I would like to preface this article by stating that I am an omnivore. I enjoy eating meat. I do not believe that meat is murder. My father hunts. He used to take me, but I suck at it. Not really my thing. I believe that meat is a healthy part of a balanced diet ó we’re naturally built to process it. With all this in mind, also know that I fully support the basic idea behind the “Optional Meatless Monday.”
When we think of being environmentally friendly in a positive light, we generally go to energy use first, waste management second and basically stop there. As a culture, we concern ourselves with feeding our machines in an environmentally friendly way, we support the development of electric and hybrid cars, we talk about turning our lights off when we leave rooms, we consider taking shorter showers. Biking, carpooling and using public transportation are sensible environmental considerations. When we remember, we recycle and compost our trash. We talk about planting trees and printing double-sided to save paper. Essentially, all positive environmental concerns are more or less economic concerns given a “green” twist.
As soon as the subject of food comes up, however, many balk at suggestions that maybe we should eat less meat. There is this assumption that if one suggests cutting back on meat that it is for sentimental concerns for animals, some new-age diet or some combination of the two. In our consumerist society, many of us have grown up with a large portion of every meal being some kind of meat. It’s become the central entrÈe for everything ó breakfast has sausage and bacon, at lunch it’s a hot dog or a burger, the center of our sandwich and at dinner it’s steak, chicken or pork. We have grown up with this understanding that if it doesn’t have meat in it, it isn’t a meal. Maybe it’s a snack, but not a meal. The truth of the matter, though, is that this mentality is no more sustainable than everyone driving around in cars that run 10 miles to the gallon.
Optional Meatless Monday is not about being a vegetarian. It is about recognizing our own, personal bodily impact on resource consumption in the same way we might be conscious of how much electricity we use, how much we drive or whether or not we recycle. I’ve heard more than one person respond to the idea of not eating meat for a day with something like “that’s dumb, I’m just going to eat twice as much meat.”
The ignorance of this response sickens me, and I’d like to ask anyone who responded that way if they’d go out of their way to throw recyclables into the garbage, leave their car running all day or leave the lights on to just annoy all those “environmentalist hippies,” because it’s essentially the same thing. It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face. Even though it’s not as immediate, the production of meat has as much of a practical economic effect as every other environmental concern, so it’s no different from greater consumption of the other forms of energy it’s socially acceptable to conserve.
I’ll admit, I ate meat on Monday, because let’s face it, sometimes Lowry’s selection doesn’t always lend itself to a meatless meal. Still, I do go for a vegetarian option when† the opportunity presents itself. We’ve concerned ourselves with the conservation of energy for our machines, why not give the same considerations to the energy we need as human beings? Our most basic connection to the environment is our need for food, and it’s worth considering how we might conserve this energy. Even though it’s hard to go meatless in our cafeteria setting, if fewer people gave in to the dozens of types of chicken that Lowry seems to have an obsession with, it just might make a difference.
Marten Dollinger is an A&E edtior for the Voice. He can be reached for comment at MDollinger10@wooster.edu.