?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Is he friend or food? Or is he both? - John C. Kirk

Jan. 21st, 2008

02:15 am - Is he friend or food? Or is he both?

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

"Do you know how to pluck a chicken?" said Miss Flitworth.
Bill looked from her to the hen.
BUT WE FEED THEM, he said helplessly.
"That's right. And then they feed us. This one's been off lay for months. That's how it goes in the chicken world."

("Reaper Man", p130)

I've been vegetarian for the last 15 years (since I was 18), and I've explained the background for that decision here. I do still miss the taste of meat, and I sometimes find myself drooling at what other people are eating; Quorn is a pretty good substitute, but it's not quite the same. Last year the BBC had an article about lapsed vegetarians (Some sausages are more equal than others), which includes the quote "not eating meat had become a habit, not a passion". That does resonate with me, and there are times when it's hard to remember why I became a vegetarian, but in those situations I just trust my past instincts, i.e. I assume that I had a good reason for it.

Recently some friends were discussing the "adopt a pig" scheme at Yorkshire Meats. (You can also get to their site via www.eatbabe.co.uk and www.adopt-a-pig.co.uk.) This is a bit like those restaurants where you can choose a fish from a tank and then they serve it to you for dinner. The basic idea is that you put down a £50 deposit on a pig when it's about 7 weeks old, then 6 months later you buy all the meat when that pig is killed (about £300 worth, 40-50kg). In the meantime, you can visit "your porcine friend" at the farm, and they'll send you photos to keep you up to date. At one level, this seems a bit odd: do you really want to be on first name terms with the animal that you're going to eat? On the other hand, I'm certainly in favour of people knowing where their food comes from.

Looking at their website, I'm actually very impressed. The pigs seem to be well treated, and I particularly liked the photo of a farmer hand-feeding an apple to a pig. I also agree with their philosophy, e.g. not being "organic" so that they can give medicine to the pigs when necessary. I'd like to visit that farm, to see how things work in a bit more detail; presumably the farmers don't feel guilty about killig the animals, even though they care for them.

Thinking about the chicken quote above, I think that a reciprocal system works well, which is partly why I'm not vegan: it seems fair enough to take care of chickens/bees and get eggs/honey in return. DownTheLane is an interesting website, written by a guy who keeps free range chickens in his back garden; he bought lots of his hens from battery farms, so that they have a better "retirement" than KFC. That type of self-sufficiency isn't really practical for me at the moment (living in a 1st floor flat), but it's something I'd consider if I move elsewhere. For now, it makes sense to be selective about what food I buy, e.g. going to a local apiary for honey.

It's a bit more complicated for pigs, since there's no direct (economic) benefit in keeping them while they're alive, so they can only "earn their keep" by being sold for meat. Is this fair? My utopian vision is for farm animals to be kept in the equivalent of safari parks, where the income from visitors would pay for their upkeep, but realistically that would involve far fewer animals than are alive today. I don't have a problem with population control (for humans or animals), although I don't know enough about the environmental issues (e.g. carbon emissions) to comment on them.

Actually, one argument in favour of being vegan (rather than vegetarian) is that only the female animals produce eggs/milk, and you don't need many males for breeding purposes, so most males will be killed at birth. In other words, that theory says that I'm still indirectly responsible for several deaths. With the pigs, this farm lets you specify your preferred sex on the return form, so every piglet born should live for at least 7 months.

Assuming that the pigs have a happy life on the farm, their lifespan is still shorter than it could be. According to the Vegetarian Society, the natural lifespan of a pig is 10-15 years. However, if we assume that a farm wants to maintain a fixed population (to avoid overcrowding) then they won't rear a new pig until they've got rid of an existing one. I'm sure that an individual pig would like to live as long as possible, but as a neutral third party is there any significant difference between one pig that lives for ten years and ten pigs that each live for one year? I'm sure that the farm is motivated by profit, since they can sell ten times as much meat if they kill each pig as soon as it's fully grown; however, this could theoretically be balanced out if people were willing to pay ten times as much money for "longlife organic" meat (or whatever new term was invented to describe it). So, ignoring the financial issues for a moment, what would maximise porcine happiness? Arguably it does make sense to kill animals in their prime, to avoid the problems of old age; that's similar to the idea of putting pets "to sleep" when they're suffering, or euthanasia for humans (which I support).

I think the main problem is that we're still killing animals for fundamentally selfish reasons (i.e. we enjoy eating their corpses). Yorkshire Meats don't say much about this part of the process on their website, and I'd be interested to know how the animals are transported to the abattoir. According to PETA, "more than 1 million pigs die in transport each year, and an additional 420,000 are crippled by the time they arrive at the slaughterhouse." Generally speaking, I think that PETA are extremists (although they have good taste in naked women), but if they're right about this then it's a bit worrying.

Even in the best case scenario, it's probably fair to say that being killed won't be a fun experience for the animal concerned. However, death is an inevitable part of life, and I think most methods are quite unpleasant. Basically, whenever you bring a new life into the world you have to accept responsibility for its eventual death. This is equally true if you buy a pet from a breeder, although I've been able to side-step that issue with my most recent cats/hamsters (by adopting them from other people). For that matter, the same thing also applies to childbirth, but I'm reluctant to condemn all parents as murderers. In all these cases, you hope that the happy life will outweigh the eventual death.

The BBC article that I mentioned above includes this quote:

Chris Lamb, of the Meat and Livestock Commission, doubts that organic meat will ever dominate the market. "You couldn't turn over the whole of British production or consumption to being organic - it's unfeasible in terms of the amount of land available and the price."


The BBC also have a second article about a former vegetarian who turned to pig farming: As happy as pigs in muck. One of the comments to that article said:

It's OK for those people who get in excess of £20,000 to get ethical - but for us MILLIONS who get, say £12,000 a year, we depend on supermarkets to supply us with meat that we can afford to buy. Otherwise, it's back to medieval times, when only the rich could eat meat and the peasants ate only vegetables (and the occasional poached rabbit). Long live the supermarkets, I say!


These are both reasonable points: if all meat was produced in farms like this, there wouldn't be enough to match the current demand. However, I don't really see that being a problem. As you may have gathered, I'm wavering a bit in my principles, but I'm not planning to go back to my old diet; instead, I'm considering whether it's ok to eat meat a few times a year, as a special treat. If everyone did that, the higher cost wouldn't be such a problem because you'd probably spend less on food overall. It might also make sense to re-introduce ration cards to stop rich people hogging the supply (no pun intended).

Having said all that, I do have an ulterior motive here: "Mmm, piggy fried goodness!" If I'd been vegetarian all my life, would I want to make the noble sacrifice of eating unknown meat just to give an animal a chance at life? It seems unlikely. More generally, I like to think of myself as a kind person, and killing animals for my pleasure conflicts with that. So, maybe it's better to err on the side of caution by staying veggie? I have to wonder whether my changing views are a result of maturity, or whether I've just been corrupted, and I suspect that my younger self would be horrified at the person I've become.

Taking a fictional analogy, when I see the Wraith in Stargate Atlantis (or vampires in general), who rely on eating humans to survive, I view this as an intrinsically bad thing. Similarly, it's quite popular to have a tortured hero who becomes a vampire but fights against his impulses, and I like to think that I'd do the same thing. How do I reconcile that with the idea of eating meat by choice? I suppose this partly depends on whether human lives are inherently more valuable than animal lives. I know people who eat meat but are opposed to capital punishment, so presumably they'd say yes; personally, I think there are several humans who are less deserving of life than farm animals. Is it significant that the animals rely on us for life? For instance, if humans were raised on a vampire island, with all their material needs catered for, but then culled at the age of 30 (a la Logan's Run) would that be ok? I'd say no; even though they wouldn't exist in the first place without their "stewards", they'd still be able to survive elsewhere on their own.

Coming back to animals, I'm guessing that most of them could get by without us, e.g. if we evacuated the Isle of Wight. However, that would be the species as a whole; individual animals would still die, and I don't know how well they'd regulate their own populations. Would they keep breeding until some animals died of starvation? They'd also be vulnerable to illness and other predators, although I'm not sure whether a hen should be grateful to a fox for saving her from a wolf.

All in all, I'll carry on the way I am for now, but I may change my views later on.

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:gaspodog
Date:January 21st, 2008 11:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
For a well-reasoned moral take on meat production and consumption, I highly recommend taking a look at Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's The River Cottage Meat Book. He presents some good arguments, though he presents others that don't hold water 100%. Worth a look - a good perspective from the ethical-but-still-carnivorous side of the fence.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:johnckirk
Date:January 24th, 2008 02:03 am (UTC)
(Link)
Ah yes, I've heard of him (mainly in adverts for Channel 4 programs); I'll see whether I can get hold of his book at the library.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:shuripentu
Date:January 22nd, 2008 12:15 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think the main problem is that we're still killing animals for fundamentally selfish reasons

I think there's very little that people do with/for domesticated animals that isn't selfish. The very act of domesticating a species is selfish: it involves capturing some wild animals and selectively breeding them so that, over the generations, a subspecies is created that is more suited than its wild counterpart to human needs - whether it's food, labour, or just companionship.

There are some animal rights activists out there who go as far as to argue that even keeping pets is wrong (in addition to eating meat or other animal products, using animals in scientific/medical research, and keeping animals in zoos). Whilst I personally disagree with them and think they're a bit nuts, they have a point that is at least logically consistent. Keeping a pet - or any other captive/domesticated animal - almost always involves restricting its freedom of movement and freedom to mate and breed; in fact, doing otherwise is generally considered exceptionally irresponsible pet ownership.

You can argue, reasonably succesfully, that they're done with the animal's welfare in mind - unrestricted freedom of movement often leads to getting eaten or run over, and the unrestricted ability to mate and breed often leads to ill health (if the animal is female) and a population explosion. However, you can also argue that both are still fundamentally selfish acts, or that they at the very least place humans above other animals in some way: here I am telling this animal what to do because I know best.

At the end of the day, I think there are very few people indeed who completely disagree with the selfish use of animals to some degree or other. I'm fairly certain that most of the holier-than-thou veg*ns who whine about the selfishness of eating meat/eggs/dairy/whatever would happily neuter a tom cat, despite the fact that 99.99% of toms would much rather be left intact and given unrestricted access to queens in heat.

The main question, then, is not whether or not you believe various types of selfishness are justified: e.g. you might believe that using animals in medical experiments is right but eating animals is wrong, since the former saves (human and occasionally other animal) lives whereas the latter is simply because it's tasty.

Of course, there are further side questions, like whether not eating meat actually has more of an impact on animal husbandry practices than only eating (and hence actively supporting) humanely reared meat. (I strongly suspect not, which is one of the reasons I eat happy meat.)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:totherme
Date:January 22nd, 2008 08:15 am (UTC)
(Link)
It's even more complicated than that. Dogs weren't domesticated by modern humans making rational selfish decisions. Since dogs were domesticated, both dogs and humans have evolved, arguably to take advantage of the partnership.

There is a plausible theory that suggests that we have such rich spoken languages because of dogs.

It seems to me that there are complex inter-woven symbiotic relationships all through nature. If you take any one species out of the food chain, it messes up a whole load of stuff. To suggest that the human species is somehow exempt from the food chain seems arrogant.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:baratron
Date:January 22nd, 2008 01:13 am (UTC)
(Link)
I don't currently have enough time or brain to reply to this in any detail, but the one thing I will say is that if you eat meat a few times a year, you WILL regret it. A person only needs to be vegetarian for a matter of weeks for their body to stop producing the enzymes necessary to digest meat. If a vegetarian lapses and starts to eat meat again, it will be several weeks before their body adjusts to the change. That means several weeks of abdominal discomfort, pain and diarrhoea and/or constipation. This isn't so much a problem if you plan to eat meat permanently, but it is a problem if you want to eat it just occasionally.

I also recommend Redwood's Organic Vegi Deli Bio Rashers as the closest thing to bacon without actually being from a pig.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:nou
Date:January 24th, 2008 01:58 am (UTC)
(Link)
If a vegetarian lapses and starts to eat meat again, it will be several weeks before their body adjusts to the change. That means several weeks of abdominal discomfort, pain and diarrhoea and/or constipation.

FWIW, I didn't have this problem. I went directly to omnivore after several years as a vegan, and noticed no change at all in the behaviour of my innards. I was even specifically looking out for it, because I'd heard there was likely to be a problem. I may be a freak though.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:johnckirk
Date:January 24th, 2008 02:01 am (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks, I was wondering how people like you and shuripentu got on. I've heard the theory that your body can't digest meat properly after you haven't eaten it for a while, but I didn't have any trouble when I ate chicken by mistake a while back, so I wasn't sure whether the quantity of meat is significant. I've heard of another lapsed vegetarian who couldn't resist a pork pie in the fridge when he got home from the pub one night, although in that situation he might expect to be ill the following day.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:shuripentu
Date:December 4th, 2008 02:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I've only just seen this thread now and thought I'd comment on it. I don't recall having any digestive trouble when I realised that I didn't have a problem with killing and eating animals per se, and promptly treated myself to a plateful of free-range reindeer. I suspect the whole thing about enzymes is yet another half-baked urban legend - veg*n and other alternative diets seem to collect these like trading cards.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:johnckirk
Date:January 24th, 2008 02:02 am (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks for the link to the "Vegi Deli" website - I tried out some of their food at a vegan food fair recently, and I was very impressed, but I haven't seen it in any supermarkets, so I may order some online.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)