I'm still not really sure how you "humanely" kill an animal. I have a feeling that no murderers have ever been set free because they "humanely" killed their victims.

And, yes, I'm morally equating the killing of animals with the killing of humans.

As I say, only marginally less irritating than usual. But we may as well get the debate started. Do you really think it's the same to kill an animal as it is to kill a human? Am I "species-ist?"

I still can't buy it. I'm trying to see how I might, but I can't. It's not right to cruelly treat an animal, and with human dominance comes responsibility. But if it's between me and a squid? Calamari, Doctor Watson.

Mr. Davis seems to require an awful lot of attention. He keeps posting links to this blog in the Food Fight forum, even though Food Fight has made it very clear they want nothing more to do with him. Well, turn around is fair play. Here is the link to the Food Fight forum, where Mr. Davis ... uh, let's just say he's not doing very well. That would be the kind way of putting it.

http://www.foodfightgrocery.com/2007/01/mercury-podcast.html

"no murderers have ever been set free because they "humanely" killed their victims."

What about the people who administer the lethal injection for executions? While they aren't necessarily escaping prison time themselves because of the method used, it is a form of killing that's not considered murder. In other words, not all who pull the trigger are necessarily murderers.

Anoneemouse: The fact I require an awful lot of attention has NEVER been a secret. Not from ANYBODY. Ever. But thanks for stating the obvious!

Hopefully people will be encouraged to weigh in over at Foodfight! too.

It probably won't surprise you that I also view the death penalty as murder.

aaaaah! I wrote a huge post and it got deleted.

Oh well, start again.

As to the local issue - you'll probably catch this on the blog comment I made to Dan (quoted above), but local meat is not necessarily better environmentally than even imported or processed plant foods. Peter Singer's book, for example, has a whole chapter dealing with local vs. organic produce, in which he finds out that oftentimes local produce (surprisingly) uses more resources. I don't own this book, so it's something people will have to read for themselves, but it's well worth checking out of the library or even buying. In this case Singer was talking about produce vs. produce, but when you add that the local product is an animal, that takes up even more resources. Even a grass-fed land animal will generally (always?) take up more resources than plant food, because you need either food for this animals for months and years or land for this animal for months and years. Eating higher on the food chain requires more resources to be used, unless you are, perhaps, a hunter or fisher. And even then you have to drive out to a place to hunt or fish.

So this bears looking into, rather than just taking the local is always better credo as a given. If someone on the local side has some resources they would like to share with me, I would be happy to read them as well. Additionally, as far as I know it is possible to be a local vegan; I see no reason why one couldn't be a local vegetarian, if eating local is one's goal.

That said, if you're planning a trip to a local sustainable farm, might I also suggest a trip to a local Farm Sanctuary? There is one in Estacada to which I have the address buried somewhere in my room and also a larger one in Salem. I think IDA might even make bi-weekly trips out there to do service. I've heard that it is quite an experience to meet the animals on farm sanctuaries, and hear the stories of where they came from.

I'm glad you're feeling well as a vegan.

- Jen

blogjunkie -

Your response about the death penalty does not work for this reason:

- a criminal has committed some crime or has harmed someone and therefore is killed for their crimes; whereas, when people eat meat, they're eating animals who obviously didn't commit any crimes and are no danger to anyone. Sammy wasn't about to go on a tri-state killing spree, for example

- I also don't agree with the death penalty. I don't regard it as murder, per se, but I don't think it's ethically sound. There's a whole host of reasons for that, however, that I don't have time to get into here.

I agree with Scott Moore that you can't "humanely" kill an animal.

What is humane about killing a being who, if they could talk to us, would almost certainly ask to continue living? The same goes for "humane" milk, because milk necessitates taking a baby away from its mother.

Humane eggs - possibly. There is one person in Portland who raises hens which she pledges not to kill after they've stopped laying. They seem to have a good living situation, and she's not killing the hens, so okay. I still don't want to eat eggs, but that's because I don't feel the need for them anymore.

But "humane" meat and "humane" dairy. I don't believe in them. To me a more accurate term would be "less bad" meat and "less bad" dairy.

Here's the thing - like I said, when I first heard the term speciesist I thought it sounded really dumb. But I don't think that people have really given animal rights philosophy a chance until they have at least read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. There are lots of other authors out there writing animal rights/welfare philosophy. I've heard good things about Gary Francione, for example. And then Matthew Scully offers another idea. He doesn't believe in animal rights, but his welfare stance is very strict and also worth reading.

As to regarding animals as equals - I'm not sure what you're talking about with you vs. the squid - is the squid trying to kill you? If the squid's trying to kill someone, of course they'll kill the squid; that's not speciesist - that's self-defense. A person would kill another person who tried to kill them, after all.

In terms of regarding animals as equals, here's what that actual means to most vegans:

To regard an animal as an equal you respect that they desire freedom and life the same way humans desire freedom and life, so, to the best of your ability, you make sure that they are able to have freedom and life. Which means you don't confine them or kill them or use them basically.

Many people understand this better in terms of dogs or cats. Obviously, people would be hugely upset if someone came over to their house and killed their dog (an animal, no different in emotion or intelligence from a pig). They would consider that person to have murdered their dog, most likely, an animal they recognized as having a real and compelling interest in being alive. No one would be happy to hear that this person "humanely" killed their dog. No, they'd be pissed, because goshdarnit, Rover wanted to live.

Some people will argue that this is then an issue of "property", but no one would really be as upset if someone came over and smashed their VCR.

People seem capable of recognizing the interest their companion animals have in continuing to live. They would be very angry if someone killed their dog. Vegans simply extend this respect and love of animals to all the other similar animals being kept on farms and killed in slaughterhouses.

In South Korea, they sometimes still kill dogs for food. People talk about this as if it's some kind of abomination, but they have responded (aptly) that it's no different from Americans killing pigs.

So I think that everyone already understands that animals have an interest in living at some level. It's just a matter of extending that logic to non-companion animals.

But yeah - I'd recommend reading Animal Liberation. It's a good philosophical exercise, if nothing else.

It seems there are two distinct reasons behind the dietary choices people make. One is an ethical consideration for animal life. Like, do you hold the life of a clam on par with that of a human being? What about a pig or a monkey? That sort of thing is something there can be many individual answers to.

The second reason is that of environmental and community sustainabilty. As I was saying in the other thread, there are ways we can have food relationships with animals that are not necessarily unsustainable.

Animals can turn undigestible matter into products people can eat. For instance, a farmer could feed the chaff and stubble of fields after harvest to a cow that would then produce milk and manure (and meat if you wanna go that way). Similarly chickens can eat bugs and caterpillars and give us delicious eggs. Some farms have even built mobile chicken coops to bring the chickens out into the fields where they can eat slugs, aerate the soil, and fertilize with their poop.

It is also wrong to assume that all land suitable for grazing is also suitable for plant agriculture. Grass can grow in cool or arid climates that may not be appropriate for growing crops. So in that case, land that is otherwise unuseable for food production can be used to support grass-fed cows.

I realize that the scenarios I describe are so very far away from the reality of food production today, but I have hope that with enough conscientious consumers things can change - they already are. Matt, I would encourage you to follw your conscience on this matter instead of the results of a silly web poll. But just in case, I voted anyways.

To all the other vegans out there -

I love you guys, but when's the last time yelling at people made them more open to understanding vegan viewpoints?

I believe Matt Davis, and many others here, are making an honest effort to understand vegan viewpoints.

There are so few opportunities to discuss vegan viewpoints with willing omnivores, that I would think more people would want to engage in a constructive discussion.

Yes, some of you are mad, and I understand why. However - spewing your anger all over the internet isn't going to save one animal - not even one. In fact, it might actually hurt veganism. I don't even know how many times somebody has used "militant vegans" as an excuse for not going vegan.

Of course, it's a bullshit excuse, but that doesn't matter. People already have so many excuses and blocks that keep them from going vegan. We really don't need to give them one more.

So if you're mad, vent it. But why vent it here? Will it bring Sammy back? No. Will it save any other animal to just be pissed off and yell shit? No.

If you haven't looked at it, check out Vegan Outreach's on-line advice on advocacy or read Carol Adams' book Living Among Meat-Eaters.

Yes, it sucks that the burden of being the polite people falls on us. But you know what? Being nice and kind and polite is actually kind of - nice. There's a time to be angry. Don't think that I don't get angry. But we need to use our anger constructively and productively rather than creating more ill-will with it.

I hope I don't get any negative responses to this - because we all want to save animals and the environment. What I'm saying is that making negative comments without any other purpose but to be negative, doesn't really help with our common goal.

with love,
Jennifer

Jennifer - I completely agree with you. I think Matt really has made an honest and sincere effort with this experiment, something many meat-eaters never do. I think he should be applauded and supported for that.

Poo Poo - It seems to me that if you want to address both concerns easily, you could just eat vegan. Also, the land that you cite as being suitable for grazing but not other agriculture is often part of a fragile ecosystem. In Jared Diamond's book Collapse, he mentions Montana and Australia, both of which are in danger of collapse because of attempts to graze non-native animals (namely, cows).

About 10+ years ago I was living in Seattle and happened to attend some function where Norm Maleng, King County's prosecuting attorney, was giving a speech. I don't recall the purpose of the function, but I do recall that it was about a year after the death of Pasado. Pasado was a donkey that lived in Redmond's Marymoor Park. One night a group kids decided to have some fun with Pasado and, to make a long story short, beat him to death with sticks and hung him from a tree. (http://www.pasadosafehaven.org/PASADOSTORY/Pasado_story.htm).

Durning the speech Norm was giving at this function he discussed the Pasado story. His angle - in all his years as a public prosecutor no story had ever come close to generating the outpouring of public outrage (as represented by volume of contacts to his office) as the story of Pasado. I recall him listing heinous crimes: child murder, rape, racist attacks...and saying that none of these came anywhere close to provoking the public outrage generated by the story of Pasado. Not even in the ballpark. He seemed genuinely perplexed by this.

I had been a vegan for a number of years at this point but this story still struck a nerve with me. What was behind this public outrage? My theory was/is that somewhere deep down people recognize where true innocence lies (and it ain't human).

Matt, if you're really having a hankering for some nachos, you should try the vegan ones at Paradox! They're so delicious and filling..mmmm....

Jennifer, You're posts are great. I really enjoy reading your perspectives. And while I still do not necessarily agree with the ethical reasons why one should not kill animals for food, you have given me an far greater understanding as to why an individual might choose to be vegan. I will never be one myself, but I do at least respect vegans more.....or maybe just you ;-).

PS did you read my reply to you in the day 4 thread?

PSS ummm....I do LOVE vegan brownies!!!

OHHH and Scott Moore, there is a GIGANTIC difference between an animal that has been locally, independantly, and conciously treated with respect and honor and then humanely (my definition) killed as opposed to an animal that was raised on an industrial feedlot, forced to eat themselves, skinned alive, punched in the head with a bolt, and/or otherwise inhumanely (my definition)killed. I know that vegans claim that all life is equal and all killing is by definition "inhumane." And that's fine to believe that. But #1) the entire world is not going to become vegan anytime soon. So, that being said, say you had an influence as to how animals were to be treated as a food source for non-vegans, you would say "whatever! There's no difference between the the method of raising and killing an animal. It's all the same to me! Do it how you want!"

You may not agree that it's ok to kill an animal for food, but the difference between industrial meat production and the local farms that raised animals where I grew up is night and day.

Dan - I don't think that most vegans feel that killing is necessarily inhumane, and I know that I and others agree that if you're going to eat meat, it's a step in the right direction to consider how the animal you're about to eat was treated when it was alive. I think that those who choose to eat meat should definitely choose animals raised on smaller farms rather than factory farms.

But I think for many vegans (myself included) it's more an issue of necessity. Why kill an animal at all if there's no need to? Then questions about whether it's death was kind or gentle enough become irrelevant.

I also wonder at exactly what you mean by treating an animal destined for someone's plate with "respect and honor." It seems to me that the most meaningful expression of respect and honor for another life would be to let it be a cow, or a chicken, rather than a product for you to consume.

I know you're all mad at me for calling you fucking hippies and raising inconvenient questions, but does anyone actually believe these cows and chickens would ever be born if not for the livestock industry?

Just because I'm arguing with you doesn't mean I think you're bad people, or that I disagree with your goals, I just think your logic is shoddy.

Watanabe -- no one is mad at you for raising inconvenient questions; I think most people involved in this discussion are here precisely because they enjoy difficult questions. If anyone is truly mad at you (which I doubt), it would be because your comments are rather simplistic. Dismissing vegans as hippies? I mean, come on.

I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at with your latest hypothetic question. I don't think anyone believes that domestic cattle, as a species, would survive for very long unless they were being actively bred -- and protected in adulthood -- by humans. They are, as other have pointed out, not natural creatures, ill-suited for independent living. Chickens -- again, as a species -- would have a better chance, but the genetic freaks bred by "the livestock industry" probably wouldn't fare well.

But that doesn't really matter. I don't think anyone's primary goal -- vegan, meat-eater, or on the fence -- is the continued survival of domestic cattle or chickens; most arguments here seem to boil down to issues of sustainability and animal suffering. Considering that the "livestock industry" currently maintains an unsustainable number of cattle and chickens, and that every animal not born into suffering is a win for the utilitarians, your question is rather irrelevant.

By the way, I do think that Scott's belief that killing animals is the same as killing people is at least logically sound on its face. Curious, Scott, assuming you're serious: where do you draw the line?

Is there a kind of animal that qualifies as a sentient being and another that doesn't? I don't assume you weep for all the bacteria in your gut, for example. The roaches in your kitchen? The fish killed by the electricity that you use?

Not trying to start anything, but how does this outlook square with abortion?

I think you'll find that at some point you have to posit that there is something that binds us as living creatures in order for all of this to hold water. What is it? A soul? The Force?

If we're just a bag of chemicals, then it doesn't matter. I guess you could make the case that legal rights, which allegedly exist independently of any religious backdrop, ought to apply equally to animals. But until we improve upon our communication abilities across species, it will be hard to know the 'free will' of an animal. Especially one dependent upon humans for both existence and survival.

I know it's cheap to cut these corners and just call you a bunch of fucking hippies, but experience tells me people shy away from this kind of discussion, for whatever reasons.

James,

My point is relevant as a response to the argument that we should 'let it be a cow or a chicken, rather than a product for you to consume.'

It never would be a cow or a chicken if not bred and fed.

Your point that bringing fewer chickens and cows into the world is the real goal is more honest, in my mind. But lets not make it about letting these animals live happier lives. Let's agree that it's about them not existing.

Watanabe - Is a cow, bred to grow so fast that its own legs can barely hold it up, still able to function as a cow? Is a chicken whose immune system is comprised almost entirely of antibiotics capable of truly "being" a chicken? Is breeding such an animal even compatible with the notion of respecting an animal's life?

To say that such animals would die out without active human support is hardly equivalent to advocating the non-existence of viable species. I have no problem with people keeping animals as pets, making decisions for the animals' well-being while allowing them to follow their own instincts and desires in a domesticated version of the pursuit of happiness. I would have no problem with a cow, chicken, or any other "food" animal being raised throughout its natural life in the same way; in fact, I regularly donate to Farm Sanctuary, an organization whose goal is to provide precisely that environment for animals rescued from dead piles and other atrocities. But to use the continued existence of a species as an excuse to support the perpetrators of those very atrocities strikes me as specious. But it's true: I would prefer to let the corn and soybean fields now dedicated to growing feed go back to habitat for forest creatures and I would, given the choice, allow prairie dogs and wolves to re-establish their former habitats before they were subjected to extermination campaigns by ranchers; the goal, as you can see, is not about the cattle and chickens "not existing," it's about using our resources in the most conscionable a manner.

Watanabe - You raise a lot of points, and we could be here all weekend debating the details and semantics of our individual belief systems. But what we're really talking about is veganism, and the goal of veganism is not to live in a bubble of purity, but instead to do our reasonable best to prevent the suffering of others.

Watanabe -

In response to your discussion about whether it's about animals having quality of life versus animals not existing -

It's about both. Let me explain.

In some cases, creating a vegan world would mean that certain breeds of animals would die out - namely, those animals that are not able to thrive in the wild and which are not healthy for the native eco-system. Cows are a good example here. It's not as if everyone would go vegan at once, however (in my dreams), so gradually this breed would disappear, or maybe some cows could live in Farm Sanctuary type settings, who knows?

In the case of many other animals, however, there is no reason that they couldn't live in the wild, particularly if much more wild land was available, since we wouldn't have to use so much land to raise feed crops to feed animals to then eat. Turkeys are an especially good exampl of a "food" animal that could thrive in the wild.

An even better development that could occur, however, if this became a more vegan country, is that wild animals could cease to be as endangered as they currently are. Cattle ranchers, in particular, have caused the endangerment of many wild species such as wolves and bobcats (perceived as a danger to their herds) as well as prairie dogs who are perceived as competing for the food supply and making holes which cattle might step into, etc. In this way cattle ranching not only causes the death of the non-native cattle, but it also creates a system in which the "management" (i.e. deaths) of other wild animals becomes necessary.

Stop raising cattle on these government lands and you open up all this habitat for wild animals to reclaim. Stop requiring so much land for the growth of animal food crops and that's that much more land freed up for all sorts of purposes, which might save some of that woodland cut down for a new suburb, etc.

Outside of this country, this is also the case. The destruction of the Amazon rainforest has largely been wrought by clearing land for cattle grazing. What if that stopped? How many wild animal species would be spared - not to mention the rich habitat that we depend on to absorb CO2?

And then there's fishing! I'm not an expert on the logistics of salmon, but I can speak to ocean fish. Stop eating fish and we might just save the oceans from what is looking like utter devastation by the year 2050. I should pull up some of those articles...

Here's one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15532333/

This article pretty much just lays it out - we keep fishing like we are and bye-bye ocean. Of course, they phrase it "bye-bye seafood", but those are the facts. There is one case in which humans are causing the extinction of animals and a whole eco-system at that.

In fact (and I know you aren't asking for this Watanabe, but I'm on the article, so I want to comment on it), that article made me want to cry. Because I still remember as a child watching PBS shows about the wonder of the ocean, and being entranced by the kind of beauty I'd never imagined existed. Something more amazing than I had conceived of. To think of that beauty being utterly trashed by humanity makes me want to cry. And to see the media portray it as "the end of fish sticks" makes me want to cry even more. It's clear that not everyone sees the beauty; to some people it's just a commodity, just another thing to shove into their mouth.

The link between fishing in particular and the destruction of the oceans is given very clearly, once again, in Peter Singer's The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter (I should be on Singer's payroll).

So it's not just a matter of - vegans are talking about the extinction of animals. We're talking about better, free lives for farmed animals currently alive. We're talking about some species maybe not needing to stick around long term, if they're unnaturally bred to not be able to survive in the wild. And finally, veganism promotes in many ways the interests of wild animals whose habitats are often destroyed so we can raise domesticated farm animals or so we can, well, eat them.

Watanabe - fisheries article not linking - but I found it by googling: fishery collapse by 2050 It was a study reported on a month ago or so.

All of these responses strike me as very well considered and rational. It may be that I wasn't reading for comprehension the first time around, but I wasn't perceiving this kind of thinking in the first flush of comments on Matt's vegan vacation.

James, you shouldn't perceive, when I argue that what's at stake is that these animals would never be born, that I view that to be a bad thing. What bothers me is a poor discussion that supposes these animals would be happy if only no one ate them. I consider it good progress to move on to the 'meat and potatoes' of the pros and cons of large declines in livestock populations.

Zoe, I can't argue one bit with what you say. Strikes me as both realistic and idealistic, which is wonderful balance. Though I wish there was more room here for a global perspective that also made the lives of people a high (the highest) priority. I think that many Americans care more about salmon then Somalians. I have a problem with that.

Jennifer, I am myself deeply troubled by the environmental trends you mention. I am not sure, however, that veganism is taking full advantage of the potential influence it could command if also applied rigourously to other critical global issues.

Broken economies kill millions of people a year, owing to an absence of food, clean water, or basic health care. Some of the comments on the importance of local economies can be valuable, but can also be destructive. I suspect we would all agreee about these things, but we're not talking about them in a comprehensive way.

At the moment, like it or not, we are in a bubble when we talk about veganism, and that automatically puts us on the margins (and makes us look callous and out of touch, perhaps, to a good portion of the other 6 billion or so people out there).

It's not fair of me to expect so much from this discussion. But shit like 'speciesism' just drives me nuts, as it implies something that simply isn't true: that we actually (as evidenced by our actions) give a rat's ass about our fellow human beings.

I don't think so, Watanabe. Does the term "racism" imply that "we" care about whites? Or "sexism" that "we" care about men? They are terms to describe certain views or a generally unexamined philosophy of the world, nothing more. Not sure what you're getting at but I really don't think you've entertained the idea except to have a kind of knee-jerk reaction to it. I notice that you often expect those arguing against you to present their ideas in the most patient, kind, understanding way, when you quickly go off yourself into name-calling and a reflexive response to ideas that fall outside the dominant thinking. This gets tiring and you will tend to receive what you put out. Just something to think about. http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/animals/singer-text.html
some of your questions are answered here.

Matt,

I don't think a week is long enough to experience the physical/emotional/mental transformation that any kind of major dietary change will bring. I'd go for a month at least.

And avoid processed foods! A bowl of brown rice with some garlic and onions and veggies can be so unbelievably satisfying once you've been off processed foods long enough to let the brain's pleasure center reconfigure itself.

Tilly,

Good stuff, and touche.

Singer's piece is very well argued.

Hey Matt, you're not the only blogger steering away from the filthy horror of meat. Looky here: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/20/big_factory_pig_farm.html
WARNING: there is a link there that shows time-lapse photography of piglets decomposing. Ulph!

Zoe, I also read collapse (a while ago so it may not be fresh in my mind) and I seem to remember that the problems in Montana were also due to overgrazing, i.e. putting too many animals on too little land which seems to be a theme of this discussion.

A good example of what I'm talking about would be the plains states like the Dakotas, which used to support large populations of indigenous ruminants, but where taken over by European farmers. It turns out now that a lot of people have given up farming in the Dakotas and the buffalo are coming back.

Another thing I do remember from that book is a discussion of sustainable vs. unsustainable fishing practices. There was a really poignant bit about fishermen who fish using dynamite because they have to make the choice between feeding their family or not, and they know that if they don't use dynamite today then someone else will do it tomorrow. Addressing these situations on a large scale is the best thing we can do to bring our ecosystem back into balance.

The most important factor to me is to eat foods with the smallest environmental impact. Though this is mostly a vegetable-based diet, there are animal foods that fall into my definition. Remember, even plant agriculture uses resources like land, water, and most likely animal-based fertilizer like manure, blood meal, and bone meal. If you are eating a fake meat product, every one of the 10-20 ingredients has to be harvested and processed, and then combined, packaged and shipped. Also Lightlife is owned by ConAgra, the same company that owns Chef Boyardee and Butterball turkey.

As for Americans, I don't think the best approach is to tell people that they need to stop eating all animal products. The "all or nothing" approach is not effective. People need to be educated about the food they eat, and most of them will cut down on their meat consumption. If someone changes to a 90% vegetarian diet, isn't that better than eating factory farmed meat at every meal?

Anyways my point (and I do have one...) is that there are a lot of grey areas in there, both ethically and in terms of sustainability. I would never under any circumstances argue that someone should not be vegan, that's just silly (though I would argue that we all should avoid ConAgra products). What I'm saying is that it's not the only way to eat responsibly. It sets a high bar that many people don't want to commit to, and don't necessarily need to in order to effect real change with their diets.

Watanabe - I'm not sure why being vegan means that I don't care about other issues. There are vegan anti-war activists, vegans who never buy from sweatshops, vegans who don't own cars, vegans who do any number of things to address any number of other problems in the world. When I said it was my goal as a vegan to reduce suffering, I didn't say "for animals" on purpose -- I think reducing suffering for any creature that suffers is important.

We may seem to be in a "vegan bubble" right now because that's the topic of discussion. Veganism is also particularly visible because it's a choice that someone makes several times a day. It doesn't mean that vegans don't care about or do activism for other issues.

Poo Poo - You're absolutely correct. Any reduction in the consumption of animal products is a step in the right direction. I also agree that responsible eating should be the goal of every person. Most vegans I know aren't hardliners -- if someone wants to be vegan except for the occasional burger at Paradox, that's a lot better than most, and definitely something that more people should aim for.

At the same time, though, while I appreciate your comments about how plant products must also be grown, fertilized, etc, I'm still not convinced that even free-range cows use fewer resources than plant foods.

But that's not really why I'm vegan, anyway. I do care about buying local (man, do I miss the farmers' market this time of year...), and I do avoid certain corporations, even if they are reaching out to vegans with their faux meats. But to me it still comes down to the question of whether I need to take a life for the benefit of my tastebuds.

poo poo -

No one is saying that there aren't other ways to eat a more ethical diet, and most vegans would certainly agree that in terms of making a better world as a whole, however far people can move from factory farms and the standard American diet is certainly helpful.

However, I am unconvinced as to there being a whole host of animal food options which are truly good for the environment, much less better, than even packaged and shipped vegan foods. If there are these options, then I wouldn't argue that on an environmental level, but of course I would still need to balance the fact that there's another being's interest in living involved. I wouldn't kill a cat or a dog, so why would I kill a lamb or a cow?

A letter to the Mercury this week - which I really need to write in response to - details a scenario in which parasitic fish are balanced against tofu. Well and good, in that scenario, the fish were probably more sustainable. But then that person commits the fallacy of saying that if that was "more sustainable" then there must be a whole host of other situations in which eating meat would be better. The truth of the matter is that that hypothetical is so specialized. Let's think - A) the person was living right by a lake with edible fish at the time (does that describe anyone living in Portland?) B) not only were they fish; they were "parasitic" fish, as in might have been harming the lake's ecosystem. C) The fish were pre-existent and had not been raised by humans to be eaten; therefore no additional life had to be started and put on this already overcrowded planet to feed people.

In that incredibly specialized situation, yeah it's more sustainable. But any meat that most people would eat as "sustainable" meat would not fit within those requirements. Even in the case of hunting and fishing, there aren't enough animals left to feed all the omnivores' demands, and you'd still have to drive your car (waste of gas) out to the places to hunt and fish.

Then, in creating demand for a domesticated animal, by buying (even if its local and relatively sustainable) free-range animals, you're still causing more animals to be brought into a world overpopulated with livestock. The UN recently released a report on livestock, detailing this overpopulation and the problems it is causing around the world.

And even if vegan food is brought in from another state or even country (and much vegan processed food is made right here in Oregon and not all of it has 10-20 ingredients), I don't think that can be measured against the extra resources that you need to devote to a land animal for months or years before it is killed, including transport to slaughter at most farms. More research needs to be done on these matters, and fortunately the authors who did the big diet and global warming study of 2005 which showed that meat-eating diets are major contributors to global warming (esp. those who eat cattle and fish, surprisingly), are hard at work on a new study about organic/free-range meat-eating.

That said, I appreciate all efforts that people make, and understand that not everyone feels veganism is achievable.

As to it actually being a "high bar" though. I too felt that veganism was "extreme" "impossible", etc. before I went vegan. Then after I went vegan and had been vegan for a month and a half, there was this moment of almost "oh - that's it?" If you care about being a vegan, particularly if you care about the animals involved and view them as deserving of continued life, it normalizes pretty quickly. The social pressures are really the only part of veganism that I think are hard, but there are a growing number of resources out there for dealing with those. I'm very used to resisting such pressures, but some people aren't.

Finally, I'm sorry for the ramble. I agree with you on many points - that we all need to look at the best possible source for our food. I'm not always perfect. I will eat fake, packaged meat sometimes as a convenience food (the same could be said of many otherwise sustainable omnivores, I'm sure). There is fake meat right here in Oregon, however - Turtle Island - http://www.tofurky.com. They make a wide range of great fake meats, and are the main ones I consume.

The main point is, however, that people keep holding the vegans, I think, up to a higher ideal than most omnivores. An omnivore seems to be considered a success if they start buying local meat - but no one is asking if they ever buy processed foods, or non-organic foods - the burden seems to be put all on us. When the funny thing is, almost every vegan I know buys exclusively organic produce and processed foods and either shops at farmer's markets regularly or belongs to a CSA. But it feels like for a vegan diet to be considered "valid" or "better" we must all put down our Tofurky's (from Hood River) and I don't know, go out foraging or something. And then, of course, no one would want to be vegan cause it's not "convenient" enough.

So, damned if you do, damned if you don't, in a way.

This is not specifically all aimed at you, either, poo poo. It's just a bit frustrating that in every conversation one has about veganism, the burden of proof seems to lie with the vegan. And the only people expected to pull up research, articles, peer-reviewed studies, is the vegan. If any omnivores out there have some peer-reviewed studies, books, etc. supporting their particular position, I would be interested in seeing them, though.

Alright. Enough rambling. I need to end my obsession with this blog and engage in my life.

Thanks for the good talks, though, poo poo

- Jennifer

"Alright. Enough rambling. I need to end my obsession with this blog and engage in my life."

Yeah, so does Matt. :)

I want the animals stuck on factory (and most other) farms, intensively confined and unable to engage in most of the most basic behaviors of their species, to be able to engage in their lives too.

At the end of the day, even if you enjoy eating pigs, eating most commercial eggs, chicken...it's a selfish choice for most of us. We all want to be able to enjoy our lives to the fullest, but when that includes eating *most* animal products, it comes at the cost of severe deprivation for other living beings. Ultimately I think it's hard to justify, if one makes the claim for living a decent and ethical life. It's a choice for us, a life of misery for them.

That was my wife blogging, but not my conscience, just to be clear.