The Maneater

80°F (27°C)
Wind: 8 mph E

Column: Vegetarianism as protest is ineffective, impractical

Published Jan. 25, 2011

No tags for this article.

In the summer of 2005, I stopped eating meat.

A friend at the time sent me a link to some grainy video on a PETA website, clearly taken with a shaky camcorder by someone on the "inside." Grave background music set the tone for images of cages stuffed with wildly flailing chickens. A cow was having its testicles chopped off "WITHOUT ANESTHETICS," as the video's description pointed out in all caps. Pigs were being whipped relentlessly by a factory farmer.

Being 14 at the time, such dramatics immediately cued the tiny violins, and after a tender session of crying and yelling at the computer screen, I looked more into the issue. Shortly thereafter, I became a vegetarian.

My only concerns at the time mainly stemmed from my desire to appease my mother, whose constant reminders that I was a “growing boy” might have signaled disapproval for my low-protein diet. After working things out on the parental side, I found a consistent pattern of buying fake meats, cooking for myself and learning to adapt to restaurant menus. And it worked. It worked through high school and my world travels along the way. It worked through my freshman year of college and all of its dining hall woes. But this year, it came to a screeching halt with a plate of ribs.

What facilitated my switchover was the constant inconvenience of dealing with a vegetarian diet when all I wanted was a non-vegetarian diet. But the ideas behind my departure from vegetarianism lingered for an entire year before that plate of ribs.

First was the culture I was depriving myself of, in preference of my animal rights views. After spending time in Australia, I knew I had missed out aspects of culture quite different than my standardized, grocery-store routine back home in the states. Although Australia is quite western in many senses, I was still imposing morals and ways of life defined by my life at home that are, in many ways, exclusively “American.” Had I gone to Thailand, Burma, Germany or Turkey, the cultural differences would be highlighted even greater, if I insisted upon the veggie plate at every restaurant. Although I don’t think cultural or moral relativism is in itself a valid argument against vegetarianism, I do think it stimulates the idea that to fully access the routines and customs of other cultures, one has to completely detach from the comfortable lifestyles in which they live.

Second is my idea that vegetarianism in its popular form does not actively help anyone or any animals other than the self-proclaimed vegetarian. If anything, popular vegetarianism is merely a means of professing health standards and shunning any possible association with the industry of factory farms. Dairy and egg consumption is no less stressful to the environment or the animals than meat consumption, other than that it merely delays the time before the animal is killed. Plus, if you’re worried about the health, you’re still consuming high-hormone, high-fat foods by consuming dairy and eggs. Alternatively, being a vegan is the most consistent lifestyle, if you want to do all you can do for your body and animals (although I still would not advocate veganism).

Now that I’ve started eating meat, my two goals have been to step away from comfortable foods and to advocate for the reduction of factory farming. It might sound silly, but we cannot save the 10 billion animals in factory farms by not eating them, as we merely do not have room for an exclusively grass-fed animal market. We must question the sourcing of our food at every moment, while not holding positions with potential double standards, either concerning morals or health.

Comments (6)

1:24 a.m., Jan. 25, 2011

Alex said:

Sure, being a vegetarian isn't 100% "consistent" because it doesn't entail a lifestyle absolutely abstinent of animal by-products, but there clearly is a meaningful purpose. The point of being a vegetarian is not to live without causing any animals stress -- it's to live causing FEWER animals stress. It's nearly impossible to be 100% consistent on any moral stance unless it can be valued with ultimate regard and unless its pursuit is the end of all of a person's resources. Being a vegan is more of a commitment than most people can reasonably attend to and that's OK, because there are some events or experiences more important to perceive than an unrelenting promise to animals.

1:41 p.m., Jan. 25, 2011

Dave said:

I agree vegetarianism will never be the reason factory farms decide to shut their doors. But an individual attempting to make a difference by not fueling the fire is not synonymous to "useless". You said it best when you wrote, "we cannot save the 10 billion animals in factory farms by not eating them." You're right, there isn't room to let them roam the plains freely, but if there isn't demand for a few thousand more cows raised in a factory, doesn't that help? I guess my point is economically, vegetarians do make a small difference, if simply by eliminating some of the demand for meat which was made out of tortured animal. That being said, I do love me some McDonald's and Tyson chicken.

2:11 p.m., Jan. 25, 2011

Alex Pesek said:

Hey y'all. Thanks for commenting! Alex - I do take your point that there is a purpose behind vegetarianism, abstinence from animal cruelty being one of them, the difficulty of being vegan being another. However, you're still glazing over the principle of animal rights. If animals do have these rights, how can you really rank them in terms of abstaining from meat consumption while consuming eggs and dairy which, as I said, are just as stressful on the animal. Also, I'm still not convinced that you can really connect vegetarianism to a potential decrease in factory farm production. The fact is, the USDA and 'big food' are behind agri-business every step of the way, and the increase of factory farms has been exponential for the past 10+ years (UN report, "Livestock's Long Shadow"). In the end, while the number of vegetarians may rise, I don't believe it's enough to counteract realistic market demand. That being said, I do think there are ethical reasons for being vegetarian. I just happen not to follow them. Dave - Like I kind of said to Alex, rising numbers of vegetarians will signify a decrease in meat consumers, but factory farms are simply too large and too supported to be cut off without legitimate government intervention. Also I never said the word "useless," I said ineffective. There are legitimate reasons to be vegetarian, ethics being one.

10:12 p.m., Jan. 25, 2011

Penny Lane said:

Why don't you just eat Penny then! If will you eat one animal, you should eat them all.

2:44 p.m., Jan. 28, 2011

Kristin said:

So, should vegetarians/vegans stop living by their principles because it won't make a big enough difference to make real change? Should vegetarians/vegans eat meat they don't want to eat or drink milk they don't want to drink because it's ineffective to do otherwise? It's a small dent and you're right, these industries are too big and too many people are too dependent on them for them to dissolve. But that doesn't mean, if we find our principles in conflict with that fact, that we should just give up because we're "ineffective."

11:18 p.m., Jan. 28, 2011

Alex Pesek said:

Kristin -- totally legitimate point. No, I don't think anyone should "give up." I merely think it's silly to become a vegetarian for hopes of saving animals. Living ethically and with principles is an acceptable reason to be vegetarian, but to say you're going to actually do anything for animals is naive. If people actually want to do something about factory farming and animal neglect - vegetarian or not - they should vocally advocate for a mass-scale reduction of factory farms. Eating tofu doesn't do that.

Post a comment