popularity of fast food, which really increased (globally) in the late 1900s.

        There's definitely a line somewhere from then and now where we improved our efficiency to meet a reasonable demand for meat (including lowering its costs) to the gross over-consumption of low quality meat we find everywhere now.

        5 votes
    3. [2]
      Nitta
      Link Parent
      Oh I forgot to suggest that reason. So then if a farm animal is properly cared for, and then when time comes its life is terminated instantaneously, that would be not a problem under this context...

      Oh I forgot to suggest that reason. So then if a farm animal is properly cared for, and then when time comes its life is terminated instantaneously, that would be not a problem under this context because no animal cruelty.

      2 votes
      1. Catt
        Link Parent
        I believe it is definitely a major issue, so solving it would enable some people to eat meat guilt free. However, I believe the cost of this will be high, and ultimately will still lead to a...

        I believe it is definitely a major issue, so solving it would enable some people to eat meat guilt free. However, I believe the cost of this will be high, and ultimately will still lead to a decrease in meat consumption, especially in red meats, like beef that already have a very high environmental impact also.

        1 vote
  2. [2]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. Nitta
      Link Parent
      Well yeah the lab grown meat would make eating real animals obsolete in most cases. It's just we still don't have that, and the pressure against eating meat rises, so right now we are between a...

      Well yeah the lab grown meat would make eating real animals obsolete in most cases. It's just we still don't have that, and the pressure against eating meat rises, so right now we are between a rock and a hard place.

      4 votes
  3. CALICO
    Link
    For me it's that I've become more emotionally connected to the Earth, and everything on it. I still eat meat, but much less than the average American. The two big factors for me was recognizing...

    For me it's that I've become more emotionally connected to the Earth, and everything on it.

    I still eat meat, but much less than the average American. The two big factors for me was recognizing that animals can feel pain, misery, and suffering, on some level; and learning how big of a negative impact that meat consumption was having on the climate, deforestation, and biodiversity.

    It's not that I think that killing and eating another animal is inherently wrong, it's that I think it has become wrong in the context of how things are today. If I can minimize the amount of climate damage I'm responsible for, then I should. If I can live without going out of my way to contribute to a miserable existence for another life, then I should.

    11 votes
  4. [4]
    somewaffles
    (edited )
    Link
    This is probably the most correct, non-biased reason. It's an objective fact that large-scale factory farms take a devastating toll on the environment. There are tons of other reasons why people...

    Or it's mostly an environmental problem, particularly with large farm animals?

    This is probably the most correct, non-biased reason. It's an objective fact that large-scale factory farms take a devastating toll on the environment. There are tons of other reasons why people can and should switch to plant based diets, but most of those are shot down with the "typical" responses: "Good for your health" -> "Well, aren't you vitamin B deficient, where do you get your protein?" "Animals have rights too" -> "We are higher on the food chain" along with all the other arguments vegans/vegetarians probably run into when asked why they switched diets.

    While these are more than valid reasons why we shouldn't kill animals for food, people are prone to cognitive dissonance when their beliefs are challenged. The only one that I can think of that has objective evidence and is more than just a moral dilemma is environmental impacts. As much as I wish people would realize how morally wrong factory farming is, it's not gonna happen anytime soon. What will happen is a larger scale concern for the environment.

    8 votes
    1. [3]
      unknown user
      Link Parent
      Don't you think that it's that way because that's the only honest and objective conclusion from such evidence? The fact that we exist is detrimental to the environment, even the most primitive...

      The only one that I can think of that has objective evidence and is more than just a moral dilemma is environmental impacts. As much as I wish people would realize how morally wrong factory farming is, it's not gonna happen anytime soon. What will happen is a larger scale concern for the environment.

      Don't you think that it's that way because that's the only honest and objective conclusion from such evidence? The fact that we exist is detrimental to the environment, even the most primitive (for the lack of a better word; or maybe I don't know one b/c not a native speaker) peoples are not living exactly "natural", animalesque lives. We have evidence that even hunter gatherers possibly formed complex societies and built buildings (e.g. Gobeklitepe). If we want to remove something because it's detrimental to the environment, we need to just wipe our species off. The only reasonable path in every problem with out environmental impact is to contain and reduce it.

      2 votes
      1. [2]
        somewaffles
        Link Parent
        I mentioned factory farming quite a bit because that is what is killing the environment. While I don't agree with it, I don't think there is anything morally wrong with killing animals for food,...

        I mentioned factory farming quite a bit because that is what is killing the environment. While I don't agree with it, I don't think there is anything morally wrong with killing animals for food, so sorry if I gave off that impression! The problem is that we have created an industry around killing animals to the point of excess. If we were to return to a hunter-gatherer type situation, where everyone had to go out and hunt their meat, then we would avoid much of the wastefulness and cruelty we are currently experiencing with large scale factory farms. We are just as much a part of the environment as any other animal, but the difference with us is that we have the ability to reason that we are taking much more than we are giving.

        4 votes
        1. unknown user
          Link Parent
          No problem! Sorry if I misunderstood. I don't think much would change if we switched back to a hunter gatherer society. Let's suppose that half of the human population is vegetarian. Still 4...

          No problem! Sorry if I misunderstood.

          I don't think much would change if we switched back to a hunter gatherer society. Let's suppose that half of the human population is vegetarian. Still 4 billion humans hunting for their food would mean many billions of animals being killed every year. Not only, but because these won't be animals raised as livestock, their species would risk extinction soon. I think the industry needs to remain, but be fixed.

  5. liberty
    Link
    There's no poor environmentalists. If you truly need food you don't care where it was sourced from. As the west moves towards such a high standard of living that even our impoverished are very...

    There's no poor environmentalists. If you truly need food you don't care where it was sourced from. As the west moves towards such a high standard of living that even our impoverished are very well off by world standards, ethical questions like this are able to arise.

    If you live in third-world poverty, you may want to encourage everyone in the village to avoid eating meat, but you cannot afford to do anything about it while your children are malnourished and your village has a few cows available for slaughter. When everyone has cheap alternatives at the grocery store, it's something people can voice their opinions on and implement in their lives.

    I disagree that it's becoming "increasingly more wrong", but rather that the vocal minority that holds anti-meat sentiment is becoming larger and more vocal as we trend towards global prosperity and alternatives become realistic options.

    5 votes
  6. patience_limited
    Link
    The evolution of Western ethical thought about the wrongness of killing animals for food had a turning point with Francis Moore Lappe's Diet for a Small Planet in 1971, and the utilitarian...

    The evolution of Western ethical thought about the wrongness of killing animals for food had a turning point with Francis Moore Lappe's Diet for a Small Planet in 1971, and the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer's publication of Animal Liberation in 1975.

    Lappe's book was based on Malthusian arguments concerning the unsustainability of meat production with then-current population growth.

    Singer's philosophical stance been the basis for much of the argument about the commensurable suffering of sentient creatures, and Singer sees "speciesism" as on a continuum with other forms of cruel discrimination. https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/peter-singer-on-speciesism-and-racism/

    However, various religious and philosophical objections to the practice of eating animal flesh have been raised around the world, throughout history, with the earliest recorded instances starting around 500 B.C.E. in both India and Greece, continuing through Mahayana Buddhist tradition, and among various Christian sects (e.g. Seventh Day Adventists).

    As to current trends, it's more proper to say that eating meat has become unfashionable among college-educated youth and various celebrities, not that it's generally perceived as more or less wrong.

    5 votes
  7. mrnd
    Link
    Very broadly speaking, I think there are two forces at work: Historically humans have eaten meat because it was required for surviving. Even after farming started, hunting was necessary to...

    Very broadly speaking, I think there are two forces at work:

    Historically humans have eaten meat because it was required for surviving. Even after farming started, hunting was necessary to supplement the human diet. However currently we have great substitutes for meat, so it's harder to justify eating it. This is slow and cultural change, which just happens to be getting stronger now.

    The more active force, at least in my circles, is environmentalism. With climate change stressing my friends, changing your diet seems like a very good change to make, when evaluating on effect vs. effort. And it's getting easier at the same time as pressure to do anything grows.

    4 votes
  8. [2]
    Eva
    Link
    Animal sentience has just recently become the general-scientific consensus. This correlates with humans being less and less dependent on meat, so the two go great together.

    Animal sentience has just recently become the general-scientific consensus. This correlates with humans being less and less dependent on meat, so the two go great together.

    2 votes
    1. Akir
      Link Parent
      We've known animals are sentient since ancient times. I think you are confusing sentience with intelligence. Sentience is basically just the ability to think and feel. There aren't a ton of...

      We've known animals are sentient since ancient times. I think you are confusing sentience with intelligence. Sentience is basically just the ability to think and feel. There aren't a ton of animals who don't at least recoil when you attack them.

      5 votes
  9. [6]
    unknown user
    Link
    Killing animals for meat was never "cool". There is a reason an intricate set of rituals exist around sacrifice in many religions, and also there are ritualistic methods to immolate animals for...

    Killing animals for meat was never "cool". There is a reason an intricate set of rituals exist around sacrifice in many religions, and also there are ritualistic methods to immolate animals for food in many cultures (at least according to Karin Armstrong in her "A Short History of Myth" which is a very good book/view on evolution of myths and religion IMO). It was always morally problematic, and humans needed always to form beliefs and rituals to make it less taxing emotionally to eat meat. In todays society which is more scientific and more secular, we're losing those means of justification.

    I don't think that "it's becoming increasingly more wrong to kill animals for food", though. It's just that minorities like vegans or vegetarians are louder, and others just don't have a reason to do any activism or rhetoric because their behaviour is just "normal". Personally I think that killing animals for food is immoral is not justified because (a) almost all organisms eat other organisms, maybe except some very primitive life forms, (b) plants are just as alive as animals are, (c) nothing lives forever, so an animal being killed today or it dying three or four years later naturally (and naturally often includes falling prey to other animals) are essentially not that different (we think it is so for pets out of selfish reasons [and I share such selfish reasons, I wouldn't kill my cat because it's gonna die some time in the coming decade], and we think differently of humans because they are our peers and they don't have the monotonous lives of cattle, every individual has the potential of changing the destiny of millions, billions, and even of the planet itself; and also cannibalism is incredibly dangerous for a species' health, see e.g. the mad cow's disease), and finally (d) everything gets eaten one way or another, if an animal dies w/o any violence from another animal, it's still devoured by certain microorganisms found in the environment itself.

    It seems to me that veganism or vegetarianism is generally caused by some sort of compassion or other emotional reasons. It's not rational in that sense. The burden of meat production on environment is a real and important issue, but we need to use the environment anyhow, just like any other form of life. Lowering our impact and preserving the environment for our future is important, but doing so is not meaningful for us unless we're doing so for ourselves as a species. Veganism &c is an irrational response, they basically cannot convince people to not eat meat and resort to scandalising various aspects of meat production. We cannot become hunter gatherers again (we'd die in the span of a week or so I guess), we'll need farming and we'll need cities, so we'll need land anyhow, and if we stopped consuming meat, we'd need far more land for cultivating crops and fruits to substitute the global demand for food, which would result in many species being affected or becoming extinct (if crows eat our sunseeds and some insects other crops, we die out of hunger, so we can't and won't let them do so; also, while cattle and other animals can share an environment, a farm land for a certain crop can not). We also can not abstain totally from animal products without putting our health at risk, so veganism is not reasonable. Vegetarianism, on the other hand, is inconsistent, because there isn't much difference between consuming an egg or a chicken, and milk or beef/lamb/&c.

    Veganism and vegetarianism are irrational, and when they are about real problems like environmental impact of meat production, the solutions they bring to the table are impractical and irrational. Thus, they resort to scandalising. Equating homophobia to meat eating is unreasonable, because homosexuality is something we can do and there are no rational reason to not let people do that, and thus homophobia is irrational. Racism is similar. But we have quite compelling reasons to consume animal products and no rational reasons to completely give up on it.

    1 vote
    1. somewaffles
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      There is so much wrong with this I don't really know where to start but one thing that really stuck out to me was: 47% of soy and 60% of corn grown is used for livestock consumption. We grow 41...

      There is so much wrong with this I don't really know where to start but one thing that really stuck out to me was:

      we'd need far more land for cultivating crops and fruits to substitute the global demand for food.

      47% of soy and 60% of corn grown is used for livestock consumption. We grow 41 million tons of plant protein to feed U.S. livestock to produce about 7 million tons of animal protein for human consumption. I could link you plenty of research that has been done regarding the inefficiencies of livestock for food.

      edit: missed this part

      Personally I think that killing animals for food is immoral is not justified because (a) almost all organisms eat other organisms, maybe except some very primitive life forms, (b) plants are just as alive as animals are, (c) nothing lives forever, so an animal being killed today or it dying three or four years later naturally (and naturally often includes falling prey to other animals) are essentially not that different

      Assuming you meant moral because you listed 3 reasons justifying eating meat:
      a) we also have the critical thinking and sentience to reason we have an abundance of other resources to take advantage of to fulfill our energy needs. we have moved past the time where we needed to kill other organisms
      b) even if this is true, how does that justify eating animals? if this argument were true it'd make eating animals worse because they would just be evolved plants?
      c) they are very different because we have limited resources that take time to replenish. we could cut down all the trees in the world now for a seemingly unlimited supply of lumber but it would completely destroy other parts of the environment.

      8 votes
    2. [3]
      Catt
      Link Parent
      Compassion is definitely a rational reason. Logic is not mutually exclusive of emotion. Beef alone is something like the third highest contribution to greenhouse gases, and we're not even getting...

      It seems to me that veganism or vegetarianism is generally caused by some sort of compassion or other emotional reasons. It's not rational in that sense.

      Compassion is definitely a rational reason. Logic is not mutually exclusive of emotion.

      Veganism and vegetarianism are irrational, and when they are about real problems like environmental impact of meat production, the solutions they bring to the table are impractical and irrational.

      Beef alone is something like the third highest contribution to greenhouse gases, and we're not even getting into the deforestation issues and such. Why do you think not eating meat is impractical or irrational?

      Equating homophobia to meat eating is unreasonable, because homosexuality is something we can do and there are no rational reason to not let people do that, and thus homophobia is irrational. Racism is similar.

      I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here...or where it comes from. Nobody is equating homophobia to meat eating.

      7 votes
      1. [2]
        unknown user
        Link Parent
        Quoting the OP: Maybe I should've said "comparing" instead of "equating".

        Equating homophobia to meat eating is unreasonable, because homosexuality is something we can do and there are no rational reason to not let people do that, and thus homophobia is irrational. Racism is similar.

        I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here...or where it comes from. Nobody is equating homophobia to meat eating.

        Quoting the OP:

        But in the recent years it looks like the public opinion is shifting in a way when perception of eating meat is kinda like perception of homophobia or racism.

        Maybe I should've said "comparing" instead of "equating".

        2 votes
        1. Catt
          Link Parent
          OP is not comparing homophobia or racism to eating meat, but the shifting of opinion publicly.

          OP is not comparing homophobia or racism to eating meat, but the shifting of opinion publicly.

          2 votes
    3. papasquat
      Link Parent
      This makes no sense, even from a basic second law of thermodynamics sense. The primary goal of consuming food is to supply the body from energy. All of that energy ultimately comes from the sun....

      if we stopped consuming meat, we'd need far more land for cultivating crops and fruits to substitute the global demand for food

      This makes no sense, even from a basic second law of thermodynamics sense. The primary goal of consuming food is to supply the body from energy. All of that energy ultimately comes from the sun. Whether you eat the plants directly, or you eat the animals that eat the plants, you're getting the energy from the same place. The only difference is that when you eat animals, those animals essentially wasted that energy by walking around, reproducing and breathing. A tiny, tiny portion of the energy and biomass that they ate from plants makes it to your body. It's a hugely inefficient system. It's impossible, purely from a basic physics standpoint for eating a solely plant based diet to require more land than eating a heavily meat based diet. Eating meat is the rube goldberg machine of obtaining energy for life.

      2 votes
  10. Chobbes
    Link
    I think a huge amount of the recent push for this is because of environmental reasons. Climate change research is actually fairly recent, and so that's probably got a lot of people thinking. We're...

    I think a huge amount of the recent push for this is because of environmental reasons. Climate change research is actually fairly recent, and so that's probably got a lot of people thinking. We're just more sure now that eating meat isn't the best idea, especially for every meal. It's not good for the environment, and it's probably not all that good for us either.

    Some other factors that contribute are likely social movements, and abstaining from meat becoming more of a norm. Lots of people are switching because they think it's a healthier diet (I have heard something absurd like male vegetarians living for 7 to 10 years longer: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/648593). Restaurants are getting more and better veggie options, and there's lots of interesting meat alternatives popping up in grocery stores. This can make it a lot more appealing.

    Plus, if you're considering a larger time scale, a lot of the modern world makes it more feasible. In the past it might have been hard to get high quality protein without meat, or it might have been harder to support agriculture in some regions (maybe the only thing that grows is some grass that people can't eat, so you need grazing animals to convert it into something people can eat). But now we have far better tools, resources, and knowledge for farming, and are much better at shipping and preserving resources, so it's becoming less necessary for anybody to rely upon animals.

    So, I dunno. I think it's pretty clear that we eat too much meat. Even if you don't want to give it up entirely, you might want to consider cutting the amount that you eat (probably significantly). A lot of people seem to have these guttural reactions where they double down on the negative thing that they're doing when told they should change. I really don't mean to be anybody's antagonist, though, I really think it will make a big impact for all of us in the long run. I just want y'all to be happy :).