Debates about what we should do to address environmental issues can get heated. I've noticed that one particular topic has a striking ability to polarize such debates: meat consumption.
This blog post and the comments following it sparked my ruminations on the "meat effect"; in particular this statement:
[Y]ou lose me when you imply that meat eating is a no-no from an environmental point of view. It seems to me that this element of the campaign is totally unnecessary, and therefore likely to be counter-productive.
This is a statement from someone who cares about the environment, but is hostile to the idea that not eating meat is something that people who care about the environment should do. This intrigued me, because until that point I'd largely accepted that reducing my meat consumption would significantly reduce my impact on the environment. I hadn't thought very deeply into other factors that might influence people's decisions whether to eat meat. I don't intend to attempt to weigh the arguments for and against eating meat here. What fascinates me is the "meat effect" - the way the question of whether we should consume meat engenders such strong and even hostile reactions in people. I'm not passing judgement on any meat-related positions. I'm just fascinated by how people make decisions and what influences their actions.
For the purposes of exploring the "meat effect", let's accept that there are strong arguments why people shouldn't eat [so much] meat, for example:
- we are in danger of destroying fish stocks by overfishing;
- animals suffer in factory farms and we should avoid that suffering if possible;
- intensive agriculture contributes significantly to climate change;
- agriculture contributes to the degradation of waterways...
Let's accept that there are also good reasons why people choose to eat meat, such as:
- meat is a good source of protein, iron and other essential nutrients;
- they enjoy eating meat and feel that their enjoyment of eating would decrease if they didn't eat meat;
- meat is easy to cook and it would be a hassle to change their eating habits;
- a lot of people make their living off agriculture, so they are helping others to make a living when they buy meat...
So, whether we should eat meat is an argument for which both sides feel they have good reasons to support their position. But I don't think that having good reasons for their position explains why some meat-eaters have such a strong reaction to suggestions that they should stop eating meat for the sake of the environment. I'm not a psychologist or social scientist, but I've got some theories about the "meat effect".
1. People hate being told what to do (and what NOT to do)
Most people value being able to make their own decisions pretty highly. Being told what to do arouses a natural defensive reaction. Why should I do what that person is telling me to do? This is especially so when what you are being told to do is something you perceive as detracting from your freedom of choice. Being told that you shouldn't eat meat is like being told that you should cross every type of meat off your list of choices of things to eat.
I've come across some material that backs up my theory that people's hatred of being told what to do is the backbone of the anti-vegetarian movement. Yes, there's an anti-vegetarian movement; that was news to me. The homepage of the
Anti-Vegetarian Society of Meat Eaters states that they are not opposed to vegetarians or vegans. They're opposed to "fanatical vegetarians and vegans... telling people what they can and cannot eat."
People are more open to being told what to do if they think that the thing they're being told to do will generate benefits, with little personal cost. For example, people are a lot more receptive to the message that they should use reusable bags for their grocery shopping for the sake of the environment than to being told they shouldn't eat meat for the sake of the environment. That's because reusable bags are pretty cheap, and they don't require any extra effort to use (beyond remembering to take them with you when you go shopping!) When some supermarkets in New Zealand introduced a nominal charge of 5c per plastic bag last year in an effort to increase reusable bag use and decrease the number of plastic bags released into the environment, there was a huge backlash. That was because the personal cost of complying increased, and there was a perception that people's freedom of choice was being undermined.
I think that a lot of people view changing to a vegetarian diet as a big personal sacrifice, and aren't convinced that the benefits justify that personal sacrifice. I imagine the meat-free message gets a better reception when it is presented as an exercise of freedom of choice with great personal benefits than when it is presented as a personal sacrifice that should be made for the greater good.
2. People hate being wrong
Being told that you shouldn't eat meat and bombarded with all the reasons why eating meat is bad implies that you have been wrong every time you've ever eaten meat, and every time you eat meat in the future you'll be doing something wrong. This provokes a natural defensive reaction. This is compounded by the fact that a lot of the arguments against eating meat are quite moralistic. If you care about other living creatures, you won't want to make them suffer by having them killed so you can eat them. If you care about the environment, how can you eat meat when agriculture is such a big contributor to environmental degradation? These arguments boil down to, in their simplest form: if you eat meat you are a bad person. Who wants to take advice from someone who thinks they're a bad person?
3. People are naturally opposed to change
It's easier to keep doing what you've always done than to change. You can see this factor operating in most disagreements about environmental issues. I'm not going to start composting, because it's so much easier to just throw food scraps in the bin. I don't want to take my own reusable cup when I get a coffee because nobody does that at my cafe. Why would I want to go to the farmers' market to get my fruit and vegetables when I can get them from the supermarket with the rest of my groceries like I've always done? Eating meat regularly is the status quo for most people in developed countries. Change involves extra effort, at least at the outset, for example planning meat-free meals to cook and sourcing ingredients that you might not have cooked with before. The effort involved in making a change is enough to put a lot of people off. The thought of change can also provoke a defensive reaction in people, as they search for justifications for the status quo, to avoid investing energy in making a change.
4. People have an emotional attachment to eating
I think this is the key to why people feel so much more strongly about meat consumption than other environmental issues like which cars they should drive or what kind of lightbulbs they should use. What we eat is such a personal thing that we resent being told that we should change what we eat more than we resent being being told what we should do in other areas of our lives. Our health depends on what we eat. Eating makes us happy, and we don't want to let other people interfere with that. This emotional connection to eating means that it's not as simple as logically weighing the benefits and detriments of eating meat. We know it's bad for our health to eat chocolate and chips. But when we feel like chocolate and chips, do we sit back and calmly and logically remind ourselves of the detriments of eating these foods? Heck no, if I'm craving chocolate and chips I'll darn well have chocolate and chips. I think our emotional attachment to food can intensify our natural defensive reaction to being told what to do, and strengthen our resistance to changing our food habits.
What do you think? What are your theories on why the issue of meat consumption can get people so stirred up?
Posts
