Debates: Vegans versus Meat Eaters

Mainpage

Debates: Vegans versus Meat Eaters

• Introduction
• Definitions
• Variants
• Motivations
• History
• Motivations Examined
• Animal Well Being
• Rationalization
• The two perspectives
• The Animal Perspective
• The Human Perspective
• Public debates: perceptions and emotions
• Conclusions

Introduction

In modern times a debate is raging between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. Accusations of cruelty versus animals are countered by arguments of elitism and activism. The debate often seems to lack logic while containing a lot of emotion and opinion. Activism shown in the news and youtube video's by pro and contra groups testify to this. Although the debate is very public, it seems only a handfull of people are concerned with it. Most mainstream people seem to hold no strong opinions about vegetarianism or meat eating. We can ask ourselves why this debate is fought with such emotion. Why has it not yet been resolved? What are the beliefs and who is ultimately right? And why do not more people participate? After all it's about what we eat everyday.
Vegetarianism of course is the new kid on the block. If there can be identified such a thing, the 'otherside' is formed by the existing mainstream practices. They merely attempt to preserve the status quo. It is not like democracy vs communism, but more like tax free versus taxes. Hence i will take a closer look at vegetarianism, and only casually at meat eating. I will attempt to examine it's history, practice and it's motivations. After this we can take a look at the debate.

We start by asking the right questions.

Questions

What really is vegetarianism?
What kind of vegetarians exist?

Why do some modern day people choose to embrace a vegetarian life style? What is the history behind their movements? What are the motivations ? Are their motivations correct?
Can there be made any solid argument that does provide a basis for non-carnivorism?

Why do some modern day people actively reject the vegetarian life style? Why do they scold and belittle vegetarians? Is there a discernible threat one way or the other?

Why do most people have little if any opinion about the consumption of meat and about the consumption of vegetables?

Is there a solution to the argument between the groups?

Definitions

Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat (red meat, poultry, seafood, insects and the flesh of any other animal), and may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter.

Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose.

Watson, the founder of the first Vegan society (1944), described Veganism as: "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals".

In this text, i will use the term non-carnivores to describe both vegans and vegetarians when this is practical. I use this term to indicate both groups are against any human carnivorous action, and to avoid using the term herbivores, which could be insulting. If you have a better suggestion, please comment. Futhermore, i will use the term 'pro meat eaters' to describe the other side.

Variants

Some of the most well know variants are:

1. Vegetarian

A person that does not consume the meat of any animal.

2. Vegan

A person that does not consume animals, animal products or benefit in any way from the exploitation of animals. With exploitation often is meant: any form of limit placed on the natural life of the animal that it would lead if humans were not present.

3. Lacto-vegetarian

A person that does consume dairy products but excludes eggs.

4. Ovo-vegetarian

A person that consumes eggs but not dairy.

5. Lacto-ovo vegetarian

A person that consumes both eggs and dairy products.

6. Fruitarian

A person that consumes a diet that consists entirely or primarily of fruits in the botanical sense, and possibly nuts and seeds, without animal products. Variants include diets that does not consume any organic material the harvest of which would include harm to a living being, be it either plant or animal.

7. Semi-vegetarian

A person who consumes a diet largely of consisting of vegetarian foods, but may include fish and sometimes even poultry, as well as dairy products and eggs. The Vegetarian Society pointed out that the consumption of fish is not vegetarian.

Motivations

Basic Motivations

Some of the most well known motivations are:

1.Animal well being

The most important motivation for non-carnivores is animal well being. They oppose the idea that value can be assigned to individuals based on their species.

Followers of the right-based division claim that all sentient beings have the right to live their life in freedom, and not to be property. They tend to be abolitionists seeking to end ownership of non-humans much in the way abolitionists in the past sought to end human slavery.

Followers of the utilitarian based division subscribe to the idea that animal rights should always be part of the discussion, and decisions should be based on necessity. They seek to cut back on the use of animals down to the limits of pure survival needs.

2.Health

Another salient motivation is health. As studies have proven, and countries like Japan, China and Indonesia have shown, a diet low in animal fats and rich in plant materials has many health and subsequent longevity benefits.

Humans are omnivores, we can digest both animal and plant. We can even survive on diets that favor one extreme or the other. Since animal protein was relatively hard to come by for our immediate humanoid ancestors, our guts were developed towards processing plant materials. Meat and sugar (honey) were supplements that could give us a temporary energy boost and thus enhance our chances of survival. We lack the guts of true predators which are designed to process large amounts of meat, and we don't need as much energy to get around on a daily basis as they do. We can't extract all we need from meat and do not burn the large amounts of fat gained. Instead this fat is stored and causes artirial problems as wel as organ failures. We are also not equipped to deal with the toxins contained within animal products on a large scale. Consequently a diet primarily consisting of large amounts of meat tends to limit the modern human life span. A diet containing sufficient plant materials tends to prolong it.

3.World food shortages

Humans can process both animal products and plant materials. Many foods like grains, corn etc. have the similar energetic contents as meat. In modern day practice animals are often produced using these high energy foods and are therefore inefficiently produced. The amount of these materials that are needed to produce enough animal material to feed one person, can feed several people. The exact ratio depends on the type of animal. The lowest for common farm animals is 4:1 (chickens). You can find examples here. So more people can be fed if we forgo the creation of animals. However, some plant materials such as grasses and most kind of leaves can not be processed by humans. On soil that supports just these types of plantlife, animal husbandry would be a good option for producing food for humans.

4.The environment

Environmental vegans focus on conservation, rejecting the use of animal products on the premise that fishing, hunting, trapping and farming, particularly factory farming, are environmentally unsustainable. Currently animals outstrip cars in the production of harmful gases.

Membership motivations

Why do people adopt the non-carnivore life style? Based on the last three motivations, membership seems to be a logical choice. It benefits the self. However, animal well being is an emotion based motivation, resembling more a belief system than a rational analysis. This is explained in one of the next sections. Membership based on this type of motivation can of course be explained in great detail. However, since this explanation would be entirely similar to explaining memberships of any belief based social group, i will not examine it in this article. Why does one become a Buddist? A Muslim? A Queen fan? Member of the science club? If you want to, you can find some bits of information about basic human mechanics here and here on this blog. However google would provide you with more on topic links.

History

Evolution

All great apes evolved from a series of common ancestors. At least some of these ancestors were purely vegetarian. As far as this author can determine, meat eating was developed late in our evolution. Some argue that we should return to this pure vegetarian diet, because our bodies are supposedly not designed to process meat. However omnivores are widespread among mammals and even close relatives like chimpanzees do consume meat. Our bodies are geared towards processing both animal and plant materials. The argument is incorrect. If you are still unconvinced, herbivores get sick when fed meat. Carnivores get sick (and often die) when fed plants. Only omnivores can proces both.

Non-carnivorism throughout the centuries

Early history
There is nothing known about non-carnivorism as a strict life style in prehistoric times. We know that animals played an important role both in survival and (consequently) in worship for early man. We know this from cave paintings, fossilised animal remains, tools etc. How likely is it that unknown groups existed that did abstain from meat consumption?
We do know that some contemporary groups that still resemble our pre historic hunter-gatherer groups, like the Inuit, consume a lot of meat. Their mortality rate does not seem to suffer because of this, as Stephan Guyenet explains. This group mainly consumes non processed meat. Contemporary Western processed meat consumption can be linked to mortality, as explained by Sabine Rohrmann et al. Because a diet consisting mainly of unprocessed meat does not seem to harm longevity there is no health related motivation for early man to abstain from meat consumption.
Ofcourse the Inuit are a special case, they live in the cold climates where there is little vegetation. Our prehistoric ancestors did resemble the Inuit in many ways. They consumed little if any processed meat, and had alot of exercise seach for food and shelter. But they differed in their diets, eating a lot less meat and more fruits, vegetables and grains. Items which were much easier harvested.
It could be conceivable that for reasons like ease of acces people might have abstained from meat eating. Also it could be conceivable that by keeping animals such as horses and cows, unavailable to the Inuit, for utility or as pets animall well being concerns could have led to abstinence from meat. However no art, religious objects or tooling were ever found indicating that a group exclusively survived on a vegetarian diet, only the opposite. Futhermore all contemporary herding tribes all consume the meat of their animals.

Though the existance of prehistoric vegetatians can not be disproven, it is doubtfull they existed. Perhaps more arguments to the affirmative or the contrary can be made, however we simply have no evidence of such groups.

Classical history

In Greek history several philosophers and some of the elites of society subscribed to the notion that nothing containing a soul should be eaten. Some also believed in the non violent nature of man, including violence against animals. Others however claimed that animals did not posses ratio, and could therefore be consumed. These beliefs never spread to the larger culture.

There are indications that the first Greek ideas were inspired by the Egyptians, where priests abstained from several kinds of food and clothing, in order to obtain purity. This idea of purity can be found in several other old-world cultures.
In Chinese and Indian history there were similar practices and ideas. Refraining from eating meat was a method of gaining purity. Buddhism is one of the few religions that included refraining from violence against any living being and mastery over one's desires.  However most Buddists did not follow these rules to the letter.

Medieval - Renaissance

In Christian history non-carnivorism was virtually non existent except among priests, who abstained for reasons of purity. Eating the dead was seen as impure, as was sex. I did not find anything about the renaissance, but this could be due to poor investigation.

Emancipation in the 18th century

In the renaissance the ideas of ancient cultures were explored, among these vegetarianism and veganism. Several intellectuals promoted the idea of abstaining from animal products, for various reasons. In the 18th century true movements sprang up, like the Vegetarian Society and the Vegan Society. A driving force was the notion of emancipation. Emancipation means the attainment of an equal place in society. The perception was that animals like humans had certain inalienable rights and needed to be liberated from human ownership.

While globally the percentage of non-carnivores has a maximum of around 5% in any given nation, some groups and sects within the mentioned cultures would have high percentages of vegetarians or vegans. To date there have been no known cultures that adopted non-carnivorism as a whole*.

*follow this link for information or early veganism. more can be found here.

Summary

When examining the history of non-carnivorism one could argue that the most widely used motivations in the past were selfish. People wanted to attain purity. Only in recent times have the animals themselves been considered. However the notion of non-violence towards living beings is not new.

*note: most of the information above is based on online sources, of which i can't positively identify the original authors. Instead i included the links. Please comment if you have information about the authors. The text below this line is entirely my own. Please comment if you find fault.

So now we know what we are talking about. Let's take a look if we can determine if non-carnivore arguments hold up under examination. After that, we will take a look at the other side of the debate.

Motivations examined

The motivations for adopting a non-carnivore lifestyle mentioned in this texts consist of one opinion based motivation, and three factual based ones.

The motivations concerning health, world food shortage and the environment can all be proven scientifically and indeed have been proved. I will leave you with this statement, you can do the research yourself, if you have any doubts. Based on these alone a non-carnivore lifestyle is a good idea for the immediate future of mankind on planet Earth. The threats of global warning and food shortage can be limited a great deal with this adaptation. Whether in some distant age we can indulge ourselves again without consequence, is a matter of speculation.
Oddly enough, the most popular motivation is the opinion based one. So let's take a look at the animal well being motivation.

Animal well being

The main motivation for non-carnivorism is animal well being, and at the same time the most well known argument in the discussions between vegans and non-vegans. For many non-carnivores it is the only motivation. Even though many attempts have been made to rationalize this motivation, it can never be truly rationalized because at it's core lie human emotions and the subjective human notions of right and wrong. Below follows an explanation.

Common perceptions

Animal well being can be easily understood and easily expressed. The common understanding comes from the fact that larger animals have identifiable feelings. Mammals etc. can be hurt much in the way we can. We can detect this via their expressions, their movements and their vocalizations. As humans we do not want to be hurt of confined, and we conclude that it must be the same for animals since they seemingly react in the same manner. We therefore know larger animals do not want to be hurt or killed, and we know they resent close quarters confinement. Scientific studies have indeed shown that this assumption is valid. Again, you can do the research yourself. As for smaller animals like insects, our intellect might propell us towards caring (a life is sacred and such), however most people do not mourn the squashing of a bug or the removal of pests. No flags are raised to protect ants, yet we risk death in small speedboats for whales. So in summary, our common notion of animal well being comes from the identification with the expressions of larger animals.

Common reactions

We understand animal well being, and since it is similar to our own well being, we can also readily express ourselves on the subject. Indeed we feel the need to do so since we are empathic social beings that automatically strive towards an acceptable level of well being for all members within our groups, which extends outwards to animals and non hostile strangers. Hence any publicized cruelty towards animals, in which the same act would be 'cruel' to humans, is widely protested. Well, at least for a given period. Most humans do not stay active for long for a cause that lies outside their immediate concerns or their immediate social world. A lot of non-carnivores however do.

In summary: both perception and reaction are at first emotion based. No logic, like for example utility, is involded.

Rationalization

For most non-carnivores the emotion based on the perception of animal suffering is the main validation for their life choice, completely separate from rational thought. This is quite logical. Because something is felt to be wrong if it were done to me, it is wrong. Because something is seen to cause suffering, it is cruelty. There is no obvious need to examine what is clearly right. The animal well being emotion simply transforms into a belief. It is so, because it is so..because i know it is so.

If we want the motivation of animal well being to stick however, it has to be based on ratio, and not solely emotions, since the latter can change with time and between individuals and cultures. Reason can be shared with any advanced culture (a culture that abstains from absolutism). Reason also provides a solid basis for usefull, and defensible action, in a non absolutist, rational, free thinking society.

After the initial emotion, humans always seek to justify their actions or beliefs. Since non-carnivorism is a mainly Western phenomenon, several attempts have been made to rationalize and thus validate the non-carnivore lifestyle motivation of 'animal well being'. If it can be shown logically or scientifically that the animal well being motivation is supported by valid arguments as opposed to subjective opinions based on emotions, the discussion can be won in favor of the non-carnivores.  Furthermore it would provide solid footing for supporters, as opposed to the nagging notion that if something feels right, it does not automatically mean it is right.

So let's take a deeper look at the rationalizations for animal well being as a valid motivation. Non-carnivores are against speciesism, the assignment of value to individuals based on species alone.
Speciesism is an arbitrary choice. You could easily make a different choice. In it's 'logic' it is close to racism, the choice to treat different colors of human differently. Speciesism as a basis for assigning moral value of course is the understandable choice of the casual observer, since terrestial species do seems to have vastly different properties and capabilities, as was believed of black and white humans (this was of course disproven). However it is arbitrary.

Non-carnivores however make the same mistake as supporters of speciesism, they also arbitrary assign values. These values mostly takes the form of rights.

A 'Why is it wrong to use animals?'
B 'Because it IS wrong... '
A 'That is absolutism.'
B 'Well...Because they have feelings.'
A 'Animals make animals suffer. Animals do not care about any feelings of their prey.'
B 'Well...Because they have rights.'

Some non-carnivores decided to assign rights to all living beings, others just to animals. The most used ground is that animals just have rights because they are alive and they feel. Another argument used in support is that we humans have rights based on our well being and thus animals should have them too. Thus is claimed: animal rights are not arbitrary.

Now we arrive at the fundamental flaw in the 'animal well being' motivation. Rights are always arbitrary. All rights are based upon agreements between people about what is right and what is wrong, what a person should be entitled to and what not. They differ between societies, and between rulers. Neither animals nor humans have inalienable rights. Nothing ever was written in stone by a God or nature. Rights are a human invention with the goal of bringing order to society. They have nothing whatsoever to do with animals. Rights are not an intrinsic part of animal life, nor human life. All arguments concerning rights can be dismissed (as can all arguments based on emotion).

In summary, the motivations for health, world food shortages and the enviroment do hold up under examination. Animall well being does not. This motivation is based on emotion and backed by faulty logic.

Since the animal well being motivation is so important to them, does this analysis sink the ship for the non-carnivores? Let's take a look beyond this early conclusion.

The two perspectives

From this logical foundation, we can finally perceive the true valid perspectives for looking at the human-animal dynamic. There are only two. They way an animal might look at things, and the way a human could percieve the situation.

The animal perspective

 

From the perspective of an animal, anything we do with animals is validated. All animals, indeed all life has a built in directive to maximize its chances for survival without regard. Neither emotion nor reason play a role. Animals will use other animals for their own benefit, without any concerns for suffering, rights, or necessity. Sharks will harass a mother whale and bite the calf until the mother has no more energy to defend the calf, and the calf can no longer keep up due to blood loss. Rats, cats and dogs have eradicated entire species when introduced in Australia and other countries, without any concern for their own food source drying up. Cats bring live mice to their young in order to teach them hunting skills, without regard for the rights of the mice, many of which die from a heart attack rather than injury. A cuckoo will eject an egg from the nest of another species of bird and replace it with its own without any moral concerns. Bears eat the brains and eggsacks of salmon and throw away the rest, purely because it is more efficient energy wise to catch more fish and soley eat brains.

Humans are animals, as proven by Darwin and subsequent scientific research. There is nothing wrong with our bio industry from an animal point of view, no matter how much suffering it might cause among animals. We are simply very smart animals, that have found clever ways to benefit from other animals. The entire food chain is based on a layer of plants, a layer of plant eaters and then layer upon layer of predator. As the top predator, there is nothing wrong with our consumption of meat, nor the way we harvest.

The notion of animal rights is ridiculous from the point of view of the animal. First, rights are an arbitrary human agreement. If you want animal rights because there are human rights.. well there is no reason why plants and vegetation should not also have rights, or even the land itself. In nature there are no rights. Secondly, rights are the result of discussions amongst humans. Animals can never be a partner in any discussion. What rights should a dog have? Can we ask them? We could only make an educated guess in such situations. The essential factor in rights, agreement, can only be given by another human. When it comes to making rights they can deliver no creative input and can't vote on any decision. Their input remains blank. Thirdly, any suffering is simply nature from the animal perspective. And fourth, any animal would do the same as we do, if they had the power to do so. A whale would never create a cattle farm, but it would create a plankton farm.

There is also a positive relation that is often overlooked. Symbiosis. Humans have formed symbiotic relationships with many types of animals (or perhaps the other way around). These animals have hugely profited in terms of survival. The primary objective of their DNA is met, they are amongst the most successful species on the planet.

In conclusion: no human can be faulted for any kind of animal use or animal suffering when pursuing their own benefit. No animal would ever fault a human for doing so, or choose a different behavior.

Do note that this cold conclusion gained via analysis is in stark contrast to anything we might feel when watching animal abuse video's.

The human perspective

 

We humans are conscious; we are aware of ourself, our environment, our actions and their consequences. Next to instinct we posses rationality, or the ability for discursive reason (as opposed to intuitive reason). It is the ability to not act automatically but to consider options, consequences and relations via examination and alter our behavior according to its results. Few animals if any posses these characteristics, and none on our level. In other words: we can make an informed choice. Given that we know that none of our actions concerning animals can be faulted from the perspective of the animal, the central question becomes:

Do we choose to act like animals, which we are entitled too, or do we act differently?

Let's take a look at the reasons for using animals.

Animal suffering

The only valid reason for causing animal suffering as an objective onto its own, is entertainment. We humans can find pleasure in watching fighting and suffering, either amongst ourselves (gangster movies, war movies, plays, etc. etc.) or amongst animals (cock fights, Roman animal spectacles etc.). We also find pleasure in the hunt.
Very few contemporary humans subscribe to these forms of entertainment. Alternative entertainments that contain either combat or hunting such as football and certain types of video games are widely available and vastly more popular. A lot more wealth is generated via sports and games than cock fights and hunting. None of the animals used in entertainment form a threat to our existence. Entertainment depending on animal suffering can be replaced without any negative consequences.

The balance of nature
It is natural to eat meat. Not eating meat might have negative consequences for our fysiology. It might upset the balance of nature, or the balance of our social existence. However, in pre history, meat was never consumed in such quantities as today. Furthermore, close examination of human physiology has revealed that almost all food sources, including meat, have alternatives of equal nutritional value and can be replaced without harm (i'm not sure about B-12, which might have to be produced artificially). Also, nature at the moment is widely unbalanced, because of the production of meat. Vast area's of natural wilderness have been replaced with grazing lands. Methane production on Earth has skyrocketed because of the animals we keep. As for our social existence, meat is just a block of stuff on our plates. Hunting has almost disseapered, as has its rituals. It can be replaced by another block of equal experience.

Human delight

Meat provides us with entertainment. Our bodies are programmed to prefer meat and sugar above other food sources, since in nature the opportunities for these concentrated energy sources are rare and have to be taken. Meat and sugar produce a 'high' when consumed. The only reason for our current manner of animal use is to fulfill this desire (our current manner being mass production without regard for suffering). From the viewpoint of individual survival we would be better off eating plants. From the viewpoint of species survival it's highly doubtful that eating meat at the level we do in the West brings any benefits, since Asians perform at comparable levels with much less meat in their diets. Mass consumption of meat can be replaced by mass consumption of plants at the cost of momentary delights, and with the benefits of better health and longevity. Ultimately it is a choice. Do we prefer to satisfy our senses in small instances or our happiness across a life span? With the advent of better and better meat replacements the choice seems to dissapear in the future.

Utility and convenience
Animals not only serve as a source of food, but provide many raw materials for the production of goods. Glue, tools, clothing, etc. are just a few examples. Animals have proven their use in many human activities from transportation to guarding herds or carrying messages. Today in modern industrial societies all most all animal use can be replaced with a synthetic or mechanical alternative. The fact that we haven't done so yet could be explained by convenience. The animal already has a place in both the assembly line and our consumption habits, it would take effort to replace it.
However some animal use, mainly in research, can not be readily replaced. It's quite impossible for instance, to determine an effective cure for a bacterial disease without the use of the bacteria themselves, or test animals (bacteria are single cell animals, algae are single cell plants). In medical research each year thousands of animals are subjected to the risk of death in our place...simply because we do not want to take the risk ourselves. Without these animals research would stop. If a person wants to abstain from animal use completely, this person would be unable to use any type of regular modern medicine. Research by the Nazi's on human test subject was rejected for the same reason. No one wanted to use this kind of Nazi research and thus condone experiments on unwilling humans. Of course animal use in research not related to our survival is another matter. The biological directive programmed into all life is to survive. There is no directive for lipstick for example. The use of lipstick is cultural, and therefore arbitrary. A different choice can be made.

Survival
Today few societies need to eat meat in order to survive. In the past, most tribes had no alternative. The same more or less goes for other types of animal use. In many poor countries meat might be replaceable by corn or grain while animal labor and animal based raw materials are a lot harder to replace.
Health is a common argument made in favor of the consumption of animal products (industry), and against it (non-carnivores). However, most animal products actually have a small toxic effect on the human body. Our bodies can deal with limited exposure, however the current Western diet is highly toxic. We are ominvores designed mainly for plant consumption with a capacity to process small amounts of animal product safely*. The reason we consume this Western diet is that we desire these types of food and can now obtain them easily with our modern technology and knowledge. Where there is demand, there is supply. No good business person would opt to educate the consumer in favor of supplying the consumer. The art of advertising has the sole purpose highlighting benefit, true or not.


*safely is a relative term. With the assistance of modern medicine we can still live much longer than our prehistoric ancestors on the current Western diet. However, many of us do experience discomfort and disease.

Human emotion

There is one additional reason to change our behavior, one that directly relates to the original emotion based and arbitrary 'animal rights' argument. We are emotional beings. We can relate to anything that can express emotions, including robots and animals. Any display of suffering is automatically internalized, we feel it too. Few humans would be able to stomach the suffering inflicted on animals in the bio industry if confronted with it. Even though it is irrational from the animal perspective. We would all feel better if a pig or cow has a nice life. Being nice to animals satisfies our own need to be good and avoids our sense of horror when seeing something we can relate to suffer.
Meat consumption is a natural behavior for humans, chimps and other primates. This fact however is unrelated to emotional reactions (this is further discussed in the addendum). Abstaining from the use of animals would benifit ourselves, emotionally.

Human morality
As a social species, we need rules in our groups in order to work together. These rules are not only regulatory in nature, but also moral. We have a need to attach value to ourselves, in order to feel safe and secure in a group and as a group. This value has led to many kinds of laws and morals. From criminal law to humanism. It also forms an important part of most religions. We highly value the physical integretity of ourselves, our living conditions, and the right to freely move around and make our own decisions.
When you look at the bio industry, you can see that for animals this value seems non existant. At first glance this does not seem to be a problem. We already determined that, as animals ourselves, we have the ''right'' to do what we want with other lifeforms (right meaning it is natural, not a moral law). However, we are emotional beings. When we see other life treated badly, we feel negative emotions, and we sympathize automatically. For the average human being that is confronted with the reality of the bio industry, it is mentally impossible to maintain human value, while giving none to animals. The reaction is either outrage, or a devaluation of human life. This is also a problem for society in general. It is hard to maintain the picture of ourselves as great and good, while we see other life suffering in ways that are far removed from the normal predator-prey scenarios. It is also difficult to see ourselves as valuable while we can see other life being treated as production objects.

Summary

Now we can replace the 'animal well being' motivation with a 'human well being' motivation, or better put the 'rational choice' motivation. There are no reasons to fault current human behavior towards animals, only reasons to change it. The non-carnivore side of the debate has simply been using the wrong argument. This is understandable, since it is a motivation based on emotion and intuitive reason. In conclusion: the debate can be resolved.


In the next text we can take a look at the various feelings within the debates. Why does the meat eater camp react the way it does? Why does the non-carnivore camp react the way it does?

Public debates: perceptions and emotions

In our modern Western world a debate rages between those is favor of non-carnivorism and those against, with most of us on the sidelines. We already discussed the 4 motivations of the non-carnivorism camp. We found 3 correct, and 1 incorrect. In doing so we found an additional and rational argument for changing our diet, one that could be the solution to the debate, since it deals with the common pro meat consumption arguments. Now we can look at the reasons why the debate rages on without solution. We can examine the compositions and emotions of both sides of the debates.

Questions

Why do some modern day people actively reject the vegetarian life style? Why do so many of us scold and belittle vegetarians? Is there a discernible threat one way or the other? Why do some non-carnivores hold such strong opinions? Why do the scold meat eaters?

The non-carnivores

 

Stance
True non-carnivores are appalled by animal cruelty and believe animal use is unnecessary. It is understandable they engage in activism. One could even say it is a noble effort. It takes a great person to stand up for what one believes in. Perhaps some are true heroes. Non-carnivores might adopt the emotional position of 'the beleaguered rebel' (revolutionaries).

Emotions
On the positive emotional side they would experience emotions of joy from doing something that matters and comradeship by doing it together. On the negative side they could have feelings of fighting against the current, supporting a good cause while the world is against you, being marginalized and ridiculed. Feelings of fear and anxiety of the public reactions that comes with belonging to a minority. And also frustration, hatred and dismay at the perceived injustices they experience at the hands of the majority.

Composed of heroes?

Not all members can justifiably be marked as heroes (though some can).
It is likely that some members do not posses an informed opinion of the other side or even their own. Some objections against meat consumption are based purely on an emotion, namely revulsion against cruelty or even the naive notion of the cute animal. Other objections are based on faulty logic, as shown before. Not all participants in the debate make an effort to think.
The naive members for instance can harbor child like emotions concerning animals. They 'love' animals based on their childhood concepts of rabbits, horses, cats and dogs which feature positive roles in many stories and were kept as pets. There is belief that animals like cows can be friends with humans. The actual emotional return from the animal is higly uncertain and often subject to imagination. Often these members  have little if any knowledge of the natural world. It is no surprise you get angry when a lovely bunny is threatened with which you have an intimate connection. Controversially, some would be animal lovers do engage in the confinement of animals thus inhibiting the praised 'natural life'.

Some individuals and groups engage in behavior close to terrorism resulting in unrest and suffering in society. Whether these are heroes is a question for debate. Some might be there for the thrill, others because of conviction.

Furthermore, the non-carnivore camp is likely to posses at least some members that are not primarily motivated by the noble notion of animal well being at all (or health/environmental concerns). Below the surface, humans join groups for various reasons. Any group, whether it's the republican party, the peace movement or the pro meat eater camp. Common reasons are listed below.

Some examples are:

Social acceptance: the feeling of belonging to a group... any group.

Social relevance: the feeling of doing something that matters.

Social submission: submitting to the opinions of a strong person within your social environment.

Self illusion: the convincing of one self of false feelings and external reasons as your own. We all like to think we are noble, even if we are really not. Self illusion is often employed by the logical mind in order to hide the gap between a desired social effect and one's own true feeling (or logic).

Fashion & exclusivity: we all like to be members of the Apple club. Apple is better, hotter, more exclusive than any other brand of electronic device. It's the thing to have ... at the moment. Most women like to have the latest dress or handbag, it sets them apart and is a statement of their personality, they show that they 'consist' of something (namely a superior taste).

Narcissism: we all like to be special, to receive praise and jealousy, to feel better than others. Admiring oneself is addictive. Choosing to be noble (saving animals), and to save the planet (from environmental disaster) can be motivated by narcissism or cause it.

The stance and emtions incombination with the composition might result in unyielding members elements in the non-carnivore camp. People that will seek attention to argue their cause no matter what, immune to reason.

The pro meat side

 

Those in favor of eating meat often believe in the natural order of life. Animals eat animals, there is nothing wrong with it. The idea of not eating meat seems ridiculous. They feel they need to defend their right to consume meat. They are being attacked. They would experience some of the same emotions as the non-carnivores. Additionally very few actually support the 'cruel' bio industry and resent this accusation. Pro meat members might adopt the emotional stance of 'preservers of the right way' (conservatives).

Emotions
On the positive emotional side they would experience emotions of joy from doing something that matters and comradeship by doing it together. They are fighting for the right way, for normality. On the negative side they feel they are fighting against aggression, against rebels, activists, terrorists. They could experience fear, because their way of life is threatened. Anxiety over possible attacks by fanatics.

Composed of heroes?

The same remarks listed for the non-carnivores can be made again. A lot of members act on emotion instead of reason, some will have little knowlegde about the issues, others would engage in harmful behavior for the thrill of it, and not all are motivated by true conviction.
Additionally many pro meat members oppose the bio industry when confronted, but still support it with their wallets out of sheer convenience or addiction to the taste of meat. People are lazy, and a cheap pallet of meat from a supermarket is so much more satisfying and so much easier than changing your behavior. This accusation hurts. Being accused of supporting something you yourself know is awful and are guilty of is not easy. Excuses are easily made into fact: 'we can do nothing about it'. Or: 'Wir habes es nicht gewuBt'.

Some supporters are simply pro meat consumption because others are against it. Still others like being part of a majority.

Specifically the contempt part of narcissism is relevant in this group. We all like to scold another group, to belittle them in order to enlarge ourselves. Minorities are especially vulnerable, since this usually can be done without consequence. The Suffragettes were largely ridiculed in society, denounced and targeted, even by other women.
 

The non involved

Most of us stand of the sidelines. We make no effort at all to preserve or destroy our meat consuming way of life (except passively through our wallets). We simply do not care. We get on with our lives, and leave the hot emotions to others. We do feel a little bit guilty, the bio industry is very convenient but also very bad for the animals (or so we have been told, we won't try to find out). On the other hand we dislike the extremists notions (burning labs, etc.). Our mildly expressed opinion is: humans eat meat, it would be nice if we went about it in a more palatable way.. Health and the environment are on top of our list of things we are concerned about but do not act upon. If anything changes.... we will accept it.

Summary

The natural composition of the groups involved and the various natural adversarial emotions* account for a great deal for the tone of the debates, the clutter and it's continuation. The (re)actions of both groups in society are easily explained. There is fear, misunderstanding and selfishness. The pro meat faction perceives the non-carnivores as anti social, threatening, elitist, silly, and disdainful, while the non-carnivores perceive the pro meat faction as oppressive, dismissive, destructive, stupid and hateful. The reaction of the pro meat eater camp simply is an ordinary reaction typical of the advesarial situation. The (sometimes extremist) actions of the non-carnivores are typical of an opressed minority. Furthermore the debate is cluttered by 'non-heroes' on both sides, they tend to have loud opinions and no solutions. They dominate the debate and make sure it can not be resolved. Thus few succesful attempts* are made to find common ground and even fewer to pursue discursive reason.

*emotions that come with majority and minority positions.

*many attempts are made to convince the other side. most attempts are made using reason based on intuition.

Conclusions

The real problem with the debate between vegetarians and non vegetarians is that it is partly fought based upon defective logic and emotion. The argument against animal use should include our human choice to engage in different behavior. The non-carnivores should stay away from such arbitrary notions as animal rights, and leave behind emotions. The pro meat eater camp should consider the alternatives to eating meat, their ease and their huge benefits. The reason that the debate seems to rage on between pro meat eaters and non-carnivores seems to be the composition and emotions of both groups, with the actual issue being irrelevant. If both sides use logic and analysis instead of opinion and emotion they could arrive at the following common viewpoint:

For the immediate future it is advisable that we start to gradually limit our use of animal products and continue to introduce acceptable replacements. In this way society can adapt and no one goes out of business, while we start reaping the health an environmental rewards. In the far future we might have replacements that fill the exact spot meat has at the moment; that of the most desired food source.

I hope that this text at least demonstrated that the debate can be resolved. However, while the debate rages on, the solutions are quietly being pursued by industry and science. More and more replacements enter the market, and we can now even grow quantities meat from a few cells. There is a good chance that the debate will be overtaken by these solutions.