Meat Me

I am a teacher. I love learning and then compiling the information I’ve learned into a format that is digestible and usable by other people such that they don’t have to go through the same efforts I did to acquire the information. Teaching is my way of helping people. It is a way I experience the fullness of life.

Being a teacher means I assume I know better than most people. Sort of. I know enough to know it is highly unlikely that there is some sort of special inherent difference between myself and others. In fact, after years of careful study, analysis, observation, and deliberation, I’ve come to believe that humans are broken into a number of moral categories. In my recent quest to develop non-judgmental labels for people in order to better facilitate learning, I’ve yet to come up with proper terms for these categories outside of a numerical system.

The first category involves a small percentage of the current human population. These people have a yet to be explained and seemingly natural proclivity for knowledge and behavior in a specific area or areas of life that benefit humanity. This knowledge and behavior are potentially independent of environmental and genetic factors. In basic judgmental language: there are people who are inherently good in at least one aspect of life. I have met with and interviewed a number of these people. Through historical accounts and anecdotes, I am confident that such people have existed through time.

One thing that is quite clear is that I have yet to encounter a single person who is entirely inherently good and incorruptible. This category of person is still able to fall victim to false information, poor states of mind, and other natural faults of a life in society. They can be racist, sexist, classist, and any other kind of “-ist” not to mention transphobic and homophobic. Some of them may even faulter and become a proponent of harm instead of a force for good. This is why I specify that their area of knowledge for the benefit of humanity is specific and limited, and why I no longer use the label of “inherently good person” and prefer the more accurate description of Category 1 Person.

The second category involves a larger percentage of people than category 1. In basic judgmental language they can be described as good-leaning neutral people. They lack the mysterious natural knowledge of what can benefit humanity that Category 1 People have, but Category 2 People are seemingly drawn to find such behaviors. When provided accurate and true information, Category 2 People are the best at latching onto the information and applying it to their lives even if they do not fully comprehend the implications of the information they’ve received.

The third category involves the largest population of humans. I estimate, using no true statistical method, that 70-80% of the human population falls into category 3. This category of person could be described as truly neutral. They are people who may or may not have a desire for morality in their lives. What is certain is that they want happiness, love, safety, comfort, and other apparently natural desires of the animal, and definitely human, spirit. They are willing to abide by the dictates of other people. Category 3 People are able to tell when a moral failing is occurring through the method of realizing their needs are not being met, but they may not always be able to act on this knowledge or even know how to act on the knowledge.

The fourth category of person is still partially theoretical. They account for a population smaller than Category 2 People but larger than Category 1 People. This type of person appears to have a proclivity for knowledge and behavior that leads to the detriment of humanity. Unlike Category 1 People, this knowledge and behavior does not appear to always be independent of environmental and genetic factors. It is possible that, while Category 4 People have an inherent draw to destructive behaviors, their inclinations and energies could be harnessed for at least a neutral effect on humanity.

What does this have to do with eating a juicy steak?

Let’s start by looking at the steak. I envision a bone-in ribeye sitting on a plate on a small table with a steak knife and a fork to the side of the plate. There’s a single chair pulled out from the small table and a napkin neatly folded under the eating utensils. The steak has a brown and black crust with golden oil mixed with the natural juices of the meat covering the outside and spilling onto the plate. The steak is cooked perfectly to medium well. You can tell just by looking at it that the steak will cut easily and become a tender morsel in your mouth. The flavors of the different spices mixed with the fat and meat will coat your tongue all before you swallow it into your belly where your stomach acid will break the steak down into protein, fat, calories, and other micronutrients to fuel and nourish your body.

Before there was this delectable steak on your plate, cow #473 lived in a small pen somewhere over 500 miles from civilization. Cow #473 had just enough ability to shuffle from side to side amongst its own shit inside its pen. Cow #473 was fed a diet of corn, dried corn, sweet corn, and corn juice alongside a regular course of antibiotics and other medicines because of its regular and chronic health complications. When it was fat enough, cow #473 was taken to a butcher shop where it was slaughtered, had its blood drained from its body, disemboweled, and then systematically chopped into several pieces that we call “cuts of meat” before those cuts were vacuum sealed into packages. You will notice that I did not mention cow #473 being cleaned during any of this process. One of those vacuum-sealed packages made its way to a cooking station where the meat was marinated and grilled to perfection before being served on your plate.

Despite the best efforts of many humanitarian organizations and the publication of the processes of cow farming, most people are blissfully unaware of how exactly they receive delicious steaks and burgers when they go to the restaurant. This is thanks to consistent lobbying efforts from the beef industry to advertise and distract the general public away from the disgusting and amoral practices they utilize to create and deliver their product.

What is far more interesting is that there are plenty of avid meat eaters who are distinctly and acutely aware of the process that delivers them their favorite foods. Even though most people are unaware of the extent of factory farming practices, they are definitely aware that something died in order for them to eat it. This fact does not bother people, yet the idea of animal suffering is a huge proponent in the debate of why meat eating needs to stop.

I am a person who is not only aware that something had to die for me to eat it but also aware of the terrible and amoral farming practices in most of the modern world. And I’m going to sit down and eat that delicious ribeye from a few paragraphs ago. Doing so means I am essentially committing sin for I have become a part of the atrocities of the modern factory farming system. I am using my actions to communicate to big businesses that what they’re doing is not only okay but desired.

Making Things Simpler

A person walks up to you and hands you a sword. While the sword is in your hand, and before you can comprehend what is happening, the person impales themselves on the sword and dies. Did you kill them? Obviously not, but there is a question of morality. Are you responsible for their death? You did take the sword from their hands without inquiring about their intentions. You did hold the sword which allowed them to impale themselves. You also failed to stop them from impaling themselves and failed to save them from their injuries. One could make the argument that you definitely facilitated their death.

And we would all laugh in that person’s face because we all know that we’re not responsible for another person’s actions.

There is another person though. You spend most of your interactions with this person pointing out their flaws and weaknesses. You create names for them that they have expressed to you makes them uncomfortable. On some occasions, you may have even become physically violent with this person. There is no doubt that you are bullying this person by every definition of the word. One day, the police arrive at your home and present you with a letter. In this letter, the person you’ve been bullying states that you and your actions against them are the sole reason they have decided to kill themselves (weirdly enough by getting a stranger to hold a sword such that they can impale themselves).

Did you kill this person? Obviously not, but there is a question of morality. Are you responsible for their death? You are stated as the sole motivating factor for the dead person’s actions. You took an active, however unintentional, role in antagonizing the person despite their pleas. Based on the hypothetical scenario, there is no doubt that you were a bully. One could make the argument that you definitely facilitated their death.

This time, there would be an actual debate. We are far less certain about the morality of clear, conscious actions that result in unintended consequences because of other people’s actions. Yet, we are essentially arguing that sometimes we are responsible for the actions of others. This moral debate instantly creates confusion in terms of how to proceed with any of our volition. Anything we do may become the direct cause of unintended negative impact on any number of people. We’re not even sure if it would be possible to act morally without intensive study and research. I’ll save you the time and energy. I am a teacher after all.

The solution is to withdraw from society completely.

If we are potentially responsible for the actions of others because of our choices and behavior, then it is impossible to interact with society in a moral way. Even our inaction within society can become the cause for society’s continuance in amoral and destructive behaviors. You must completely withdraw from society to be able to exist morally according to the principle that we might be responsible for the actions of others. I prefer the alternative idea that we are never responsible for the actions of others.

If there was no meat in grocery stores, where would you get your meat? Probably nowhere. Because very few of us have any idea how to hunt and process meat for consumption. We are the true product of generations of farming practices: incapable consumers. We can consume only what they provide, and yet we are told that we are somehow responsible for their provisions because we consume them.

I say no. I say that the only reason I ate that delicious, juicy steak is because it was on my plate. It was only on my plate because someone cooked it. Someone only cooked it because they bought it. And someone only bought it because a factory produced it. I cannot be responsible for the suffering of cow #473 because I wasn’t even holding the sword. I was the mortician who buried the body. I was definitely a benefactor of death, but I was in no way the cause.

Then I learned about the poison.

Almost a century ago, American farming businesses used a number of chemicals to deter pests from their crops. Those same crops absorbed the chemicals into their bodies and were eventually harvested and fed to a number of animals. The vast majority of those chemical-laden crops went to animals who were eventually killed and processed into meat.

About fifty years ago, scientists realized that the chemicals American farming businesses were using were incredibly toxic and should never be devoured. Thankfully, they stopped using them. Unfortunately, those chemicals take so long to dissipate that they’re still definitely in the soil we use to grow crops. Plus, they can also be passed down from generation to generation through consumption, breeding, and breast milk. They are most easily passed down through animal products.

It gets even better. While there are trace amounts of these toxins in pretty much all food in America at this point, it is most highly concentrated in animal fat. The way animal bodies work is our fat is our general storage center for most nutrients we consume. Our bodies are pretty stupid, so they store toxins in the same place as nutrients. Which means when we burn that fat off for energy, the chemicals stored in the fat get released into our bodies. Since our bodies can’t always eliminate toxins, it’s possible that we are regularly dosing ourselves with these toxins day after day because of a cow our great-grandfathers ate.

Not only that, but the cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, rabbits, sheep, and all the other future meat in our factory farms are also still eating and passing along modern toxins that are still bad for us to be eating. They get stored in that delicious, juicy fat and circulate through our blood long after we’re done eating.

So why do I still want to eat that delicious steak?

I’m told that it cannot be as simple as “because I just want to eat tasty things.” Maybe that is something to be explored. From an evolutionary perspective, the theory makes sense that humans evolved to crave and desire things with higher levels of fat, protein, carbs, and calories. While meat doesn’t provide any carbohydrates, it does a fantastic job at providing 3 of the 4 key features of desirable food. Salt and sugar are two other flavor signals for things that would be hard to find for our evolutionary ancestors.

Fruit has a bundle of antioxidants, micronutrients, and fiber; all things a healthy body needs. Unfortunately, it’s not so easy to taste antioxidants or fiber, so the best way to know you’re eating fruit is to taste sugar. The ancestors with the strongest reaction to the sweet receptors likely ate more fruit, were healthier, and were therefore more likely to pass on their sweet tooths. Likewise, our bodies use electrolytes (salt) to run neural processes and other vital bodily functions. The ancestors who were the best at finding electrolytes in their food passed on their genes, so we ended up with salt cravings. Our bodies are just so dumb that they can’t tell the difference between hard candy and apples or the difference between the sodium naturally found in plants and the sodium unnaturally added to a french fry. That’s the theory.

Following these ideas, juicy meat (fat, protein, calories) covered in seasoning (salt) and BBQ sauce (sugar, more salt) surrounded by a buttered bun (more fat, more calories, carbohydrates) and served with salty fried potato sticks (fat, carbs, salt, sugar, calories) is the most delicious food offering we have. Our brains should practically become overloaded with positivity and joy at finding such a miraculous food. And they do! The pleasure center of our brains literally lights up just from the sight of a delicious hamburger and fries combo meal. There’s only one problem.

Our brains are so dumb that evolution was smart enough to make sure they kept track of what we do. The same mechanism that makes it infinitely harder to grow muscle from doing the same workout is why it would take infinitely more of the same food to satisfy your brain. This progressive overload of stimulus to provide positive chemical signals in the brain has a name: addiction.

Most people stop at that word. They may get hit with a wave of realization or shame. That’s where I stop time and time again when I consider this meat dilemma. A poisonous substance that slowly kills me upon regular consumption and requires more consumption to enjoy the same mental and emotional rewards while providing an increase in physical detriments without further increase in physical benefits. Meat is a drug. They turned meat into a drug; just like alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and opioids. We live in a world where meat is a harmful substance.

And I still want to eat that delicious, juicy steak.

“Because it’s not my fault!” I cry out to nobody. Because I didn’t ask them to fill our food with poison a century ago. Because I didn’t ask them to make meat the number 1 food in America. Because I didn’t ask for restaurants to line every street. Because I didn’t ask for a country so miserable that I needed drugs to take the edge off. “Can I really be addicted to meat?” I asked myself.

I’m a teacher, which makes me a researcher, so I looked.

The answer was a resounding yes. If the author was a vegan or vegetarian. The answer was a resounding no if the author was a vehement omnivore or carnivore. The answer was a resounding “meh” if the author was anything else. This means we have no clue if “addiction to meat” is something that’s real.

Which Brings Us to Buddhism.

The story goes that a wealthy prince, Siddhartha, sought enlightenment after discovering that pain and suffering existed in the world at the ripe age of 20-something. He snuck out of the palace and traveled India for weeks living in total poverty and denial in an effort to discover how to circumvent the suffering. Near death, he accepted a bowl of rice from a young girl and realized that denial was not the path towards enlightenment. He sat beneath a tree all night battling the demon, Mara. When the sun dawned, the young former prince was now the Buddha.

The truth of enlightenment is all contained within this one story. Everything else is simply an explanation for different people in different times. But it all leads to the one story. Sidd (as I like to call him) thought the world was perfectly fine because his entire world was inside the palace walls. However, this all changed when he learned that there was starvation, old age, and death in the world when he left those palace walls on one fateful day. As a Category 2 Person, Sidd couldn’t let this knowledge rest inside of him. He needed to fix the suffering. He was drawn to make the world better.

Through all his travels and experiences, he only found death and pain in the life of denial. After eating rice given to him by a little girl, he realized there was a balance to be had between suffering and succulence. Notice though that he did not return to exploring the world. He sat down and went inside of himself. This is where he fought Mara.

Mara is an interesting figure in mythology. Mara is an evil demon, but we aren’t all in agreement of what kind of evil demon he is. The story goes that the battle between Sidd and Mara was not one of might but of willpower. It is possible that Mara sought to tempt Sidd away from the Truth of Enlightenment by promising to give Sidd beautiful wives, plentiful lands, and great riches. It’s possible Mara is both a real entity and a metaphor for temptation, craving, lust, and indulgence. It’s possible that Mara is the manifestation of destruction while enlightenment is the epitome of creation.

I think the answer is simple. It is irrelevant to the story if Mara is real or metaphorical. The story tells us that Sidd fought a battle inside of himself to discover the path to take. This battle was one of great psychology and morality, but it did not involve anybody but Sidd and his own personal desires and cravings. In overcoming those cravings, Sidd reached enlightenment.

Sometimes he sat beneath the tree. Sometimes he stood. Sometimes he fasted. Sometimes he took shelter from rain. Sometimes he walked. Sometimes he wasn’t even near the tree. Eventually, he decided to go tell other people about what he figured out. Sometimes he would teach and educate in an effort to improve the future. Sometimes he would just enjoy what was happening in the moment. Enlightenment is the essence of sometimes. Sidd lived a life of abundance and a life of denial and only reached enlightenment in a life of balance.

One day, he ate some tainted food and died.

I wish I was making this up. But no, the Buddha died from eating accidentally poisoned food.

And that’s why I’m going to eat that delicious steak.

Sometimes.