This blog post explores whether meat consumption is a sustainable choice in terms of health, ethics, and the environment, examining the surrounding debates and diverse viewpoints.
The phrase “I’m vegetarian” carries multiple layers of meaning. Some people eat fish and eggs, while others avoid even milk or honey. However, when defining vegetarianism as a philosophy, its core principle is abstaining from meat. This article defines vegetarianism as not eating meat.
In most cultures, meat-eating is the universal paradigm. Historically, meat has long been a valuable source of nutrition for humans. In ancient societies, consuming meat allowed for the efficient acquisition of key nutrients essential for survival, establishing it as a crucial factor in human development. This background significantly influences the perception of meat consumption as a given even today. However, as modern society has evolved, voices calling for a reevaluation of the traditional value placed on meat consumption have grown louder. Consequently, advocates of vegetarianism inevitably gain persuasiveness by criticizing meat-eating.
Yet, these criticisms are not always systematic. At best, they are diverse; at worst, they are scattered and inconsistent. They range from light concerns like dieting and adult diseases to criticisms of unethical slaughter processes or the act of killing itself, as well as issues related to the environment and poverty. If you asked three vegetarians why they chose a vegetarian diet, they might each give a different answer. For example, one might cite personal health, another might choose vegetarianism for environmental protection, and yet another might adopt it to protect animal rights. Even if Dokdo is undeniably Korean territory, a rational basis must be prepared. Similarly, if vegetarianism is the sole alternative to modern dietary habits, a more systematic logic is required. The well-known arguments for vegetarianism can be broadly divided into three categories: health, ethics, and environment-poverty. We will now examine each of these.
Vegetarianism as a health practice tends to be relatively easy to accept. It is a common belief that Western-style eating habits, which enjoy meat, lead to excessive fat intake. The problems caused by excessive fat intake, especially saturated fat, are also well known. However, objective data does not consistently support this view. For instance, several studies analyzing the specific health risks associated with meat consumption point out that these risks are often limited to particular circumstances and do not apply uniformly to everyone.
Pork is the most commonly consumed meat globally. Per 100g of pork, it contains approximately 4.5g of fat, of which 1.5g is saturated fat. The WHO recommends consuming no more than 87g of total fat and 29g of saturated fat per day. To reach these figures with pork, one would need to consume 2kg per day. For reference, Koreans consume about 42.7kg of meat per year, or roughly 120g per day. These figures are too modest to pin the problem solely on fat and saturated fat in meat. In reality, the problem child of Western diets isn’t BBQ but hamburgers. A single Big Mac, McDonald’s signature menu item, contains 27g of fat and 10g of saturated fat.
Furthermore, one crucial factor often overlooked in health debates is the quality of the meat. For example, there is a significant difference in nutritional value and health impact between beef from grass-fed cattle and meat produced in factory farms. Grass-fed beef contains more omega-3 fatty acids and has higher levels of vitamins A and E. Conversely, meat from factory farms is more likely to involve the use of antibiotics and hormones, potentially affecting health differently.
Of course, it’s obvious that eating too much meat is unhealthy. However, pushing this argument to its extreme might reduce meat consumption, but it won’t make people stop entirely. The problem arises from excessive consumption; it doesn’t provide grounds for complete abstinence. Vegetarians need to find other strategies to build their kingdom.
Ethical concerns have always been vegetarians’ strongest weapon. Indeed, 58% of vegetarians reportedly began their diet to protect animal rights. The quickest path to vegetarianism is witnessing chickens suffering in cramped cages or hearing the screams of pigs being slaughtered. While effective, this approach is admittedly somewhat emotional. To persuade someone, clear rational grounds are essential.
The most fundamental principle is likely respect for life. Respect for life is universal and easily resonates with everyone. Unfortunately, however, broccoli and potatoes are also forms of life. We need to find the reason why animal life, among all life, is precious. Since ancient times, Buddhists have abstained from meat, viewing animals as sattva. This Sanskrit term translates to sentient beings or living beings, while plants and minerals are considered non-sentient. Simply put, animals possess a mind (sentience) similar to humans. This is an explanation easily relatable even to non-Buddhists. Looking into an animal’s eyes, one sometimes feels they possess a mind and thoughts just like oneself.
Yet, as modern citizens who trust science and rational thought, we cannot base our convictions on such vague explanations. So what is mind? Living beings are divided into five kingdoms. What makes animals special, warranting different treatment from the other four kingdoms? Is it memory? Or emotion, thought, consciousness, or sensation? According to Dawkins, evolutionary theory explains ‘memory’ as follows: In simple organisms like jellyfish, sensory organs are directly connected to muscles. This means the jellyfish’s behavior depends solely on external stimuli at this very moment. However, to act with slightly more precise timing, it needs to reference past stimuli, not just react to current ones. Therefore, organisms evolved that could store past stimuli in some way—this is the birth of memory. There is nothing mysterious about it. The same applies to emotions, consciousness, and sensations. Based on these functions evolved for survival, what justification exists for prioritizing animal life?
Let’s step back and assume there is some basis. Suppose, for example, the proposition that animals shouldn’t be killed because they possess memory has been agreed upon. Even so, the problem of ambiguous scope remains. As mentioned earlier, jellyfish or animals lower on the evolutionary ladder lack memory. So, is it acceptable to eat jellyfish? What about ants or mosquitoes, whose brain capacity is only 0.001mL? What about the tendrils of a vine or the mimosa, which retract when touched? Or what about amoebas? Setting aside emotions, it is actually not easy to pinpoint a specific reason why animal rights are special.
Perhaps the alternative can be found in the environmental-poverty problem. A UN report published long ago identified livestock farming as one of the most significant factors causing environmental crises. Livestock farming accounts for 9% of carbon dioxide, 65% of nitrous oxide, and 37% of methane—the three major greenhouse gases. The vast amounts of feed and water used by livestock farms are cited as major contributors to global food and water shortages. For example, it takes approximately 10,000 liters of water to bring a single cow to the dinner table. This is equivalent to the amount of water one person typically uses over several months. Furthermore, the large-scale feed cultivation required by livestock farming is rapidly destroying tropical rainforests, directly contributing to the loss of biodiversity.
Furthermore, it is also linked to the global poverty problem. Research indicates that 70% of the world’s grain production is used as animal feed. If all this grain were used for human consumption instead, it could significantly reduce the number of people suffering from hunger. This suggests that vegetarianism is not merely a personal choice but a matter directly connected to the sustainability of the entire planet.
