AlterNet / By Christina Waters
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 375

It's Not Enough to Be a Vegetarian

He got us to stop eating meat. Now ethicist Peter Singer is out to demolish environmentalist mantras like 'buy local' and 'eat organic.'
May 23, 2006  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
There wasn't much wiggle room left for the casual carnivore when über-ethicist Peter Singer got finished with us in 1973. That's when his uncompromising assault on trans-species suffering, Animal Liberation, had millions of readers trading in their T-bones for tofu.

But now even the moral high ground of a vegetarian lifestyle isn't good enough. Singer's new book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter argues that, all things considered, only a vegan lifestyle will do. The reasons go far beyond Singer's past exposés of animal abuse and factory farming. Tracking the source of food served at three very different American tables, Singer and his co-author Jim Mason uncover more than they could swallow.

How we eat can influence the very health of the planet even more than switching to hybrid cars or solar heating. The hidden costs of even the most prudent food choices -- costs in terms of social injustice, poverty, waste and pollution, as well as animal cruelty make us all collaborators in environmental destruction. Especially Americans, who consume one quarter of the world's fossil fuels, and whose food industry "seeks to keep Americans in the dark."

Looking for transparency in how our food is produced, Singer visited fields, farms, organic facilities and fisheries guided by the food-buying habits of three families -- one embedded in the "standard American diet" of Wal-Mart and fast food, another of "conscientious omnivores" and finally a family of vegans who consume no animal products at all. It wasn't hard to predict that the family shopping for bargains would be chastized for their convenience-based gastronomy. But when Singer sourced the politically correct fare bought by the conscientious consumers, the results were sobering. Looking at farms behind the "organic" and "certified humane" label, Singer did not like what he saw. Even farm-raised seafood smelled fishy.

Much of what Singer points out in the book flies in the face of the reigning environmental folklore. The "buy locally" mantra, for example. It is not necessarily the case that local products are less costly -- if by cost you include the environmental costs of carbon dioxide emissions, or social justice issues such as how much more your dollar could buy in a village in Sri Lanka versus what it might mean to an upscale Palo Alto community. Just as "cheaper" isn't always cheap, so "organic" isn't always good enough. At least if you're willing to do the homework Singer did for his book, uncovering the high fuel costs involved in growing organic tomatoes out of season. The "buy local" choice makes ethical sense, it seems, only when paired with "seasonal" consciousness. Out-of-season goods, even organic ones, always bear a high environmental price tag.

Singer's maddeningly strict utilitarianism has made him famous. It can also make him tedious. Sidestepping the tricky issue of intrinsic rights, Singer bases his ethical considerations on the issue of calculating interests. Since animals (including us) have interests, such as avoidance of suffering, then those interests must be respected, as long as doing so does not entail greater suffering on our part. Poverty, hunger, abuse -- these all cause suffering which those in affluent cultures might easily prevent. That is, if we're willing to make some sacrifices. And under Singer's moral microscope, we are obligated to make those sacrifices. He even makes the bold and sure-to-be-mocked suggestion of reviving the religious prohibition against gluttony. This idea, at once silly and sensible, is pure Singer.

In "The Way We Eat," Singer carefully addresses the issue of making enlightened food choices, of buying and consuming only those animal products whose provenance is well-known and well-documented, for example Niman Ranch products. Even in these cases, Singer warns that we cannot know exactly how far the concepts of "free range" or "humanely slaughtered" might be stretched. Time constraints on production line workers have a way of trumping careful handling. So to be safe, Singer says (over and over), we should simply not consume any animal products, except -- he admits with a certain sangfroid -- delicacies without central nervous systems, like mussels, clams and scallops.

His new book is rife with disturbing facts, never mind that much recent literature (Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation" and Marion Nestle's classic "Food Politics") has amply prepared the inquiring reader for the horrors of modern chicken production and cattle slaughter. More disturbing than simply the graphic accounts of turkey insemination and poultry abuse that pepper "The Way We Eat," are Singer's revelations about hidden eco-costs.

If we carefully choose only farmed salmon, we're supporting the huge wild harvests needed to feed the farmed fish. Even humanely raised animals are land hogs, taking up space that might be better used to grow plant food for humans and repopulate wild species. Here's another eco-bomb -- it makes more ethical sense to buy rice from Bangladesh than rice grown in the Sacramento Valley. Singer has plenty of reasons, but the focus is on social justice. Money going to developing countries -- especially on purchases of fair trade items -- makes a much larger impact than money reinvested in an affluent American community.

In ethical terms, the consumer literally gets more moral bang for the buck. Add to that the fuel savings by shipping from Southeast Asia rather than trucking from Sacramento, and purchases of goods a half a world away become environmental "bargains." Cheap food is only apparently cheap. Others -- workers, animals, endangered species -- are paying for our "out of sight, out of mind" consumption style.

Singer himself sets a brisk moral pace, donating 20 percent of his income each year to UNICEF and Oxfam. (It would be interesting to calculate how many fossil-fuel guzzling flights Singer takes per year between his joint teaching appointments at Princeton and his native Melbourne, Australia.) Still, I can't help feeling that he is asking us to be better than we actually can be. Given the facts -- and he certainly supplies them -- we are called upon to avoid eating seafood, eggs, meat, milk -- any animal products -- period.

So suspicious is he of even the most scrupulous producers that no evidence could convince him to rethink his conclusions. Like many who have devoted a life's work in support of a philosophical stance, Singer has never met a fact that could stand up to his argumentation. Or so it seems. If I grew it and killed it myself, it would still be wrong, says Singer, because actually eating it could set the wrong example for observers. How are they to know how humanely this little filet mignon was dispatched? Short of veganhood, we have no excuses.

And no more patience! How much should we agonize over the ethical price tag of free-range chicken, for chrissakes? Where do we stop the calculation of suffering? With pigs? Or scallops? What about the bugs I crush walking through my own organic garden? Numbed into ethical exhaustion, I came away from Singer's message, bloodied but unbowed. Living a moral life is arduous. The hidden price of the vegan lifestyle is, for me, too high in time and anxiety. So I will continue to eat seasonal, organic produce, cage-free eggs, free-range chicken and wild salmon. But Singer's book did affect me. I've increased my contributions to Heifer International.
  • 1
View as a single page
 
Christina Waters, Ph.D., writes about food and wine, and teaches environmental ethics at UC Santa Cruz.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email

comments COMMENTS ( 375 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

The hidden price of the vegan lifestyle is, for me, too high in time and anxiety
[Report this comment]
Posted by: epski on May 23, 2006 12:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's a pretty sad quote, really. You're putting all that anxiety on yourself, and it may well stem from a reticence to change your meat-eating ways.

For a small, upfront investment of time to learn how to prepare foods without animal products, you get a lifetime return of anxiety-free eating, because you're not contributing to the subjugation of other species for the sake of your tastebuds.

I've been vegan for four years, and I have to say that I don't experience any great anxiety living my lifestyle, and any time I do spend reading a label now and again is well spent, because that little bit I'm doing to minimize suffering is nothing in the overall scheme of things, and it sure is cheaper than sending a portion of my paycheck to some non-profit to assuage unnecessary guilt.

» elitist bullcrap! Posted by: thistleblower
» RE: elitist bullcrap! Posted by: ann83
» RE: elitist bullcrap! Posted by: Xynyx

Comments are closed-

oh man...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Byrodude on May 23, 2006 12:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok. I'm a vegetarian. And a pretty strict vegetarian at that. I don't eat eggs, gelatin or anything with lard. I do eat cheese and occasionally I'll drink cow's milk. But wow. How are we supposed keep track of these companies and exactly what eco friendly practices they are taking, when this guy wrote an ENTIRE BOOK. I mean, if i have to I will go vegan, it's been in the works for years now, and I'll definetly be willing to "eat green" but how am I supposed to keep up with the day by day workings of a gigantic food industry... there are only so many hours in the day! I feel it is my ethical duty, such is that of compassion, that I will convert. But damn, this ethics buisness is Hard!

» RE: oh man... Posted by: Kanefire
» RE: oh man... Posted by: blingnet88

Comments are closed-

It's ok
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 23, 2006 12:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter that we can't all be perfect and can't do everything right all the time and it's doesn't matter that Peter Singer seems to be an extremist that we can never, apparently, live up to.

The important thing is that someone (him) is doing the research and bringing it to our attention and we can now do _something_ about it. We know now so we can try to change our behaviours. Sure, we will probably never all be able to live the way he wants us to, but we can give it a go, to a greater or lesser extent, and make changes bit by bit as we are able.

If we take notice of what people like him say and try to do our bit, whether individually, or in communities or as whole societies, then we can bring about change - hopefully good changes that big business and politicians cannot ignore.

Viva la revolution!

» RE: It's ok Posted by: mom'z the word

Comments are closed-

Local+seasonal
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mazur on May 23, 2006 1:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "buy local" choice makes ethical sense, it seems, only when paired with "seasonal" consciousness. Out-of-season goods, even organic ones, always bear a high environmental price tag.

That's it, exactly. Preserve your tomatoes in season, or buy preserved.

» RE: Local+seasonal Posted by: marcinde
» RE: Local+seasonal Posted by: Kanefire

Comments are closed-

Production, not just consumption
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jackie on May 23, 2006 2:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real problem lies in the production of food for profit. If we produced food on the basis of the needs of humans and other living things we wouldn't have to do extensive research and extra labor to eat humanely and healthfully. Asking people who work hard for a living and/or living in poverty to adopt this sort of "lifestyle" is also unreasonable. Food is a basic necessity and it should be produced for its use value, not its exchange value.

» It is. Posted by: peritonlogon

Comments are closed-

Its About Why and Not What People Eat
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 23, 2006 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article reviews the author's focus on food consumption as an economic and/or political choice. What is not mentioned is why people eat, especially those who over eat (the majority), and it is not because they are hungry. Eating has become a method to assuage stress, emotional discomfort (depressive moods), boredom and (ironically) feelings of body shame to name the most common. If those more relevant aspects of eating are combined with socioeconomic realities (giant food corporations and marketing) then maybe this book can be used to make better choices.

Comments are closed-

Dr. Waters gets it right
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rbohan on May 23, 2006 3:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't read Singers book so I'm trusting Dr. Waters to have related its premises reasonably accurately. If she has...Right On, Doc!

The problem with Singer's position is similar to the problem of all zealots...unless we buy into his views totally, completely, and with no compromise at all, we're no better than the riff-raff scarfing up Big Macs and Cheetos for their three squares a day. And the problem with this view, in turn is that, rather than persuading lots of folks to get a little bit better in their food consumption habits (eat a bit less meat, buy a bit more local and organic produce), he risks prompting folks to dismiss the whole approach. It's like saying I'm not really a good Catholic unless I'm willing to join the priesthood. Feh!

My fear is that, at rock bottom, Singer's agenda isn't to motivate real and positive change. It's to show the rest of us that we could never measure up to his ideals. We could never be among the holy ones. We'll never be good enough. Somewhere along the line we'll eat a tomatoe that gets trucked cross country or buy rice that wasn't grown by a Bandladeshi wading his rice paddies in his bare feet. We'll just never be as good as he is.

So my advice is...forget Singer and his "can't begin to measure up" metrics. Go to your local farmer's market and buy something. If it's organic, great, if not, buy some anyway. You'll eat better and you'll be helping some folks in your neighborhood.

» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: amalgamatedspats
» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: amalgamatedspats
» RE: Singer and zealotry Posted by: S. Nair
» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: Artaraxl
» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: CasualRebel

Comments are closed-

Fanatacism is scary!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: owlbear1 on May 23, 2006 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoa!

» Fanatacism has its purposes Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Fanatacism is scary! Posted by: bettsoff

Comments are closed-

Singer's ideology
[Report this comment]
Posted by: patchen on May 23, 2006 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Singer is indeed a zealot, who admittedly deserves credit for his early works, which exposed the general reader to factory farming. And even though his thesis here is self-righteous, it does give one pause. Yet as had been said in this thread already, one is left with the impression that nothing less than total adoption of his views is moral. Another of his recent books is a treatise on the viablility of sex with animals as an alternative sexual orientation. It is ok to have sex with an animal, but not to kill it??

» RE: Singer's ideology Posted by: Aussie Kim

Comments are closed-

Hypocrite
[Report this comment]
Posted by: polyquat50 on May 23, 2006 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the same Peter Singer, of course, that said that he and his wife would abort a Down Syndrome foetus because he and his wife didn't think they could have the same meaningful relationship with an intellectually disabled child as they have with their other children.

It is enough to make my DS daughter and me choke on our T-bone.

» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: kiatoa
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: MsEithne
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: rbohan
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: fork
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: Doyle
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: elizacoop
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: mclare
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: fork
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: melissa999
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: Artaraxl
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: polyquat50
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: susannunes
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: fork
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: Pseudo Morals
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: akjspain
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: mclare
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: AmyB
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: jgirl1307
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: polyquat50

Comments are closed-

When is Chocolate in season?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: greentime on May 23, 2006 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do try to eat organic, local and in season. More and more people are more and more aware of their choices and how their choices act on the planet. That's great.

However, the dogma outlined in this article of eating only when hungry and only in season etc etc is just ridiculous!

There are methods of heating greenhouses and powering canning factories, like solar, that can provide extended growing seasons and provide for off-season "put-up" foods. Winter is a long season and nothing much is growing then so if we didn't "put food by" as we have since ancient times, we wouldn't make it through the winter. What would he have us do? Graze on the forest over winter? That would set the planet back some. Stewed tomatoes are much better in a winter dish than pale, hard hydroponic winter substitutes.

More than all that conscious self denial, let's remember that food is also for celebration, enjoyment, sharing, and just plain old deliciousness! It adds life to existence.

Lightenen up!

Comments are closed-

How come we give whackos like Singer a pulpit?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rbohan on May 23, 2006 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm reading the posts by Patchen and Polyquat and, assuming they are correct in what they say about Singer's past writings, I start to wonder why we progressives give whackos like Singer the time of day. We wouldn't give, say, Tim LaHaye an inch of space on Alternet (and that's a good thing) but Singer's ramblings are treated with some degree of respect...respect that it appears he doesn't deserve. And that's not to say I'm not glad that the original article debunks at least part of Singer's thesis. But, geez, it's not as if there aren't enough serious progressives out there with good ideas that need to be spread around that we have to give the whacko right more ammunition by giving an apparent nutbag like Singer airtime.

» Well why wouldn't you? Posted by: Aussie Kim

Comments are closed-

Straw Man
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Louisa on May 23, 2006 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The big joke here is that people should make food choices based on ethics. Good lord, everything you eat dies so that you may live - plant matter, animals, etc. I can't be too bothered about choices like apple or salmon. I guess I have to apologize for seeing myself as having the right to live and eat any way I want (tongue firmly in cheek here, folks!).

If you want to live ethically you would limit your own reproduction to one child and frown upon anyone that has more children than that. It is not single humans that are destroying the world as we know it ("W" being an exception to the rule) - it is the reckless overpopulation of our entire species that is pushing every other living thing to the edge. There really is a difference in these ideas because one person does no actual harm, but cumulatively the effect of our species is devastating to the planet. There's just too many of us - and our effects upon the environment are significantly ameliorated by simply reducing our numbers.

So, as you and I are already here and have rights over which I personally refuse to feel guilty let's just do the next best thing: limit the number of us we leave behind.

» RE: Straw Man Posted by: lucizoe
» RE: Straw Man Posted by: magnolia
» RE: Straw Man Posted by: DRosen
» RE: Straw Man Posted by: magnolia
» RE: Straw Man (for Louisa) Posted by: jbohland

Comments are closed-

who cares about universal healthcare and progressive taxation?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cry0fan on May 23, 2006 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
vegetarianism is what the American PseudoLeft cares about. And you say the left in America is dead? Gee, I wonder why.....

Comments are closed-

By a crackpot, about a crackpot.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kneel on May 23, 2006 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Singer goes a long way beyond even what polyquat50 says, even advocating that babies should be killed if they don't measure up to his standards. Take a look at his discussion with disabled rights lawyer Harriet McBryde Johnson, who because of a spinal deformation, Singer feels should have been exterminated as a baby, as should pretty much anyone not worthy of continued existence by Singer's standards.

(One of his arguments being that if you took two children to the beach, the one with the straighter spine who could run around would be having a lot more fun. Hmmm... perhaps we could find a use for those old machine-gun nests on some beaches by having people watch to see what children weren't having enough fun and disposing of them. What if, say, a depressed child is having less fun than the paraplegic?)

What he's saying, as related here, isn't new. If you don't know that a local hothouse tomato in Alaska takes a lot of energy to grow, well...

What he ought to be proposing is that people plant their lawns, that we set up a lot of community gardens and plant the rooftops. That'd be a movement. Most people would be amazed at how much food you can get out of even that little space, and how easy it is to grow. That would be powerful, and would ease the resource consumption a lot more. (The food's also delicious.)

Singer has some good ideas, but I'd scarf a Big Mac just to keep from being associated with the guy.

Of course, its not just Singer who's loopy: "The hidden price of the vegan lifestyle is, for me, too high in time and anxiety."

What?? Hello? You just don't meat. Where's the anxiety in that? In fact, you get to skip the anxiety about the diseases from meat (like how hamburgers in the US have an acceptable fecal count - that is, an acceptable amount of sh*t in your dinner, and you'd better be sure to cook it thoroughly to kill all the e. coli off?), keeping it refrigerated, making sure it's cooked all the way through, etc. You just eat, and... you're a lot healthier for it.

She seems to think it's so incredible and "arduous" for someone to avoid animal products. With as rich a cornucopia of produce as greets us at most supermarkets, it's incredibly easy, and it makes shopping and storage a lot easier as well.

I go to the market or store, see a lot of attractive fruits and vegetables, eat them. If I'm hungry, I don't even have to cook them, but sometimes I make coconut-curries, stir-frys, pasta primavera, soups, 3 bean salads... not sure where that huge hidden price in time in anxiety comes in. Sounds like yet another goofy rationalization (or maybe someone has anxiety problems completely separate from the issue).

Amazing, the endless mental gymnastics those trying to expiate their guilt about eating dead animals just 'cause they like the taste subject the rest of us to, from attacking vegans ("veganazis!") to myths about nutrition to babbling about the high price in time and anxiety.

Sorry to hear Ms. Waters finds living a moral life so arduous.

» On the other hand... Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

getting comfortable with the alternatives
[Report this comment]
Posted by: azima on May 23, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Singer has been living with this issue for years. Most of us have not. Only recently have I learned easy ways to live as a vegan. It took years of trying recipes that didn't agree with my taste buds or my digestive system. Fortunately, I have a blood type that agrees with a vegan diet, so for me, it made sense to pursue this option. I wonder how much of the moralizing about this article has to do with peoples' ignorance about how cook vegan food that they might actually enjoy or where to find good vegan prepared food.

If you're a dedicated carnivore, and it agrees best with your system, then all you can do is be a conscious consumer, and not hold to a standard that doesn't work for your body.

I think Singer's message is useful if we don't give ourselves a guilt trip about not being able to follow it to the letter. I suspect that the resistance to his work stems from our perception of how difficult it would be for us to do what he says.

Finally I found a cook book with a lot of vegan food that tasted delicious (it was south Indian). But tastes are personal.

If our hearts are in the right place, let's take our time putting our ideals to the test.

Bon appetit, whatever you eat.

» blood type not linked to diet Posted by: aaronfetty

Comments are closed-

So This Is Why They Hate Us....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Stonecutter on May 23, 2006 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gimme a break. It's one thing to be "conscientious" about your food choices, including ingredients, where the stuff comes from, how it's produced or grown, etc. There's no doubt that being more aware of these aspects of food buying and eating makes you not only healthier in the long run, but less likely to contribute to the obvious evils of the processed food industry and it's vise grip on the so-called "American" diet of Velvetta, Spam, Cool Whip and other chemically manufactured delights.

It's a whole other unctious obsession to subscribe to Peter Singer's fanatical, almost cult-like protestations. Frankly, after six years of exposure to the new "national socialism" of the Bush administration in all it's ugly manifestations, I'm disgusted to my core with any and all forms of extremism, no matter how (self) righteous they may present themselves to the world.

After watching the documentary "McLibel" about the years-long struggle of two political activists against McDonald's in Great Britain, and Morgan Spurlock's recent film "Supersize Me", I'm convinced that Mickey D and the rest of the fast food industry are contributing to the long-term illness, rampant obesity and decreased mortality of millions around the world who consume their products regularly. However, the response to this awareness is not to become a dairy cow eating grass, anymore than it would make sense or be a marker of one's "life well lived" to give up all wine because it contains alcohol, or turkey because of how they're raised and slaughtered, or ice cream because it contains milk products. This is the gustatory equivalent of becoming a Benedictine monk because you broke up with your girlfriend.

The pleasures of well-prepared cuisine, be it Italian, French, Chinese, Greek, Thai, Indian, or the occasional finely aged porterhouse steak, are too great, too much an integral part of the joy of living, to be rejected in favor of some rigid adherence to veganism (any "ism" applied to the simple satisfactions of life gives me the heebie jeebies). I've cut out most red meat because it's unhealthy, but you can still buy organic meat for a price, and there's nothing wrong with the occasional organic steak or burger. Moderation in all things is the key, not zealous politicization, the commercialization of guilt, self-righteousness and impossible utopianism, coming from a guy who sounds as much like a "Food Nazi" as the famous "Soup Nazi" on "Seinfeld".

There are always going to be those who politicize every behavior and every aspect of life, from eating to brushing your teeth. It's still a free country, unless you're using your phone. However, those who speak reverently about the suffering of chickens, the pleasures of bean curd and tofu and the evils of a perfectly cooked prime New York strip are, frankly, as boring and dull as the food they covet. To each his own battle for the salvation of the planet. I'll take the federal budget.

Comments are closed-

Voter333
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Voter333 on May 23, 2006 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Christina's reaction to being 'pushed' to change her diet preferences is a natural reaction but, Christina, like all humans, would improve not just the environment but her own personal health, by eliminating the consumption dairy products, as she has meat and eggs. Natural growth hormones and opiate-like substances in milk as there for the benefit of the young livestock for whom this substance was intended...not for people. Combined with the addition of hormones and antibiotics, milk and its concentrated form - cheese- are unhealthly to humans. And the claim that the calcium in milk is vital to bone strength is actually the opposite of the truth; countries with the highest dairy consumption are the ones with the highest percentage of osteoporosis.
Pete has lots of good reasons to take the stand he has in favor of a vegan diet...but there are even more good reasons involving human health. And the good news is that when one becomes vegan, as I did fifteen years ago, life is easier and feels so much better!

» RE: Voter333 Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Voter333 Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Voter333 Posted by: bettsoff

Comments are closed-

Vegan Zealots are the Religious Right of the Food World
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 23, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My way or the highway.
I'm the only one that's right.
Everybody else is wrong.
Our morality is the only legitimate one.

Comments are closed-

Veganism may be bad food.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: douglashoyt on May 23, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hitler was a vegan, believe it or not, you can look it up.

Maybe if Hitler had sat down to a juicy steak, pork chop, or rack of lamb now and then he would have been too bloated to worry much about the "German People," or the jews.

» RE: Veganism may be bad food. Posted by: cyberfactotum
» RE: Veganism may be bad food. Posted by: veganshawn
» RE: Veganism may be bad food. Posted by: magnolia
» RE: Veganism may be bad food. Posted by: veganshawn

Comments are closed-

You people can't harsh my mellow
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Uccellla on May 23, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Tis the glorious season of morels and asparagus in Central New York!

Comments are closed-

one man...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: montims on May 23, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are how many people in the United State? One man writes a book, and everybody gets all worked up. What if a dozen different people wrote books refuting his claims? Would you still believe him? If Jerry Falwell wrote a book, would you take what he says as gospel? (so to speak...) It's a book. Written by one man. Hyped by publishers who expect to become rich on it, otherwise they wouldn't have published it. If you don't like it, or are not interested, just ignore it... For once, I kind of agree with cryofan - there are more important things to worry about...

Comments are closed-

Ah, and here we go with the anti-vegan attacks.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kneel on May 23, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on, people, get over your guilt.

Vegans can't even present their case without all these people going berserk on them about their snideness or sneering or superiority or whatever. And then someone has to start hollering about Hitler?

Was a Hitler a vegatarian? He was, supposedly, advised by his doctor to be so, but a cook who prepared dishes for him describe the dishes he preferred, and they weren't veggie.

Know what else? It's irrelevant. Maybe Hitler drank orange juice. What would that mean?

If I don't kick old people or if I enjoy hiking, are you gonna run up and say, Yeah, well Pol-Pot enjoyed hiking, too, you hikanazi!

Comments are closed-

always an indivual thing?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: porgygirl on May 23, 2006 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If 20 or 500 or 3000 people become vegans because they read this book (or a review of it), there's no doubt that'd be good for the environment, but shouldn't a big chunk of the issue be the fact that so much of American food comes from unethical, industrialized, polluting, cruel sources? In a perfect world (sigh), shouldn't the government be paying some attention to the treatment of animals and the stewardship of the land and water? I don't think the government should force us all to be vegan, but it could certainly improve the quality of our choices.

I heard a radio ad recently. It started by complaining about how dirty, polluted, unsafe the air is. I was thinking, yeah, there should be better regulation of factory emissions, car emissions, etc. Then the ad tried to sell me an air purifier so that my personal home could, supposedly, be safe from the evil air. Classic! We're trained to approach problems by buying something individually, instead of taking collective action to make the world better.

Okay, so I'm a big government liberal wacko. :)

Comments are closed-

Stop whining, veganism is easy and it's right
[Report this comment]
Posted by: A.T. on May 23, 2006 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went vegan when I was in college 10 years ago. It was challenging to forgo cheeze subs for the first week, then it was easy. My health improved and I could live with myself more easily. It was one of the best things I've ever done. It was embarassing to read the last paragraph of this column by Christina Waters. Show some self respect, Christina, and don't be such a spoiled b*tch.

» Bettsoff, you're wrong, dammit! Posted by: mmeetoilenoir

Comments are closed-

Make food better for non-vegans
[Report this comment]
Posted by: julamo on May 23, 2006 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of everyone becoming vegan, I think the impact on the world would be greater if people spent their time making meat farms treat their animals humanely. There are a lot of people who will never become vegan or even vegetarian, but everyone still has to eat something. If the only food available was grown ecologically and humanely, then even people who didn't care what they ate still wouldn't be hurting the environment.

Becoming vegan is sort of pointless, unless you are also working to make the quality of meat and animal products better for other people while you are vegan.

(I should also mention that I was vegan for about 4 years.)

Comments are closed-

This sounds familiar
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chev on May 23, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems as though Mr. Singer has taken many of his ideas from a recent publication: "The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals" by Michael Pollan. In fact, the author contacted Singer in order to discuss some of Singer's previous works. "The Omnivore's Dilemma" is a fine look at our modern industial food chain, looking at all sides to understand what is right and what is wrong, rather than a diatribe on what we should consume.

Comments are closed-

Singer is not a fanatic!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bethybethybethy on May 23, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is someone who advocates a certain way of eating that happens to go against the easy, indulgent, corporate standard american diet considered a fanatic? Our american diet is deadly and more than harmful for us and for the planet. Our way of eating is without any regard for anyone but our own taste buds. The other day a friend of mine accused my use of organic shampoo and conditioner as "self-indulgence." She is well know for eating very expensive gourmet cheeses. I asked her about her cheese consumption-was it necessary for life? She thought very hard about it and agreed with me. Anyway, humans don't need meat, dairy or eggs to thrive. Eating those products is simply indulgent and greedy. Stop whining, as the other poster said, and realize that what you eat is more than just a choice about "taste." I've been vegetarian for 24 years, and vegan for 3 months. Its really very easy--and I feel amazing. People keep asking me how I do it--do I miss cheese? Do I miss eggs? The answer is no. By the way, Hitler was not a vegetarian--and even if he was, what difference does it make?

Comments are closed-

Shame on you
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hockeysk8 on May 23, 2006 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shame on all those in this thread that are attacking Singer (including the author.) I was starting to think that I was reading a right wing blog. 'Progressive' means that ideas that are backed by facts and well placed morality deserve respect. However, most in this thread, presumably fed by their own feelings of guilt, have decided to lash out.

» RE: Shame on you Posted by: jeddrules
» Backatcha Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

Vegans lead the way
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dorlir on May 23, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all suffer different kinds of pain. I shudder when I look at people buying tomatoes in December. In the "olden" days, people ate root vegetables and legumes in the winter. Must have worked then. We take out rain forrests to plant mango trees. We develop monster seeds which only reproduce when you pay ransom to the pharmaceuticals. People don't think about the connection we all should have with the environment. I applaud Singer's work.

» RE: Vegans lead the way Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

Singer did not get us to stop eating meat.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lamar on May 23, 2006 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though I know who Peter Singer is, I have to ask, who the hell is he? He didn't get us to stop eating meat, given that meat production has increased fivefold since the 1950's. Further, his arguments leave me with an SFW feeling. Is it OK to eat meat if I hunt my own dinner? Can I chow down on swine if I raised it myself? If animals suffer when slaughtered, why not drug them? Hey, I'm all for eating less meat, and reducing our gluttonous intake across the board. Folks like Peter Singer are extremists and, like the President, extremists make common sensical arguments that don't hold water. And no, Mr. Singer did not get us to stop eating meat. That's just how he advertises himself.

Comments are closed-

Being a herbivore isn't any more right than being a Carnivore
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on May 23, 2006 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get annoyed with the often preachy tone to messages about vegitarianism and veganism being the "Right" thing to do.

Animals have been eating each other on this planet for millions of years.

No, I don't feel any guilt about ordering a bacon cheeseburger for dinner and neither should anyone else.

I do think the factory farm method of raising animals needs to go and it is marginally helpful to buy animal products from farms that let their animals range free.

But lets face it, the amount of money we cost the food industry by shopping elsewhere is a drop in the bucket and significant change for humane treatment of animals won't occur without improved government regulations of the industry.

Comments are closed-

Enjoy life, enjoy food
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bobsays on May 23, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I eat well, travel loads, am very fit and don't waste my life stressing over these issues.

It is time people chased what tastes nice and enjoyed the ritual of the meal and friends. The other stuff will sort itself out from that. It is far too neurotic to obsess over these food fads.

Comments are closed-

How can it be...?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MonkeyBoy on May 23, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How is it better to buy produce from Southeast Asia than produced locally? Surely, it has to be trucked from the farm there to the port, then shipped 7,000 miles across the ocean. It is then unloaded, and trucked to its final destination. How is that more energy efficient than trucking 200 miles locally?

» RE: How can it be...? Posted by: Artaraxl

Comments are closed-

MAD SPROUT DISEASE?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Roverton on May 23, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've given vegetarianism a look because of all the pandemics-in-the-gate at the GLOBAL OVERPOPULATION RODEO.

We feed our animal stock to themselves and then eat the result. Dangerous stuff to play around with, eating an unwitting cannibal. As actions go, that's as mad as the cow itself. Bird flu and who knows what else... Every animal sold by large food manufacturers has NOT been thoroughly tested.

I prefer to gamble on safer bets than that.

We're in big trouble with pending food supplies.

How might the story go one day? Would vegetarianism have been one of the ways we made it though all this?

Comments are closed-

Here we go
[Report this comment]
Posted by: RudiTuzla on May 23, 2006 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you don't like being preached at by the Religious Right, it's because you feel guilty that you are not a true Christian.

If you don't like being preached at by Vegans, it's because you feel guilty that you are not a true ehtical eater.

That cloak of smug, self righteousness must feel great, because it gets in the way of your mission. If, in fact, your mission is to convince people to adopt a vegan lifestyle, which would probably be more effective if done in incremental steps rather than insisting on a total conversion exerience, Saul of Tarsus style.

This attitude of total self-righteousness that many have exhibited in these comments sounds a lot like the sentiments of Fundamentalist anythings. Adopt a dogma, believe in it without question, and denounce anyone who dares ask questions or express doubts about any aspect of your belief system.

Note that I wrote "many", and not "all," but I think that most people who aren't already convinced vegans will percieve the most fanatic comments as defining the movement, which will push them away from it. So, if your main goal is to have an air of smug, superiority about you you'll be quite pleased, but if you really want to expand the lifestyle among the Lumpen Proletariat you are not helping at all.

» RE: Here we go Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Here we go Posted by: lamar
» RE: Here we go Posted by: rbohan

Comments are closed-

Oh and Hitler was a vegetarian.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melissa999 on May 23, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for bringing that up. Hee hee.

» So were/are these guys... Posted by: pckurp

Comments are closed-

It's about the challenge
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jeddrules on May 23, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It drives me crazy when people act so put out when people invite them to criticize their own beliefs/behaviors. So what if Singer seems "holier than though"? He's right! Whether or not he (or us) can actually behave ethically and follow ideas to their sometimes uncomfortable conclusions is kind of beside the point. He at least provides a thoughtful, unflinching ethical goal. I applaud his insight and courage.

I would venture to say that those who are so offended (or exhausted) by Singer's ethical challenges are so out of plain old cognitive dissonance. Suddenly, their (our) own ignorance, conventionality, and sometimes laziness is highlighted. Some people welcome this revelation while others are too ashamed to entertain the self-criticism.

Comments are closed-

Computers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Llama11 on May 23, 2006 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well since were discussing how some choices are more moral than others, what kind of clothes are you wearing? Bet they were made in China with slave-like labor conditions. Or maybe your Nikes were made in Vietnam. How about that computer you're using right now, it certainly needed oil for its production and transport. How about that cell phone you can't seem to put down (oil)? Ever buy a Nestle crunch bar? Well the cocoa comes from the Ivory Coast, where slave and child labor is used.

Comments are closed-

Heifer International
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Xynyx on May 23, 2006 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But Singer's book did affect me. I've increased my contributions to Heifer International."

That's great. Singer's book of advice to walk away from animal-subjugating ways has caused you to increase your donations to the "charity" that helps spread animal subjugation.

Awesome.

» RE: Heifer International Posted by: gadfly
» You did not... Posted by: mmeetoilenoir

Comments are closed-

As long as people continue to slaughter other people in oil wars
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JimTheAnarchist on May 23, 2006 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's pointless to try to get them to stop slaughtering animals.

The ethical consequences of driving a car are far more serious than anything diet-related. May I assume that all of the self-righteous vegans and vegetarians here are car-free?

» oil wars Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: oil wars Posted by: mmeetoilenoir

Comments are closed-

Not Trolling, But...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 23, 2006 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans are not apart from nature-- they are part of nature. When a beaver builds a Dam it's 'natural' & when a farmer does it it's not. When a predator eats a cow it's 'natural' & when we do it's not.

Humans have been eating meat for a very long time and doubtless will continue to for a very long time. If you choose to forgo certain types of food for ethical or health reasons more power to you, just don't try to load others up with guilt.

When people advocate that others start making extreme changes to their lifestyles for 'moral' reasons how are they any different than some religious zealot that wants to legislate their theology? Nothing in life comes without some cost:everything has a price in labor, energy, whatever.

People do have a responsibility of stewardship of our resources, but also have to make individual choices. Zealotry is zealotry and hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter what the source or intent.

I remember de-fanging a religious zealot that was trying to tell me that if our faith was strong enough we would not need medicine for healing. I pointed out that he was wearing prescription glasses for whatever deficiency he had going on in his eyes. He took my point and later got out of that cult. I didn't have to preach at him, I just pointed out the contradiction.

» RE: Not Trolling, But... Posted by: Xynyx

Comments are closed-

gluttons go to hell!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dancingcloud on May 23, 2006 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right on about the gluttons, and it looks like a lot of fat christians are gunna burn. Proberbs 23:2, "...And put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony." Somewhere in Genesis I read that the three reasons to be stoned to death are drunkenness, disobeying your father, and GLUTTONY! So quit eating more than your fair share.

» RE: gluttons go to hell! Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

Singer a certifiable whacko crypto-Nazi that we should oppose
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rbohan on May 23, 2006 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wrote a couple of posts earlier this morning suggesting that, though I hadn't read Singer's works, he seemed to be a zealot whose arguments undercut his own positions (and, more importantly, those of most liberals). Someone replied to me that perhaps I should get to know his oeurve a bit better before I called him a zealot or whacko. I thought the point was a good one and was grateful for the link provided by Kneel. After reading that article, I feel comfortable in saying that Singer is a modern day Nazi a--hole. The group Not Dead Yet is right to protest his speeches and appearances. And Alternet is wrong to give this madman a forum of any sort. And (for those of you who follow the Kneel's link and read the article), Harriet's friends are right...she should not have consorted with this crackpot. As long as we make nice with addle-brained crazies like Singer, we give the impression that their nasty, hateful ideas have some credence however small.

I don't care what this lousy jerk said about factory farming and the rights of chickens...he's a stinking crypto-Nazi...and that's all.

» And furthermore.... Posted by: rbohan

Comments are closed-

lazy people
[Report this comment]
Posted by: revolutionfortheloveofit on May 23, 2006 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ive been vegan for two years, ride my bike everywhere. if its too far for my bike i have a friend with a car that runs on vegtable oil. havent bought anything made in a sweatshop in over 4 years now. this is not a hard lifestyle, i love it more than anything i was doing before. so why dont you all get off your lazy asses and live in a way that can actually be sustained on this planet.

» RE: lazy people Posted by: Llama11
» RE: lazy people Posted by: gadfly
» RE: lazy people Posted by: brunowe
» RE: lazy people Posted by: Llama11
» RE: lazy people Posted by: gadfly
» RE: lazy people Posted by: mclare
» RE: lazy people Posted by: magnolia

Comments are closed-

were we a world united, one that works together, all treated equally
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on May 23, 2006 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Christina Waters . . .

I am virtually a vegan. Approximately, once a year I indulge in Caesar salad and I do use a coddled egg in my recipe. My travel to get here was an interesting one. I became a vegetarian three years before the introduction of Peter Singer’s book and for me, at that time, my choice was not as pure as it might have been.

Over time, I evolved, as did my sense of the animals and the planet. However, as an individual I struggle with the scope of Singer’s idea. It is not that I think these are in error; it is that I consider them global.

I believe, were we a world united, one that works together, all treated equally, the consumption, disparate conditions, and capitalist structure that drains our healthy planet would not exist as it does. Bodies and minds would flourish everywhere on Earth. Some of Singer’s concerns would be nonexistent.

I too am troubled with ideas Singer presents. How we grow, prepare, and eat our food is a worrisome. I have written much on this and offer these missives to you and your readers. I hope that Pete Singer will also read my words for we do agree, globally there needs to be change. We can only achieve the best if we unite in our cause.

FAST FOOD IS NOT FAST ©
FARMING IS FALLING, EFFECTING OUR FOOD AND FAMILIES ©
CHILDHOOD OBESITY. ADULT ON-SET DIABETES. OSTEOPOROSIS. SODA ©
WEIGHT. BALANCING FAT WITH FEELINGS, HABITS WITH HEALTH ©

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull. . . Betsy L. Angert
Be-Think

Comments are closed-

Footprints
[Report this comment]
Posted by: YogiBear on May 23, 2006 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think works like Singer's are important because they help teach our whole society a little bit more about the way things are, and helps raise our awareness about these issues. It doesn't matter that he may couch his message in the language of fundamentalism, all that matters is that we listen and do our best to reduce our consumptive footprint as best we can or are ready to do so.

I drive an SUV, I live in far too big a house for my family size, and I love to grill steaks. But I haven't had any kids, so maybe it evens out a little? Regardless, I try to eat healthy for my body's needs, recycle what I can, and act and vote my csocial conciousness when I'm not feeling too libertarian.

There are so many things we could all do better on to reduce our footprints on the world; imagine if instead of 200 of us just going vegan, 2,000 went vegetarian. Or instead of 2,000 going vegetarian, 2 million didn't buy diamonds anymore?

Singer's radical message is fine with me, and his message will be heard, diluted, when all of you pass it on in bits and pieces to others around you. If we didn't have people on the extremes advising us, we'd never get to a middle ground.

I applaud vegans and vegetarians for trying to live healthier and socially just lives. I'm not ready to do that myself, and I'd hope they respect my decision. If not, c'est la vie.

Comments are closed-

you can only go so far with individual solutions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Michelle on May 23, 2006 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, I am vegan. Second of all, I do not feel it is appropriate for me try to evangelize other people into doing what I do. Third of all, I believe that anyone with any amount of privilege in this system is going to do evil stuff just by acting and surviving within this system.

Unless and until we have large-scale system change (cultural and structural, huge stuff, and I don't only mean ending capitalism) -- all of us as individuals are implicated in the horrors of this system.

For example, if you are reading alternet on a computer -- Google coltan and the Congo.

I do feel like it is worth it to be very conscientous about our choices. But the quest for individual transcendence from the horror through individual consumer choices is kind of insane, in my opinion. If people can make these choices knowing that the choices do not get them out of complicity with the horror, all to the good.

But the illusion that there are individual-based solutions that somehow will create system change through individual "consumer" and "lifestyle" decisions is very often based on economic privilege, and very often blind to the realities of how deep and many-tentacled this system is.

Yes, this is uncomfortable. It is uncomfortable, even horribly painful, to know that living in this society with any amount of privilege means we are living off of the pain and suffering of other people and other beings. Instead of trying to buy our way into a false purity and numb illusion -- maybe we could learn to feel that pain rather than try to escape it and see where it leads us in terms of how we use our lives to fight for change beyond our individual lifestyles. And even with that fight, I know I am still living off of the horrors inflicted on others and that will not end unless the system changes drastically or I die.

» The limits of utilitarianism Posted by: Sojourner
» correction to above ^^ Posted by: Michelle

Comments are closed-

He's got some interesting facts
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Dan Metcalf on May 23, 2006 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I would definitely have to lump myself in with some of the more unhealty omnivores the man does have some good points. We should all be cutting back on our meat intake. In North America we eat far too much meat for it to be a sustainable practice for the whole world. Not to mention that it's one of the things that is making our society obese.

It's important to look at what we assume to be fact and see if it really is. This is how we as a society can learn to correct our own mistakes. I never really thought about produce shipped from far away having a lower environmental impact than produce from my state of California, but I can see where the volume of cargo and the fuel expenditures for that trip could be much less than for tomatoes grown in the central valley pound per pound. (Too often trucks are moving around nearly empty, while cargo containers empty share a ride with others on a large ship is a very small impact I would think.)

Pete Singer thanks for making me think a little...

Comments are closed-

Being vegan does not imply fanaticism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LRayn on May 23, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been vegetarian for 20 years, vegan for about 18.

The anti-vegan comments here are pretty typical. I (and most vegans I know) are NOT self-righteous, guilt-inducing people. Most of us go about our lives rather quietly.

When omnivores notice that I am not eating any animal products, they often apologize and express a feeling of guilt -- without any help from me at all! This is YOUR problem, not mine.

On the other hand, like the "smug self-righteous" omnivores commenting here, I have experienced harassment from omnivores -- jokes, put-downs, etc., again, all because the omnivores want to "put me in my place." Who's the extremist here? I would argue that the fanatics are those omnivores who think that I should eat like THEM and who feel the need to tell me that I am somehow like Hitler for making a personal choice not to support animal agriculture, especially factory farms!

Why can't these types of discussions be more civil? Singer is making logical, ethical arguments for his point of view in a calm, rational manner. He does not call people names or refer to factory farm owners as being "like Hitler." Why are the people who disagree with him often unable to extend the same courtesy?

And furthermore, being a vegan is not like being a Benedictine monk. I enjoy gardening, I enjoy cooking, and I enjoy eating. Maybe some of the commentators here cannot imagine how a vegan diet could be a delicious experience, but please don't project your feelings onto actual vegans.

There are a lot of problems in the world that need to be solved. All we can do is the best we can. Some solutions are easier for each of us than others. I myself don't have children and don't drive a car (I bike and walk instead). However, my house is not solar, for example. Other people may, for example, live in an off-the-grid solar cob home and grow all their own food, but still drive a car to get to work and take their kids to daycare. I don't think that one of us should be judged "better" than the other.

Slamming other progressives for not being more like ourselves is stupid. If you have a need to vent about the world's problems, consider commenting on a right-wing Web site instead.

Comments are closed-

Sorry, Singer.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettsoff on May 23, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't follow prophets.

Comments are closed-

How I learned to stop worrying and love meat.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettsoff on May 23, 2006 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do I feel guilty when I throw a hunk of flesh on the grill? I used to. I didn't feel guilty over liking the taste. I didn't feel guilty over farming conditions (I buy sustainable, organic, yaddayadda), I didn't feel guilty because vegans tried to shame me (as some do).

I felt guilty b/c something died so I could eat it.

Most humans aren't sociopathic or sadistic. Most humans are upset by the thought or experience of watching something die. Most humans don't like to think about dying themselves. Most humans have a belief system that helps them to anticipate something nice happening to them after they die.

We all die. We all get eaten, whether by something bigger or by the smallest of microbes. Humans are the only species to moralize that somehow the food chain as it has always worked is flawed.

I've hunted and killed big game. It's sad. So will my own death be. I am one person, and the chain will continue to cycle with or without me. I can choose to abstain or take part in the time that I am alive. I have found that I function best on an omnivorous diet and thus do my best to make everything I consume sustainable.

I'm not going to stop feeling sad about death. The Native Americans had the right idea about how to relate to the animals they killed, and being doomed to eventual death myself, I cannot imagine 'growing out of' that guilt. A mentally ill person would not feel guilt. Perhaps what vegans do is try to minimize it. I accept it. I am tied in. I live. For now.

Comments are closed-

I will outlive all of you!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zappa33 on May 23, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I eat meat, greasy food, pork, fast food sometimes, drink soda, sugar products and have generally the worst diet on the planet. I am overweight by 60lbs. even being 6'4 . I smoke cigarettes, drink beer, smoke weed, do hard drugs on occasion, don't work out often and am generally lazy when I am not working.
I bet you I outlive most vegans and elitist eaters. If your body is strong enough and gets used to the shit you put in it it will survive. I should have been dead from a heart attack 50 times over already or some other form of ailment. Just remenber this; life is too short to care about all this bullshit, if you live vegan, thats great for you! If you don't than that is fine too. Stop trying to convert everyone to your agenda, you sound like organized religion for god's sake. have fun eat a fucking burger!!

» RE: I will outlive all of you!! Posted by: dhardisty
» RE: IS THAT YOU RUSH???? Posted by: greentime
» RE: IS THAT YOU RUSH???? Posted by: zappa33

Comments are closed-

Above All, this one!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tim/Marg on May 23, 2006 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, what a response! This is an example of how everyone has a personal responsibility to educate themselves in order to be stewards of their bodies, environment and others. You choose your own priorities, maybe this topic is not a hot one for you, so be it... Consider though, how something so basic can, and will affect you and your family, for better or worse. WHAT CAN YOU DO NOW TO BE PROACTIVE IN YOUR LIFE?
If not today, when?
Wake up and start today! Tip: Believe in something!!!

Comments are closed-

god this is boring!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mclare on May 23, 2006 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i find people like Singer useless. living in that type of highly controlled existence elimates one thing: LIFE. my suggestion to him is seek therapy, figure out why he has control issues and then onward and upward! it's disgusting that high payed "intellects" such as himself pontificate on the "morals" of eating. so the millions of people that are poverty stricken and starving should apply his logic to eating as well? food is life. we need to spend more time enjoying it instead of dissecting it. to me all this vegan, organic b.s. is very simply an eating disorder disguised as an honorable act. our ancestors are rolling in their graves. i am a bonafide meat eater. i listen to my body and give it what it needs. if i didn't have red meat in my diet, i would suffer from anemia or other protein deficient problems. i'm am type o negative. the ancient blood. the virtual "garbage disposal", or carnivore if you will. and if faced with ultimate survival, Singer himself would indulge!

» again with the blood type! Posted by: aaronfetty

Comments are closed-

hidden price?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jrothman05 on May 23, 2006 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think a vegan diet is too high in time and anxiety. It takes some time in the beginning to try faux meats, soy milk, vegan cheeses, etc to find your favorites. You don't have to agonize over everything and worry about gelatin & every minscule ingredient. Being vegan is not an end in itself but merely a way to reduce animal suffering. My life is basically the same as it was before I went vegan and now I have LESS anxiety about dying of mad cow, bird flu, cancer, or other conditions linked to meat consumption.

I'm saddened that the only thing you got out of Peter Singer's book was that you should contribute to animal suffering even more by donating to Heifer International. I'd like to sink down to your level and say I will donate some money to Vegan Outreach specifically in honor of your column, but I won't.

Comments are closed-

No Such Thing as a Meat-Eating Environmentalist
[Report this comment]
Posted by: WMUboy on May 23, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Christina Waters' article, "It's Not Enough to Be a Vegetarian," she attacks Peter Singer's book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. In the book, Singer promotes a completely plant-based diet with no meat or dairy from animals. Dairy cows spend their lives confined indoors. Even though they have a strong maternal bond, their babies are taken from them shortly after birth. They do not get to see the outdoors. Put simply, dairy cows do not get to live a life a cow should. “Free-range” products are all-too-often just a misleading marketing ploy.

The meat and dairy industries cause much pollution and consume too many resources. In fact, the meat industry causes more water pollution in the U.S. than any other industry. Farm animals excrete 130 times more waste than the entire human population. 2,500 gallons of water is needed to produce one pound of meat. It takes only 25 gallons for wheat.

For a healthy planet and a healthier you, eat less animal products and more produce, preferably locally grown, organic. http://vegan.walklightly.org has more information on how to get started.

Comments are closed-

Perhaps a bit harsh for society as a whole
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sean000 on May 23, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Singer may be preaching to the converted, or almost converted; but I'm afraid mainstream America will not take such a bitter pill. The less extreme notions like eating less meat, or eating more organic/free range/eco-friendly are catching on. Vegetarianism, and even veganism, are accepted practices now. Fifteen years ago a vegetarian had virtually no options in most American restaurants. Times have definitely changed for the better in some of these areas. They may not be changing quickly enough...as factory farming still rules the land. A revolution based on preachy idealists will fall flat in this country. The trick is making the vegan lifestyle fashionable... and I see this already happening to some extent. People would rather be entertained than preached to. I bet the film "Supersize Me" got more people to stop eating fast food than Singer's book ever will.

Good choices also have to be convenient for most people. I live in a city where vegan food is plentiful, cheap, and tasty. I'm not vegan... I'm not even vegetarian since I eat meat on occasion; but my favorite restaurant in the entire city is a vegan Indian place that serves delectable dosai and amazing curries. If I tried to become a vegan in a small town, the story would be very different. Those are the folks who need help. The problem in America is that bad choices are often the most convenient.

Comments are closed-

Pie-in-the-sky CRAP!!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on May 23, 2006 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Crap like this is why I am a libertarian.
Pie-in-the-sky BS from well-heeled extremist idiots who have CHOICES about what, where and when they can eat makes me sick. I deeply resent this kind of patronizing "we-know-what's-best-for-you" attitude.

I am on a fixed food income of $100 a month for two people.
I HAVE NO CHOICES when it comes to food (and don't try and tell me otherwise unless your budget is even lower than mine). Under the circumstances I am grateful for whatever I can find--right now pork is an especially good bargain, but even that is nearly out of reach. Most of my budget goes for cereal-type foodstuffs as well as a few jugs of orange juice to try and stay healthy.

I begin to believe that the problems in this society aren't so much left/right as they are rich/poor; wealthy snobs who are too arrogant and too insulated from workaday reality to recognize the real problems faced by most people. Their solutions (whether from the left or the right) are totally impractical for the vast majority of people.

Get a freakin' life!

» RE: Pie-in-the-sky CRAP!!!! Posted by: cry0fan
» RE: Pie-in-the-sky CRAP!!!! Posted by: zappa33
» RE: Pie-in-the-sky CRAP!!!! Posted by: ezilla
» RE: Pie-in-the-sky CRAP!!!! Posted by: Ivan_K

Comments are closed-

focus on yourself
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harinama on May 23, 2006 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been vegetarian for 20+ years. I recycle, i eat local/organic when i can afford it. I each cheese/drink milk w/o hormones. My family only uses 1 car, abiet sparingly, and i use a nonpowered push mower. I compost every uncooked food scrap for my garden. I take no medications, watch sparing amounts of TV, and buy most of my clothing used. I do not have any children (and will only have 1 if i do).

With that in mind, i do spend a lot of money on my internet, computer, musical equipment, sporting goods, etc. Each of these could be looked at as consumerist, escapism and bad for the planet in their own way.

We all need to make choices in our lives that fit with who we are and where we are at in life. No one can force their values down anothers throat (which seems to be the norm these days). All we can do is hope the knowledge of the negative consequences of our country's wasteful and self serving lifestyle will trickle down into the everyday practices of ordinary people. Most will make changes if it does not disrupt our lives too much, look at recycling levels vs 10yrs ago!

Live a good life by example. It's all we can really do. Don't try to shame others, we all have skeletons in our closets.

Comments are closed-

Peace starts on your plate
[Report this comment]
Posted by: joy7 on May 23, 2006 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Up until August 2002, I was a very ignorant and blissful omnivore. I had no idea what happened to animals on factory farms. Since I was an animal lover, after all, I started reading about agribusiness's treatment of animals, including but not limited to mutilations, forced impregnations and starvation, battery cages, castrations without painkillers, and being pumped full of antibiotics and hormones. I did something that I thought I would never do — I went vegan. Truly, it was one of the BEST decisions I've ever made. What's so radical about eating and using only plants?

Ethics and compassion for animals brought me to this lifestyle and remain my #1 reason, but there are hundreds of reasons why I am also devoted and will never go back to my old ways. Modern agriculture is killing our planet and wasting resources — the air, our water, the soil, grain, the Amazon rainforest and foil fuels. It is morally repugnant that over 80% of our grain goes to feed and fatten farm animals, just so in the end those animals are slaughtered to feed our society's Standard American Diet (SAD), when millions of people could be fed from that grain.

Also 2/3 of our antibiotics in this country go to animals. The conditions that factory farm animals endure are so toxic that if they were not heavily innoculated they would die before the slaughterhouse, and the industry could not tolerate this.

I also am committed to this lifestyle for my health.

Why are the classifications of animals so arbitrary? Why do we not eat our cats and dogs, but those in Korea eat the same cats and dogs we live with as companion animals? Why do Indians revere the cow, but we eat their flesh and wear their skin? It is also known that pigs are as smart if not smarter than dogs, yet we eat pigs and live with dogs.

There was once a time when horses were considered “livestock” in this country, but no more. Americans do not eat horses, but Japanese do. That is why 88,000 American horses are shipped every year to Japan to be slaughtered. Americans no longer mentally put horses in the livestock category, but Japanese do.

The point is, it''s all arbitrary and based on profit and greed.

I believe everyone is innately compassionate. To those who are interested in embracing a more compassionate, plant-based life, I recommend you make small changes that will take root and keep changing. Some people transition by going toward organic food. Some cut out meat, then dairy. Some dairy, then meat. (Once you kick the cheese addiction, your body will thank you.)

Also consider that even animals that are raised “humanely“ (which is a great first step) still suffer horrible deaths...and in the end, the saturated fat and cholesterol from their flesh and secretions kill us with heart disease, and cancers of the breast, colon and prostate.

Don't transform your lifestyle in isolation. Join a local EarthSave group. Read all you can. John Robbins “The Food Revolution“ is a great starter book. Grow your compassion. Have courage. Don't let fear or ridicule stop you from making a huge difference for ALL life on this planet.

Peace to all.

______________

Howard Lyman (from the book Mad Cowboy)
http://www.madcowboy.com
"The question we must ask ourselves as a culture is whether we want to embrace the change that must come, or resist it. Are we so attached to the dietary fallacies with which we were raised, so afraid to counter the arbitrary laws of eating taught to us in childhood by our misinformed parents, that we cannot alter the course they set us on, even if it leads to our own ruin? Does the prospect of standing apart or encounttering ridicule scare us even from saving ourselves That prospect intimidated me once, and I can only wonder now what I was frightened of."

Comments are closed-

Peter Singer's Morality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Nellymae on May 23, 2006 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peter Singer is, of course, urging us to the moral high ground. After all he is a philosopher and a follower of that erstwhile utilitarian Jeremy Bentham. Bentham, for those who might not know, was so pragmatic, and perhaps egotistical, that he endowed University College in London as long as his preserved body was on display. The college honors his wish to this day, though Bentham's money long ago ran out and his body, not particularly appealling to viewers, is now trotted out on special occasions. But Bentham , like Singer, championed the rights of women, children, animals and the like, influencing John Stuart Mill, among others. Following the utilitarian path is a very stringent discipline, but then to accomplish the pinnacle of anything requires great disicipline, from the Jains, who wear masks to keep from inhaling bugs, to the opposite - a drunk who doggedly keeps drinking to maintain complete oblivion is just as dedicated to his mindset. Without the Singers who lead the way down a strict path, humanity would have no moral compass, but whether we choose to follow, at least they offer direction.

» RE: Peter Singer's Morality Posted by: gadfly

Comments are closed-

Oh, come on!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BlueTigress on May 23, 2006 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, scallops, mussels, etc are OK? Maybe if you go out and collect them by hand! Otherwise, diesel-powered boats go out and rip them off the ocean floor. Unless they're farmed, other ocean creatures that would otherwise eat them will go without.

This guy is an idiot. But I agree that rice grown in California is an ecological nightmare. It's just not a natural environment for rice.

» Natural environment? Posted by: chief of okeefe

Comments are closed-

I want to see cruelty level on an FDA label
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gwarek on May 23, 2006 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the real problem here is that people don't have an easy way to make informed decisions about the food they're buying. Right now the easiest thing to do is draw the line at all animals, or everything without a central nervous system, or only fruit that naturally falls from trees. It's impossible to judge the level of cruelty that went into producing the food you buy at Whole Foods or wherever, even with free-range label, "organically grown", and everything else. Calculate into that the energy actually used to generate the food, and the social impact farming has, and there just isn't enough time in the day...

Is is possible to imagine a governmental rating system that appraised food for cruelty level? (It could be as easy as a 1-2-3 system, or color coded, America loves that) I'm sure it would be easier and less controversial to indicate the energy used to produce this food. It doesn't have to be precise and take into account everything, just enough for people to make generally more informed decisions about what they buy. Wouldn't that have a much greater impact than a few thousand people becoming vegans?

Comments are closed-

Vegetarianism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: baruch on May 23, 2006 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to agree - I can only do so much. I only have a limited amount of time and resources to check into how my food is prepared. I do what I can, but to try to be as thorough as Mr. Singer is impossible for me.

I believe it would be a mistake to accept Mr. Singer's statements as true, simply because he's made them. He may be completely correct in everything, but there is no way to know this just from reading what he says. He may have made mistakes, exaggerated, or otherwise made untrue statements. I am not about to base my entire diet on something that one person says, even if I think this is an honest and sincere person.

There is much debate as to whether a vegan diet will suffice for humans. There is some concern for vitamin B-12, for instance. Miso supposedly has plenty, but now I find that recent research claims the B-12 is produced by bacteria in the gut, and by the time you get there, you can't absorb the B-12. I don't know if it's true. Still, I don't think it's a good idea to be my life on a vegan diet.

I am unaware of any traditional ethnic group that lives on a strictly vegan diet. Many Indians are vegetarians, but they still ingest cheese and milk. It seems to me that every vegetarian culture uses some animal products.

Given these doubts, I'll stick to my own modified vegerarian diet that includes cheese, yogurt, and the occasional (uncaged) egg.

» RE: Vegetarianism Posted by: pckurp

Comments are closed-

How I spell relief
[Report this comment]
Posted by: popsicle67 on May 23, 2006 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IGNORANCE! Do you people really have such boring lives that you have to worry about the ethical cost of your food.
I got an idea, find a girlfriend or boyfriend or watch an old movie. You don't have enough mental stimulation in your life.
You're going to die, we all are, why do you have to waste your precious time worrying about a foods feelings when it passes from life to food. I also question your assertation that
only lifeforms with a nervous system that we recognise are to be saved. You also forget that all of your examples carry the risk of deadly allergic reactions. All in all I think that vegans
should practice stoicism and quit picking on those of us who
eat like our ancestors.

» RE: How I spell relief Posted by: joy7
» RE: How I spell relief Posted by: AmyB
» RE: How I spell relief Posted by: AmyB
» RE: How I spell relief Posted by: ezilla

Comments are closed-

Vegetarianism is Simply a Dietary Preference
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kwfryatl on May 23, 2006 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . it is not, in any way, a "superior" lifestyle, philosophically or otherwise, as so many people would have us believe.

1) Any formally educated nutritionist (with a BS or even MS) with integrity will tell you - as did mine - that there are amino acids, found only in animal protein, that are necessary for the healthy production and maintenance of human muscle tissue, which is especially important for those who are physically active via focused fitness endeavors (i.e., weight training) or by necessity of their job (any vegan heavy construction workers out there? I could be wrong, but probably not).

2) I remember reading an article just a couple of years ago by a sociologist who pointed out that if human beings had NOT participated in the "hunting" part of being "hunter/gatherers", then human beings as they are today would not have evolved and survived.

And if vegetarianism IS supposed to be such a "superior" lifestyle/consciousness, then I'm really surprised by the many rude and combative comments made by so many vegans here.

» Very well said Posted by: Kneel
» plants have all amino acids!! Posted by: aaronfetty

Comments are closed-

blah blah blah
[Report this comment]
Posted by: goldenlink on May 23, 2006 3:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the reason why veganism won't fly.. .. is because its not natural..its political..its epigenetic..its learned behavior... and it has very little to do with true good health.

duh... the choices we make affect the larger whole...
if we could and would farm our own land, kill our own cattle,
livestock etc.. it would probably be near ideal
but we dont live in that world.. and it would take a near breakdown in our capitalist / corporatist structure. (not that i think that would be such a bad thing)

but in the meantime
try aguing something that makes sense to our senses..something that apeals to our monkey genetics

like cooked and spiced food vs. raw food (paleolithic diet)
perceived good health vs. true good health

humane vs. inhumane ... sure of course....but not by eliminating a food source that is vital to true good health

the problem with this dudes arguement is that he saying lets throw out the baby with the bathwater.

its a tired and mostly untruthful and a completely unradical approach to health, life, and the future.

» Simply counterfactual. Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

LastTwoTurtles
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Newt on May 23, 2006 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This debate has gone on long enough! Yes, we're going to die, we're waaayyy overpopulated, and we're all part of the food chain, and yes, at a point in our evolution, animal protein and hunting-gathering skills were pivotal in our development. But by now, we've got a ecosystem on the verge of collapse and a whole lot of unsustainable systems in place, buffeted by cheap corn–factory farms wouldn't exist if it wasn't for farming subsidies on corn. It's time to embrace a new set of standards:

Only grass-fed meat, preferably raising buffalo, not cattle; and goats, not dairy cows. Milk should be raw for maximum health, added hormones and antibiotics should be illegal. Pasteuriation and homogenization kill nutrition and increase allergies and lactose intolerance.

Integrate chickens and ducks in a permaculture system, work with what nature gives you so there's nothing wasted. Compost.

It's good to be a conscious eater, I was a long time veg*n who now eats fish on special occasions, and organic eggs in moderation. I am an amateur chef, so I try to cook local, seasonal, and ethically–check out The Natural Gourmet School in NYC.

Mike Pollan's new book, "The Omnivore's Dilemena," is better than Singer's book; as well as the "The Ethical Gourmet," by Jay Weinstein, which is an excellent source book, recipe book, as well as excellent guide to labels, additives, and certification.

Derrick Jensen makes a good point: If we consume the flesh of another, we in turn are responsible for the continuation of that creature's habitat. I am all in favor of the food chain, but we are destroying the planet and our choices do matter: If you want to eat wild salmon, do your part and work to preserve them.

90% of large fish in the oceans are going extinct.

» Malthus is still wrong. Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

Sorry, but not everyone can be a vegetarian!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: favorites on May 23, 2006 3:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For most of the 1980s I owned a small mom-and-pop natural food store. I did this because it was my life. I was and am TOTALLY committed to nutrition and proper eating.

During that time, I was lacto-ovo vegetarian twice, each time for number of years. DIET FOR A SMALL PLANET was my bible and although I followed it rigorously, I became ill from lack of protein both times.

The third and last time I was a vegetarian - again for a few years - I was a vegan. Much more difficult than being lacto-ovo. But I was rigorous and once more became ill from protein deficiency.

Finally, a pretty good nutritionist told me that if I didn't start eating animal protein I would die.

I would LOVE to be a vegetarian. That is where my heart is. But my body does not allow this, so there is no choice. I eat only organic animal protein, usually a small portion, once a day. I don't particularly care for it but since there is no choice, I do my best not to think about it any more.

Vegetarianism is NOT for everyone. It doesn't matter what you think will be healthy for you. It DOES matter what your BODY requires. Some bodies require animal protein; some don't.

In the long run, if you are conscious and concerned about food, I think each of us must find what is best for our particular body.

In this case, one size definitely does NOT fit all.

Comments are closed-

I hate to tell you
[Report this comment]
Posted by: susannunes on May 23, 2006 4:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but very few people are vegetarians, but for a few crackpots and animal rights nuts. Moreover, few people follow an individual as evil as Peter Singer, not when you know what he is REALLY about.

He doesn't give a rip about animals, about the environment, or much of anything else except to advocate killing people who he thinks are a "burden" to other people's "happiness."

Why does ANYBODY swallow this bioethic garbage? It is NOT "progressive."

» RE: I hate to tell you Posted by: bettsoff

Comments are closed-

vegetarianis may not be as ethical or ecological as you think.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zombi on May 23, 2006 5:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
first, let's aknowledge the fact that widespread human oppression, warfare & pollution began w/ agriculture (think babylon). that the only way for priest-kings (from gilgamesh all the way to bush) to get hordes of people to give up their lives & murder their fellow man wholesale, was to first make them farmers & second, when their population expanded & they could no longer feed themselves, convince them that they had not only the responsibility but the divine right to conquer & enlsave their neighbors for more land on which to grow food. though i support a persons choice of diet & even praise those who have the moral fortitude to stay on their chosen path, i feel that you should check your moral superiority at the door of the truth. yes, agri-corps are the worse kind of evil. yes, many farms use terrible methods for making animals (& plants) more productive, productive year round, immune to pests & disease, etc. but their is more to the facts than "meat is murder". for example, in order to sustain a planetary vegan diet, think of how many old wood forests would need razing in order to provide crop land. think of all the animals killed & habitats destroyed each time crop lands are prepared. even when growing organic food, waste is produced & seeps into ground & local above ground water supplies. to get complete nutrition from a vegan diet, one would have to supplant domestic crops w/ either imported crops (grown by people who are practically slaves), grow them locally (completely altering an ecosystem that evolved into it's current, adapted state over eons), or god forbid, use GM crops. never mind the fact that the human stomach produces enzymes usefull only to break down animal protiens, we have the teeth of omnivores & even our mastication has adapted to devour animal & plant matter. above all, this is true: diversity spells sustainability & survivability. before widespread oppression, before massive ecological destruction, before there were world wars, before industrialization & globalization, before religion was used to justify the murderous masses, we were Hunters & Gatherers. it wasn't perfect, but it worked.

Comments are closed-

relevant?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wishywishy on May 23, 2006 6:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would just like to say concerning the image alternet chose to catch people's attention and read this article... the woman is too attractive and it is very distracting. Why does an indy media site need the appeal of sex to attract readers, anyway? I mean, but look at her! She's gorgeous! I came to this website in search for knowledge on current issues since mainstream media is so bad at supplying it (duh). It seems a little hypocritical for a great website like this whose main focus is sincerity would rely on such a subversive tactic. I'm sorry if this seems insignificant, but I could have read more of the article during my 10-minute break at work if I wasn't busy staring at Ms. vegetarian-soon-to-go-vegan.

Comments are closed-

Fuel Consumtion and Pollution Transporting Foodstuff
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jjjhein on May 23, 2006 6:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article states that somehow it is more ecologigal to buy rice cultivated in Asia than that from the Sacramento Valley since less fuel is consumed "trucking" the product. Huh...??!

This makes no sense. I assume that the product grown in Vietnam or wherever must be "trucked" to a port, then transported by ship which uses some kind of fuel (unless they are using an old masted schooner) across the Pacific Ocean, THEN, it gets on a train or truck at the port of Oakland or LOngBeach or Seattle and, guess what ?...gets "trucked" to its destination.

Am I mising something or what? How does this circuitous trip for the rice have a more positive ecologial impact. Help me?

Comments are closed-

Yes, the are vegan athletes, and they win gold medals.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kneel on May 23, 2006 6:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for the vegans being snide and superior and so on.... what are vegans allowed to say that's not considered such?

Even the mildest statements are attacked as some sort of fanatical extermism and smug superiority. I've even seen the words, "I like being vegan and find it more healthy," seen as some kind of attack.

The reaction of many people to even the simplest statements is what suggests, to me, that they're not so comfortable with eating meat, and feel need to bludgeon anyone who reminds them of it. (A bit like the closet cases who hate gays.)

We try to be delicate and tacful in confronting the ignorance, but it's hard when people it's so incredible and people cling to it so ferociously.

It's not a matter of opinion whether a vegan diet is perfectly healthy, less prone to osteoporosis, etc. - there are studies to show this.

On the other hand, it's very hard to construct a study to find meat healthy or even necessary at all (there was one, sponsored by the National Cattlemens' Association, that used starving African children and suplimented their diets with meat, then claimed that it proved meat was necessary).

The ignorance is incredible, about everything: from the environmental to the health issues. It's especially surprising the case of nutrition, where even a little research would refute much of the propaganda (or even hysteria). And presenting facts that refute that ignorance shouldn't be seen as some kind of moral superiority or fanaticism. Sorry if the facts offend some people.

For example, yes, there are "heavy construction workers" who are vegan. There are also athletes. I have a friend who's champion rugby player and vegan (and did fine on a strictly raw when we played Ultimate together). I know a boxer who went vegan to take his game to the next level. And six-time Iron Man triathalon winner Dave Scott is vegetarian.

Below are the words of one of those weak and listless vegans. The second paragraph is especially worth a look for those who have tried going veg and felt they had to return to meat because they "couldn't get enough protein" (which almost impossible without starving - another fact):

Can a world-class athlete get enough protein from a vegetarian diet to compete? I’ve found that a person does not need protein from meat to be a successful athlete. In fact, my best year of track competition was the first year I ate a vegan diet. Moreover, by continuing to eat a vegan diet, my weight is under control, I like the way I look. (I know that sounds vain, but all of us want to like the way we look.) I enjoy eating more, and I feel great.

In the spring of 1991 – eight months after beginning to eat vegan – I was feeling listless and thought I might need to add protein from meat to my diet. Dr. McDougall, however, explained that my listlessness was due to my needing more calories because I was training so many hours each day, not because I needed more animal-based protein. When I increased my calorie intake, I regained my energy. I was drinking 24 to 32 ounces of juice a day. I ate no dairy products. And I had my best year as an athlete ever!

You have total control over what you put in your body. No one can force you to eat what you don’t want to eat. I know that many people think that eating a vegetarian diet - and especially a vegan diet – will require sacrifice and denial. Jannequin Bennett demonstrates in this book that eating vegan does not have to be tasteless and boring. As she says, “vegan eating is a truly indulgent way of life, as vegans regularly partake of the very best foods that nature has to offer.”


The writer?

An enfeebled vegetarian named Carl Lewis, winner of ten Olympic medals (9 of them gold).

» Excellent points Posted by: Kneel
» Ding Dong Posted by: pckurp
» Ha ha... Posted by: ksfc
» And...And...And... :-) Posted by: pckurp
» Oh, you're right! (m) Posted by: ksfc

Comments are closed-

Roll your own...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kneel on May 23, 2006 6:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, to anyone worried about money, wanting to use less resources, or just wanting better food (and a zillion other reasons), I suggest growing your own.

You can grow an incredible amount of food on just a little land.

For example, one acre can yield 40 thousand pounds of potatoes - rich in everything from vitamin C to protein. They're ridiculously easy to grow and you practically live on them (many have). Even just a few square feet of potatoes can feed a family. (And the potatoes, organic and rock-hard fresh out the ground, are delicious).

Of course, you can toss in some other crops for your own personal cornucopia (and you can take the word "toss" literally - my compost heap started growing potatoes and watermelons all by itself). No transport, little refrigeration, a healthy and fun family hobby, great way to make friends, ready gifts that'll be free and as if not more appreciated than any junk bought from Wal-Mart, etc.

Or you can have a money and resource draining lawn.

Comments are closed-

Don't think the vegans are going to take over..
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chief of okeefe on May 23, 2006 7:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because the omnivores and carnivores are making babies much faster, and they are eating alot of animals.
So your article is cute, but like all vegan stuff, pretty much irrelevant.

» Well, Mr. Lamark... Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

High-Protein Plant Foods = Too little protein, too much gas
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cameron2610 on May 23, 2006 9:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am 6'5, and I have long legs, long thin bones, and a fast metabolism. I was on a vegetarian diet for years and I looked pathetic and ugly because I was so thin and gaunt and all the dairy was giving me acne. Plus, all the nuts, seeds, beans, etc. that I was eating for protein made me horribly bloated all the time with gas because they all have shit loads of soluble fiber. I finally decided to eliminate dairy, cut down on all those problematic plant proteins, and eat meat. Now, I eat about 8lbs of (non-factory farmed) chicken per week and lots of fish, and I still look thin at 205lbs, but it's respectable. With meat, I've gained about 40lbs. The point is that a vegan or even a non-vegan vegetarian diet is not feasible for everyone. I need at least 200 grams of protein/day just to look somewhat normal so for me, meat is necessary. If you have the luxury of eating less protein or if by some miracle, the soluble fiber doesn't turn you into a blimp, that's great, but we're all different.

Also, animals killing other animals for food is standard procedure on earth, and it's not always done humanely. Would you rather be a farm cow killed by a spike in the head or a colobus monkey flailed to death by a chimp? Is it better for a farm animal to have lived and been killed for food than to never have lived at all? That's a value judgement.

Comments are closed-

Newsweek: "It's just not as hard to be a vegan these days"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: epski on May 23, 2006 9:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, there you go.

When you get Newsweek in on the action, then you know it's gone mainstream. Just a matter of time.

What're all you vegan haters on about? It's easy, and it's only expensive if you have bourgeois tastes like me (I'll take my vegan tiramisu with a vegan mocha at M Cafe).

When I'm feeling more down with the peeps, I can make myself a lentil loaf at home and dip my steamed veggies in tahini dressing. That's a meal that costs less than going to Taco Bell, my friends.

» Selfish ba$!ard! Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

Who is the girl eating the apple?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jonwilson on May 23, 2006 11:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who is the girl eating the apple?

I bet I can get her to eat meat.

Comments are closed-

On this one, it's our call.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kneel on May 24, 2006 1:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was noticing how connected and involved I feel in this discussion, to the extent of leaving it open in a tab, checking back, adding comments all over the place. (Call it a little obsessed, if you like.)

And I realize that it's because in this case, with the environmental arguments overwhelming and unassailable, from the massive resource consumption (everything from land to water - both consumed and polluted - to fossil fuels), to global warming (thanks to all the methane, punching well above it's weight by trapping 30 times as much heat as the same amount of CO2, and responsible for almost all observed global warming), not to mention the ecological issues (from antibiotic-resistant bacteria to bird flu)... for once, it's something we can do something about. It's not just a place for us to complain or say that the government should regulate more or industry should behave more responsibly; it's something we can easily undertake, that we don't even need any organization or any investment of time or money to do so.

We don't need to reorganize our communities. We don't need to restrict our lifestyles. We can actually enjoy healthier bodies.

So much of our consumption we can't, or feel we can't do much about. We may feel we have little choice in such things as how much we drive, or the junk we buy that's says Made in China, or taking a flight to visit grandma or getting a laptop (which takes a lot resources to manufacture, and produces a lot of toxic waste).

But this one, this one is really simple.

Each of us, as individuals can, very simply, just quit eating meat (with no "hidden price... too high in time and anxiety" - a lunatic statement).

That simple. Just don't toss the t-bone in the cart next shopping trip.

A little change in the menu. But making it seems too much. So many resist even learning the basic facts. Argue as fact things they just believe for whatever reason, with a stubborn, sometimes nasty, unwillingness to re-examine these beliefs.

This time, it's not BushCo and it's not ExxonMobil and it's not Dow Chemical. It's you. And me. We get to make the choice on this one. We get to take responsibility. We get to play grown up.

And if people who are progressive and reasonably enlightened - as most readers of this website are - are unwilling to make such a small sacrifice (which really isn't much of one at all, as you'll see if you jump in - in fact, I far prefer it, to the extent that if most of the arguments were reversed I'd probably find it hard not to be selfish and stop eating the way I do now), what hope is there, really?

How can I to insist industries change their practices at significant expense, how can I expect politicians to make tough, unpopular decisions, and how can I ask so many people to make real economic sacrifices, if I'm not even willing to make this simple change to my lunch menu? How can we? How can you?

» It's simple Posted by: brunowe
» Eating from the pump, I Posted by: Kneel
» Eating from the pump, II Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

It's good to be conscious of our food choices.... but...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SufiLizard on May 24, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a) human beings are omnivores. We are designed by God, Buddha, Allah, mother nature, our alien progenitors or what have you to eat both plant life and meat.

b) plants can experience pain too

c) Industrial, mega-farms, even if they're organic have a HUGE environmental footprint.

To me, it seems the ideal would be for small, local family farms to raise a vast diversity of species (both animal and plant) in an organic, sustainable way. Grass fed livestock are healthier in and of themselves and produce healthier meat for humans to consume. Eating natural grasses eliminites the need for corn and other grains that use so much energy. These livestock then produce their own healthy fertilizer that smaller animals like chickens or other fowl will pick through for undigested seeds, thus spreading the fertilizer around and eliminating the need for gas-guzzling tractors to spread fertilizers (organic or otherwise). Intelligent rotation of crops and pastures keeps the soil healthy and full of nutrients while a diversity of species helps reduce the impact of insect and disease on the food crops. Add in plenty of fruit trees and nuts and you have a moral, sustainable and productive supply of healthy food. This also adds to the psychological health of the small farmers and to the economic health of communities.

Of course to eat meat, you ultimately have to kill an animal and I find that as disturbing as anyone. But take a look around at nature - there are many strictly carnivorous animals out there, unfortunately it's just the natural order. But as intelligent, feeling, moral beings I think we have a duty to find the most humane way to do this.

But even if you don't buy into the natural order justification for killing an animal, it seems ridiculous to me to assume that animal products that don't harm the animal (like eggs, wool, etc.) are unethical in and of themselves. Of course factory farms and CAFOs are ugly systems, but the same products raised from happy animals on an idyllic family farm seem pretty humane to me.

Personally I find these radical vegans to be more tedious and equally deluded as the really "out there" evangelical Christians. (And I'm a Christian myself, so I'm not knocking all Christians, nor true seekers in any religious tradition - just the close-minded, ego-centric evangelist types)

» It's two separate issues... Posted by: pckurp

Comments are closed-

Kittynboi
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kittynboi on May 24, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, what a useless argument.

Off topic, what does Singer have to say about those with severe, often debilitating depression, like myself? Should I be euthanized to fit in his perfect world.

Does he limit his vitrol to those with birth defects, or do those of us with mental illness get to die in Aktion T4 as well?

Comments are closed-

What to Do
[Report this comment]
Posted by: WitchyNy on May 24, 2006 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plant a garden.
Make your own bread.
Buy second hand clothes.
Stop bitching. Start a Revolution.
Keep your sense of humor.

Comments are closed-

Newsweek on Veganism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: A.T. on May 24, 2006 12:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12887896/site/newsweek/

May 29, 2006 issue - It's just not as hard to be a vegan these days. For too long, adherents to vegan diets were prevented from any decent indulgence; they were more or less relegated to the produce aisle. But now vegans have options like jelly beans, ice cream, potato chips, cookies, cakes, gummy bears and hot dogs—all tailored to an animal-product-free diet. Whole Foods prepares vegan pudding and chocolate cake and carries vegan cookies. Vegan foods are "a growing category for us," says Perry Abbenante, national grocery coordinator. "Five years ago, there were not that many vegan products, and they were not that good. The people eating them were dedicated."

But isn't one of the benefits of veganism a healthy lifestyle? "These people are taking out eggs and meat and dairy; eating some extra sugar isn't going to cancel that out," says Lauren Farnsworth, general manager of Sacramento, Calif.-based Sun Flour Baking Co., which makes vegan cookies and brownies. "They are taking the cholesterol and saturated fat out of their diet." Ryan Kellner, who owns Mighty O Donuts in Seattle, says response to his vegan treats has been overwhelming. "People need fun food," Kellner says. "You can't work all day; you've got to play a little bit, too. That goes for everybody, vegans and nonvegans alike." Krissi Vandenberg, of the nonprofit group Vegan Action, says, "It is really nice to be able to get online and order rich, decadent vegan truffles on Valentine's Day."

Or much sooner—Krissi, Feb. 14 is nine months away!

—Alicia Barney

Comments are closed-

Singer is right, of course
[Report this comment]
Posted by: owleyes on May 24, 2006 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not vegan, nor will I ever be, unless I am struck with cancer, which I suppose is likely enough. But for now, I love eggs and cheese far too much to ever give them up. Ever. Still, Singer's argument is unassailable and completely accurate. There is no legitimate excuse not to eat humanely and responsibly. There are only illegitimate ones such as my own, which is actually quite piggish at heart: fuck you, I love eggs.

Comments are closed-

People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kneel on May 24, 2006 4:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe we're making a mistake to ignore the whole "plants can feel pain" argument.)

("They took an axe? And the threatened a flower? And the had this machine hooked up to the flower? And the line went all wavy! Then they told the flower? That it was pretty? And the line, it went all smooth.")

Instaed of ingnoring that one or brushing it aside as juvenile and annoying, let's accept it. Let's... embrace it.

Let's acknowlege that plants are indeed living beings, capable of feeling pain and that taking a life, any life, is taking a life.

Taking that as a given... you're still best to go vegan.

Why?

Because.... WHAT DO YOU THINK THE COW EATS!?

Hello... plants!

If you just eat the plants yourself, you'll murder over 200 times less plants than if you eat them after they've gone through the cow (well... you know... after... um....).

So, those of you banging about about plants feeling so much pain, we appreciate your concern, and we're glad you're ready to join us in decreasing the amount of pain and killing in the world.

Don't go veg because it's kinder to the cows; do it because it's kinder to the plants, and you're so very concerned with their welfare.

I'm sure you'll sleep better now.

(But be sure, every so often, to hunt and kill the plant yourself, and to use every part of the plant, to thank it - it's spirit - for giving itself and it's life that you may have such a tasty avocado salad.)

Comments are closed-

Eat and let Eat
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Raj on May 24, 2006 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am vegetarian, but dont' have a problem with meat eaters, I honestly dont' think one is superior over another. Being an animal lover made me stop eating them, but I don't want to make anyone else change, specially by writing a "my way is the HIGH way" type book, the truth is if your mind and body are already in sync, then you can eat whatever you want, healthy or not, your body is the ultimate alchemist, it'll digest a whole lot u know! There is one truth, however, that might shed more light into our nourishment. We must all agree that all nourishment does indeed first come from the sun. Heck if we could just photosynthesize, we wouldn't need to consume at all. But let's trace our food energy directly from the sun: For Vegetarians it goes: Sun > Plants > your stomach, for meat eaters it goes Sun > Plants > Animals > your stomach. I'm not saying one is better than the other, however one is more direct than the other ;)

Comments are closed-

AND THE SMALL FISH IS FED TO FARMED SALMON
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kamo on May 24, 2006 5:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm just taking this opportunity to raise a question I haven't seen addressed anywhere, that is, the horrible life of farmed salmon and also I have heard of farmed tuna.

Can anyone imagine how miserable these fish must be when their programmed behavior is to roam very long distances in cold water, free and far between, and now be confined in concentration camps for fish. This is truly horrible. These are powerful, muscular fish, tuna are BIG, they need exercice but they can't go anywhere.

Comments are closed-

In a larger context...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: boygranddakar on May 24, 2006 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rather than donating to Heifer International, might I suggest donating to the Humane Farming Association.

I thought part of a leftist, progressive ideology was recognizing pluralism. Fights for civil rights for people of color, women's rights, queer rights, disabled rights, etc. etc. weren't simply for "equality," but also a recognition that different people have different experiences, desires, and needs, and that dominent majorities should recognize, respect, and protect these differences within a framework of the common good. There is no one "right way" for every single person to live - we have terms for people who forcefully try to impose their beliefs on others, none of them flattering.

Yes, we should all live as ethically as we can, on an individual level. We should also strive for collective political action to make our country - and the world - a better, more ethical, more just place.

So can we stop looking over at other people's plates to see what they're eating and instead push for cleaner oceans, better forest protection, more open public space, community gardens, tighter fuel efficiency and emissions controls, more environmental regulation of industry, greater access to solar technology, and fewer toxins in our food, water, and air?

Comments are closed-

How to end all suffering for ever and ever
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 24, 2006 6:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's simple, everyone - nuke the surface of the planet. Sounds shocking, I know, but when there are no living creatures left alive, there will be no more suffering and no more tortured ethical logic, either.

I don't like vegan ethics because they kill plants - and various measurements have shown that plants do 'feel' pain and show clear biochemical responses to wounding. This fills me with moral indignation, and as result I've become a fruitarian.

Fruitarianism is the only ethical solution - it means taking only what the plants drop naturally, their fruits and nuts, the parts of themselves that they have given up willingly - we even help them out by distributing their seeds in our feces - just like the birds do!

Of course, this means wandering the wilderness because every acre of cultivated land is an acre of land stolen from natural systems. The plow murders! Yes - a simple existence, wandering the wilderness, eating fruits, nuts and berries - but no roots or leaves. I recommend it to everyone.

OR, you could adopt the notion that if you have to kill a chicken in order to feed yourself, you could at least make sure that the chicken had a decent life, and also do a very good job of cooking it. You might also reconsider pumping your chicken full of antibiotics and hormones. And, if this still fills you with anger, become a wilderness fruitarian. Really, it's the only ethical solution.

Comments are closed-

Your point?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kneel on May 24, 2006 7:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand what you're after. A lot of people are actually putting thought into what they say and having decent discussion. What's the point of this?

Humor and satire are great, but this isn't particularly original, and not particularly funny. What does it contribute? Why bother?

A lot of people do like to think about and discuss their impact on the world and so one. You don't. Fine. But what're you after with this?

I like reading people's thoughts, even though they disagree with my own. However, there's not much thinking here. Just the same thing that's been said many times already. What's the contribution?

You aparently have a point of view; you seem to be intelligent, enought to write something decent. Why not actually put some thought into it and do so?

Comments are closed-

Tahini dressing
[Report this comment]
Posted by: epski on May 24, 2006 7:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good question. I don't actually make it myself, though I can't imagine it would be difficult. Just a little tahini and fresh lemon juice, from what I taste. But poke around for a real recipe. The web is a wonderful place to search!

Comments are closed-

Develop a Sustainable Alternative
[Report this comment]
Posted by: progressiveview on May 25, 2006 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is always easy for the lunatic fringe to throw out wild ideas. The idea of buying food from Sri Lanka instead of the local producer is completely missing the point. The planet can only sustain so much, and the cost of the fuel to transport products around the world is significant. Furthermore, I am sure the farmer in Sri Lanka did not benefit as much as the agribusiness corporations.

It is the continued race to the bottom for cheaper goods and services that have gotten us to where we are today. We do not need to promote globalization, where the rich get richer and everybody else gets poorer. What we need is fair trade and the best way to do that is to buy local products. Visit your local farmers market, see what is in season and be creative in how you use the fresh produce.

Better yet, join a CSA and benefit from getting to know your farmers directly. Many CSA's require their members to put some time in working on the farm, wedding the vegetable beds, or other such work.

We need a new vision, one that is at peace with the planet, that will produce a sustainable environment for all life on the planet.

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

The hidden price of the vegan lifestyle is, for me, too high in time and anxiety
[Report this comment]
Posted by: epski on May 23, 2006 12:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's a pretty sad quote, really. You're putting all that anxiety on yourself, and it may well stem from a reticence to change your meat-eating ways.

For a small, upfront investment of time to learn how to prepare foods without animal products, you get a lifetime return of anxiety-free eating, because you're not contributing to the subjugation of other species for the sake of your tastebuds.

I've been vegan for four years, and I have to say that I don't experience any great anxiety living my lifestyle, and any time I do spend reading a label now and again is well spent, because that little bit I'm doing to minimize suffering is nothing in the overall scheme of things, and it sure is cheaper than sending a portion of my paycheck to some non-profit to assuage unnecessary guilt.

» elitist bullcrap! Posted by: thistleblower
» RE: elitist bullcrap! Posted by: ann83
» RE: elitist bullcrap! Posted by: Xynyx

Comments are closed-

oh man...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Byrodude on May 23, 2006 12:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok. I'm a vegetarian. And a pretty strict vegetarian at that. I don't eat eggs, gelatin or anything with lard. I do eat cheese and occasionally I'll drink cow's milk. But wow. How are we supposed keep track of these companies and exactly what eco friendly practices they are taking, when this guy wrote an ENTIRE BOOK. I mean, if i have to I will go vegan, it's been in the works for years now, and I'll definetly be willing to "eat green" but how am I supposed to keep up with the day by day workings of a gigantic food industry... there are only so many hours in the day! I feel it is my ethical duty, such is that of compassion, that I will convert. But damn, this ethics buisness is Hard!

» RE: oh man... Posted by: Kanefire
» RE: oh man... Posted by: blingnet88

Comments are closed-

It's ok
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 23, 2006 12:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter that we can't all be perfect and can't do everything right all the time and it's doesn't matter that Peter Singer seems to be an extremist that we can never, apparently, live up to.

The important thing is that someone (him) is doing the research and bringing it to our attention and we can now do _something_ about it. We know now so we can try to change our behaviours. Sure, we will probably never all be able to live the way he wants us to, but we can give it a go, to a greater or lesser extent, and make changes bit by bit as we are able.

If we take notice of what people like him say and try to do our bit, whether individually, or in communities or as whole societies, then we can bring about change - hopefully good changes that big business and politicians cannot ignore.

Viva la revolution!

» RE: It's ok Posted by: mom'z the word

Comments are closed-

Local+seasonal
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mazur on May 23, 2006 1:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "buy local" choice makes ethical sense, it seems, only when paired with "seasonal" consciousness. Out-of-season goods, even organic ones, always bear a high environmental price tag.

That's it, exactly. Preserve your tomatoes in season, or buy preserved.

» RE: Local+seasonal Posted by: marcinde
» RE: Local+seasonal Posted by: Kanefire

Comments are closed-

Production, not just consumption
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jackie on May 23, 2006 2:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real problem lies in the production of food for profit. If we produced food on the basis of the needs of humans and other living things we wouldn't have to do extensive research and extra labor to eat humanely and healthfully. Asking people who work hard for a living and/or living in poverty to adopt this sort of "lifestyle" is also unreasonable. Food is a basic necessity and it should be produced for its use value, not its exchange value.

» It is. Posted by: peritonlogon

Comments are closed-

Its About Why and Not What People Eat
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 23, 2006 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article reviews the author's focus on food consumption as an economic and/or political choice. What is not mentioned is why people eat, especially those who over eat (the majority), and it is not because they are hungry. Eating has become a method to assuage stress, emotional discomfort (depressive moods), boredom and (ironically) feelings of body shame to name the most common. If those more relevant aspects of eating are combined with socioeconomic realities (giant food corporations and marketing) then maybe this book can be used to make better choices.

Comments are closed-

Dr. Waters gets it right
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rbohan on May 23, 2006 3:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't read Singers book so I'm trusting Dr. Waters to have related its premises reasonably accurately. If she has...Right On, Doc!

The problem with Singer's position is similar to the problem of all zealots...unless we buy into his views totally, completely, and with no compromise at all, we're no better than the riff-raff scarfing up Big Macs and Cheetos for their three squares a day. And the problem with this view, in turn is that, rather than persuading lots of folks to get a little bit better in their food consumption habits (eat a bit less meat, buy a bit more local and organic produce), he risks prompting folks to dismiss the whole approach. It's like saying I'm not really a good Catholic unless I'm willing to join the priesthood. Feh!

My fear is that, at rock bottom, Singer's agenda isn't to motivate real and positive change. It's to show the rest of us that we could never measure up to his ideals. We could never be among the holy ones. We'll never be good enough. Somewhere along the line we'll eat a tomatoe that gets trucked cross country or buy rice that wasn't grown by a Bandladeshi wading his rice paddies in his bare feet. We'll just never be as good as he is.

So my advice is...forget Singer and his "can't begin to measure up" metrics. Go to your local farmer's market and buy something. If it's organic, great, if not, buy some anyway. You'll eat better and you'll be helping some folks in your neighborhood.

» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: amalgamatedspats
» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: amalgamatedspats
» RE: Singer and zealotry Posted by: S. Nair
» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: Artaraxl
» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: CasualRebel

Comments are closed-

Fanatacism is scary!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: owlbear1 on May 23, 2006 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoa!

» Fanatacism has its purposes Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Fanatacism is scary! Posted by: bettsoff

Comments are closed-

Singer's ideology
[Report this comment]
Posted by: patchen on May 23, 2006 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Singer is indeed a zealot, who admittedly deserves credit for his early works, which exposed the general reader to factory farming. And even though his thesis here is self-righteous, it does give one pause. Yet as had been said in this thread already, one is left with the impression that nothing less than total adoption of his views is moral. Another of his recent books is a treatise on the viablility of sex with animals as an alternative sexual orientation. It is ok to have sex with an animal, but not to kill it??

» RE: Singer's ideology Posted by: Aussie Kim

Comments are closed-

Hypocrite
[Report this comment]
Posted by: polyquat50 on May 23, 2006 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the same Peter Singer, of course, that said that he and his wife would abort a Down Syndrome foetus because he and his wife didn't think they could have the same meaningful relationship with an intellectually disabled child as they have with their other children.

It is enough to make my DS daughter and me choke on our T-bone.

» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: kiatoa
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: MsEithne
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: rbohan
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: fork
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: Doyle
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: elizacoop
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: mclare
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: fork
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: melissa999
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: Artaraxl
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: polyquat50
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: susannunes
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: fork
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: Pseudo Morals
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: akjspain
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: mclare
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: AmyB
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: jgirl1307
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: polyquat50

Comments are closed-

When is Chocolate in season?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: greentime on May 23, 2006 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do try to eat organic, local and in season. More and more people are more and more aware of their choices and how their choices act on the planet. That's great.

However, the dogma outlined in this article of eating only when hungry and only in season etc etc is just ridiculous!

There are methods of heating greenhouses and powering canning factories, like solar, that can provide extended growing seasons and provide for off-season "put-up" foods. Winter is a long season and nothing much is growing then so if we didn't "put food by" as we have since ancient times, we wouldn't make it through the winter. What would he have us do? Graze on the forest over winter? That would set the planet back some. Stewed tomatoes are much better in a winter dish than pale, hard hydroponic winter substitutes.

More than all that conscious self denial, let's remember that food is also for celebration, enjoyment, sharing, and just plain old deliciousness! It adds life to existence.

Lightenen up!

Comments are closed-

How come we give whackos like Singer a pulpit?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rbohan on May 23, 2006 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm reading the posts by Patchen and Polyquat and, assuming they are correct in what they say about Singer's past writings, I start to wonder why we progressives give whackos like Singer the time of day. We wouldn't give, say, Tim LaHaye an inch of space on Alternet (and that's a good thing) but Singer's ramblings are treated with some degree of respect...respect that it appears he doesn't deserve. And that's not to say I'm not glad that the original article debunks at least part of Singer's thesis. But, geez, it's not as if there aren't enough serious progressives out there with good ideas that need to be spread around that we have to give the whacko right more ammunition by giving an apparent nutbag like Singer airtime.

» Well why wouldn't you? Posted by: Aussie Kim

Comments are closed-

Straw Man
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Louisa on May 23, 2006 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The big joke here is that people should make food choices based on ethics. Good lord, everything you eat dies so that you may live - plant matter, animals, etc. I can't be too bothered about choices like apple or salmon. I guess I have to apologize for seeing myself as having the right to live and eat any way I want (tongue firmly in cheek here, folks!).

If you want to live ethically you would limit your own reproduction to one child and frown upon anyone that has more children than that. It is not single humans that are destroying the world as we know it ("W" being an exception to the rule) - it is the reckless overpopulation of our entire species that is pushing every other living thing to the edge. There really is a difference in these ideas because one person does no actual harm, but cumulatively the effect of our species is devastating to the planet. There's just too many of us - and our effects upon the environment are significantly ameliorated by simply reducing our numbers.

So, as you and I are already here and have rights over which I personally refuse to feel guilty let's just do the next best thing: limit the number of us we leave behind.

» RE: Straw Man Posted by: lucizoe
» RE: Straw Man Posted by: magnolia
» RE: Straw Man Posted by: DRosen
» RE: Straw Man Posted by: magnolia
» RE: Straw Man (for Louisa) Posted by: jbohland

Comments are closed-

who cares about universal healthcare and progressive taxation?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cry0fan on May 23, 2006 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
vegetarianism is what the American PseudoLeft cares about. And you say the left in America is dead? Gee, I wonder why.....

Comments are closed-

By a crackpot, about a crackpot.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kneel on May 23, 2006 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Singer goes a long way beyond even what polyquat50 says, even advocating that babies should be killed if they don't measure up to his standards. Take a look at his discussion with disabled rights lawyer Harriet McBryde Johnson, who because of a spinal deformation, Singer feels should have been exterminated as a baby, as should pretty much anyone not worthy of continued existence by Singer's standards.

(One of his arguments being that if you took two children to the beach, the one with the straighter spine who could run around would be having a lot more fun. Hmmm... perhaps we could find a use for those old machine-gun nests on some beaches by having people watch to see what children weren't having enough fun and disposing of them. What if, say, a depressed child is having less fun than the paraplegic?)

What he's saying, as related here, isn't new. If you don't know that a local hothouse tomato in Alaska takes a lot of energy to grow, well...

What he ought to be proposing is that people plant their lawns, that we set up a lot of community gardens and plant the rooftops. That'd be a movement. Most people would be amazed at how much food you can get out of even that little space, and how easy it is to grow. That would be powerful, and would ease the resource consumption a lot more. (The food's also delicious.)

Singer has some good ideas, but I'd scarf a Big Mac just to keep from being associated with the guy.

Of course, its not just Singer who's loopy: "The hidden price of the vegan lifestyle is, for me, too high in time and anxiety."

What?? Hello? You just don't meat. Where's the anxiety in that? In fact, you get to skip the anxiety about the diseases from meat (like how hamburgers in the US have an acceptable fecal count - that is, an acceptable amount of sh*t in your dinner, and you'd better be sure to cook it thoroughly to kill all the e. coli off?), keeping it refrigerated, making sure it's cooked all the way through, etc. You just eat, and... you're a lot healthier for it.

She seems to think it's so incredible and "arduous" for someone to avoid animal products. With as rich a cornucopia of produce as greets us at most supermarkets, it's incredibly easy, and it makes shopping and storage a lot easier as well.

I go to the market or store, see a lot of attractive fruits and vegetables, eat them. If I'm hungry, I don't even have to cook them, but sometimes I make coconut-curries, stir-frys, pasta primavera, soups, 3 bean salads... not sure where that huge hidden price in time in anxiety comes in. Sounds like yet another goofy rationalization (or maybe someone has anxiety problems completely separate from the issue).

Amazing, the endless mental gymnastics those trying to expiate their guilt about eating dead animals just 'cause they like the taste subject the rest of us to, from attacking vegans ("veganazis!") to myths about nutrition to babbling about the high price in time and anxiety.

Sorry to hear Ms. Waters finds living a moral life so arduous.

» On the other hand... Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

getting comfortable with the alternatives
[Report this comment]
Posted by: azima on May 23, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Singer has been living with this issue for years. Most of us have not. Only recently have I learned easy ways to live as a vegan. It took years of trying recipes that didn't agree with my taste buds or my digestive system. Fortunately, I have a blood type that agrees with a vegan diet, so for me, it made sense to pursue this option. I wonder how much of the moralizing about this article has to do with peoples' ignorance about how cook vegan food that they might actually enjoy or where to find good vegan prepared food.

If you're a dedicated carnivore, and it agrees best with your system, then all you can do is be a conscious consumer, and not hold to a standard that doesn't work for your body.

I think Singer's message is useful if we don't give ourselves a guilt trip about not being able to follow it to the letter. I suspect that the resistance to his work stems from our perception of how difficult it would be for us to do what he says.

Finally I found a cook book with a lot of vegan food that tasted delicious (it was south Indian). But tastes are personal.

If our hearts are in the right place, let's take our time putting our ideals to the test.

Bon appetit, whatever you eat.

» blood type not linked to diet Posted by: aaronfetty

Comments are closed-

So This Is Why They Hate Us....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Stonecutter on May 23, 2006 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gimme a break. It's one thing to be "conscientious" about your food choices, including ingredients, where the stuff comes from, how it's produced or grown, etc. There's no doubt that being more aware of these aspects of food buying and eating makes you not only healthier in the long run, but less likely to contribute to the obvious evils of the processed food industry and it's vise grip on the so-called "American" diet of Velvetta, Spam, Cool Whip and other chemically manufactured delights.

It's a whole other unctious obsession to subscribe to Peter Singer's fanatical, almost cult-like protestations. Frankly, after six years of exposure to the new "national socialism" of the Bush administration in all it's ugly manifestations, I'm disgusted to my core with any and all forms of extremism, no matter how (self) righteous they may present themselves to the world.

After watching the documentary "McLibel" about the years-long struggle of two political activists against McDonald's in Great Britain, and Morgan Spurlock's recent film "Supersize Me", I'm convinced that Mickey D and the rest of the fast food industry are contributing to the long-term illness, rampant obesity and decreased mortality of millions around the world who consume their products regularly. However, the response to this awareness is not to become a dairy cow eating grass, anymore than it would make sense or be a marker of one's "life well lived" to give up all wine because it contains alcohol, or turkey because of how they're raised and slaughtered, or ice cream because it contains milk products. This is the gustatory equivalent of becoming a Benedictine monk because you broke up with your girlfriend.

The pleasures of well-prepared cuisine, be it Italian, French, Chinese, Greek, Thai, Indian, or the occasional finely aged porterhouse steak, are too great, too much an integral part of the joy of living, to be rejected in favor of some rigid adherence to veganism (any "ism" applied to the simple satisfactions of life gives me the heebie jeebies). I've cut out most red meat because it's unhealthy, but you can still buy organic meat for a price, and there's nothing wrong with the occasional organic steak or burger. Moderation in all things is the key, not zealous politicization, the commercialization of guilt, self-righteousness and impossible utopianism, coming from a guy who sounds as much like a "Food Nazi" as the famous "Soup Nazi" on "Seinfeld".

There are always going to be those who politicize every behavior and every aspect of life, from eating to brushing your teeth. It's still a free country, unless you're using your phone. However, those who speak reverently about the suffering of chickens, the pleasures of bean curd and tofu and the evils of a perfectly cooked prime New York strip are, frankly, as boring and dull as the food they covet. To each his own battle for the salvation of the planet. I'll take the federal budget.

Comments are closed-

Voter333
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Voter333 on May 23, 2006 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Christina's reaction to being 'pushed' to change her diet preferences is a natural reaction but, Christina, like all humans, would improve not just the environment but her own personal health, by eliminating the consumption dairy products, as she has meat and eggs. Natural growth hormones and opiate-like substances in milk as there for the benefit of the young livestock for whom this substance was intended...not for people. Combined with the addition of hormones and antibiotics, milk and its concentrated form - cheese- are unhealthly to humans. And the claim that the calcium in milk is vital to bone strength is actually the opposite of the truth; countries with the highest dairy consumption are the ones with the highest percentage of osteoporosis.
Pete has lots of good reasons to take the stand he has in favor of a vegan diet...but there are even more good reasons involving human health. And the good news is that when one becomes vegan, as I did fifteen years ago, life is easier and feels so much better!

» RE: Voter333 Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Voter333 Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Voter333 Posted by: bettsoff

Comments are closed-

Vegan Zealots are the Religious Right of the Food World
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 23, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My way or the highway.
I'm the only one that's right.
Everybody else is wrong.
Our morality is the only legitimate one.

Comments are closed-

Veganism may be bad food.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: douglashoyt on May 23, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hitler was a vegan, believe it or not, you can look it up.

Maybe if Hitler had sat down to a juicy steak, pork chop, or rack of lamb now and then he would have been too bloated to worry much about the "German People," or the jews.

» RE: Veganism may be bad food. Posted by: cyberfactotum
» RE: Veganism may be bad food. Posted by: veganshawn
» RE: Veganism may be bad food. Posted by: magnolia
» RE: Veganism may be bad food. Posted by: veganshawn

Comments are closed-

You people can't harsh my mellow
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Uccellla on May 23, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Tis the glorious season of morels and asparagus in Central New York!

Comments are closed-

one man...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: montims on May 23, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are how many people in the United State? One man writes a book, and everybody gets all worked up. What if a dozen different people wrote books refuting his claims? Would you still believe him? If Jerry Falwell wrote a book, would you take what he says as gospel? (so to speak...) It's a book. Written by one man. Hyped by publishers who expect to become rich on it, otherwise they wouldn't have published it. If you don't like it, or are not interested, just ignore it... For once, I kind of agree with cryofan - there are more important things to worry about...

Comments are closed-

Ah, and here we go with the anti-vegan attacks.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kneel on May 23, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on, people, get over your guilt.

Vegans can't even present their case without all these people going berserk on them about their snideness or sneering or superiority or whatever. And then someone has to start hollering about Hitler?

Was a Hitler a vegatarian? He was, supposedly, advised by his doctor to be so, but a cook who prepared dishes for him describe the dishes he preferred, and they weren't veggie.

Know what else? It's irrelevant. Maybe Hitler drank orange juice. What would that mean?

If I don't kick old people or if I enjoy hiking, are you gonna run up and say, Yeah, well Pol-Pot enjoyed hiking, too, you hikanazi!

Comments are closed-

always an indivual thing?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: porgygirl on May 23, 2006 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If 20 or 500 or 3000 people become vegans because they read this book (or a review of it), there's no doubt that'd be good for the environment, but shouldn't a big chunk of the issue be the fact that so much of American food comes from unethical, industrialized, polluting, cruel sources? In a perfect world (sigh), shouldn't the government be paying some attention to the treatment of animals and the stewardship of the land and water? I don't think the government should force us all to be vegan, but it could certainly improve the quality of our choices.

I heard a radio ad recently. It started by complaining about how dirty, polluted, unsafe the air is. I was thinking, yeah, there should be better regulation of factory emissions, car emissions, etc. Then the ad tried to sell me an air purifier so that my personal home could, supposedly, be safe from the evil air. Classic! We're trained to approach problems by buying something individually, instead of taking collective action to make the world better.

Okay, so I'm a big government liberal wacko. :)

Comments are closed-

Stop whining, veganism is easy and it's right
[Report this comment]
Posted by: A.T. on May 23, 2006 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went vegan when I was in college 10 years ago. It was challenging to forgo cheeze subs for the first week, then it was easy. My health improved and I could live with myself more easily. It was one of the best things I've ever done. It was embarassing to read the last paragraph of this column by Christina Waters. Show some self respect, Christina, and don't be such a spoiled b*tch.

» Bettsoff, you're wrong, dammit! Posted by: mmeetoilenoir

Comments are closed-

Make food better for non-vegans
[Report this comment]
Posted by: julamo on May 23, 2006 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of everyone becoming vegan, I think the impact on the world would be greater if people spent their time making meat farms treat their animals humanely. There are a lot of people who will never become vegan or even vegetarian, but everyone still has to eat something. If the only food available was grown ecologically and humanely, then even people who didn't care what they ate still wouldn't be hurting the environment.

Becoming vegan is sort of pointless, unless you are also working to make the quality of meat and animal products better for other people while you are vegan.

(I should also mention that I was vegan for about 4 years.)

Comments are closed-

This sounds familiar
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chev on May 23, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems as though Mr. Singer has taken many of his ideas from a recent publication: "The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals" by Michael Pollan. In fact, the author contacted Singer in order to discuss some of Singer's previous works. "The Omnivore's Dilemma" is a fine look at our modern industial food chain, looking at all sides to understand what is right and what is wrong, rather than a diatribe on what we should consume.

Comments are closed-

Singer is not a fanatic!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bethybethybethy on May 23, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is someone who advocates a certain way of eating that happens to go against the easy, indulgent, corporate standard american diet considered a fanatic? Our american diet is deadly and more than harmful for us and for the planet. Our way of eating is without any regard for anyone but our own taste buds. The other day a friend of mine accused my use of organic shampoo and conditioner as "self-indulgence." She is well know for eating very expensive gourmet cheeses. I asked her about her cheese consumption-was it necessary for life? She thought very hard about it and agreed with me. Anyway, humans don't need meat, dairy or eggs to thrive. Eating those products is simply indulgent and greedy. Stop whining, as the other poster said, and realize that what you eat is more than just a choice about "taste." I've been vegetarian for 24 years, and vegan for 3 months. Its really very easy--and I feel amazing. People keep asking me how I do it--do I miss cheese? Do I miss eggs? The answer is no. By the way, Hitler was not a vegetarian--and even if he was, what difference does it make?

Comments are closed-

Shame on you
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hockeysk8 on May 23, 2006 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shame on all those in this thread that are attacking Singer (including the author.) I was starting to think that I was reading a right wing blog. 'Progressive' means that ideas that are backed by facts and well placed morality deserve respect. However, most in this thread, presumably fed by their own feelings of guilt, have decided to lash out.

» RE: Shame on you Posted by: jeddrules
» Backatcha Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

Vegans lead the way
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dorlir on May 23, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all suffer different kinds of pain. I shudder when I look at people buying tomatoes in December. In the "olden" days, people ate root vegetables and legumes in the winter. Must have worked then. We take out rain forrests to plant mango trees. We develop monster seeds which only reproduce when you pay ransom to the pharmaceuticals. People don't think about the connection we all should have with the environment. I applaud Singer's work.

» RE: Vegans lead the way Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

Singer did not get us to stop eating meat.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lamar on May 23, 2006 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though I know who Peter Singer is, I have to ask, who the hell is he? He didn't get us to stop eating meat, given that meat production has increased fivefold since the 1950's. Further, his arguments leave me with an SFW feeling. Is it OK to eat meat if I hunt my own dinner? Can I chow down on swine if I raised it myself? If animals suffer when slaughtered, why not drug them? Hey, I'm all for eating less meat, and reducing our gluttonous intake across the board. Folks like Peter Singer are extremists and, like the President, extremists make common sensical arguments that don't hold water. And no, Mr. Singer did not get us to stop eating meat. That's just how he advertises himself.

Comments are closed-

Being a herbivore isn't any more right than being a Carnivore
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on May 23, 2006 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get annoyed with the often preachy tone to messages about vegitarianism and veganism being the "Right" thing to do.

Animals have been eating each other on this planet for millions of years.

No, I don't feel any guilt about ordering a bacon cheeseburger for dinner and neither should anyone else.

I do think the factory farm method of raising animals needs to go and it is marginally helpful to buy animal products from farms that let their animals range free.

But lets face it, the amount of money we cost the food industry by shopping elsewhere is a drop in the bucket and significant change for humane treatment of animals won't occur without improved government regulations of the industry.

Comments are closed-

Enjoy life, enjoy food
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bobsays on May 23, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I eat well, travel loads, am very fit and don't waste my life stressing over these issues.

It is time people chased what tastes nice and enjoyed the ritual of the meal and friends. The other stuff will sort itself out from that. It is far too neurotic to obsess over these food fads.

Comments are closed-

How can it be...?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MonkeyBoy on May 23, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How is it better to buy produce from Southeast Asia than produced locally? Surely, it has to be trucked from the farm there to the port, then shipped 7,000 miles across the ocean. It is then unloaded, and trucked to its final destination. How is that more energy efficient than trucking 200 miles locally?

» RE: How can it be...? Posted by: Artaraxl

Comments are closed-

MAD SPROUT DISEASE?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Roverton on May 23, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've given vegetarianism a look because of all the pandemics-in-the-gate at the GLOBAL OVERPOPULATION RODEO.

We feed our animal stock to themselves and then eat the result. Dangerous stuff to play around with, eating an unwitting cannibal. As actions go, that's as mad as the cow itself. Bird flu and who knows what else... Every animal sold by large food manufacturers has NOT been thoroughly tested.

I prefer to gamble on safer bets than that.

We're in big trouble with pending food supplies.

How might the story go one day? Would vegetarianism have been one of the ways we made it though all this?

Comments are closed-

Here we go
[Report this comment]
Posted by: RudiTuzla on May 23, 2006 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you don't like being preached at by the Religious Right, it's because you feel guilty that you are not a true Christian.

If you don't like being preached at by Vegans, it's because you feel guilty that you are not a true ehtical eater.

That cloak of smug, self righteousness must feel great, because it gets in the way of your mission. If, in fact, your mission is to convince people to adopt a vegan lifestyle, which would probably be more effective if done in incremental steps rather than insisting on a total conversion exerience, Saul of Tarsus style.

This attitude of total self-righteousness that many have exhibited in these comments sounds a lot like the sentiments of Fundamentalist anythings. Adopt a dogma, believe in it without question, and denounce anyone who dares ask questions or express doubts about any aspect of your belief system.

Note that I wrote "many", and not "all," but I think that most people who aren't already convinced vegans will percieve the most fanatic comments as defining the movement, which will push them away from it. So, if your main goal is to have an air of smug, superiority about you you'll be quite pleased, but if you really want to expand the lifestyle among the Lumpen Proletariat you are not helping at all.

» RE: Here we go Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Here we go Posted by: lamar
» RE: Here we go Posted by: rbohan

Comments are closed-

Oh and Hitler was a vegetarian.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melissa999 on May 23, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for bringing that up. Hee hee.

» So were/are these guys... Posted by: pckurp

Comments are closed-

It's about the challenge
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jeddrules on May 23, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It drives me crazy when people act so put out when people invite them to criticize their own beliefs/behaviors. So what if Singer seems "holier than though"? He's right! Whether or not he (or us) can actually behave ethically and follow ideas to their sometimes uncomfortable conclusions is kind of beside the point. He at least provides a thoughtful, unflinching ethical goal. I applaud his insight and courage.

I would venture to say that those who are so offended (or exhausted) by Singer's ethical challenges are so out of plain old cognitive dissonance. Suddenly, their (our) own ignorance, conventionality, and sometimes laziness is highlighted. Some people welcome this revelation while others are too ashamed to entertain the self-criticism.

Comments are closed-

Computers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Llama11 on May 23, 2006 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well since were discussing how some choices are more moral than others, what kind of clothes are you wearing? Bet they were made in China with slave-like labor conditions. Or maybe your Nikes were made in Vietnam. How about that computer you're using right now, it certainly needed oil for its production and transport. How about that cell phone you can't seem to put down (oil)? Ever buy a Nestle crunch bar? Well the cocoa comes from the Ivory Coast, where slave and child labor is used.

Comments are closed-

Heifer International
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Xynyx on May 23, 2006 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But Singer's book did affect me. I've increased my contributions to Heifer International."

That's great. Singer's book of advice to walk away from animal-subjugating ways has caused you to increase your donations to the "charity" that helps spread animal subjugation.

Awesome.

» RE: Heifer International Posted by: gadfly
» You did not... Posted by: mmeetoilenoir

Comments are closed-

As long as people continue to slaughter other people in oil wars
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JimTheAnarchist on May 23, 2006 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's pointless to try to get them to stop slaughtering animals.

The ethical consequences of driving a car are far more serious than anything diet-related. May I assume that all of the self-righteous vegans and vegetarians here are car-free?

» oil wars Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: oil wars Posted by: mmeetoilenoir

Comments are closed-

Not Trolling, But...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 23, 2006 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans are not apart from nature-- they are part of nature. When a beaver builds a Dam it's 'natural' & when a farmer does it it's not. When a predator eats a cow it's 'natural' & when we do it's not.

Humans have been eating meat for a very long time and doubtless will continue to for a very long time. If you choose to forgo certain types of food for ethical or health reasons more power to you, just don't try to load others up with guilt.

When people advocate that others start making extreme changes to their lifestyles for 'moral' reasons how are they any different than some religious zealot that wants to legislate their theology? Nothing in life comes without some cost:everything has a price in labor, energy, whatever.

People do have a responsibility of stewardship of our resources, but also have to make individual choices. Zealotry is zealotry and hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter what the source or intent.

I remember de-fanging a religious zealot that was trying to tell me that if our faith was strong enough we would not need medicine for healing. I pointed out that he was wearing prescription glasses for whatever deficiency he had going on in his eyes. He took my point and later got out of that cult. I didn't have to preach at him, I just pointed out the contradiction.

» RE: Not Trolling, But... Posted by: Xynyx

Comments are closed-

gluttons go to hell!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dancingcloud on May 23, 2006 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right on about the gluttons, and it looks like a lot of fat christians are gunna burn. Proberbs 23:2, "...And put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony." Somewhere in Genesis I read that the three reasons to be stoned to death are drunkenness, disobeying your father, and GLUTTONY! So quit eating more than your fair share.

» RE: gluttons go to hell! Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

Singer a certifiable whacko crypto-Nazi that we should oppose
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rbohan on May 23, 2006 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wrote a couple of posts earlier this morning suggesting that, though I hadn't read Singer's works, he seemed to be a zealot whose arguments undercut his own positions (and, more importantly, those of most liberals). Someone replied to me that perhaps I should get to know his oeurve a bit better before I called him a zealot or whacko. I thought the point was a good one and was grateful for the link provided by Kneel. After reading that article, I feel comfortable in saying that Singer is a modern day Nazi a--hole. The group Not Dead Yet is right to protest his speeches and appearances. And Alternet is wrong to give this madman a forum of any sort. And (for those of you who follow the Kneel's link and read the article), Harriet's friends are right...she should not have consorted with this crackpot. As long as we make nice with addle-brained crazies like Singer, we give the impression that their nasty, hateful ideas have some credence however small.

I don't care what this lousy jerk said about factory farming and the rights of chickens...he's a stinking crypto-Nazi...and that's all.

» And furthermore.... Posted by: rbohan

Comments are closed-

lazy people
[Report this comment]
Posted by: revolutionfortheloveofit on May 23, 2006 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ive been vegan for two years, ride my bike everywhere. if its too far for my bike i have a friend with a car that runs on vegtable oil. havent bought anything made in a sweatshop in over 4 years now. this is not a hard lifestyle, i love it more than anything i was doing before. so why dont you all get off your lazy asses and live in a way that can actually be sustained on this planet.

» RE: lazy people Posted by: Llama11
» RE: lazy people Posted by: gadfly
» RE: lazy people Posted by: brunowe
» RE: lazy people Posted by: Llama11
» RE: lazy people Posted by: gadfly
» RE: lazy people Posted by: mclare
» RE: lazy people Posted by: magnolia

Comments are closed-

were we a world united, one that works together, all treated equally
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on May 23, 2006 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Christina Waters . . .

I am virtually a vegan. Approximately, once a year I indulge in Caesar salad and I do use a coddled egg in my recipe. My travel to get here was an interesting one. I became a vegetarian three years before the introduction of Peter Singer’s book and for me, at that time, my choice was not as pure as it might have been.

Over time, I evolved, as did my sense of the animals and the planet. However, as an individual I struggle with the scope of Singer’s idea. It is not that I think these are in error; it is that I consider them global.

I believe, were we a world united, one that works together, all treated equally, the consumption, disparate conditions, and capitalist structure that drains our healthy planet would not exist as it does. Bodies and minds would flourish everywhere on Earth. Some of Singer’s concerns would be nonexistent.

I too am troubled with ideas Singer presents. How we grow, prepare, and eat our food is a worrisome. I have written much on this and offer these missives to you and your readers. I hope that Pete Singer will also read my words for we do agree, globally there needs to be change. We can only achieve the best if we unite in our cause.

FAST FOOD IS NOT FAST ©
FARMING IS FALLING, EFFECTING OUR FOOD AND FAMILIES ©
CHILDHOOD OBESITY. ADULT ON-SET DIABETES. OSTEOPOROSIS. SODA ©
WEIGHT. BALANCING FAT WITH FEELINGS, HABITS WITH HEALTH ©

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull. . . Betsy L. Angert
Be-Think

Comments are closed-

Footprints
[Report this comment]
Posted by: YogiBear on May 23, 2006 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think works like Singer's are important because they help teach our whole society a little bit more about the way things are, and helps raise our awareness about these issues. It doesn't matter that he may couch his message in the language of fundamentalism, all that matters is that we listen and do our best to reduce our consumptive footprint as best we can or are ready to do so.

I drive an SUV, I live in far too big a house for my family size, and I love to grill steaks. But I haven't had any kids, so maybe it evens out a little? Regardless, I try to eat healthy for my body's needs, recycle what I can, and act and vote my csocial conciousness when I'm not feeling too libertarian.

There are so many things we could all do better on to reduce our footprints on the world; imagine if instead of 200 of us just going vegan, 2,000 went vegetarian. Or instead of 2,000 going vegetarian, 2 million didn't buy diamonds anymore?

Singer's radical message is fine with me, and his message will be heard, diluted, when all of you pass it on in bits and pieces to others around you. If we didn't have people on the extremes advising us, we'd never get to a middle ground.

I applaud vegans and vegetarians for trying to live healthier and socially just lives. I'm not ready to do that myself, and I'd hope they respect my decision. If not, c'est la vie.

Comments are closed-

you can only go so far with individual solutions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Michelle on May 23, 2006 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, I am vegan. Second of all, I do not feel it is appropriate for me try to evangelize other people into doing what I do. Third of all, I believe that anyone with any amount of privilege in this system is going to do evil stuff just by acting and surviving within this system.

Unless and until we have large-scale system change (cultural and structural, huge stuff, and I don't only mean ending capitalism) -- all of us as individuals are implicated in the horrors of this system.

For example, if you are reading alternet on a computer -- Google coltan and the Congo.

I do feel like it is worth it to be very conscientous about our choices. But the quest for individual transcendence from the horror through individual consumer choices is kind of insane, in my opinion. If people can make these choices knowing that the choices do not get them out of complicity with the horror, all to the good.

But the illusion that there are individual-based solutions that somehow will create system change through individual "consumer" and "lifestyle" decisions is very often based on economic privilege, and very often blind to the realities of how deep and many-tentacled this system is.

Yes, this is uncomfortable. It is uncomfortable, even horribly painful, to know that living in this society with any amount of privilege means we are living off of the pain and suffering of other people and other beings. Instead of trying to buy our way into a false purity and numb illusion -- maybe we could learn to feel that pain rather than try to escape it and see where it leads us in terms of how we use our lives to fight for change beyond our individual lifestyles. And even with that fight, I know I am still living off of the horrors inflicted on others and that will not end unless the system changes drastically or I die.

» The limits of utilitarianism Posted by: Sojourner
» correction to above ^^ Posted by: Michelle

Comments are closed-

He's got some interesting facts
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Dan Metcalf on May 23, 2006 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I would definitely have to lump myself in with some of the more unhealty omnivores the man does have some good points. We should all be cutting back on our meat intake. In North America we eat far too much meat for it to be a sustainable practice for the whole world. Not to mention that it's one of the things that is making our society obese.

It's important to look at what we assume to be fact and see if it really is. This is how we as a society can learn to correct our own mistakes. I never really thought about produce shipped from far away having a lower environmental impact than produce from my state of California, but I can see where the volume of cargo and the fuel expenditures for that trip could be much less than for tomatoes grown in the central valley pound per pound. (Too often trucks are moving around nearly empty, while cargo containers empty share a ride with others on a large ship is a very small impact I would think.)

Pete Singer thanks for making me think a little...

Comments are closed-

Being vegan does not imply fanaticism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LRayn on May 23, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been vegetarian for 20 years, vegan for about 18.

The anti-vegan comments here are pretty typical. I (and most vegans I know) are NOT self-righteous, guilt-inducing people. Most of us go about our lives rather quietly.

When omnivores notice that I am not eating any animal products, they often apologize and express a feeling of guilt -- without any help from me at all! This is YOUR problem, not mine.

On the other hand, like the "smug self-righteous" omnivores commenting here, I have experienced harassment from omnivores -- jokes, put-downs, etc., again, all because the omnivores want to "put me in my place." Who's the extremist here? I would argue that the fanatics are those omnivores who think that I should eat like THEM and who feel the need to tell me that I am somehow like Hitler for making a personal choice not to support animal agriculture, especially factory farms!

Why can't these types of discussions be more civil? Singer is making logical, ethical arguments for his point of view in a calm, rational manner. He does not call people names or refer to factory farm owners as being "like Hitler." Why are the people who disagree with him often unable to extend the same courtesy?

And furthermore, being a vegan is not like being a Benedictine monk. I enjoy gardening, I enjoy cooking, and I enjoy eating. Maybe some of the commentators here cannot imagine how a vegan diet could be a delicious experience, but please don't project your feelings onto actual vegans.

There are a lot of problems in the world that need to be solved. All we can do is the best we can. Some solutions are easier for each of us than others. I myself don't have children and don't drive a car (I bike and walk instead). However, my house is not solar, for example. Other people may, for example, live in an off-the-grid solar cob home and grow all their own food, but still drive a car to get to work and take their kids to daycare. I don't think that one of us should be judged "better" than the other.

Slamming other progressives for not being more like ourselves is stupid. If you have a need to vent about the world's problems, consider commenting on a right-wing Web site instead.

Comments are closed-

Sorry, Singer.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettsoff on May 23, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't follow prophets.

Comments are closed-

How I learned to stop worrying and love meat.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettsoff on May 23, 2006 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do I feel guilty when I throw a hunk of flesh on the grill? I used to. I didn't feel guilty over liking the taste. I didn't feel guilty over farming conditions (I buy sustainable, organic, yaddayadda), I didn't feel guilty because vegans tried to shame me (as some do).

I felt guilty b/c something died so I could eat it.

Most humans aren't sociopathic or sadistic. Most humans are upset by the thought or experience of watching something die. Most humans don't like to think about dying themselves. Most humans have a belief system that helps them to anticipate something nice happening to them after they die.

We all die. We all get eaten, whether by something bigger or by the smallest of microbes. Humans are the only species to moralize that somehow the food chain as it has always worked is flawed.

I've hunted and killed big game. It's sad. So will my own death be. I am one person, and the chain will continue to cycle with or without me. I can choose to abstain or take part in the time that I am alive. I have found that I function best on an omnivorous diet and thus do my best to make everything I consume sustainable.

I'm not going to stop feeling sad about death. The Native Americans had the right idea about how to relate to the animals they killed, and being doomed to eventual death myself, I cannot imagine 'growing out of' that guilt. A mentally ill person would not feel guilt. Perhaps what vegans do is try to minimize it. I accept it. I am tied in. I live. For now.

Comments are closed-

I will outlive all of you!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zappa33 on May 23, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I eat meat, greasy food, pork, fast food sometimes, drink soda, sugar products and have generally the worst diet on the planet. I am overweight by 60lbs. even being 6'4 . I smoke cigarettes, drink beer, smoke weed, do hard drugs on occasion, don't work out often and am generally lazy when I am not working.
I bet you I outlive most vegans and elitist eaters. If your body is strong enough and gets used to the shit you put in it it will survive. I should have been dead from a heart attack 50 times over already or some other form of ailment. Just remenber this; life is too short to care about all this bullshit, if you live vegan, thats great for you! If you don't than that is fine too. Stop trying to convert everyone to your agenda, you sound like organized religion for god's sake. have fun eat a fucking burger!!

» RE: I will outlive all of you!! Posted by: dhardisty
» RE: IS THAT YOU RUSH???? Posted by: greentime
» RE: IS THAT YOU RUSH???? Posted by: zappa33

Comments are closed-

Above All, this one!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tim/Marg on May 23, 2006 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, what a response! This is an example of how everyone has a personal responsibility to educate themselves in order to be stewards of their bodies, environment and others. You choose your own priorities, maybe this topic is not a hot one for you, so be it... Consider though, how something so basic can, and will affect you and your family, for better or worse. WHAT CAN YOU DO NOW TO BE PROACTIVE IN YOUR LIFE?
If not today, when?
Wake up and start today! Tip: Believe in something!!!

Comments are closed-

god this is boring!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mclare on May 23, 2006 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i find people like Singer useless. living in that type of highly controlled existence elimates one thing: LIFE. my suggestion to him is seek therapy, figure out why he has control issues and then onward and upward! it's disgusting that high payed "intellects" such as himself pontificate on the "morals" of eating. so the millions of people that are poverty stricken and starving should apply his logic to eating as well? food is life. we need to spend more time enjoying it instead of dissecting it. to me all this vegan, organic b.s. is very simply an eating disorder disguised as an honorable act. our ancestors are rolling in their graves. i am a bonafide meat eater. i listen to my body and give it what it needs. if i didn't have red meat in my diet, i would suffer from anemia or other protein deficient problems. i'm am type o negative. the ancient blood. the virtual "garbage disposal", or carnivore if you will. and if faced with ultimate survival, Singer himself would indulge!

» again with the blood type! Posted by: aaronfetty

Comments are closed-

hidden price?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jrothman05 on May 23, 2006 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think a vegan diet is too high in time and anxiety. It takes some time in the beginning to try faux meats, soy milk, vegan cheeses, etc to find your favorites. You don't have to agonize over everything and worry about gelatin & every minscule ingredient. Being vegan is not an end in itself but merely a way to reduce animal suffering. My life is basically the same as it was before I went vegan and now I have LESS anxiety about dying of mad cow, bird flu, cancer, or other conditions linked to meat consumption.

I'm saddened that the only thing you got out of Peter Singer's book was that you should contribute to animal suffering even more by donating to Heifer International. I'd like to sink down to your level and say I will donate some money to Vegan Outreach specifically in honor of your column, but I won't.

Comments are closed-

No Such Thing as a Meat-Eating Environmentalist
[Report this comment]
Posted by: WMUboy on May 23, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Christina Waters' article, "It's Not Enough to Be a Vegetarian," she attacks Peter Singer's book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. In the book, Singer promotes a completely plant-based diet with no meat or dairy from animals. Dairy cows spend their lives confined indoors. Even though they have a strong maternal bond, their babies are taken from them shortly after birth. They do not get to see the outdoors. Put simply, dairy cows do not get to live a life a cow should. “Free-range” products are all-too-often just a misleading marketing ploy.

The meat and dairy industries cause much pollution and consume too many resources. In fact, the meat industry causes more water pollution in the U.S. than any other industry. Farm animals excrete 130 times more waste than the entire human population. 2,500 gallons of water is needed to produce one pound of meat. It takes only 25 gallons for wheat.

For a healthy planet and a healthier you, eat less animal products and more produce, preferably locally grown, organic. http://vegan.walklightly.org has more information on how to get started.

Comments are closed-

Perhaps a bit harsh for society as a whole
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sean000 on May 23, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Singer may be preaching to the converted, or almost converted; but I'm afraid mainstream America will not take such a bitter pill. The less extreme notions like eating less meat, or eating more organic/free range/eco-friendly are catching on. Vegetarianism, and even veganism, are accepted practices now. Fifteen years ago a vegetarian had virtually no options in most American restaurants. Times have definitely changed for the better in some of these areas. They may not be changing quickly enough...as factory farming still rules the land. A revolution based on preachy idealists will fall flat in this country. The trick is making the vegan lifestyle fashionable... and I see this already happening to some extent. People would rather be entertained than preached to. I bet the film "Supersize Me" got more people to stop eating fast food than Singer's book ever will.

Good choices also have to be convenient for most people. I live in a city where vegan food is plentiful, cheap, and tasty. I'm not vegan... I'm not even vegetarian since I eat meat on occasion; but my favorite restaurant in the entire city is a vegan Indian place that serves delectable dosai and amazing curries. If I tried to become a vegan in a small town, the story would be very different. Those are the folks who need help. The problem in America is that bad choices are often the most convenient.

Comments are closed-

Pie-in-the-sky CRAP!!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on May 23, 2006 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Crap like this is why I am a libertarian.
Pie-in-the-sky BS from well-heeled extremist idiots who have CHOICES about what, where and when they can eat makes me sick. I deeply resent this kind of patronizing "we-know-what's-best-for-you" attitude.

I am on a fixed food income of $100 a month for two people.
I HAVE NO CHOICES when it comes to food (and don't try and tell me otherwise unless your budget is even lower than mine). Under the circumstances I am grateful for whatever I can find--right now pork is an especially good bargain, but even that is nearly out of reach. Most of my budget goes for cereal-type foodstuffs as well as a few jugs of orange juice to try and stay healthy.

I begin to believe that the problems in this society aren't so much left/right as they are rich/poor; wealthy snobs who are too arrogant and too insulated from workaday reality to recognize the real problems faced by most people. Their solutions (whether from the left or the right) are totally impractical for the vast majority of people.

Get a freakin' life!

» RE: Pie-in-the-sky CRAP!!!! Posted by: cry0fan
» RE: Pie-in-the-sky CRAP!!!! Posted by: zappa33
» RE: Pie-in-the-sky CRAP!!!! Posted by: ezilla
» RE: Pie-in-the-sky CRAP!!!! Posted by: Ivan_K

Comments are closed-

focus on yourself
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harinama on May 23, 2006 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been vegetarian for 20+ years. I recycle, i eat local/organic when i can afford it. I each cheese/drink milk w/o hormones. My family only uses 1 car, abiet sparingly, and i use a nonpowered push mower. I compost every uncooked food scrap for my garden. I take no medications, watch sparing amounts of TV, and buy most of my clothing used. I do not have any children (and will only have 1 if i do).

With that in mind, i do spend a lot of money on my internet, computer, musical equipment, sporting goods, etc. Each of these could be looked at as consumerist, escapism and bad for the planet in their own way.

We all need to make choices in our lives that fit with who we are and where we are at in life. No one can force their values down anothers throat (which seems to be the norm these days). All we can do is hope the knowledge of the negative consequences of our country's wasteful and self serving lifestyle will trickle down into the everyday practices of ordinary people. Most will make changes if it does not disrupt our lives too much, look at recycling levels vs 10yrs ago!

Live a good life by example. It's all we can really do. Don't try to shame others, we all have skeletons in our closets.

Comments are closed-

Peace starts on your plate
[Report this comment]
Posted by: joy7 on May 23, 2006 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Up until August 2002, I was a very ignorant and blissful omnivore. I had no idea what happened to animals on factory farms. Since I was an animal lover, after all, I started reading about agribusiness's treatment of animals, including but not limited to mutilations, forced impregnations and starvation, battery cages, castrations without painkillers, and being pumped full of antibiotics and hormones. I did something that I thought I would never do — I went vegan. Truly, it was one of the BEST decisions I've ever made. What's so radical about eating and using only plants?

Ethics and compassion for animals brought me to this lifestyle and remain my #1 reason, but there are hundreds of reasons why I am also devoted and will never go back to my old ways. Modern agriculture is killing our planet and wasting resources — the air, our water, the soil, grain, the Amazon rainforest and foil fuels. It is morally repugnant that over 80% of our grain goes to feed and fatten farm animals, just so in the end those animals are slaughtered to feed our society's Standard American Diet (SAD), when millions of people could be fed from that grain.

Also 2/3 of our antibiotics in this country go to animals. The conditions that factory farm animals endure are so toxic that if they were not heavily innoculated they would die before the slaughterhouse, and the industry could not tolerate this.

I also am committed to this lifestyle for my health.

Why are the classifications of animals so arbitrary? Why do we not eat our cats and dogs, but those in Korea eat the same cats and dogs we live with as companion animals? Why do Indians revere the cow, but we eat their flesh and wear their skin? It is also known that pigs are as smart if not smarter than dogs, yet we eat pigs and live with dogs.

There was once a time when horses were considered “livestock” in this country, but no more. Americans do not eat horses, but Japanese do. That is why 88,000 American horses are shipped every year to Japan to be slaughtered. Americans no longer mentally put horses in the livestock category, but Japanese do.

The point is, it''s all arbitrary and based on profit and greed.

I believe everyone is innately compassionate. To those who are interested in embracing a more compassionate, plant-based life, I recommend you make small changes that will take root and keep changing. Some people transition by going toward organic food. Some cut out meat, then dairy. Some dairy, then meat. (Once you kick the cheese addiction, your body will thank you.)

Also consider that even animals that are raised “humanely“ (which is a great first step) still suffer horrible deaths...and in the end, the saturated fat and cholesterol from their flesh and secretions kill us with heart disease, and cancers of the breast, colon and prostate.

Don't transform your lifestyle in isolation. Join a local EarthSave group. Read all you can. John Robbins “The Food Revolution“ is a great starter book. Grow your compassion. Have courage. Don't let fear or ridicule stop you from making a huge difference for ALL life on this planet.

Peace to all.

______________

Howard Lyman (from the book Mad Cowboy)
http://www.madcowboy.com
"The question we must ask ourselves as a culture is whether we want to embrace the change that must come, or resist it. Are we so attached to the dietary fallacies with which we were raised, so afraid to counter the arbitrary laws of eating taught to us in childhood by our misinformed parents, that we cannot alter the course they set us on, even if it leads to our own ruin? Does the prospect of standing apart or encounttering ridicule scare us even from saving ourselves That prospect intimidated me once, and I can only wonder now what I was frightened of."

Comments are closed-

Peter Singer's Morality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Nellymae on May 23, 2006 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peter Singer is, of course, urging us to the moral high ground. After all he is a philosopher and a follower of that erstwhile utilitarian Jeremy Bentham. Bentham, for those who might not know, was so pragmatic, and perhaps egotistical, that he endowed University College in London as long as his preserved body was on display. The college honors his wish to this day, though Bentham's money long ago ran out and his body, not particularly appealling to viewers, is now trotted out on special occasions. But Bentham , like Singer, championed the rights of women, children, animals and the like, influencing John Stuart Mill, among others. Following the utilitarian path is a very stringent discipline, but then to accomplish the pinnacle of anything requires great disicipline, from the Jains, who wear masks to keep from inhaling bugs, to the opposite - a drunk who doggedly keeps drinking to maintain complete oblivion is just as dedicated to his mindset. Without the Singers who lead the way down a strict path, humanity would have no moral compass, but whether we choose to follow, at least they offer direction.

» RE: Peter Singer's Morality Posted by: gadfly

Comments are closed-

Oh, come on!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BlueTigress on May 23, 2006 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, scallops, mussels, etc are OK? Maybe if you go out and collect them by hand! Otherwise, diesel-powered boats go out and rip them off the ocean floor. Unless they're farmed, other ocean creatures that would otherwise eat them will go without.

This guy is an idiot. But I agree that rice grown in California is an ecological nightmare. It's just not a natural environment for rice.

» Natural environment? Posted by: chief of okeefe

Comments are closed-

I want to see cruelty level on an FDA label
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gwarek on May 23, 2006 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the real problem here is that people don't have an easy way to make informed decisions about the food they're buying. Right now the easiest thing to do is draw the line at all animals, or everything without a central nervous system, or only fruit that naturally falls from trees. It's impossible to judge the level of cruelty that went into producing the food you buy at Whole Foods or wherever, even with free-range label, "organically grown", and everything else. Calculate into that the energy actually used to generate the food, and the social impact farming has, and there just isn't enough time in the day...

Is is possible to imagine a governmental rating system that appraised food for cruelty level? (It could be as easy as a 1-2-3 system, or color coded, America loves that) I'm sure it would be easier and less controversial to indicate the energy used to produce this food. It doesn't have to be precise and take into account everything, just enough for people to make generally more informed decisions about what they buy. Wouldn't that have a much greater impact than a few thousand people becoming vegans?

Comments are closed-

Vegetarianism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: baruch on May 23, 2006 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to agree - I can only do so much. I only have a limited amount of time and resources to check into how my food is prepared. I do what I can, but to try to be as thorough as Mr. Singer is impossible for me.

I believe it would be a mistake to accept Mr. Singer's statements as true, simply because he's made them. He may be completely correct in everything, but there is no way to know this just from reading what he says. He may have made mistakes, exaggerated, or otherwise made untrue statements. I am not about to base my entire diet on something that one person says, even if I think this is an honest and sincere person.

There is much debate as to whether a vegan diet will suffice for humans. There is some concern for vitamin B-12, for instance. Miso supposedly has plenty, but now I find that recent research claims the B-12 is produced by bacteria in the gut, and by the time you get there, you can't absorb the B-12. I don't know if it's true. Still, I don't think it's a good idea to be my life on a vegan diet.

I am unaware of any traditional ethnic group that lives on a strictly vegan diet. Many Indians are vegetarians, but they still ingest cheese and milk. It seems to me that every vegetarian culture uses some animal products.

Given these doubts, I'll stick to my own modified vegerarian diet that includes cheese, yogurt, and the occasional (uncaged) egg.

» RE: Vegetarianism Posted by: pckurp

Comments are closed-

How I spell relief
[Report this comment]
Posted by: popsicle67 on May 23, 2006 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IGNORANCE! Do you people really have such boring lives that you have to worry about the ethical cost of your food.
I got an idea, find a girlfriend or boyfriend or watch an old movie. You don't have enough mental stimulation in your life.
You're going to die, we all are, why do you have to waste your precious time worrying about a foods feelings when it passes from life to food. I also question your assertation that
only lifeforms with a nervous system that we recognise are to be saved. You also forget that all of your examples carry the risk of deadly allergic reactions. All in all I think that vegans
should practice stoicism and quit picking on those of us who
eat like our ancestors.

» RE: How I spell relief Posted by: joy7
» RE: How I spell relief Posted by: AmyB
» RE: How I spell relief Posted by: AmyB
» RE: How I spell relief Posted by: ezilla

Comments are closed-

Vegetarianism is Simply a Dietary Preference
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kwfryatl on May 23, 2006 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . it is not, in any way, a "superior" lifestyle, philosophically or otherwise, as so many people would have us believe.

1) Any formally educated nutritionist (with a BS or even MS) with integrity will tell you - as did mine - that there are amino acids, found only in animal protein, that are necessary for the healthy production and maintenance of human muscle tissue, which is especially important for those who are physically active via focused fitness endeavors (i.e., weight training) or by necessity of their job (any vegan heavy construction workers out there? I could be wrong, but probably not).

2) I remember reading an article just a couple of years ago by a sociologist who pointed out that if human beings had NOT participated in the "hunting" part of being "hunter/gatherers", then human beings as they are today would not have evolved and survived.

And if vegetarianism IS supposed to be such a "superior" lifestyle/consciousness, then I'm really surprised by the many rude and combative comments made by so many vegans here.

» Very well said Posted by: Kneel
» plants have all amino acids!! Posted by: aaronfetty

Comments are closed-

blah blah blah
[Report this comment]
Posted by: goldenlink on May 23, 2006 3:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the reason why veganism won't fly.. .. is because its not natural..its political..its epigenetic..its learned behavior... and it has very little to do with true good health.

duh... the choices we make affect the larger whole...
if we could and would farm our own land, kill our own cattle,
livestock etc.. it would probably be near ideal
but we dont live in that world.. and it would take a near breakdown in our capitalist / corporatist structure. (not that i think that would be such a bad thing)

but in the meantime
try aguing something that makes sense to our senses..something that apeals to our monkey genetics

like cooked and spiced food vs. raw food (paleolithic diet)
perceived good health vs. true good health

humane vs. inhumane ... sure of course....but not by eliminating a food source that is vital to true good health

the problem with this dudes arguement is that he saying lets throw out the baby with the bathwater.

its a tired and mostly untruthful and a completely unradical approach to health, life, and the future.

» Simply counterfactual. Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

LastTwoTurtles
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Newt on May 23, 2006 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This debate has gone on long enough! Yes, we're going to die, we're waaayyy overpopulated, and we're all part of the food chain, and yes, at a point in our evolution, animal protein and hunting-gathering skills were pivotal in our development. But by now, we've got a ecosystem on the verge of collapse and a whole lot of unsustainable systems in place, buffeted by cheap corn–factory farms wouldn't exist if it wasn't for farming subsidies on corn. It's time to embrace a new set of standards:

Only grass-fed meat, preferably raising buffalo, not cattle; and goats, not dairy cows. Milk should be raw for maximum health, added hormones and antibiotics should be illegal. Pasteuriation and homogenization kill nutrition and increase allergies and lactose intolerance.

Integrate chickens and ducks in a permaculture system, work with what nature gives you so there's nothing wasted. Compost.

It's good to be a conscious eater, I was a long time veg*n who now eats fish on special occasions, and organic eggs in moderation. I am an amateur chef, so I try to cook local, seasonal, and ethically–check out The Natural Gourmet School in NYC.

Mike Pollan's new book, "The Omnivore's Dilemena," is better than Singer's book; as well as the "The Ethical Gourmet," by Jay Weinstein, which is an excellent source book, recipe book, as well as excellent guide to labels, additives, and certification.

Derrick Jensen makes a good point: If we consume the flesh of another, we in turn are responsible for the continuation of that creature's habitat. I am all in favor of the food chain, but we are destroying the planet and our choices do matter: If you want to eat wild salmon, do your part and work to preserve them.

90% of large fish in the oceans are going extinct.

» Malthus is still wrong. Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

Sorry, but not everyone can be a vegetarian!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: favorites on May 23, 2006 3:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For most of the 1980s I owned a small mom-and-pop natural food store. I did this because it was my life. I was and am TOTALLY committed to nutrition and proper eating.

During that time, I was lacto-ovo vegetarian twice, each time for number of years. DIET FOR A SMALL PLANET was my bible and although I followed it rigorously, I became ill from lack of protein both times.

The third and last time I was a vegetarian - again for a few years - I was a vegan. Much more difficult than being lacto-ovo. But I was rigorous and once more became ill from protein deficiency.

Finally, a pretty good nutritionist told me that if I didn't start eating animal protein I would die.

I would LOVE to be a vegetarian. That is where my heart is. But my body does not allow this, so there is no choice. I eat only organic animal protein, usually a small portion, once a day. I don't particularly care for it but since there is no choice, I do my best not to think about it any more.

Vegetarianism is NOT for everyone. It doesn't matter what you think will be healthy for you. It DOES matter what your BODY requires. Some bodies require animal protein; some don't.

In the long run, if you are conscious and concerned about food, I think each of us must find what is best for our particular body.

In this case, one size definitely does NOT fit all.

Comments are closed-

I hate to tell you
[Report this comment]
Posted by: susannunes on May 23, 2006 4:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but very few people are vegetarians, but for a few crackpots and animal rights nuts. Moreover, few people follow an individual as evil as Peter Singer, not when you know what he is REALLY about.

He doesn't give a rip about animals, about the environment, or much of anything else except to advocate killing people who he thinks are a "burden" to other people's "happiness."

Why does ANYBODY swallow this bioethic garbage? It is NOT "progressive."

» RE: I hate to tell you Posted by: bettsoff

Comments are closed-

vegetarianis may not be as ethical or ecological as you think.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zombi on May 23, 2006 5:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
first, let's aknowledge the fact that widespread human oppression, warfare & pollution began w/ agriculture (think babylon). that the only way for priest-kings (from gilgamesh all the way to bush) to get hordes of people to give up their lives & murder their fellow man wholesale, was to first make them farmers & second, when their population expanded & they could no longer feed themselves, convince them that they had not only the responsibility but the divine right to conquer & enlsave their neighbors for more land on which to grow food. though i support a persons choice of diet & even praise those who have the moral fortitude to stay on their chosen path, i feel that you should check your moral superiority at the door of the truth. yes, agri-corps are the worse kind of evil. yes, many farms use terrible methods for making animals (& plants) more productive, productive year round, immune to pests & disease, etc. but their is more to the facts than "meat is murder". for example, in order to sustain a planetary vegan diet, think of how many old wood forests would need razing in order to provide crop land. think of all the animals killed & habitats destroyed each time crop lands are prepared. even when growing organic food, waste is produced & seeps into ground & local above ground water supplies. to get complete nutrition from a vegan diet, one would have to supplant domestic crops w/ either imported crops (grown by people who are practically slaves), grow them locally (completely altering an ecosystem that evolved into it's current, adapted state over eons), or god forbid, use GM crops. never mind the fact that the human stomach produces enzymes usefull only to break down animal protiens, we have the teeth of omnivores & even our mastication has adapted to devour animal & plant matter. above all, this is true: diversity spells sustainability & survivability. before widespread oppression, before massive ecological destruction, before there were world wars, before industrialization & globalization, before religion was used to justify the murderous masses, we were Hunters & Gatherers. it wasn't perfect, but it worked.

Comments are closed-

relevant?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wishywishy on May 23, 2006 6:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would just like to say concerning the image alternet chose to catch people's attention and read this article... the woman is too attractive and it is very distracting. Why does an indy media site need the appeal of sex to attract readers, anyway? I mean, but look at her! She's gorgeous! I came to this website in search for knowledge on current issues since mainstream media is so bad at supplying it (duh). It seems a little hypocritical for a great website like this whose main focus is sincerity would rely on such a subversive tactic. I'm sorry if this seems insignificant, but I could have read more of the article during my 10-minute break at work if I wasn't busy staring at Ms. vegetarian-soon-to-go-vegan.

Comments are closed-

Fuel Consumtion and Pollution Transporting Foodstuff
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jjjhein on May 23, 2006 6:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article states that somehow it is more ecologigal to buy rice cultivated in Asia than that from the Sacramento Valley since less fuel is consumed "trucking" the product. Huh...??!

This makes no sense. I assume that the product grown in Vietnam or wherever must be "trucked" to a port, then transported by ship which uses some kind of fuel (unless they are using an old masted schooner) across the Pacific Ocean, THEN, it gets on a train or truck at the port of Oakland or LOngBeach or Seattle and, guess what ?...gets "trucked" to its destination.

Am I mising something or what? How does this circuitous trip for the rice have a more positive ecologial impact. Help me?

Comments are closed-

Yes, the are vegan athletes, and they win gold medals.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kneel on May 23, 2006 6:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for the vegans being snide and superior and so on.... what are vegans allowed to say that's not considered such?

Even the mildest statements are attacked as some sort of fanatical extermism and smug superiority. I've even seen the words, "I like being vegan and find it more healthy," seen as some kind of attack.

The reaction of many people to even the simplest statements is what suggests, to me, that they're not so comfortable with eating meat, and feel need to bludgeon anyone who reminds them of it. (A bit like the closet cases who hate gays.)

We try to be delicate and tacful in confronting the ignorance, but it's hard when people it's so incredible and people cling to it so ferociously.

It's not a matter of opinion whether a vegan diet is perfectly healthy, less prone to osteoporosis, etc. - there are studies to show this.

On the other hand, it's very hard to construct a study to find meat healthy or even necessary at all (there was one, sponsored by the National Cattlemens' Association, that used starving African children and suplimented their diets with meat, then claimed that it proved meat was necessary).

The ignorance is incredible, about everything: from the environmental to the health issues. It's especially surprising the case of nutrition, where even a little research would refute much of the propaganda (or even hysteria). And presenting facts that refute that ignorance shouldn't be seen as some kind of moral superiority or fanaticism. Sorry if the facts offend some people.

For example, yes, there are "heavy construction workers" who are vegan. There are also athletes. I have a friend who's champion rugby player and vegan (and did fine on a strictly raw when we played Ultimate together). I know a boxer who went vegan to take his game to the next level. And six-time Iron Man triathalon winner Dave Scott is vegetarian.

Below are the words of one of those weak and listless vegans. The second paragraph is especially worth a look for those who have tried going veg and felt they had to return to meat because they "couldn't get enough protein" (which almost impossible without starving - another fact):

Can a world-class athlete get enough protein from a vegetarian diet to compete? I’ve found that a person does not need protein from meat to be a successful athlete. In fact, my best year of track competition was the first year I ate a vegan diet. Moreover, by continuing to eat a vegan diet, my weight is under control, I like the way I look. (I know that sounds vain, but all of us want to like the way we look.) I enjoy eating more, and I feel great.

In the spring of 1991 – eight months after beginning to eat vegan – I was feeling listless and thought I might need to add protein from meat to my diet. Dr. McDougall, however, explained that my listlessness was due to my needing more calories because I was training so many hours each day, not because I needed more animal-based protein. When I increased my calorie intake, I regained my energy. I was drinking 24 to 32 ounces of juice a day. I ate no dairy products. And I had my best year as an athlete ever!

You have total control over what you put in your body. No one can force you to eat what you don’t want to eat. I know that many people think that eating a vegetarian diet - and especially a vegan diet – will require sacrifice and denial. Jannequin Bennett demonstrates in this book that eating vegan does not have to be tasteless and boring. As she says, “vegan eating is a truly indulgent way of life, as vegans regularly partake of the very best foods that nature has to offer.”


The writer?

An enfeebled vegetarian named Carl Lewis, winner of ten Olympic medals (9 of them gold).

» Excellent points Posted by: Kneel
» Ding Dong Posted by: pckurp
» Ha ha... Posted by: ksfc
» And...And...And... :-) Posted by: pckurp
» Oh, you're right! (m) Posted by: ksfc

Comments are closed-

Roll your own...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kneel on May 23, 2006 6:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, to anyone worried about money, wanting to use less resources, or just wanting better food (and a zillion other reasons), I suggest growing your own.

You can grow an incredible amount of food on just a little land.

For example, one acre can yield 40 thousand pounds of potatoes - rich in everything from vitamin C to protein. They're ridiculously easy to grow and you practically live on them (many have). Even just a few square feet of potatoes can feed a family. (And the potatoes, organic and rock-hard fresh out the ground, are delicious).

Of course, you can toss in some other crops for your own personal cornucopia (and you can take the word "toss" literally - my compost heap started growing potatoes and watermelons all by itself). No transport, little refrigeration, a healthy and fun family hobby, great way to make friends, ready gifts that'll be free and as if not more appreciated than any junk bought from Wal-Mart, etc.

Or you can have a money and resource draining lawn.

Comments are closed-

Don't think the vegans are going to take over..
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chief of okeefe on May 23, 2006 7:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because the omnivores and carnivores are making babies much faster, and they are eating alot of animals.
So your article is cute, but like all vegan stuff, pretty much irrelevant.

» Well, Mr. Lamark... Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

High-Protein Plant Foods = Too little protein, too much gas
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cameron2610 on May 23, 2006 9:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am 6'5, and I have long legs, long thin bones, and a fast metabolism. I was on a vegetarian diet for years and I looked pathetic and ugly because I was so thin and gaunt and all the dairy was giving me acne. Plus, all the nuts, seeds, beans, etc. that I was eating for protein made me horribly bloated all the time with gas because they all have shit loads of soluble fiber. I finally decided to eliminate dairy, cut down on all those problematic plant proteins, and eat meat. Now, I eat about 8lbs of (non-factory farmed) chicken per week and lots of fish, and I still look thin at 205lbs, but it's respectable. With meat, I've gained about 40lbs. The point is that a vegan or even a non-vegan vegetarian diet is not feasible for everyone. I need at least 200 grams of protein/day just to look somewhat normal so for me, meat is necessary. If you have the luxury of eating less protein or if by some miracle, the soluble fiber doesn't turn you into a blimp, that's great, but we're all different.

Also, animals killing other animals for food is standard procedure on earth, and it's not always done humanely. Would you rather be a farm cow killed by a spike in the head or a colobus monkey flailed to death by a chimp? Is it better for a farm animal to have lived and been killed for food than to never have lived at all? That's a value judgement.

Comments are closed-

Newsweek: "It's just not as hard to be a vegan these days"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: epski on May 23, 2006 9:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, there you go.

When you get Newsweek in on the action, then you know it's gone mainstream. Just a matter of time.

What're all you vegan haters on about? It's easy, and it's only expensive if you have bourgeois tastes like me (I'll take my vegan tiramisu with a vegan mocha at M Cafe).

When I'm feeling more down with the peeps, I can make myself a lentil loaf at home and dip my steamed veggies in tahini dressing. That's a meal that costs less than going to Taco Bell, my friends.

» Selfish ba$!ard! Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

Who is the girl eating the apple?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jonwilson on May 23, 2006 11:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who is the girl eating the apple?

I bet I can get her to eat meat.

Comments are closed-

On this one, it's our call.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kneel on May 24, 2006 1:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was noticing how connected and involved I feel in this discussion, to the extent of leaving it open in a tab, checking back, adding comments all over the place. (Call it a little obsessed, if you like.)

And I realize that it's because in this case, with the environmental arguments overwhelming and unassailable, from the massive resource consumption (everything from land to water - both consumed and polluted - to fossil fuels), to global warming (thanks to all the methane, punching well above it's weight by trapping 30 times as much heat as the same amount of CO2, and responsible for almost all observed global warming), not to mention the ecological issues (from antibiotic-resistant bacteria to bird flu)... for once, it's something we can do something about. It's not just a place for us to complain or say that the government should regulate more or industry should behave more responsibly; it's something we can easily undertake, that we don't even need any organization or any investment of time or money to do so.

We don't need to reorganize our communities. We don't need to restrict our lifestyles. We can actually enjoy healthier bodies.

So much of our consumption we can't, or feel we can't do much about. We may feel we have little choice in such things as how much we drive, or the junk we buy that's says Made in China, or taking a flight to visit grandma or getting a laptop (which takes a lot resources to manufacture, and produces a lot of toxic waste).

But this one, this one is really simple.

Each of us, as individuals can, very simply, just quit eating meat (with no "hidden price... too high in time and anxiety" - a lunatic statement).

That simple. Just don't toss the t-bone in the cart next shopping trip.

A little change in the menu. But making it seems too much. So many resist even learning the basic facts. Argue as fact things they just believe for whatever reason, with a stubborn, sometimes nasty, unwillingness to re-examine these beliefs.

This time, it's not BushCo and it's not ExxonMobil and it's not Dow Chemical. It's you. And me. We get to make the choice on this one. We get to take responsibility. We get to play grown up.

And if people who are progressive and reasonably enlightened - as most readers of this website are - are unwilling to make such a small sacrifice (which really isn't much of one at all, as you'll see if you jump in - in fact, I far prefer it, to the extent that if most of the arguments were reversed I'd probably find it hard not to be selfish and stop eating the way I do now), what hope is there, really?

How can I to insist industries change their practices at significant expense, how can I expect politicians to make tough, unpopular decisions, and how can I ask so many people to make real economic sacrifices, if I'm not even willing to make this simple change to my lunch menu? How can we? How can you?

» It's simple Posted by: brunowe
» Eating from the pump, I Posted by: Kneel
» Eating from the pump, II Posted by: Kneel

Comments are closed-

It's good to be conscious of our food choices.... but...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SufiLizard on May 24, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a) human beings are omnivores. We are designed by God, Buddha, Allah, mother nature, our alien progenitors or what have you to eat both plant life and meat.

b) plants can experience pain too

c) Industrial, mega-farms, even if they're organic have a HUGE environmental footprint.

To me, it seems the ideal would be for small, local family farms to raise a vast diversity of species (both animal and plant) in an organic, sustainable way. Grass fed livestock are healthier in and of themselves and produce healthier meat for humans to consume. Eating natural grasses eliminites the need for corn and other grains that use so much energy. These livestock then produce their own healthy fertilizer that smaller animals like chickens or other fowl will pick through for undigested seeds, thus spreading the fertilizer around and eliminating the need for gas-guzzling tractors to spread fertilizers (organic or otherwise). Intelligent rotation of crops and pastures keeps the soil healthy and full of nutrients while a diversity of species helps reduce the impact of insect and disease on the food crops. Add in plenty of fruit trees and nuts and you have a moral, sustainable and productive supply of healthy food. This also adds to the psychological health of the small farmers and to the economic health of communities.

Of course to eat meat, you ultimately have to kill an animal and I find that as disturbing as anyone. But take a look around at nature - there are many strictly carnivorous animals out there, unfortunately it's just the natural order. But as intelligent, feeling, moral beings I think we have a duty to find the most humane way to do this.

But even if you don't buy into the natural order justification for killing an animal, it seems ridiculous to me to assume that animal products that don't harm the animal (like eggs, wool, etc.) are unethical in and of themselves. Of course factory farms and CAFOs are ugly systems, but the same products raised from happy animals on an idyllic family farm seem pretty humane to me.

Personally I find these radical vegans to be more tedious and equally deluded as the really "out there" evangelical Christians. (And I'm a Christian myself, so I'm not knocking all Christians, nor true seekers in any religious tradition - just the close-minded, ego-centric evangelist types)

» It's two separate issues... Posted by: pckurp

Comments are closed-

Kittynboi
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kittynboi on May 24, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, what a useless argument.

Off topic, what does Singer have to say about those with severe, often debilitating depression, like myself? Should I be euthanized to fit in his perfect world.

Does he limit his vitrol to those with birth defects, or do those of us with mental illness get to die in Aktion T4 as well?

Comments are closed-

What to Do
[Report this comment]
Posted by: WitchyNy on May 24, 2006 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plant a garden.
Make your own bread.
Buy second hand clothes.
Stop bitching. Start a Revolution.
Keep your sense of humor.

Comments are closed-

Newsweek on Veganism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: A.T. on May 24, 2006 12:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12887896/site/newsweek/

May 29, 2006 issue - It's just not as hard to be a vegan these days. For too long, adherents to vegan diets were prevented from any decent indulgence; they were more or less relegated to the produce aisle. But now vegans have options like jelly beans, ice cream, potato chips, cookies, cakes, gummy bears and hot dogs—all tailored to an animal-product-free diet. Whole Foods prepares vegan pudding and chocolate cake and carries vegan cookies. Vegan foods are "a growing category for us," says Perry Abbenante, national grocery coordinator. "Five years ago, there were not that many vegan products, and they were not that good. The people eating them were dedicated."

But isn't one of the benefits of veganism a healthy lifestyle? "These people are taking out eggs and meat and dairy; eating some extra sugar isn't going to cancel that out," says Lauren Farnsworth, general manager of Sacramento, Calif.-based Sun Flour Baking Co., which makes vegan cookies and brownies. "They are taking the cholesterol and saturated fat out of their diet." Ryan Kellner, who owns Mighty O Donuts in Seattle, says response to his vegan treats has been overwhelming. "People need fun food," Kellner says. "You can't work all day; you've got to play a little bit, too. That goes for everybody, vegans and nonvegans alike." Krissi Vandenberg, of the nonprofit group Vegan Action, says, "It is really nice to be able to get online and order rich, decadent vegan truffles on Valentine's Day."

Or much sooner—Krissi, Feb. 14 is nine months away!

—Alicia Barney

Comments are closed-

Singer is right, of course
[Report this comment]
Posted by: owleyes on May 24, 2006 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not vegan, nor will I ever be, unless I am struck with cancer, which I suppose is likely enough. But for now, I love eggs and cheese far too much to ever give them up. Ever. Still, Singer's argument is unassailable and completely accurate. There is no legitimate excuse not to eat humanely and responsibly. There are only illegitimate ones such as my own, which is actually quite piggish at heart: fuck you, I love eggs.

Comments are closed-

People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants
[Report this com