The Rational Vegan

Dining Out

2011-11-17T11:26:00.000-08:00

Recently I ate out with a large group of coworkers, most of whom I had just met. Unfortunately, the restaurant chosen was one of those big chain sports and burger type places. I scoured the menu and found one item that just might work if it weren't for the cheese splattered on top.

Undaunted by the social ramifications, I dared to question the server if they could possibly make it without the cheese, and whether there were any other animal products that might show up. I had barely started when she interrupted me with, "Are you vegan?" I bit was a bit surprised as this was in the South (US), and the last time I had been by that way, I had found that everywhere I had eaten out had managed to work at least animal fat into every dish, forcing me to subsist on little more than fresh fruit and veggies. Raw-foodists may have been delighted, but I don't roll that way. True, that had been over a decade previous, but that I didn't even have to explain veganism was a nice surprise.

Sweet, this restaurant does have something I can eat!

She went on to explain that her college roommate had been vegan and she knew all about it. It turns out there was a hidden ingredient--the rice had Worcester sauce made with anchovies. Wow, she was good. It was pre-made that way, so she offered a safe alternative. Another server brought out the dish, and even told me they had taken pains to cook it separately for me so I wouldn't get any icky splatter on it. Very grateful, I was about to dig in when I noticed a suspiciously creamy sauce on top. It wasn't cheese, but it was some type of dressing with dairy in it.

The server apologies quite sincerely, and I apologized also. I didn't of course need to apologize myself for the mistake, but I was sorry that the food would go to waste, and that this could have been avoided if I had perhaps just asked one more question. It also pays to be gracious when sending food back to the kitchen.

They got it right the next time and it was pretty good. I managed to scarf it down before some of the others finished eating their far less appetizing dishes. Both servers and the manager came by to make sure everything was up to spec, and they also checked back with me as we were leaving.

I relate this because ~~people~~ ~~vegans~~ "animal people" (?) saying we should suck it up and eat the occasional animal product to avoid any faux pas or whatever are starting to really torque me off. Oh, it's never the omnivores I eat out with, friend or new acquaintance. They couldn't seem to care less. It takes just a bit longer for me to order sometimes, but it's no different from someone with an allergy. It's not the waitperson either giving dramatic sighs or rolling eyes at my weirdness. Nope, it's people who seem to think the world will change with no effort, or maybe that the waitstaff will go out and kill bunny rabbits after work if a vegan had the gall to ask a few questions.

Funny thing, I tend to have very pleasant experiences eating out. Servers sometimes ask me questions out of curiosity and often react positively. But why should we expect differently, especially when there is a fat tip on the line? Even when eating in places where tipping is taboo, I've had great experiences with friendly and supportive servers and chefs. Heck, I've got one place I go to in Japan where the owner/head chef personally greets me and tries out new dishes on me. He couldn't be happier to make sure his menu accommodates vegans well.

Here are my tips for making dining out a pleasant experience:

Be nice
Don't be afraid to ask
Be gracious when you can't be accommodated
Let the server know how much his or her efforts are appreciated
Don't sweat mistakes post-consumption when everyone made their best effort at avoiding animal products
Tip well--leave the impression that vegans are generous!
Thank the owner/manager
Ask that the kitchen staff be thanked, especially for alterations
Feel good about letting the restaurant know that vegans will eat there
Feel even better when vegan items start showing up on the menu
If everything fails, go to another place next time!

If it is not apparent from this, I am of the opinion that meekly eating items of questionable origin does jack squat for anyone. Oh sure, you don't cause a fuss, but why are you eating out with people who are going to be upset by something as innocuous as trying to order food you'll be happy with?

This is perhaps the easiest type of advocacy you can do. If the risk is people thinking vegans are fussy, that seems a small price to pay. I have to think that anyone annoyed by vegans dining out isn't exactly about to dive into veganism themselves anyway. Let those people deal about their own failings. I'm going to keep eating out and to keep asking questions, and having a very nice time doing so.

Image: Suat Eman / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

More Cleanse Nonsense

2011-11-06T09:18:00.000-08:00

Vegan cookbook author Claire Gosse and fitness "expert" Brock Picken have a new book called Vegan Flush (press release here). Scare quotes on 'expert' there because what kind of fitness expert doesn't understand how the human body actually flushes out toxins? (Hint for "experts" out there--your liver and kidneys take care of things).

I forget, did you say to use two or three parts bleach?

I wrote about the subject of "detoxing" before. It's still a nonsensical idea that toxins in the food we eat just hang out in the colon, waiting for scrubbing agents to clear it all out. And as always, there's no medical reasoning for why this would or could possibly work, and of course no studies with measurements to back up the claims. It's bunk through and through and just another variation of the old snake oil.

But, this is bunk being peddled by a vegan to a vegan audience. That sort of riles me up. Any group I belong to is going to be more intelligent (not to mention better looking) than average, but this kind of idiocy is really dragging us down. We should be better than this! Veganism is not just a diet to try out for sixty days and then ditch when you feel better about yourself, and no vegan should be promoting it as such.

On top of that, nonsensical claims like this make us look stupid while we try to convince others that veganism is in fact healthy. Look, I think the science behind claims that vegan food is darn healthy is pretty solid. But attributing extra-special medicinal properties? Eating plants is not going to make you into a superman or cure your cancer. At best, it's good food that will keep you healthier than a lot of junk you could otherwise be eating.

If for some reason you really need toxins flushed out of your body, get yourself to an emergency room because you are about to die. Seriously. Detoxing is a serious thing, a real medical emergency. Being poisoned or overdosing isn't a joke, and it isn't curable by eating special foods or by following some goofy elimination regimen.

Blame the Corporations

2011-10-09T11:55:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I ran across a link from Animal Legal Defense Fund declaring that Occupy Wall Street Takes on Corporate Animal Abuse. The linked "official declaration" contains this statement: "They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices." Okay, so I'm not sure who "they" are, although I could certainly fill in some names. I also don't have the foggiest how a movement like this has an official statement. I rather think the protesters at large would be surprised to hear that they "are giving a voice to the truth about how animals are regarded by corporate America." Sample the protesters, and I'm sure you'll find that they give no more thought to truly ending animal use than anyone else does. A gathering of non-vegans does not make a coherent animal rights protest.

Let's assume though that the protesters are on board with the torture statement, as hypocritical as that may be. What we seem to be dealing with here then is the same old tired animal welfare nonsense, not animal rights. Animal rights is concerned with the use of animals, any use, not specifically torture over "humane" use, or the hiding of practices that are perceivably worse in some way than other animal use.

But let me forgive even that. Let's further assume that the declaration doesn't run full bore into welfare territory, and instead uses abolitionist phrasing: "These corporations (to be named at a later date) have profited through the exploitation of animals." That's much better.

But not really. Here's the problem--these corporations are providing goods and services to meet demand. Demand from people like those protesting on Wall Street. You want it, they'll make money providing it. Putting the blame on McDonald's for selling hamburgers is completely misguided. People have to stop eating animals for corporations to stop offering them up as food. Stop buying hamburgers and they'll have no one to sell them to.

Ah, but what about corporations that profit from animal use when the actual product does not necessitate that use? Have at it in my opinion. Someone has to say something when they see unnecessary animal use, whether it is a customer or someone within the corporation. The more people pointing out that animal use is largely unnecessary, the better.

However, going after the food and entertainment suppliers just doesn't make sense. If the protesters do in fact want an end to corporate animal use, they will need to start by modifying their own behavior.

A Skeptic's Review of VegNew's Veg Marketplace

2011-09-21T20:50:00.000-07:00

Reading VegNews is always an adventure. There's usually some good recipes, factual articles, and items that can genuinely be called news, mixed in with welfarism, woo, and other assorted wackiness. It's just the right mix that fascinates me. I'm often appalled but can't stop reading it. Today I'm going to examine a part of the magazine that is a good representation of the woo side of things: Veg Marketplace. If you've got the September/October 2011 issue handy, get it ready and follow along.

This issue does have a lot of yummy looking recipes...

We start off in the food section and the first thing that jumps out of course is 'organic'. I count 6 of the 28 food advertisements and 2 of the 4 restaurants using the term. Now, it is not exactly woo, but if I've got a choice between a non-toxic synthetic fertilizer and using manure, I'm going the non-organic route. Loads more could be said on the subject; it boils down though to the old appeal to nature which I will write about in the future. I'm sure we could have a jolly time arguing about the merits, or lack thereof, of organic farming and labeling, but what should get all vegans riled up is the inclusion of an advertisement for Frey Vineyards. While the wine they produce can be called vegan, the term 'biodynamic' in the advertisement should be sending up red flags for anyone familiar with it. I encourage you to read the linked article at Skeptical Vegan, but what you should know at the least is that biodynamic farming expressly calls for animal use. I can grin and bear it knowing that most of my vegetables are not even close to be produced with all plant inputs, but that's a symptom of our long history of animal use. It's not good, but I'm fairly confident that animal inputs will naturally disappear as we humans stop our animal usage. I find it repugnant though when farmers are actually proud about that use of animals when they should darn well know better. You advertise your wine as vegan and then go on to write glibly about using animals to run your farm?! Talk about moral schizophrenia!

Moving on. There are advertisements for raw and gluten-free foods (thanks again Skeptical Vegan for saving me the trouble of writing on those topics!). I eat raw food, but just because it happens to be good raw. I also eat cooked food, because lots of stuff is more nutritious when cooked, it's delicious, I get more variety, and cooking is fun and all-around awesome. Advertising that foods are gluten-free is certainly good for those that have genuine trouble with gluten, but I suspect the gluten-free rice company may just be looking to make money off of the people who have become convinced that gluten equates to poison. Jicko Foods stands out of the crowd by advertising itself as raw, no soy, no gluten, no nuts. The website goes on with "No soy, no nuts, no gluten, no refined sugars to drain your energy level." Um, okay. I am no nutritional or thermodynamic expert, but I'm pretty sure those things actual contain calories that would confer energy to a person's body.

There's a juicer that produces "living" juice. There's also a restaurant that sells "living" foods. I quite like fresh food. Fresh lettuce is quite a bit better than the wilted kind. However, the distinction I make in my food choices is whether it has come from an animal or not. I don't much ponder whether my fresh squeezed orange juice is "living" or not. They should be calling it 'fresh', but that won't sell to a certain crowd. Mix it in with terms like "holistic" and "detoxification" as can be seen at the woo-tastic site for The Living Foods Institute and you've got a real money maker.

You can get a FREE report (a $15.00 value!) that will expose H₂O scams! Get the truth about energized and clustered water! Hey, I bet there's a government conspiracy involved! Well, really, it looks like they are just trying really hard to sell water purifiers. It's a very cynical application of woo judging from the rather boring website, but still. Can't we advertise things on their real merits instead of making up crap that no one who understands even the basics of chemistry could possibly believe? But, on the other hand...$$$$$$$

Here's a vegan B&B that will "nourish your body, mind and spirit". Okay, two things here. First, the separation between body and mind is hard enough to define and understand. It's not even clear what benefit we have in making that distinction most of time. Then you want to throw some ill-defined third concept on top of that? I've got my software and my hardware. If I die, I've got some mysterious backup program that copies my software to another location? What? Isn't that just more software? Heck, maybe I've got some crazy offsite NVRAM storing all my experiences. More hardware too then? Who knows? I don't think the B&B operators were expecting a debate on the issue, but I hate it when places casually pander to the belief in the supernatural. Now, the second thing, and this really sets me off--what kind of godless heathen doesn't use the serial comma? It should read "nourish your body, mind, and spirit"! Let's see some clarity in our writing! It's not hard, people!

The last advertisement is for Integrated Medicine. It's got woo up the wazoo, probably literally. Naturopaths, acupuncturists, and massage therapists, oh my! It's predictable, but still upsetting that they target vegans with this kind of nonsense. The advertisement asks, "Wish you could go to a vegan medical clinic?" Well, yes actually. I'd like to go to a clinic that completely understood my diet, and in general I prefer to support vegan businesses. A pharmacy that at least didn't put my animal tested medicines in gelcaps would be swell too. However, given the choice between vegan quackery and non-vegan real medicine, I'm going to have to go with being treated at a non-vegan clinic. And that's a real shame.

Irrational Reactions to Veganism: Appeal to Tradition

2011-08-28T12:37:00.000-07:00

Examples of Appeals to Tradition in Regards to Veganism

"Raising animals and eating meat is what made us human. The human race hasn't come this far eating lettuce."

"The Inuit culture has always depended on eating meat. You can't ask them to change."

"We're meat eaters. End of story."

Simple Example to Demonstrate the Fallacy

"We have always believed that the earth is flat. No fancy math or satellite image is going to convince me otherwise!"

Explanation

An appeal to tradition is pretty much what is sounds like--we have done this thing for a long time, therefore it is good and right to do this thing. The same goes for held beliefs. Because something has been believed for a long time, it is held to be true without any supporting proof.

Simple Rational Reaction to the Fallacy

Past actions and beliefs should not necessarily inform current actions and beliefs. Just because we have done something or believed in something previously, it doesn't mean we should continue to do those things or believe in those things.

Examination of the Reactions

Appeals to tradition are often not presented as such and are sometimes difficult to spot. They can also be used in conjunction with other fallacies such as an appeal to nature or consequences, and it is sometimes difficult to separate out the different ideas contained in one simple sentence.

1. Raising animals and eating meat is what made us human. The human race hasn't come this far eating lettuce.

The idea here is that a past benefit should inform our current position. You will often see this in conjunction with claims that our ancestors' brain growth was spurred by meat eating, or that animal rearing was necessary for the advent of vegetable farming. We do not need to address these claims at all. Right here, right now, we do not need to treat any animals as our property and have no need to eat anything but a vegetable based diet.

2. The Inuit culture has always depended on eating meat. You can't ask them to change.

Let us concede that any number of cultures depended and continue to depend on animal use to maintain their state. That they do or did so does not tell us what is correct. Pick any number of cultures in history that depended on human slave labor. We would not support these cultures simply because of how they traditionally functioned. A culture or lifestyle that depends on the misery of others should not be supported simply for the sake of that culture or lifestyle.

3. We're meat eaters. End of story.

This is a very basic appeal to tradition. There is no justification sought other than the fact that people have eaten animals in the past and continue to do so. Pick any societal ill to demonstrate how this is fallacious thinking.

Imagine a Vegan-ish World

2011-08-21T09:06:00.000-07:00

There's a Wayne Gretzky quote I've always liked: "You miss 100% of the shots you never take." Applied to the world of activism, you will never change anything if you never make the attempt. Last post I lampooned the notion of "vegan-ish" and how foolish it looks when applied to things like racism and sexism. Another aspect of "vegan-ish-ism" is that the goal of a vegan world isn't even attempted. It's an odd thing to claim that trying to not make waves or be seen as "extreme" would ever get us to a place where most people are vegan. It's like expecting child abuse to end if we set the example of only abusing children 5% of the time. Contributing to the problem to be less confrontational, in ways that are easily avoided even, is horribly misguided.

How purposefully not advocating veganism leads others to less animal use is a bit of a mystery, but let's skip over that and say that a "vegan-ish" proponent somehow got others to follow along on the path to ~~staying an omnivore~~ being "almost vegan". The thinking is that this is a small steps program along the lines of the New Welfarists.You first get people to reduce animal use by steps, and then it's gone. I see another gap in the reasoning here. If people think they are vegan except when eating out, there's no way they accept the notion that animals aren't our property to do with what we please. It would be like agreeing that human slavery is wrong, then going to eat out at a place that uses slave labor.

So, where would that put us? Since these people would not be in agreement that animal use is simply wrong, they would have to be given the same argument that animals are not ours no matter where they are in this supposed continuum to veganism. Convincing people that think they already do enough to make a true vegan commitment is very difficult. If you doubt this, give it a try. Try to convince a vegetarian to become vegan and listen to the rationalizations of how the animals are well cared for, or that it doesn't hurt much, or being locally sourced makes everything wonderful. More than anything, you'll hear the underlying claim of "I'm doing enough". That final step in this imagined process is at least as large as getting any person who has never thought about it to become vegan, making all these small steps utterly pointless. Like welfarism, it has no record of success and there's no reason to think it should. Make "vegan-ish" your goal, and at best, that sorry state is what you will accomplish.

Vegan-ish:
We're Trying to Hit the Rim

A world where all people are wishy-washy about animal rights is really not different from what we have now anyway. People in general think it is wrong to hurt animals without reason, but if the reason is no better than "I don't want to offend" or "a little indulgence won't hurt" for the "vegan-ish", how is that really any different? I cannot see that it is. A world where everyone simply tries to reduce the amount of pain they cause is still fraught with horror brought on by our hands. But perhaps the most ridiculous thing about "vegan-ish" is the idea that veganism is about perfection in the first place. It's not and never has been. It's about doing our best to end the property status of animals through our own actions. If you do not reject the property status of animals, there's no reason to try to apply vegan as a label for yourself. You are still very much part of the problem. The solution though is simple--instead of imagining doing all that you can one day, do your best right now.

Image: graur razvan ionut / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Let's Shoot for 95%

2011-08-15T08:48:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a lot about this post about how all birthday cake is vegan, and I definitely think they're actually on to something here. It's an indisputable FACT that committing 100% to something causes people to become just the opposite. Three lefts make, what? That's right. A right. The opposite. Keep going one way all the time and you'll end up going the opposite way! This is why superheros go bad, and supervillains go good. Go 100% vegan and you'll end up "rescuing" animals to score free meals.

Besides that, think about this. What really is wrong with committing "just" 95% to any cause? Coaches go on and on about giving 120%, but that's stupid, and mathematically impossible. How much can you really give? 100% is impossible too if you consider you need to give some percent to just keeping your body's vital systems going. Breathing is like 1%, your heart another 1%. Basic brain function plus overhead comes to another 1%, right? It seems only fair to leave a couple percent for yourself. That comes to what? 5%! That leaves 95% to dedicate to any endeavor. 95%. BAM! I think that's a very generous amount.

Apply this idea to veganism as the post suggests, and we are on easy street. You won't even need bother to read labels anymore. Any animal bits in there will easily fall under our freebie 5%. Yup, go ahead and eat that birthday cake. You can probably manage to pack in some spare ribs too if it's only occasional, or you limit yourself to like six or something each time you eat out. Here's a cool idea: eat a large vegan breakfast everyday. This will increase the amount that falls under your vegan 95%, which in turn increases the amount in your 5% allowance for the good stuff. By lunch, you could be sprinkling some cheese on your salad, or even bacon bits! Keep snacking during the day on fruit and veggies, and by suppertime, you could probably squeeze in a whole side dish of meat.

Your gateway to guilt-free bacon.

But this is really too good of a concept to limit to veganism. We can go hog wild with this (using "hog wild" falls under my 5% allowance for stereotypical animal sayings). First on my list: Stealing. I've like, almost never stolen anything. Maybe as a little kid. I suppose I didn't make a lot of effort to find the owner of a twenty I found in a hallway once. Taken in toto, I'm currently scoring about 99.9999999% in the "didn't steal" category considering my entire life. That gives me a 4.9999999% leeway to accumulate goods beyond my means. Heck, even stuff I can afford, I could just get for free as long as it doesn't push me under my 95% goal. I've got a lot of time to make up for, and a lot of spaces to fill on my ceramic figurine shelves.

That's very cool of course, but let's not forget the intangibles. I consider myself a very fair minded, non-discriminatory person. Once in a while though, I feel a bit jealous at the camaraderie I see when one group verbally abuses another. I often overhear things like, "I say, friend, do you see the way that group carries on, what with their tinted spectacles, and their chapeaus adjusted just so? I imagine they will later partake in a round of miniature golfing as their kind is apt to do. Let us have a jolly laugh at their expense!" Great guffaws of laughter then ensue. This is what I at least assume I would often overhear, but I never get close enough to make out anything because these people probably all have horrible body odor and I have to walk upwind from them. I can now though devise my own jibes to share with those whose skin tone (and lack of any discernible body odor) I share. Of course, I am not and never will be racist, but who wouldn't want to indulge a mere 5% of the time?

This is just the tip of the iceberg of course. I don't kick 95% of the people I interact with in the nethers, but you darn well better watch out if you're in that 5%! Sexual harassment? It's a big no-no of course, but I think the hotties will neatly fit in the 5%. Even now I'm making my do-and-don't murder lists. It's getting tough coming up with 9.5 people I don't want to kill for every person on my murder list, but really, this is the sacrifice I have to make.

Image: Idea go / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

"Humane Meat" Shenanigans

2011-07-17T08:39:00.000-07:00

I already linked to this article on "humane meat" on my Facebook page, but I want to respond to several points in it. The whole thing is chock-full of facepalm-worthy statements and demonstrates exactly how welfarists get things wrong.

I can always count on Picard to feel my pain.

#1: “I have ‘vegan’ tattooed on my neck,” said Reed, 29. “You could say I was a little passionate about it.”

The guy tattooing 'vegan' on his neck didn't make him one. It just makes him a hypocrite. And I'm not "passionate" about not stabbing people. I don't do it because it's wrong. I don't eat animals because it's wrong. Passion comes into play when speaking out against abuses and encouraging others to go vegan. Losing passion for that should not cause anyone to betray their ethics.

#2: “I don’t eat beef from factory farms for many of the same reasons I won’t buy clothes from The Gap,” Reed said. “It’s all about the industries and practices that are polluting our world, not whether or not it is OK to kill for food.”

Remember my last post on "environmentalists" missing the forest for the trees? Here is a perfect example of a person who thinks it's okay to kill to avoid pollution. As I pointed out in that entry, when we talk about preserving the environment, we must think in terms of the animals that enjoy those clean environments or else the effort is futile. The statement from the article is along the lines of "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." You don't beat your children because they mess up their playroom, and you don't kill animals to save the environment.

#3: Although Humane Farm Animal Care hasn’t seen a dramatic increase in vegetarians jumping ship, it has received enthusiastic consumer feedback, especially from vegans and vegetarians who are looking for way to ethically feed loved ones who love a good, juicy steak. “This program gives consumers a way to vote with their pocketbooks,” Douglass said.

This is a real danger of animal welfarism--people assuaging their guilt by purchasing "humane" products, or encouraging others to do so. The belief that they are causing less harm leads to more consumption of "humane" products, thus increasing suffering. If you want to reduce suffering, go vegan and encourage others to do so. People believing that they already are doing the right thing will cause them to never contemplate doing the actual right thing.

#4: No matter how many iron supplements Daniluk took, she could not defeat her constant fatigue and the dark circles under her eyes. Hesitantly, she incorporated meat into her weekly diet, but was determined to do so responsibly.

And there wasn't any other option? No other sources, or at least a way to minimize suffering? Which leads to...

#5: Some ex-vegetarians return to meat with gusto. Take Sasha Wizansky, who once shunned eating animals but now actually runs Meatpaper, a quarterly print journal devoted to all things meat...And Wizansky is far from the only one who straddles two worlds. As the ethics and interests of vegetarians and sustainable meat eaters become more shared, the more crossover there is between the two groups.

Now we are beyond ridiculous. As someone who doesn't rape, murder, or steal, I don't share ethics or interests with people who do. There's no straddling of ethical lines. I don't share ethics or interests with people who think it is okay to kill for pleasure. They don't represent me and I want nothing to do with them. End of story.

#6: “Ten years ago or so, it seemed that most of San Francisco identified with a vegetarian lifestyle, but that has really changed,” Wizansky observed. “Meat producers couldn't even get a booth at Bay Area farmers markets. Now, local, organic, humane producers have a huge presence at those same markets.” As several testified, the return to meat is all the easier when you have community support, be it the local farmers market, friends or family.

And here we have it. Mission accomplished for animal industry strategists. This is the goal--to get people to feel good about unethical decisions so as to continue to support animal industries. It doesn't matter if it's large scale factory farming or local butchery, those making money off of animal suffering have increased job security.

The proper response is to reject animal welfarism in its entirety. It's not better. It's not a step in the right direction. It's a strategy to mollify the populace so that animal suffering is not questioned, and it's working.

If a Tree Were to Fall

2011-06-26T14:34:00.000-07:00

If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings would there be any sound? The question is probably so familiar to some that it has become trite. To cut to the chase, the answer was meant to lie in the definition of "sound". Sound is defined as a perception. The tree falling creates vibrations in the air, but no sound because no one is there to perceive those vibrations as sound.

You may have immediately latched on to the part about "human beings". The question has been posed in many different ways, sometimes using "animals" when the question is asked from a physics standpoint. That the question is so often phrased to indicate that it is humans that matter in the perceiving is very revealing in how we perceive animals as just not counting.

Taken as a matter of philosophy, the question can lead to all kinds of theories on the nature of perception and reality. George Berkeley was a proponent of a metaphysical theory called subjective idealism (or immaterialism), which roughly means that if no one perceives something, it doesn't exist. In other words, everything is in your mind. Where your mind is supposed to exist, I don't know. In addition, Berkeley sort of started the whole "tree falls in a forest" thing, saying that trees don't even exist if no one is observing them.

Look away and this picture of a tree will cease to exist.
So will your monitor. It's philosophy.

I am fairly confident that trees exist independently of human perception. In fact, I have no reason to doubt it and quite a lot of evidence to suggest that trees don't need me around in any capacity to exist (see realism). But subjective idealism does raise a similar thought--does anything that is not and never will be observed by a conscious being matter at all?

Say that all animal life disappeared from this planet . There are no intelligent beings from other worlds visiting, no one to know that the planet exists. What would it matter then if the air were pumped full of carbon and sulfur dioxide, the ozone layer destroyed, the oceans boiled away? What matter if all the trees burned, all the rivers and lakes dried, all the meadows buried under sludge, all the things we hold beautiful in nature torn down and broken? Do these things matter if no one does or ever will exist to appreciate them?

I pose the questions to myself and my instinct is to say yes, it does matter in some way. But matter to whom? Well, no one since I've excluded anyone to appreciate or even acknowledge that the world exists. I have to conclude it really doesn't matter. Our world is an amazing place, but without someone to be amazed, it just is and no more. If all the trees fall over without anyone ever knowing this planet was here, what would it matter? It would not, because in order to matter, some conscious mind must exist for it to matter to. Any attributes we attach to the planet--beautiful, curious, intriguing, amazing--all fall away when we remove the people interacting with it. And that is not to discount non-human animals. They experience the world in different ways from us, but they are still experiencing it, and as they have interests, it does in some way matter to them.

I acknowledge that it seems to be an odd line of thinking. I do have a point with it though and it does tie in with animal rights, specifically animal rights in regard to environmentalism. My contention is that "The World" or "The Environment" matters nothing without the interests of the animals within it. When considering our impact, or the impact of other animals on the environment, we must think in terms of the impact on those and other animals living there or the discussion becomes meaningless.

For example, humans may use up all the water in a watering hole and make it into a muddy mess. Normally, it's not a matter that needs distinction, but should we be concerned for the watering hole itself? No. If anything we should be concerned for any animals relying on the watering hole as home or for sustenance. If that were not true, we could say that those animals could live or die as long as the water hole were still pristine. To what end would we be keeping it pristine then? The watering hole does not matter on its own, separated from any animal that would ever use it. It only matters in relationship to the animals that use it.

This comes into application when people put their ideas of "The Environment" before animals. There is much talk about keeping the world green and the oceans clean, but sometimes little thought or consideration given to the creatures that inhabit the world. A prime example is in the locavore movement, where a subset considers the exploitation of animals a smaller harm than using fossil fuels. The idea is something like this: It is better to raise and consume animals locally than to import food using fossil fuels.

In this case, for whom are we preserving the environment? Presumably for the animals who haven't been outright killed to support this scheme. These locavores have answered the false dichotomy between harming the environment and local killing with a system of perpetual animal slavery and exploitation. I doubt the animals would appreciate that.

If the goal however is to merely preserve the environment for human use, then local animal use makes sense over potential harm to human enjoyment. I have yet to read anything advancing this notion, but as I've shown, it only makes sense to try to preserve the environment for humans, non-human animals, or both. If non-human animals are so disregarded as to make food out of them in order to preserve the environment, I conclude that the purpose must be to provide human enjoyment. If that is the case, there's no need to couch things in green terms. The lakes and forests are simply there for our enjoyment and we should not defile them for the same reason that we should not defile our living rooms or deface a work of art.

Perhaps though we should consider a utilitarian view where the environment is preserved for both ourselves and for the animals who don't happen to meet their ends at our hands--those animals must suffer so that others can enjoy a clean environment. Again, I've read nothing directly advocating this view, but it seems consistent with the unclear goal of "saving the environment" by way of consuming animals. This view suffers from the same problems as general utilitarianism. Most prominent here is the sticky fact that we would not consider ourselves civilized and yet entertain the idea of killing humans so that others could enjoy a cleaner environment. That people kill non-humans to achieve that goal is simple speciesism and shows the fact that this rationalization again is pro-human, not pro-environment.

There's plenty of empirical evidence (one sample here) to rebut claims that local eating is better for the environment than veganism (doing both would seem to be the best course of action), and a whole lot more that can be discussed on these topics as a whole. However, I think it is clear from pure reason that environmental and animal rights concerns are inseparable, and that those who trumpet "The Environment" over animal rights miss the forest for the trees. It is the animals that matter, not our vague notions of greenness and environmental purity.

Image: Evgeni Dinev / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Superbug Found in Cows

2011-06-05T11:58:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up to the previous post on lab-grown meat, here is a link to a Science story on MRSA. Once again, I am going to step away from ethics here so please bear with me for this short post. MRSA stands for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, meaning that it is a drug resistant bacteria. It has been found in human, and now bovine hosts. It is normally harmless, but it can cause death in humans that have weakened immune systems. According to the article, it causes 19,000 deaths in hospitals each year.

There's a possibility that MRSA was created from humans being treated with antibiotics, and then spread to cows. The other obvious possibility is that it was created in cows treated with antibiotics and then spread to humans, likely through worker contact. We don't know yet and never may. Whichever the origin though, by treating cows with antibiotics, humans are creating an environment suitable for drug-resistant bacteria--bacteria that are also happy in a human host.

These are sentient creatures, not actually Petri dishes.

A similar environment is likely to be created for lab-grown meat. I am extremely skeptical of claims that promote cultured meat as being safer. In contrast to animals raised for food, lab-grown meat is just a bunch of animal cells with no immune system. The growing environment can be more controlled and be made cleaner than a stockyard, but is not going to be bacteria free. Creating a bacteria-free environment would cost astronomical sums and would be completely impractical. In fact, the culture used to grow the meat itself is pretty much how bacteria are purposefully cultivated. To keep the system from becoming a bacteria factory, something has to be introduced to kill off infections. Antibiotics are used where it is legal to do so which tells me it is likely the most economical solution, and as far as I've been able to ascertain, the only solution seriously being looked at for the large scale production of cultured meat. I am not keen on the idea of creating additional millions of daily science experiments where the only the hardiest bacteria survive.

It's bad enough that we create situations where diseases pass easily between species, and that we are also creating stronger bacteria that are infecting animals, human and non-human alike, who want nothing to do with our whole horrific culture of exploitation. Investing in something that likewise could create stronger bacteria when we have a perfectly valid (and probably superior) option of a plant-based diet should not even be up for consideration by anyone based on this deadly drawback alone.

Image: graur razvan ionut / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Lab-Grown Meat

2011-05-24T13:30:00.000-07:00

Lab-grown (cultured/in vitro) meat is back in the news again with this story by ABC News (Warning: meat pictures). It seems not much has progressed on the development of cultured meat in the last 10 years. It is still prohibitively expensive, but researchers claim that they just need more capital investment to produce a commercially viable product. Not surprisingly, PETA is involved, vigorously and proudly waving their white flag again. Apparently veganism will never take off so there may as well be a "cruelty-free" version of meat.

At first glance, cultured meat seems to be ethically neutral. No animals are directly harmed in the production. It is grown from precursor animal cells which can presumably be reproduced indefinitely. There's still an ethical consideration here though--where do those cells come from originally? My stance is that outside of emergency and necessity, all deliberate use of animals is unacceptable. An argument that one animal must die simply to satisfy human tastes is unsupportable outside of a utilitarian view (which I wholeheartedly reject). Even the experimentation using live animal cells is ethically unacceptable as can be seen in this article from The Times. Live cells from a pig are used and bathed in the blood of animal fetuses. They hope to use a synthetic solution in the future. However, as there is no necessity involved, the entire process in getting to those synthetics, and therefore the end result, is morally unsupportable.

Even if we accepted the view that a small number of animals have to die to create the precursor cells, there is no reason to think lab-grown meat would mean the end of animal exploitation for food. Animals could still be bred to provide new cell lines and as "controls" to ensure proper texture and taste are being emulated. Non-cultured meat would be promoted as "real meat" and hyped as a natural alternative. Think the "let's go natural and raise and kill buffalo" crowd is annoying now? Wait until they get a chance to decry cultured meat as another spirituality depraved blow to Nature. It will also perpetuate the idea that meat is a normal and necessary human food. Switching to cultured meat will just open up new struggles with the same bad ideas.

Directions: Plant. Grow. Eat.

Ethics of exploiting animals aside, there are several more reasons why I do not support lab-grown meat:

1. Growing evidence that a 100% plant-based diet is healthier. As Dr. Willet put it in the ABC News article: "From a health standpoint, moving to less meat is the way to go. Just simulating more meat from a health standpoint doesn't make sense."

2. Cultured meat will more than likely require growth hormones to mass produce. The science on whether added hormones are currently causing problems in humans is not conclusive, but it is a risk I would not take.

3. It also needs antibiotics to control bacteria. There is a direct health risk from ingesting the antibiotics, and there is also a risk associated with our general overuse of antibiotics.

4. The cost of production including things such as mechanicals, labor, nutrients, and energy, while possibly lower than in traditional meat production, is unlikely to get close to the much lower cost of producing plant products.

5. Likewise, even if the environmental impact is lower than in traditional meat production, it will not be as low as plant production.

6. Cultured meat is simply unnecessary. Plant-based foods abound. They are immensely flavorful and nutritious and the variety is such that it would be possible to spend our entire lives never eating two meals exactly alike.

7. Eating animal flesh, whatever the source, is undesirable for me. I have no reason to eat something that on a physical level is no different from a corpse, and I would not recommend it for anyone else.

So what about the hypothetical people who would refuse to eat a plant-based diet, but would eat cultured meat? Given what I've seen of the current divide between vegans and animal eaters, I doubt this would be a useful tool in convincing people of the ethical argument. Those who claim that their pleasure in eating certain animal products prevents them from being vegan already do not accept the ethical arguments. There is no reason to believe that if they became a cultured meat eating "vegan" they would not partake in the meat of dead animals should cultured meat be unavailable, or even just inconvenient to momentarily acquire. For this reason and all that I have listed above, I will not support lab-grown meat, and I will continue to encourage an ethical, plant-based diet.

Here's a bonus quote on meat eating from the article: "You can enhance your brain power, you can enhance your immune system, you can reduce your body weight." Really? I'm familiar with the claims of "paleo" diets, but the idea that weight loss is easily achievable with plant-based diets isn't much in dispute. I'd like to see some sources for the claims that eating meat enhances brain power and the immune system. I've never even heard those claims before, and I've had years and years of experience listening to rationalizations for meat eating. One would think those claims would have spots on Defensive Omnivore Bingo.

Image: Simon Howden / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Plant Analogs

2011-05-22T09:38:00.000-07:00

I try to not pay much attention to how animal eaters prepare their carcasses for consumption, but I can't help but notice a strange phenomenon--animal products dressed up as though they were plant-based foods. I did a bit of research (not recommended--the descriptions and images are horrifying), and found that the practice is rather widespread. It's actually amazing just how many plant products are imitated using meat.

Take the humble hot dog for instance. Normally it is made of soy and wheat with spices for flavoring. Processed versions may include added vitamins and minerals. Sometimes creative people will work in vegetables like carrots and onions. Regardless, it's pretty easy to see how convenient it is to take these basic ingredients and shape them for grilling and eating in a bun.

How one could look at an animal like a pig or cow and think, "Could I put it on a bun?" is beyond me, but meat eaters have managed it. In a clear imitation of hot dogs, they've gone and developed a process where they grind up nearly every single part of an animal, mix it with preservatives, shape it, and then try to pass it off like a normal hot dog.

This practice should immediately raise a question: Why do they feel it's necessary to imitate foods made from plants? It's not like animals that naturally prey on pigs and cows puree every gruesome bit before eating it. If they were serious about their meat eating, wouldn't they eat pigs just like a wolf in the wild would?

And it's not just hot dogs. They imitate other sausages. German? Imitated. Italian? Imitated. Polish? Imitated. You get the idea; imagine it, and they've got some version made up out of animal guts. Here's the kicker--they spice and texture it to try to make it taste like real food! How messed up is that? If they want it to taste like plants, why aren't they just eating plants like normal people?

They even imitate our beer brats. Is nothing sacred?
(vegan version posted to not further spoil appetites)

Sausages are just the tip of the iceberg. Hamburgers, deli slices, crumbles, basically anything that's shaped from plant proteins, they've gone and made a fake version of it. Wait, there's more. Soy, rice, coconut, or almond milk? They drink cow's milk. Who in the world would drink the milk of an animal when they have perfectly good, totally normal soy milk available? Well, they would obviously, but they must have a few screws loose to do so. Vegetable spreads? More cow milk. They've even got versions of ice cream made from bovine secretions. Can I get an "ewww", please?

Animal eaters, do me a favor. If you insist on your unnatural practices, stick to your bloody chunks of corpses and stop trying to make fake versions of everything. You'll never get the taste and texture right unless you use real plants! Oh, and the Vegan R.D. has a a pretty good, non-satirical article on analogs that you should also check out.

A Bit of Sanity on Vegan Pregnancy

2011-05-15T15:53:00.000-07:00

What a pregnant woman may look like.
(Stock image--I have no idea if she's vegan or not. Sorry.)

I don't have too much to add on this story by Alison Waters for The Scavenger: Should you give up being vegan when pregnant? My short answer: No. Long answer: No, vegan pregnancies produce healthy babies. If the nutrition is great for the mom, it's going to be great for the kids. See your doctor about any concerns--the same as any other mother!

I really dislike the scare articles that have come up on vegan pregnancies. Vegan women get enough questions and concern from family and friends about calcium, and protein, and this, and that, and really don't need ignorant people with a media outlet causing more confusion. Credible doctors and institutions signed off on vegan diets and pregnancies long ago. If you are going to trust an expert, trust them and not some random doctor that hasn't read a medical journal in the last few decades, or some goofball that thinks the Weston A. Price Foundation is anything but a bad joke.

So, once again I've chosen an article related to celebrity mock-vegan dieters. Maybe I do have a problem I need to acknowledge...Anyway, this looks like a new column for The Scavenger, and Alison seems like she's got a very good grasp of rational thought and ethics. I'll be watching that space.

Image: Louisa Stokes / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Another Celeb Vegan Bites the Dust

2011-05-13T13:41:00.000-07:00

Ginnifer, you have a very serious disease.
My prescription? Eggs.

No, I'm not in the habit of following celebrity gossip, but I do pay attention to vegan related shenanigans in news aggregators. The headline this time is Ginnifer Goodwin Quits Veganism. I remember reading the original story on her becoming vegan here and wondering if she may just really get it. I was foolishly optimistic. Get a load of the before and after quotes:

"I found out what it is that diary cows go through and what horrible lives these animals lead. I actually broke down—there was a day of sobbing upon realizing what I had been supporting. And I thought, well, if I don't need animals to be healthy in my diet, then why would I put take their lives away or support an industry that puts them in situations that might not be the most, uh, happy-making."

"The first thing I ate was an egg that I found from a humane farm… and I scrambled it up. It was the most delicious thing I’ve ever eaten. I felt like a hypocrite and I cried and then I scrambled up another one."

Uh-huh. She claims health issues for her sudden but inevitable betrayal. Sure, loading up on eggs is going to fix you right up. Until the universal laws that govern chemistry are repealed, there's nothing in eggs that your body needs that cannot be found from plant sources.

As silly as I find this, it's a good object lesson on why moral decisions shouldn't hinge on emotional responses. Choose to be vegan because it's the right thing to do, not because it feels right. Otherwise, you may end up crying over eggs like Gennifer.

Mock-Vegans

2011-05-13T13:01:00.000-07:00

Mock-vegan spokesperson Natalie Portman

Before I get too carried away throwing around the term "mock-vegan", I'd better explain what I mean by it. It's not just my code word for attention seeking celebrities. First, let's review Donald Watson's definition of veganism:

Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals.

The language could use a bit of tightening up in my opinion, and I'm not too crazy about the "reverence for life" wording, but the meaning is very clear. Vegans do not, by definition, use animals in any way. By this definition, there is no such thing as a "dietary vegan". Herbivore, as I understand the word, would be an appropriate term for someone eating a plant based diet if brevity is desired, and it would be a far more appropriate term for "dietary vegans". Or at least it would be if they did in fact stick to plants. Humane Myth has an article on vegetarians eating meat, and there have been people claiming to be vegans while consuming animal products popping up on forums and comment threads here and there.

Besides these confused dieters, there are people who have co-opted the word and invented their own definitions. You can read more about them in this excellent article by A Candid Hominid.What is particularly distressing about this is that many clearly understand the arguments for actual veganism, but instead choose a utilitarian view which can be used just as well to support animal exploitation, or human exploitation for that matter.

I've taken to referring to these folks collectively as "mock-vegans". Mock as in feigned; not real; sham. There are good mockeries, such as a delicious mock tuna salad. There's nothing good though about paying lip service to veganism, and then treating veganism as anything but an ethical stance, or as

Detox, Schmetox

2011-05-10T14:51:00.000-07:00

Celebrity mock-vegan Alicia Silverstone's website The Kind Life is now featuring a product called Kaeng Raeng. It's a supposed "detox" product. From their website:

How does it work?
Your body can consume all natural ingredients easily, healthfully separating fiber and nutrients, and passing waste through your colon cleanly. When you consume additives, chemicals, toxins, and other processed foods, your digestive system cannot properly separate the healthy from the non healthy components of the food. Many times, these toxins will not pass through your colon properly, sometimes building up over days, weeks, months, or years. Kaeng Raeng works to "flush" all of those toxins by using all natural fibers and water to help eliminate that colon build up. During any detox, it is imperative to drink plenty of water to ensure a smooth cleanse. Never drink a cleanse product that has artificial ingredients as these counteract the benefits of detoxing.

This is truly a miraculous product. It is also apparently "Skinny Bitch" Approved! Exciting! I'm not too surprised. I see lots of nonsense about "cleanses" and "detoxification" on raw diet and "vegan diet" sites. Oh, and thanks for the tip on those cleanse products with those terrible artificial ingredients. I like my bunk all-natural!

Here's what you really need to know about these products, courtesy of Dr. Stephen Barret of Quackwatch.org:

The theory of "autointoxication" states that stagnation of the large intestine (colon) causes toxins to form that are absorbed and poison the body. Some proponents depict the large intestine as a "sewage system" that becomes a "cesspool" if neglected. Other proponents state that constipation causes hardened feces to accumulate for months (or even years) on the walls of the large intestine and block it from absorbing or eliminating properly. This, they say, causes food to remain undigested and wastes from the blood to be reabsorbed by the body.

Around the turn of the twentieth century many physicians accepted the concept of autointoxication, but it was abandoned after scientific observations proved it wrong. In 1919 and 1922, it was clearly demonstrated that symptoms of headache, fatigue, and loss of appetite that accompanied fecal impaction were caused by mechanical distension of the colon rather than by production or absorption of toxins. Moreover, direct observation of the colon during surgical procedures or autopsies found no evidence that hardened feces accumulate on the intestinal walls.

So...there's nothing there to cleanse. These bold entrepreneurs certainly won't let a little fact like that get in the way.

Not sold yet? Put on your critical thinking cap and check out the entire article. For more, see the entry on the Skeptic's Dictionary, and for a funnier and grosser look, see Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t Season 5 Episode 4: Detoxing. If you know some vegans easily swayed by the idea of "body purity" and "cleanses", please share these links so they can learn to stay away from these predators.

Compassion or Justice?

2011-05-09T11:22:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I wrote on the new interconnectedness made possible by Facebook. Some of it applies to other social media, but I feel Facebook is a unique tool right now in how quickly it can bridge people and ideas. Case in point--this morning, a link from My Face Is on Fire's news feed brought me to a notable quote on the NZ Vegan Podcast blog. Counting the quote, that's three connections in one click. Quite impressive. Anyway, on to the quote:

"Is our obligation not to be racist or sexist a matter of 'compassion'? No, it's a matter of justice. Same with nonhuman animals."--Gary Francione

I could write several pages examining the various ideas contained in this quote, and I probably will at some point. Today I'll try to be brief though and examine one thought that struck me on reading this--I have over the years seen a lot of pro-vegan and animal rights arguments based on compassion, and there is a problem with it.

It's called an "appeal to emotion". Food companies and industries do it with commercials showing happy people eating hamburgers and drinking milk. The message is: "You want to be happy like these people, don't you? Eat meat!"

On the other side, watching a video showing animals being mistreated can make us sad. The message is "You're compassionate, right? Don't eat animals!"

For the non-vegan, the argument comes down to tastiness of animals versus feeling bad for the animals that suffer to make that tasty food. It's a battle of emotions, not reason. How often does self-interest win out over compassion? How often does an "ex-vegan" find that compassion is suddenly outweighed by the desire for a hamburger?

You hopefully are able to see why an appeal to emotion is considered a logical fallacy. It depends on emotional state, which is fickle. It also makes any position equal! Want to eat animals because it makes you happy? Well, there's your justification right there. Appeals to compassion are just as weak under examination.

It's an incredibly powerful tool, and can be used to get people to start thinking, but it should never end there. It's far more important to have a logically sound argument as your moral bedrock. Compare these two statements:

1. I don't eat animals because I feel bad for them.

2. I don't eat animals because it is speciesist and unjust.

All that has to break down for the first statement is for that bad feeling to go away. Poof! You're exploiting animals again. Assailing the second statement takes a lot more work. As a vegan, are you going to decide that non-human animals are suddenly ethically yours to exploit, or maybe that's it's okay to eat people? I would hope not.

So, compassion or justice? Compassion is a important trait, I'll not argue against that, but it is our logically sound, ethical stances that keep us strong against our other, less than admirable emotions.

The Rise of the Vegans (on Facebook)

2011-05-08T12:26:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that there are a lot more vegans around than there used to be. I don't mean dieting celebrities, or the mock-vegans circling the wagons on welfarist websites. I mean honest-to-goodness vegans that I'm noticing all over the place. And by all over the place, I mean on Facebook.

I've gotten into the habit recently of liking all kinds of vegan related feeds on my personal Facebook account. I've also been reading the comments on the postings. A few are from people who get in to cause trouble (really, Dan F. Johnson? You have nothing better to do than troll Facebook comments?). Quite a few more are obviously written by those who are health faddists and are shocked that vegans would have the gall to both care about animals and give their opinions on the topic of animal use (it clearly says "vegan" in the title, folks...). However, what cheers me are all the posts from people who have embraced veganism and are eager to let the rest of us know.

OK, sure, some of them will probably become the dreaded "ex-vegans", but I am still seeing new converts every day, and that means more vegans for life too. I'm seeing all kinds of people, young and old, people in all kinds of professions, and from all kinds of backgrounds joining the consensus that exploiting animals is wrong. Seeing their excitement makes me excited, and very hopeful for the future.

To explain my perspective--I have been vegan for a couple decades now. It's almost embarrassing to relate, but I had no inkling that there were even vegetarians until I was twelve. I was reading an Alfred Hitchcock mystery novel for teens and the bad guys were fake vegetarians (caught up because they used mustard on their sandwiches...but then so do I. Puzzling...). The light bulb over my head went off and I realized I didn't have to eat meat. This was a major revelation. Everyone I knew ate meat. And liked it. So did I. Really, that's about all I ate since I hated vegetables. But, I liked animals, right? If I don't have to eat them, why should I? A few months of fighting with my parents later and I was a ovo-lacto vegetarian.

How I got my milk and eggs wasn't something I gave any thought to. It was few years later in high school that I learned about veganism. I was on a school trip to another state. A girl sat down to eat breakfast with me and poured orange juice on her corn flakes (remember, this is back in the stone ages when soy milk was terrible if you could even find it). Not being very bright, I had to ask what that was all about. Five minutes later, I was feeling very sheepish sitting there with my bowlful of cereal and cow juice.

This is all to say that back then, I had no other vegans to talk to, and no books on the subject at my library. I was the only vegetarian at my school. My family didn't get it, and my supposed friends never got tired of teasing me, and could be outright hostile when I didn't want to share a pizza. It was just kind of me alone in a world of flesh eaters. The vegetarian sections at supermarkets were a few scant dusty shelves in the back, if there at all. I had to often rely on health food stores and all the puzzling fad items contained therein, never really sure if the poorly labeled items were vegan or not. "All natural ingredients!" Um, okay. There was no publicly available Internet. I never found a good message board back in the age of dial-up. There were some vegetarian cookbooks I got my hands on, the occasional journal, magazine, or PETA flier to let me know there were others out there, somewhere. But it was all rather...disconnected.

Now I feel like I'm emerging from my vegan cave to discover the world has changed. Vegan blogs are popping up all over the place. Vegans are on TV. Fad or not, a lot more people know what vegans are now. But one of the most important changes is the interconnectedness possible through Facebook.

What's great about it is that people don't need to seek out a website or forum on their own to learn about veganism. Someone like me can stumble on veganism by seeing a friend like a page, or repost a link. Too much reposting and getting on the soapbox and I'm sure I'd get ignored as I ignore non-stop streams of political invective from certain people, but a little here and there won't hurt your friends. And once someone does check out a vegan page, they can find that there's a whole lot more where that came from. Interesting articles are relinked, there's a list of linked pages which in turn link to others. The curious have a wealth of information at their fingertips, along with (mostly) helpful vegans that are happy to answer questions or point people in the right direction.

For established vegans, we can get updates each day about vegan happenings, and a mix of new and interesting people commenting on the stories (in the Facebook comments or on the linked article site), even if it's just to give a thumbs up. It's a very different feel from a forum where after some time, it's mostly the old regulars going through the same motions, and unfortunately keeping newcomers lurking rather than joining in. I love the interactions in the comments, sometimes especially when someone disagrees or is misinformed, which gives an opportunity for further discussion.

Even if there aren't more of us out there, we are talking to each other more, and making more connections, and that's a wonderful development.

Empathy and Rationality

2011-05-07T09:36:00.000-07:00

How does one arrive at the notion that harming non-human animals is wrong? Some people just like animals and abhor the thought of hurting, much less eating them. For many it starts with an emotional reaction to witnessing animal cruelty. I have read of people so affected as children by the Disney movie Bambi that it started them on the path to veganism (Spoiler Alert: Bambi’s mother is shot by a hunter) . Witnessing animals slaughtered for food, working at an animal shelter, or reading accounts of people torturing animals for entertainment are all things that can trigger an empathic response. Humans are animals and we instinctively recognize that other animals must feel as we do when ill treated.

Empathy is sometimes misunderstood to be incompatible with rationalism. Surely cold hard facts and logic have no place for emotion or empathy? Well, no. What rational arguments really do is remove emotion from the vicinity because it just gets in the way of logic, and is often used in place of logic. When a person states that he “feels” he is correct despite contrary evidence, that’s often emotion mucking things up. There’s no truth to be gained, no improvements to self or environment possible until that emotional roadblock is removed. For instance, I may “believe in my heart” that my brother is a good person and will give up his life of crime, despite his ongoing theft of my porcelain doll collection. If I ignore the fact that I love my brother and I observe him objectively, I can see that the facts of the situation are contrary to my beliefs. I can then adjust my assessment of my brother accordingly, and begin to act on this assessment rather than be paralyzed by my prejudice.

What we can also do with rationalism is apply it to the examination of emotions and empathy. Rationalists know these are real and important concepts worthy of that examination. Empathy is thought to be a evolutionary advantage. Empathetic members of a species help each other survive to pass on the empathy trait. Also, the stronger a species’s collective empathy, the easier it is for that species to compete with other species. One result of this empathy for an individual’s own species is interspecies empathy.

Many animals besides humans are capable of recognizing that other types of animals are rather similar to themselves and have the same wants and needs. I was introduced to this idea in an evolutionary biology class with a picture of an elephant righting a tortoise that had been flipped onto its back. The elephant gained nothing from this interaction save perhaps a sense of satisfaction in setting things right. It’s pure empathy and willingness to help selflessly. Other examples that many are familiar with are the cases where an animal will rescue another animal from danger, such as a dog helping to free kittens stuck in a pipe.

As a rational being, I am not entirely at the mercy of my evolutionarily gained instincts. I can for example ignore urges to end arguments with fisticuffs. So too can I choose to ignore the pangs of empathy for non-human (or human!) animals, as many do. So here we come to a rational argument for empathy and veganism. Should I care about other animals, or should I make the world my smorgasbord?

First, let’s do take away my emotional response to watching an animal like myself die so that I can eat it. If I were a robot capable of the thought, would I have any use for empathy? Science fiction seems to have that answer. Whether I’m a human replicant, giant robot, or a nigh-unstoppable T-1000, it seems it is in my best interest to play nice with humans. Now, it may not be exactly the same as animal empathy, but it gets to the same place--if I want to continue my existence, I shouldn’t hurt others, and it would probably pay to go out of my way to help others so that I can in turn be helped.

So, we’ve got the Golden Rule covered, at least as far as rational beings applying it to each other. Up to here should be pretty obvious for people operating in a cooperative society. But what about other animals? It’s not likely that a rabbit is ever going to do me a favor, and there’s little chance of one ever doing me harm no matter how many I kill.

What expectation though should I have that an entirely different creature does not consider my killing of a rabbit license to in turn kill me? Unlikely, yes (until the aliens invade of course), but that is still the key to understanding the Golden Rule. I would not want to be eaten, therefore I should not eat other animals. I would not want my freedom taken away, therefore I should not take away the freedom of other animals. I do want to be left alone, unharmed by others, therefore I should leave other animals alone and not cause them harm. Imminent threat of harm to myself is not what stays my hand. It is rather a general principle to live by.

I think that’s enough to chew on for now. Note that this is a rational argument regarding veganism, and is hardly the whole picture, even on the aspect of empathy. There’s plenty more to discuss on the general topic of rationality and veganism, and I will return to it at a later date.