Chickens at a poultry farm in India in June (Anindito Mukherjee/Bloomberg News)
If you haven’t noticed, there’s been a recent decline in the consumption of octopus. Many people have stopped eating octopus due to their perceived intelligence, possibly influenced by a popular documentary during the pandemic. This trend reminds me of the time when the movie “Babe” led to a wave of people giving up bacon. Pigs were seen as intelligent creatures, but I couldn’t help but think about how delicious they are.
However, it’s important to note that intelligence doesn’t equate to sentience – the ability to experience pain or pleasure. Even the most unintelligent chickens and cows have the capacity to feel these sensations. So why is it acceptable for some to continue eating animals that are presumed to be less intelligent?
The shift away from consuming octopus is likely not a result of growing elitism, but rather a continuation of the ethical considerations people go through when it comes to eating animals. Thanks to advancements in neuroscience and investigative journalism, we now have more knowledge about the pain and suffering experienced by animals, particularly those in factory farms. Additionally, we’re increasingly aware of the significant contribution of livestock farming to the climate crisis. We’ve witnessed the devastating effects on wild species like cod and bluefin tuna due to our taste preferences. Yet, despite this information, many still find pleasure and nourishment in eating meat, and the global demand for meat is on the rise.
This dilemma has prompted the emergence of a new industry focused on guilt-free meat. The recent approval of lab-grown chicken by the Agriculture Department in the United States, with renowned chef José Andrés pledging to include it on his menu, showcases the potential of cultured meat. Supporters argue that meat produced from animal and egg cells in laboratories requires less land and water, and could eventually be affordable, sustainable, and tasty enough to eliminate the need for raising and slaughtering animals. However, at present, lab-grown meat remains expensive and energy-intensive, although further experimentation may lead to improvements in these areas. On another front, engineers are also working on plant-based proteins, but current offerings lack the taste and texture of real meat, limiting their potential to replace traditional meat consumption.
Guilt-free meat appeals to those whose consumption of animal products requires mental gymnastics and denial. As a self-proclaimed hypocrite when it comes to eating animals, I understand the internal conflict. Raised as a vegetarian in a Hindu household, I became an omnivore after living in countries where meat is a staple in daily diets. However, my decision was not solely driven by cultural influences. While living in Hanoi, I unintentionally expressed curiosity about the local tradition of eating dog during the full moon, leading my friends to assume that I wanted to try it. For an entire year, I conveniently found excuses to be unavailable whenever there was a full moon, as if I were avoiding my inner werewolf.
Drawing a moral distinction between cows and dogs raised for consumption is not defensible. Although I had a pet dog growing up, I find many animals endearing, including pigs, lambs, and even chickens. Yet, this fondness does not prevent me from eating their relatives bred for slaughter. Selectively choosing to prevent the suffering and death of one species over another is simply a matter of personal affinity and an inability to empathize with the experiences of different animals. It’s a visceral but arbitrary reaction.
Some argue that it’s more ethical to consume domesticated animals rather than prey on those in the wild since domestication implies a contract between humans and animals. However, this rationale falls apart when we consider the horrors of factory farming, the lack of consent from the animals, and the environmental consequences of raising livestock. Others contend that hunting or fishing for wild game is a more natural and therefore better option because it doesn’t involve creating new lives only to end them prematurely. However, the track record of human consumption has resulted in the extinction of numerous species, disrupting ecosystems as a consequence.
Many, including myself, attempt to navigate the ethical complexities of meat-eating by selectively choosing ethically raised and sourced meat products, particularly wild-caught fish from sustainable stocks. However, this approach is expensive and far from perfect, making us rather insufferable individuals in social settings.
In the future, perhaps meat-eating will be viewed in the same way as cannibalism and human sacrifice are today. But for now, we find ourselves navigating through a messy middle ground. Society is becoming increasingly aware of the immorality of consuming animals, but cultural norms, personal preferences, and economic incentives have yet to catch up.
Technology may accelerate progress in the quest for ethical meat options. Until then, for those unwilling to give up meat entirely, the best strategy is to reduce consumption, especially of red meat, seek out ethically produced alternatives (if financially viable), give lab-grown and plant-based options a try, and vote against politicians who condone harmful farming and fishing practices.
And sure, if certain animals capture your fascination, you can choose to avoid eating them. But let’s not claim this as the moral high ground. If you decide to skip the octopus, I’ll gladly take your portion, even if it comes with a pang of guilt, until the day someone passes me a lab-grown alternative.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
