Do People Change Pt.2

I was just reflecting on my previous blog post, and I feel I've come off a little pessimistic. And since I generally hate pessimism, I think I should not only clarify my last post, but add to it a bit and make it more of a complete thought. 


The last blog post revealed a bit of a personal flaw that probably impedes my personal progress more than anything: my inability to acknowledge the progress I have made. I'm too busy thinking about where I want to be than where I am compared to where I was, if you follow. I've known for a while about myself, but I can't help but fall into the same traps. 


I realized that part while having a conversation with a friend. I mentioned that I'm not even sure if I would like 18-year-old Jason if I met him face-to-face. I didn't think about it, but after extrapolating a bit further (and thanks to some thoughtful prodding from that friend), what I managed to realize is this: I wouldn't like that person because looking at him would remind me of who I could be if I continued down the path I was on. That is to say, unhealthy, lazy, mindless and even kind of stupid. 


I've had a sort of aversion lately to things, activities and people I associate with my old life. It's not because I don't like those people and things, but more that I don't like what they represented for me in the past. Furthermore, I worry that I would see myself reacting in the same way I did before. I'm afraid that doing the things that 18-year-old Jason did would make me revert partially into that Jason, thus making me realize I haven't changed as much as I would like to think I have. But I'm starting to realize that is probably not the case. 


What I can say is this: I have made tremendous progress in several ways and not recognizing that would be a disservice to my Self. I am a more positive, happy and complete person than I've ever been before, thanks in no small part to the changes I have initiated for myself. 


And while I may not be fundamentally different from the me I used to be, that's not necessarily what I wanted. I don't hate me of yesteryear; I just strongly dislike 18-year-old Jason's apathy and complacency. There were things that I really liked about that me (though I wouldn't have admitted it at the time) and I hope I've maintained them throughout this time and would be able to recognize that if I were to run into my 18-year-old self. 


In short, people do change, but not completely. However, most people don't need to change completely. That's pretty much as well as I can put it at this point because I should really get to bed. 

Moral Schizophrenia

I was having a conversation with a friend at work and he pointed out this story to me, about a Tundra Swan with an injured left wing who had to be flown back to Alberta, otherwise he might have died.

The friend expressed what I might call outrage that such resources were put into helping one animal. He pointed to another story (which I'm having trouble finding right now) about a deer in New Brunswick (I believe) that was stranded on a lake, injured, and wandering around, obviously suffering. Members of the public were fairly outraged that officials didn't get to the deer more quickly and end its suffering. Meanwhile, probably 100 yards away, there were numerous people... hunting deer:

"Why don't they just hunt that deer instead, put it out of its misery, and everyone just shut up," said my friend.

One local ended up boating out to where the deer was and killing it. The CBC story ended, by the way, with a thankful, "The deer meat did not go to waste."

While I don't necessarily agree with my friend (or CBC's) conclusion on the matter, I do agree there is a serious disconnect between how we treat and view animals in different situations. Why does it matter if a deer suffers if we see no value in the creature's life anyway? Or do we just feel less bad when it's a "quick kill" or when the suffering is done in slaughterhouses, hidden from view?

My experiences have shown me that most people have at least some problem with animal cruelty, though where they draw the line between "cruel" and "acceptable" may be vastly different. Maybe they draw the line with companion animal abuse, cruelty with no purpose or with what goes on in our meat and dairy industries.

I know a number of people who will become irate when hearing about Michael Vick or the Toronto Humane Society, and then turn around and eat a steak. Or people who look down on hunters, but have no problem eating meat from animals that had far less of a fair chance at life, and far less of a pleasurable life. I've even seen someone eat bacon while looking up cute pictures of pigs online. Of course, I dare not bring up that pigs often have their tails chopped off and are castrated at a young age (by hand and with no anesthetic).

Prof. Gary L Francione refers to this as a type of moral schizophrenia, where we place animals in different categories for no logical reason. Animals A, B, and C are our friends; animals D, E, and F are our food. An organization out of Toronto had a great series of ads that showed animals from each category and bluntly asked, "Why love one, but eat the other?"

While there are no simple answers for what we deem cruel and what we deem "the natural order of things," I nonetheless think this is worthy of consideration. Are our instincts to feel bad flawed or wrong? Or should we recognize our moral considerations towards all animals and find ways to incorporate them into our daily lives?

A Brief Response to as Many Anti-Vegan Arguments I Can Drum up

Hey all,

As much as I don't necessarily want to make this a vegan blog, I think it's obvious to anyone who knows me well at this point in my life that it's something that matters a great deal to me. I was thinking I could use this entry as a somewhat definitive explanation of the ideas and thoughts through the art of refutatio (Latin makes you feel good about yourself).

Many of these are arguments I face almost once a week: some of them are valid, some just plain nonsense. But I'm always willing to hear people out because I'm certainly interested in hearing contrary opinions, as my vegan lifestyle is something I stand by. Having said that, if I'm certainly not unwavering. If I found a definitive study that veganism involved health risks or had other negative side effects, I would certainly consider it and react accordingly. I think it's extremely important to think about why we believe what we do and whether those reasons are sufficient to justify our choices. Here goes:

Isn't veganism unhealthy?/isn't consuming meat or dairy healthy?

Short answer, no. I'm certainly no dietician, but the American Dietetics Association is made up of some. They released a statement (and they're not the only ones) saying veganism is perfectly healthy. Search it yourself. In fact, I've been reading the book, The China Study, which is centred around the largest biomedical study of nutrition and disease ever conducted. The conclusion of the book (which is written by one of the authors of the study, a respected biomedical researcher) is essentially that the more plants we eat, and the less meat/dairy we consume, the healthier we are. He cites a wide variety of studies from around the world to back this up.

Aren't there some conflicting reports?/I heard the jury's still out on science...

There have been millions of studies and not all of them say the exact same thing. But from the vast majority of what I've seen backs up exactly what The China Study reports: the three leading causes of death (heart disease, diabetes and cancer) all drop drastically on a low-fat, plant-based diet. I implore you to find one that says otherwise.

What about iron/protein/calcium/B12?

Again, not a dietician, but this is all available online on various websites and in those things with words that are made out of paper that some people use to level their desks.

Iron: calorie for calorie, there are many plant foods whose iron amounts far exceed that in meat

Protein: The RDA of protein can easily be met by anyone, unless you're eating all fruit, all junk food or all air (by that, I mean not consuming enough calories).

calcium: There are a number of studies that show veg/veegs have equal calcium stores than non-veggies/veegs. Related article:

http://www.examiner.com/x-6753-Philadelphia-Nutrition-Examiner~y2009m7d10-Do-vegetarians-really-have-weaker-bones

B12: It's true, there are no reliable vegan dietary sources of B12. But that doesn't mean we're meant to eat meat. We used to get this from our soil, but since pesticides and other contaminants came into the mix, we've wisely started washing our veggies better. And B12 is not specifically in meat, but rather it is produced in bacteria. There are a number of plant-based supplements that are readily available.

It must be so hard/expensive./I guess you can never eat out again.

Short answer again, it is not hard, nor is it that expensive nor do I spend inordinate amounts of time cooking or preparing food. Most of my stand-by recipes take about ten minutes to prepare and you can find plenty at veganyumyum.com or vivelevegan.blogspot.com and in various cookbooks. Ask for suggestions if you're interested. I will also add the cost can be quite minimal if you're eating well and if you don't want to eat those fake veggie meats all the time. The most expensive things you typically buy at a grocery store are meats/dairy products/ processed foods. Regarding eating out, yeah, it's not always the easiest thing to do as a vegan, but most places will have something--you just have to ask or clarify ingredients. And as far as feeling bad about being a difficult customer, you wouldn't feel bad if it was an allergy or a facet of your religion keeping you from eating whatever food, so why feel bad about a deeply held, moral belief?

Who cares about stupid animals, anyway?

This is a tough argument to have because it usually comes from a meat-eater who suddenly feels on the defensive as soon as you mention you're a vegetarian. But my rationality for caring about the treatment of animals is quite simple, really: if other beings don't need to suffer for my food, why would I make them?

And suffer they do. Factory farms are virtually animal hell. There's a wealth of information around, and plenty of absolutely appalling videos that represent standard industry practices. Things like de-beaking and removing the tail of a pig seems pretty horrible, but it's essentially par for the course. Not to mention how little room the animals have to move around and how often they get sick, break limbs... the list of atrocities goes on.

But why vegan? Why not just vegetarian?

Again, the ideas behind this shouldn't be difficult to understand. No, animals don't have to be harmed for people to take milk and eggs from them, but they almost invariably are. Some of the worst animal abuses happen in dairy and egg production--not to mention the fact that the dairy industry is very closely tied to the meat and veal industry.

And even if that wasn't the case, using animal products lends itself to the idea that these animals exist purely to satisfy human wants. I think that is an absolute fallacy and any rational person, I expect, would agree. For me, it's a Ghandi-esque non-participation in anything I believe to be evil. I've heard arguments that the net suffering for a glass of milk or an egg is actually more than that of meat. But I don't care, because I'd rather just not participate in the whole, cruel mess.

But no one can ever be purely vegan. Aren't you just a big hypocrite?

Yes.

I am.

At some point in my life, I'm going to accidentally or unknowingly consume an animal product. Even while driving a car, I'm killing bugs left right and centre. Certainly, that can be considered hypocritical. But isn't everyone?

I certainly don't see how that's any more hypocritical (I would argue far less by matter of intention) than saying you like animals and then participating in the slaughter or commodification of animals--For example, by loving a dog and eating a pig. Or by getting outraged over Michael Vick getting pleasure from dogs suffering while simultaneously getting pleasure from watching a sport in which a ball covered in the skin of a cow is thrown around.

At least I'm trying to participate in as little suffering as possible.

But what about free-range/organic/family farms? Isn't that okay because the animals are treated better?

While I don't disagree animals being treated better is a good thing, this is still operating on the presupposition that these animals exist for the purposes of our food enjoyment. I don't think that should be considered self-evident, just because we have created a system in which it appears to be. I don't care if the animals are tickled and you hire a string quartet to play as you slit their throats. I do not accept the idea that they are ours to eat/use.

How do you know plants don't have feelings?

I have actually gotten this one several times, believe it or not, and it's probably the easiest to refute. Even without getting into a biological argument about the existence nervous systems and brains, and the concept of sentience, the simple fact is meat is a much less efficient way of producing food. It takes up to sixteen pounds of wheat to create one pound of meat. Therefore, vegetarians actually require far less plant food than meat eaters. So if you're truly concerned about your poor, defenseless corn, steak is not the right answer.

But I like meat.

So? What if baby brains tasted good? Would that be justified?

Don't you miss the taste?

Don't you think slave owners missed having someone else to do their work for them? I mean, these last two arguments are obviously a little bit hyperbolic, but I'm using that to show how thin such arguments actually are. And I consider them only a little hyperbolic because, as I described above, these conditions essentially amount to torture.

anyone who knows me, knows I'm very particular about my food and if vegan food weren't delicious, I would not be as happy as I am right now. But even if meat was the best tasting thing in the universe, I certainly don't think food is the pinnacle of human existence.

Yeah, animals may not be able to play chess or talk about the government. But what does that matter? There is quotations that I've become quite fond of that basically explains my feelings on the people vs. animals thing, and the artificial and superficial barriers we create to justify our awful treatments of creatures that are, for all intents and purposes, extremely similar to us.

"...a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

-Jeremy Bentham, philosopher

As I mentioned before, I'm happy to debate anyone or answer any other criticisms you may have. So hit me with it.