Research paper on the Social Complications of Animal & Animal Product Consumption

 

Julia Bisbee
Writing for the Social Sciences
Research Paper
April 3 2022

The Consumption of Animal Products: A Social Complication
Abstract
What defines a social complication? As humans, do we have moral obligations to act a certain way? How can we make sure that we are ensuring that our actions comply with the stiff rigids of our morals? Through a vegan lens, this paper aims to answer the posed questions and provide insight in an informative fashion as to why Americans consume animal products in a modernized society, and how it can pose a detrimental threat to the far reaching arms of our future.

What is a Social Complication?
To first understand how the consumption of animals and animal products can possibly be a complication, we must first understand what a social complication poses and why it must be addressed. As defined by the University of Minnesota, a social problem (or complication) is classified as, “any condition or behavior that has negative consequences for large numbers of people and that is generally recognized as a condition or behavior that needs to be addressed” (2016). Where does one draw the line and when is “a lot” considered “too much”? To understand the depth of this issue, about 98% of the population in the United States consumes animal products (Wunsch, n.d.). This high percentage of individuals creates a high demand for a large amount of animals needing to be slaughtered and harvested. To continue, journalist Grace Hussain of Sentient Media states that, “Approximately 23.3 million land animals are killed in the United States every single day according to the U.S. Animal Kill Clock, which also reports that when also including shellfish and other sea life, this number jumps to over 150 million” (2021). These statistics emphasize the extremely large number of animals slaughtered for the consumption of food, and purely that. If this large number is frightening and many are aware of the moral unjustification, why is such a behavior still normalized for 98% of the population?

Limitations to Our Morals: Are they logical?
Beliefs that animals and animal products are ethical to eat can keep people confined in societal norms and constructs. The problem this poses is learned ignorance and a comfortability to stay with what has been taught, and to not further question the methods for eating, or why it has been done a certain way. In Matt Pickles’ article for the University of Oxford, “The Ethical Arguments Against Eating Meat”, one reason listed states that “it causes unnecessary animal suffering” (2017). To proceed, Pickles also states that, “…industrial farming causes animals to suffer without good justification”. The most important word in this quote is “justification”. Pickles states that there is no justification because this statement is framed by another important attribute: necessity. As a highly intelligent species, humans are able to recognize the pure feeling of hunger or experience a lack of stable food supply. In a westernized society, like the United States, there are grocery stores and restaurants within a few miles radius of most of the population (with some exceptions, for less populated states), which applies to the idea of necessity— humans simply do not need animals to live. For the purpose of limitations and to argue that ethically humans are still able to survive and thrive, it must be noted that they have the ability to do so. Many will disagree and come to the agreement that without meat, there would not be enough food to sustain the population of 332,592,627 in the United States alone (US Census Bureau, 2022). On the contrary, in an article for the Cornell Chronicle, written by a professor of ecology at Cornell University, David Pimentel, he advises the readers and animal scientists of the consequences of consuming meat. Pimentel writes, “If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million” (1997). Aside from building a bridge to close the gap of a world hunger issue, ending the consumption of animal products can also help to improve the water shortage in the West. Pimentel also writes, “Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food…In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced” (1997). With both the environmental constituent and nutritional constituent, it is easy to see the upside of the entire issue, however; the ethical component is the most important in establishing for the paper. Nevertheless, the possibility of ending world hunger with smarter sustainability choices includes the ethics that others must give up something they like for a greater good, and to feed those who do not have the same opportunities as Americans. This brings up another argument: taste versus life.

Cognitive Dissonance
The average life expectancy of a dairy cow is 15-20 years (according to the Humane League), however; most cattle that produce dairy are not allowed to live more than 5, as they are sent to slaughter when they can no longer produce as much milk (2021). It can be assumed from experiences that eating a hamburger or piece of beef takes no longer than 20 minutes. The argument of taste versus life arises when the time it takes to eat is only 20 minutes, and the life span we cut off an animal is 10-15 years. As a human with complex emotions, one can put together the unsettling feeling of this statement. This described feeling brings up a psychological complex, titled cognitive dissonance. Scientist, author, and researcher, Leonid Perlovsky defines cognitive dissonance as, “a discomfort caused by holding conflicting elements of knowledge” (2013). In other words, the brain understands that the action the person partakes in is against their belief system, or a value the person holds true, hence the uncomfortable feeling. Perlovsky also writes, “CD [cognitive dissonance] is particularly evident when a new scientific theory is developed. It takes a while to accept the new knowledge…For new knowledge to be useful it must contradict existing knowledge to some extent” (2013). A new realization, in this case, credits itself as “new knowledge” for those who were unaware of it previously in their lifetime.
Education Moving Forward
The main obstacle many must overcome in order to start making the necessary ethical changes is ignorance, which is in fact the contradiction of the truth, in this case. With proper education about our food systems and where they are derived from, people will be able to unattach themselves from learned behavior if they do not agree with it. The problem with tradition is that it is not always easy to challenge, and many do not want to admit that truth is not measured by mass appeal, and that just because these systems are legal, it does not necessarily mean they are just. The downside of comfortability is the social lens we place ourselves in when we acknowledge what type of system we contribute to.

The Consequences of Moral Unalignment
Cognitive dissonance may be bearable for many people, since it is a feeling some choose to ignore, however, there is a downfall to ignoring belief systems, and continuing the path of blissful ignorance. The Gentle Revolution, an organization that advocates for people to adapt a vegan lifestyle, states, “We came to recognize on a deep level the simple truth that each animal – including the ones used for food in our culture – is an individual with feelings, thoughts and families – each animal is someone, not something. We are unconsciously taught by society not to see this truth. When we learned more and realized the implications of this understanding, we became very disturbed by the depth and breadth of damage caused by our collective treatment of animals (except – for the most part – the few lucky species we think of as being like family). Once we understood, we had no choice but to boycott this way of treating animals and to share that understanding with others, to the best of our ability” (n.d.). If we have treated animals this way for hundreds of years, as a commodity, what does our future hold? It can be inferred that kindness will become a scarcity and greediness will be the shadow that surrounds us more often. People may become aggressive towards one another as kindness and compassion is no longer in regards. To add, the quote above also utilizes the word, “society” as the one who has taught us to stray from our natural benevolence. However, it is crucial to note that “society” is us. Wimer Alberto, the Resident Director at Binghamton University writes, “We blame society but we are society…When we engage in these conversations we use the term “society” as a way to deflect responsibility. We do this because, well, it’s the easy thing to do. To accept one’s membership within society is to accept responsibility for the same injustices we try to combat as social justice educators” (2013). To place a blame on society is to blame ourselves, but without the accountability. To begin the process of change, we must acknowledge and accept the negative emotions we receive, let them pass and continue to do our best.
Overcoming the Issue
Although there is a long way to go in terms of adjusting our moral compass to our actions, it doesn’t have to be as hard as it may seem. When we begin addressing habits to combat cognitive dissonance, and recognize the logicity of this social complication, much change and awareness can come from living in alignment with our values. Eating and practicing a vegan lifestyle proves to be beneficial for the planet, ourselves and most especially— the animals. Dr. Michael Marmot, a researcher for the Institute of Health Equity states, “The good society is one that brings wellbeing to all its members” (2015).
Acknowledging our mistakes, accepting accountability, as well as moving forward with an open mind and compassion, is one of many ways to improve society and this issue in particular. Day 1 begins now.

References
Alberto, W. (2013, April 8). We Blame Society, But We Are Society . The CSJE Blog. Retrieved March 31, 2022, from https://acpacsje.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/we-blame-society-but-we-are-society-by-wimer-alberto/
Bekoff, M. (2016, March 20). 85% of Americans Support Animal Protection: A Positive Shift. Psychology Today. Retrieved February 28, 2022, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/201603/85-americans-support-animal-protection-positive-shift
The Gentle Revolution. (n.d.). Veganism: Living in Alignment with Values. The Gentle Revolution. Retrieved March 31, 2022, from https://www.gentlerevolution.nz/why-vegan.html
The Humane League. (2021, January 14). Dairy Cows: How long do dairy cattle live? Do they suffer? thehumaneleague.org. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://thehumaneleague.org/article/dairy-cows
Hussain, G. (2021, December 17). How Many Animals Are Killed for Food Every Day? Sentient Media. Retrieved March 9, 2022, from https://sentientmedia.org/how-many-animals-are-killed-for-food-every-day/#:~:text=Approximately%2023.3%20million%20land%20animals,jumps%20to%20over%20150%20million.
Perlovsky L. (2013). A Challenge to Human Evolution- Cognitive Dissonance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 179. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00179
Pickles, M. (2017, April 28). The Ethical Arguments Against Eating Meat. University of Oxford. Retrieved March 9, 2022, from https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/arts-blog/ethical-arguments-against-eating-meat.
Pimentel, D. (1997, August 7). U.S. Could Feed 800 Million People with Grain that Livestock Eat, Cornell Ecologist Advises Animal Scientists. Cornell Chronicle. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat
United States Census Bureau. (2022, March). U.S. and World Population Clock. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved March 30, 2022, from https://www.census.gov/popclock/
University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing Edition, 2015. (2016, March 25). 1.1 What is a Social Problem? Social Problems. Retrieved March 9, 2022, from https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialproblems/chapter/1-1-what-is-a-social-problem/
Wunsch, N.-G. (n.d.). Veganism and Vegetarianism in the U.S. Statista. Retrieved February 28, 2022, from https://www.statista.com/topics/3377/vegan-market/#topicHeader__wrapper.