Humans have been consuming meat for centuries. It has been a staple in various diets and has evolved to be an essential element to a healthy diet. Meat has allowed humans to revolutionize the way others may perceive the world. The act of consuming such products has been proclaimed as a focal point among many cultures and religions across the globe. However, in recent years people have been condemning the usage of animal products, especially the practice of consuming animals.

These groups of people are generally recognized as animal conservation advocates, which are typically wildlife/animal conservationists, vegans and vegetarians. While actively striving for ending animal consumption and/or cruelty through various means, it’s most clearly seen by way of their unique diet, which typically excludes meat. However, there is no correlation to the human-animal relationship in the particularly complex omnivorous diet.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

There is an undeniably complex relationship between humans and the food consumed within the omnivore diet. Omnivores typically eat foods that range from meat, like beef or poultry, to vegetables and fruits. This diet constantly creates moral disruptions that often clash, which are then repressed to suit their palette. Now, it is intelligibly clear vegan and omnivore ideals clash, but how does this affect the upbringing and function of society? Due to the regulation of condemning meat consumption within diets that abstain using animal products, diets that include meat are often at odds which in turn, create emotional, cognitive and personal disruptions. By resolving this issue, this will lead towards a deeper understanding of society and ourselves. The concept of carnism is an unfrequented topic among the masses, despite the ubiquity within people’s lives. Carnism is defined as the invisible belief system that conditions people to eat certain animals (Carnism).

It answers the question to the reason we consume certain meats, rather than others. For example, it is considered customary to eat ostrich in South Africa but not in the United States, and Americans would find it unusual to do so within their realm of understanding. This would eventually lead to the establishment of emotional, cognitive and personal divisions. Carnism is met by justification, denial and cognitive distortions that bring this ideology to life (Joy). It is a vicious cycle that feeds into naive nature and deception. It consistently brings people to the conclusion that these animals mind’s aren’t as developed, essentially downgrading their worth, virtually implying that eating meat isn’t as bad. With reference to omnivores, it is especially prominent due to the ongoing emotional conflict. This is also known as the Meat Paradox.

The Meat Paradox, defined by Jared Piazza, “…conflicted by the thought of their behavior harming animals, while also enjoying meat as a desirable staple in their diet.” This allows people to be prone to moral conflicts that are often repressed to meet dietary needs.

A study was conducted by Truven Health Analytics aiming to determine if people were eating the same, less or more amounts of red meat within the last three years. As shown by the table above, results prove more people eat about the same amount of red meat, yet almost 50 percent are still concerned with factors including animal welfare and over 50 percent are apprehensive with the cost. It remains clear that people are actively setting their values aside to continue eating such products, contributing towards their everlasting internal conflict. By augmenting the amount of people consuming meat, it would essentially be a counteraction against wildlife/animal conservationists, vegan and vegetarian efforts to terminate all forms of use of animal products, essentially lessening the impact they may have on others. On the whole, diets including meat incorporates severe divisions that could then influence others and allow for this dietary choice to spread.As human beings, some live and commune with one another and strive to create bonds that will affect us and future generations, but, others choose to be deceitful without knowledge of others knowing. The will to do this relies within ourselves to perform this act.

This is somewhat comparable to the will, relying within ourselves, to consume meat products although we still care for these animals. As previously mentioned, this phenomenon is recognized as Carnism and the Meat Paradox. But, the obscured link between the these circumstances and the function of society is often neglected. Resolving this internalized affair could advance towards a deeper understanding of ourselves and operation of society. (cite something here) EXPLAIN and CONNECT (cite even stuff here) EXPLAIN and CONNECT and hopefully add this: the Omnivore diet could potentially influence other people In recent years, some may have noticed a change in how many people have converted to veganism, or its counterpart, vegetarianism.

Their eminent belief that consuming meat is unethical, being that the process underwent to get the food to our plates is considerably horrific and gruesome. For the sole reason of the mistreatment of animals, vegans and vegetarians abstain from consuming such meats. Nonetheless, they actively promote their dietary habits to decrease the amount of meat consumed. One tactic can be observed by the research reported by Psychology Today, “A group of 2,237 participants were divided into three groups and each assigned to read a certain news article. The first story emphasised reducing meat consumption, the second advocated eliminating meat altogether, while a third article (the control) commented on the benefits of walking as a form of exercise… Participants self-reported their meat consumption one week prior and five weeks after reading the article.

Those who read about reducing and eliminating meat from one’s diets reported eating less meat in the subsequent month—about one less serving per week.” (Steve Stankevicius M.D.) This demonstrates this strategy is effective in trying to lower meat consumption. Most would wonder marvel at the concept, and think why we do this. Possibly due to the consequences being brought to our attention, and coming to the conclusion it is a reoccurring issue that must be dealt with. However, there must be a realization that people have the ability to differentiate and isolate their emotional state and facts presented to sway their psyche.  Joshua, a former vegan, was led to believe that eating animals is morally perverse, due to the process underwent to obtain such meats and raising the livestock and various animals.

After being introduced into ethically acceptable ways of raising livestock, he realized his stance on meat consumption and changed his diet and reasoning (Eating Animals). Due to a long-time belief of eating meat being unethical, one would be sheltered from other dietary habits or being unable to expand on various, more humane ways of animal consumption. Ultimately, one would naturally begin to realize there are alternative forms, that would still meet their personal standards of ethics.