Glass Joe the Champ said:
Alright, sorry for the harsh criticism there, I'm not that big on soapbox-ish threads, usually, but I'll try to outline my thoughts on this.
If it were practicable to have an entirely balanced conduct of individuals and stay at our current level of advancement, you would be right. However, what you suggest is also a very archaic view on things. Allow me to explain:
In modern post-nuclear age society, violence has become greatly discredited. This applies to some countries more than others, and the existence of the death penalty, gun laws and the acknowledgement of corporeal punishment as a disciplinary means are indicative of a country's individual stance on this. However, as opposed to centuries ago, when violence was an everyday reality, a person leading a decent life is usually expected to distance themselves from violence.
This is, of course, thanks to the renaissance and enlightment, when humanist views became more commonplace. Without that philosophical revolution, the industrial one would not have been possible.
In consequence, the percentual amount of people involved in acts of physical violence has dropped sharply over the past 200 years. I am, mind you, not talking about crime and war alone here, but about the acceptance of violence in society.
One of the reasons this was possible was division of labor. While before, many families kept and slaughtered animals for their meat, now there were industrial plants doing that for them. People could eat meat without thinking about the animal that died before. And while this may be sad for the life that ended for them to have their food, it removed the notion of common violence from the dinner table. I'm not going to go into family structures here, which of course are the greatest factor for the decline in violence, but not killing things on a weekly basis must have helped. Ask any soldier - killing something is not easy, but the human mind adjusts to that kind of stress eventually.
Of course, the decline of the hunting profession also meant a decline in the civilian use of firearms, which has had a huge impact on Central Europe, especially. The US are a martial society and thus less affected by that.
If one were to introduce, say, a law mandating one to kill at least once before they are allowed to eat meat, I do think that there are two possible outcomes, depending on how you view humanity as a whole:
1) The majority declines to follow and instead relies on vegetarian sustenance. That would lead to severe health issues. Healthy adults are quite able to purchase and consume supplements that allow for a healthy vegetarian diet, but children and the elderly - not so much. There would no doubt be severe consequences for public health.
2) The majority accepts and kill an animal to receive permission to eat meat. This is actually the more interesting consequence, as it assumes that those who eat meat are willing and able to kill something. But that's not the issue. The problem is, there is a barrier that has been erected by education and socialization. We all grow up being taught to value life and not to take it from someone. If I am now forced to take life in order to sustain myself, that means that I have killed, and I will be able to kill again should it become necessary.
In conclusion, I think benefits of society's distance from violence far outweigh the hypocrisy that lies in that behavior. You are right in pointing it out, but even disregarding commercial and practical issues, the sociological problem seems to big to accept.
(My captcha is "think green". Awesome apropos.)
