Thoughts on eating meat and dairy?

[nerdgasm]

Regarding the ethics of meat consumption - sitting here at my computer, I do feel somewhat bad about the fact that animals are dying to provide us with nutrition, but also (correct me if I'm wrong) that animals are being brought into this world solely for that purpose. And yet, today I ate pork and chicken without a twinge on my conscience. So how can this apparent dissonance be explained?

My opinion on this, is that it's general apathy that leads most of the current meat-eating population to continue eating meat, myself included. It's fairly obvious to say that meat and meat products are available in most places we can obtain food, such as restaurants and supermarkets. To me, meat does indeed taste good, and so this provides an incentive for me to eat it, in the same way that I have an incentive to eat sweet corn, cashews, or ice-cream. I don't think the majority of meat-eaters revel in the death caused to get their meal on the plate; we do not sit at our table with a glint in our eyes, filled with visceral glee at slicing into our meat as if we were slicing into the animal itself. If someone put a live chicken in front of me and asked me to kill it, I'd very likely be unable to do it (props to anyone who gets the CHERUB reference). Does this make me a hypocrite, or deluded, or unwilling to face up to the reality of what meat-eating entails? Almost definitely. This leads me back into my description of apathy being the chief reason for the continuing proportion of  meat-eaters who have sufficient resources and opportunity to adopt a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle - for most people, meat-eating is seen as a positive experience that is viewed by most of society as being socially acceptable, and even encouraged (consider the ads encouraging the eating of red meat, pork, or lamb for example). None of this takes away from the ethical issues associated with raising and killing life for nutrition; I'm just trying to (rather simplistically) explain the behaviour of meat-eaters.

I put forth the argument that when people say, "I love chicken/beef/pork/fish/goat/turkey/etc.", what they mostly mean is, "I like the taste, texture (and maybe symbolism) of eating chicken/beef/pork/fish/goat/turkey/etc." Suppose somebody offered me a burger, except with a beef patty replaced with a plant-based alternative that simulates the taste and texture of the beef patty so well, to the point where I can't tell the difference blindfolded. Would I be more than happy to eat this burger, and go to eateries that sell this burger, and recommend it to those around me? Yes, I would. I am convinced that in the future (not sure how far forward), mass-production of meat-simulant food will commence, and we will see a decent proportion (say at least 20%) of food stores/supermarkets offering it, depending on how expensive it is to produce. I believe that at this point, we reach a transitory period where some will eat exclusively from the meat-simulant range, others will eat both meat and meat-simulant, and others will keep eating as they currently do. At this point, whether the meat-simulant market overtakes the meat market comes down to just how big a 'sin' society sees meat-eating as, assuming convenience is a non-issue. So, I guess, a vegan society is perhaps almost inevitable, maybe just not in our lifetimes ( or perhaps I've been watching too many old Star Trek episodes).

I think that if all the meat options were suddenly removed, and the subsequent land used for farming non-meat consumables, humanity would manage reasonably well. Yes, there would probably be some who need more medical attention, but I don't think society would crash around our ears.

Regarding the use of animals in vaccine testing, I think the issue is about what alternatives there are. Injecting vaccines into healthy humans is surely an ethical no-no, regardless of whether you believe injecting vaccines into animals is ethical or not. Ultimately, I think it comes down to a bit of species-ism here - we see ourselves as 'more valuable' than other species, simply because we think we have the capacity to achieve more, not just for ourselves, but also for all species. A lion is unlikely to be able to equitably work out how to help a gibbon and a snake in the rainforest. An owl probably can't work out how environmental conditions lead to an imbalance in the food web causing a marked decrease in krill in the winter. Yes, Nature does provide the equilibrium conditions at present - and we might never be able to match that. But, we should eventually have the capacity to at least provide a good enough approximation that should we wish to save a species (for whatever reason), we can.

 While nobody can doubt that humanity has caused harm to the animal kingdom, I believe that we also have the capacity to help it immensely. Maybe that capacity shall never be exercised; if it doesn't need to, then that's well and good. But I don't think I'm being too optimistic in saying that animals can benefit from improvements to humans, and with more passing of time, they will more and more.