Let Them Eat
Meat – in defence of a premature death
Siobhan O’Sullivan
Clare McCausland
Around half of all adults aged over 85 will develop Alzheimer’s
disease. For victims, their final years will be characterised by frustration, anxiety
and fear. Alzheimer’s cannot be cured and patients’ suffering is shared by
carers, especially children who much watch as once vigorous parents descend
into a child-like fog of confusion and helplessness.
Who wants to get old?
A survey run by the MetLife Foundation in February 2011
found that 31 percent of Americans fear Alzheimer’s more than any other disease.
That compares to 8 percent who said that their greatest fear is heart attack or
stroke.
Is it any wonder that some people choose to reject the
longevity paradigm? Why not let them eat meat? It tastes delicious and it’s
closely linked to a premature death. It has fewer externalities than smoking
and much greater social acceptance. Eating meat is clearly the logical choice for
those with an aversion to nursing homes or dementia wards.
A study by the Harvard School of Business Health followed
more than 100,000 men and women for 20 years. It found that eating red meat is linked
to high mortality and premature death. This confirms a raft of earlier studies warning
of the significantly increased risk to meat-abstainers of reaching old age.
A few objections to the eat-meat-to-fight-longevity
proposal can be anticipated. First, it might be claimed that animals should not
be made to suffer in order to ward off the ravages of aging. While that is a
reasonable objection, the Harvard study demonstrates that only very small
amounts of red meat are required for a premature death. Limiting red meat to 12
serves a year is still fatal, but would remove the need to factory farm. If we
limit the eat-meat-to-die-young principle to people in the developed world
(those most at risk of old age) we would only need to raise and slaughter around
21 million cows per year. On that small scale it would be entirely possible to
offer every single animal an optimal life and a painless death. If death itself
is not necessarily harmful to animals, and factory farming is the most
objectionable facet of animal production, raising small numbers of animals for
the benefit of those who do not wish to live into old age is the perfect
solution.
Another possible objection is the disease caused by meat
eating; while it is likely to result in premature death, it will also make some
people ill, resulting in a considerable health care burden. While this is a
reasonable observation, the costs associated with an aging baby-boomer
population are in fact far greater.
Finally, it might be argued that allowing the consumption
of meat is environmentally irresponsible because of the excessive water use,
methane and waste. Consistent with the scale observation already made, red meat
consumption for those who enjoy the taste and wish to avoid old age need only
be small scale, radically reducing the environmental footprint.
Eating meat isn’t harmless, but that’s one of its
appeals. Enforced vegetarianism unduly
restricts our freedom to eat meat and die young, sentencing many people to the
worst death they can imagine or driving them to socially harmful practices like
suicide or smoking. Whether you like your ethics to protect individual choice,
human and nonhuman welfare, or the environment, a small but therapeutic meat
industry ticks all the boxes. Meat
tastes great and it avoids the trauma associated with much feared diseases of
old age such as Alzheimer’s. Therefore, why wouldn’t you let people eat meat?
A big congratulations to the authors who were successful. A short-list of 6 essays is available on the New York Times website. You now have until Midnight on April 24th (US time) to cast your vote for the best essay. Get voting!!!
