Deutsche Welle (English edition)
The meat paradox: Why we eat animals even though we don't want to
The global appetite for meat is still growing, despite what we know about animal suffering and the environmental cost of eating them. Most people don't want to kill or torture — not even animals. So why do they eat meat?
The sheep is wriggling about. Kai will need to use the bolt gun a few times. He hesitates. I wonder if he'll back out after all. But then he takes a deep breath and pulls the trigger. The six-monthold sheep immediately collapses. But the bolt shot alone does not kill it. Kai has to cut the animal's throat. The butcher steps in to help him do it faster.
The average person in Germany eats almost 60 kilograms (132 pounds) of meat per year. In the US and Australia, the figure is more than 100 kilograms. Very few people slaughter the animals and prepare the meat themselves; instead, they buy it ready-made from the supermarket or the butcher. This makes it easy for consumers to forget that the steak, lamb shoulder and chicken thighs on their dinner plates were once part of a living creature.
Decoupling meat from the living being it once was helps people escape the dilemma of the "meat paradox": the psychological conflict between people's dietary preference for meat and their moral opposition to animal suffering and death.
Kai, standing in a pool of blood, can't escape anything right now, though. The sheep has finally stopped twitching and lies lifeless at his feet. He's fighting back tears, trying to comprehend what just happened. "I killed an animal," he says.
The environmental cost
Kai is a colleague of mine. He slaughtered the sheep as part of an episode of DW's YouTube series, "Planet A," which tackles environmental issues such as recycling, food waste and the plastic industry.
If you want to talk about environmental damage and climate change, you can't avoid the topic of meat consumption. According to the Meat Atlas 2021, published by the GreenParty-supported Heinrich Böll Foundation, Germany's Ministry for Environment and Wildlife Protection and the international monthly newspaper Le Monde diplomatique, 70% of global agricultural land is used for livestock farming.
Feedstuffs are grown on 40% of this land — primarily soy. As the appetite for meat is increasing, and with it the need for feed and pasture for the animals, forests and grasslands are having to give way. CO2-absorbing plants and biodiversity are disappearing with them.
To produce one kilo of beef, it takes around 15,000 liters (3,962 gallons) of water. Industrial factory farming, which consumes a particularly large amount of water, results in dried-up rivers and wetlands, sinking groundwater levels and salinated soils.
And that's not all. The overuse of antibiotics in livestock results in multiresistant germs. And the destruction of ecosystems to accommodate for largescale meat consumption, as well as the farming of these animals, increases the chances of viruses crossing over from animals to humans.
A contradictory existence
Kai knows all this — that's why he is filming this episode.
What he's also always known is that the animals on his plate didn't go to sleep peacefully and never wake up, nor were they cuddled to death. Kai likes to eat meat anyway, albeit with a tinge a guilt. He's not alone in feeling like this.
Quite the contrary.
I put a call out to get an idea of how widespread the meat paradox is among people from diverse backgrounds. With the help of my colleagues from the various language editorial departments at Deutsche Welle, I collected comments from people with European, African and Middle Eastern backgrounds.
Not all of the participants revealed their exact country of origin, so I have listed the name of the editorial office from which the following messages were sent.
"I feel sorry for the animals and I love them very much, but I still eat meat. Both are incompatible ideas. This world is full of lies and contradictions." (Africa desk)
"I love meat very much, but I feel very sorry for the animals being hurt or killed." (Africa desk)
"No matter how hard a heart can be, seeing an animal in its blood is not easy to bear. I still eat meat."( Charles, Africa desk)
Benjamin Buttlar is a social psychologist at the University of Trier, where he researches the meat paradox. He believes the basic moral principle of not wanting to kill or inflict suffering applies to all people, regardless of their cultural background.
The difference between dogs and pigs
Research from biologists such as Donald Broom or neuroscientist Lori Marino describe pigs as highly social, intelligent and compassionate creatures. Despite this, pigs have ended up in the category of "farm animal" and are — right after poultry — the most commonly consumed animal worldwide.
Distinguishing between farm animals and pets is one strategy people use to resolve the meat paradox for themselves. When some animals are seen as lesser than others, it is easier to justify killing and eating them.
Psychologist and publicist Melanie Joy calls this distinction "dichotomizing." It goes hand in hand with the fact that meat eaters deny farm animals their individuality — that which we would never deny our pets, says Buttlar.
The four Ns
"There are also very specific rationalization strategies that we can use to abdicate responsibility," Buttlar told DW. The psychologist speaks of the three Ns of meat consumption: normal, necessary, and natural.
"I eat meat. As a child, it was normal anyway. My grandma and mom always cooked very traditional Kölsch and Rhineland food. That includes blood sausage, sauerbraten, rouladen, etc. My dad always said