Thirty-Fourth Post
Thoughts on food.
I often have some difficulty explaining to people the dietary philosophy to which I subscribe. Do I think it’s the most rational one that I’ve heard? A-derr, which is why I practice it. And here’s how it started:
A little more than two years ago, I was on a bus ride to New York with my friend “Paz” (yes, it’s his choice to attempt anonymity on the internets), and we were talking about his room mate, Eric, and the reasons why Eric himself had switched to veganism. At the time, I was one of the many folks out there who trashed vegetarianism as being totally silly, and veganism as even worse. My reasons, of course, stemmed partly from the rationale of vegans I knew, and partly from a lack of personal understanding.
The narrative I’d consistently heard had been about cruelty to animals…the sanctity of all life, the sentience of all creatures, blah blah blah. Clearly, that was a story I wasn’t buying. I don’t believe that much of anything is sacrosanct, and animals are swell, but there is no evidence that anything that has ever existed in the universe, let alone the things we eat, has a mental or emotional capacity anywhere near resembling that of humanity. I’ve of course always preferred that animals be put to death in a humane way, but there is nothing in my book that is inherrently wrong about their deaths.
And the ALF? Gimme a break.
Anyway, I had the privilege of being enlightened on this cross-border trip. Paz elaborated to me some of the many environmental factors that might lead an individual to choose a different diet, and had evidently led Eric to doing so. Issues of inefficient use of natural resources: nearly 50% of our water is consumed by the process of raising cattle and other livestock; issues of deficiencies in waste management: animal shit spills have killed millions of fish; issues of pathetic expense vs. yield ratios: every pound of steak is paid for with thirty-five pounds of eroded top soil; issues of land misuse: millions of acres of rain forest have simply been cleared out to create grazing land. THE LIST GOES ON. And on. And on.
I like to think that I’m the type of person who, when proven incorrect or ignorant on a topic, will change his ways for the better…so about a week later, I went ahead and declared my veganism (because, really, if you’re buying anything from the meat and dairy industry, you’re supporting all of it — sorry vegetarians). This proved, living in a major city, to be remarkably easy.
In the months that followed, however, my philosophy grew a bit more nuanced. You’ll have to keep in mind, again, that I have no problem with the notion of eating meat — the focus of my conversion was not the “liberation of animals,” but rather the disenabling of environmental ineptitude. So, naturally, when room mates of mine started rescuing various non-vegan foods from the local Trader Joe’s, I had no problem partaking — after all, allowing an already inefficient system to go to greater waste is particularly bad. And this, I think, turned me into what some people call a freegan: a person who eats vegan if they’re paying for it, but doesn’t worry otherwise (which is just one of the many associated definitions with the term).
This has been a philosophy that has suited me very well. The majority of people that I’ve met who choose to label themselves as vegan have been…well, assholes. I imagine that many people would simply assume that they’re assholes because they’re vegan — meaning, they’ve become picky and unpleasant people to be around because of their eating habits — but actually, I think it’s quite the reverse: veganism, as an extremist philosophy, naturally attracts assholes, who tend to like being extreme for no other reason than to provoke the reactions of others. So it’s nice not to be lumped in with those people, and instead to have a label — if I so choose to invoke it — that lends itself to more ambiguous interpretations.
The Oracle says, everything in moderation (nothing to excess). I like this…I strive for this. I’d like to think that I’m embracing the complexity of a grayer attitude towards food.
at first I read that as a “gayer” attitude towards food.
Either/or!
Hahaha (…) There are so many different veg- labels.
Maybe you could also be called a flexitarian ?
Says wikipedia:”Flexitarianism is a term used in the United States to describe the practice of eating mainly vegetarian food, but making occasional exceptions for social, pragmatic, cultural, or nutritional reasons.”
I am a flexitarian with fish, but not with meat (that I have entirely given up). So I guess that really makes me a pescetarian ?
Says wikipedia: “Pescetarianism is a dietary choice, in which a person — known as a pescetarian — eats the flesh of fish or of other non-mammalian aquatic animals but will not eat the flesh of mammals. Other animal products like eggs and dairy may be part of a pescetarian diet.”
So many labels to enjoy… There’s also semi-vegetarianism, polliotarianism (my favorite: no beef but poultry is ok … that’s also just called dieting…). The list goes on.
Hurray for being gRay!
Flexitarian, eh? I do like that…it is inherrently ambiguous. Hmmmm!
Technically I’m a pescetarian, but I never really call myself that. I don’t usually go into it unless someone asks. Not that you did. Haha. I’d go all the way veggie if not for sushi. Anyway, I know by eating dairy products I’m still supporting the meat industry indirectly (or not so indirectly) but at least it’s a step. I eat vegan from time to time. It’s hard enough for me to stay away from Chinese food chicken (rip general tso’s); I don’t know if I’m ready to give up ice cream and cheese too. I chose my eating habits for the same reasons you did, with some animal rights sprinkled in. I don’t think eating meat is inherently wrong, but the way animals are treated to get most of the meat we eat is just insane.
Ah — I didn’t mean to put down the way that anyone approaches their dietary philosophies…and it’s definitely true that every little bit counts, no matter what reasons people decide to choose for their decisions.
man man lai, as they say in China
We could start our own movement: ambiguitarianism. Or grayatarianism. That’s what I’ll tell people when they ask me from now on.
I’m a little confused about how easily the moral question of animal suffering is dismissed here. I don’t think this is about “animal liberation” or claims about the sanctity of life – I don’t think it’s morally wrong for animals to to be killed or eaten (we have the teeth we do for a reason…), but the fact is that death is often the most humane moment in the lives of many animals raised for food in systems designed for large-scale meat production.
I won’t go off on a tirade about the conditions that much of the cattle / chickens / pigs, who end up as the meat that we eat live in before they’re killed but, y’know, it’s gross. And awful. And genuinely cruel. And I’m often just so confused about the schizophrenic attitude our society takes toward animal cruelty. Stories about animal companions (usually dogs, cats, etc…) being kept in cruel and neglectful situations often prompt outrage (What’s up with this puppy mill thing that everyone’s freaking out about?) but somehow that same response is absent from any concern for the millions of meat-producing animals who are kept in far more deplorable conditions their entire lives.
As I said – I don’t think it is morally wrong to kill or eat animals. But I do think the meat industry as it currently exists is morally indefensible. As a general rule, I think if something can experience suffering (and as anyone who has had any kind of relationship with an animal will attest, non-human animals are capable of experiencing both physical and psychological suffering), and there is no good reason for it to suffer, then generally we should try to not, y’know, ignore or perpetuate that suffering. Is there a good reason for millions of animals to suffer so that we can eat far more meat than is healthy for our bodies or our environments?
I think the reason why I skipped right over the animal suffering issue is because it’s the most obvious. I know it’s what I’ve heard over and over again, and I’m sure that it is thus not an experience unique to me. I agree with many of your points, and for various reasons, I would prefer that the question of quality of life be removed altogether — by removing industrial meat and dairy farming altogether!
Another reason why I went into more detail on the environmental issues, and why I think they resonate (or should resonate) in a stronger manner, is because they illustrate cause and effect. A herd of domestic animals suffering — or living happily — before its death has little impact on the taste of its meat when placed on the dinner table. However, the massive amounts of methane expelled by vast cattle herds may prevent one from even getting to the dinner table to begin with!
Let’s hear it for gayitarians!
I think the reason that the suffering angle is a nonstarter for many people is that it leads into some ambiguous philosophical territory. Yes, people love animals, and they are clearly sentient in some ways and experience suffering. But some amount of suffering is part of nature (e.g. animals eating other animals), so where do you draw the line? Is it wrong to kill bugs? Is it okay to eat meat raised on a small family farm vs a large factory farm? How much suffering makes something unethical, and should we weight different kinds of suffering differently for different animals? Because these questions have no simple answers, I think many people throw up their hands and decide to stop thinking about it. The environmental angle is more compelling for many people because it’s more clear-cut.
My thinking started to change on this issue when I heard a talk by Peter Singer (author of Animal Liberation, which convinced me that philosophical questions of animal suffering are worth thinking about, despite the lack of simple answers. You can think about what a natural life and death for an animal looks like, and how different that looks from what happens in factory farms.
More importantly, the existence of gray areas should not stop us from taking a stand in non-gray situations, such as when sentient animals are forced into a tortuous, machine-cog existence ending only in death. It would be grossly unethical to do that to a human. It would also be repugnant (and illegal!) to do that to a cat or dog. So what makes it different in the case of a cow or pig?
All I have to say is: http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/cartoon-015.html
Agreed!
my coworker just sent me this:
http://www.eatlowcarbon.org/
Wouldn’t eating locally and sustainably grown food, whether vegetables or meat, be key if you are worried about the environment and want to avoid supporting the meat and dairy industry, not to mention the soy and corn catastrophe that is currently occurring in this country? Supporting a local small farmer helps to solve all kinds of environmental, health, and ethical problems that even a vegan diet doesn’t completely deal with. You can cut the industry out altogether, and, if you are going to eat meat, eggs or dairy, you can make sure the the animals are treated humanely and the farmer is dealing responsibly with the environmental aspects… i.e. good manure management.
Also, lots of animals die when they plant and harvest the wheat, corn, soy…whatever so I think it important to keep in mind that living takes life, no matter how we eat.
This is a complicated issue for sure, but I think we are seeing compelling evidence right now that it is more important than ever to consider all this stuff. I’m glad you decided to write a bit about it.
You’re so smart, Clare! Will you be my food guide??