What do you think?
Rate this book
The Meat Paradox: eating, empathy and the future of meat
From a vital new voice in food ethics comes a smart, nuanced investigation into the current meat debate.
Our future diet will be shaped by diverse forces. It will be shaped by novel technologies, by geopolitical tensions, and the evolution of cultural preferences, by shocks to the status quo— pandemics and economic strife, the escalation of the climate and ecological crises—and by how we choose to respond. It will also be shaped by our emotions. It will be shaped by the meat paradox.
"Should we eat animals?” was, until recently, a question reserved for moral philosophers and an ethically minded minority, but it is now posed on restaurant menus and supermarket shelves, on social media and morning television. The recent surge in popularity for veganism in the UK, Europe and North America has created a rupture in the rites and rituals of meat, challenging the cultural narratives that sustain our omnivory.
In The Meat Paradox, Rob Percival, an expert in the politics of meat, searches for the evolutionary origins of the meat paradox, asking when our relationship with meat first became emotionally and ethically complicated. Every society must eat, and meat provides an important source of nutrients. But every society is moved by its empathy. We must all find a way of balancing competing and contradictory imperatives. This new book is essential reading for anyone interested in the origins of our empathy, the psychology of our dietary choices, and anyone who has wondered whether they should or shouldn't eat meat.
Our future diet will be shaped by diverse forces. It will be shaped by novel technologies, by geopolitical tensions, and the evolution of cultural preferences, by shocks to the status quo— pandemics and economic strife, the escalation of the climate and ecological crises—and by how we choose to respond. It will also be shaped by our emotions. It will be shaped by the meat paradox.
"Should we eat animals?” was, until recently, a question reserved for moral philosophers and an ethically minded minority, but it is now posed on restaurant menus and supermarket shelves, on social media and morning television. The recent surge in popularity for veganism in the UK, Europe and North America has created a rupture in the rites and rituals of meat, challenging the cultural narratives that sustain our omnivory.
In The Meat Paradox, Rob Percival, an expert in the politics of meat, searches for the evolutionary origins of the meat paradox, asking when our relationship with meat first became emotionally and ethically complicated. Every society must eat, and meat provides an important source of nutrients. But every society is moved by its empathy. We must all find a way of balancing competing and contradictory imperatives. This new book is essential reading for anyone interested in the origins of our empathy, the psychology of our dietary choices, and anyone who has wondered whether they should or shouldn't eat meat.
383 pages, Hardcover
Published March 3, 2022
22 people are currently reading
862 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
March 22, 2022
I'd say that this was the best non-fiction book that I've read in the past two years, but I read Yuval Noah Harari's Sapiens for the first time in January so... nothing wrong with a silver medal!
I've read a lot of treatises concerning animal ethics in the last year - Peter Singer, Gary Francoine, Sherry F. Colb, Jonathan Safran Foer - but this is by far the best written, from a purely artistic point of view. Percival is a master of scope. He can drift from the Natural History Museum of London to the Ucayali River of Pucallpa with such ease. I also found him to be very fair and level-headed when presenting arguments from people he disagrees with - vegans, for instance. I suppose it's inaccurate to say that he 'disagrees' with veganism. He clearly sympathises with the core tenant of "do as little harm towards animals as practically possible". Unfortunately, though, as with all reducetarianists, the phrase "practicable" can be stretched in whichever way satisfies the speaker's argument. But more on that later...
I found the idea of a wordless, symbiotic contract between man and animal to be interesting. It's not an element of animals ethics I've read about before, at least not with as much specificity. Of course, the idea that modernity has disturbed the prelapsarian natural order is nothing new - it's as old as Eden - but it's an original perspective to bring to animal and environmental ethics. Despite Percival professing to eat animals products, I found myself agreeing with him more times than not. I am glad to see someone sympathetic to veganism (vegcurious?) disparaging hyperbolic vegan-health claims whilst not falling into the opposite extreme of arguing that veganism is inherently unhealthy. Talking about the health effects of a vegan diet is like talking about the health effects of utilitarianism or the health benefits of Kant's categorical imperatives; it's a category error. Ethical positions have nothing to do with health and lifestyle. Sure, they may sometimes be tangentially related (avoiding palm oil is not only an ethical decision; it will also likely improve your health) but they are tangential only. Society's negative perception of veganism is often informed by the insane health claims of the lifestyle-fitness crowd. There are indeed some tangential health benefits correlated, and sometimes caused, by an entirely plant-based diet, like a reduction in heart disease and diabetes risk, but a vegan who lives off french fries and Coke is not going to be healthier than someone who eats a traditional Mediterranean diet. If you are someone that eats a predominantly plant-based diet with moderate servings of fish and full-fat Greek yoghurt, you are eating an extremely healthy diet - but you're not eating an ethical one. This does not mean, however, that the complete opposite is true. A vegan diet is perfectly healthy and, when paired with an increase in fruits and vegetables, is often healthier than a standard American or British diet. A vegan diet is also no more 'natural' than modern Western cuisine. A diet comprised mostly of plants is certainly more natural than the processed junk we (read: I) eat today. But veganism is an extremely new moral philosophical theory, likely a response to modern factory farming. We have, as Percival notes, broken our wordless contract with non-human animals. A diet comprised mostly (or entirely) of plants is not a vegan diet, from a philosophical perspective. As Percival rightly points out, though, natural does not mean good and unnatural does not mean bad. Indoor plumbing is unnatural, and that is good. Cholera is natural, and that is bad. Orgasms are natural, and those are good. But guns are unnatural, and they are bad.
There is, though, a weak tendon to Percival's argument. He will sometimes imply, I imagine by accident, that veganism leads to nutritional deficiencies as an iron-clad rule, "even with our modern food supply and nutritional knowledge" - direct quote. For instance, he points to B12, Omega-3 fatty acids and iodine as deficiencies in a vegan diet, suggesting that meat provided vitamin B12 and referring to the theory (I want to stress that word - THEORY) that meat caused us to evolve into the species that we are today. I'll take these one at a time. B12 is not made by animals, it's made by microbes that cover the earth. Because we live in a sanitised world, we live in a world with startingly low amounts of B12, which is why vegans, and often omnivores, require supplementation. Animals that we rear for human food production are often fed B12 supplements because our soil is so unnaturally deficient. This human-induced deficiency is an accidental consequence of a process which, broadly speaking, is good for public health. As Michael Greger puts it, we don't have as much B12 in our soil anymore but we also don't get cholera - our sanitary efforts are unnatural, but they're a good thing. Therefore, theoretically, an entirely plant-based hunter-gather would not necessarily have had a difficult time finding ample B12 and it is perfectly easy to artificially supplement B12 in the modern world. It's correct to say that vegans are more likely to have a B12 deficiency than omnivores but that is a problem with individual vegans, not veganism. It would be like saying omnivores have an inherent iron deficiency on the basis that there are omnivores out there who are not getting enough iron. Omega-3 fatty acids are not dependent on an omnivorous diet, either; nuts and seeds have perfectly adequate supplies of ALA O-3 fatty acids which the body can convert to the more useful DHA and EPA. Iodine can be found in sea vegetables which were not totally uncommon components of pre-historic cuisine. The idea that meat made us human is an often-cited theory (THEORY) but there are multiple alternative theories for our cognitive boost, including a diet rich in carbohydrates and the invention of cooking. Maybe it was one of these factors, or a combination, or another factor entirely, but I feel that it's reductive to present this theory as a firm fact when even well-educated biologists and archaeologists disagree with one another on this particular subject. Of course, this is irrelevant when discussing the ethics of eating meat. It doesn't matter what we did, just what we do. It's just something I picked up on.
Ultimately, Percival argues for reducetarianism: we should reduce our animal intake, not remove it entirely - or, at least, it's not totally necessary to remove all animal suffering if there is a certain symbiotic element (incidentally, the terms of this 'symbiotic' relationship are determined entirely by humans). It is difficult to review a book that I disagree with. He argues his points very well, and it is interesting to read a book about animal ethics that does not fully support a vegan framework, but I find this view intellectually dishonest. This is no slander towards the author. It's a very common belief, even amongst vegans and vegetarians. Reducetarianism is a flawed framework with which to view animal ethics, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, as I alluded earlier, 'reduce' is a term so broad that it's meaningless; if I usually eat 10 steaks a day, and I reduce this down to 3, I am still causing a significant amount of misery, even though it is a reduction. Secondly, it views non-human animals as a collective mass rather than the individual entities that they are. An individual cow with individual subjective experiences is not going to care whether the overall death rate of her species has declined. A cow cannot think abstractly and, therefore, does not care; even if they did, it is cold comfort after being murdered pointlessly. And it IS a pointless murder in most modern contexts. It is not necessary to eat animals in order to be healthy, certainly not meat. There are, obviously, exceptions to this. We've known for quite some time, for instance, that kids with epilepsy can reduce their risk of seizures by adhering to an extremely high-fat ketogenic diet which is near-impossible to replicate with vegan ingredients, and, as Percival accurately points out, starving populations can't afford to be picky. But we are not talking about edge cases. Most people who can afford to buy this book, or read this review on Goodreads, can go vegan. Depending on how you do it, it isn't even more expensive.
Of course, I can disagree with someone's opinion and still value their insights. Percival has a sharp, determined mind and he has an ineffable talent for writing. I absolutely loved reading this book. The prose itself deserves merit but the substance is incomparable. This is at the top of the list when it comes to recommended reads, especially for the majority of people in the West who usually eat meat without thinking twice about the moral ramifications. It's a gentle beginner's guide and I can easily imagine someone being convinced to reduce their impact on the environment and animal suffering after reading this. I doubt, however, that they would completely eliminate their impact. Maybe the softer approach is better for those not well versed in animal ethics, as opposed to an approach like that of Francoine. If so, I can recommend nothing better.
... but Rob Percival should still go vegan.
I've read a lot of treatises concerning animal ethics in the last year - Peter Singer, Gary Francoine, Sherry F. Colb, Jonathan Safran Foer - but this is by far the best written, from a purely artistic point of view. Percival is a master of scope. He can drift from the Natural History Museum of London to the Ucayali River of Pucallpa with such ease. I also found him to be very fair and level-headed when presenting arguments from people he disagrees with - vegans, for instance. I suppose it's inaccurate to say that he 'disagrees' with veganism. He clearly sympathises with the core tenant of "do as little harm towards animals as practically possible". Unfortunately, though, as with all reducetarianists, the phrase "practicable" can be stretched in whichever way satisfies the speaker's argument. But more on that later...
I found the idea of a wordless, symbiotic contract between man and animal to be interesting. It's not an element of animals ethics I've read about before, at least not with as much specificity. Of course, the idea that modernity has disturbed the prelapsarian natural order is nothing new - it's as old as Eden - but it's an original perspective to bring to animal and environmental ethics. Despite Percival professing to eat animals products, I found myself agreeing with him more times than not. I am glad to see someone sympathetic to veganism (vegcurious?) disparaging hyperbolic vegan-health claims whilst not falling into the opposite extreme of arguing that veganism is inherently unhealthy. Talking about the health effects of a vegan diet is like talking about the health effects of utilitarianism or the health benefits of Kant's categorical imperatives; it's a category error. Ethical positions have nothing to do with health and lifestyle. Sure, they may sometimes be tangentially related (avoiding palm oil is not only an ethical decision; it will also likely improve your health) but they are tangential only. Society's negative perception of veganism is often informed by the insane health claims of the lifestyle-fitness crowd. There are indeed some tangential health benefits correlated, and sometimes caused, by an entirely plant-based diet, like a reduction in heart disease and diabetes risk, but a vegan who lives off french fries and Coke is not going to be healthier than someone who eats a traditional Mediterranean diet. If you are someone that eats a predominantly plant-based diet with moderate servings of fish and full-fat Greek yoghurt, you are eating an extremely healthy diet - but you're not eating an ethical one. This does not mean, however, that the complete opposite is true. A vegan diet is perfectly healthy and, when paired with an increase in fruits and vegetables, is often healthier than a standard American or British diet. A vegan diet is also no more 'natural' than modern Western cuisine. A diet comprised mostly of plants is certainly more natural than the processed junk we (read: I) eat today. But veganism is an extremely new moral philosophical theory, likely a response to modern factory farming. We have, as Percival notes, broken our wordless contract with non-human animals. A diet comprised mostly (or entirely) of plants is not a vegan diet, from a philosophical perspective. As Percival rightly points out, though, natural does not mean good and unnatural does not mean bad. Indoor plumbing is unnatural, and that is good. Cholera is natural, and that is bad. Orgasms are natural, and those are good. But guns are unnatural, and they are bad.
There is, though, a weak tendon to Percival's argument. He will sometimes imply, I imagine by accident, that veganism leads to nutritional deficiencies as an iron-clad rule, "even with our modern food supply and nutritional knowledge" - direct quote. For instance, he points to B12, Omega-3 fatty acids and iodine as deficiencies in a vegan diet, suggesting that meat provided vitamin B12 and referring to the theory (I want to stress that word - THEORY) that meat caused us to evolve into the species that we are today. I'll take these one at a time. B12 is not made by animals, it's made by microbes that cover the earth. Because we live in a sanitised world, we live in a world with startingly low amounts of B12, which is why vegans, and often omnivores, require supplementation. Animals that we rear for human food production are often fed B12 supplements because our soil is so unnaturally deficient. This human-induced deficiency is an accidental consequence of a process which, broadly speaking, is good for public health. As Michael Greger puts it, we don't have as much B12 in our soil anymore but we also don't get cholera - our sanitary efforts are unnatural, but they're a good thing. Therefore, theoretically, an entirely plant-based hunter-gather would not necessarily have had a difficult time finding ample B12 and it is perfectly easy to artificially supplement B12 in the modern world. It's correct to say that vegans are more likely to have a B12 deficiency than omnivores but that is a problem with individual vegans, not veganism. It would be like saying omnivores have an inherent iron deficiency on the basis that there are omnivores out there who are not getting enough iron. Omega-3 fatty acids are not dependent on an omnivorous diet, either; nuts and seeds have perfectly adequate supplies of ALA O-3 fatty acids which the body can convert to the more useful DHA and EPA. Iodine can be found in sea vegetables which were not totally uncommon components of pre-historic cuisine. The idea that meat made us human is an often-cited theory (THEORY) but there are multiple alternative theories for our cognitive boost, including a diet rich in carbohydrates and the invention of cooking. Maybe it was one of these factors, or a combination, or another factor entirely, but I feel that it's reductive to present this theory as a firm fact when even well-educated biologists and archaeologists disagree with one another on this particular subject. Of course, this is irrelevant when discussing the ethics of eating meat. It doesn't matter what we did, just what we do. It's just something I picked up on.
Ultimately, Percival argues for reducetarianism: we should reduce our animal intake, not remove it entirely - or, at least, it's not totally necessary to remove all animal suffering if there is a certain symbiotic element (incidentally, the terms of this 'symbiotic' relationship are determined entirely by humans). It is difficult to review a book that I disagree with. He argues his points very well, and it is interesting to read a book about animal ethics that does not fully support a vegan framework, but I find this view intellectually dishonest. This is no slander towards the author. It's a very common belief, even amongst vegans and vegetarians. Reducetarianism is a flawed framework with which to view animal ethics, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, as I alluded earlier, 'reduce' is a term so broad that it's meaningless; if I usually eat 10 steaks a day, and I reduce this down to 3, I am still causing a significant amount of misery, even though it is a reduction. Secondly, it views non-human animals as a collective mass rather than the individual entities that they are. An individual cow with individual subjective experiences is not going to care whether the overall death rate of her species has declined. A cow cannot think abstractly and, therefore, does not care; even if they did, it is cold comfort after being murdered pointlessly. And it IS a pointless murder in most modern contexts. It is not necessary to eat animals in order to be healthy, certainly not meat. There are, obviously, exceptions to this. We've known for quite some time, for instance, that kids with epilepsy can reduce their risk of seizures by adhering to an extremely high-fat ketogenic diet which is near-impossible to replicate with vegan ingredients, and, as Percival accurately points out, starving populations can't afford to be picky. But we are not talking about edge cases. Most people who can afford to buy this book, or read this review on Goodreads, can go vegan. Depending on how you do it, it isn't even more expensive.
Of course, I can disagree with someone's opinion and still value their insights. Percival has a sharp, determined mind and he has an ineffable talent for writing. I absolutely loved reading this book. The prose itself deserves merit but the substance is incomparable. This is at the top of the list when it comes to recommended reads, especially for the majority of people in the West who usually eat meat without thinking twice about the moral ramifications. It's a gentle beginner's guide and I can easily imagine someone being convinced to reduce their impact on the environment and animal suffering after reading this. I doubt, however, that they would completely eliminate their impact. Maybe the softer approach is better for those not well versed in animal ethics, as opposed to an approach like that of Francoine. If so, I can recommend nothing better.
... but Rob Percival should still go vegan.
December 3, 2022
It took me a really long time to get through this book because, while it was informative, it wasn't all that interesting or captivating. Percival attempts to address the meat paradox, how we (as humans in general) can care about animals, but also eat them. I'm a vegan, and have been for a very long time, so I don't understand how people can do that. The term he's looking for is "cognitive dissonance", although you won't see it in this book. He waxes poetic about early indigenous peoples who hunted as a way of life and uses that as justification for why people today feel the "need" to eat animals.
He looks at both sides, people who eat animals and people who don't (i.e. vegans). He certainly seems to understand the vegan perspective, but then he announces that he himself is an omnivore. Ok..... For him to write this book and be eating animals seems like he wants to "eat his cake and have it too". In other words, his goal is to make readers think that he actually cares about animal suffering and the global impact of animal agriculture, but then he continues to willfully contribute to it so that he can please his palate.
Percival does talk about organic farming and raising animals humanely, but he fails to address that, no matter how kindly you're treating the animal as you're raising them (for food), they are still going to be slaughtered in the same violent manner as their factory farmed sisters and brothers. Percival even recounts his experience at a slaughterhouse, witnessing the horrific acts that take place there, but even this isn't enough to convince him to stop eating animals.
In regards to organic farming, he discusses how it is more natural to use fertilizer from animal manure than it is to pump the soil and produce with a plethora of chemicals. Ok, yes, that does seem to make sense; HOWEVER, he uses this argument as justification for farming animals to eat! How does one make that great leap in logic??? Could one not have free-roaming animals who are free to live out their natural lives, and the farmer(s) caring for them collect their waste to turn into fertilizer? Ok, I certainly would not want to have the job of pooper-scooper, but someone could certainly do it and not subject the animals to a fate of murder so their bodies can be turned into food.
I found the end of the book, probably the last two chapters, especially tedious and difficult to get through because I just didn't understand where the book was going and there didn't seem to be a point. Did the author have a page quota to meet? Because this book could certainly have been shorter and edited in a way that would make it easier to read, instead of jumping around with several ideas.
Is Rob Percival going to become a vegan, after all the information that he has gained? Don't hold your breath, though it would have made this a better book, for him to have used all the information he acquired to make some positive change.
He looks at both sides, people who eat animals and people who don't (i.e. vegans). He certainly seems to understand the vegan perspective, but then he announces that he himself is an omnivore. Ok..... For him to write this book and be eating animals seems like he wants to "eat his cake and have it too". In other words, his goal is to make readers think that he actually cares about animal suffering and the global impact of animal agriculture, but then he continues to willfully contribute to it so that he can please his palate.
Percival does talk about organic farming and raising animals humanely, but he fails to address that, no matter how kindly you're treating the animal as you're raising them (for food), they are still going to be slaughtered in the same violent manner as their factory farmed sisters and brothers. Percival even recounts his experience at a slaughterhouse, witnessing the horrific acts that take place there, but even this isn't enough to convince him to stop eating animals.
In regards to organic farming, he discusses how it is more natural to use fertilizer from animal manure than it is to pump the soil and produce with a plethora of chemicals. Ok, yes, that does seem to make sense; HOWEVER, he uses this argument as justification for farming animals to eat! How does one make that great leap in logic??? Could one not have free-roaming animals who are free to live out their natural lives, and the farmer(s) caring for them collect their waste to turn into fertilizer? Ok, I certainly would not want to have the job of pooper-scooper, but someone could certainly do it and not subject the animals to a fate of murder so their bodies can be turned into food.
I found the end of the book, probably the last two chapters, especially tedious and difficult to get through because I just didn't understand where the book was going and there didn't seem to be a point. Did the author have a page quota to meet? Because this book could certainly have been shorter and edited in a way that would make it easier to read, instead of jumping around with several ideas.
Is Rob Percival going to become a vegan, after all the information that he has gained? Don't hold your breath, though it would have made this a better book, for him to have used all the information he acquired to make some positive change.
February 24, 2022
In searching for the answers to a complicated question, this beautifully written book will take you to some unexpected and fascinating places. Written by someone who clearly cares deeply about animals and our planet, it provides much needed nuance in an often polarized debate.
July 10, 2022
DNF at 80%.
Not necessarily a bad book, but I was expecting a more 'practical' discussion about the causes and implications of veganism / meat eating. It does partly cover that (I personally especially enjoyed the perspectives on the rise of veganism and benefits / issues of that from organic farmers interviewed), but it steers towards more 'spiritual' considerations a bit too much for my liking (especially in the 2nd half of the book).
You'll probably enjoy the book if you're in for that sort of content, but keep in mind at points it more resembles a conversation you'd be having with friends with a glass of wine on the ethics of eating meat, rather than a more in-depth study.
Not necessarily a bad book, but I was expecting a more 'practical' discussion about the causes and implications of veganism / meat eating. It does partly cover that (I personally especially enjoyed the perspectives on the rise of veganism and benefits / issues of that from organic farmers interviewed), but it steers towards more 'spiritual' considerations a bit too much for my liking (especially in the 2nd half of the book).
You'll probably enjoy the book if you're in for that sort of content, but keep in mind at points it more resembles a conversation you'd be having with friends with a glass of wine on the ethics of eating meat, rather than a more in-depth study.
July 17, 2023
Well intentioned and likely to be more successful than others in the genre of “i’m not vegan but they have a point”. however, the majority of this book is the rambling, purple prose of a bright and well researched policymaker who drank ayahuasca and looked at cave paintings. Strong start, lost me in the middle and all th way to the end, and I’m someone who BELIEVES in the end of meat.
June 12, 2023
I enjoyed this book a great deal, and it's helped me clarify my own approach to meat-eating. In fact, it's more or less confirmed the attitude and belief I already had - that I/we should eat a principally plant-based diet, with a small amount of meat from time to time, and that any meat should come from sustainable, organic farming. The book makes plain the scale of the challenge - how essential it is to break rapidly from industrialised animal-farming methods. However, I feel that the core idea - the 'meat paradox', the fact the we have evolved as carnivores with a capacity for profound empathy with animals - is overplayed as the 'key factor' preventing change. It seems to me that, for many of us, an attachment to a particular form of diet is driven by habit, social example, and economics. Having said that, I found his exploration of the practices of hunter-gatherers and indigenous peoples absolutely fascinating. Rob Percival is a skilled and engaging writer.
March 15, 2023
I listened to this book on Radio 4 so the book was abbreviated. It was very good but not quite what I expected. I don't think the book provides any clear answers to the Meat Paradox. Rob Percival doesn't believe we should all be vegan (which was really interesting) but believes that our best hope is to stop industrial meat farming and switch to organic farming where ethically raised animals are reared. He spends time on the human psychology of eating meat and that was hugely interesting and informative. I am reading Regenesis by George Mombiot - who believes that veganism is the only way for the future. Both are really interesting sides of the Meat Paradox.
August 6, 2022
The Meat Paradox was coined by psychologists to refer to the “psychological conflict between people’s dietary preference for meat and their moral response to animal suffering.” It is this contradiction around which Percival purports to base his book.
In this well researched book Percival considers the evolutionary basis of meat eating; our agricultural history and present; Indigenous relationships to meat eating and the role of meat eating in the climate crisis, all in an attempt to grapple with the meat paradox.
This book is an amalgamation of lots of interesting fields including psychology, sociology, evolutionary biology, history and culture, while also including vastly diverse perspectives towards meat-eating.
Percival spends an extensive amount of time discussing Indigenous tradition & mythology and it is in these areas that I felt the book truly excelled. In the West, science and mythology are treated as mutually exclusive but Percival shows the many ways mythology is informed by ecology. Spiritualism and story telling can show us how to create a relationship with the natural world that is based on reciprocity and respect as opposed to greed and obfuscation.
While a worthwhile and interesting read, the book is let down for me by Percival drawing no clear conclusions despite the expansive scope of the book. Furthermore, some arguments seem to hang in the air without full development. Perhaps this was an attempt to present information impartially such that the reader can draw their own conclusions about what the future of meat eating should look like, yet he points to climate change as a profound reason for change suggesting he does have an opinion. I was left with the feeling that Percival himself became ensnared in the complexity of the meat paradox as he tried to tease out its threads
In this well researched book Percival considers the evolutionary basis of meat eating; our agricultural history and present; Indigenous relationships to meat eating and the role of meat eating in the climate crisis, all in an attempt to grapple with the meat paradox.
This book is an amalgamation of lots of interesting fields including psychology, sociology, evolutionary biology, history and culture, while also including vastly diverse perspectives towards meat-eating.
Percival spends an extensive amount of time discussing Indigenous tradition & mythology and it is in these areas that I felt the book truly excelled. In the West, science and mythology are treated as mutually exclusive but Percival shows the many ways mythology is informed by ecology. Spiritualism and story telling can show us how to create a relationship with the natural world that is based on reciprocity and respect as opposed to greed and obfuscation.
While a worthwhile and interesting read, the book is let down for me by Percival drawing no clear conclusions despite the expansive scope of the book. Furthermore, some arguments seem to hang in the air without full development. Perhaps this was an attempt to present information impartially such that the reader can draw their own conclusions about what the future of meat eating should look like, yet he points to climate change as a profound reason for change suggesting he does have an opinion. I was left with the feeling that Percival himself became ensnared in the complexity of the meat paradox as he tried to tease out its threads
June 12, 2022
Was expecting much more from the book. The main idea that it is not meat that makes us human, but metaphor. And it is metaphor behind many people's decision not to eat meat, i.e. associating animals with humans. But that can be described in long read. Felt like the author or the agent did want just enough material to justify the book and it is too watery at times, sidetracks to topics that make you forget what was the main subject of the book.
September 25, 2023
In this book, the author tries to explain that there is a cognitive dissonance (paradox) between our empathy for animals and the fact that we eat them. Using the customs of primitive peoples, he tries to show that this cognitive dissonance is universal.
He talks about the polarisation between vegans, on the one hand, who out of empathy don't eat animals or find eating animals unethical, and 'omnivores', who as a counter-reaction defend eating animals and try to escape the cognitive dissonance by arguing that eating meat is necessary and normal.
He raises a number of false arguments from both vegans and omnivores and makes a (somewhat unsuccessful) attempt to assess veganism and 'omnivorism' in an objective manner.
The author himself seems to favour a 'compromise': he is in favour of eating a modarate amount of meat from organic farming. He opposes organic farming, which is ethically indefensible and causes great harm to animals, humans, the environment and the climate, but he thinks that moderate consumption of organic meat is ethically defensible, and even necessary. To this end, he applies some of the same arguments he attributes to the 'omnivores', namely, he argues that
1. (some) people do not thrive on a plant-based diet and are thus forced to eat meat
2. animals are necessary to replace harmful artificial fertilisers in agriculture with their manure and are therefore indispensable for organic farming.
Re 1: Nowhere does the author prove that it is not possible for (some) people to thrive on a plant-based diet. He cites a few cases, who most probably could have thrived on a plant-based diet with the help of a good dietician. Even if that were not the case, these would still be exceptions, which do not excuse the vast majority from eating meat. Millions of healthy long-term vegans around the world have provided convincing evidence that it is perfectly possible to eat plant-based diet and be healthy in our current society. Of course, we are not talking about countries where malnutrition occurs, but about our Western society.
Re 2: Nowhere does the author prove that animals are really necessary for organic farming. He cites some organic farmers who keep animals, but this is obviously flimsy as evidence. Besides, why would it not be possible to use old, robust breeds for that purpose until they reach their normal lifespan, as happens in nature reserves, instead of slaughtering them at a young age?
In short, in my opinion his arguments for eating animals (in our opulent Western society) fail.
Furthermore, the book contains several omissions, several fallacies, and the author's knowledge of nutrition is very limited.
Nevertheless, the book also contains interesting information and food for thought.
He talks about the polarisation between vegans, on the one hand, who out of empathy don't eat animals or find eating animals unethical, and 'omnivores', who as a counter-reaction defend eating animals and try to escape the cognitive dissonance by arguing that eating meat is necessary and normal.
He raises a number of false arguments from both vegans and omnivores and makes a (somewhat unsuccessful) attempt to assess veganism and 'omnivorism' in an objective manner.
The author himself seems to favour a 'compromise': he is in favour of eating a modarate amount of meat from organic farming. He opposes organic farming, which is ethically indefensible and causes great harm to animals, humans, the environment and the climate, but he thinks that moderate consumption of organic meat is ethically defensible, and even necessary. To this end, he applies some of the same arguments he attributes to the 'omnivores', namely, he argues that
1. (some) people do not thrive on a plant-based diet and are thus forced to eat meat
2. animals are necessary to replace harmful artificial fertilisers in agriculture with their manure and are therefore indispensable for organic farming.
Re 1: Nowhere does the author prove that it is not possible for (some) people to thrive on a plant-based diet. He cites a few cases, who most probably could have thrived on a plant-based diet with the help of a good dietician. Even if that were not the case, these would still be exceptions, which do not excuse the vast majority from eating meat. Millions of healthy long-term vegans around the world have provided convincing evidence that it is perfectly possible to eat plant-based diet and be healthy in our current society. Of course, we are not talking about countries where malnutrition occurs, but about our Western society.
Re 2: Nowhere does the author prove that animals are really necessary for organic farming. He cites some organic farmers who keep animals, but this is obviously flimsy as evidence. Besides, why would it not be possible to use old, robust breeds for that purpose until they reach their normal lifespan, as happens in nature reserves, instead of slaughtering them at a young age?
In short, in my opinion his arguments for eating animals (in our opulent Western society) fail.
Furthermore, the book contains several omissions, several fallacies, and the author's knowledge of nutrition is very limited.
Nevertheless, the book also contains interesting information and food for thought.
July 18, 2025
Thought-provoking and original.
The Meat Paradox explores the deep, often uneasy relationship between humans and meat, examining the ethical, scientific, and health arguments with nuance and realism.
Percival reflects on how meat was instrumental to human evolution, helping to power our energy-hungry brains, and includes powerful testimony from those who’ve worked in slaughter. He also briefly notes that while moral concern for animals isn’t new, the scale and cruelty of factory farming is.
The section on indigenous hunting practices is compelling, though it often feels like English lacks the language to fully capture these worldviews—a limitation Percival acknowledges.
I found the evolutionary accounts particularly fascinating: how early humans may have survived by scavenging megafauna and studying animal behaviour. Percival suggests that mimesis—imitating animals—was an early form of communication and empathy. We became human, he argues, by mimetically becoming animal.
The book ends with a stark reminder of our climate crisis. The UK’s Climate Change Committee has advised preparing for a 4°C rise—an apocalyptic scenario that would end modern civilisation. Yet Percival offers a glimmer of hope: another future is possible, if we can build compelling narratives that challenge polarisation and overconsumption, and instead centre human and planetary well-being.
The Meat Paradox explores the deep, often uneasy relationship between humans and meat, examining the ethical, scientific, and health arguments with nuance and realism.
Percival reflects on how meat was instrumental to human evolution, helping to power our energy-hungry brains, and includes powerful testimony from those who’ve worked in slaughter. He also briefly notes that while moral concern for animals isn’t new, the scale and cruelty of factory farming is.
The section on indigenous hunting practices is compelling, though it often feels like English lacks the language to fully capture these worldviews—a limitation Percival acknowledges.
I found the evolutionary accounts particularly fascinating: how early humans may have survived by scavenging megafauna and studying animal behaviour. Percival suggests that mimesis—imitating animals—was an early form of communication and empathy. We became human, he argues, by mimetically becoming animal.
The book ends with a stark reminder of our climate crisis. The UK’s Climate Change Committee has advised preparing for a 4°C rise—an apocalyptic scenario that would end modern civilisation. Yet Percival offers a glimmer of hope: another future is possible, if we can build compelling narratives that challenge polarisation and overconsumption, and instead centre human and planetary well-being.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 27, 2023
This book is Rob Percival's reflections on the meat paradox - or our discomfort with killing and eating animals - and on how the human reliance on the industrial meat industry is contributing to climate change.
There are some horrifying stats in the book, such as 96% of all mammals on the planet are humans and our farm animals. He goes into detail about the work conditions of those who work in slaughterhouses. Is it fair that people have to work in places like that? Also discussed is how although more people are going vegan, the amount of meat we are eating is going up.
This book is full of information and Percival's thoughts on the issue are enlightening, but don't look for clear answers. He believes that our only hope is not for everyone to go vegan, but to stop industrial meat farming and switch to organic farming where ethically raised animals are reared. He doesn't illustrate a clear pathway to this future except in showing how he and others have pressured some restaurants into serving ethically raised meat and organic fruit and vegetables.
There are some horrifying stats in the book, such as 96% of all mammals on the planet are humans and our farm animals. He goes into detail about the work conditions of those who work in slaughterhouses. Is it fair that people have to work in places like that? Also discussed is how although more people are going vegan, the amount of meat we are eating is going up.
This book is full of information and Percival's thoughts on the issue are enlightening, but don't look for clear answers. He believes that our only hope is not for everyone to go vegan, but to stop industrial meat farming and switch to organic farming where ethically raised animals are reared. He doesn't illustrate a clear pathway to this future except in showing how he and others have pressured some restaurants into serving ethically raised meat and organic fruit and vegetables.
October 26, 2023
It’s just fantastic. I picked this book up and sat on it for a long time, because I didn’t want to read about slaughter house conditions. Thankfully, this book is not about that! Instead it’s a deep journey into our evolutionary past concerning what it feels like to have to kill beings which we can recognize are not so different from ourselves. Today, we are in a different situation. A great many of us can be vegan and survive, but even as a mostly plant-based eater myself, I was very appreciative of the approach this author takes describing how in a sustainable future, agriculture is going to require animals to some extent. This book really surpassed my expectations. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in sustainability, psychology, or anthropology, or just anyone interested in taking a good hard look at their dietary choices.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
April 23, 2023"Veganism is sometimes said to be a modern aberration, our disconnect from the natural world tipping us into a syrupy and sentimental moral stance without precedent in the human story. But the emotions and motivations that animate the vegan movement are not new. Veganism comes adorned with all the baubles and twinkling lights of social media and modernity, but it is industrial animal farming, and not our ethical concern for animals, that is the aberration. The meat paradox is as old as the painted caves, and the roots of the vegan project reach back to the origins of our species, to the stirring of our empathy as it was first extended towards animals. Look beyond our society, and there is no culture in which the consumption of animals is unproblematic."
July 28, 2022
Rob Percival gives the reader a fascinating look at humankind's relationship with eating meat that is equal parts study, survey, and safari. Looking at the issue from every angle, while still managing to zero in on his thesis, he entertains as much as he informs with an exuberant writing style that brims with confidence and momentum. Readers can't fail but be swept delightfully along, bounced from ruminations on cathartic paleolithic cave art, to discussions of the pro-vegan social media posts of hip-hop stars, and back again! Can’t recommend this book highly enough. Enjoyed it immensely.
June 18, 2022
Finally, "The Meat Paradox" examines the psychology of how humans love animals yet love to eat them! Author Rob Percival lays it all out - psychology, neuroscience, anthropology and philosophy, then throw in climate change - how did we get to where we are today, and how do we moderate our eating habits.
Extremely well written, humorous at times and tear inducing at others - a frank and honest discussion.
Extremely well written, humorous at times and tear inducing at others - a frank and honest discussion.
May 3, 2023
Interesting perspective on the ethics of animal consumption. Percival presents evidence from both sides and touches on psychological and sociological implications. I found it interesting that the author is not a vegan. The nutritional perspective was especially interesting to me!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 21, 2023
A really eye opening read on how our relationships to animals and eating meat has changed over many ages. Definitely worth reading if you're interested in this and whatever your diet is.
May 27, 2024
An eye opening and balanced look at the ethics and psychology of meat eating. One of the best books ever.
July 10, 2024
Interesting book but hardly goes into any justifications for veganism, instead focuses on the history and spirituality of eating meat. I don’t find this a useful discussion when for the animals and the planet the subject is entirely existential. I’m glad I read it, but this book would have more weight if I Percival had himself adopted some of his own arguments
August 17, 2024
Very informative, extremely well balanced between different areas of research (not necessarily always a pro Veggie/Vegan perspective) and written in a way the keeps you engaged throughout.
July 21, 2025
It took a while to get through but it was worth it. I’d say the logical outcome of his analysis is to adopt vegetarianism/veganism - although he didn’t think so!
Read
September 24, 2025audio
July 14, 2022
Never a dull moment given how this book is written although some chapters in between I felt were lengthy but Rob was doing his best to described his traveling experiences in the cave. Part story telling, part history with facts and beliefs on the war (still waging till date) of carnivore vs. herbivore.
The author did captivated me with the lives and story of the Ayahuasca and the amazonian tribe together with the rest of the indigenous individuals across the world. For all vegans (and meat eaters), I highly recommend the first few chapters of the book. This book makes you think twice before opening your mouth to debate veganism and the whole meat is murder. Rob Perceival highlighted the specificities on why we as human are bias to what we eat. The author referenced to Peter Singer and the Levinas on being ethically and/or morally right or wrong whereby one was geared to the ethical justification of eating meat while the latter tapped on the ethical experience that lend to the individual to consume meat. Besides philosophy, The Meat Paradox also focus on the psychological aspect of Dissonance theory.
There is so much to offer for Meat Paradox. Philosophy, sociology, psychology, ancient wisdom, the Yukaghirs, Amazonian tribes, climate change (yes you heard it right) etc.
Excerpt from the book:
"The meat paradox holds us in its grasp, conjuring these elaborate cascades of deflection and denial, fuelling this fractious societal debate, because our narratives of identity – omnivore and vegan – are often inadequate to the task that is put to them."
" The perception that ‘meat involves murder’ has no place in the omnivore’s tale. The stories that we tell as meat eaters do not help us make sense of the emotions that arise (that might arise) as we stand in the slaughterhouse. There is nothing in this narrative of an ‘ancient contract’ to affirm that killing animals for food might be irretrievably wrong, acutely disturbing, or even traumatic. Inversely, the perception that ‘meat can be necessary’ has an ambivalent place in the vegan narrative, at least as it is expressed in the mainstream."
The author did captivated me with the lives and story of the Ayahuasca and the amazonian tribe together with the rest of the indigenous individuals across the world. For all vegans (and meat eaters), I highly recommend the first few chapters of the book. This book makes you think twice before opening your mouth to debate veganism and the whole meat is murder. Rob Perceival highlighted the specificities on why we as human are bias to what we eat. The author referenced to Peter Singer and the Levinas on being ethically and/or morally right or wrong whereby one was geared to the ethical justification of eating meat while the latter tapped on the ethical experience that lend to the individual to consume meat. Besides philosophy, The Meat Paradox also focus on the psychological aspect of Dissonance theory.
There is so much to offer for Meat Paradox. Philosophy, sociology, psychology, ancient wisdom, the Yukaghirs, Amazonian tribes, climate change (yes you heard it right) etc.
Excerpt from the book:
"The meat paradox holds us in its grasp, conjuring these elaborate cascades of deflection and denial, fuelling this fractious societal debate, because our narratives of identity – omnivore and vegan – are often inadequate to the task that is put to them."
" The perception that ‘meat involves murder’ has no place in the omnivore’s tale. The stories that we tell as meat eaters do not help us make sense of the emotions that arise (that might arise) as we stand in the slaughterhouse. There is nothing in this narrative of an ‘ancient contract’ to affirm that killing animals for food might be irretrievably wrong, acutely disturbing, or even traumatic. Inversely, the perception that ‘meat can be necessary’ has an ambivalent place in the vegan narrative, at least as it is expressed in the mainstream."
August 6, 2025
An interesting book which attempts (key word being 'attempts') to balance out the arguments for and against eating meat. Percival brings so much rich imagery to the books making sure to recant his own journey into questioning the meat paradox whilst providing us with hard-hitting research facts and well developed philosophical and ethical arguments.
But at many points it became too flowery. Instead of reading a book about ethics, science and philosophy I often felt I was reading a story book with no clear end or plot. I found the arguments interesting but not the story telling although if it were meant to be a fictional or even biographical storybook I'd have appreciated it more.
I won't spoil the ending but for me it was very unsatisfying.
But at many points it became too flowery. Instead of reading a book about ethics, science and philosophy I often felt I was reading a story book with no clear end or plot. I found the arguments interesting but not the story telling although if it were meant to be a fictional or even biographical storybook I'd have appreciated it more.
I won't spoil the ending but for me it was very unsatisfying.
May 17, 2022
Humans have always been, and will always be, omnivores. But we consume more meat than ever (at great cost to environment), and most of us have become distant from the production and processing of animals. Also, we are confused and inconsistent about the animals we eat (eg pigs) vs animals we have as companions (dogs) vs animals we campaign to protect (eg tigers).
Rob Percival has done a fantastic deep dive into human attitudes to meat consumption, and our 'cognitive dissonance' to raising and killing animals. He does not suggest everyone becomes vegan. But he does strongly suggest more thoughtful and moderate flesh eating.
Rob Percival has done a fantastic deep dive into human attitudes to meat consumption, and our 'cognitive dissonance' to raising and killing animals. He does not suggest everyone becomes vegan. But he does strongly suggest more thoughtful and moderate flesh eating.
March 26, 2022
Excellent
Provoking. Daring. Several approaches. Respectful for all " tastes". Provides insightful approach to understand several trends in our current world.
Provoking. Daring. Several approaches. Respectful for all " tastes". Provides insightful approach to understand several trends in our current world.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews