I have found that many vegans throw their dietary ethics at others the way Christians throw their spiritual ideology. If you want to eat only veggies, fine. But why the attitude? Why the hate? If you think you have an ethically pure diet, think again. In fact, your diet may worsen the environment.
Some like how they feel on the diet. Others simply don’t like the taste of meat. But most vegans I know eat that way more because of ethics than health benefits or personal taste. For this reason, veganism generally falls into an ideological “right” vs. “wrong” category for living, causing most members of the Vegan Military to demand that everyone else stop their “evil” ways and adapt vegan values. But where do these values come from? And do these espoused values actually make a change in the ways they intend?
Animist’s experience plants having feelings too. Just because you don’t hear their screams, or can’t look into their eyes when you cut them, doesn’t mean plants don’t feel pain and bleed. The idea that plants somehow have lesser value than animals comes from an un-animistic view of the world; a civilized, hierarchical view. They don’t look like us, they don’t grow like us, therefore they get cast to the bottom of the hierarchy.
I feel terrible for domesticated animals (pets included here). I feel equally as terrible for domesticated plants. I feel terrible for anything domesticated (rocks, clouds, air, ideas, etc). Aside from domesticated crops requiring domesticated bees (do vegans consider bugs lower on their spiritual hierarchy?) for pollination and farmers who routinely kill animals like rabbits, crows and coyotes who enter their fields. Crops kill wild animals too, and force bees into domestication.
In response to this, many vegans might say, “Well, I have chosen veganism to protest factory farming which causes a lot more degradation to the environment than growing crops. You don’t need meat to survive.”
It appears to me that population growth lies at the “root” of environmental degradation. “Development” wouldn’t happen if we had less people. The destructive scale of factory farming would not exist if our population did not grow exponentially. So we need to look at what makes our population grow.
When I worked at an organic food store when I ate a vegan diet I remember seeing a vegan product that boasted, “Eating Vegan helps save food resources for seven people a day.” How they calculated that I’ll never know, or believe. While most people would look at that and believe they did something to help the “fight against hunger,” I look at it and see that they’ve only just made seven more hungry mouths to feed.
Both domesticating plants and animals require deforestation. But the population explosions that form civilizations come from the domestication of grains, not livestock. The Inca’s had quinoa, the Aztecs had amaranth, the Mayans had corn, the Chinese had rice and Whitey had wheat (and now Soy). Grain-based diets cause exponential population growth. Population growth increases the scale of everything, turning small ranches into factory farms. Turning the local market into a McDonalds. Grain-based diets make factory farms possible. They make “development” possible. They make civilization possible. If everyone switched to a vegan diet, our population would grow that much faster, the destruction that much worse.
If you live in North America (or anywhere outside of the jungle), you need meat to survive outside of the grain-based diet of civilization. And so what? Humans have eaten meat for a long time and found sustainable ways to kill that honored the animals, the same as any other predator. Along with sustainable ways to kill plants that honored their lives. I think the comment, “you don’t need meat to survive,” includes both points I have made: that civilization fuels itself on wheat, not meat, and that (most) vegans perceive animals as higher on a spiritual hierarchy.
Want a diet based on anti-civilization ethics? Want to stop supporting the destructive culture? Want to stop population growth? Stop buying processed food at the super market. Hunt, gather, garden, buy/trade locally, give back to the land and quit eating the very thing that makes all of this possible: grains.
Personally, I eat paleolithically, and I don’t care if you or anyone else does. My diet works for me, but I don’t think that I have found the “one right diet” for all to eat. Though I see them, I haven’t chosen my diet for ethical reasons. I’ve chosen it because I feel good eating this way. I understand that just because I feel good eating this way, not everyone else will, as each of us have particular bodies with particular needs. If Veganism makes you feel good, by all means. But please stop promoting veganism based on false ethics of ceasing the destruction inherent in grain-based diets. I bought into it in my teens (I ate a vegan diet for 2 years), and I won’t fall for the mythology again.
*I wrote this blog in E-prime.*
yay, another awesome post from the scout with the clout!
i have thought a lot about the odd hierarchy that anti-meat-eaters espouse (and written about it as well) but i hadn’t taken the concept to the next level yet in terms of seeing the cyclic nature of the relationship between grains and population growth.
i remember reading about the number of animals that die in relationship to each cotton field and thinking, “if wearing a leather belt is murdering one cow, how many animals are dying for my t-shirt and jeans?!” the only way to find a really “ethical” path is on the wilder side. like you said “Stop buying processed food at the super market. Hunt, gather, garden, buy/trade locally, give back to the land and quit eating the very thing that makes all of this possible: grains.”
Excellent rant. This one goes into the debate arsenal for sure.
I completely agree with you about wheat and I also choose not to consume it. Not only is it a nutritional disaster (what do you get when you mix wheat with water? glue), but it is not fit food for humans. There is ample proof by Dr Douglas Graham in his book “Grain Damage” that eating grains can actually contribute to some types of brain damage, not to mention the fact that cooked grains are denatured proteins that lacerate our intestines. Grains require so much processing in order for them to even become palatable to humans that one can realize they are not part of a natural diet. Try going out to a field of flax to see if we are grain-eaters. Collecting flax seeds is not only incredibly time consuming but eating them plain without mechanical processing would gag us. As well, the human body does not produce sufficient amounts of the enzyme amylase that breaks down starch, such as cows do.
Urban Scout,
How can plants feel pain? They have no nervous system. The reason that you can’t hear their screams is because they have no mouths, vocal cords, etc. For me, I place bugs lower on my hierarchy because they have many less neural connections than, say, a chicken or pig. So, I would think that there is less “substance” to them. I mean, come on man, what kind of thinking is it to think that an oak tree can feel pain? I’m all for stopping industrial civilization, as I believe you are, but to advocate a philosophy such as animism is as foolish as believing that some guy named Jesus who lived 2,000 years ago is going to take you to some fairy land called heaven. You also said, “crops kill wild animals too”. If you cared about wild animals why would anyone eat raised animals? The amount of grain, mostly corn, to feed them causes more land to be plowed (thereby causing more deaths of wild animals) than if you just ate lower on the food chain.
Just to make it clear, I do think that the Paleolithic diet is a good thing, relative to most diets. I know and realize that veganism is part of the industrial food system. That is why I try to dumpster dive as much of my food as possible thereby giving less $ to the industrial food suppliers.
I’d love to hear some comments!
ciao,
Gabe
Very interesting post. I agree with the general premise that demographic growth is ultimately the root of today’s environmental problems, but there are some serious fallacies that invalidate your anti-vegan argumentation.
To begin, I will grant you the theory that the rise of civilization is linked to grain-based diets (although the Indian and Papuan civilizations might negate this, we shall ignore it for simplicity’s sake). You argue that they lead to material and intellectual development, which is undeniable. A possible path of development might obviously lead to factory farming, but only when that particular civilization has domesticated animals to begin with. The fact that you assume that all civilizations MUST have domesticated animals is the first fallacy.
To illustrate what I am trying to say, I will use my own civilization as an example. Assuming the beginning date of our Long Count calendar is correct, Mesoamerican civilization has been around for more than 51 centuries. For 46 of those centuries, we had a no substantial source of animal protein in our diet. European conquest and occupation obviously changed that. An afterthought in our daily life become central to our economy, industry and land usage through coercion and colonialism.
No reason exists to believe that Mesoamericans would have domesticated any more animals than we already had at that time, these being a semi-domesticated turkey and the dog. Therefore the current state of things can only be blamed on the very particular European pseudo-civilization.
Your second fallacy arises from the second. If Western civilization is a particularly bad flavor of civilization, then it stands to reason that the corresponding ensuing ecological damage would be worse. All civilizations change and damage their environment, but how easily a civilization can recover from the inevitable collapses is a good benchmark of their impact (and logically needs). Assuming that a meat-grain-based civilization is as bad ecologically as a purely-vegan civilization is wrong. Once again, Mesoamerica is my example. In spite of multiple collapses, civilization has continued for the past 51 centuries, and progressed quite well. Our demands were less, and our collapses easier to return from.
That leads to my main argument against the “paleolithic” lifestyle and other primitivist visions: it is not sustainable long term. Civilization inevitably returns, and mistakes are repeated. Even if tomorrow we all re-adopted such lifestyles, we should not and cannot impose them on our descendants. It is better to diminish our civilization’s impact on the environment as much as possible and to be able to justify why it must be that way. Civilization is key to this communication through the ages.
In defense of veganism, I also give you another argument from my own civilization. As I said previously, Mesoamerican have historically consumed very little animal protein, and historically, much of this animal protein has probably been human. Our ancestors, as well as the many other civilizations that practiced cannibalism, would find our new, modern hierarchy nonsensical. Today, most people see animals and plants as theirs to exploit, but strangely, humans are no longer animals. I am an animal though, and much like I refuse to eat a human meat, I see it wrong to eat any other type of meat when “you don’t need meat to survive”. Plants are obviously living beings, but given the animal/human alternatives, I resign myself to eating them.
Here are some other comments:
- The honey bee is foreign to North America, and is certainly not required for pollination. It is domesticated because of its honey and wax.
- Quinoa and amaranth (and soy) are not grains, but seeds (like beans), the basis of all Mesoamerican civilizations is and has been corn.
- As I touched upon above, true paleolithic diets most probably included human meat. To call any modern diet “paleolithic” is not only anachronistic, but incorrect strictly speaking unless you are hunting the most common animals around you, humans. Otherwise it sounds like another fad.
- The term “paleolithic” is very much linked to the pre-history of Western civilization. It is not used for Mesoamerica. Many Native American nations were agricultural, urban, “civilized” societies that were still technically in the “stone age”.
- Wheat is most obviously not the fuel of civilization generally speaking, and for most modern civilizations, maize has supplanted it. Higher yields, more uses, less wasteful.
- Dumpstering is good.
- Farming and gardening is better.
Yes, a diet based solely on the domestication of grains and the animals that are fed those grains is not healthy.If anyone looks at the modern state of soil erosion, factory farm run off and the pollution of the bodies of our selves and children they will be faced with the truth that we rely far too heavily on domesticated food sources.I don’t see how anyone can contend that the planet is healthy or our populace is healthy subsisting on these food sources.
Now, for anyone who is in touch with the bioregion in which they live, they would know that the most sustainable means of living would be to not only eat seasonally but entirely locally.
This includes foods that are hunted, forage,gathered.
That means wild meats, plants,and fungi.
I am curious,
if the Mesoamericans didn’t rely on protein based food sources, where did the protein come from?
Protein basically comes from 2 sources, grains and meats. Where does this live an individual outside of civilization?
As well, I would love to know where you obtained information claiming that
Paleo man was cannibalistic?
According to “the past in perspective,an introduction to human prehistory”,
I will quote from the sub chapter entitled
“The Cultural Sequence at Tehuacan”
Ajuereado phase-12,000-9,000 years ago-
“recovered food remains indicate that hunting was of primary significance
in the seasons when the caves were occupied.
Sites were small and impermanent,leading MacNeish to suggest that smll family groups-microbands of fewer than 10 people each-wandered the valley,primarily hunting antelope and jackrabbit.
Other, smaller fauna, such as turtles, rodents, gophers, and birds, were utilized,as were wild plant foods, including avocado,foxtail grass,and amaranth, a grain”.
Wiki-
“Grain amaranth
Several species are raised for amaranth grain in Asia and the Americas. Amaranth grain is a crop of moderate importance in the Himalaya. It was one of the staple foodstuffs of the Incas, and it is known as kiwicha in the Andes today. It was also used by the ancient Aztecs, who called it huautli, and other Amerindian peoples in Mexico to prepare ritual drinks and foods. To this day, amaranth grains are toasted much like popcorn and mixed with honey or molasses to make a treat called alegría (literally “joy” in Spanish).
Amaranth was used in several Aztec ceremonies, where images of their gods (notably Huitzilopochtli) were made with amaranth mixed with honey. The images were cut to be eaten by the people. This looked like the Christian communion to the Roman Catholic priests, so the cultivation of the grain was forbidden for centuries.
Because of its importance as a symbol of indigenous culture, and because it is very palatable, easy to cook, and its protein particularly well suited to human nutritional needs, interest in grain amaranth (especially A. cruentus and A. hypochondriacus) was revived in the 1970s. It was recovered in Mexico from wild varieties and is now commercially cultivated. It is a popular snack sold in Mexico City and other parts of Mexico, sometimes mixed with chocolate or puffed rice, and its use has spread to Europe and other parts of North America. Amaranth and quinoa are called pseudograins because of their flavor and cooking similarities to grains. These are dicot plant seeds, and both contain exceptionally complete protein for plant sources. Besides protein, amaranth grain provides a good source of dietary fiber and dietary minerals such as iron, magnesium, phosphorus, copper, and especially manganese.”
As well you mentioned cannibalism in regards to food sources in Mesoamerica.
There is exstensive documentation on groups of people who attempted this, always with failure.
This can be applied to cows as well: you feed cows feed composed of cow and this creates the climate for BSE,mad cow disease.
This is what happens to humans who eat enough human meat , they too succumb to a human-like form of BSE .
From writing.com
“A tribe called the Fore from Papua New Guinea has been studied because so many of their members died from a disease called kuru. Similar to the infamous “CJD” (mad cow disease) kuru means “trembling with cold and fever”. The Fore tribe was known to perform ritualistic cannibalism, and over 1,100 members died between 1957 and 1968. The vast majority of deaths were females, although the elderly and many children succumbed to kuru. The main reason for this is because corpses were handled and prepared by the women who were looking after both male and female children as well as the older tribal members. Another reason is the distribution of body parts according to status in the family. A female brain would be prepared for a woman’s son’s wife or her brother’s wife, and as this organ is probably the most significant catalyst for kuru this ritual would explain the spread of the disease amongst females.”
It has been found that indeed Mesoamerican cultures did partake of cannibalism, but htis was on the level of ritual,not survival.
Mexicatl , I find many flaws with your arguments.
I could go one to site many other examples.
I do believe that there are some flaws with Scouts argument also.
But his point is valid and clear. Civilization runs rampant in vegan ethics.
If you take civilization out the equation, you have wild.
If you look at civilazation on a whole, what we are doing now, isn’t so different form what others did in the past.
From the microcosm of a city to it’s macrocosm of a civilization, the evidence is all there,that the organization of civilization and all that it requires to function and exist are horrendous and very unnatural to the human animal. I think Scouts point stands.
I have a blog about dieting where my main objective is to transition gradually into a Paleolithic diet. I’m cutting out grains this month and I have to say I never really considered some of the far reaching effects of grains. Your arguments are damn interesting. I feel very similarly about ethics and veganism too. I think ethics is probably the only real reason to go vegan and I don’t personally feel compelled by the ethical arguments made be vegans.
Cool