Why we do not eat dogs (schizophrenia of habit)

All humans like animals, only they caress the one, while they the others in the pan. How can it be that one is the best friend of human beings, but the others are best served for steaks.[irp]

An explanation attempt:
Food .. Like a mixture of beef and game taste it, mean the one. Rather like greasy pork, say the others. Maybe like a mixture of bunny and chicken, the one think. Slightly sweet, say the others. The talk is of dog meat. Cooked, grilled, smoked. Are you short now? Have you disgusted? I can soothe you: in Germany the consumption of Labradorsteak or pudel goulash is just as forbidden as the enjoyment of cat carrots. In Switzerland, however, you might be there if you wanted. , , They do not want? For nothing in the world? Are you vegetarian, vegan? No? Why would not you eat a dog?

We love our pets – why not cows and pigs?dogs health

We love our pets. We are thinking about their health, education, training or entertainment. We spoil them with acupuncture and aromatherapy, introduce them to organic food and look for instructions for cat massages on the Internet. We also love pigs, cattle and chickens, we like them to eat: According to the Federal Statistical Office, 58.6 million pigs, 3.5 million cattle and 613 million chickens were slaughtered in Germany in 2013. But what distinguishes these animals from the 22 million dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hamsters and budgies living in German households? Why do we fondle barking and meowing quadrupeds, while we prefer their grunting or weary relatives to be dead, decomposed, and welded?

“Pets are individualized by us, perceived as a subject – and a family member or a friend is not eaten,” says the sociologist Julia Gutjahr, who is studying a new research discipline at the University of Hamburg: Human Animal Studies. This interdisciplinary science examines the relationship between humans and animals, for example, in sociological, psychological and cultural sciences. And it comes to the conclusion: “Private violence in animals is scandalized and legally sanctioned,” says Julia Gutjahr, “institutional violence can be carried out largely without question”.
This means: Whoever deliberately kicks the neighbor’s cat must be prepared for an advertisement because of animal cruelty and damage to property – and possibly takes the rage of the entire habitation. Anyone who kills thousands of chickens daily in slaughterhouses is law-abiding and, apart from a few militant vegetarians, will not raise anyone against him.

How can they do that?

Another illustrative example of this thesis comes from Switzerland: there were reports of farmers who did not hide the fact that they liked to eat dog meat. The topic was medialed out, the mood was high. We also condemn these dog-eaters as reflexive: How can they do such a thing? The dog is the best friend of man! That may be true – but who says a pig would not be as good a friend if we let it?
“Pigs are highly intelligent and social animals,” says the animal psychologist Doris Gräwe, who prefers to call herself “behavioral consultant for humans with animals”, because: “animal psychologist – that has such a touch”. In her work, she sees daily traumatized and stressed animals and is of the opinion that “nothing separates them from our senses”. Even dogs and cats could mourn, even show signs of depression, the same applies to the so-called “farm animals”, which would “mentally stun” in massaging. Nevertheless, we may and should only eat one and the other not.
Apart from legal standardization: Who actually decided that it is morally justifiable to fry a veal fillet, and perverse to grill a parrot wing? “There are different explanatory models for foodstuffs,” says Julia Gutjahr. “One approach is that animals that are particularly similar to or similar to humans are not eaten”. This would explain why we do not eat monkeys and butterflies. But where do we assign the dogs and pigs who, due to their similar cognitive abilities, actually belong to the same category?

The worldwide “flesh-eating” differs only slightly

“Another explanation is that taboos have a function for the social order,” says Julia Gutjahr, “they serve the demarcation of other population groups.” This may have been the case once, but nowadays the world population differs in its globalized “fleshly lust” only through nuances, which are rather religiously motivated. Chicken is classified as edible almost everywhere.
If we want the bollen too much: While some animals land on the plate of course, we would at most touch others to stroke them.
If we want the bollen too much: While some animals land on the plate of course, we would at most touch others to stroke them.

The third approach is the most pragmatic: “certain animals were to be kept good in certain areas.” But this explanation, too, can justify the emergence, but not the maintenance of our categories, edible / not edible. So, at least nowadays, there is no longer a reasonable argument that we can stroke one and eat the other.
If it is clear that not only parrots, but also chickens with no companions are lonely, that they have a good memory according to studies, can recognize up to 30 of their peers and get together With about 20 different sounds, the picture with the crispy chicken leg does not really agree.

Animals are slaughtered

dogs

That is why we like to bend different mechanisms, which prevent us from thinking about the pleasure of meatballs to peaceful grassy cows and merrily squealing pigs. On the one hand, our socialization would be: Whoever renounces meat in our cultural circle must establish this on a regular basis, but whoever eats meat is part of the mainstream. Most of us have been formally raised with ham sandwiches. That the ham was a pig? Well.
On the other hand, the spatial separation of living creatures and foodstuffs has the effect: hardly anyone has any contact with the animals from which our food is made. And their transformation into sausage, fillet or hack takes place where we can get as little as possible of it. The product, which we ultimately buy in the supermarket, is usually no longer seen. “Animals are reaped, the violence is released,” says Julia Gutjahr. Out of sight, out of mind.

Collective displacement

An important role in collective repression also plays our vocabulary. For it seems questionable whether 85% of Germans would still eat sausage or meat almost every day if the “sausage and shredded young pig in their own intestine” and the steak pack “muscle from the cow’s neck” would be on the bratwurstpackung.
For the social psychologist Melanie Joy, the interplay of these mechanisms, which so successfully paralyze our empathy, is comparable to an ideology which she calls “carnism”. The art word is composed of “carn”, ie meat, and the ending “-ism”, which stands for a conviction system. Whether to consume meat is usually not a conscious, individual decision, but a deeply internalized, collective agreement.

Average man eat 1094 animals in life

dogs health

In the course of a lifetime, each of us feeds on average 1094 whole animals – as can be seen in the “Fleischatlas 2013” of the Heinrich Böll Foundation. So that we can consume this mass, highly effective breeding, fattening, killing and processing processes have been developed. An example: At about 13 months, a cattle is “slaughtered”. Of the certainly not pleasant transport to the butcher apart from it is actually not suffer. The Animal Protection Decree provides for an animal to be “quickly and without pain or suffering in a condition of sensation and perplexity which is still present until death” before slaughter.
This is done with the cattle, in which a steel bolt is driven through the cranium by means of a bolt gun. Ideally, the bolt crushes the brain and thus actually turns off the perceptibility. The beef is then slit open and killed with a “bleeding cut”. Afterwards, the head and feet are separated, then skinned, gutted, cooled and dissected. According to various investigations, the error rate of anesthesia is four to nine percent, which means: A few hundred thousand cattle suffer torment which even the most confident meat eater will not wish them.
After anesthesia, pigs are dipped into a bath, so that a machine can better peel skin and bristles. Sometimes they are still conscious during the procedure.
You do not want to know? You can not worry about everything? Yes, the dog is buried.

We consider meat consumption to be normal

The human being opposes violence against fellow creatures, writes Melanie Joy in her book “Why we love dogs, eat pigs and cows”. “Our values ​​do not coincide with our behavior, and this discrepancy gives us a certain moral discomfort”. Our strategy in dealing with this daily conflict: “see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing”.
Because we want to eat meat, we have to repress where it comes from and how it comes about. For it is not only the few hundred thousand cattle who are suffering from anesthesia. Already the conditions of attitude are anything but animal-friendly, as well as practices, such as the deafening dehumidification and castration in cattle or the beak shortening in chickens.
So if the production of meat is so disgusting to us as to spoil your appetite, why do not we remove this morally reprehensible product from our diet and relieve our conscience? Because we regard meat consumption as “normal, natural and necessary”, says Melanie Joy.

The myth of biological necessity

The biological necessity is a myth that can easily be debated: Scientists assume that we have developed into a carnivore only in the course of evolution – our ancestors got along well with fruits and grains. The amino acids contained in the meat can be used very easily, but this also applies to other foodstuffs such as, for example, pod fruits.
In the long term, vegetarians are said to be even healthier than meat-eaters. In studies, they have found better blood values ​​and less cancer. The researchers remained cautious and saw the results as relative to the fact that many vegetarians as a whole lived a healthier lifestyle than non-vegetarians. However, with processed meat products such as sausage or ham, a definite negative effect on health can be established: the risk of diabetes and heart disease increases with consumption.

We just want to love some animal species.

dogs eat

But since we are omnivorous if we are told what is bad for us, and much more inconsequential, if it is not for us, but for a few million mastards, there really is no reason to believe that there is ever something in this structure Change. Julia Gutjahr is nevertheless optimistic: “There is a fundamental change in the human-animal relationship – this is more than a trend”.

Research wants to help out of the ethical impasse

The choice of different food is as big as never, everything is almost always available. Unlike our carnivorous ancestors, we can afford to choose our food consciously, according to taste, but also according to moral criteria. And even those who do not want to be able to do without meat may have the possibility to maintain their eating habits in a few years without animals having to die. At the University of Maastricht, biomedist Mark Post is researching the production of artificial meat, bred from stem cells ,
The procedure is still untarnished and expensive: 300,000 euros were the first burgers produced this way, which the scientist presented to the public last summer. Did he at least taste the price, the “In-Vitro Burger”? He came “close to meat approach”, but was “not quite so juicy” were the Testesser. A blemish which may also occur in real flesh.
In ten to 20 years, his product could be market-ready, says Mark Post. It remains to be seen whether consumer power gives him a chance at all. On the Internet, many consumers argued with their desire for “natural food” against the “retort”. How natural the meat is from highly cultured turbo-slaughtered dead animals, the naturalness fans did not ask themselves. Headache it tastes of pig or chicken or beef – and does not contain a dog.



Related Posts:[irp][irp][irp]

News Reporter

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: