Is Veganism Really the Optimal Choice?

[joey m]

Jerry,

Great post! Many interesting points here.

For the record, I am a vegan, so if anything I say offends vegans, at least know that I am one of you (for whatever that's worth).

Unfortunately, you are right that there is often a pattern in many vegans to equate meat eaters with torturers and to look down upon them. I don't agree this is appropriate behavior, and I am in full agreement that it will not ingratiate people towards the philosophies of those who are vegan. Again, here, the live by example credo is the best. John Robbins continues to amaze me with his ability to be so passionate about veganism while still being so supportive and loving and empathetic to those who are not. He is quite the role model -- I don't think I could ever be the person he is in this regard.

Basically, in any discussion, if one person gets attacked, they will basically get defensive rather than truly listen to what the other person is saying. I find it is far more productive to live by example, and when people ask, I will talk to them. Otherwise, I am simply wasting my time and theirs. Attacking others is the surest way to create enemies and create an environment that sees vegans as some sort of radical sect rather than a movement of love and peace.

You also make a good point about the fact that meat isn't the only way in which we harm animals. Surely leather products harm animals. But also we harm animals by building homes in new areas, by building roads, testing on animals etc. Now of course, the concept of murder for pleasure in some ways permeates our lives more than we can imagine. Nobody in our society is truly 100% vegan because daily living unfortunately affects the lives of animals greatly in a negative manner. But, I think vegans should be commended to working their hardest to ensure as little animal suffering as possible.

Let's go a little bit more though into the heart of your message. You discuss the fact that vegans equate meat eating with the Holocaust to elevate the veganism movement to a position of superiority. While some vegans may be doing this, there are probably far more vegans who are not doing this for THEIR own good, but rather to bring awareness to the plight of the animals who are actually suffering. Recognize that most people are still blisfully ignorant of what occurs in factory farms. Whether we like it or not, the analogy to the Holocaust is fairly on point (albeit many feel the analogy of animal suffering to human suffering is not equivalent). If people try to bring about awareness of human suffering elsewhere in the globe, we do not jump to the conclusion that it is to place themselves in a position of moral superiority -- instead we likely presume it to be more of a humanitarian effort.

I,myself, have discussed the condition of animals in agrifarming as similar to the conditions that the Jews faced in the Holocaust -- and of course usually people are aghast at this. I can understand their reaction, but I still believe that when you look at the facts from less of a human-centered standpoint, there truly is great similarity in the conditions in which the two were kept. For the record, I am of Jewish heritage too.

But, I do not engage in these conversations to somehow say that I am better or morally superior to whomever I am talking too. I am simply aware of a situation that I find very disturbing, and I have decided to act. When I encounter someone else who is interested in finding out more, I am happy to discuss the matter with them. OTherwise, I pretty much keep my info to myself and try to live the best life I can. But, sometimes, people are so loud and ignorant about these matters, that I will engage them in conversation (not so much for their benefit, but for the benefit of those who are listening).

The point you make about vegans being a bit hypocritical if they are not simultaneously doing humanitarian work I find to be curious. Are you also saying then that anyone who does a ton of humanitarian work but is not vegan is also a hypocrite? There is the assumption in this point that the most important thing we can do as human beings is help out other human beings. IF we are only helping out the environment or animals, we are somehow doing less good then those who are more involved with humans. I think many would disagree that our efforts are best spent on worrying about humans. Indeed, there are so many people out there already focused on speaking out and protecting other people, but there are relatively few focused on protecting animals.

Further, anything people do to better this planet should be commended. I have never found the argument convincing that if people are doing this one thing that is positive, they are hypocritical because they are also not doing this other positive thing. Every positive thing someone does is worthy of praise regardless of whether they are also doing other things.

Your last point is also a very good one. I am a big believer that our age should go down as the age of consumption. We overly tax every resource (natural and man-made) we have with no cares for the consequences. I too believe our time is coming to pay for our greed and consumption.

Best,
Joey

[Jerry K]

Awesome post Joey, it's always refreshing to engage in dialogue with someone online and have both us still respect the rules of respect that apply in real-life conversation.

I agree wholeheartedly with nearly everything you are saying. If you took my point to mean that any vegan who isn't also engaged in humanitarian efforts to mean that any humantarian is not vegan is also a hypocrite than I didn't make that point clearly. Most vegans I know do NOT try to push other people to veganism but rather are inspirational in their dedication to their own moral pathway and also happen to live very compassionate, healthy lives.

I do however maintain that for anyone to equate animal suffering to the Holocaust means that that person must be dedicated 100% in their life to solving problems of humans, or else it is an empty argument. Let me put this another way. I have grieved often for my relatives and the millions of others who were killed in the holocaust and for all of society's loss of their energy. I have also grieved for the way that animals are treated in factory farms. However, my grief over the relatives I will never know from the Holocaust FAR outweighs the grief I feel for the way animals are treated in factory farms. Perhaps that is just a signal of my own capacity for compassion, which I am actively working on developing more fully.

I'll pose this question, and I'm curious to hear your answer because I can tell you've thought a lot more about this than I have and this is the first time I'm really articulating this. If a non-meat-eating person is going to say that the rest of humanity who eats meat are metaphorically murdering Nazis, but then that same person fails to stop the actual murder of actual humans in actual Nazi fashion that is going on right now in our immediate world, what does that say about the moral system of that person? Is that not a de facto declaration that the desire to protect animals who are being eaten for meat is at least equal, if not morally higher, than the protection of humans being killed for sport or bizarre religious/racial issues?

To say that this person should be concerned for the animals because there are plenty of people already concerned about the humans, is to duck the question. I wouldn't not teach kids how to read because enough kids already know how to read - that wouldn't be a reasonable answer. Making the choice of where to place your energy is not a response to where others have placed their energy. The choice indicates what you think is most deserving of your passion and energy.


I would say in response to your point:

"Are you also saying then that anyone who does a ton of humanitarian work but is not vegan is also a hypocrite? There is the assumption in this point that the most important thing we can do as human beings is help out other human beings."

I don't think we have a responsibility to help other humans more than animals, or animals more than humans. I think we have a responsibility to be compassionate and mindful in all of our dealings, whether with animals, humans, or social issues. For where I am in my own moral development, I think that we need radical change in how we handle animals and also how we handle the fruits & vegetables.

Let me pose another question. If you had a gun, and you saw a tiger attack a human for no reason, would you kill the tiger and save the human? I would assume yes?

Same situation, you have a gun, but now you happen to stroll out back of a circus tent and you see an animal trainer whipping a tiger until it bleeds to teach it how to do a trick. Would you shoot the trainer and save the tiger?

Jerry

[joey m]

Jerry,

This is getting really fun! I love your posts, and I love these sort of philosophical discussions. IT is a win/win because even if we don't end up agreeing on each point in the end, we will have both explored our own philosophies more deeply.

I am an expert on health and fitness, but am just an enthusiast of the philosophical components -- but I love to explore these areas as well.

I am still a touch confused by the argument you made that

I do however maintain that for anyone to equate animal suffering to the Holocaust means that that person must be dedicated 100% in their life to solving problems of humans, or else it is an empty argument.

I do understand the human desire to care more for humans than for other species -- much as other species have a tendency (although not always) to care more for their own than for other species. This certainly seems to be a Darwinian type of survival mechanism. But, I do know of many people who would say they care more deeply for animals than for humans. Take for instance Jane Goodall -- if she were put in the situation of defending the life of one of her gorillas versus a human, who do you think she would choose? I am not sure of the answer here, but I think this would be a very difficult decision for her. Would Jane Goodall's life's work be "empty" because she doesn't simultaneously concern herself with solving the problems of humans?

I certainly understand the point that you care more for the relatives that you will never know than the unnamed animals, but isn't that just normal? If you had a dog that you loved, and it died, wouldn't you also be more upset by that than you would be about hearing on the news that some random person died whom you never knew?

It is hard for us to feel compassion on such a grand scale for animals or humans we don't know personally. For me, I never related much to how horrible it was when kids are reported kidnapped on the news until I had my first baby. Now, I am torn up inside everytime I hear about something like this. It is a good thing you are aware of your limits for compassion and are working on them. I am too. My wife, however, feels this stuff more naturally where it doesn't necessarily comes as easily to me.

I'll pose this question, and I'm curious to hear your answer because I can tell you've thought a lot more about this than I have and this is the first time I'm really articulating this. If a non-meat-eating person is going to say that the rest of humanity who eats meat are metaphorically murdering Nazis, but then that same person fails to stop the actual murder of actual humans in actual Nazi fashion that is going on right now in our immediate world, what does that say about the moral system of that person? Is that not a de facto declaration that the desire to protect animals who are being eaten for meat is at least equal, if not morally higher, than the protection of humans being killed for sport or bizarre religious/racial issues?

Good question! I am not sure it actually says much about the moral system of that person either positively or negatively. It is certainly not a de facto declaration that they care more for animals than protecting people. Every day each of us has to eat -- it is really not optional. Vegans simply choose not to engage in the part of the food chain that causes the most suffering of animals. Again, this sort of awareness and discipline is to be applauded. But, because a vegan makes this choice while others do not, are they then required to also be more humanitarian than the average Joe? I don't think so. A vegan should not be held to a higher standard than anyone else.

Further, people only have so much time in their day, and must prioritize. Often, spending time with family and/or making a living take the top spot. This, for many, can take up a vast preponderance of their time. Somewhere down the road is doing public service of some sort, and there is limited time. If people feel their passion is strongest for helping animals, they should not be condemmed for then not spending even more of their limited free time to help out in humanitarian causes. Unfortunately, there are so many plights to go around right now that any time people volunteer should be applauded. We should not be telling these people that the cause they have chosen is not as worthwhile as this other, and you are being a bit hypocritical for trying to get people to pay attention to your cause when my cause is so much "Better."

The choice indicates what you think is most deserving of your passion and energy.

Yes and no. Some people may just feel they are better equipped to help with animals than they are with humans. Maybe they have feral kittens in their basement, and so get caught up in that and learn to love doing it. Whereas tackling AIDS in Africa seems a bit out of their league. And again, doing public service is optional, but eating is not. Vegans simply use the opportunity to cause less harm.

Let me pose another question. If you had a gun, and you saw a tiger attack a human for no reason, would you kill the tiger and save the human? I would assume yes?

Same situation, you have a gun, but now you happen to stroll out back of a circus tent and you see an animal trainer whipping a tiger until it bleeds to teach it how to do a trick. Would you shoot the trainer and save the tiger?

I love and hate these questions at the same time. The answer to the first question is if I saw anyone attacking anything for no reason I would tend to want to help the victim. If, though, the person was a hunter, and the tiger attacked him, I would likely not be willing to help the person because, as far as I am concerned, they assumed the risk.

But, in the situation you gave, I would likely kill the tiger with a very heavy heart.

The second question is not quite analogous to the first. Let's assume instead that the trainer was whipping the tiger to death. I don't know that I would shoot the trainer, but I would certainly do everything I could to stop the trainer and protect the tiger. There are other considerations here that I would not need to consider with the first example (e.g. if I kill the trainer, I would no doubt be labelled a murderer and spend a good deal of time in jail. Also, I could reason with the trainer, whereas I would not be able to reason with the tiger in the first example).

Another one of these questions I have often asked was if there was a flood, and I had time to save only one or the other, who would I save -- my dog, or some human I don't know? I have never been fully satisfied with my answer to this question. I guess if it were an older person, I would tend to save my dog -- whereas if it were a defenseless child, I would likely save the child. Horrible question -- but it at least shows me that while I have a tendency to value human lives over those of other animals, that tendency doesn't always hold true.

Best,
Joey

[Jerry K]

This is fun, actually the best conversation I've ever had online.

You've got a lot of good points and food for thought in this one. But I have to say one thing right up front - if Jane Goodall had a choice between saving a gorilla and saving me (or you, or one of your kids, or your wife, or my boyfriend) and she saved the gorilla, I'd find that abominable and probably kill her in a fit of rage. With a heavy heart of course. Although her moral/values might have had her save the gorilla (and I don't know enough about her to know if that's the case) those morals/values would be objectively wrong from the point of view of humanity. I know your point is to say that not everyone looks at the world from a human-centric point of view, but at some point I'd draw the line at how extreme a person dedicated to non-human life forms can be. I don't see the difference between that example and a great scientest digging up cadavers because he ran out of voluntary corpses to experiment on.

I want to clear up a misunderstanding that I've fostered along the way. I'm not suggesting that veganism isn't a noble choice and one that has many benefits for animals, people, and the planet. Nor was I suggesting that vegans should all be out doing humanitarian efforts or there veganism was an empty choice. What we choose to eat, like everything else, is really just one more choice we make each day in the process of creating the continuum of our lives. My issue with humanatarianism vs veganism arises when vegans (or any group) uses an event such as the Holocaust as a shorthand for their cause. The Holocaust killed millions of people for no reason, whereas factory farming kills billions of animals for no reason. To equate the two is to equate animal life with human life, and if you do that with something as monstrous as the Holocaust, doesn't it seem as if you would have the moral imperative to follow your own logic to its natural conculsion and devote your life to stopping modern day Holocausts? Otherwise it's just a convenient shorthand usage of an event that deserves more than to be shorthand for an entirely unrelated issues (yes, I know the animals are in their own Treblinka, but it's their own Treblinka - it's not THE Treblinka). Furthermore, and this is meant to help your cause, trying to convince people of the merits of veganism or even vegetarianism by using the Holocaust as metaphor is 100% counter-productive. It requires that they already believe animal life to be equally deserving of respect as human life, and if they did they wouldn't need convincing. Does that make sense?

I appreciate your re-phrasing the tiger question to having the tiger beaten to death, and you're right there are other consequences that enter that equation. I deliberately didn't phrase it that way, because it is very difficult to make that analogy.

Here's another semi-bad analogy that I'll try to make. Millions of people work in awful, degrading jobs in this country because they cannot find or do antyhing else. Many of them make minimum wage or less and can barely buy food and housing. Advocates for increasing the minimum wage could easily make the argument that these people are forced to work for less than they can live off, and therefore it is Modern Day Slavery. I'm pretty sure that black leaders and many others would come out and say that politicians and advocates have no right equating people working "voluntarily" for cheap wages with people forced to work and endure conditions of slavery. Yet if these people have no choice and no options, is it a form of Slavery?

[joey m]

Lots of good stuff here. Unfortunately, I will probably not be able to respond until tomorrow. I will look forward to continuing this.

But for the record, this last post of yours is great, and I have a lot to say in response!!

Best,

Joey

[stephencp]

Andrew,
Any "diet" can suck... and your current diet is likely deficient in a alot of nutrients too. I think the best first step is to write down EVERYTHING that you eat and record calories and other nutritional info too. Don't try to change anything yet, just learn what you're eating and what kinds of foods have what kind of nutrition (or lack thereof.) Find out how many calories you're currently consuming, what you're current set point is, current protien,carb,fat ratios etc. Get used to measuring stuff - ie. how much really is an ounce, 10 grams, a cup, a tablespoon etc.
No diet should be a mystery with respect to nutritional requirements or weight loss. You need to figure out what really works for you and don't blindly accept anyone else's recommendation(s).

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics
Personality and Growth Bookshelf

[Lonewolf]

It's a fact of the universe that life feeds on life, i.e bigger animals eat smaller ones, smaller ones eat plants, plants eat the decayed remains of other plants and animals. Therefore, to portray flesh eating as immoral in a sense violates the natural order of the universe, replacing it with an artificial structure.

[joey m]

Lonewolf -- I'm not sure I fully agree with you here. While clearly the food chain is part of the natural order of things, we have taken ourselves completely off the food chain. We are not prey for any other animals, nor do we eat a diet today that we could have naturally found as either a hunter/gatherer nor as an agrarian society. We have used our "intelligence" and sophistication to artificially and exponentially raise the populations of our "food" animals, while decreasing the numbers of all other animals. There is nothing natural about this. The problem isn't the food chain, it is our complete and total violation of natural law.

Plus, we are omnivores by nature, not carnivores. Accordingly, because of the unnatural state of things, we have a choice whether to eat meat or not. In the face of deciding whether to promote suffering (and likely a lack of health for ourselves) or less suffering (And likely greater longevity), I choose the latter.

Further, praying mantis females have sex with the males and then decapitate them. This is part of nature too. Yet, we don't find it appropriate for humans to follow this behavior. Because of our ability to reason, I think we have a greater responsibility to act well.

[joey m]

Jerry,

OK, shall we start up our philosophical fun again today?

Humanitarian versus vegan discussion --

To equate the two is to equate animal life with human life, and if you do that with something as monstrous as the Holocaust, doesn't it seem as if you would have the moral imperative to follow your own logic to its natural conculsion and devote your life to stopping modern day Holocausts? Otherwise it's just a convenient shorthand usage of an event that deserves more than to be shorthand for an entirely unrelated issues (yes, I know the animals are in their own Treblinka, but it's their own Treblinka - it's not THE Treblinka).

I still do not think there is the moral imperative here to be humanitarian simply because of the analogy. You are right this is a shorthand, but it is one that people can understand and relate to. Unfortunately, the suffering of animals is not something most relate to. You made a good point in an earlier post though that this is precisely what turns people off about the argument (e.g. if people are not already concerned about the plight of animals, then the comparison to Holocaust camps will certainly not hit home for them nor will it be a good argument to them). I do agree to a large extent with this earlier point you made, but it all depends on how the argument is approached. Certainly equating people who eat meat to the Holocaust executioners is absurd and offensive. But simply to equate the conditions may not be. There are many people out there who need to understand in terms they are familar with how bad the conditions are. At first they often argue, but over time the thoughts marinate and can have an effect. So, the shorthand can be an attempt to relate the conditions to others in a way they can understand.

From this perspective, the Holocaust argument is certainly one that needs to be worded carefully, and not one that is ideal as the first course of action. But in some instances, it can be help people to relate to the situation.

Look at it from this perspective. If I try to explain to you that being homophobic is comparable to racism, I am attempting to relate to you on another issue that may be more permanently engrained as immoral. I would not need, however, to fight racism in other parts of the world to make me less hypocritical for bringing up the analogy.

I like your question at the end. Not to sure I have a good response.

Best,
Joey





I want to clear up a misunderstanding that I've fostered along the way. I'm not suggesting that veganism isn't a noble choice and one that has many benefits for animals, people, and the planet. Nor was I suggesting that vegans should all be out doing humanitarian efforts or there veganism was an empty choice. What we choose to eat, like everything else, is really just one more choice we make each day in the process of creating the continuum of our lives. My issue with humanatarianism vs veganism arises when vegans (or any group) uses an event such as the Holocaust as a shorthand for their cause. The Holocaust killed millions of people for no reason, whereas factory farming kills billions of animals for no reason. To equate the two is to equate animal life with human life, and if you do that with something as monstrous as the Holocaust, doesn't it seem as if you would have the moral imperative to follow your own logic to its natural conculsion and devote your life to stopping modern day Holocausts? Otherwise it's just a convenient shorthand usage of an event that deserves more than to be shorthand for an entirely unrelated issues (yes, I know the animals are in their own Treblinka, but it's their own Treblinka - it's not THE Treblinka). Furthermore, and this is meant to help your cause, trying to convince people of the merits of veganism or even vegetarianism by using the Holocaust as metaphor is 100% counter-productive. It requires that they already believe animal life to be equally deserving of respect as human life, and if they did they wouldn't need convincing. Does that make sense?

[RallyMcnally]

Raw Food Living is the optimal choice. Cooked food is poison, your body treats it as poison. Cooked food makes you look cooked. Cooking food above 115-118 degrees kills the enzymes and a lot of the nutrients in the food, making it useless! The vegan and vegetarian diet sucks for the most part because a lot of them eat cooked processed foods. Raw Food is the way to go! Woooo! Eat RAW!


Great article about Raw Food: PatMorais.com

[gberardi]

Originally Posted by RallyMcnally

Raw Food Living is the optimal choice. Cooked food is poison, your body treats it as poison. Cooked food makes you look cooked. Cooking food above 115-118 degrees kills the enzymes and a lot of the nutrients in the food, making it useless! The vegan and vegetarian diet sucks for the most part because a lot of them eat cooked processed foods. Raw Food is the way to go! Woooo! Eat RAW!


Great article about Raw Food: PatMorais.com

Actually, after learning about raw foodism originally, I thought I might eventually try it. I am still hitting stumbling blocks with a vegan diet, though, and I can imagine raw being a bit tougher, but I already know it is delicious. Nothing tastes better than a crunchy peach. B-)

[joey m]

Raw Food Living is the optimal choice. Cooked food is poison, your body treats it as poison. Cooked food makes you look cooked. Cooking food above 115-118 degrees kills the enzymes and a lot of the nutrients in the food, making it useless! The vegan and vegetarian diet sucks for the most part because a lot of them eat cooked processed foods. Raw Food is the way to go! Woooo! Eat RAW!

Do you really believe this? A vegan and vegetarian diet sucks for the most part? Not a persuasive way to start an argument or discussion!

A raw food diet is a reasonably healthy choice, but not an ideal one from a health standpoint. Many critical nutrients are better absorbed when cooked. Plus, because of the very high content of water in raw foods, it becomes difficult to get sufficient calories. So, many raw fooders consumer to many nuts and seeds instead of focusing most calories on veggies. By steaming veggies, you take some of the water content out, and can consume more of these nutrient dense foods daily. You also make certain nutrients and phytochemicals more bioavailable. I think rougly 70% to 80% raw is ideal, with added legumes and steamed greens (or waterbased soups). This way you don't need to overly consume fruits and seeds and nuts to get the necessary caloric density.

Also, as with any vegan diet, you should have a supplement that contains a reliable source of B-12 and D (depending on where you live)

Best,
Joey

[RallyMcnally]

When I say raw food. I mean all raw foods. Dairy and Animal products included. I eat raw eggs. Their so yummmy mixed with freshly squeezed orange juice. I also sometimes eat raw fish. I think I might try raw kidneys & hearts sometime soon. Yum.

Also its important for everyone to take enzymes. If your on a vegan/vegetarian/raw food diet and your not feeling better then you did on a non-veggie diet, If your not feel energized, or happy, it's most likely because your not asorbing the nutrients properly. Enzymes will fix that bigtime!

[mjukr]

The only way veganism will catch on is if someone figures out a way to stop meat from being really, really, really, really, really ridiculously good tasting.

Most people care solely about taste. Hell, most people barely have any idea of personal health and swallow down all manner of horrible things. Do you think they really care about the well being of animals when they don't even care about the well being of themselves?