It can’t be denied that overall, people are more concerned than ever about the effects of their diets on animals and the environment. Over the last couple of decades, thanks in part to the mainstream penetration of books like “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and documentaries like “Cowspiracy,” it’s become more common knowledge that industrial animal agriculture is a significant culprit behind the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and thus a major contributor to climate change. Factory farming also uses vastly more water and land than any other kind of food production. It’s hardly a secret that environmental experts believe a mass reduction in meat eating is one of the most important things we can do to protect the future of our planet.
People seem to increasingly understand that for change to happen, they need to be a part of it. “Vegan” and “plant-based” are household terms in a way they certainly weren’t 20 or even 10 years ago, and animal-free alternatives like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods can be found at more grocery stores and chain restaurants than we could have imagined in the not-so-distant past.
“Since I wrote ‘Animal Liberation’ in 1975, quite a lot has changed for the better in terms of the accessibility of vegan alternatives,” says Princeton philosopher Peter Singer. Singer’s new book, “Animal Liberation Now,” is out this week, and he’s about to embark on an international tour to help spread his message of compassion. “It feels good to align your ethics with your dietary choices, and more and more people are doing it.”
Indeed, campaigns like Veganuary and Meatless Mondays have more participants every year, and overall, nearly a quarter of Americans report eating less meat than in previous years.
Despite the rise in awareness of and interest in plant-based eating, and perhaps despite our own good intentions, American meat consumption totals are higher than ever. Even despite inflation, meat sales continue to rise and the vast majority of households – 98.3% – are still buying it. Perhaps most troubling of all is that according to industry analysis, the demographic groups holding meat consumption steady are no longer primarily boomers. They’re Gen Xers and millennials. For many the term the millennial generation represents significant change, but that’s not true in all respects. Millennials (myself included) make up the majority of the current population, and with ages ranging from mid-twenties to early forties, they’re not kids anymore – they’re approaching middle age. And when it comes to meat consumption, they seem to be stuck in their ways, eating as much meat (if not more) than previous generations.
It may be disappointing to see that the generation that began learning about climate change in elementary school has still not made significant cultural change when it comes to a sector as important to the planet as the way we eat. But is this evidence that each generation will ultimately resign itself to the habits of its predecessors? I wouldn’t go quite that far.
In the sociology of science, there’s an idea called Planck’s principle, named for 20th century German theoretical physicist Max Planck. He believed that changes in popular scientific wisdom don’t come as a result of individual scientists changing their minds when exposed to new ideas and evidence. Rather, change happens when older generations of scientists die out and are superseded by new generations. As it’s sometimes put, “science advances one funeral at a time.” People are prone to confirmation bias, making it hard for them to shed long-held beliefs.
Darwin’s theory of evolution, for example, has often been cited as an example of Planck’s principle. Some historians of science believe that, by the time Darwin published “The Origin of Species,” evolution-related ideas had been circulating long enough to be familiar to younger scientists. Because the idea wasn’t totally foreign, they were well-situated to give the idea serious consideration. Older scientists, however, may have still regarded evolution as a new idea with shaky foundations. Similarly, plate tectonics only came into wide acceptance within the scientific community some half-century after it was first proposed by German scientist Alfred Wegener. In many cases, it seems that people – even scientists – need to be sufficiently familiar with an idea before they can take it seriously enough to even consider its merit.
Statistical evidence supports Planck’s principle, and in terms of the environmental movement, we can already see a generational divide forming. Boomers, Gen Xers, and millennials have all spent decades steeped in the animal agriculture industry’s PR campaigns (like the one Aubrey Plaza did last month) that promote meat and milk as healthy, and even as necessary for building strong bones and muscles. This latest wave of informational media that criticizes industrial animal agriculture, like “Cowspiracy” and “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” didn’t hit the public until these groups were already in or very near adulthood. We’re disposed to be skeptical about new information that contradicts our positive associations with meat and dairy. To many of us born before the new millennium, any less-than-positive characterization of overconsumption of meat – that it causes heart disease, that it’s a major contributor to climate change, that it’s inhumane – is more likely to feel new and unproven.
This might be one reason why Gen Z seems to be more open to thinking critically about industrial animal agriculture. Younger consumers are more likely than older consumers to question the sustainability of meat production. A survey conducted in the UK late last year found that a whopping 43% of British Gen Zers planned to abstain from eating meat in 2023. (By contrast, just 5% of the boomers responded the same way.) Other market research has come up with similarly hopeful results – 79% of zoomers go meatless at least once a week, and 87% say they could be convinced to buy plant-based alternative foods. Zoomers aren’t just open-minded, they’re willing to take action. And social change isn’t just being driven by young, irreligious progressives. As environmentalist Bill McKibben reported last month, even “young evangelicals are far far more likely to be engaged on climate than their elders.”
And it makes perfect sense that the kids who grew up hearing increasingly dire warnings about the state of the planet have grown up to be adults who are actually making a difference. Zoomers themselves muse that the combination of being born in a critical moment, plus the tools provided by the internet age, have uniquely situated them to be a generation of action. Arguably the best-known face of the environmental movement today is Greta Thunberg, only now barely out of her teens and famous for sparking a wave of student protests around the world. Young activists like Thunberg aren’t mincing words and they’re not interested in flattery or playing nice to win favor. They want us to panic – because we should.
Zoomers understand better than anyone that the negative environmental effects of human industry are already coming to fruition. After all, they’re the ones we’ve left holding the bag. And while previous generations haven’t done right by them, they might be the ones to do us all a favor and turn things around. As Gen Z grows into adulthood, their political and purchasing power will increase. They’re only going to be better equipped to act on that sense of urgency we’ve left them with. If we want the youth to have any hope at a future, we need to let them lead the way. And the sooner, the better.
Follow me on Twitter and LinkedIn.