Although I don’t fully agree with the sentiment expressed by this thread, it did get me thinking about leaning even further into contributing to an environment I’d like to participate in. I personally much prefer dedicated discussion threads to discussing news stories myself and reading through the comments it seems like there is a huge desire among many for exactly that. In this thread I’d like to brainstorm with y’all about the conversations we wouldn’t risk trying to have on reddit, conversations you don’t have people around willing to engage in but would work well here, community vibe checks, or something I’m not considering. I would also like to explore what obstacles others see for why this hasn’t happened already despite the apparent desire so any solutions we experiment with can avoid issues which we are already aware of.
My response to my own question will be in the comments.
Two of my four grandparents were raised and lived most of their lives in a small village, that didn’t even have electricity until they had kids going to school. Extremely poor with almost nothing of most of what is now common in western societies. So, try to imagine living in a place where absolutely nothing is considered waste. Whatever little objects, their houses, everything they used was made by people who knew how to work with some crude material, whether it was wood or some kind of metal. They relied on animals and small pieces of land to get through each year. Literally zero waste. Composting was not a trend, but a necessity.
Now try to imagine a woman, who had little (no plants, chickens don’t lay eggs in the heavy winter, goats don’t have young ones to feed, so no milk either, no fridges, let alone freezers) food to go through the winter and would rather eat a little less and feed wild birds than watch them freezing to death (most living animals need food to regulate body temperature, among other things). Same thing I would watch her do during all seasons. She would always leave fruit on the trees during spring and summer just so that birds would have something to eat near her house. Fruit that was essential to her nutrition, because it was extremely limited, but she did it anyway.
Now try to imagine this woman, butchering a rabbit or a chicken or a goat. Because she did. Feeling no remorse or any negative emotion. And was pretty good at it. The same person who would get furious if someone mistreated a living animal in her presence.
There is some order in life, which is lost on people who never had a chance to see anything except an urban environment. If you were to meet a person like that, who pretty much embodies the supposed conflict you think exists in this behavior, and you talked in the manner you wrote this comment, you probably wouldn’t even get a response. Maybe a smile, maybe a shake of a head.
If you actually want to get how both those actions (butchering and eating a living animal, and caring for all living animals -even the ones you know you are going to kill and eat at some point in their life) can be done by people in peace with their actions, if you really want to do that, to understand, probably the best way is to find people living like this and spend a month near them. Live and observe.
This comment is not meant to justify all the wrongs of how livestock is treated on large scales in pursuit of profit. Neither people eating more meat in a week than their ancestors probably ate in many months. I am not interested in debating this either. Just pointing out that this was the way of life of most people in the past. How long ago, depends on where you were born on this planet.
As I mentioned, I don’t have an issue with people like the woman you mentioned, people who eat meat for survival.
My issue is specifically with people living in an urban environment, who are well-off enough to afford decent food, who claim to care about animals, yet don’t see a problem with eating factory farmed meat, whilst simultaneously having a problem with people in certain countries eating dogs etc and shedding crocodile tears. That’s just double standards, hipocrisy, and cognitive dissonance at its best.
The reason I preferred to respond the way I did in your original comment, is because I noticed two things that make me doubt you are actually willing to discuss with an open mind. The first is that in your original comment there are quite a few remarks in which you assume the moral high ground and judge others en masse while you have actual contact with a limited sample of people through which you observe the behavior you claim you don’t understand. The second is your personal experience, which as you mention it, is equally limited as far as what it takes for a person to end up eating animal meat.
So I wrote, probably quite badly, about a fragment of another person’s life. Trying to paint a picture of a way of life in which there was no cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy (you do realize that these are not nice things to say about another person, right?) or even conflict. What was equally important, in my comment, with the mention of this one person, was the fact that I mentioned that almost everyone lived like this in the past. Which, I guessed, while probably not enough to make you re-evaluate your position, might make you question both the validity of the moral high ground and how your experience formed your beliefs about eating animal meat.
Unfortunately, seems like I guessed wrong, because you reduced my comment to “human eats meat for survival”, when it was more of a “human makes peace with killing, butchering, eating other animals while actually caring for all animals”.
It’s not that I didn’t see what you wrote about “eating meat for survival”. I even quoted this specific part of your comment. So maybe it’s not that great assuming that I didn’t when you read my response.
But who will judge whether or not a person is eating for his survival? Who will judge whether or not someone is being a hypocrite? I mean, most of us, at any given time, are on a different path of life, with our own unique experiences. What might seem obvious to one person, might be something the next person wouldn’t even be able to imagine because of different experiences. It’s not like artificial (books, movies, infotainment, what have you) stimuli are the same thing with actually experiencing the world. Especially when it comes to nature with its extreme vastness of interactions.
You claim you were put off of eating animal meat by watching a butcher killing a chicken. Why should I feel bad (hypocrite? lying to myself?) or less of a sentient being when after, myself, helping to butcher a goat (I mean, do you have any idea what this requires? the sound of skin separating from what is underneath? the sound of internal organs when you slice it’s body open? the flow of blood? the smell of it all? and if you do have an idea do you think the idea is comparable, as far as impact goes, to the actual deed?) and while feeling seriously overloaded by the stimuli (in a young age mind you, less than 10 years old the first time I did it) at the same time being at peace with what I was doing?
Finally, being in an urban environment, at least when I mention it, is not indicative of more options (like food stores, or supermarkets) but indicative of a way more limited environment as far as natural stimuli are concerned and how people’s perceptions of the world are formed. It’s easy, if not a complete certainty, to be completely oblivious of many of the horrors involved in how animals feed themselves. And documentaries, neither smell, nor capture enough of this. So, I, for one, won’t judge neither a person who is put off by a killing of a chicken nor a person who isn’t. I can see how different paths might lead different people to different perceptions of the world. I even find it interesting to observe the differences.
ps. I like to do a little experiment when (which you 'll almost never see me do) I say “I don’t understand X”. I replace that part of the text with “I really don’t like X” and if the text still makes sense, I pause and think.