This article explores the traditional value of meat and the arguments for vegetarianism in the modern world from a health, ethical, and environmental perspective, and calls for a critical rethinking of the sustainability of meat consumption.
The phrase “I’m a vegetarian” has many layers of meaning. Some people eat fish and eggs, while others don’t even drink milk or honey. But when you define vegetarianism as an idea, the core of it is not eating meat. For the purposes of this article, we’ll define vegetarianism as not eating meat.
In most cultures, meat eating is a universal paradigm. Historically, meat has long been a valuable source of nutrition for humans. In ancient societies, meat was an efficient way to obtain key nutrients for survival, and it became an important factor in human development. This background has had a huge impact on the way we take meat for granted even today. In the modern world, however, there are increasingly loud voices calling for a rethinking of these traditional values, and vegetarian advocates are forced to criticize meat in order to gain traction.
However, this criticism is not always systematic. For better or worse, it’s varied and mixed. It ranges from dietary concerns to adult disease issues, to criticisms of unethical slaughter processes or the killing itself, to environmental and poverty concerns. If you were to ask three vegetarians why they are vegetarian, you might get three different answers. For example, one might cite personal health as a reason, another might say they chose vegetarianism to protect the environment, and another might say they chose vegetarianism to protect animal rights. Even in a country as poisonous as Korea, it’s important to have a rationalization ready. Similarly, if vegetarianism is the only alternative to modern dietary habits, then there must be a more organized logic. To date, the well-known arguments for vegetarianism can be divided into three main categories: health, ethics, and environment/poverty. In the following, we’ll examine each of them.
Vegetarianism as a health approach is relatively easy to accept. It’s a common belief that the meat-eating Western diet leads to an excessive intake of fat. The problems caused by eating too much fat, especially saturated fat, are also well known. However, objective information doesn’t exactly support this. For example, several studies that have specifically analyzed the health risks associated with eating meat point out that the risks are specific to certain situations and do not apply to everyone.
The most common meat eaten by humans is pork, and 100 grams of pork contains about 4.5 grams of fat, of which 1.5 grams is saturated fat. The WHO recommends no more than 87 grams of fat and no more than 29 grams of saturated fat per day. In pork terms, that means you’d have to eat 2 kilograms of pork a day to reach that number. For reference, Koreans eat 42.7 kilograms of meat a year, or 120 grams per day. It’s hard to blame fat and saturated fat as the problem with meat. In fact, it’s the hamburger, not the BBQ, that’s the problem with the Western diet. One McDonald’s signature Big Mac contains 27 grams of fat and 10 grams of saturated fat.
Also, one factor that cannot be overlooked in the health debate is the quality of meat. For example, there is a huge difference in the nutritional value and health impact of meat from grass-fed cows versus meat from factory farming. The meat of pasture-raised cattle contains more omega-3 fatty acids and is higher in vitamins A and E. On the other hand, meat from factory farms is more likely to be treated with antibiotics and hormones, which can have different health effects.
Of course, it”s obvious that eating a lot of meat is bad for your health. However, this argument can only be pushed so far before it becomes a reason to reduce your meat intake, but not enough to make you stop. It”s a problem when you eat too much, not a reason to stop eating it altogether. Vegetarians need to find a different strategy to build their kingdom.
Ethical issues have always been vegetarians’ strongest weapon. In fact, 58% of vegetarians say they became vegetarian because they wanted to protect animal rights. The fastest way to convert to vegetarianism is to watch chickens suffer in cramped cages and hear the squeals of pigs being slaughtered. It’s a very effective, but somewhat emotional way to convince someone. If you want to convince someone, you need to have a clear rational basis.
The most fundamental idea is respect for life. Respect for life is universal and can easily resonate with everyone. Unfortunately, broccoli and potatoes are also lives. We need to find a reason why animal life is more valuable. In Buddhism, meat is not eaten because animals are considered sattva. This is a Sanskrit word that translates to sentient life or sentience, while plants and minerals are called impassive. In other words, animals have the same sentience as humans. You don’t have to be a Buddhist to understand this. When we look into the eyes of animals, we sometimes think that they have hearts and minds just like us.
However, as a modern citizen who believes in science and rational thinking, I don’t think this is the best explanation to base my beliefs on. Since life is divided into five kingdoms, is there something special about the animal kingdom that makes it different from the other four? Is it memory? Or is it emotion, thought, consciousness, or sensation? According to Dawkins, evolutionary theory explains “memory” as follows. In a simple creature like an anemone, its sensory organs are directly connected to its muscles. This means that their behavior depends only on external stimuli in the here and now. However, in order to act with more precise timing, it doesn’t just react to current stimuli, it also needs to refer to the stimuli it has received in the past. This led to the evolution of creatures that can store past stimuli in some way, which is how memory was born. There’s nothing mysterious about it. The same goes for emotions, consciousness, and senses. Why should animal life be favored based on these features that evolved for survival?
Let’s take a step back and say there is a rationale somewhere. For example, let’s say there’s a consensus that animals shouldn’t be killed because they have memories. Even then, we’re still left with a problem of scope ambiguity. As in the example above, anemones and lower animals don’t have memories. What about ants or mosquitoes, which have a brain capacity of only 0.001 mL? What about tendrils or mimosas that cringe when you touch them? Or amoebas? If you take emotions out of the equation, it’s not always easy to pinpoint what makes animal rights special.
Perhaps the answer lies in environmental and poverty issues. A long-ago UN report identified animal agriculture as one of the most significant contributors to the environmental crisis. It is responsible for 9% of carbon dioxide, 65% of nitrogen dioxide, and 37% of methane, the three major greenhouse gases. The vast amounts of feed and water used by livestock farmers are a major contributor to global food and water shortages. For example, it takes about 10,000 liters of water to bring a cow to the table. That’s equivalent to the amount of water a typical human can use for several months. In addition, the large-scale cultivation of forage land for animal agriculture is causing rainforests to disappear rapidly, which is directly linked to the loss of biodiversity.
Furthermore, it’s linked to global poverty. Seventy percent of the world’s grain is used to feed livestock, and studies have shown that if all of that grain was used to feed people, the number of hungry people could be significantly reduced. This suggests that vegetarianism is more than just a personal choice; it’s a matter of planetary sustainability.
