Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Peak-Oil Prophet James Howard Kunstler on Food, Fuel and Why He Became an Almost Vegan

By Kerry Trueman, AlterNet. Posted May 7, 2009.


Kunstler dishes on the collapse of our institutions, why "recovery" may never come and how to survive the fall of farming as we know it.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I grew up in Woodland Hills, Calif., a nominally pastoral, petrocentric Los Angeles suburb, so peak oil prognosticator James Howard Kunstler's dim view of our car-crazed culture really resonates with me.

Kunstler's relentless skewering of suburbia, and his penchant for apocalyptic predictions have landed him a reputation as a cranky Cassandra. But as Ben McGrath observed while strolling around Saratoga Springs with Kunstler for a recent New Yorker piece, "Far from the image of the stereotypical Chicken Little, he was more like an amiable town crier whom the citizenry regarded fondly, if a bit skeptically."

So, when a friend and I found ourselves headed to Kunstler's neck of the woods for a conference recently, we arranged to have dinner with Saratoga Springs' resident soothsayer. Contrary to his contrarian reputation, Kunstler proved to be an affable, upbeat guy.

We chatted about food, politics, urban planning, gardening and a dozen other topics, but I'm not much of a note-taker; I'd rather eat than tweet. So our dinner conversation was off the record, including, mercifully, his ribald remarks about Alice Waters and Martha Stewart, which decency should preclude me from even alluding to.

However, he graciously agreed to answer my questions via e-mail about his conversion from carnivore to (mostly) vegan and other foodish and fuelish topics.

Kerry Trueman: Let's get right to the meat of the matter -- or, rather, the lack thereof. You used to enjoy eating "lots of meat, duck fat, butter by the firkin." What made you decide to go more or less vegan in recent months? Was it hard to make the transition to a plant-based diet?

James Howard Kunstler: It was as simple as a trip to the doctor's office. My cholesterol and blood pressure were too high. I had to take some radical action. I've enjoyed the challenge of cooking with a very different range of ingredients. But I like cooking and am pretty good at it -- I worked in many restaurant kitchens when I was a starving bohemian -- and I figured a lot of things out.

For instance, that you can make stocks and sauces by braising onions and aromatics without oil or butter. The only thing I really miss is making really bravura dishes for company, like chicken pie with a butter-saturated crust, duck-and-sausage gumbo, brownies ... you get the picture. ... I'm still excited by the challenge of vegan (or nearly vegan -- I use skim milk) cookery.

There are some excellent cookbooks out there, by the way, like Vegan With a Vengeance by Isa Chandra Moskowitz, The Accidental Vegan by Devra Gartenstein, and the Candle Cafe Cookbook by Joy Pierson and Bart Potenza.

KT: A study has just come out showing that although the French spend two hours eating each day -- roughly twice as long as we do -- they're among the slimmest of the 18 nations in the study. Americans were the fattest, with more than 1 in 3 Americans qualifying as obese. How would you explain this phenomenon? What compels Americans to eat so many of our meals in our cars?

JHK: Americans eat so many meals in cars because: 1) The infrastructure of daily life is engineered for extreme car dependency, and 2) because the paucity of decent quality public space and so-called third places (gathering places) for the working classes (and lower) -- and remember, it is the working classes and poor who are way disproportionately obese. The people portrayed in Vanity Fair magazine are not fat. I suspect that the amount of time Americans spend in their cars is roughly proportionate to the amount of time French people spend at the table.

Fast food is not a new phenomenon in the USA, however. Frances Trollope's sensational travel book of the 1830s, The Domestic Manners of the Americans dwells on the horrifying spectacle of our hotel dining rooms, where people bolted their food with disgusting manners. Americans have been in a tearing rush for 200 years.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: oil, food, farming, kunstler, long emergency

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Kuntsler's Latest Blog ... A Great Read ... The Credit Fiesta is Over
Posted by: mmckinl on May 7, 2009 12:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
May 4, 2009 The Bottom

"The credit fiesta is over ..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Merci. Gracias. Thank you. Posted by: sherry
» Add video to your find... Posted by: neilemac
Gathering space, or random opportunities to meet strangers,
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on May 7, 2009 1:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
has been heavily commodified by market forces and pushed toward infeasibility by lifestyle changes (due to market forces). People don't gather in the town square anymore for anything, unless it's a "Taste of Town/City X" where a sample costs $7. You can go to bars, restaurants, theaters, clubs, but the prices are outrageous. One outing can run you fifty to 100 dollars at any of those places for the low-end version. Moreover the entertainment and social interaction in these venues tends to be frivolous at best.

Americans are solitary people who like to put up a social butterfly image - have lots of shallow relationships. We barely know how to engage strangers in a friendly manner, instead often regarding them with suspicion and fear. A historian I used to know once remarked how in restaurants in Europe it isn't uncommon for strangers to strike up a casual conversation and even sit with one another. This kind of thing would be regarded as weird in the U.S.

Once in Schiphol Airport I was approached by a Norwegian on his way to Cambodia while killing time at a coffee shop during my layover on a trip to Addis Ababa. I was wearing black pants, black shoes, a black coat, and a crimson shirt, which apparently intrigued him so he walked up to me and casually asked if I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. This led to a four-hour conversation about politics, cultural differences between Europe, the U.S., the "third world," about urban vs. rural culture, spirituality etc. before I had to catch my next flight to Khartoum. (You guessed it: It was Northwest/KLM.) I doubt this kind of thing would happen at JFK Airport in New York.

Maybe our consumer culture in the U.S. has become such a status competition we fear interacting with others due to fear of social rebuke or the stress of not measuring up. Social venues like bars and restaurants are also severely overpriced to capitalize on the loneliness of Americans while providing shallow settings (blaring TVs, obnoxious music etc.) for interaction. Our car culture also kills the potential venue for social interaction that is public transportation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What we teach children Posted by: truthlover
Skinny people proceed with caution
Posted by: Perry Logan on May 7, 2009 3:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I gave the vegan diet a whack and found it to be excellent--healthy, delicious, and inexpensive.

Unfortunately, it also had a tendency to make me disappear.

I'm one of those skinny people who can eat tons and still not gain weight, and I found it impossible to keep from losing weight with the vegan diet.

I had to throw in some eggs and dairy to contuine walking on the earth. I am perforce a lacto-ovo-vegetarian.

The vegan diet is a great thing, and is clearly a boon for normal-framed or big people. But based on my experience, skinny folks should proceed with caution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» just eat enough food... Posted by: inverse_agonist
» Still lecturing, huh? Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Okay, Mister Agenda: Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Kunstler is not a vegan!
Posted by: dazzle59 on May 7, 2009 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Misleading headline. Kunstler consumes skim milk, so he's a lacto-vegetarian, not a vegan. For those of us who follow a truly nonviolent lifestyle (avoiding all animal products for ethical reasons), it's important that the term "vegan" be used correctly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kunstler is not a vegan! Posted by: Katie Marie
» Not on a high horse Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Kunstler is not a vegan! Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» so what is it about animal foods? Posted by: inverse_agonist
» RE: Truly non-violent??? Posted by: Quist
» RE: Truly non-violent??? Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» And look who's talking. Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Kunstler is not a vegan! Posted by: Birdland
» Just wondering. Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Just wondering. Posted by: camanokat
Actually, most vegan products rely on factory farming which in turn relies on more oil.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on May 7, 2009 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being a vegetarian isn't necessarily going to help one get off their oil guzzling. Decentralizing agriculture by restoring small farms and halting the oversubsidization of Big Agri are the solutions. Until about 50 years ago, most of our meat and diary were pasture raised and not overprocessed. When that changed, the days of guzzling fossil fuels and water in the agricultural realm shot up to the sky. Look, people can preach about growing their own veggie gardens and make a big deal about Obama and his family growing veggie gardens on the White House lawn all they want but no matter how hard we the people try, as long as we continue to ignore reality and allow the pols to subsidize Big Agri and even persecute small farmers and possibly those of us who want to grow even a small veggie garden in our own back yard just to get a feel for gardening, nothing's going to change for the better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I agree Jen. Posted by: Quist
» RE: I agree Jen. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
(mostly) vegan? "More or less" vegan? Well, that certainly aligns with my observation.
Posted by: Beck on May 7, 2009 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That people who call themselves this eat as much meat as they want but have some reason they call themselves vegetarian or vegan.

You can be more or less vegan the way you can be more or less pregnant.

I guess I'm a vegan, or at least a vegetarian. Yesterday, I had only the following amount of meat: a piece of pizza with 3 pieces of pepperoni. And today I'm totally vegetarian, so far. I guess since I had soy milk, I'm more or less vegan.

Well, the headline sucks, but saying he "became" vegan is apt. No one is born one. You have to become one and then see how long you can stick it out, based upon how much iron and B12 you've stored.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Idiot. Posted by: zipoka
Lifestyle changes...........
Posted by: Spiritgirl on May 7, 2009 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With everything going on our economy is a wreck, the bandits that broke the banks are still in charge, millions unemployed, foreclosures daily, etc. we as a nation must change our ways! We are addicted to oil, and our economy is based on that consumption - well, the party is over!!!

Whether you choose to go vegetarian or vegan, or you cut down your meat consumption - the whole idea is to eat more locally! Help to sustain your local "family farmer", and maintain your health in the bargain. Get off of the agri-business non-sustainable gravy train. Those lucky enough to have a backyard might want to think about a "victory garden" (the real victory will be on your plates), and if you live in an apartment - then maybe you can plant some tomatoes in pots on your terrace. You have to start somewhere, and we have to start now, yesterday!

Will it be difficult, a little; but it will be worth it in the long run. We must all dig a little deeper and stop being so spoiled believing that "we are the world"! Today is the first day to start our lifestyle change!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

for Kerry Trueman-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on May 7, 2009 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for Kerry Trueman-
As penance for your crappy headline, I think you should try a 100% true vegan diet for 30 days a blog about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not buying all of it
Posted by: Bizatch! on May 7, 2009 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know another militant vegan (or near-vegan in Kunstler's case), also in his middle age and also a writer. His arch contempt toward omnivores does not reflect well on his character. The lack of bonhomie among such dour devotees is what keeps many people from appreciating their chosen path.

It always seems to be an all-or-nothing proposition when newly converted 'sinners' take stock of their habits. The alcoholic is compelled to stop drinking altogether; likewise the meat-eater must renounce all flesh. Ridiculous!

Doesn't anyone ever consider moderation? I try to be mostly vegetarian, but have what I believe to be a healthy appreciation of animal-based foodstuffs which I indulge periodically (I am unemployed, so I have time to cook for myself as well, which is very satisfying). After 3 or 4 days of limited eating, I'll treat myself to some cheese or bit of meat. Short of taking expensive dietary supplements, this is the only way to maintain my liveliness and functionality. People in poorer countries eat like this, and they generally have more physically demanding lifestyles than we do.

I once spent a season caring for goats and sheep: milking the goats was a particularly rewarding experience. If more people had the opportunity to live close to animals, they would probably not be so casual about eating them so often. If we had to slaughter our own meat, the desire for it to appear on the plate every day would not be so intense: it's a lot of messy work! And yet, common folk in less developed places deal with this scenario everyday, and would laugh at Western vegetarians for being so vain about their abstinence. When you are invited to eat with Africans, or Uigurs (as a random example), you can be sure that you're going to get some haunches and innards thrust at you. Not to partake would be an insult to their hospitality, and to their proud, hard work raising these creatures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Indeed, 'tis true Posted by: Bizatch!
» RE: Indeed, 'tis true Posted by: mr. joshua
» interesting sociological observation Posted by: inverse_agonist
» Possibly not for sale Posted by: obliu222
» all or nothing Posted by: inverse_agonist
» RE: all or nothing Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Animal Liberation by Peter Singer
Posted by: vasumurti on May 7, 2009 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A liberation movement demands an expansion of our moral horizons. Practices that were previously regarded as natural and inevitable come to be seen as the result of an unjustifiable prejudice. In comparison with other liberation movements, Animal Liberation has a lot of handicaps. First and most obvious is the fact that the exploited group cannot themselves make an organized protest against the treatment they receive (though they can and do protest to the best of their abilities individually).

We have to speak up on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. You can appreciate how serious this handicap is by asking yourself how long blacks would have had to wait for equal rights if they had not been able to stand up for themselves and demand it. The less able a group is to stand up and organize against oppression, the more easily it is oppressed.

The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans; it is a prescription of how we should treat humans. Thomas Jefferson saw this point. He wrote in a letter to the author of a book the notable intellectual achievements of Negroes in order to refute the then common view that they had limited intellectual capacities:

"...whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the property or person of others."

Similarly when in the 1850s the call for women's rights was raised in the United States a remarkable black feminist named Sojourner Truth made the same point in more robust terms at a feminist convention.

" ...they talk about this thing in the head; what do they call it? ('Intellect,' whispered someone nearby.) That's it. What's that got to do with women's rights or Negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full?"

If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose? In a forward-looking passage written at a time when black slaves had been freed by the French but in the British dominions were still being treated in the way we now treat animals, Jeremy Bentham wrote:

"The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

"The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor.

"It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.

"What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in a meaningful way. It would be nonsense to say that it was not in the interests of a stone to be kicked along the road by a schoolboy. A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer. A mouse, on the other hand, does have an interest in not being kicked along the road, because it will suffer if it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cholesterol gets better on low-carb diet
Posted by: MBFD on May 7, 2009 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am sorry to see Kunstler trying to correct his cholesterol problems with a vegan diet. This is misguided. Current research is telling us that it is the carbs in our diet that are at the root of this problem. Jeff Volek et al at U of Connecticut has done some studies (published in Lipids, also nutritionandmetabolism.com) which show that you get the biggest improvements in cholesterol by eating a very low-carb diet with high fat, saturated fat and cholesterol content. In fact, a growing body of evidence suggests that the whole metabolic syndrome can be corrected by shifting to a very low carb/high fat diet. I know this is counterintuitive but the evidence is compelling. I speak from experience - I have been doing this for almost 7 years and have corrected my weight, blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, on no meds and with an excellent lipid profile. A good book on this topic is "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes which painstakingly maps the world of nutritional science and explains how we got led down the blind alley of fat phobia.
I don't argue with those who advocate vegan out of sympathy for animals or for ecological reasons but it is clearly not the best diet for somebody who needs to address cardio-metabolic problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Gee, he only gave five sources! Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Did I see a similiar vegan rant a couple of days ago on Alternet?
Posted by: Quist on May 7, 2009 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes I did and this is what I said then...

When did being a progressive mean you had to be a vegan?

I am all for eating less meat, raising meat organically, and treating farm animals as humanely as possible, but I do not see why we all have to become vegans. Humanity has been omnivores at least as long as there has been documented history. Much of the scientific community is on the fence as far as the health benefits of vegan diets compared to a omnivore diets. So why the vegan extremism towards omnivore progressives?

And...if people are so concerned about the environmental effects of meat...maybe they should consider the elephants in the room, overpopulation and overconsumption...instead of attacking rational, intelligent, empathetic, and reasonable omnivores.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Beck, unbelievably pathetic. Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Selective reading? Posted by: Quist
» My eyes are dry, Quist. Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Industrial Hemp for Ethanol and Bio-diesel...
Posted by: TJColatrella on May 7, 2009 9:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go to www.Hemp4Fuel.com

It's a great site and applicable here I believe...


Hemp: Grow Here, Grow Now..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Again, I agree Jen. Posted by: Quist
religion and animals
Posted by: vasumurti on May 7, 2009 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to see organized religion take up the struggle for animal rights. Religion has been wrong before. It has often been said that on issues such as women's rights and human slavery, religion has impeded social and moral progress. It was a Spanish Catholic priest, Bartolome de las Casas, who first proposed enslaving black Africans in place of the Native Americans who were dying off in great numbers.

The church of the past never considered human slavery to be a moral evil. The Protestant churches of Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern states actually passed resolutions in favor of the human slave traffic.

Human slavery was called "by Divine Appointment," "a Divine institution," "a moral relation," "God's institution," "not immoral," but "founded in right." The slave trade was called "legal," "licit," "in accordance with humane principles" and "the laws of revealed religion."

New Testament verses calling for obedience and subservience on the part of slaves (Titus 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25; I Peter 2:18-25) and respect for the master (I Timothy 6:1-2; Ephesians 6:5-9) were often cited in order to justify human slavery. Some of Jesus' parables refer to human slaves. Paul's epistle to Philemon concerns a runaway slave returned to his master.

The Quakers were one of the earliest religious denominations to condemn human slavery. "Paul's outright endorsement of slavery should be an undying embarrassment to Christianity as long as they hold the entire New Testament to be the word of God," says contemporary Quaker physician Dr. Charles P. Vaclavik. "Without a doubt, the American slaveholders quoted Paul again and again to substantiate their right to hold slaves.

"The moralist movement to abolish slavery had to go to non-Biblical sources to demonstrate the immoral nature of slavery. The abolitionists could not turn to Christian sources to condemn slavery, for Christianity had become the bastion of the evil practice through its endorsement by the Apostle Paul. Only the Old Testament gave the abolitionist any Biblical support in his efforts to free the slaves. 'You shall not surrender to his master a slave who has taken refuge with you.' (Deuteronomy 23:15) What a pittance of material opposing slavery from a book supposedly representing the word of God."

In 1852, Josiah Priest wrote Bible Defense of Slavery. Others claimed blacks were subhuman. Buckner H. Payne, calling himself "Ariel," wrote in 1867: "the tempter in the Garden of Eden...was a beast, a talking beast...the negro." Ariel argued that since the negro was not part of Noah's family, he must have been a beast. Eight souls were saved on the ark, therefore, the negro must be a beast, and "consequently, he has no soul to be saved."

The status of animals in contemporary human society is not unlike that of human slaves in centuries past. Quoting Luke 4:18, Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28 or any other biblical passages in favor of liberty, equality and an end to human slavery in the 18th or 19th century would have been met with the same kind of response animal rights activists receive today if they quote Bible verses in favor of ethical vegetarianism and compassion towards animals.

Someone once pointed out that while Hitler may have claimed to be a Christian, he imprisoned Christian clergy who opposed the Nazi regime, and even Christian churches were subject to the terror of the Nazis. Thinking along these lines, I realize that while I would like to see organized religion support animal liberation (e.g., as was the case with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement) rather than simply remain an obstacle to social and moral progress (e.g., 19th century southern churches in the U.S. upheld human slavery on biblical grounds), this support must come freely and voluntarily.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: religion and animals Posted by: Hecate_magika
I'm not sure I ever saw a headline change midday before
Posted by: Beck on May 7, 2009 1:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But other places this article appears online have the original headline, ". . .Became a Vegan." I still wonder how anyone can be an "almost vegan". From everything I've read here on the hostile subject of personal diet, you can't BE an almost veg anything. How much meat and dairy does an "almost, mostly, more or less vegan" eat? If I've had no meat since yesterday, but had yogurt for lunch, and yesterday didn't have very much meat, am I an almost vegan? Probably just more or less.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

women's rights and animal rights
Posted by: vasumurti on May 7, 2009 3:29 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A 1980 United Nations report states that women constitute half the world’s population, perform nearly two-thirds of its work hours, yet receive one-tenth of the world’s income and own less than one-hundredth of the world’s property. The impact of the women’s movement upon the church is being heralded as a Second Reformation. Women are now being ordained as priests, pastors and ministers, while patriarchal references to the Almighty as "Father" are replaced with the gender-neutral "Parent." Jesus Christ is designated the "Child of God." The words of Scripture—perhaps, more accurately, the words of the apostle Paul—on this subject are seen today not as a divine revelation, but rather as an embarrassment from centuries past:

"Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak. Instead, they must, as the Law says, be in subordination. If they wish to learn something, let them inquire of their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church...let a woman learn quietly with complete submission. I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man; instead she is to keep still. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, since she was deceived, experienced the transgression. She will, however, be kept safe through the child-bearing, if with self-control she continues in faith and love and consecration." (I Corinthians 14:34-35; I Timothy 2:11-15)

Many churches now claim these instructions were merely temporary frameworks used to build churches in the first century pagan world—they are not to be taken as universal absolutes for all eternity. If churches, Scripture and Christianity can adapt and be redefined or reinterpreted in a changing world to end injustices towards women, they can certainly do the same towards animals.

The International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) was founded in 1985 by Virginia Bouraquardez. Its educational and religious programs are meant to "bring religious principles to bear upon humanity’s attitude towards the treatment of our animal kin...and, through leadership, materials, and programs, to successfully interact with clergy and laity from many religious traditions."

According to the INRA:

"Religion counsels the powerful to be merciful and kind to those weaker than themselves, and most of humankind is at least nominally religious. But there is a ghastly paradox. Far from showing mercy, humanity uses its dominion over other animal species to pen them in cruel close confinement; to trap, club, and harpoon them; to poison, mutilate, and shock them in the name of science; to kill them by the billions; and even to blind them in excruciating pain to test cosmetics.

"Some of these abuses are due to mistaken understandings of religious principles; others, to a failure to apply those principles. Scriptures need to be fully researched concerning the relationship of humans to nonhuman animals, and to the entire ecological structure of Nature. Misinterpretations of scripture taken out of context, or based upon questionable theological assumptions need to be re-examined."

A growing number of Christian theologians, clergy and activists are beginning to take a stand in favor of animal rights. In a pamphlet entitled "Christian Considerations on Laboratory Animals," Reverend Marc Wessels notes that in laboratories animals cease to be persons and become "tools of research." He cites William French of Loyala University as having made the same observation at a gathering of Christian ethicists at Duke University—a conference entitled "Good News for Animals?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There Is a Way Out: A Restructuring Strategy
Posted by: waves16 on May 10, 2009 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mark C. Henderson would agree with Kunstler on many things. People quickly forgot last summer when the price of staples like rice doubled and tripled. The problem will be back on track as soon as economies pick up again. Cap-and-trade is not going to solve that problem or many environmental problems other than global warming for that matter.

But there is a way out, a strategy that would restructure economies in a fundamental way rather than just dealing with symptoms. Henderson proposes one such strategy. It is outlined at Cap-and-Trade Alternative Solutions.

Short of this or something like it, we are not going to make it. Of course, restructuring economies call for a certain amount of pain (probably less than cap-and-trade) but could prevent major suffering and disaster later on.

Tags: Cap-and-Restructure and a Green Economic Environment

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement