Society's Child
I was a vegan for almost 20 years.
I know the reasons that compelled me to embrace an extreme diet, and they are honorable - even noble. Reasons such as justice, compassion and a desperate, all-encompassing longing to set the world right. To save the planet - the last trees bearing witness to ages and the scraps of wilderness still nurturing fading species, silent in their fur and feathers. To protect the vulnerable, the voiceless. To feed the hungry. At the very least, to refrain from participating in the horror of factory farming.
These political passions are born of a hunger so deep it touches on the spiritual. They were for me, and they still are. I want my life - my body - to be a place where the Earth is cherished, not devoured; where the sadist is granted no quarter; where the violence stops. And I want eating - the first nurturance - to be an act that sustains rather than kills. This is an effort to honor our deepest longings for a just world. And I now believe those longings - for compassion, for sustainability, for an equitable distribution of resources - are not served by the philosophy or practice of vegetarianism. Believing in this vegetarian myth has led us astray.
Factory Farming is Not the Only Way
The vegetarian Pied Pipers have the best of intentions. I'll state right now that everything they say about factory farming is true: It is cruel, wasteful and destructive. But their first mistake is in assuming factory farming - a practice that is barely 50 years old - is the only way to raise animals. In my experience, their calculations on energy used, calories consumed and humans unfed are all based on the notion that animals eat grain. You can feed grain to animals, but it is not the diet for which they were designed. For most of human history, browsers and grazers haven't been in competition with humans. They ate what we couldn't eat (cellulose) and turned it into what we could (protein and fat). But our industrial culture stuffs grain into as many animals as it can. Grain will dramatically increase the growth rate of beef cattle and the milk production of dairy cows. It will also kill them. The delicate bacterial balance of a cow's rumen may become acidic and turn septic. Chickens get fatty liver disease if fed corn exclusively. Sheep and goats, which are also ruminants like cattle, shouldn't touch the stuff either.
Not only that, but large portions of the world are utterly unsuited for growing large grain crops. And not just mountaintops in far distant Nepal, but close by in, say, New England. Cows are what grow here. So are deer, in their forest-destroying abundance. The logic of the land tells us to eat the animals that can eat the tough cellulose that survives here.
I think that this misunderstanding about animals and grain is born of an ignorance that runs the length and breadth of the vegetarian myth, through the nature of agriculture and ending in the nature of life. Most of us are now urban industrialists, and many of us don't know the origins of our food. This includes many vegetarians, despite their claims to the truth. It included me, too, for 20 years. Anyone who ate meat was in denial; only I had faced the facts. Most people who consume factory-farmed meat have never asked what died and how. But frankly, neither have most vegetarians.
Considering Entire Ecosystems
Life isn't possible without death, and no matter what you eat, something has to die to feed you. The truth is that agriculture is the most destructive thing humans have done to the planet, and more of the same won't save us. Today's industrial agriculture requires the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems.
I want a full accounting, an accounting that goes way beyond what's dead on your plate. I'm asking about everything that died in the process, everything that was killed to get that food onto your plate. That's the more radical question, and it's the only question that will produce the truth. How many rivers were dammed and drained? How many prairies plowed and forests pulled down? How much topsoil turned to dust? I want to know about all the species. Not just the individuals, but the entire species - the chinook, the bison, the grasshopper sparrows and the gray wolves. And I want more than just the number of dead and gone. I want them back.
Despite what we've been told, and despite the earnestness of the tellers, eating soybeans isn't going to bring these plants and animals back. Ninety-eight percent of the American prairie is gone, turned into a monocrop of annual grains. Plow cropping in Canada has destroyed 99 percent of the land's original humus. When the rain forest falls to beef, progressives are outraged and ready to boycott. But our attachment to the vegetarian myth leaves us uneasy, silent and ultimately immobilized when the culprit is wheat and the victim is the prairie.
The vast majority of people in the United States don't grow food, let alone hunt and gather it. We have no way to judge how much death is embodied in a serving of salad, a bowl of fruit or a plate of beef. We live in urban environments - in the last whisper of forests - thousands of miles removed from the devastated rivers, prairies, wetlands and the millions of creatures who died for our dinners. Many inhabitants of urban industrial cultures have no point of contact with grain, chickens, cows, or - for that matter - with topsoil. We have no idea what nourishes plants, animals or soil, which means we have no idea what we ourselves are eating.
Hard Questions About Agriculture
What's looming in the shadows of our ignorance and denial is a critique of civilization itself. The starting point may be what we eat, but the end is an entire way of life, a global arrangement of power, and with no small measure of personal attachment to it. I remember the day in fourth grade when Miss Fox wrote two words on the blackboard: civilization and agriculture. I remember because of the hush in her voice, the gravitas of her words, the explanation that was almost oratory. And I understood. Everything that was good in human culture flowed from this point - all ease, grace and justice. Religion, science, medicine and art were born, and the endless struggle against starvation, disease and violence could be won, all because humans had figured out how to grow their own food.
I believe that agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and culture: slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger and disease. "The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were slow to adopt agriculture, but why anybody took it up at all, when it is so obviously beastly," writes biologist and author Colin Tudge. Agriculture has also been devastating to the other creatures with whom we share the Earth, and, ultimately, to the life support systems of the planet itself. What is at stake is everything. If we want a sustainable world, we have to be willing to examine the power relations behind the foundational myth of our culture. Anything less and we will fail.
Questioning at that level is difficult for most people. In this case, the emotional struggle inherent in resisting any hegemony is compounded by our dependence on civilization, and by our individual helplessness to stop it. Most of us would have no chance of survival if the industrial infrastructure collapsed tomorrow. And our consciousness is equally impeded by our powerlessness.
I don't have a "10 Simple Things ..." list for you because, frankly, there aren't 10 simple things that will save the Earth. There is no personal solution. There is an interlocking web of hierarchical arrangements - vast systems of power that have to be confronted and dismantled. We can disagree about how best to do that, but do it we must if life on Earth is to have any chance of surviving.
Mutual Indebtedness
I have stopped fighting the basic algebra of embodiment: For something to live, something else has to die. In that acceptance, with all its suffering and sorrow, is the ability to choose a different way - a better way.
Consider the cow, a prey animal that has evolved to do one thing exquisitely: take cellulose - ubiquitous grass - and turn it into mass and motion. Like all members of a healthy biotic community, the cow produces food for someone else. Her manure feeds soil, plants and insects. The mechanical action of her hooves and her teeth helps the grasslands stay diverse. Her digestive processes free up nutrients - and not just for her, but for the whole community. Her body will become a meal for predators, scavengers and degraders of all sizes. Life is ultimately a cooperative process, unitary in its goal: more life.
The grazers need their grass, but the grass also needs the animals. It needs the manure, with its nitrogen, minerals and bacteria. It needs the mechanical check of grazing activity, and it needs the resources stored in animal bodies and freed up by degraders after animals die. The grass and the grazers need each other as much as predators need prey. These are not one-way relationships. They are not arrangements of dominance and subordination.
In his book Long Life, Honey in the Heart, Martin Prechtel writes of the Mayan people and their concept of kas-limaal, which translates roughly as "mutual indebtedness, mutual insparkedness." Pretchel writes that "the knowledge that every animal, plant, person, wind and season is indebted to the fruit of everything else is an adult knowledge."
This is a concept we need, especially those of us who are impassioned by injustice. The only way out of the vegetarian myth is through the pursuit of kas-limaal, of adult knowledge. If we choose to live in tune with nature, we won't be exploiting each other by eating. Instead, we will only be taking turns.
Comment: For more information about vegetarianism and veganism, see this Sott link:
The Naive Vegetarian
Reader Comments
I have only been a SOTT devotee for a short time and have recently started a 2 year subscription to DCM. My impression of SOTT and the forum is that it is a medium for presenting the truth and for presenting questions about things that we might not have all the answers to but are investigating.
I would imagine that a great proportion of the information provided by SOTT articles is THE truth or pretty close to it. However, no human is a God (or deity) and no human is 100% right all the time, so there might be things presented that are perceived to be the truth, as can be determined at the time, but may be erroneous as new info comes to light, or are just plain built on suppositions or pieces of the puzzle that appear to fit together.
I get the impression that those who agree with the information presented on SOTT are enlightened and those who disagree with anything in particular are seen as deliberately blinding themselves. Overall, I believe that what SOTT is trying to do is to get everyone to question the info they are provided by established sources, be that the mainstream media, PTB, doctors, etc. But would the editors agree that it is up to every individual to evaluate the information they receive, including info from SOTT, and decide in their own minds/hearts/spirits what they believe is true or not?
I therefore would like to question the editors why there is such a particular venom being directed at vegetarians. I have read several articles and forum comments so far which present information that eating meat is actually not as bad as one thinks and is probably essential for human health. However, these articles do not stop there. They go beyond mere presentation of what some believe is the truth to an open attack on anyone who disagrees by choosing not to eat animals. Vegetarians are openly branded as emotionally disturbed, psychologically unstable, misguided, obtuse, and just downright drones for puppets. I find this to be completely incongruous for what I thought SOTT stood for - the open mind of inquiry and getting to the truth. Personal truths for one person are not necessarily the same personal truths for another.
So here in this article, folks are told yet again that there is no other lifestyle allowed except to eat meat - but yet the agribusiness is [justifiably] trashed. Where are your solutions? What was the purpose of this article? -- to present a way forward or just take another opportunity to 'trash' a group of people who have made decisions they believed were important for themselves and the planet?
Should urbanites who can't get any information on their food because of insufficient labelling laws just go out and buy the 'sadistic food'? What about the supply of humane meat - I've been told that the US ptb are actually trying to shut down organic suppliers. Where are all these flesh-eaters supposed to get their 'humane flesh'?
Personally, if you want to keep running articles which engage in personal attacks on a group of people who choose not to eat meat, that is your choice. But it is annoying as a reader who enjoys the exposure on the sins and misinformation of the PTB, etc. to be personally called "emotionally disturbed" because I choose to make my own decisions on what kind of predator I want to be.
Enough living things already die to enable me to survive, and I reserve the right to make my own choices on what kind of suffering I choose to inflict on other living things. If I consciously choose to kill less living things than you do, I see no reason to attack me or folks like me on a personal level by inferring that anyone who declines to eat animals is a bloody idiot.
Also, have been vegetarian for most of the last thirty years.
Hopefully the anti-vegetarian articles are more of an attempt to expose the misinformation out there promoting such things as human grain and soybean consumption. Some of the articles would actually be not-so-bad if they stopped at exposing misinformation. I would agree on the aforementioned items, especially. Have always avoided soy products as I do not believe they are fit for human consumption, and have nearly eliminated the grains at this point for same reason.
When I say I am vegetarian I mean exactly that. Vegetables. Hello? In botany we were taught that vegetables are the roots, stems, or leaves of a plant. (Though I do also eat fruits, seeds, and nuts.)
Settled down to read one anti-veg article here a while back thinking, "OK, so persuade me." Turned out to be nothing more than an extra-enthusiastic rant against soybean consumption with a lot of insulting commentary about vegetarianism thrown in. No references to any reliable source documentation, only to other writings also not based on any kind of reliable source documentation. Hearsay plus one man's opinion. Oh, well. Disappointing but certainly not uncommon.
Any time people choose to engage in particular behaviors (such as flesh eating, or vegetarianism for that matter) they often go to great lengths to try and justify their own behavior(s).
It does seem that the anti-veg tone goes a bit overboard at times. How about equal time for some articles on the errors of flesh eating? Won't hold my breath while waiting for that, though. :-)
I find it hard to believe that the forum is playing host to venom towards vegetarians. Venom is about hate, and such emotions are strictly observed and considered incongruous with the Work.
Are you sure you are not mistaking objective observations of the known facts at hand for personal attacks?
Whatever the case, articles posted on SOTT are a sampling of reality for the purpose of continuing study, and as such should not be considered representative of the beliefs and practices of members. -There are some articles which are posted precisely because they are out of whack with objective reality.
This article offers more information to sift through and consider, and was probably selected because it happened to contain data and ideas which shed further light on current explorations being pursued here. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, winning or losing debates.
It's about working out what is Real.
discussing the authors assertion that agriculture is destructive and the concept of mutual indebtedness rather than feeling the need to defend yourself. No-one is attacking you.
I've noticed that all of sott's anti-vegetarian articles come from Weston Price Foundation people. Why is that? They have a highly biased, unobjective view of the subject.
Thanks for your reply, Woodsman and others,
Sadly the timing of this article is just before I have to go out of town so I don't have the time right now to find heaps of examples of what I am talking about but let's start with this one:
"A person has a deep psychological problem that causes him to not eat meat...."
which is in:
[Link]
I have seen many other comments (emotionally disturbed, not capable of advancement, no real concept of genuine environmental problems, etc.) but there is SOOO much material to read here that I can't place the locations of these comments off the top of my head. Just the link above is six pages long. The concept is that the presentation of objective evidence for the pro-meat point of view is quite different than saying that those who have such an important decision about how they live are "disturbed" and don't know anything.
I would think that most folks who have gone the route of not eating meat have put some major thought into it based on the available information of the day. It is a life changing decision that is not arrived at lightly. As someone quoted, "it is easier to change someone's religion than it is their diet". Those who have gone veggo have changed their diets on their own and the seriousness of that decision should be given due credit.
Without a doubt, the industrial agribusiness remains and has gotten much worse in the 37 years it has been since I stopped eating meat. It will only stopped and be wholly replaced by organic, respectful means when EVERYONE stops eating industrially produced meat.
So that is great if former veggo folks want to go with organic meat (and I have never told anyone in 37 years that they should not eat meat) but what if there are no local organic meat producers in your area?
Joel Salatin was here in Cairns in December and I went to see him speak. He made it clear that the US FDA has been on his case for years and that when he got back to the USA after this tour, he wasn't sure how much longer he would even be allowed to operate - because the US govt is trying to shut down organic meat producers and has some legislation to that effect.
So instead of just deriding veggie-heads as "psycologically disturbed", how about some concrete suggestions as to what folks can do to ensure that there is a supply of organic meat available? What about organised boycotts of the industrial meat suppliers and targeted campaigns against them? They are one of the main reasons why so many have chosen to eliminate meat from their diets.
What about some suggestions beyond "you should eat meat" as to how much minimally a person really needs to be including in their diet to get all the essential stuff you're talking about. How about the transition between not eating meat for decades to including it - I'm sure the digestive system of a person who hasn't eaten meat in over 20 years would not be capable of simply adding it in every day (I vaguely remember something about loss of enzymes).
The decision to be veggo doesn't make us mental cases - on the contrary, it shows we have enough concern for the quality of other species' lives on this planet to make serous and deep personal sacrifices of our own. We don't just talk about how rotten the agribusiness is - we put "our money where our mouth is" - so to speak!
This is a big subject and needs to be given a fair overview to elucidate the parameters of what constitutes a good diet in relationship to those who are by definition "meat eaters" and those who are "not M/E".
(By the way there was no discussion of fish, but thats also a serious issue that is causing big damages to the environment - and just for info I am a marine ecologist)
As an infrequent meat eater (by choice) and more heavily dependant on the other foods(fruits-legumes-salad items) and nutrient by products such as jams, I have been forced to re-consider after reading all about the "low cholesterol - high carbo diet" as not the best because it was really all another scam....you know. like global warming...apparently the brain needs cholesterol!
Whilst the article showed some very thoughtful points and had a high degree of emmotion, it failed to answer really the point it was intending to make...Im sure that countless reasonable people loath the abjectly cruel manner in which so much livestock is handled and have seen web videos showing exactly that....but the result of the article seemed to be another article written on top followed by people taking umbridge about what vegetarianism is all about....
As an extreme case, find on SOTT the article about a French veggie couple who could face 30 years prison for supposedly letting their daughter die for reason of the diet!!!!provokes the good question....hey?
And yes SOTT can be viewed as being selective and somewhat contrite with its own agenda, but it also provides some very good informative reading...I do not agree with all that is on SOTT but I like to read SOTT like an old fashioned informative newspaper for a variety of articles that may be of interest.
Vegetables are those which abound in the earth and agriculture is the word that describes its husbandry - but agriculture has "culture" in it and thats where a lot of our world goes pear shaped and extreme.
When sycophants or extremists get into writing the woes or should do's of diet and eating regimen we get what all fundamentalism is all about...an extreme and un-rewarding view or way. So life is full of it...there is so much "crap" out there that original culture and reasonable activity is lost to all the psychotic gurus and sub gurus and dumb "gophas" running blind except to see some absurd culture formed for what at the end of the day?
THE F******G MONEY of course.
I just can't eat green vegetables. All I have to do is get a smell of brussel sprouts or boiled cabbage and I'm retching all over the joint. My infancy was full of the horrors of school dinner ladies and suchlike trying to force-feed me greens against my will. In my twenties I had a real go at trying to "get over" this thing I had about green vegetables. At the time, I had a vegetarian girlfriend who was constantly nagging me that my aversion to them was because of my "immaturity". I gave it a good go, but it was all to no avail, and I came to the realisation that my body did not want green vegetables and was not capable of dealing with green vegetables.
Boiling vegetables makes me cringe and im a vegetarian :/
Why not baked your green vegetables in garlic and oil and finish off with lemon juice. I do this with cauliflower and broccoli (with pinenuts).
I find the spicier the vegetarian food is, the better. Curries (served on mustard greens), stirfries(many asian veg), falafel kebebs (lettuce) :D.
As I stated in my previous post: I can't eat cauliflower or broccoli. My body will reject it. I'll be sick.
if mankind somehow "decide" to make civilisation jump,and which is inevitable, it will have to reject mass murdering of animals.it is realy sad what we do to animals.our embrio during pregnancy is taking form of almost all kind of animals of planet Earth.respecting life in any forms it comes, will put us in higher level than we are now.
... IS ENOUGH TO STOP KILLING INNOCENT BEINGS
[Link]
Truly man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds them. - Leonardo da Vinci
"While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on this earth?" - G.B. Shaw
How can he practice true compassion
who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh?
Riches cannot be found in the hands of the thriftless,
nor can compassion be found in the hearts of those who eat meat.
If you ask, "What is kindness and what is unkindness?"
It is not-killing and killing. Thus, eating flesh is never virtuous.
If the world did not purchase and consume meat,
no one would slaughter and offer meat for sale.
When a man realizes that meat is the butchered flesh
of another creature, he will abstain from eating it.
Insightful souls who have abandoned the passion to hurt others
will not feed on flesh that life has abandoned.
All life will press palms together in prayerful adoration
of those who refuse to slaughter or savor meat.
Why raise cattle for meat consumption when it takes seven times more land acreage for a pound of beef than a pound of milk? Only 4 to 16 pounds of flesh food is produced for every 100 pounds of food eaten by cattle. 10 to 20 tons of nutritive vegetable food can be produced from the same amount of land that can produce only 1 ton of beef. In one year, you can get much more protein from a cow in the form of milk, cheese, etc., than in the several years it takes for a cow to mature enough to produce meat. To produce 1 pound of wheat takes 25 gallons of water, whereas 1 pound of beef requires 2500 gallons. And water is not always a plentiful resource in many countries. Obviously, using agricultural resources for meat production is nothing but wasteful.
Furthermore, if we are concerned about the starving people in the world and the environment we live in, then let us consider the fact that 60 million more people in the world could be fed if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10%. Plus, thousands of acres of rainforest are lost every day in various countries, and it is said that 50% of that is directly linked to raising cattle for meat production. And though 76% of Americans consider themselves concerned about the environment, only 2.8% are vegetarians (at the time of this writing). Many Americans may say they love animals, but they still eat them on a regular basis. Obviously, they need to raise their consciousness about this. In any case, there are many books on the market that present this type of environmental information much more thoroughly.
Meat-eating and animal slaughter disrupts and disregards the doctrine of ahimsa, or non-violence. It is not possible to kill animals for the pleasure of the tongue without violence. It is also said in the Buddhist scripture, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, “The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion.”
One of the principles that one must follow in the endeavor to be free from acquiring bad karma and for spiritual advancement is being merciful, based on ahimsa. Mercy means more than just being nice. Mercy means being kind to all living entities, not just to humans, but also to animals, birds, insects, etc. This is because the living entity, depending on its consciousness, can take birth in a material body in any one of the 8,400,000 species of life. Therefore, to develop and maintain the quality of mercy, one must follow the principle of no meat eating. In this way, those who are humane should remain free from so many unnecessary karmic reactions. Karma means that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Killing an animal to eat is certainly an act of violence that creates a negative reaction in the atmosphere which returns as more violence. This comes back to us as reversals in life which we must endure in the future.
It is bluntly stated that meat eating is actually the grossest form of spiritual ignorance. To kill other living entities for the pleasure of the tongue is a cruel and selfish activity that requires one to be almost completely blind to the spiritual reality of the living being, that within the body is a soul like you, a part and parcel of the Supreme Soul. It also causes one to remain hard-hearted and less sensitive to the concern for the well being and feelings of others.
As previously explained, according to the law of karma, whatever pain we cause for others we will have to suffer in the future. Therefore, a wise man does not even want to harm an insect if possible, what to speak of slaughtering an animal in order to taste its flesh and blood.
====================================================
Every living entity is God's child and the world is not a domain dominated by humans alone. We are all brothers ultimately. Yet we keep killing and eathing our own brethren and God, the father of all will not tolerate.
And yet again the reactions are now upon us. The very ground is shaking and it will be like never heard or experinced before. It will grind to dust everything we know and cherish as ever lasting.