Based on the title, I was expecting either a rant about how all these pseudo-health restaurants keep popping up or the usual spiel about the poor, poor animals that have to die. (I apologize to any Jains, this is directed at those who draw different, arbitrary lines of which lives are valuable and which are not and preach their judgments as better. The Jains, though, that’s valuing all life.)

Instead, it covers the insecurities of following your ideals when they are not with the majority, something everyone has felt at some point in time and exposes why change really is so hard to accomplish.

good job on coming out about being a big pussy. that was very brave of you.

i recall us walking through the union square barnes and nobel (borders, whatever, fuck em, support locals…) and we happened upon mr safron foer himself reading excerpts from the book. i suppose i witnessing your “public ridicule of vegans” when you walked through the scene briskly then hopped on the the escalator going down while enthusiastically waving to the author who most certainly saw us for a moment.

as someone who has lived with and been around people who are or have been vegan i would like to add a few points.

i myself have never been a vegan or vegetarian. through high school my gf was a vegetarian for several years and would on occasion try and convert me. At that point I was finishing a growth spurt that approached two inches a year, playing soccer six days out of the week, and living with omnivorous parents. while i agree with your criticism of the factory farm system i would never give a blanket suggestion of vegetarianism because time and time again i have heard from those friends that they find it difficult to sustain the energy level that they would otherwise expect. certainly the dedicated (and relatively affluent) have the option of adopting a regulated vegan diet, but that is not for everyone (the working poor, the young, the anaemic,…). another friend was vegetarian from age 2 to 22 and needed to stop because she developed a gluten allergy that resembles celiac. she still gets most of her calories from alcohol, rather than meat, and doesn’t love having to eat meat, but accepts it and tries to make sure it comes from good/sustainable/local sources. another friend was a vegetarian in chicago –because the meat was gross– but not in california where many of the upscale restaurants make a point of avoiding factory meat.

i applaud your choice to act upon your core ideals, i congratulate your declaration, but you should not decide that you have the moral and ethical high ground because of your privilege to make that decision.

Hi Zachary,

Good decision! I think it’s a *strong* thing to do to live by your own convictions. Especially when you’re going against social currents, whether that’s eating meat or not.

I’ve been a vegetarian for quite a few years now and although I’ve found the moral decision quite easy I still sometimes hesitate a little. I’ve conditioned myself to not want to eat meat by watching gruesome documentaries about the realities of the meat-industry. Every time I walk by a non-vegetarian restaurant and a good smell comes out it not only triggers my hunger but I also instantly think about all the completely unnecessary suffering that was inflicted for producing that meat. A good starting point for such a conditioning documentary is Earthlings.

I’ve got a whole slew of reasons for not eating meat and I’d like to share them here:
-it’s bad for the environment, it takes way more resources and produces way more waste to produce 1 pound of meat instead of 1 pound of vegetables, fruits etc.
-it’s morally wrong (imho) to force another living being into a life of nothing but suffering just so it can end up on someone’s plate
-it takes more energy to digest meat than to digest other food, I personally really feel the difference, although I haven’t eaten meat in years
-I think it’s bad for my health, although I think this one is totally open for debate and could vary per individual
-the people who work in the meat-industry have really shitty jobs, if you eat meat you force some people to take those jobs (through economic pressure)
-there are so many healthy, tasty and sustainable alternatives that it’s almost absurd to demand to eat meat. Like having a giant buffet and whining about some little thing not being there. A lot of meat-eaters I know are just culinary ignorant to what is possible.

Good luck! And if you need a few nice recipes contact me

Excellent and thoughtful article.

I’ve been eating only vegan foods for almost two years now and I think I would find it hard to go back, although I feel a little frustrated now and then. (For example, I was at a Spanish tapas restaurant the other day, and there were only 1-2 dishes that were vegan out of dozens of interesting looking dishes. I used to frequent the place and eat bacon-wrapped dates, and many other meat based dishes… how things change!)

I condensed my reasons for my ongoing choice into this article: http://thirtytwothousanddays.com/blog/2010/03/following-a-vegan-diet-improves-your-health-and-the-environment/

PS. Nice link-bait post title

Based on the title, I was expecting either a rant about how all these pseudo-health restaurants keep popping up or the usual spiel about the poor, poor animals that have to die. (I apologize to any Jains, this is directed at those who draw different, arbitrary lines of which lives are valuable and which are not and preach their judgments as better. The Jains, though, that's valuing all life.)

Instead, it covers the insecurities of following your ideals when they are not with the majority, something everyone has felt at some point in time and exposes why change really is so hard to accomplish.

good job on coming out about being a big pussy. that was very brave of you.

i recall us walking through the union square barnes and nobel (borders, whatever, fuck em, support locals…) and we happened upon mr safron foer himself reading excerpts from the book. i suppose i witnessing your “public ridicule of vegans” when you walked through the scene briskly then hopped on the the escalator going down while enthusiastically waving to the author who most certainly saw us for a moment.

as someone who has lived with and been around people who are or have been vegan i would like to add a few points.

i myself have never been a vegan or vegetarian. through high school my gf was a vegetarian for several years and would on occasion try and convert me. At that point I was finishing a growth spurt that approached two inches a year, playing soccer six days out of the week, and living with omnivorous parents. while i agree with your criticism of the factory farm system i would never give a blanket suggestion of vegetarianism because time and time again i have heard from those friends that they find it difficult to sustain the energy level that they would otherwise expect. certainly the dedicated (and relatively affluent) have the option of adopting a regulated vegan diet, but that is not for everyone (the working poor, the young, the anaemic,…). another friend was vegetarian from age 2 to 22 and needed to stop because she developed a gluten allergy that resembles celiac. she still gets most of her calories from alcohol, rather than meat, and doesn't love having to eat meat, but accepts it and tries to make sure it comes from good/sustainable/local sources. another friend was a vegetarian in chicago –because the meat was gross– but not in california where many of the upscale restaurants make a point of avoiding factory meat.

i applaud your choice to act upon your core ideals, i congratulate your declaration, but you should not decide that you have the moral and ethical high ground because of your privilege to make that decision.

Hi Zachary,

Good decision! I think it's a *strong* thing to do to live by your own convictions. Especially when you're going against social currents, whether that's eating meat or not.

I've been a vegetarian for quite a few years now and although I've found the moral decision quite easy I still sometimes hesitate a little. I've conditioned myself to not want to eat meat by watching gruesome documentaries about the realities of the meat-industry. Every time I walk by a non-vegetarian restaurant and a good smell comes out it not only triggers my hunger but I also instantly think about all the completely unnecessary suffering that was inflicted for producing that meat. A good starting point for such a conditioning documentary is Earthlings.

I've got a whole slew of reasons for not eating meat and I'd like to share them here:
-it's bad for the environment, it takes way more resources and produces way more waste to produce 1 pound of meat instead of 1 pound of vegetables, fruits etc.
-it's morally wrong (imho) to force another living being into a life of nothing but suffering just so it can end up on someone's plate
-it takes more energy to digest meat than to digest other food, I personally really feel the difference, although I haven't eaten meat in years
-I think it's bad for my health, although I think this one is totally open for debate and could vary per individual
-the people who work in the meat-industry have really shitty jobs, if you eat meat you force some people to take those jobs (through economic pressure)
-there are so many healthy, tasty and sustainable alternatives that it's almost absurd to demand to eat meat. Like having a giant buffet and whining about some little thing not being there. A lot of meat-eaters I know are just culinary ignorant to what is possible.

Good luck! And if you need a few nice recipes contact me

Although I understand you position (a friend of mine has the same opinion) I have to disagree.
First, eating meat does *in no way* compromise your health, as long as it is organically grown. It actually is a lot better than eating a diet of grains.
If you’d like to learn more, read these articles:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-grains/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-definitive-guide-to-conventional-wisdom/
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-issues/1835-pilot-research-study-live-blood-analysis-of-adults.html
I absolutely agree with you that the conditions in today’s factory farms a cruel. But maybe you have seen “Food, Inc.”, a great film. They feature a local farmer as a contrast to the factory farms and I have no issue eating meat that he produces.
We are hunters, we have lived the majority of the existence of our race as hunters and I don’t see why we should now stop eating meat.
If you want to talk a bit more about this ping me, I’d love to

Excellent and thoughtful article.

I've been eating only vegan foods for almost two years now and I think I would find it hard to go back, although I feel a little frustrated now and then. (For example, I was at a Spanish tapas restaurant the other day, and there were only 1-2 dishes that were vegan out of dozens of interesting looking dishes. I used to frequent the place and eat bacon-wrapped dates, and many other meat based dishes… how things change!)

I condensed my reasons for my ongoing choice into this article: http://thirtytwothousanddays.com/blog/2010/03/f…

PS. Nice link-bait post title

I am vegetarian since birth and so I don’t know the taste of the meat but
1. I know that it is not a good source of Proteins if its not raised organically.
2. Why would one want to kill animals just for the sake of taste.

Wait a second, you skipped from “animals aren’t the same as humans” to “animals are the same as humans” without explaining that step.

Also, I think it’s a bit of a reach to say that anyone who doesn’t place all other living beings ahead of their own desires or needs at all times is “a true sociopath.”

Good for you with your new beliefs, but switching your attitude from “I want to eat meat and you are all wrong for disagreeing with me” to “I don’t want to eat meat and you are all wrong for disagreeing with me” seems to miss the point slightly.

Or did I misunderstand what you meant by “you cannot possibly ever eat CAFO meat again and honestly maintain a sense of integrity. I am telling you now: by eating CAFO meat, you are directly contributing to systematic suffering on a scale far worse than Nazi Germany.”? I don’t think I did.

No, you did miss the point. If you are fully aware of the conditions of the CAFOs, and you ignore them because you wish to service your own desires at the expense of mass suffering, then there is something decidedly sociopathic about your decision. Society has conditioned us through advertising campaigns to think that what’s going on is OK, but if you think about it, it’s really not okay at all. My former attitude was never “I want to eat meat and you are all wrong for disagreeing with me” and my current attitude is not “I don’t want to eat meat and you are all wrong for disagreeing with me”. My attitude is if you really consider what’s going on with the CAFOs – and you decide to patronize them anyway – then you should fully embrace your sociopathic instincts and stop pretending to care. I realize that what I’m saying is controversial, but what’s going on is egregious and insane.

Are you implying that all meat comes from factory farms?

Do you truly have an issue with eating meat, or just with the inhumane
practices of a certain class of corporations?

I have no issues with eating meat. Yes, my issues are with the disgusting practices of “a certain class of [animal farming] corporations”. Unfortunately, it turns out that “a certain class” actually means “the vast majority”.

What I took from the wording of your article is that you equate “eating
meat” with “eating meat from animal farms.” Perhaps they’re the same in many
cases, as the vast majority of meat in this country does come from such
farms (by definition, really, since they are capable of producing much more
meat than other sources).

However, I don’t think it’s fair to imply that eating meat humanely is
impossible, or even that eating meat from factory farms makes you a
sociopath, as if there’s a black/white line you cross.

Anecdotally, I eat a lot of meat for health reasons. 80% of that meat comes
from organic sources; only when I’m out somewhere that has no organic
options (or they don’t say, which I take to mean that the meat is not
organic) will I eat farmed meat; condemning that behavior as Nazi-esque just
seems like you’re painting with too wide a brush.

Many, many people would agree with you about factory farms, even those who
eat meat. As I see it, the key is to get people to STOP assuming that
“eating meat” and “eating meat from animal farms” have to be the same thing.

Although I understand you position (a friend of mine has the same opinion) I have to disagree.
First, eating meat does *in no way* compromise your health, as long as it is organically grown. It actually is a lot better than eating a diet of grains.
If you'd like to learn more, read these articles:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide…
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-definitive-g…
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-issues/1835…
I absolutely agree with you that the conditions in today's factory farms a cruel. But maybe you have seen “Food, Inc.”, a great film. They feature a local farmer as a contrast to the factory farms and I have no issue eating meat that he produces.
We are hunters, we have lived the majority of the existence of our race as hunters and I don't see why we should now stop eating meat.
If you want to talk a bit more about this ping me, I'd love to

Sorry, didn’t mean to like your comment.

Also, greenwashing has totally worked on you. And you’re not eating meat for health reasons. You’re eating it because it’s there. Who do you think you’re fooling, other than yourself?

I’m also a vegan who doesn’t see anything *inherently* wrong with animals eating other animals… and seeing as we’re humanoid animals, I really don’t have a huge problem with humans hunting for food, in a humane way.

Personally, I couldn’t eat another animal anymore.

Factory farming is beyond anything most people have an understanding of. We’re so fucking good at denial.

I was actually just thinking about this topic yesterday on the way home from work. I wondered if everyone who seems to ignore the obvious suffering, my friends male and female who rave about bacon, really ever thinks about the fact that pigs are pets, too. Pigs nuzzle, cuddle, come when you call them, sleep by your side, and have been known to save owners’ lives, too. They just conveniently forget that these animals are companion animals, too? Factory workers have told stories of pigs being happy to see them, and nuzzling them, before they were bludgeoned to death.

My friends are smart people. Morons who think “books are for fags,” I can understand raving about bacon. I don’t get this subculture of meat lovers among intelligent people.

Thanks, you’ve given me hope.

I am vegetarian since birth and so I don't know the taste of the meat but
1. I know that it is not a good source of Proteins if its not raised organically.
2. Why would one want to kill animals just for the sake of taste.

I honestly don’t believe there is ever a “Humane” way of killing anything. The key word is ‘Killing’ here. Choosing to kill something is never humane unless the animal was suffering beforehand.

Wait a second, you skipped from “animals aren't the same as humans” to “animals are the same as humans” without explaining that step.

Also, I think it's a bit of a reach to say that anyone who doesn't place all other living beings ahead of their own desires or needs at all times is “a true sociopath.”

Good for you with your new beliefs, but switching your attitude from “I want to eat meat and you are all wrong for disagreeing with me” to “I don't want to eat meat and you are all wrong for disagreeing with me” seems to miss the point slightly.

Or did I misunderstand what you meant by “you cannot possibly ever eat CAFO meat again and honestly maintain a sense of integrity. I am telling you now: by eating CAFO meat, you are directly contributing to systematic suffering on a scale far worse than Nazi Germany.”? I don't think I did.

No, you did miss the point. If you are fully aware of the conditions of the CAFOs, and you ignore them because you wish to service your own desires at the expense of mass suffering, then there is something decidedly sociopathic about your decision. Society has conditioned us through advertising campaigns to think that what's going on is OK, but if you think about it, it's really not okay at all. My former attitude was never “I want to eat meat and you are all wrong for disagreeing with me” and my current attitude is not “I don't want to eat meat and you are all wrong for disagreeing with me”. My attitude is if you really consider what's going on with the CAFOs – and you decide to patronize them anyway – then you should fully embrace your sociopathic instincts and stop pretending to care.

Are you implying that all meat comes from factory farms?

Do you truly have an issue with eating meat, or just with the inhumane
practices of a certain class of corporations?

I have no issues with eating meat. Yes, my issues are with the disgusting practices of “a certain class of [animal farming] corporations”. Unfortunately, it turns out that “a certain class” actually means “the vast majority”.

What I took from the wording of your article is that you equate “eating
meat” with “eating meat from animal farms.” Perhaps they're the same in many
cases, as the vast majority of meat in this country does come from such
farms (by definition, really, since they are capable of producing much more
meat than other sources).

However, I don't think it's fair to imply that eating meat humanely is
impossible, or even that eating meat from factory farms makes you a
sociopath, as if there's a black/white line you cross.

Anecdotally, I eat a lot of meat for health reasons. 80% of that meat comes
from organic sources; only when I'm out somewhere that has no organic
options (or they don't say, which I take to mean that the meat is not
organic) will I eat farmed meat; condemning that behavior as Nazi-esque just
seems like you're painting with too wide a brush.

Many, many people would agree with you about factory farms, even those who
eat meat. As I see it, the key is to get people to STOP assuming that
“eating meat” and “eating meat from animal farms” have to be the same thing.

Sorry, didn't mean to like your comment.

I'm also a vegan who doesn't see anything *inherently* wrong with animals eating other animals… and seeing as we're humanoid animals, I really don't have a huge problem with humans hunting for food, in a humane way.

Personally, I couldn't eat another animal anymore.

Factory farming is beyond anything most people have an understanding of. We're so fucking good at denial.

I like meat and I know very little about the suffering animals endure; however, for them to suffer like Jews in the Holocaust they would have to:

recognize family, be intelligent enough to know there is a different kind of life available – and then have it taken away, work to stay alive, undergo public humiliation and be in constant fear for their lives, live in camps and when a family member died, carry the dead body to role call, forget their names and adopted a number which would be branded to them, endure people who hated them and killed them for fun, be enslaved by their equals and give everything they ever owned or worked for- to their equals as well.

I’m sorry Zack, maybe I don’t understand what animals go through, but at the same time I am thinking you don’t understand one tenth of what the Jews went through because I could only list so many things before the post starts to sound emotional, which it isn’t.

I think you are wrong, and I will continue to eat meat for various reasons, and I will disregard any posts comparing cows to Jews in the Holocaust because of the obvious absurdity.

- Your Brother Danny

EDIT: fixed typos (via computer)

I was actually just thinking about this topic yesterday on the way home from work. I wondered if everyone who seems to ignore the obvious suffering, my friends male and female who rave about bacon, really ever thinks about the fact that pigs are pets, too. Pigs nuzzle, cuddle, come when you call them, sleep by your side, and have been known to save owners' lives, too. They just conveniently forget that these animals are companion animals, too? Factory workers have told stories of pigs being happy to see them, and nuzzling them, before they were bludgeoned to death.

My friends are smart people. Morons who think “books are for fags,” I can understand raving about bacon. I don't get this subculture of meat lovers among intelligent people.

Thanks, you've given me hope.

1) You are just wrong. If you are going to say bull shit- post a link to prove it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/real_food/article6731910.ece

2) Seriously? You strike me as the egregious Mac fan who raves about the product but gives no well thought out arguements, but is a mac proponent. WE KILL ANIMALS FOR THE TASTE BECAUSE IT MAKES US HAPPY. Unreal.

Have you seen the documentary Food Inc?
You better do.

If organic food has no health benefits, fine.
But non-organic food does have adverse effect.

I was spot on with my mac user analogy wasn’t I?

What did I teach you about making up facts? Where is your proof for this claim? Wait….. let me guess… You did not post a link because you will only find a study saying that nonorganic food *can* have adverse effects. Like flying. That can have really bad adverse effects. Give up and accept you are wrong. It is commendable not to argue, but to know when you are wrong and stop.

EDIT: fixed typos (via computer)

Cut the crap.
If winning the situation makes you happy, I would be happy to give up.
The reason for my argument is not to win the situation but to express my understanding.

Seems you are still a kid.

I don’t give a damn if animals are tortured for me to eat them.
I love the taste of a delicious horse steak
Or bacon..
Or a huge beef steak, rare inside, covered with blue cheese outside

Oh without a doubt. I am totally a kid and will be able to have fun and stay in touch with my inner child. Now, I don’t see how that matters; also, I never said anything remotely akin to I want to win or that you are going to lose. Once again you are making shit up. Don’t start a flame war over hurt feelings okay? If you were half as grown up as you believe you are, then instead of throwing an ad hominem attack at me calling me a kid, you would have ” furthered your understanding ” by posting something relevant instead of wasting space on my brothers blog with petty fallacies. At least I post useful information when I comment. ( It is hard to post anything useful here when responding to a post only attacking me.) However, if you would like me to prove you wrong with more links, I will – I don’t care about winning nor losing, but helping people understand what is true and false when They contradict my opinions.

EDIT: fixed typos (via computer)

You’re correct, you don’t understand what the animals in CAFOs go through. They have it just as bad as the Jews did in the Holocaust; many mammals have complex social structures and sensitive emotional brains. They’re branded. They’re separated from their families. They’re arbitrarily murdered. They’re experimented upon. They are cramped in conditions so awful that scabbing inevitably develops, all over. They are fed antibiotics with every meal because they have been genetically engineered to have awful and unstable biological systems, and they often spontaneously die. The difference is that only 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust whereas at least 15 times as many animals are processed EVERY YEAR. It’s really fucked up man.

I honestly don't believe there is ever a “Humane” way of killing anything. The key word is 'Killing' here. Choosing to kill something is never humane unless the animal was suffering beforehand.

Good,
Keep it up.

I am be glad to learn from your comments.

I like meat and I know very little about the suffering they endure; however, for them to suffer like Jews in the Holocaust they would have to recognize family, the would have to be intelligent enough to know there is a different kind of life available – and then have it taken away. They would have to work to stay alive. They would have to undergo public humiliation and be in constant fear for their lives. They would have to live in camps and when a family member died, they would have to carry the dead body to role call. They would have to forget their names and adopted a number which would be branded to them. And they wouuld have to endure people who hated them and killed them for fun. They would have to be enslaved by their equals and give everything they ever worked for to their equals as well.

I'm sorry Zack, maybe I don't understand what animals go through, but at the same time I am thinking you don't understand one tenth of what the Jews went through because I could only list so many things before the post starts to sound emotional, which it isn't.

I think you are wrong, and I will continue to eat meat for various reasons, and I will disregard any posts comparing cows to Jews in the Holocaust because if the obvious absurdity.

- Your Brother Danny

1) You are just wrong. If you are going to say bull shit- post a link to prove it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style…

2) Seriously? You strike me as the egregious Mac fan who raves about the product but gives no well thought out arguements, but is a mac proponent. WE KILL ANIMALS FOR THE TASTE BECAUSE IT MAKES US HAPPY. Unreal.

Have you seen the documentary Food Inc?
You better do.

If organic food has no health benefits, fine.
But non-organic food does have adverse effect.

I was spot on with my mac user analogy wasn't I?

What did I teach you about making up facts? Where is your proof for this claim? Wait….. let me guess… You did not post a link because you will only find a study saying that nonorganic food *can* have adverse effects. Like flying. That can have really bad adverse effects. Give up and accept you are wrong. It is. Commendable not to argue, but to know when you are wrong and stop.

Cut the crap.
If winning the situation makes you happy, I would be happy to give up.
The reason for my argument is not to win the situation but to express my understanding.

Seems you are still a kid.

I don't give a damn if animals are tortured for me to eat them.
I love the taste of a delicious horse steak
Or bacon..
Or a huge beef steak, rare inside, covered with blue cheese outside

Kill the animal before it suffers at all.

Oh wit hout a doubt. I am totally a kid and will br able to have fun and stay in touch with my inner child. Now, I don't see how that matters; also, I never said anything remotely akin to I want to win IR you are going to lose. Once again you are making shit up. Don't start a flame war over hurt feelings okay? If you were half as grown up as you believe you are, then instead of throwing an ad hominem attack at me calling me a kid, you would have ” furthered your understanding ” by posting something relevant instead of wasting space on my brothers blog with petty fallacies. At least I post useful information when I comment. ( It is hard to post anything useful here when responding to a post only attacking me.) However, if you would like me to prove you wrong with more links, I will – I don't care about winning and losing, but helping people understand what IA true and false when They contradict my opinions l.

You're correct, you don't understand what the animals in CAFOs go through. They have it just as bad as the Jews did in the Holocaust; many mammals have complex social structures and sensitive emotional brains. They're branded. They're separated from their families. They're arbitrarily murdered. They're experimented upon. They are cramped in conditions so awful that scabbing inevitably develops, all over. They are fed antibiotics with every meal because they have been genetically engineered to have awful and unstable biological systems, and they often spontaneously die. The difference is that only 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust whereas at least 15 times as many animals are processed EVERY YEAR. It's really fucked up man.

Good,
Keep it up.

I am be glad to learn from your comments.

Kill the animal before it suffers at all.

I don’t think this post is as personal as you think You are MAKING it personal. The only “personal” element in adopting food values is this “under what conditions am I willing to cause pain to other living things?”

Once you have a formula for drawing your line in the sand in various situations, the whole thing is very simple. I was raised an unexamined vegetarian, have never been anything else, and am trying to go vegan. I started thinking about this stuff consciously thanks to having Erik Marcus (author of ‘Vegan’ and ‘Meat Market’ and owner of vegan.com) as a neighbor and the ethics seemed crystal clear to me. I am not willing to cause pain except to avoid even greater pain. I modify that formula sometimes, but it is straightforward to apply (basic utilitarianism… minimum pain for the maximum creatures). A good recent test case is the debate around oysters, where people concluded they basically can’t feel pain and are like plants. Another is David Foster Wallace’s excellent essay “consider the lobster” where they DO feel a lot of pain that we can’t easily observe.

The rest of the stuff you are talking about just confuse the issue. It has nothing to do with being a “pussy” outside 5-year old South Park minds. I love Greene’s book and am a pretty manipulative jerk most of the time. The willingness to be a sociopath and your ethics around pain are/can be orthogonal. Being unwilling to cause pain without just cause (greater pain) doesn’t mean you are unwilling to fight, cheat, lie etc. Conversely, simply being a vegetarian/vegan doesn’t prevent you from being all sorts of evil BESIDES eating meat. Curiously, since you bring Hitler up, I believe he was a vegetarian.

The economics and health arguments are not very strong, as you’ll see if you read Erik’s books. Pain-ethics is the only strong reason (and the only one you need) to avoid meat, especially factory-farmed meat.

The one belief where I permanently part ways with certain people (usually religious) is in comparing human to animal pain. Admittedly there are no formulas (though Erik has some nice figurative ones like “there is more cruelty in a spoonful of egg than in an entire beef patty” based on how the respective animals are treated). But just because we can’t mathematically compare X amount of human pain to Y amount of (say) chicken pain doesn’t mean the two are of qualitatively different varieties. I can’t deal with people who simply can’t comprehend that humans ought to be on the same plane as animals and don’t deserve special consideration.

It seems our philosophies about pain converge, but note that your remark “humans ought to be on the same plane as other animals” is not germane to this discussion.

It seems you think that I am confusing your definition of “sociopathic” in the Gervais/workplace sense and the traditionally accepted definition, which is only incidentally Machiavellian. The DSM-IV defines sociopathy as the “pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others”. This is why I call meat-eaters who know about the CAFO situation to be blatantly sociopathic.

The post personal because I was so forthcoming with my insecurities. Maybe it’s possible that the term “pussy” introduces some ambiguity for the less astute reader and I’ll note that. But I meant to define my previous conception of “pussy” to be the grounding of one’s own emotional well-being in the feelings of others: I actually idealized the sociopath, and not just the Machiavellian machinator. I guess you’re right in that my writing confuses the two because I sequence directly from talking about idealizing a DSM-IV sociopath into idolizing and practicing Machiavellian behaviors. The two are related, but I’m not sure that I’d agree with orthogonal. However, I could have made the distinction more clear, and it didn’t occur to me until you pointed this out. Appreciate the feedback.

I also appreciate you recommending Erik’s books and I will be sure to check them out. Safran Foer makes a very strong argument for the negative externalities of CAFOs and I am curious to see there are any contradictions with respect to facts instead of perspective.

I think I was responding to ““I’d rather some animals not have to suffer, but it is nothing compared to the suffering of hungry HUMAN BEINGS.” … I know you disavow that statement now with the “I didn’t know what I was talking about” …. but for a lot of people that actually is a strongly-held position. See d_b_z below for instance.

You are right that in America there IS a strong cultural inference (veggie ==> pussy) because empirically it actually happens to be true. Most American vegetarians ARE in fact also predictable in their hippie/leftie politics. In countries where vegetarianism is more traditional (eg. India) you see a lot more variety, so that inference doesn’t exist. There are far-right-wing super-moron-jerks of Glen Beck levels who are vegetarian.

If you are Gervais-socio, dealing with this perception doesn’t present a problem. If you are clinically socio, it doesn’t matter If you are neither, and care too much about such perceptions, well, you’ve probably got bigger problems in social identity that go well beyond vegatarianism I get in that zone sometimes, but usually snap out of it in a day or two.

You know what the rarest act of bravery is in modern society? Saying “I was wrong”.

Eh, my point is not so much that humans are not superior (even though animals are, as Richard Dawkins eloquently puts it, “our cousins”). My point is that the suffering is so grandiose that an “ends justify the means” argument just doesn’t make sense. My hypothesis is that any hunger might be alleviated if we made better use of grain resources etc: raising meat is really calorically inefficient.

Btw, really glad that you read my blog.

That argument (meat is calorically inefficient) is actually not as sound as it seems… there’s a detailed analysis in Erik’s book, and he recommends activists not use it because of its shakiness. It also distracts from the fundamental ethical issue: if populations were small enough that caloric inefficiency was not a concern, is it okay to eat meat? The answer is still ‘absolutely not’ if it is factory farmed in the normal, cruel way. The health argument is also similarly shaky and distracting.

“Humane” animal husbandry of the sort some moderate activists advocate… I am still not convinced, but am open to debate.

I don’t think there would be anything wrong with killing an animal whom you encounter in the wild, if you were otherwise going to starve to death. Having a flock for your own personal use is another thing entirely. The ethics are confusing; what’s not confusing, and an easier starting point, is that CAFO meat is wrong.I think that raising pain-free animals, genetically tricked out for a life of automatic hedonism, might be OK, for the same reason that if we could feed SOMA to humans in a sustainable way, I think that would be OK, too. Which of Erik’s books is best to begin with? Which contains the most relevant arguments?

I don't think this post is as personal as you think You are MAKING it personal. The only “personal” element in adopting food values is this “under what conditions am I willing to cause pain to other living things?”

Once you have a formula for drawing your line in the sand in various situations, the whole thing is very simple. I was raised an unexamined vegetarian, have never been anything else, and am trying to go vegan. I started thinking about this stuff consciously thanks to having Erik Marcus (author of 'Vegan' and 'Meat Market' and owner of vegan.com) as a neighbor and the ethics seemed crystal clear to me. I am not willing to cause pain except to avoid even greater pain. I modify that formula sometimes, but it is straightforward to apply (basic utilitarianism… minimum pain for the maximum creatures). A good recent test case is the debate around oysters, where people concluded they basically can't feel pain and are like plants. Another is David Foster Wallace's excellent essay “consider the lobster” where they DO feel a lot of pain that we can't easily observe.

The rest of the stuff you are talking about just confuse the issue. It has nothing to do with being a “pussy” outside 5-year old South Park minds. I love Greene's book and am a pretty manipulative jerk most of the time. The willingness to be a sociopath and your ethics around pain are/can be orthogonal. Being unwilling to cause pain without just cause (greater pain) doesn't mean you are unwilling to fight, cheat, lie etc. Conversely, simply being a vegetarian/vegan doesn't prevent you from being all sorts of evil BESIDES eating meat. Curiously, since you bring Hitler up, I believe he was a vegetarian.

The economics and health arguments are not very strong, as you'll see if you read Erik's books. Pain-ethics is the only strong reason (and the only one you need) to avoid meat, especially factory-farmed meat.

The one belief where I permanently part ways with certain people (usually religious) is in comparing human to animal pain. Admittedly there are no formulas (though Erik has some nice figurative ones like “there is more cruelty in a spoonful of egg than in an entire beef patty” based on how the respective animals are treated). But just because we can't mathematically compare X amount of human pain to Y amount of (say) chicken pain doesn't mean the two are of qualitatively different varieties. I can't deal with people who simply can't comprehend that humans ought to be on the same plane as animals and don't deserve special consideration.

It seems our philosophies about pain converge, but note that your remark “humans ought to be on the same plane as other animals” is not germane to this discussion.

It seems you think that I am confusing your definition of “sociopathic” in the Gervais/workplace sense and the traditionally accepted definition, which is only incidentally Machiavellian. The DSM-IV defines sociopathy as the “pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others”. This is why I call meat-eaters who know about the CAFO situation to be blatantly sociopathic.

The post personal because I was so forthcoming with my insecurities. Maybe it's possible that the term “pussy” introduces some ambiguity for the less astute reader and I'll note that. But I meant to define my previous conception of “pussy” to be the grounding of one's own emotional well-being in the feelings of others: I actually idealized the sociopath, and not just the Machiavellian machinator. I guess you're right in that my writing confuses the two because I sequence directly from talking about idealizing a DSM-IV sociopath into idolizing and practicing Machiavellian behaviors. The two are related, but I'm not sure that I'd agree with orthogonal. However, I could have made the distinction more clear, and it didn't occur to me until you pointed this out. Appreciate the feedback.

I also appreciate you recommending Erik's books and I will be sure to check them out. Safran Foer makes a very strong argument for the negative externalities of CAFOs and I am curious to see there are any contradictions with respect to facts instead of perspective.

I think I was responding to ““I’d rather some animals not have to suffer, but it is nothing compared to the suffering of hungry HUMAN BEINGS.” … I know you disavow that statement now with the “I didn't know what I was talking about” …. but for a lot of people that actually is a strongly-held position. See d_b_z below for instance.

You are right that in America there IS a strong cultural inference (veggie ==> pussy) because empirically it actually happens to be true. Most American vegetarians ARE in fact also predictable in their hippie/leftie politics. In countries where vegetarianism is more traditional (eg. India) you see a lot more variety, so that inference doesn't exist. There are far-right-wing super-moron-jerks of Glen Beck levels who are vegetarian.

If you are Gervais-socio, dealing with this perception doesn't present a problem. If you are clinically socio, it doesn't matter If you are neither, and care too much about such perceptions, well, you've probably got bigger problems in social identity that go well beyond vegatarianism I get in that zone sometimes, but usually snap out of it in a day or two.

You know what the rarest act of bravery is in modern society? Saying “I was wrong”.

Eh, my point is not so much that humans are not superior (even though animals are, as Richard Dawkins eloquently puts it, “our cousins”). My point is that the suffering is so grandiose that an “ends justify the means” argument just doesn't make sense. My hypothesis is that any hunger might be alleviated if we made better use of grain resources etc: raising meat is really calorically inefficient.

Btw, really glad that you read my blog.

That argument (meat is calorically inefficient) is actually not as sound as it seems… there's a detailed analysis in Erik's book, and he recommends activists not use it because of its shakiness. It also distracts from the fundamental ethical issue: if populations were small enough that caloric inefficiency was not a concern, is it okay to eat meat? The answer is still 'absolutely not' if it is factory farmed in the normal, cruel way. The health argument is also similarly shaky and distracting.

“Humane” animal husbandry of the sort some moderate activists advocate… I am still not convinced, but am open to debate.

I don't think there would be anything wrong with killing an animal whom you encounter in the wild, if you were otherwise going to starve to death. Having a flock for your own personal use is another thing entirely. The ethics are confusing; what's not confusing, and an easier starting point, is that CAFO meat is wrong.

I think that raising pain-free animals, genetically tricked out for a life of automatic hedonism, might be OK, for the same reason that if we could feed SOMA to humans in a sustainable way, I think that would be OK, too.

Which of Erik's books is best to begin with? Which contains the most relevant arguments?

“…or that the pain they feel doesn’t matter”
Meh. *eats a steak*

“…or that the pain they feel doesn’t matter”
Meh. *eats a steak*

Would you consider eating human meat? And why, or why not?

Would you consider eating human meat? And why, or why not?

I’d implore you to read The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith. Don’t decide on life changing decisions just by reading one book or one perspective.

I'd implore you to read The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith. Don't decide on life changing decisions just by reading one book or one perspective.

Nice comment. I’ve looked into The Vegetarian Myth and it doesn’t appear to contradict the savage cruelty of factory farming. However, I would be doing myself a disservice (and everyone else in this band a disservice) if I don’t read it. So I will. Thank you for the reco.

Nice comment. I've looked into The Vegetarian Myth and it doesn't appear to contradict the savage cruelty of factory farming. However, I would be doing myself a disservice (and everyone else in this band a disservice) if I don't read it. So I will. Thank you for the reco.

Great Post. I’m glad you’ve learned to open your heart. Compassion and power are very compatible values.

Great Post. I'm glad you've learned to open your heart. Compassion and power are very compatible values.

I have a problem with this: ‘The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of human beings no longer need meat to thrive’
This is not true in the least and is extremely western-centric thinking. The vast amount of human beings on this planet have little to zero of the amenities we have in the western world. Meat is one of the easiest ways to incorporate protein into the body which allows spare time to do other work in which to survive. The majority of the people in the world do need such a staple to thrive.

I have a problem with this: 'The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of human beings no longer need meat to thrive'
This is not true in the least and is extremely western-centric thinking. The vast amount of human beings on this planet have little to zero of the amenities we have in the western world. Meat is one of the easiest ways to incorporate protein into the body which allows spare time to do other work in which to survive. The majority of the people in the world do need such a staple to thrive.

http://tinyurl.com/thevegetarianmyth many parts

http://tinyurl.com/thevegetarianmyth many parts

Wonderful, well written post

Wonderful, well written post

Scott, this is not true. Food in most developing nations is NOT factory farmed, for one thing; meat is consumed less frequently and in less ridiculously large portions than in the U.S. in those places, too. Almost all plant foods contain substantial protein, and most cultures’ cuisines are based upon sustainable plant-based nutrition. (I am an anthropologist with a research focus on food.)

Also, animals do understand the concept of family; they do grieve. Pigs *scream* as their companions are taken to slaughter — they know what it means.

This may be true. I understand that no one eats meat like we do in the U.S. and it’s certainly not factory farmed but you can’t possibly agree on preaching to these people that they shouldn’t eat meat at all. It’s extremely pompous and shows a complete disregard to understanding their culture. Even if it were the case, it’s a weak argument for why people shouldn’t eat meat.

What plant foods contain substantial protein? I was under the impression that most cultures had to get their protein from nuts.

Hi Scott! I have always sympathized more with environmental than humane reasons for choosing a vegetarian or mostly vegetarian diet — that’s just me. For that reason, I am passionate about people in an industrialized society such as ours choosing vegetarian options, but really not much interested in promulgating that philosophy to other places where other circumstances are relevant. The biggest problem with my approach is that the U.S. and its companies export a lot of their factory farming to other countries: Mexico produces a LOT of U.S. pork, and Brazil’s rainforests are destroyed to produce fast food beef, for instance. Nor are the locals getting the economic benefit; it’s all corporate.

For the record, I also flinch when other types of regulation impact foreign cultures: for instance, the relatively recent attempt to make female circumcision a criminal activity worldwide. It has local significance and marks women as adult, both in religious and social life, in those cultures — and despite the “mutilation” of the bodies of minors that is inherent, it is not for other societies to dictate these rules. I agree with you that it is pompous, patristic, and ethnocentric to enforce rules outside one’s own circle. (And I don’t think Zachary transcended that line; he changed his own behavior, voting with his wallet within his own society. But because of his humane leanings, he may feel that the moral effect transcends culture; this isn’t a rare perspective, but it’s not one I share.)

We eat way more protein than necessary in the U.S., and therefore are often uncomfortable with plant sources. Of course there is soy (the debate about phytoestrogens … though often wackadoo on both sides … rages on. Having seen the studies, I think it’s safe in reasonable quantities.) Nuts, seeds, grains, and pulses are great sources of protein. People concerned with vegetarian nutrition used to be very interested in complementing amino acid shortfalls by combining these foods to compensate, but more recently, a philosophy that “protein is protein” is starting to take hold — since incomplete proteins need not be eaten together or even on the same day to have nutritional benefit.

There are lots of great sources out there that show protein levels in different food. Here is one I picked up from a quick Google: http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.htm. I used to have a spectacular master chart, but I have misplaced it.

Very interesting. I believe I could learn a lot from you. Thanks for the protein chart.

I believe you can draw a line on what’s reasonable to enforce outside you’re culture. Protecting women’s rights to their own body is one thing, nay saying about their right to choose what they eat is another.

Environmental impacts of a meat society are another matter. I have issues when people mistake trees for the forest. Yes having such a large proponent of beef is a major environmental impact. However, there is a demand for beef and beef alone, not a substitute. The forest in my opinion, would be energy production, where there are severe impacts of such things as coal plants on the world’s environment and a ready substitute such as nuclear power. I’m sorry… I just realized I twisted the discussion into a different arena.

In summary, thanks for your reply and the link

Sorry about the delay in response, I had a crash.

You are very welcome, and I hope I didn’t come off as snarky or pompous. I agree that all these issues are really fraught (that’s why there’s controversy!) and too complicated for sweeping gestures, unless you are one of the people who think best in sweeping gestures — which I am also sympathetic to.

Full disclosure here: I am not currently vegetarian, though I do eat less meat, and eat it more rarely, than most of the people I know. I was vegetarian for 10 years, but when we went to do our field work in Peru, I was offered hand-raised, humanely slaughtered meat (guinea pig, first, actually) that had been killed expressly for my visit. It would have been immoral to turn it down, under the circumstances — and turning down food in Peru is a terrible offense. So I ate everything I was offered, there. And when I came home, my mom was offended that I’d eat food for strangers but not for her; I decided to take that particular rule easy for a few years, fully understanding that I’d go back to vegetarianism eventually.

At this moment, I am less vegetarian than ever, since I am fat, 40, and a first time mother (pregnant!) and at high risk for preeclampsia. One way to avoid preeclampsia is to eat lots of high-quality, animal protein — and so I am including it in my diet, with lots of environmental guilt. I try to do other things to ease my impact on the environment: reusable grocery bags, upcycling things I can no longer use, making cloth diapers, saving water in various ways, conserving electricity as best I can, eating local as much as feasible (which is easy in agricultural California). I don’t impose ANY of these lifeways expressing my philosophy on anyone around me, but if they are interested, I encourage them to research the issues and find their own happy path.

Thank you for a stimulating and delightful conversation — and have a great day!

Scott, this is not true. Food in most developing nations is NOT factory farmed, for one thing; meat is consumed less frequently and in less ridiculously large portions than in the U.S. in those places, too. Almost all plant foods contain substantial protein, and most cultures' cuisines are based upon sustainable plant-based nutrition. (I am an anthropologist with a research focus on food.)

Also, animals do understand the concept of family; they do grieve. Pigs *scream* as their companions are taken to slaughter — they know what it means.

This may be true. I understand that no one eats meat like we do in the U.S. and it's certainly not factory farmed but you can't possibly agree on preaching to these people that they shouldn't eat meat at all. It's extremely pompous and shows a complete disregard to understanding their culture. Even if it were the case, it's a weak argument for why people shouldn't eat meat.

What plant foods contain substantial protein? I was under the impression that most cultures had to get their protein from nuts.

Hi Scott! I have always sympathized more with environmental than humane reasons for choosing a vegetarian or mostly vegetarian diet — that's just me. For that reason, I am passionate about people in an industrialized society such as ours choosing vegetarian options, but really not much interested in promulgating that philosophy to other places where other circumstances are relevant. The biggest problem with my approach is that the U.S. and its companies export a lot of their factory farming to other countries: Mexico produces a LOT of U.S. pork, and Brazil's rainforests are destroyed to produce fast food beef, for instance. Nor are the locals getting the economic benefit; it's all corporate.

For the record, I also flinch when other types of regulation impact foreign cultures: for instance, the relatively recent attempt to make female circumcision a criminal activity worldwide. It has local significance and marks women as adult, both in religious and social life, in those cultures — and despite the “mutilation” of the bodies of minors that is inherent, it is not for other societies to dictate these rules. I agree with you that it is pompous, patristic, and ethnocentric to enforce rules outside one's own circle. (And I don't think Zachary transcended that line; he changed his own behavior, voting with his wallet within his own society. But because of his humane leanings, he may feel that the moral effect transcends culture; this isn't a rare perspective, but it's not one I share.)

We eat way more protein than necessary in the U.S., and therefore are often uncomfortable with plant sources. Of course there is soy (the debate about phytoestrogens … though often wackadoo on both sides … rages on. Having seen the studies, I think it's safe in reasonable quantities.) Nuts, seeds, grains, and pulses are great sources of protein. People concerned with vegetarian nutrition used to be very interested in complementing amino acid shortfalls by combining these foods to compensate, but more recently, a philosophy that “protein is protein” is starting to take hold — since incomplete proteins need not be eaten together or even on the same day to have nutritional benefit.

There are lots of great sources out there that show protein levels in different food. Here is one I picked up from a quick Google: http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.htm. I used to have a spectacular master chart, but I have misplaced it.

Very interesting. I believe I could learn a lot from you. Thanks for the protein chart.

I believe you can draw a line on what's reasonable to enforce outside you're culture. Protecting women's rights to their own body is one thing, nay saying about their right to choose what they eat is another.

Environmental impacts of a meat society are another matter. I have issues when people mistake trees for the forest. Yes having such a large proponent of beef is a major environmental impact. However, there is a demand for beef and beef alone, not a substitute. The forest in my opinion, would be energy production, where there are severe impacts of such things as coal plants on the world's environment and a ready substitute such as nuclear power. I'm sorry… I just realized I twisted the discussion into a different arena.

In summary, thanks for your reply and the link

Sorry about the delay in response, I had a crash.

You are very welcome, and I hope I didn't come off as snarky or pompous. I agree that all these issues are really fraught (that's why there's controversy!) and too complicated for sweeping gestures, unless you are one of the people who think best in sweeping gestures — which I am also sympathetic to.

Full disclosure here: I am not currently vegetarian, though I do eat less meat, and eat it more rarely, than most of the people I know. I was vegetarian for 10 years, but when we went to do our field work in Peru, I was offered hand-raised, humanely slaughtered meat (guinea pig, first, actually) that had been killed expressly for my visit. It would have been immoral to turn it down, under the circumstances — and turning down food in Peru is a terrible offense. So I ate everything I was offered, there. And when I came home, my mom was offended that I'd eat food for strangers but not for her; I decided to take that particular rule easy for a few years, fully understanding that I'd go back to vegetarianism eventually.

At this moment, I am less vegetarian than ever, since I am fat, 40, and a first time mother (pregnant!) and at high risk for preeclampsia. One way to avoid preeclampsia is to eat lots of high-quality, animal protein — and so I am including it in my diet, with lots of environmental guilt. I try to do other things to ease my impact on the environment: reusable grocery bags, upcycling things I can no longer use, making cloth diapers, saving water in various ways, conserving electricity as best I can, eating local as much as feasible (which is easy in agricultural California). I don't impose ANY of these lifeways expressing my philosophy on anyone around me, but if they are interested, I encourage them to research the issues and find their own happy path.

Thank you for a stimulating and delightful conversation — and have a great day!

Cruelty is a massive issue for me but I find people are more understanding when I say I eat no meat for health issues – more energy, more balanced throughout the day. Being selfish is more understandable than being compassionate.

That’s really tragic. I think it’s because the issue is so deep — anything we take into our bodies, be it as philosophy/religion, food, or sex, is something we take very personally and as a private issue fraught with morality. When you state moral reasons, you are implicitly questioning the other person’s morals (or it will feel that way, from their point of view) and they get defensive. But when it’s your own selfish lookout, they aren’t required to question their choices.

Cruelty is a massive issue for me but I find people are more understanding when I say I eat no meat for health issues – more energy, more balanced throughout the day. Being selfish is more understandable than being compassionate.

That's really tragic. I think it's because the issue is so deep — anything we take into our bodies, be it as philosophy/religion, food, or sex, is something we take very personally and as a private issue fraught with morality. When you state moral reasons, you are implicitly questioning the other person's morals (or it will feel that way, from their point of view) and they get defensive. But when it's your own selfish lookout, they aren't required to question their choices.

I think vegetarians sometime behave as religious fanatics. The use of words, the manipulation of emotions… If you really hold what you do (and you are not a person who want’s to boss around and always be right), then giving a good example should suffice. I personally wouldn’t want to be driven by guilt, but by a higher ideal.

I think vegetarians sometime behave as religious fanatics. The use of words, the manipulation of emotions… If you really hold what you do (and you are not a person who want’s to boss around and always be right), then giving a good example should suffice. I personally wouldn’t want to be driven by guilt, but by a higher ideal.

I think vegetarians sometime behave as religious fanatics. The use of words, the manipulation of emotions… If you really hold what you do (and you are not a person who want's to boss around and always be right), then giving a good example should suffice. I personally wouldn't want to be driven by guilt, but by a higher ideal.

At least these animals get to exist. Imagine how much fewer animals there would be without farmers.

At least these animals get to exist. Imagine how much fewer animals there would be without farmers.

[...] Your IdeasZen, Skill Development, and The Inner Game Of Tennis (This Post Is Not About Tennis)Vegetarians Are Just Big PussiesThe Neuroscience of Buddhism – Practical Tips via Insightful FrameworkForgiving: What, Why, [...]