Saturday, 17 August 2013

On the "immorality" of meat consumption.

This post is derived from a recent rant on Tumblr.
The recent scientific accomplishment of fake and consumable genetically manufactured animal flesh envisions a future, at least in the rich west, without a need to kill animals on a industrial scale to fulfill these impulses of nutrition and appetite. This reality would be a desirable one. Regardless of our own dietary habits, it is hard to argue that the condition of sentient reality in general would not be better out without minimised suffering at whatever level.
However, I profoundly object to those abstaining from meat consumption, namely privileged westerners, who condemn the consumption of animals as  It is especially asinine when some imply that it is comparable to the slave trade or the Holocaust. There are definitely rightful moral objections to be made regarding the shoddy ethical practices often present within our industrial slaughterhouse industries; and perhaps there is a moral onus on the populaces of rich Western countries consuming livestock en masse to consider vegetarianism, given the industry’s contribution to global climate change. Then these provocative metaphorical points are perhaps more accurately analogous.
But in many societies, meat from livestock is the primary, or in some circumstances even the only, source of food. I remember seeing a documentary featuring native nomadic families living on barren mountain terrain in Mongolia. A father mentioned that he wished he could feed his wife and children vegetables, but produce from slaughtered livestock was the only food he could provide (and as in many Eastern societies, they used most of the livestock’s anatomy for food). 
The distinction lays in hunting of necessity and that of recreational sadism such as deer stalking; the “genocide” comparisons from the likes of PETA scream privileged western cultural ignorance.

No comments:

Post a Comment