Responses to a random blogger
Wed, Jul 11th, 2007
Today, I received an email from the anonymous author of a blog called Moses and Mohammed: racist, genocidal scum.1 The email was not about atheism, which seems to be the main focus of the blog. Instead, the author read our book Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-vegan World and had some fairly boilerplate responses to the arguments in the work itself. They honestly sound like the justifications of someone who clearly knows better, but refuses to take the next logical step. Regardless, the author asked me to respond, so I have, but I figured that with this being the blogosphere and all, I’d post the response on my own blog, rather than leaving such a lengthy reply in the comments there. The original comments from the Moses and Mohammed blog are in blockquote.
* Dairy does not necessarily involve slaughter: parts of India [see top of ‘Thing of the past’ bit here] have a ban on cow slaughter, yet they still consume dairy products. Even the Jains have traditionally had no problem with dairy, and they are more animal-friendly than any vegan who I know.
Indian dairy production is likely marginal given the global situation, and certainly the exception rather than the rule. Moreover, the rules that prohibit slaughter prohibit slaughter in those places, however, the cows are often shipped to other areas without bans for slaughter. This is documented in the film _Earthlings_. In the United States, Britain, and just about any other country, dairy production requires slaughter to remain profitable.
* Not all dairy farms are hugely cruel. Some are; some are not. I only had to observe farms that I walked past to realise that P.E.T.A. generalises hugely about these things. Notice that groups such as P.E.T.A. never give proper references for these things.
Dairy farms and cruelty: First, it depends on how you define “cruel.” Certainly, large-scale conventional dairy production is cruel, as it confines cows to feedlots or barns for production. Veal and the slaughter of calves is a direct side-effect of this industry, as cows must be kept pregnant to give milk. This kind of feedlot production accounts for a majority of milk, but a minority of farms, a political-economic consequence of growing farm size in both the EU and the US. Regardless of the farm size, death *must* be involved — look around at the dairy farms and tell me how many bulls you see. If cows must be pregnant to give milk and they subsequently give birth, ask yourself what happens to all the bulls. There are very, very few on farms because they’re killed as calves for veal, petfood, or raw protein. For what it is worth, I think PETA are a bunch of idiots, so I can’t defend their statistics or examples. I do, however, have a bachelor of science degree in production agricultural science from a major US university, and I know of what I speak.
On page 55, it is admitted that a B12 vitamin supplement may be needed. Vitamin B12 tablets are not always suitable for children. In light of this, it is simply too dangerous to bring a child up as vegan. I would agree with Gilbert that food is always the best way to fight vitamin deficiency.
* One thing that I’ve never understood is, if veganism is as healthy as all these vegans claim, why are so few doctors and nutrionists vegan? Many even advise against veganism. Now, I can accept that some are biased, but not that the vast majority are biased.
* The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have said that “Well-planned vegan, lacto-vegetarian, and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy and lactation. Appropriately planned vegan, lacto-vegetarian, and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets satisfy nutrient needs of infants, children, and adolescents and promote normal growth.”2
* Why aren’t more doctors vegan? Because doctors are undereducated about nutrition. This is documented thoroughly in a number of places, even by omnivorous authors like Andrew Weil, MD. I can’t talk about nutritionists with any great certainty, but I’m willing to bet that they suffer under the weight of tradition and taste like much of the rest of the omnivorous world. Many nutritionists recognize that veganism is indeed healthful, as the position paper above illustrates.
* The health of vegan diets or near-vegan diets has been repeatedly illustrated in clinical and epidemological studies, one of which we cite in our book (The China Study by T. Colin Campbell). Others such as Neal Barnard and Brenda Davis have published work documenting the potential of vegan diets for reversing diseases like diabetes. My own doctor has advised me — based on her own research — to continue eating a vegan diet, despite the fact that she is not a vegan. I’m also willing to wager that my overall BMI, cholesterol, and triglyceride levels are lower than yours (provided you’re an ovo-lacto vegetarian or omnivore).
* On the subject of B12: we supplement a great many foods with vitamins, including milk. In the US (don’t know about the UK) milk is fortified with niacin and vitamin D. B12 is available from vegan sources, and since there is no need to kill animals to get it, I don’t see any reason to. Moreover, B12 can be provided through food (fortified soymilk and such).
More importantly, I have some queries that relate to being in Britain. I think that, if you live in Britain and care about animals, you cannot adopt an American-style vegan diet. Britain is a cold country, so we cannot grow so many things locally. It would be very, very hard to live healthily from the limited range of British-grown vegan products. Many vegans who I know eat huge amounts of imported food. This causes global warming, and also kills animals on the way through pollution:
* Imported food kills fish through water pollution. It also kills more animals on the road. Eating local fish kills less animals.
* Eating local fish does not cause as much global warming as eating imported food, which has often polluted thousands of miles of water as well as many miles of road. The fish just pollutes several miles of road and a bit of water.
* To a lesser extent, eating local fish causes less global warming than eating manufactured vegan products [e.g. veggieburgers, veggie sausages, etc.] Such products are made in polluting, wasteful factories.
* Let’s not forget! Global warming hurts animals the most.
* On balance, the importation of food is probably not as bad as the overall impacts of livestock production, not only for the pollution from manure and animal methane (which is a significant contributor to global warming) but also because the production of meat relies quite heavily on imported grains like soy and corn, often grown in the developing world (Brazil is a huge soy exporter). It takes several pounds of these grains to produce a single pound of animal flesh (the exact ratio varies depending upon the type of flesh), and though I don’t know the specifics of Britain’s agricultural industry, I would not be surprised to find that they were also sourcing significant amounts of grain from the developing world (this is a global market). In sum, I suspect the overall carbon footprint of a vegan is significantly lower than a vegetarian or meat eater, and I’m willing to bet that this is the case in the UK and the EU, just as it is in the US (we import a lot from California; you import a lot from Spain and northern Africa). To get back to the issue of global warming and the flawed assumptions you make, this article talks about Britain briefly but there is also a larger-scale analysis by two US scientists that makes the case more compellingly — and that’s for vegetarianism, not veganism. Both of these articles show your reasoning to be completely unsound.
As for fish, they’re sentient creatures, and if one wants to do the least harm, there is no compelling reason to consume them. Indeed, with overfishing being the problem that it is — studies have argued that we may deplete the global fishing stock in 50 years if we continue at current rates — there seems to me to be every reason not to eat fish, even locally caught fish. This, of course, says nothing of fish farms, which tend to be highly polluting.
In sum, there is no compelling reason to consume animals, apart from an exploitative tradition and taste. If you’re honest with yourself, and if you truly care about animals, there is no other conclusion that is ethically acceptable and logical.
# Comment by jenny on Wed, Jul 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pm:
I especially like his argument that it is too cold in Britian to be vegan/eat locally.
Awesome.
# Comment by Chris on Wed, Jul 11th, 2007 at 7:14 pm:
Once again, Bob Torres is The Man (but not, of course, in the patriarchal, sexist way). What is the deal with all of these scientifically-minded atheists who think being a vegan is illogical? In fact, as you clearly show, it is perfectly logical.
By the way, have you seen this:
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/07/11/whole_foods/index.html
That wacky CEO!
# Comment by Max on Wed, Jul 11th, 2007 at 9:20 pm:
Maybe if I repeat those arguments loud enough and enough times I can convince myself to leave veganism for lacto-ovo vegetarianism.
# Comment by Sean on Thu, Jul 12th, 2007 at 5:41 pm:
Great response Bob; my sentiments exactly. However I think it would make for an excellent extended essay, perhaps even a book, if someone would analyze the true environmental costs of a vegan, vegetarian, “local,” organic, and standard American diet and every reasonable combination thereof. I have seen small attempts at this here and there but not a long and thorough analysis which might put the matter to rest. I envision something that would take into account the length and means of transportation, the inputs for growing the food, the long term impacts for the soil and landscape, the use of water and its diversion, the potential and impact of run off, the need and relative environmental cost of things like herbicides/pesticides/antibiotics/hormones/feed/etc involved in various production regimes, the amount of consumer travel required to procure a daily and weekly allotment of food, the amount of energy used in its preparation at the consumer level, etc. I am not in a position to take up such a project, but perhaps you or someone else in the vegan community may know some researchers who would.
# Comment by emm7 on Sun, Jul 15th, 2007 at 12:53 pm:
I’m a British vegan and I have never had any problem finding local vegan food! British strawberries, potatoes, broad beans (think in the US you call these fava beans), carrots, tomatoes and spring greens are delicious. I try to buy fresh fruit and veg marked as from UK or Europe wherever possible.
Yes I do eat bananas but we have organic fairtrade ones in every supermarket in the UK now so I buy these. I try to shop at my local greengrocers and health food shop as much as possible in my village and walk there (rather than using the car).
So how am I contributing to global warming? (Other than by eating bananas???? ) Surely by reducing the demand for animal products I am helping the environment? Cows –> Methane –> Potent Contribution to global warming.
Is this guy honestly saying that I am doing more damage to the planet than an American Omnivore, just by being a British vegan?
I don’t get it?
Interestingly I watched Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ at the weekend and he doesn’t mention the environmental impact of diet at all… Could this be a blind spot in his campaign? What do you guys think?
# Comment by Rachel on Wed, Jul 18th, 2007 at 3:13 pm:
I want to believe that there’s room in the world for vegans and non-vegans who respect each other, seek to understand each other and still want the same things politically, ethically and otherwise. And so I find it deeply offensive when you write -”If you’re honest with yourself, and if you truly care about animals, there is no other conclusion that is ethically acceptable and logical.”
The tone of that statement is far too similar to that of religious fundamentalists who tell me that “if I’m honest with myself” I’ll give my life to “God” and swallow doctrine while setting aside all doubt and debate. There is more to life (and cycle of life) than the industrialized food industry of certain nations. A great number of animals on this planet still exist *outside* of that system.
I’ve worked and sacrificed for the welfare of animals all my life. I’ve at times risked my freedom, my future and my health for the welfare of animals. I will *not* have that negated because I make the conscious and informed choice to also consume some animals and milk products.
I’m not sure I agree or disagree with some of the points this writer made, but I do know that I’m made nervous by the tone of your answers to him (and not only you but the tone of many vegans who self-label as ‘activists’). There is great risk in being so “right”.
# Comment by Bob Torres on Thu, Jul 19th, 2007 at 12:27 pm:
Well, what good reason is there to eat animals? The easiest sacrifice for animals is to stop eating them. I don’t understand how one can simultaneously say they care about animals and then support their exploitation and death. There is nothing but logic in this position.
# Comment by Bob Torres on Thu, Jul 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pm:
And as for there being “great risk in being so right,” I’d argue that there’s more risk in being wrong. The default position of consuming animals is one which causes suffering for no justifiable reason beyond tradition, convenience and taste. If one truly cares for animals, I don’t understand how one can simultaneously justify consuming them, or exploiting them when it is not necessary. There is no context in modern society in which this exploitation is necessary.
I also wonder this: what makes your dogs more important than a dairy cow, or a pig, or any other animal you’d eat? I’m serious in asking this, because I think we set up a hierarchy without justification in how we approach animals. It is deeply schizophrenic. We say we love them, and many of us sacrifice a lot to help or save companion animals, but when it comes down to the simple choice of boycotting products that make other animals suffer and die, well, we won’t do that, because it is just too difficult. I don’t understand this logic, and my position is based entirely upon logic — nothing else.
You can call this fundamentalism or try to paint it with whatever brush you want, but saying that you care about animals and then eating them is just plain absurd — and I’d expect better from you, Rachel, than to allege that my position is fundamentalist. You can try to dismiss me by likening me to religious fundamentalists, but there’s one key difference: my approach is based on a logical argument and the application of principles of equality to all animals. Can you say the same about your choice to eat meat while you say you care about animals? Indeed, lacking logic, it’d be _you_ that would be the fundamentalist, for you seem to operate on some kind of faith that this false hierarchy between your dogs and a dairy calf is somehow acceptable.
It is a logical and moral contradiction to treat your dogs like royalty while you eat cows or drink their milk. This is a position I came to after a lot of thought, consideration, and honesty with myself about what I had to do to live my ethics through to their completion. I don’t see any other way in contemporary, developed societies if we’re serious about our pledged commitment to animals.
# Comment by Rachel on Thu, Jul 19th, 2007 at 7:38 pm:
It’s impossible to hang one’s hat on logic when you’re presenting a fundamentally moral stand with logical arguments built atop of it. Morality itself is illogical. We have the same politics to a degree of 99% and the same concerns. But, while I respect your personal choices you clearly don’t respect mine.
I have very good reasons for eating animals (which have nothing to do with tradition, “faith”, subsistence or dietary need), but they’re complex, and I feel that your perspective makes you incapable of appreciating them. And I can accept that, but I can’t accept being attacked and/or morally judged because of your unwillingness to understand them. What appears to be a “schizophrenic” perspective is oftentimes simply a perspective which is more complex than mere logic. That doesn’t necessarily invalidate it.
I don’t know where you get the idea that I consider cows “less important” than my dogs. I, of all people, do not “set up a hierarchy without justification” in how I approach animals. I simply make a natural separation between those I have a relationship with and those I don’t have a relationship with. There’s nothing “immoral” about that. That’s how social animals are meant to feel about animals which exist outside their social circle, and animals they consume.
That said, I do NOT accept the idea that raising animals for meat or milk is inherently cruel (it is too often cruel but doesn’t *have* to be), and I do NOT suggest that it is in any way acceptable to exploit animals in a cruel manner simply because I am not familiar with them. Though I’m certain that leaping to that conclusion is tempting to some.
Once again, I don’t recognize who you’re addressing. Perhaps it’s some little bimbo who would value the life of a panda over that of a pig? Or are you suggesting that someone with my experience only cares for the welfare of domesticated animals and “pets”? Suggesting that I treat my dogs like “Royalty” strikes me as an underhanded attempt to paint me as one who “owns” animals for my own superficial needs. I find that a very insulting mischaracterization.
I eat meat but not because being vegan is “too hard”. And like you I *do* boycott products that make animals suffer; I simply don’t boycott products that make animals die, since I do not automatically equate death with cruelty. I also don’t automatically equate domestication with cruelty.
I would contend that your moral stand inherently negates your application of the principle of equality to all animals. And this is how we differ. Since, by your own argument, declaring all death “cruel” would mean having to label animals as “cruel” for killing and eating each other, and I simply refuse to travel that deeply into species chauvinism.
Morality and moral judgments inherently distance human beings from animals. It’s something which helps complex social animals like us organize our culture, and at times even gives us the ability to help animals. But, forgetting that moral judgment is artificial can be dangerous.
You and I share the same concerns; I simply do not share your moral judgments and would rather not be deemed “immoral” because of them. I don’t see how you can rationalize attacking, intentionally mischaracterizing, and judging someone who has shared so many of your values and concerns for so long. I’ve done nothing but promote and support your perspective and your efforts from day one, going back several years now, long before you were quite this determined to be “logical” about it.
I can only imagine that a kind of fundamentalism has emerged to drive you to that, though I’m sorry if you feel I use that word in any political sense. I obviously don’t since I consider us both on the SAME side of these issues.
# Comment by Kris on Fri, Jul 20th, 2007 at 2:47 am:
Re respect- I’ve copied and pasted an article my online friend from another forum wrote on the subject, here it is….
[quote] RESPECT
I have encountered numerous people trying to twist around respect for others, in order to justify, rationalise or advocate eating dead bodies or animals’ bodily fluids, and I would be surprised if others here haven;t encountered the same thing and felt the same way.
For example, the most common assertions would be the one from flesh-eaters, that “because I respect vegans , vegans ought to respect me regardless of what I am doing or my approach to others” , which shows that they are trying to trivialise respect and make it into some kind of bargaining tool… they behave as if respect is like a form of payment - “I pay others respect because i want whatever i do to be respected, so they should pay me respect back again” , rather than something which happens when you consider another person’s approach or actions to be meritable.
Their idea is that vegans should all just shut up and be supportive and entirely non-critical of those who eat flesh/body-fluids, because to behave otherwise is disrespectful and we should all be going around respecting them.
Indeed, the way in which these people define ‘respect’ is so far removed from what it actually is all about, that their approach is downright wrong.
Of course, if people find the needless support and active perpetuation of abusive torture of others to be ethically deplorable then surely they would have to be very superficial or false to then claim to respect that sort of behaviour and say that they find it to be very acceptable.
The “respect me like I respect you” thing is just a really pathetic attempt to gain support for doing cruel things entirely without necessity… after all, respect is about others doing things which you find meritable, and you valuing those things or holding them in high esteem as a result of that. If people find it good that there are those who live their life by trying to avoid needlessly abusing others then they can decide whether or not they find that respectable behaviour. It’s an ethically meritable approach so it would be logical for people do decide to respect such an approach.
On the other hand, if people find it good to live their life by needlessly abusing others because they are selfish people who lack compassion, then based on that people can decide whether or not they find that to be respectable behaviour. It’s a very selfish, and ethically unmeritable, approach… so it would be logical for people not to decide to respect such an approach.
The “I eat flesh, i respect vegans so they should respect my decision to eat flesh” thing is so intellectually flawed…. it’s like if someone were to say “I respect others’ decision not to beat their wife and kids, so those who don;t do that ought to respect my decision to decide to do it” , or “I respect people who aren’t rapists, so when i rape people i expect a bit of respect from any non-rapists, in return” ….
Effectively, it’s all about manipulation and bribery, rather than a genuine, unbiased, constructive approach to respecting (or disrespecting) others.
Some people would say that by respect they simply mean “due regard for another’s feelings” … but by this they mean that we should value the human desire to needlessly abuse/exploit animals to be more important than advocating against their ethically unwholesome actions…. we should ‘have regard for their feelings’ by tiptoeing around doing our best not to ‘upset’ them, for example by criticising their decision to support animal abuse needlessly. It could also be said that a compulsive need to be respectful towards others should only last as long as those others are respectful themselves. “Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself”, and all that.
It is also apparent to me that by criticising my criticism of ethically deplorable mindsets and behaviour, such people are (by their own definition of respect) being disrespectful towards me in an obviously hypocritical manner….
In the case of them criticising me, they are not even criticising me for doing anything ethically deplorable or abusive… as is the case when i criticise those who are doing such things…. they are criticising me because i do not find unethical behaviour to be acceptable. So, their ‘disrespectful’ criticism has a very different motivation from mine.
It all just seems to be co-ordinated to try and suppress the voices of those who would criticise selfish and abusively themed behaviour, because otherwise “the poor timorous delicate abusively-involved people might feel upset”
It seems unworkable to say that people should all just respect absolutely everybody, regardless of who they are or how unethical, or ethical, their actions are. For example, should we all be respecting mass-murderers or paedophiles, and being respectful of their decisions to kill people and molest small children ? If we should, then why should we ?
And if not, then why does the reasoning for why not, also apply to people who engage themselves in other behaviour which extensively harms others, causes environmental destruction, supports human & non-human exploitation, and involves a lot of needless killing of defenceless victims ?[/quote]
# Comment by Bob Torres on Fri, Jul 20th, 2007 at 8:14 am:
Rachel,
We may never see eye to eye on this, so I’m not sure it is worth continuing this. We inherently disagree on so many things that it just seems worthless, and I’m not sure how we can be on the same side of this issue. I believe that domestication is equivalent to slavery, you think it is justifiable; I don’t see any reason to consume animal products, and you simply believe that as long as the welfare of the animal is protected, consuming animal products is fine. As long as we disagree on these fundamentals, there isn’t much to talk about, and I don’t mean that in a nasty way — I simply mean that it is worthless for us to continue to argue. It is clear that you’re set in your opinions, and to be frank, I’ve heard just about every angle of the argument you present, and any of it has yet to convince me. I inherently believe that killing animals for our wants is wrong, and unnecessary when there are alternatives. You don’t believe that. I look at the animals I live with, I see beings capable of suffering, and I know that other creatures are capable of that suffering too, so I work to minimize it in my life. Though I undoubtedly know and love the animals I live with more than others I don’t, I also don’t believe that the natural separation that you talk about with regard to your own companions and other animals justifies exploiting animals I do not know, any more than it would justify exploiting humans I do not know.
I guess the division is this: I see using animals for our ends, as our property, as inherently cruel. It mirrors the dynamic of slavery in every way, and the justifications are similar. Proponents of slavery saw that as “natural,” and some even argued that kind slavery was acceptable. I don’t see it this way at all. I believe that the moment you make another being property, you deprive them of their basic rights to exist on their own terms — you turn them into a thing. Moreover, you also don’t think death is cruel. This is curious; I can’t imagine what is more cruel than to end the existence of another being unnecessarily. If I kill you out of convenience, or my wants, and simply for those reasons, I’ve interfered in your right to enjoy your existence. I wonder why the same doesn’t apply to animals, particularly when we can do otherwise.
As for the arguments that animals eat each other, yes, they do. And so what? Animals also don’t domesticate other animals. The argument that eating animals is somehow “natural” is worn thin by how we breed, rear, domesticate, and confine animals. In my mind, there is no justification for using animals as things, as property, as exclusive ends to our wants. Why? Because we can do otherwise easily and healthfully. Other animals do not have this choice — just as other animals cannot make other moral choices — and humans and animal societies differ in a million other ways as well. What I find curious is that you call this “speciesm chauvinism,” while your domination of animals to satisfy your dietary wants is somehow _not_ “chauvinism.” I’m not sure how that works. You’d willingly confine an animal to produce for you. I’d no sooner do this than I’d confine a human to do it for me, for both are treating another sentient being as property for my ends. I don’t see either as acceptable.
In sum, we will probably never get past this, and it may be better to simply agree to disagree. It is interesting to me that you seek out a “fundamentalism” in what I say, while ignoring the fundamentalism of your own beliefs. If nothing else, the notion that we can dominate the natural world — including the animals of it an in it — is the fundamentalism that has nearly driven us and the ecosystem of this planet to the brink of extinction. There’s nothing less “fundamental” in your beliefs than in mine. I can only imagine that a kind of fundamentalism has emerged to drive you to what you believe, since you can apply different rules to different animals out of your own wants and desires — and nothing more.
With that said, I don’t see much point in continuing this debate. My answers will only get longer, and to be honest, they’re best explained in the book I just finished writing, a copy of which I’d be happy to send you when it is finally published. I’m also honestly convinced that it is a waste of time for both of us. I doubt we will ever see eye-to-eye on this. That doesn’t mean that I don’t respect you, or that I don’t appreciate your friendship over the years. It just means that we will probably never agree on this.
# Comment by tatman6006 on Mon, Jul 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 pm:
Rachel said: “I simply refuse to travel that deeply into species chauvinism.”
Yet her comments reeked of _nothing but_ speciesist chauvanism. How you can declare someone else a “species chauvanist” on one hand, and somehow try to justify the idea that the life of your dog or an “animal that you’re familiar with” is somehow more “valuable” than an animal that you haven’t met is an absolutely laughable and ridiculous argument.
Rachel also stated: “I have very good reasons for eating animals (which have nothing to do with tradition, “faith”, subsistence or dietary need), but they’re complex, and I feel that your perspective makes you incapable of appreciating them.
This is a completely lame cop-out of an answer. What ARE your reasons for eating animals? If you recognize that they have nothing to do with tradition, faith, substinence, or _dietary need_, then what is left?
Sometimes I think that when an omnivore says that they want “respect and understanding about their dietary choices,” what they’re really saying is: “I don’t want you to tell me about logic or point out when I’m doing something that’s illogical.”
That said, keep up the good work, Bob.
# Comment by Stumbles on Thu, Sep 27th, 2007 at 6:34 am:
I’ll just add a very brief comment:
Doctors frequently do things that are not good for them.
Many drink massive amounts of alcohol, speed in their cars, overeat, don’t exercise and spend too much time at work, leading imbalanced and unhappy lives.
Is the blogger also advocating these lifestyle choices because doctors make them? Medics are human, too, and are subject to the same weaknesses and laziness as the rest of us.
As a medical student, I have spent many long hours researching studies on PubMed about the health benefits of veganism (i.e. reviewing the bountiful research undertaken by others), and I think it is blatantly obvious to even the laziest researcher that there is plenty of evidence to support a healthy vegan lifestyle. You just have to look.
# Comment by urs on Thu, May 1st, 2008 at 4:42 am:
just another thing, the british fishing industry has practicly wiped out cod now because of fish and chips, fish fingers and all that jazz.