Future Generations Will Condemn The Meat Industry As We Condemn Slavery

Judaka

This thread will be discussing how future generations will view the meat industry. I don't intend this as a method of commenting on the ethics of the meat industry today, though I admit it's inevitable. My proposition is that the meat industry, that is, the practice of systematically raising animals for slaughter will at some future time, be condemned as just as wrong as the practice of slavery, if not worse. My primary intention is to explore the nature of morality and moral advancement.

1. Just like Slavery, The Meat Industry has always been technically immoral

The hallmark of widely endorsed immorality, in my view, has always been about disqualifying parties from being treated as members of the group. The term "except for" has always been at the heart of widespread "immorality". Whether we exclude people by race, by their beliefs, by their class, or by their disabilities, there is always something. What was being done, the killing, oppression, exploitation and so on, was already considered immoral, just not so long as it was done to these excluded groups.

This mirrors the situation of intelligent mammals that we harvest for meat, such as pigs and cows. Everything act done is unambiguously wrong without the context of "except for". Thus, just as so many times throughout human history, the only thing that needs to happen for these acts to be judged as evil, is the inclusion of these animals into the wider group, and the removal of this "except for".

2. Just like Slavery and other "except for"s, the justifications are really weak.

The strongest arguments for excluding intelligent mammals such as pigs and cows from the "group" have pretty much already been disproven. Arguments surrounding sentience are contradicted by the science, that proves pigs are capable of experiencing anxiety, stress, boredom, pain, loneliness, joy, curiosity and so on. Not that the sentience argument ever made any sense, it was weak from the start and mirrors the same logic of racism and other "except for"s.

3. The pragmatism of slavery mirrors the convenience of the meat industry

As the ongoing industrial revolution was decreasing the need for the backbreaking labour that was so tempting to forcibly compel someone else to do, opinions on slavery shifted. More began to see the practice for the monstrous thing that it was. While slavery did have those who condemned it, we can say the same for the current meat industry, but it never gained widespread appeal until advances in technology changed the conditions in which slavery was attractive.

Similar advances are sure to change the conditions that make the meat industry attractive, we enjoy eating meat, but the meat industry may become unnecessary for us to do that. We'll be able to either mimic the taste of meat using other means or develop meat without causing suffering to other animals. As this process unfolds, it will become more convenient to condemn the meat industry, that's not what anyone will say, of course, but nonetheless, it will be true.

I don't know when it will happen, but I'm fairly confident that, at some point, the tides will turn against the meat industry in the same way they did for slavery.

4. The Meat Industry is far worse than slavery ever was

While this is up for debate, I'd argue that the meat industry, without the "except for" logic, merely processing the things being done, is far more monstrous than slavery ever was. It'd be far more horrifying to imagine a meat industry that processed humans, just employing common practices. I won't go into detail, as there's no point seriously making the case that it's "far worse", even if it was just as bad, or even shy of being just as bad, that would still leave it as an appalling practice.

All that needs to happen is this "except for", this justification that it's fine because they're only cows, chickens and pigs, and this view of the meat industry as worse than slavery will become mainstream. I don't just predict that future generations will think the meat industry is immoral, I believe that at some point, they'll view it as monstrous.

I doubt that they'll view meat eaters as monstrous since we certainly don't view non-slavers who purchased goods made by slaves as monstrous. Such views have never been mainstream.

5. Summary

The condemnation of the meat industry will coincide with the advancement of technology that undermines the conditions under which the meat industry is supported. Once these technologies become commonplace, the future generations living under those conditions will condemn the meat industry as evil.

Do you agree with my prediction? If you do, to what extent can previous moral developments be attributed to economic and technological changes?

Note: I recognise predicting the future can be challenging, but I'm doing it anyway

Note #2: My personal view of morality is indeed different than most, and while based on my OP, it may seem like I should despise the meat industry and those who support it, I don't. To avoid making this OP into a book, I skimmed over many details. If you support the meat industry, I'm not calling you a monster, I'm only predicting that future generations might. Please don't be too offended.

180 Proof

Do you agree with my prediction? — Judaka

No. IMO, none will not care – even remember – once industrial meat has been completely replaced by lab-grown meat.

baker

Do you agree with my prediction? — Judaka

No.

The situation with slavery shows that even though it is officially condemned, new forms of slavery are springing up all the same, perhaps even more pernicious, more insidious than the traditional forms.

This pattern can be observed elsewhere as well: there is an official, hyper-tolerant, politically hyper-correct doctrine about how we are supposed to think about things, and then there is the actual way people think about things and what kind of thinking they actually value. In regard to things such as racism, obesity, age, mental illness, ecology, traffic laws.

It doesn't seem it could be any different when it comes to meat, especially given the current foodie and general consumerist trends.

Judaka

↪180 Proof

Why will no one care or remember?

↪baker

The situation with slavery shows that even though it is officially condemned, new forms of slavery are springing up all the same, perhaps even more pernicious, more insidious than the traditional forms. — baker

This doesn't seem like it contradicts my prediction, since I'm only predicting the "official condemnation". I take your point though, I too am confident that future generations will be just as hypocritical as we are.

Sebrof

↪Judaka

This morality is derived from hedonism, no? A dead philosophy wont go anywhere. We will likely do these same things to ourselves the we do to those livestock.

ssu

I don't know when it will happen, but I'm fairly confident that, at some point, the tides will turn against the meat industry in the same way they did for slavery. — Judaka

Well, if we make a simple extrapolation from the present how now "woke" society condemns history, It may be possible for these kind of attitudes will come more frequent.

But I doubt the reasons will be due to people changing for moral reasons. If it happens, it's because a transformation of the meat industry itself.

The reason would be simply changes in the technology used by the food industry, which could result in the alienation of people from eating what they have been eating since humans walked on this Earth. Yes, that's possible, but in no way is it something to rejoice as us being more ethical. On the contrary, likely the "don't murder animals and eat them" stance will likely be a shrewd marketing ploy of the new food industry. Who better to promote the "animal meat is murder" than the industry manufacturing non-animal non-sentient "lab meat" at a cheap cost in huge industrial size "laboratories"?

The only way I see it that simply fabricated food, grown from cells etc., will become so cheap that animal husbandry simply can't compete with the new genetical produced lab meat. Then it can happen. That's the unfortunate reason why this would happen, because the ethical question of eating or not meat have been around for millennia.

Lab grown meat. The future for us?

And even this won't make animal meat to be banned. Just as we can have forestry for many hundreds of years without ever the forests been all cut down, so will even eating wild game prevail. Hence there's the demand and supply, why would it change? Our link to nature and especially living off from nature is changing: how many can still eat for example the berries and mushrooms you can pick from the forest? At least here in Finland I don't see that changing. Yet the fact is that many people who aren't vegetarians have not and will not ever taste how strong actual wild animal taste, but only know the industrially produced soy-eating animals. The alienation from the wild will surely continue.

ChatteringMonkey

↪Judaka

No.

Morality is not the driver of things, nor does it evolve on its own/following its own logic. Rather, morality is a by-product of, or is at least enabled by, other non-moral processes.

To be more specific, the idea of moral progress is a result of technological and economical progress, that is in turn based on an exponential increase in energy-use. Or to put in another way, we have been able to construe and sustain these moral standards because we have an unprecedented energy-surplus... to put it maybe a bit flippant, you don't need slaves if one barrel of oil can provide work equivalent to 25.000 hours of human labour.

Whether or not we will deem the meat industry immoral in the future will depend in part on whether we can maintain this upward trajectory of increase in energy-production that may be needed to provide alternatives (as it stands lab-grown meat is very expensive and energy-intensive) ... and that is by no means a certainty with fossil fuels ultimately being finite and the effective replacement of them questionable.

Judaka

↪ssu

The only way I see it that simply fabricated food, grown from cells etc., will become so cheap that animal husbandry simply can't compete with the new genetical produced lab meat. Then it can happen. — ssu

Right, I'm more-or-less making the same case as this, that seeing this sort of possibility on the horizon is the pre-requisite for condemning the meat industry as it exists today. While at that moment in history, the turn against the meat industry (harvesting meat from living animals) may be celebrated as a moral triumph, it will only happen as alternatives step in to make it convenient. If for some reason, alternatives utterly fail to be competitive, then a widespread condemnation of the meat industry would seem unlikely.

Who better to promote the "animal meat is murder" than the industry manufacturing non-animal non-sentient "lab meat" at a cheap cost in huge industrial size "laboratories"? — ssu

Yeah, I'm sure that will happen too.

No.

Morality is not the driver of things, nor does it evolve on it's own/following it's own logic. Rather, morality is a by-product of, or is at least enabled by, other non-moral processes. — ChatteringMonkey

Hey! Isn't that the same argument I made in the OP!? Why are you saying "No"? :rage:

Anyway, I agree with you. :smirk:

I am claiming that alternatives to the meat industry will be the trigger for the widespread moral turn against the meat industry. I agree that the viability or competitiveness of alternatives is the most important question here.

ChatteringMonkey

↪Judaka

Yes I guess I basically agree with your analysis :-), but disagree with the assumption that the world is going to continue in this upward trajectory I suppose.

Vera Mont

Do you agree with my prediction? If you do, to what extent can previous moral developments be attributed to economic and technological changes? — Judaka

100%. Assuming, of course, that the future is a straight line in what we used to call enlightened social values. (That's not a given: we may be headed for a new dark age, or total collapse, or one followed by the other. )
Circuses with animal acts and zoos are already in disrepute; blood sports involving animals have been largely outlawed, except for hunting, and that doesn't have universal approval. The wearing of fur is widely frowned-upon; laboratory testing on animals is much disputed. The methods of industrial meat farming and processing are hotly debated, kept secret, denied and protested.
More people are becoming aware of the climate and ecological effects of large scale meat farming and the long term health effects meat consumption; vegetarian and vegan lifestyles are a growing trend in western countries, while other parts of the world have never had the luxury of consuming anywhere the near the quantities of flesh westerners do - and how much of it they waste. The one insurmountable objection to a vegetarian diet is becoming ever more surmountable by the advancements in cultivated meat.
The advocates of using animals as a necessity of human survival have run out of moral and health arguments; they fall back on personal preference, habit and "nature". The logic of their advocacy now resides entirely in economic considerations.
The change will be gradual, as it already is, with many kicking-and-screaming reactionaries. It won't be driven primarily by moral consideration, though that is an ever-present factor, but by aesthetic sensibility: killing is messy; preparing meat is icky.

To what extent have previous technological advancements changed people's attitude? On the economic side, quite a lot. But there were those who, with nothing to gain, fought against slavery, segregation, child labour, dog-fighting, bear-baiting - on principle. That is by no means an inconsequential factor in social evolution.

ssu

Right, I'm more-or-less making the same case as this, that seeing this sort of possibility on the horizon is the pre-requisite for condemning the meat industry as it exists today. — Judaka

Yeah, once lab meat costs one tenth of the meat traditionally produced by animal husbandry, you know what you will be eating in a BigMac at McDonalds.

And what I fear are health problems of what use of lab meat will have. They'll perhaps add something like C-vitamin or whatever, but usually the "production by the cheapest method" will have severe effects, because it can go to that. Poverty today isn't shown that one's starving to death, it's that people are obese with lack of exercise and healthy diet, that then is very expensive. The simple fact is that it's too costly and perhaps far too difficult to mimic wild flora and fauna in industrial production.

You can already notice the vast difference of industrial meat production, for which something the soy is given to eat and compare it with something that is wild. Here in Finland reindeer meat is the perfect example: reindeer has a lot more vitamins, far less fat and is overall far more healthier than cow, pork or chicken. The reindeer lives all it's life in a pack eating well about 350 different plants depending on the season. And it migrates large distances. Hence for a person that has eaten hamburgers and chicken nuggets all his or her life, the taste will likely be too strong and likely the meat will be chewy as reindeers get a lot of exercise all their life.

The 200 000 reindeer here in my country are owned about 4 000 owners and they are an example of a species that has been on intent left half wild and half domesticated. There are no "wild" reindeer in Finland. The change from hunting to reindeer herding happened in the early Middle Ages and has continued from the on.

(Which ones are mine? In a reindeer roundup the animals are divided to their owners as adults are marked. As the young fawn follow their mothers, the herders do know just who owns them.)
Poroerotus%2BC.jpg

I'm not seeing any reason why reindeer herding would stop for some reason. Human species is an omnivore and not a vegan. And just like reindeer herding, animal husbandry something that we can do quite ecologically (as 1000 years of reindeer herding shows).

However if the economies don't create prosperity and more people would start to fall into poverty, some cheap alternatives like "lab meat". And if/when the authorities responsible for food safety are controlled by large corporations, perhaps that "lab meat" will be sold as ecological produced.

frank

Do you agree with my prediction? If you do, to what extent can previous moral developments be attributed to economic and technological changes? — Judaka

Maybe. Aristotle said slavery was a necessary evil. Automation has been slowly taking the place of human labor for at least 50 years, making it easier to leave it behind.

Our ancestors ate huge amounts of meat. It's speculated that the human brain, which is a large obligate glucose consumer, drove the human appetite.

ssu

Automation has been slowly taking the place of human labor for at least 50 years — frank

I think that has seriosly been taken place for well over 150 years.

frank

I think that has seriosly been taken place for well over 150 years. — ssu

Maybe. I was thinking about the robotic equipment that fills American factories now. No need for human labor.

Vera Mont

I'm not seeing any reason why reindeer herding would stop for some reason. Human species is an omnivore and not a vegan. And just like reindeer herding, animal husbandry something that we can do quite ecologically (as 1000 years of reindeer herding shows). — ssu

As there are not enough reindeer for everyone, I suppose all the native wild herbivores of every continent will have to be domesticated, herded and eaten. That won't make any difference, as they are already going extinct in the wild. Canadians are already eating ranched bison and caribou. It's doable, but the ecological and climate impact will not be any less than that of beef cattle. And, on the required scale of production, the slaughterhouses won't be any nicer. Some people might still find the process distasteful. As for whether the plant-based substitutes, cultured meat, farmed or herded meat is healthy for the consumer, that depends on the methods employed in their production and distribution, over which the consumer has no control; he must rely on regulating and inspection agencies . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666765722001508

Vera Mont

Our ancestors ate huge amounts of meat. — frank

That's more true of the present generations.

Overall meat consumption has continued to rise in the U.S., European Union, and developed world.

Before the last century, few people anywhere in the world were rich enough to have meat every day and in primitive times, they had to catch it first - when they failed, they had to go without; when they succeeded, they had to preserve some for leaner seasons.

It's speculated that the human brain, which is a large obligate glucose consumer, drove the human appetite. — frank

For fruits and roots; in modern times, for processed foods containing lots of sugar. Meat doesn't have any carbohydrates.

frank

That's more true of the present generations. — Vera Mont

Bread allowed us to get away from meat, yes. Archeological finds tell us that pre-agriculture hominins were heavily dependent on meat.

Meat doesn't have any carbohydrates. — Vera Mont

Of course it does. It's in the fat.

ssu

As there are not enough reindeer for everyone, I suppose all the native wild herbivores of every continent will have to be domesticated, herded and eaten. — Vera Mont

How on Earth would it be so? The world has very few native wild herbivore compared to domesticated animals. And above all, why would you need reindeer for everyone???

Again, there's a simple question of supply and demand. There's only so many reindeer in Europe (roughly about 2 million). Yet also there's only so few who do eat reindeer. The vast majority haven't eaten reindeer, as likely haven't eaten other so-called exotic animals.

Then again, for every New Zealander there are 25 sheep, which earlier was a ration of one to forty. In all, there are about 1,2 billion sheep in the world. There's also about 1 billion to 1,5 billion cows.

Now if lab meat becomes one tenth of the price that animal husbandry costs, what simply will happen that there aren't anymore those sheep in New Zealand around. Some who prefer to eat a "classic" diet will have that available, but have to pay a higher cost. Those that don't care what they eat, as long as it's cheap and "good", will then eat what the industry provides them. If it's artificial lab meat, so be it.

Some people might still find the process distasteful. — Vera Mont

Many find the industrial scale distasteful. Yet I think it's also more about the fact that people simply have lost the connection to animal husbandry as fewer and fewer people are living on a farm with animals. Urbanized people simply don't have the way to live off the land. Everything you eat you buy. And that's a problem: many don't go a pick berries or mushrooms, fewer go fishing or hunt.

180 Proof

Why will no one care or remember? — Judaka

Our descendants' lab-grown steaks sausages & chicken tenders will be too convenient and taste too good to fret about obsolete barbaric practices.

Vera Mont

And above all, why would you need reindeer for everyone??? — ssu

Because everyone needs nourishment. Reindeer probably would do quite poorly in Africa. Those people will have to make do with wildebeest and zebras. I already mentioned native North American wildlife that could substitute. Don't know what the Asians and South Americans will eat. Australia's all right for kangaroos. That's if all those populations follow your advice.

Urbanized people simply don't have the way to live off the land. — ssu

This is true. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/urban-vs-rural-majority
Therefore, half the world has to eat what it can buy while the other half has access to animals they can kill. While such animals exist.

Bread allowed us to get away from meat, yes. Archeological finds tell us that pre-agriculture hominins were heavily dependent on meat. — frank

Food items are differentially preserved at archaeological sites: archaeologists were once misled into believing that early humans relied heavily on meat foods, because bones, the remains of edible animals, survive far better than the remains of plant foods.

On meat, fish, nuts, berries, tubers, fungi and leaves. Whatever they could get. That's never been a huge amount for the majority of people; nor is it now.

Meat doesn't have any carbohydrates. — Vera Mont
Of course it does. It's in the fat. — frank

That's easily checked https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/172345/nutrients

Judaka

↪ssu

Yeah, once lab meat costs one tenth of the meat traditionally produced by animal husbandry, you know what you will be eating in a BigMac at McDonalds. — ssu

:rofl:

And what I fear are health problems of what use of lab meat will have. — ssu

My understanding was that it would be less risky health-wise to eat meat from a lab, but it seems like you're mostly referring to the problem of obesity, is that right? However, are you suggesting the meat industry has a significant role in the obesity epidemic? Is that not a problem for which you consider sugar and processed foods to be almost wholly responsible?

I'd guess that greater accessibility to meat would help reduce the obesity epidemic, no?

I'm not seeing any reason why reindeer herding would stop for some reason. Human species is an omnivore and not a vegan. And just like reindeer herding, animal husbandry something that we can do quite ecologically (as 1000 years of reindeer herding shows). — ssu

An example such as reindeer herding has no business being compared to the horrors of an industrial meat factory. It mightn't, and arguably shouldn't get tied up in a moral turn against the meat industry. I imagine it would remain economically viable in some capacity. I think it's fair to assume it'll last.

If such practices were deemed immoral, that wouldn't mean these animals could live freely. Certainly, in Australia, should the tides turned against the meat industry, cows and pigs would never be allowed to live here as wild animals. They'd be sold or killed to the last.

The major difference between slavery and animal husbandry is that while slavery can never provide ideal living conditions for humans, animal husbandry can provide a good quality of life for animals. Just not in industrial factories.

↪Vera Mont

100%. — Vera Mont

Thanks for saying so. Most others just reiterated my points after telling me I was wrong, bastards.

It won't be driven primarily by moral consideration, though that is an ever-present factor, but by aesthetic sensibility: killing is messy; preparing meat is icky. — Vera Mont

It's interesting that you try to separate the two. Do you think the ending of slavery was primarily driven by moral considerations or aesthetic sensibilities? If we're comparing just these two factors.

That is by no means an inconsequential factor in social evolution. — Vera Mont

I agree. Morality isn't irrelevant, it just isn't the pinnacle of our priorities as philosophical discussions would have one believe.

frank

On meat, fish, nuts, berries, tubers, fungi and leaves. Whatever they could get. That's never been a huge amount for the majority of people; nor is it now. — Vera Mont

Not according to scientists. "Ethnographic comparisons with contemporary groups of Hunter Gatherers broadly imply a high reliance on animal protein supplemented with a wide range of available plant foods." -- here. We aren't as bad as our closest relatives, the Neanderthals, who appear to have been almost carnivorous and cannibalistic at times. Early H. Sapiens were still heavily reliant on meat, though. The fact that whole species of megafauna disappeared when humans showed up in North America and Australia suggests that humans were apex predators.

That's easily checked https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/172345/nutrients — Vera Mont

Yes. Our bodies break fats down into a simple carbohydrate: glucose.

Vera Mont

Not according to scientists. "Ethnographic comparisons with contemporary groups of Hunter Gatherers broadly imply a high reliance on animal protein supplemented with a wide range of available plant foods." -- here. — frank

It's wiki, and speculative.

V Larger brain sizes required a greater caloric intake.[better source needed] In colder climates meat might be necessary due to the decreased availability of plant based foods, and in hotter tropical climates a wider range of plants would be available.[3]

No quantity or proportion specified.

The fact that whole species of megafauna disappeared when humans showed up in North America and Australia suggests that humans were apex predators. — frank

That was not in question. The "huge quantities" - as compared to modern westerners - are.

Our bodies break fats down into a simple carbohydrate: glucose. — frank

Not exactly. It's broken down into glycerol and fatty acids. It's a multi-stage process necessary for storage, since the molecules are too big to be absorbed. Glucose come from sugars and starches, which are faster and easier to break down, but they're usually not stored as long as fat; they're used for immediate energy. When components are required for cell construction, glucose and triglycerides are combined with amino acids from proteins - all kinds, not just animal. Why would an organism depend preferentially on the most expensive source of nutrition, when all three are needed?
Anyway, this leaning on distant ancestors is a futile exercise, since our modern diet bears very little resemblance to theirs.

I'd guess that greater accessibility to meat would help reduce the obesity epidemic, no? — Judaka

Especially cultured meat, since its fat content can be readily regulated. It also eliminates the risk of parasites (prevalent in game), chemical contamination (such as antibiotics and pesticides in farmed meat) and contagious disease.

It's interesting that you try to separate the two. Do you think the ending of slavery was primarily driven by moral considerations or aesthetic sensibilities? If we're comparing just these two factors. — Judaka

In that case, aesthetics don't figure, any more than they would in cannibalism. The objection is moral - particularly religious moral, as with the Quakers. But secular common decency comes into it as well, once people acknowledge that people of a different colour are just like themselves. There was, too, a philosophical and political enlightenment in Europe, which is why post-revolutionary France abolished slavery. Equality, fraternity and all that. In England, it was popular pressure, dues to the French example.
Slavery lasted longer in the US for economic reasons. The framers of the constitution were perfectly well aware of the problem, but felt they had to give in to the slave-owning faction in order to have a defensible union at all. That was a mistake for which Americans have paid dearly and are still paying.

Similarly, the habit of predation is costing this omnivorous species dearly in terms of health, environment and future.

ssu

My understanding was that it would be less risky health-wise to eat meat from a lab, but it seems like you're mostly referring to the problem of obesity, is that right? — Judaka

No, actually it comes down to my example of why reindeer meat is so far much healthier having less fat and many vitamins etc. than any domesticated animal: it eats 350 different plants and roams free basically all it's life in the wilderness. Just ask yourself: do any farm animals get 350 different plants to eat and get the physical exercise that reindeer gets roaming the forests and tundra? No, absolutely not. With lab meat this is even more obvious as the chemist has to add every ingredient to the lab meat. Great! There might not be any toxins, so yes, it's not going to be dangerous, but simply the present knowledge of how things are healthy is limited.

Hence lab meat is pinnacle of processed food, which does have it's defects. Already the monotone feeding of domesticated animals has had a huge impact on the taste and nutritiousness of meat. Lab meat and how healthy it is to eat only lab meat puts this on another level. This too is apparent from plants that are a) grown in greenhouses, b) grown on farmland and c) are wild. The differences in taste are obvious.

Future Generations Will Condemn The Meat Industry As We Condemn Slavery

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions