Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jason on October 2, 2010 at 6:39am

I get what you're saying Duppie but I think you're sorta cherry picking comments from my posts to take issue with. I'll grant you that the bluntness of a lot of my comments might come off as condescending, but I'm just trying to lay out facts, I'm not passing moral judgments on people. You say I'm vilifying without showing an alternative, but I think the alternative has been shown repeatedly here, stop eating meat, eat vegetables and grains and fruits instead. That's really about it. Until someone makes that decision what's the point of posting vegan recipes here?

Also I'm not vilifying people here, I'm just addressing the results of their actions. People have a hard time making that distinction I know (myself included), but it's true. You say I don't respect meat eaters, but that's not true, I respect them as human beings, and some of them that I know as individuals for the contents of their heart and their character, but if asked point blank, no I don't respect their meat eating (or at least the thoughtless eating of commercial meat), and I certainly can't overtly endorse it, and I'm now at a point where I will no longer tacitly endorse it with my silence. But there's a difference between a person and their behavior. If a friend of mine smokes and the topic comes up I'm not going to lie and say I think it's cool, or okay because I don't, and because let's be honest, it isn't.

And as for the comment about intellectual dishonesty, look, I have a bad habit of using "you" in the general sense, so when I say "If you smoke marijuana from Mexico and deny any culpability for the violence that takes place there surrounding the drug trade, then you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty." I'm only wrong in that I should say "If one smokes marijuana from Mexico and denies any culpability for the violence that takes place there surrounding the drug trade, then one is engaging in intellectual dishonesty." So I apologize for using the inappropriate pronoun. But nonetheless the poor pronoun usage doesn't make either statement false.

I mean watch documentary after documentary on any environmental topic you want: air, water, oil whatever, and you will see over and over experts, scientists, researchers who will say something to the effect of: "Our behavior is the cause of this problem. We are all responsible." And that includes them, and they know it. That's just honesty, it's not moralizing. Nobody expects that anyone can realistically live within the life sustaining network that is modern society without sharing the burden of collective guilt for the negative impacts that a society of our scale and structure makes on our planet and the life on it. But that's not a pass to deny the role we each play. And if that knowledge is a source of discomfort in terms of ones conscience, or sense of duty, or social responsibility then one is compelled to try to effect a positive social change or else their living in denial and willful ignorance. which is exactly where many people are.

Does that mean they have to immediately reduce their impact to zero or else they're a charlatan and a hypocrite? I don't think so. Others do. Others like to undercut peoples attempts to make a positive social change by deriding their efforts as pointless, weak, unpatriotic, homosexual, whatever. I think it's a defense mechanism. I find these are people who are extremely defensive, a little lazy, and do not appreciate being reminded that they bear some responsibility for the way things are. In my experience these people tend to be big Ayn Raynd fans, like John Wayne movies, favor the unseen hand of the free market over regulation, describe themselves politically as libertarians and like to entertain delusions of being self made rugged individualists who got to where they are without any help or support from society and likewise owe it nothing. But I digress.

Duppie, I understand that your perspective (if I understand correctly) is that positive social change is best effected by enlightening those you're trying to change to the appealing attributes of the behavior change you want them to make: i.e.:See how fun biking is! See how yummy this vegan French toast tastes! That's a perfectly valid perspective, I just don't agree with it. It's my opinion that the importance of the issues we're dealing, the magnitude of what's at stake, and the conditions at this stage of the game demand that we dial it up from a softer more gently nudging tone to the slightly more strident, blunt, and at times, seemingly condescending tone of straightforward observation and rationality.

Cigarettes kill people.

Human activity is adversely affecting the climate.

Commercially produced meat (and dairy) is wreaking environmental havoc.

They're just facts. And if all someone can say against that is to post a picture of two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese and two pickles on a sesame seed bun, well then that's certainly their prerogative, but a willful resistance to engage in anything remotely resembling a defense of one's behavior would certainly suggest that at some level, that person knows it is indefensible.

I mean look, I'm not telling anyone what to do. If people want to go on eating meat, that's what they're going to do. I realize that. What you put into your body is a personal decision (up to a point). What I am doing though is trying to lay out what all the evidence shows in terms of the effects of America's love affair with abundant cheap meat and be honest about the connection between supply and demand. It's my hope that given the facts people will make the change on their own, because their conscience dictates it. I have no real expectations that this will happen quickly enough or on large enough of a scale to make a difference though. I think that policy change is the only real answer, sadly.

(And here is where the James' of the world can start loading their guns and digging in to their foxholes in defense of their right to eat meat against the pol pot onslaught of socialist big government. Boogedy! Boogedy! )

Sadly I do think that we will go on consolidating farming, subsidizing meat and dairy and HFCS, and we will continue to drain ourselves in terms of natural resources, finances and public health. In the end changes in policy and law will be necessary. We will have to ration things like beef, or ban them outright, because people can't be trusted to collectively moderate their intake. The industries promoting these unsustainable products and systems can't be trusted to self regulate. We see this time and time again. I see it every time I go home, to my small hometown in West Texas, where drought has ravaged the landscape for decades now. Water is in short supply, and yet people still insist on having lush lawns, because that's their property, this is America, they can do whatever they want. So water has to be rationed. Laws are effected that limit the times one can water their lawn, and requiring that water does not run off into the street where it is wasted. And of course people cry "Big Government! Socialism! Communism! My grandfather didn't die in a war so big government could tell me what to do. He died so I could enjoy the freedom entitled to me by the Constitution of the United States of America to be a selfish and thoughtless jerk who wastes nonrenewable resources!"

So yeah, I think on the larger scale, until we are faced with the grim reality of our own extinction, we will not change. And by then I think it will be too late. Until then we will go on engaging in unsustainable actions like eating meat, driving everywhere, etc. in defense of "the American way", or capitalism, or personal liberty etc. etc., which of course is simply a guise for the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of a few (so they can live in diamond palaces on the moon waited on by robot ninja butlers or something. I guess. I don't really know what they're gonna do with an unlivable planet and no one to envy them, clearly they haven't thought that far ahead, but that'll be their problem, I'll be long dead).

In the meantime, I simply going to say what I think is the truth. Just the facts maam. Just connecting the dots.

Duppie said:

You're right. There should be time for voicing your frustrations, etc.
However, this thread is the water cooler conversation and the meat eaters play the role of cagers and are being villified without being shown a good alternative. Of course they are not going to take that lying down. Since Jason doesn't really respect meat eaters ("and you can't maintain any intellectual honesty if you try to deny the causal links, or try to disassociate your own culpability in a chain of events.". Really? He thinks he is qualified to judge my intellectual honesty?) the meat eaters retaliate by turning this thread into a joke.

I've seen this over and over again. Whether you're a vegan, a bicycling advocate, or support any other issue that is not mainstream yet, you have to keep the message in mind. Jason may be right in that veganism is the way to go, but he did nothing to convince me with his condescending tone.

H3N3 said:

Duppie said:

Anyhow, I think Dr Doom is making the right point. You don’t convert people by beating them upside their head with facts about how bad their behavior is. You convert them by showing how joyful your life’s choices are (and yes, I absolutely love kale). Same with bicycling. If you try to convert drivers by explaining how bad cars are for the environment, you’re bound to get less results than by showing how truly joyful riding your bike can be. Especially this week. Look at that sunshine!

Absolutely.
But it's also valuable to have community- or culture-internal discussions where you let all your frustrations hang out and commune with the like-minded; if someone chooses to do what sounds like "beating upside the head" in that context, have some faith that that they're going to take a different approach at the water cooler at work, over holiday dinner with the extended family, or when they write their letter to the editor.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Minh on October 2, 2010 at 7:21am

TLDR

My only problem with veganism/vegetarianism is that it's really only a choice for people who come from middle/upper income backgrounds in western society. I'm not saying that all vegans/vegetarians are wealthy since most people become vegans/vegs in college (probably not in community college, but maybe at some art school/private school) I believe it's only a viable choice for people in western society because of "food security" unless you live in abject poverty. Most people in this world don't have the food options, clean water, and electricity that we take for granted. I don't even want to go into the so-called organic foods of "Whole Foods" and "Trader Joe's"...

Isn't it nice to have the option to make a social/political statement with your dietary habits?

Eighth (full-text, pdf): "Social class appears to have a substantial influence on meat consumption. Those in laborer occupations eat both more beef and total meat than those in either service or professional occupations. Furthermore, education is inversely related to beef and total meat consumption (i.e., people with more education eat less beef and total meat). Interestingly, income does not influence total meat consumption. Beef consumption, however, does appear to rise with income, which may possibly be explained by the price of beef relative to other types of food. Taken together, these findings support the argument that eating habits reflect an individual’s class position."

I apologize for the horrendous grammar and punctuation. I only got 3 hours of sleep.


Jason said:

snip.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vilda on October 2, 2010 at 7:23am

Jason said :
"They're just facts. And if all someone can say against that is to post a picture of two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese and two pickles on a sesame seed bun, well then that's certainly their prerogative, but a willful resistance to engage in anything remotely resembling a defense of one's behavior would certainly suggest that at some level, that person knows it is indefensible." (followed by I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do)

Where you're wrong is I'm not interested in defending what I'm doing cause I don't think it's wrong. And i'm not at all interested in what your doing cause I don't care. Where these collide is when it turns into a rant to convert under the guise of some moral superiority but pretending to not actually wanna convert people.

There was a great study done on when the human brain made the evolutionary leap to modern man. It was with the introduction of meat into the diet. Grains required massive amounts of energy to harvest then to digest so the body never got enough calories. With meat came a supercharged caloric intake. Made the brain capable of growth and higher function. While in the modern era we obviously have the ability to get enough calories from grains I choose to continue to eat meat. Why? It's delicious! I focus more on the wrong types of cholesterol and fats, the wrong type of preparation and making sure that in addition to the proteins i take in that i have greens and roughage to clean the system as well.

Anyway, more meat:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason on October 2, 2010 at 8:02am

And as I said before, "I eat meat because it tastes good" is a weak argument IMO. In light of all the evidence of what the costs of a meat rich diet are to the planet, it's health and ultimately and literally our own health as a species, that's basically the same argument as saying "I have sex with underage girls in brothels in Thailand because it is physically pleasurable."

Clearly you don't think there's anything wrong with a diet which includes a lot of meat, or if you do you don't care. I can appreciate your honesty, I don't agree with your position though. I can voice my disagreement and lay out my reasoning without it being an attempt to overtly change you. You're throwing an opinion into an open forum and I'm offering a differing one, that's all. I do however find it unnerving that you can look at the evidence about commercial meat (and dairy) production and go "Meh", in the same way that I find it unnerving that people can look at the findings of climate science and have the same reaction.



Gabe said:

Jason said :
"They're just facts. And if all someone can say against that is to post a picture of two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese and two pickles on a sesame seed bun, well then that's certainly their prerogative, but a willful resistance to engage in anything remotely resembling a defense of one's behavior would certainly suggest that at some level, that person knows it is indefensible." (followed by I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do)

Where you're wrong is I'm not interested in defending what I'm doing cause I don't think it's wrong. And i'm not at all interested in what your doing cause I don't care. Where these collide is when it turns into a rant to convert under the guise of some moral superiority but pretending to not actually wanna convert people.

There was a great study done on when the human brain made the evolutionary leap to modern man. It was with the introduction of meat into the diet. Grains required massive amounts of energy to harvest then to digest so the body never got enough calories. With meat came a supercharged caloric intake. Made the brain capable of growth and higher function. While in the modern era we obviously have the ability to get enough calories from grains I choose to continue to eat meat. Why? It's delicious! I focus more on the wrong types of cholesterol and fats, the wrong type of preparation and making sure that in addition to the proteins i take in that i have greens and roughage to clean the system as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vilda on October 2, 2010 at 8:19am

There appear to be some kinda plants on the grill ;-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason on October 2, 2010 at 8:31am

To Minh,

I think this paper is brilliant! And I totally agree with you that diet is political. Clearly I'm pasionate about food politics.

I do have to say though that I think you're somewhat misinterpreting the papers findings. If I'm hearing you right. It sounds like you're saying that the paper finds that vegetarianism is only a choice (i.e. accessible) for upper middle income people because of economics.

But if I understand it correctly I don't believe that the study is saying vegetarianism is accessible only to the rich and well educated (even though that's where the study finds the higher preponderance of vegetarianism here in America). To the contrary I think it's saying that there are strong social and cultural forces that steer western diets to be as meat heavy as they are and that these need to be understood if we have any hope of shifting the western diet away from a meat centric composition. So it's not entirely accessibility or affordability that explains why fewer people on the lower end of the income scale are vegetarians. Rather social and cultural norms are more to blame. (Although the paper does bring up the issue of govt. subsidization of meat, thereby driving the price down, making it a more economically competitive with healthier more sustainable vegetarian options.) But ultimately, from a strictly financial perspective, vegetarianism is way cheaper.

To further illustrate the point we only need to look at India which contains a third of the worlds poor people, and yet at the same time contains more vegetarians than the rest of the world combined (399 million as of 2006). This is a perfect example of social and cultural norms at play in dietary decisions on so many levels. Here in the West we have the erroneous correlation between vegetarianism and being an affluent, effete, intellectual, whole-foods-shopping snob, while in India it's just what everybody eats for a whole host of cultural, social and most importantly religious reasons. But if vegetarianism was really more expensive than meat eating there's no way 366 million people (roughly 1/3 of whom we can assume fall into that category of being among the worlds poor [122 million]) would be practicing it in India.

What the paper definitely supports though is that meat production, and specifically beef is terrible for the environment etc.. I think everybody who cares about food politics should give it a read. I love some of the stuff it contains about gender and race with regards to meat consumption:"The most striking finding is that, unlike among all other racial groups, among Native Americans, women eat more beef than men." Fascinating! I think it speaks to what's really at play when people say "I eat meat because it tastes good" which when teased apart might really be better stated as "I eat meat because I've been socialized to eat meat".

The Conclusion of the paper you reference is great:

Conclusion
The environmental literature identifies meat production as an ecologically detrimental practice. A substantial reduction in the scale of meat production and consumption would reduce the human impact on the natural environment and may increase global food security. This verity highlights the ecological significance of the dietary habits of individuals. The environmental literature does not, however, adequately address the social factors that elevate meat to a central role in the U.S. diet, nor does it address the persistence of a meat-based diet despite clear alternatives.

We find that the social structural position of an individual affects meat consumption. Specifically, gender, race, ethnicity, location of residence (region and urban vs. non- urban), and social class all appear to affect dietary habits even when controlling for physiological variables such as body weight and age. Those who argue that meat consumption should be reduced because it is burdensome to the environment must recognize the social context in which this basic practice takes place, as meanings, customs, and traditions may shape or constrain consumer patterns. While beyond the scope of this study, ESC research could be furthered by including cultural factors, such as the social and cultural significance of various foods to different social groups (see Douglas and Isherwood 1979; Fiddes 1991; Mauer and Sobal 1995). The addition of cultural factors could further illuminate the centrality of meat in the U.S. diet.

Minh Nguyen said:

TLDR

My only problem with veganism/vegetarianism is that it's really only a choice for people who come from middle/upper income backgrounds in western society. I'm not saying that all vegans/vegetarians are wealthy since most people become vegans/vegs in college (probably not in community college, but maybe at some art school/private school) I believe it's only a viable choice for people in western society because of "food security" unless you live in abject poverty. Most people in this world don't have the food options, clean water, and electricity that we take for granted. I don't even want to go into the so-called organic foods of "Whole Foods" and "Trader Joe's"...

Isn't it nice to have the option to make a social/political statement with your dietary habits?

Eighth (full-text, pdf): "Social class appears to have a substantial influence on meat consumption. Those in laborer occupations eat both more beef and total meat than those in either service or professional occupations. Furthermore, education is inversely related to beef and total meat consumption (i.e., people with more education eat less beef and total meat). Interestingly, income does not influence total meat consumption. Beef consumption, however, does appear to rise with income, which may possibly be explained by the price of beef relative to other types of food. Taken together, these findings support the argument that eating habits reflect an individual’s class position."

I apologize for the horrendous grammar and punctuation. I only got 3 hours of sleep.


Jason said:

snip.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on October 2, 2010 at 9:27am

My only problem with veganism/vegetarianism is that it's really only a choice for people who come from middle/upper income backgrounds in western society.

That's preposterous. My great grandmother grew up poor in a remote area of Puerto Rico and well into her 90s ate so little meat that she may as well have been a vegetarian. My mother in law sure isn't rich or the product of an art school, and she doesn't eat meat. I've known plenty of Jamaicans who grew up without any money and didn't eat meat or even salt. The idea that vegetarianism is strictly for pampered children of well to do parents, or that it's strictly a way of making a social/political statement, is ridiculous, and ignores a wide range of experience.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vilda on October 2, 2010 at 9:49am

Thanks Doom, had time to think about the last post while in the shower and man alive it made me wanna destroy things. I would guess that the people doin' that report were lookin to support there own agenda. I'm headin to a party where the Avg Edu level is a Masters degree and there isn't a veggie in the bunch.

It would be saying that rich dumb people and poor dumb people eat meat and everyone else is a veggie ;-) Good thought there.

There was another article that came out awhile back that said that the higher an education level a woman gets the more sexual partners that woman is likely to have. That is far more intriguing. ;-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Minh on October 2, 2010 at 9:55am

I was talking about western countries.

If you look at India the rich eat more meat and the poor eat more of a vegetarian diet. Thanks for not reading. And your great grandmother probably didn't become a vegetarian/vegan for political purposes.



Dr. Doom said:

My only problem with veganism/vegetarianism is that it's really only a choice for people who come from middle/upper income backgrounds in western society.

That's preposterous. My great grandmother grew up poor in a remote area of Puerto Rico and well into her 90s ate so little meat that she may as well have been a vegetarian. My mother in law sure isn't rich or the product of an art school, and she doesn't eat meat. I've known plenty of Jamaicans who grew up without any money and didn't eat meat or even salt. The idea that vegetarianism is strictly for pampered children of well to do parents, or that it's strictly a way of making a social/political statement, is ridiculous, and ignores a wide range of experience.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason on October 2, 2010 at 10:10am

You don't have to guess, you can read the report, Minh helpfully supplied a link. Of course that would require some effort, interest, willingness to alter your perceptions and understanding etc. All of which is much more demanding than posting meat pics, so that's probably not gonna happen.

And besides, you're going to a party with some meat eaters holding masters degrees, ergo the study, which you have not bothered to read, which surveyed 15,028 people about their meat consumption, and follows standard peer reviewed methodologies, is clearly debunked by your anecdotal experience.

Gabe said:

I would guess that the people doin' that report were lookin to support there own agenda.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Minh on October 2, 2010 at 10:12am

So give me some data not some anecdotal evidence about educated friends or what a distant relative does. I linked a study in my earlier reply. And by the way I'm vegan.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vilda on October 2, 2010 at 10:24am

Well Jason now i'm really not readin it. ;-) And will continue to post meat pics ;-) And the people at the party are 28-30 of mixed income raising with masters degrees varying from education to engineering. ;-) Carnivorous home brew types ;-) You want me to get a survey?

"I'm a fifth level vegan. I don't eat anything that casts a shadow."

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page