By Claudina
Yang
Devour
is what I would like to do to steak. Succulent, juicy, creamy, and fatty, the
taste and aroma of red meat makes my senses scream, “I must have it now.” Similar
to the reaction one might have towards freshly baked cookies or percolated,
ground Robusta, there is a certain potency of smell to cooked meat that makes
me go weak at the knees. However, I was forced to reconsider my all-consuming
love for juicy steak when I took an Environment Ethics course in the fall. Upon
declaring that I was the sole and proud meat eater in the room, I was only
mildly surprised to be the main target of all the dirty looks and verbal
assault for the rest of the semester. Perhaps I shouldn’t have made the quip
that some species of animals were virtually useless, but you’d think I drank
the tears of pandas by all the appalling looks I received when I said nobody
could pay me any amount of money to give up eating meat. Nonetheless, it later became acutely apparent to
me that my meaty dreams may soon have to be crushed, or at least suppressed, if
I want to be a conscientious citizen of the changing world.
Unfortunately
for those of us meat lovers, all the signs
and research warn us that drastic changes to food production and diet are
needed by 2050 to combat further global climate change. Some estimate that meat
eaters in developing countries will have to cut back consumption by almost 50%
to avoid the worst consequences of future environmental change. Reducing food
emissions while still producing enough food for a growing population that is
estimated to reach 9 billion by 2050, is arguably the most difficult challenge
of combating climate change. Presently, around 10 billion land animals in the
US are raised for dairy, meat, and eggs each year. Factory farming accounts for
37% of methane emissions every year and contributes to air pollution by also
releasing other compounds like hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. Animal waste from
the farms cause dangerous levels of phosphorous and nitrogen in the water
supply, and the use of fossil fuels to raise and feed the animals emits around
90 million tons of CO2 emissions annually. Furthermore, global deforestation
for grazing and feeding animals emits another 2.4 billions tons of CO2 every
year.
Looking
at the current research, it’s hard to deny the inevitable consequences of our
meat eating habits if we continue to consume as much as we are now. Global
warming might be the controversy of yesterday, but climate change is upon us,
and it will only get worse if we don’t take on individual responsibility for
our changing environment. Nowadays, with people growing more aware of the
imminent problems we are facing, vegetarianism and veganism seem to be more
common alternatives. However, in many developing countries, particularly in
South America, ranching provides a large source of income for many of its
farmers. A vegetarian diet is also often considered a privileged lifestyle that
is too expensive to maintain, and buying processed meat provides a cheaper way
for people to get the protein they need. Consequently, despite the infallible
claims made by this current research, I still had a hard time coming to terms
with what that would mean for my lifestyle. Why would I implement changes that
I consider to be entirely unnatural to my way of life? So while proudly
defending my fellow meat-eating brethren of the world in class, I also brought to the table
topics on natural predation and biological evolution to back up my end of the
argument. I’m a proponent of regulated hunting, and so I believe that natural
predation is necessary if we want to maintain healthy animal populations. The
food chain is a natural, biological structure. Entire ecosystems can’t be
maintained if we give up meat consumption all together. Although this is true,
it isn’t a strong enough argument to justify the enormous magnitude and scale
of the meat consumption rates we are going at now. But some might ask, “Isn’t
it human nature and natural for us to eat meat?” Meat-eating proponents argue
that there is not much scientific proof that really shows us that our bodies
can have completely healthy diets without eating meat in the long term. And
look at our teeth. One could make the argument that evolutionary biology
dictates that the shape and structure of our incisors were born to chomp on
meat. However, if we take this line of argument, then we have to ask ourselves
what it means to be natural. Is it natural for us to be species-est and deny
equal consideration to other animals? Is it natural for us to destroy the
environment we live in just to supplement our “natural” diet? This isn’t to
suggest that we give up eating meat entirely, or that we must now adjust our
thinking and view amoebas as precious lives that must be preserved, but as a
long time defender of meat eating myself, I can no longer deny the dire
consequences that my lifestyle can have on my environment. So what alternatives
are out there?
In
August, when London tasters bit into the first lab-grown
burger, one taster declared, “It’s close to meat.” Another said “the bite
feels like a conventional hamburger,” but that it tasted like “an animal
protein cake.” However, the taste isn't necessarily relevant here. A hamburger grown
from stem cells obtained from cow muscle, this lab-grown meat provides one view
of the future of meat. Dutch researcher and proponent of the idea, Dr. Mark Post,
presented the idea saying that this lab-made meat could provide
high-quality protein for the world’s growing population while also combating
many of the environmental and animal-rights issues surrounding conventional food
production. Although it would take about 10 years for cultured meat to become
commercially viable, this feat could lead to less usage of land, water, and
energy resources, while also reducing methane emission and other greenhouse
gases. It would also placate those who are concerned about animal welfare,
since animals don’t have to necessarily be killed to make the meat. Other
alternatives to combatting climate change also include renewable energy
technology and breakthrough research in climate engineering and human
engineering etc. So maybe there’s still hope yet for the future of meat.
With
researchers making headway on new ways to supplement protein in our diets, perhaps one
day we can provide a way for beefeaters to eat beef that is both
environmentally friendly and morally ethical. Although the thought of
giving up meat thoroughly pains me, I now realize how glib my comments may have
been at the beginning of class when I proudly declared myself an
inconsequential meat-eater. So nowadays, whenever I think about what to eat, I
am at least now more aware and conscious of what it means for the environment
when I consume that food. Maybe someday I can reconcile my love for eating red
meat and the implications of doing so, and jump on the train with the other
vegetarians. But for now, these days I choose to curb the desire to eat meat
more often that not. Asking meat lovers to eliminate meat from their diets
might not be a reasonable thing to ask, but at the minimum, we should all consider
eating less of it, or at least supplement factory farmed meat with other
alternatives like buying grass fed, organic, or free range meat once in awhile.
Nothing can beat genuine, prime USDA cow in my book, but we can’t deny
that if we want to combat global climate-change and sustain our growing
populations, conscientious meat eating such as reducing portion size and
frequency of consumption could go a long way for the future.
You might be eligible for a new government solar program.
ReplyDeleteFind out if you're eligble now!