The meat paradox
Glycogen is a substance contained in sugars that allows a cow to perform its proper muscle functioning. When the levels of this muscle substance are high means that the animal is in a state of rest and rest, it is called mortis rigor to the muscular rigidity that a corpse acquires due to the transformation of glycogen into lactic acid, this process can havepositive or adverse effects on consumption meat depending on the amount of this polysaccharide before the animal is sacrificed. If an animal suffers or undergoes stress artificially by the industrial practices of man, the animal consumes the glycogen available in its body and causes the meat derived from it to lose certain properties such as conservation, taste and texture. This is only part of the process that occurs before consuming one of the most primitive foods: meat.
Man is considered a being that has evolved over all species, the one who has taken advantage of what nature gives him for his well -being and to meet his needs, of which the main one is to feed. This action has also carried an evolutionary process, learning to cook the meat with fire has improved its flavor and properties. Leaving aside the seeds and vegetables that are also part of the man’s diet, meat takes an important role since it becomes a way to obtain money from livestock and economic activities around it but has also created ethical consequencesand environmental.
The objective of this essay is to provide a perspective of the meat paradox related to human dignity in addition to the importance of moral sensitization towards the respect of production animals and finally the ethics that involves animal welfare.
The posture that I will take in this essay is far to pursue the idea that "eating meat" of production animals and its direct derivatives is morally unjustifiable.
What is the meat paradox?
"According to psychologists Brock Bastian and Steve Loughnan, who investigate the subject in Australia, the‘ meat paradox ’is the‘ psychological conflict between people’s dietary preference for meat and their moral response to animal suffering ’. They argue that ‘harming others is incompatible with a vision of oneself as a moral person’. As such, meat consumption produces negative effects for meat consumers because they face a vision of themselves that is unfavorable: how can I be a good person and also eat meat?"
Known the term of "Meat Paradox", we find that the relationship between the man and the animals that are feeds have become invisible or we become alien to the suffering that they present in the various farms where they are subjected to extreme conditions. In the mid -nineteenth century, the world witnessed multiple transformative events, including industrialization and the increase in the population, at this point of inflection the food production process suffered a transformation, the so -called cafos are introduced (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations)or an intensive livestock of industrial size, they remain considerably and leading animal welfare treating animals as simple disposable objects. Carnism in the twentieth century has become a dominant practice and society has lost any trace of the conditions of parenting, transport and sacrifice of animals that humanitarianly cared for to survive, the cow is no longer seen as an animal that provides andIt must be careful in the best way until the moment of his death, it is only a living product in which it is only a matter of time to be used. From my point of view before industrialization, business with farms that were dedicated to producing meat, milk, cheese and eggs far from being what we now call industries learned the natural order of the life of animals, with order I refer to theLife, Development and Death.
Most people would not kill an animal with their own hands, however they do not hesitate to consume animals that other people kill for them. No one denies that production animals suffer and that there is a considerable degree of abuse, however, the individual action of consuming this food responds to the meat paradox. Social habits as well as culture have normalized our moral conflicts because they make this type of behavior invisible, eating meat is considered a universal food practice where the consumer dissociates the product of the animal from which it comes, loses guilt and repeats the action.
Considering that the world’s population is currently approximately 7.7 billion people and that there will be an increase towards 9.700 million in 2050 According to the United Nations Organization, the demand for food increases and the consumption of meat will also grow, according to Food and Agriculture Organization, the world production of meat is expected to be 13% higher in 2026 compared to aAlmost 20% increase in the previous decade, “in terms of the production of pig meat, countries such as China, the United States, Germany, Spain, Brazil, Vietnam, Russia, France, Canada and Poland focus 77% of world production”;In Asia alone, 69% of the world’s population is concentrated around 4,465 million people.
The practice of carnism has been dominant to this day, “it is a violent ideology, based on an organization of violence;So much so that most of ‘meat dining rooms’ would be unable to witness the violence of the meat industry. The meat does not exist without the slaughter ".
Is it necessary to treat farm animals as simple products? The answer is no, animals also have the right to complete their life cycle in a natural way and not be affected radically by man which leads to a total state of "flowering".
“Martha Nussbaum promotes the idea that there is something in common that characterizes all living beings: the fact that everyone is endowed with certain abilities that, empowering them, allow the realization of each being. Nussbaum collects this idea under the concept of flowering;That is, it is the realization of vital activities that the philosopher understands to flourish. In this sense, only a life that can update your abilities (that is, that can bloom), will be a full, satisfactory and happy life.
Why have we shortened or suppressed this flowering of animals? Perhaps here the dignity of the human being is vulnerable to the instinct of satisfying his need to eat flesh, because he makes him dependent on that flavor and is overcome by the fact of wanting to be the predator who deserves everything;While nutrients and proteins can be obtained from other foods, some are only present in the flesh such as vitamin B12, avoiding eating meat has created a fear of modifying the gastronomy and culture that the human being has built. Eliminating meat means to end their cultural practices in the same way.
At this point the relationship between man and consumption animals becomes critically critically, since the meat paradox makes the situation "… just as hunger motivates us to find food to reduce our hunger, cognitive dissonance motivates us to findsituations to reduce dissonance. To eat meat, there are two ways to do this: we can change our behavior or change the belief. We can stop eating meat, or finding reasons why eating meat is morally."
Currently companies are aware that animal cruelty is a deprivation of liberties towards these types of animals and have opted for well -being practices that, although they are not entirely exposed to the public, organizations such as FAWEC, OIE and PETA have tried to establish but notHe has achieved totally. The meat paradox has created a term that introduces human dignity towards animal treatment: animal welfare: animal welfare:.
The most accepted animal welfare definition and that appears in multiple texts of the subject is the one proposed by BROOM: “The well -being of an individual is his state in relation to his attempts to face the environment” is also complemented by another important definition: “Thewell -being is the state of physical and mental health where the animal is in harmony with its environment ”.
Practically the term of animal welfare is coined until 1964 in the book of Ruth Harrison called Animal Machines, however there is evidence that the cultures of the Indo Valley and certain religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism have much older well -higher well -being precepts to reduce pain andanguish of animals that live with the human being. As you can see, the term is relatively new and responds to the paradox that I mention, animal welfare appears as a current concern and is used to promote veganism but relates to worthy treatment. Animal well -being is associated with "stress" responses that the animal shows as well as the negative effects on health, growth and reproduction of this. There are five minimum aspects of generic well -being accepted internationally but not absolutely that Farm Animal Welfare Council dictated in 1992: 1) absence of hunger and thirst, 2) absence of physical and thermal discomfort, 3) absence of pain, injury or disease,4) absence of fear and stress, and 5) ability to display the normal behavior of the species.
Human dignity in this area must be transferred to an animal plane and shelter animal welfare to consider these beings as part of a symbiosis. Importance of an animal should be given importance as shared by the same ecosystem as the human being that despite showing intelligence, reason and moral condition diminished compared to the human being, it should not mistreat and deprive of freedoms inherent in thespecies that the production animal belongs because it is a symptoms of pain, anguish and stress. A sensitivity in treatment of these animals must be shown because it is humanly worthy and just to be carried out. The idea of good animal life is articulated in being able to enhance the species of the species without limiting them or violating them since these are a good of the animal and must be protected for a dignified life and flowering
The approach of Martha Nussbaum’s capacities is built on the postulate that we owe moral consideration to non -human animals, and that it is responsible for the scope of social justice. Starting from the same admiration for all forms of animal life as Aristotle, and adapting it ethically, the approach tries to offer a model in order to do justice to the complexity of animal lives (Martín, 2012, P. 65)
Just as Sara Martín mentions it, the social justice that covers all living beings must be applied, because we also depend on them. The challenge is now, to achieve a relationship between the intelligent consumption of the meat, as well as the way of production with which this food is done is worthy for animals and environment. The producers must then reformulate and apply techniques to reconcile with animals and those who eat them as Calvaresi mentions:
“If the quality in the production and commitment process of the brand with certain values is important, companies also have certain tools to value their products and generate trust.."
The paradox of the flesh is not only an food conflict in relation to moral. The origin of the meat paradox is in industrialization but the starting point of why it is morally permissible to kill animals to eat is an evolutionary and natural issue that will not be approached at this time at this time.
Responsible breeding is an essential component for present and future animal well -being. Large amounts of meat generate their own imbalances as well as if only the animals that provide the main sources of feeding, would be an unsustainable end alive. From how to avoid meat paradox to propose new food systems based on veganism and in vitro meat cultivation are completely completed solutions.
Eating animals is not bad, it is essential for the current way of life of the human being but should be regulated and reduced periodically. Not consuming meat in its entirety can lead to unbalance in the population diet globally but the most important thing is that it can impact natural regenerative systems. Although food production has created high levels of pollutant emissions, it is also a reality that a free field cow is part of an ecologically beneficial system for pastures, these types of animals are able to recycle nutrients and be part of aNatural cycle.
A gradual change in the diet is necessary and encourage the balanced intake of other foods without eradicating the total consumption of the meat, the search for a controlled feeding and per season is a revolution of habits that the human being can achieve.
We can say that it is ethical to eat meat only if we have accepted that there is a natural biological reality inherent in any living being of birth, development and death that should be treated a human feature of compassion and dignity and not for the purpose of satisfaction of consumption satisfaction. A cow, a pig or a chicken should be treated as an end managed by the man who complements him to survive. It is not enough to guarantee and preserve the life of animals until their death by making mortality rates in a industrial farm decrease but that an environment must be created where the animal flourish and in return we reap a part of this flowering, a system that breaksThe meat paradox must be sustainable, interdependent and balanced.
References
- Shaw, J. BBC Future. (2019). What is the ‘meat paradox’ and how money changes our moral decisions? Retrieved November 11, 2019, from https: // www.BBC.com/world/vert-fut-4748644
- Quintana, l. (2017). Current situation and perspectives of the world market market. Retrieved November 11, 2019, from https: // www.Interempresas.NET/INDUSTRY-CARNICA/ARTICLES/167353-SITUATION-ACTUAL-Y-PERSPECTIVES-DEL-MERTADO-MUNDIAL-DE-LAS-CARNES.HTML
- UN. (2019). Population. Retrieved November 13, 2019, from https: // www.a.org/es/sections/issue-depth/population/index.HTML
- FAO (2017). Meat, in OECDE-FAO AGRICULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 2017-2026, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http: // dx.doi.org/10.1787/Ag_outlook-2017-10-ES
- Look Bohórquez, P. (2018). Ethics of eating. Moral reflections on meat consumption. Latin American Journal of Critical Animal Studies, Year V, Volume II Recovered September 30, 2019, from http: // magazetcaca.org/Journal/Index.PHP/RECA/ARTICLE/VIEW/167/131
- Martín, s. (2012). Moral reflections on animals in Martha Nussbaum’s philosophy. Magazine of Bioethics and Law, no. 25. Retrieved on September 30, 2019, from http: // scielo.ISCIII.is/pdf/bioethics/n25/bioethics_animal.PDF
- BROOM, d. (1986) Indicators of Poor Welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142: 524-526
- Hughes, b. (1976). Behaviour as an index of welfare. Proceedings 5th European Pultry Conference and Exhibition;1976. Malta: World’s Poultry Science Association (WPSA), 1976: 1005–1012
Leave feedback