\nOur\npoliticised age is one of black and white thinking, deeply felt\ntribals loyalties, and hunting traitors who denounce the faith. As\nwith previous eras of sectarian strife, there is a fixation on purity\nof actions, speech, and even conscience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This does not sound like something that can be solved by taking inspiration from a faddish diet with a cumbersome portmanteau name. But flexitarianism may be the model we need to pursue moral progress sustainably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nFor\nthe uninitiated, a flexitarian can be described as a part-time\nvegetarian or vegan \u2013 or perhaps a part-time meat or animal product\neater.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe\naim is usually to reduce meat consumption, for instance by having\nregular meat free days. It could be compared to diets that have\n\u201ccheat days\u201d, where general rules are broken every so often. A\nsimilar concept with an equally clunky name is \u201creducetaranism\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nMotives\nfor going flexitarian are as mixed as those for going vegetarian or\nvegan. Some do it for the health benefits linked to eating less meat,\nwhich include a lower risk of some cancers and heart disease.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nOthers\nabstain because of the environmental damage from producing meat.\nJoseph Poore, an Oxford University researcher who published a paper\nin May 2018 on the impact of animal farming, said\nat the time<\/a>:\n\u201cA vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your\nimpact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global\nacidification, eutrophication, land use and water use.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nBut\nthe starkest reason for not eating animals is that farming them for\nmeat or other products is itself immoral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nThe\ncruelty of the huge industry that produces animal products is well\nknown, even by those who continue to eat meat. The global meat sector\nwas valued at US$945.7 billion in 2018, according\nto Research & Markets<\/a>,\nto take one estimate that excludes eggs and dairy production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nTo\nmake this money, animals are kept in cramped and unpleasant\nconditions, their social and psychological needs ignored. Frequently\nthey are bred and fed to maximise their usefulness to humans. Some\nstudies claim that chickens have quadrupled\nin size over the last 60 years<\/a>,\nwith modern chickens sometimes struggling to support their own weight\non their spindly legs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nAt\nthe end of a brief, painful life these animals are slaughtered,\neither for the flesh on their bodies, or because they\u2019ve outrun\ntheir usefulness as producers of milk, eggs or whatever else.\nComparisons with human slavery are obvious, and hard to dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nThe\nphilosopher Peter Singer probably overstates it in his 1975 book\nAnimal\nLiberation<\/em>\nwhen\nhe says that turning vegetarian \u201cis a highly practical and\neffective step one can take toward ending both the killing of\nnonhuman animals and the infliction of suffering upon them.\u201d One\nperson refusing to buy meat or other animal products will have a\nnegligible impact on how much the industry produces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nBut\na vegetarian or vegan\u2019s refusal to financially support the animal\nindustry, depriving farmers of the incentive to continue, is a\npositive moral stance given the suffering involved in producing\nanimal products. Refusing to partake in an immoral activity is good\neven if it continues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nIf\nyou take it as read that the industry for producing animals products\nis hideously cruel, on its face flexitarianism and even vegetarianism\nare ethically ridiculous. It is akin to a pledge to commit a bit less\nmurder \u2013 and many advocates of veganism would say eating meat or\nanimal products is an endorsement of animal murder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nVariations\nof being flexitarian, for instance choosing to eat fish rather than\nmeat, are also inconsistent, or at least dubious. Why is the life of\na codfish worth less than that of a pig? The blogger behind Fat Gay\nVegan has even argued that \u201cthe dairy and egg industries are\nresponsible\nfor much more harm and suffering<\/a>\nthan\nraising and killing animals solely for meat.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nHowever,\nfollowing a flexitarian diet is a compromise between our higher moral\naspirations and our squalid origins. It is also a reflection of the\nfact \u2013 to quote a meme \u2013 we live in a society. And it could be a\nmodel for moral progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Animal products are embedded in human culture, economies, and much else besides. Even if humans all decided to stop eating animals and their products, and to stop using animals products in clothing and other items, the change would be hard to make overnight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nIndeed,\nif it was done overnight it would likely require one final slaughter\nof animals once destined for human use, who are now an economic\nliability for their farmers. Or perhaps they would be turned loose on\nlocal ecosystems, creating another kind of carnage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nAll\nof this is hypothetical and unlikely, but veganism is gradually\nrising, at least in the UK. Mainstream restaurants like Pizza\nExpress, Wagamama\u2019s and Wahaca\u2019s now offer vegan menus, and\nplant-based restaurants are popping up in urban areas. Beers like\nGuinness once made with fish bladders have even gone vegan of late.\nIn short, it is much more convenient to be vegan in the UK than even\nfive years ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\nGoing\nwithout turkey<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\nCutting\nback<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n