I have noticed lately a considerable number of people touting veganism as a great way to lose weight. On the surface of it, I don't mind this - whichever reason people decide to turn vegan still results in less animal suffering, so I am all for it. However I feel that promoting veganism as a diet is problematic for a number of reasons:
1)It's not a diet, it is a lifestyle, it will also impact on your choice of clothing, cosmetics and cleaning products.
2)Most people don't stick with diets! Diets are restrictive and people like to rebel against them. I have tried diets and given up very early, but not so veganism.
3)You won't necessarily lose weight going vegan. At all. You might even gain weight because of all the delicious food on offer!
I will address the third point first because I am annoying like that. A "plant based diet" will generally be healthier than a meat and dairy based one, because of the reduced amount of cholesterol, salt and saturated fat generally found in such a diet. But it would be wrong to suggest that all meat eaters are on a diet of hamburgers and ice cream. Some meat eaters eat crap all the time, some eat well. In turn, some vegans eat crap all the time, and others eat more healthily.
I enjoyed a great deal of junk food as an omnivore. . When I became vegan, I didn't suddenly swap cake, ice cream, meatball subs, hamburgers and chocolate milk for brown rice, quinoa and fresh fruit and veges. Sure I eat those too, but I very quickly discovered vegan alternatives for all my junk food needs. Therefore I have not lost weight since becoming vegetarian and subsequently vegan. In fact I have gained weight. This might be as a result of what I like to call "The Baker's Dozen Effect" in which I cannot just pop down to the local store for a quick treat, I must make my own, (often cupcakes) and as a result end up eat five of something when I only really needed one to satisfy my craving.
It kind of reminds me of a study which showed people who have dogs often lived longer lives. This suggested that people could increase their longevity simply by acquiring a dog. However, it was soon found that this increased longevity was in fact due to dog owners walking more, because they had dogs that needed walking. Therefore people could reap the benefits of dog owner's longevity by walking more, not by simply acquiring a dog. It's the same with veganism. You could turn vegan in order to restrict yourself so that you can't eat McDonalds all the time, or you could just stop eating McDonalds all the time for pretty much the same effect.
This brings me to my second point, self control. I have terrible self control when it comes to diets. My worst one is when I see people fatter than me, like hugely fat, on Biggest Loser or whatever. This always makes me think I have nothing to worry about and then I eat whatever I feel like. Vegan of course. I also get on my feminist high horse about unrealistic standards of beauty and fashion dictating acceptable weight, and weight loss goals taking energy away from proper goals. So I eat what I like, vegan of course. When you diet for weight loss you are only accountable to yourself and I think that means that people will cheat, talk themselves out of it (like me) or otherwise let themselves down.
Which brings me to my third/first point. Veganism is a lifestyle and it's Not About Me. It's about the animals, and it's about the environment. If you are vegan for these reasons, then you also wouldn't wear wool, leather or silk, and you won't use things that have animal products in them, or have been tested on animals. But if you are doing it for health, perhaps you don't care about any of that stuff. I'm not sure.
Because of the kinds of selfish arguments that I get from I Could Never Give That Up omnivores I guess I find it really hard to comprehend a selfish reason for giving up animal products. I also guess that since I have dealt with so many "Where do you get your calcium/protein/B12?" questions and treated like I might drop dead any minute, that I forget that veganism is actually healthier than omnivorism, and that the kinds of problems caused by the western diet are those of excess, not of deficiency.
As I said though, whatever reason someone decides to become vegan, the net result is a positive one. Perhaps also people who start down the path to veganism will soon realise that what they are doing is also good for others too. Perhaps the health reason will be enough to tip the scale, and people who were considering a vegan diet but thought it was unhealthy will join us in reducing suffering and destruction. If you are thinking of going on a diet for this year's New Year's Resolution, consider veganism instead for not only your health, but for the good of other human beings, animals and the entire planet.
Thursday 29 December 2011
Monday 3 October 2011
Not Kosher
Yesterday I went to a "talk" if you can call it that, about religious slaughter, and Halal and Kosher laws.
I am an atheist, it's true, and I am not that tolerant of religious viewpoints, but I do understand that Kosher and Halal laws acutally come from a place of sense and reason, and are meant to reduce harm done to animals as well as protect human consumers of meat from harmful bacteria and food poisoning, in desert conditions. I say meant to, as obviously despite best efforts, this is not always the case.
I had it cleared up for me why it is that Halal objects to the stunning of the animal prior to slaughter. Basically, it is that an animal should be healthy and ALIVE (and therefore conscious and walking around) before slaughter. This kind of rule comes from a sensible place as clearly it is not healthy for human beings to eat animals that are unhealthy or have died of "natural"causes. So the rule is that the knife cut itself should be the thing to kill the animal, and not any other thing. Again this makes sense because it means that the animal should have a swift and relatively pain-free death, rather than being bludgeoned about the head and so on. However, this rule is taken so far as to include any kind of damage that actually renders the animal insensible to pain, and in terms of animal welfare, is actually preferable. This would be the first thing I would object to about religious slaughter - the use of "God's rules" when an alternative has been scientifically proven to be better for animal welfare, one of the things these rules were set out to protect in the first place. However, I learned that many Islamic authorities do in fact see it that way, and some do accept stunning as being in harmony with Halal slaughter. Others will accept types of electric stunning which are reversible, as if left, the animal would eventually recover.
In addition to this, the animal should not be able to see the knife, or the animal before it being slaughtered, because these have potential to cause stress, and the knife should be sharp and it should be a single cut, to reduce to potential for pain and suffering. Finally the person committing the slaughter should be a "man of the book" (Islam, Jew or Christian) who is well trained, conscientious and says a short prayer when the animal is killed.
The person I was talking to then said that this was "nice" and that it is "good" to say a prayer thanking the animal for the sacrifice it has made. I say, that from a welfare point of view, it is pretty fucking meaningless, actually. The cow doesn't doesn't really care WHY you are killing it, and whether it is justified or sacrificial, it just cares that you are ending it's life and depriving it of the one thing it desires above all, to survive. While the prayer might be nice for the person, it doesn't make the procedure any less painful, and it doesn't make it any less stressful for the animal.
The thing that really got me was when the guy mentioned a case where a man was forcibly beating a cow to get it to face Mecca. This shit really gets me. If the whole point of Halal slaughter is to treat the animal with respect, as a fellow creature of god, and to reduce the amount of pain, stress and suffering inflicted on it so that you can eat it, beating it so it would face Mecca is kind of missing the point. When I pointed this out, it was suggested to me that my viewpoint was merely the result of my privilege and education. Which I think is complete fucking bullshit. If I, as an atheist on the other side of the world can understand the inherent hypocrisy in that, then why can a "man of the book" who presumably goes to temple every week, not see what he is doing is actually against God's law? I'm sure his religious education is far more in depth than my own. Education has nothing to do with it, it is about compassion, understanding and, as I see it, logic.
It seems to me that the person who called me out on my privilege is actually taking his religious tolerance a step too far and it all came off a bit wishy-washy la-dee-da to me. Oh isn't it nice that they say a prayer, isn't it nice that these traditions exist to preserve the dignity of the animal and prevent unnecessary suffering?
Well, yes, in theory, it is nice. But what really matters, from a welfare perspective, and from the perspective of the animal, is that these rules aren't merely followed without an understanding of WHY, because rules for the sake of rules can be contradictory unless you understand the point of them.
I just want to be clear and say I have nothing against religious slaughter per se (no more than any other kind of slaughter anyway) except possibly for when stunning is outright banned. I can see that these laws came from a sensible place, and parts of them at least, are still applicable now. And I also want to say that I have nothing against Islam in particular (no more than any other kind of religion, anyway), it was just the example at hand. I have a problem with any kind of hypocrisy, it's just that religion in particular seems to be rife with it. Really, any situation which calls for people to blindly follow laws and not understand the reasoning behind them, is dangerous, because evidently, our view of the world changes in light of new knowledge, but religious laws do not. When laws are taken too literally, or directly contradict one another they need to be examined more closely. This matters not only for the animal, but for all the people who purchase the meat, who think they are accepting a product in accordance with their own beliefs. They would probably be even more upset about this than I am, and rightly so.
I think also that this is unlikely to be the exception and not the rule. I have been to a slaughterhouse that was Halal certified, and it appeared to be more lip service than anything. Their "man of the book" could include any "Christian" (the NZ sense of the term is loose at best, i.e. they put it on their census form but never set foot in a church except for weddings and funerals). They used a captive bolt, which rendered the animal unconscious, and irreversibly damaged the brain. Each animal could see the animal before it being slaughtered. It seems pointless to "certify" something Halal when the definition is so loosely interpreted.
It appears to me that animals suffer more as a result, particularly in cases where stunning is not allowed, in order to produce something which is really not what it says it is anyway.
I am an atheist, it's true, and I am not that tolerant of religious viewpoints, but I do understand that Kosher and Halal laws acutally come from a place of sense and reason, and are meant to reduce harm done to animals as well as protect human consumers of meat from harmful bacteria and food poisoning, in desert conditions. I say meant to, as obviously despite best efforts, this is not always the case.
I had it cleared up for me why it is that Halal objects to the stunning of the animal prior to slaughter. Basically, it is that an animal should be healthy and ALIVE (and therefore conscious and walking around) before slaughter. This kind of rule comes from a sensible place as clearly it is not healthy for human beings to eat animals that are unhealthy or have died of "natural"causes. So the rule is that the knife cut itself should be the thing to kill the animal, and not any other thing. Again this makes sense because it means that the animal should have a swift and relatively pain-free death, rather than being bludgeoned about the head and so on. However, this rule is taken so far as to include any kind of damage that actually renders the animal insensible to pain, and in terms of animal welfare, is actually preferable. This would be the first thing I would object to about religious slaughter - the use of "God's rules" when an alternative has been scientifically proven to be better for animal welfare, one of the things these rules were set out to protect in the first place. However, I learned that many Islamic authorities do in fact see it that way, and some do accept stunning as being in harmony with Halal slaughter. Others will accept types of electric stunning which are reversible, as if left, the animal would eventually recover.
In addition to this, the animal should not be able to see the knife, or the animal before it being slaughtered, because these have potential to cause stress, and the knife should be sharp and it should be a single cut, to reduce to potential for pain and suffering. Finally the person committing the slaughter should be a "man of the book" (Islam, Jew or Christian) who is well trained, conscientious and says a short prayer when the animal is killed.
The person I was talking to then said that this was "nice" and that it is "good" to say a prayer thanking the animal for the sacrifice it has made. I say, that from a welfare point of view, it is pretty fucking meaningless, actually. The cow doesn't doesn't really care WHY you are killing it, and whether it is justified or sacrificial, it just cares that you are ending it's life and depriving it of the one thing it desires above all, to survive. While the prayer might be nice for the person, it doesn't make the procedure any less painful, and it doesn't make it any less stressful for the animal.
The thing that really got me was when the guy mentioned a case where a man was forcibly beating a cow to get it to face Mecca. This shit really gets me. If the whole point of Halal slaughter is to treat the animal with respect, as a fellow creature of god, and to reduce the amount of pain, stress and suffering inflicted on it so that you can eat it, beating it so it would face Mecca is kind of missing the point. When I pointed this out, it was suggested to me that my viewpoint was merely the result of my privilege and education. Which I think is complete fucking bullshit. If I, as an atheist on the other side of the world can understand the inherent hypocrisy in that, then why can a "man of the book" who presumably goes to temple every week, not see what he is doing is actually against God's law? I'm sure his religious education is far more in depth than my own. Education has nothing to do with it, it is about compassion, understanding and, as I see it, logic.
It seems to me that the person who called me out on my privilege is actually taking his religious tolerance a step too far and it all came off a bit wishy-washy la-dee-da to me. Oh isn't it nice that they say a prayer, isn't it nice that these traditions exist to preserve the dignity of the animal and prevent unnecessary suffering?
Well, yes, in theory, it is nice. But what really matters, from a welfare perspective, and from the perspective of the animal, is that these rules aren't merely followed without an understanding of WHY, because rules for the sake of rules can be contradictory unless you understand the point of them.
I just want to be clear and say I have nothing against religious slaughter per se (no more than any other kind of slaughter anyway) except possibly for when stunning is outright banned. I can see that these laws came from a sensible place, and parts of them at least, are still applicable now. And I also want to say that I have nothing against Islam in particular (no more than any other kind of religion, anyway), it was just the example at hand. I have a problem with any kind of hypocrisy, it's just that religion in particular seems to be rife with it. Really, any situation which calls for people to blindly follow laws and not understand the reasoning behind them, is dangerous, because evidently, our view of the world changes in light of new knowledge, but religious laws do not. When laws are taken too literally, or directly contradict one another they need to be examined more closely. This matters not only for the animal, but for all the people who purchase the meat, who think they are accepting a product in accordance with their own beliefs. They would probably be even more upset about this than I am, and rightly so.
I think also that this is unlikely to be the exception and not the rule. I have been to a slaughterhouse that was Halal certified, and it appeared to be more lip service than anything. Their "man of the book" could include any "Christian" (the NZ sense of the term is loose at best, i.e. they put it on their census form but never set foot in a church except for weddings and funerals). They used a captive bolt, which rendered the animal unconscious, and irreversibly damaged the brain. Each animal could see the animal before it being slaughtered. It seems pointless to "certify" something Halal when the definition is so loosely interpreted.
It appears to me that animals suffer more as a result, particularly in cases where stunning is not allowed, in order to produce something which is really not what it says it is anyway.
Saturday 6 August 2011
Intolerant of Gluten Intolerance
After a recent trip away I have decided that there is definitely a market for a vegan tour company in this farm obsessed nation of ours. Twice we ate out and were very clear about our dietary needs, and twice we were served animal products - paneer (Indian cottage cheese) in the local Indian place the first night, and a very fishy tasting stir fry for lunch the next day (they repeatedly assured us no shrimp paste, no oyster sauce, but honestly, it tasted like sea shells). However, as we wandered around the small, south island town we were quite astonished at the number of places selling gluten free wares. There were signs everywhere declaring the gluten free nature of their meals and baked goods.
I understan that gluten intolerance is an allergy, not a diet engaged in by choice (though I'm sure at least some people are jumping on the dietary bandwagon) but it seems to me terribly unbalanced that so many places will cater to the GF diet and at the same time look at you like you're from another planet if you request something vegan. (Or vaygun, as they pronounce it)
And on the surface of it, I would argue that veganism as a concept is far easier to understand than gluten free. I first heard of veganism when I was ten years old, and though I didn't agree with the idea till 12 years later (no ice cream?! Um, I don't think so!) I did at least understand what it meant. How hard is it to know which products came from animals and which do not? At the Indian place the waiter found it necessary to confirm whether or not we could eat both coconut milk (comes from coconuts!) and canola oil (comes from seeds!) but yet he saw fit to bring us fucking cheese in a meal he had confirmed mere minutes before could (and presumably would) be made without dairy.
Gluten free as a concept is actually quite confusing. Gluten an invisible ingredient is found in most types of flour (including, contrary to popular belief, spelt and amaranth and other fucked up hippy flour. Putting that shit in your "gluten free" baking is like serving yoghurt to a lactose intolerant person, it might be less problematic but it is kind of missing the point). Gluten is not found in corn, rice, or potatoes, so there are still plenty of things you can eat, but some products which have never contained gluten, such as corn chips are curiously labelled "gluten free!!!" as the diet becomes more mainstream. The jury is out on whether or not oats contain gluten, so even the experts can't agree on some aspects of the gluten free diet.
In contrast, the vegan diet is fairly black and white, No Animal Products. Some vegans might disagree about things like honey, or additives such as shellac, but for the most part it is reasonably straightforward. I have had people make bizarre kinds of rules to help them understand, like: "Oh, right you don't eat anything with a face" and that shit is just confusing. What the hell does a face have to do with it? I don't eat shellfish either and they don't have a face. I have also had people think that although I can't eat cows milk, I can eat for example feta, because it comes from goats (?!). Those people are probably just talking before they think, but it makes me want to hit my head against a wall. I don't eat ANIMALS or the stuff that comes out of them. I'm pretty sure the main differences between plants and animals were explained during primary school science. Were you away that day or something?
According to Wikipedia (a totally credible source as we all know, but bear with me) about 1% of the population suffer from clinical Coeliac disease with an additional .1% suffering from another major gluten intolerant condition known as dermatitis herpetiformis. Though I am sure that there are a number of other people that have had medical advice to eat a gluten free diet to treat other or related problems, I suspect that some are self diagnosed, trying it out or following the diet as some kind of fad. I am not sure of the statistics of the number of vegans in NZ, but in the United States, 1% of the population are thought to be vegan, and in the UK, 2%.
I am not disrespecting those people who choose to live a gluten free lifestyle (and certainly not those who absolutely MUST eat a gluten free diet or have been told to by a medical professional) I just find it odd that a dietary requirement that is confusing in it's rules and affects a little over 1% of the population is so readily catered for, when the vegan diet, which probably affects a similar number of people, and is reasonably straightforward in its execution, is virtually unheard of and poorly understood outside of the major towns and cities of New Zealand.
Additionally, and this might chap the assess of GF people too, I am sick of both diets being meshed together in some kind of confusing compromise that benefits neither party, though is possibly ideal for a (presumably even smaller) number of people affected by multiple allergies. I am sick of my vegan cookies being gluten free and GF people are probably sick of their cookies being vegan. I'm sorry but your fucking bread tastes terrible and dry and it crumbles all wrong, and to vegans, bread is pretty important and can usually be relied on to be animal product free. Yet I am served weird "bread" made out of rice when I eat in cafes, because the foodie types want to put milk in their bread and just make a catch all "alternative diet" bread to shut other people up. Once, on an 23 hour flight from Australia to Austria, my partner and I, at the time vegetarians, were served a meal that was at once vegetarian,vegan, gluten free and raw, and as such was exclusively comprised of vegetable sticks. We were fed this "meal" four times, and had to chase the bread basket around the plane, trying to get more than our fair share of croissants to compensate. This is just so the airline could make one meal for all those groups, catering to all and none at the same time. I could probably write a similar blog entry about raw diets too, as I feel that these also further dilute public comprehension of veganism, but I will leave that for another time.
So although the market for it might be small, I think that a vegan tour company would be really nice for those people that need it. Repeatedly explaining your dietary requirements is really tiresome when you came to relax, and nothing can ruin a holiday quite like being fed stuff you don't eat. Whether you're allergic to it or not.
I understan that gluten intolerance is an allergy, not a diet engaged in by choice (though I'm sure at least some people are jumping on the dietary bandwagon) but it seems to me terribly unbalanced that so many places will cater to the GF diet and at the same time look at you like you're from another planet if you request something vegan. (Or vaygun, as they pronounce it)
And on the surface of it, I would argue that veganism as a concept is far easier to understand than gluten free. I first heard of veganism when I was ten years old, and though I didn't agree with the idea till 12 years later (no ice cream?! Um, I don't think so!) I did at least understand what it meant. How hard is it to know which products came from animals and which do not? At the Indian place the waiter found it necessary to confirm whether or not we could eat both coconut milk (comes from coconuts!) and canola oil (comes from seeds!) but yet he saw fit to bring us fucking cheese in a meal he had confirmed mere minutes before could (and presumably would) be made without dairy.
Gluten free as a concept is actually quite confusing. Gluten an invisible ingredient is found in most types of flour (including, contrary to popular belief, spelt and amaranth and other fucked up hippy flour. Putting that shit in your "gluten free" baking is like serving yoghurt to a lactose intolerant person, it might be less problematic but it is kind of missing the point). Gluten is not found in corn, rice, or potatoes, so there are still plenty of things you can eat, but some products which have never contained gluten, such as corn chips are curiously labelled "gluten free!!!" as the diet becomes more mainstream. The jury is out on whether or not oats contain gluten, so even the experts can't agree on some aspects of the gluten free diet.
In contrast, the vegan diet is fairly black and white, No Animal Products. Some vegans might disagree about things like honey, or additives such as shellac, but for the most part it is reasonably straightforward. I have had people make bizarre kinds of rules to help them understand, like: "Oh, right you don't eat anything with a face" and that shit is just confusing. What the hell does a face have to do with it? I don't eat shellfish either and they don't have a face. I have also had people think that although I can't eat cows milk, I can eat for example feta, because it comes from goats (?!). Those people are probably just talking before they think, but it makes me want to hit my head against a wall. I don't eat ANIMALS or the stuff that comes out of them. I'm pretty sure the main differences between plants and animals were explained during primary school science. Were you away that day or something?
According to Wikipedia (a totally credible source as we all know, but bear with me) about 1% of the population suffer from clinical Coeliac disease with an additional .1% suffering from another major gluten intolerant condition known as dermatitis herpetiformis. Though I am sure that there are a number of other people that have had medical advice to eat a gluten free diet to treat other or related problems, I suspect that some are self diagnosed, trying it out or following the diet as some kind of fad. I am not sure of the statistics of the number of vegans in NZ, but in the United States, 1% of the population are thought to be vegan, and in the UK, 2%.
I am not disrespecting those people who choose to live a gluten free lifestyle (and certainly not those who absolutely MUST eat a gluten free diet or have been told to by a medical professional) I just find it odd that a dietary requirement that is confusing in it's rules and affects a little over 1% of the population is so readily catered for, when the vegan diet, which probably affects a similar number of people, and is reasonably straightforward in its execution, is virtually unheard of and poorly understood outside of the major towns and cities of New Zealand.
Additionally, and this might chap the assess of GF people too, I am sick of both diets being meshed together in some kind of confusing compromise that benefits neither party, though is possibly ideal for a (presumably even smaller) number of people affected by multiple allergies. I am sick of my vegan cookies being gluten free and GF people are probably sick of their cookies being vegan. I'm sorry but your fucking bread tastes terrible and dry and it crumbles all wrong, and to vegans, bread is pretty important and can usually be relied on to be animal product free. Yet I am served weird "bread" made out of rice when I eat in cafes, because the foodie types want to put milk in their bread and just make a catch all "alternative diet" bread to shut other people up. Once, on an 23 hour flight from Australia to Austria, my partner and I, at the time vegetarians, were served a meal that was at once vegetarian,vegan, gluten free and raw, and as such was exclusively comprised of vegetable sticks. We were fed this "meal" four times, and had to chase the bread basket around the plane, trying to get more than our fair share of croissants to compensate. This is just so the airline could make one meal for all those groups, catering to all and none at the same time. I could probably write a similar blog entry about raw diets too, as I feel that these also further dilute public comprehension of veganism, but I will leave that for another time.
So although the market for it might be small, I think that a vegan tour company would be really nice for those people that need it. Repeatedly explaining your dietary requirements is really tiresome when you came to relax, and nothing can ruin a holiday quite like being fed stuff you don't eat. Whether you're allergic to it or not.
Saturday 28 May 2011
Man bites Dog. Oh wait. I mean the other one.
There hasn't been an emotional, irrational "dogs hate kids" story in the news for a while so the herald this morning came out with this. As an ex journalism student and an ex dog control officer, the way this story is written really chaps my ass. First of all, a non-factual and totally irrelevant assessment of the dogs breed is made, as usual, in the form of the line "believed to be a pit bull". From a journalistic perspective, this completely lacks credibility. WHO thought it was a pit bull? The little girl? Her parents? The owner? The dog control officer? The police? This is about as credible as the much touted "according to a source" cliché. Additionally, it is also pretty irrelevant in terms of giving any weight to the story. I mean you didn't point out the supposed breeding of the family involved, though it might actually be a bit more informative (in terms of assessing which sectors of the community need education and assistance in dealing with their dogs). But you don't do it, because it may have been racist, non-factual and totally inappropriate to do so.
Secondly, this story groups together several, unrelated incidences in order to make it appear as if there is some kind of dog attack epidemic going on. Like the dogs were in on it together. But, as the commentary from one Rodney Hide makes clear, this is just another emotive pre-election issue. (I wish they had made HIM go on "Make the politician Work" at the SPCA).
And as usual, the father of Carolina Anderson, a girl mauled by a dog in a park (a dog which, by the way, was NOT a pit bull, or any breed on the "dangerous dogs" list, but a Staffordshire Bull Terrier) is called in for comment. I'm sorry, but just cus some guy's kid got severely injured by a single dog almost a decade ago does NOT make him some kind of go-to expert on the subject. In fact, this article makes him appear quite ignorant. His comment: "If it's not the animal, why don't we have tigers and lions as pets?" shows complete lack of understanding for the process of domestication that has occurred over the past 14,000 years in our interactions with dogs. Even after successive generations of captive breeding, no one could ever suggest that lions and tigers have been domesticated. They are fucking wild animals. The fact you don't even understand the difference suggests you are not the man to ask about this. There are so many behaviourists and scientists and academics whose opinion the Herald could ask, but instead they choose a man whose interests in the subject are completely based in emotion having had ONE bad experience with ONE dog.
It is clear that this man was unsuccessful in protecting his daughter from a dog, and he expects the law to do it. If there is reform, I am sure that banning breeds is not the way to fix the problem. (The number of German Shepherds involved in dog attacks and bites worldwide confirms this). The best thing we could do, to prevent dog bites is make it a legal requirement that dog free access be granted to the front door of every home. That alone would have a great impact on the safety of people who have to go door to door to do their job. I also believe a dog is more relaxed and happy when they are not given the job of defending the territory from every single person/dog who walks past.
I'm not sure what we can do about the number of people who are attacked in their own home, or the kids who get hurt. But as I've mentioned, I'm a bit of a libertarian and a fan of individual responsibility. Was anyone watching the kid and dog interact? Who are these parents/caregivers letting their kid, TWO and FOUR years old for fucks sake - interact closely with a pit bull terrier?! A dog bred for fighting and much maligned (fairly or not) by the media. How could they be so relaxed about that? And further more, how could the owners be cool with it? Like, I know my dogs are fine with kids, but I would certainly not be comfortable with a two or four year old in their face.
The problem here, as usual is a human one.
Secondly, this story groups together several, unrelated incidences in order to make it appear as if there is some kind of dog attack epidemic going on. Like the dogs were in on it together. But, as the commentary from one Rodney Hide makes clear, this is just another emotive pre-election issue. (I wish they had made HIM go on "Make the politician Work" at the SPCA).
And as usual, the father of Carolina Anderson, a girl mauled by a dog in a park (a dog which, by the way, was NOT a pit bull, or any breed on the "dangerous dogs" list, but a Staffordshire Bull Terrier) is called in for comment. I'm sorry, but just cus some guy's kid got severely injured by a single dog almost a decade ago does NOT make him some kind of go-to expert on the subject. In fact, this article makes him appear quite ignorant. His comment: "If it's not the animal, why don't we have tigers and lions as pets?" shows complete lack of understanding for the process of domestication that has occurred over the past 14,000 years in our interactions with dogs. Even after successive generations of captive breeding, no one could ever suggest that lions and tigers have been domesticated. They are fucking wild animals. The fact you don't even understand the difference suggests you are not the man to ask about this. There are so many behaviourists and scientists and academics whose opinion the Herald could ask, but instead they choose a man whose interests in the subject are completely based in emotion having had ONE bad experience with ONE dog.
It is clear that this man was unsuccessful in protecting his daughter from a dog, and he expects the law to do it. If there is reform, I am sure that banning breeds is not the way to fix the problem. (The number of German Shepherds involved in dog attacks and bites worldwide confirms this). The best thing we could do, to prevent dog bites is make it a legal requirement that dog free access be granted to the front door of every home. That alone would have a great impact on the safety of people who have to go door to door to do their job. I also believe a dog is more relaxed and happy when they are not given the job of defending the territory from every single person/dog who walks past.
I'm not sure what we can do about the number of people who are attacked in their own home, or the kids who get hurt. But as I've mentioned, I'm a bit of a libertarian and a fan of individual responsibility. Was anyone watching the kid and dog interact? Who are these parents/caregivers letting their kid, TWO and FOUR years old for fucks sake - interact closely with a pit bull terrier?! A dog bred for fighting and much maligned (fairly or not) by the media. How could they be so relaxed about that? And further more, how could the owners be cool with it? Like, I know my dogs are fine with kids, but I would certainly not be comfortable with a two or four year old in their face.
The problem here, as usual is a human one.
Sunday 22 May 2011
Vegan and Child Free
Just this weekend I met my latest nephew. He was a pretty relaxed little dude, he didn't cry, and he didn't smell, so we were cool. My brother in law says to my partner, "well, there's no squealing about how cute he is, so you're probably safe."
And he's right. But my ambivalent feelings towards the issue of child rearing are turning into more staunch ones thanks to the number of people who are suggesting I should/will have babies, which fucking annoys me. Polly Vernon is right, it is downright patronizing when people say "you'll change your mind".
I had a lecturer tell me I'd change my mind the other day. And he of all people should be the last to suggest that the intelligent, idealistic decision-making part of my brain will be trumped by some ridiculous, biological desire to pop out a few sprogs.
My sister-in-law posted on my facebook "what's wrong with babies?" after some thoughtless comment I made, and I answered with "the birthing process, for a start" but I could have gone on and on. I try to refrain from going too ranty on this subject, because Murphy's Law dictates I'll get knocked up and have to retract my ramblings.
But to support my strengthening anti-baby stance (anti-myself-having-babies that is, I couldn't give a fuck if you do it) I have been reading up on the subject on the internet at large, and found some wonderful points written by some forward thinking and clear headed women. Because the decision not to have children doesn't come from an emotional position, it comes from a rational one.
A very interesting piece described a vegan woman who decided never to have kids because of the ecological impact, echoing Doug Stanhope's insightful "Don't Fuck in the Front Hole" rant on YouTube. And as a vegan, this reason has definitely crossed my mind. Even beyond the content of the anti-vegan lecture I revived from a masseuse telling me "It's really important to eat right, especially if you're thinking of having kids." Not that I am, but thanks for the advice Ms. Nutritionist - no, wait, you're a masseur so why don't you SHUT THE HELL UP?!
Kids take up resources, and they might choose not to be vegan when they grow up, move out of home and do some procreation of their own. However, veganism in itself is not a reason for remaining childless as demonstrated by the Vegansaurus Happy Vege Kids Series - known to speed up the slow/non existent biological clocks of a generation of vegans.
In addition,and this comes from the position of a staunch animal rescue advocate, adoption is a far better alternative, morally. These kids already exist, on a planet overrun with human beings, and it makes sense to take these ones in (and make them vegan :P) rather than create more. Adopt, don't breed! Also, spay your kids.
Then there are the other lifestyle factors: Kids cost money. Fuckloads of it. And I don't think I'll ever make enough to feel like I ought to squander it on a tiny, loud human being. And time, I like my time. And sleep. Oh and I like to travel, and drink, and study and live in a squalid mess at times. Yeah, I'm selfish like that.
My grandmother describes my one childless aunt as "selfish" and said therefore she would have made a terrible mother. Not to suggest that I think my aunt is selfish, (I think a better word would be "sensible") but I feel, as an evolutionist, that the opposite would in fact be the case. Selfish animals make excellent mothers - always looking out for their own (genetic) interests, which off course, includes the interests of their beloved offspring! And fuck the rest of the world. Gwyneth Lewis's description of the four wheel drive as a "symbol of the desire to protect my family at the cost of everybody else" is the perfect example of this. I'm not sure if the cost to everyone else is that of physical endangerment due to the number of accidents involving four wheel drives, or the carbon footprint impact, but the symbol holds either way.
Again, to paraphrase Polly Vernon, what exactly is 'selfless' about having a child? I really can't stand the whole martyrdom of motherhood - like you're doing the world a favour by spreading your genes? Get over yourself. Similarly, I feel those "your mother gave you LIFE" sentiments a bit vomitous. Ah, she didn't do it FOR you, she either did it because she WANTED to, or you were an accident. And even if you were an accident there's a chance you were wanted to some extent, because babies on the whole, are actually quite avoidable in this day and age.
So to conclude, there a number of green/vegan/evolution/animal rescue based reasons why remaining child free is a valid choice. You can see I am a post grad student just by the number of references I have included here, please take the time to read them, even if you disagree with my thoughts. It might just stop you being the person who asks why a person is child free by choice, when the question should actually be, "why not?"
I'm childless so your kids will have enough food to eat, and clean air to breathe. That's why.
And he's right. But my ambivalent feelings towards the issue of child rearing are turning into more staunch ones thanks to the number of people who are suggesting I should/will have babies, which fucking annoys me. Polly Vernon is right, it is downright patronizing when people say "you'll change your mind".
I had a lecturer tell me I'd change my mind the other day. And he of all people should be the last to suggest that the intelligent, idealistic decision-making part of my brain will be trumped by some ridiculous, biological desire to pop out a few sprogs.
My sister-in-law posted on my facebook "what's wrong with babies?" after some thoughtless comment I made, and I answered with "the birthing process, for a start" but I could have gone on and on. I try to refrain from going too ranty on this subject, because Murphy's Law dictates I'll get knocked up and have to retract my ramblings.
But to support my strengthening anti-baby stance (anti-myself-having-babies that is, I couldn't give a fuck if you do it) I have been reading up on the subject on the internet at large, and found some wonderful points written by some forward thinking and clear headed women. Because the decision not to have children doesn't come from an emotional position, it comes from a rational one.
A very interesting piece described a vegan woman who decided never to have kids because of the ecological impact, echoing Doug Stanhope's insightful "Don't Fuck in the Front Hole" rant on YouTube. And as a vegan, this reason has definitely crossed my mind. Even beyond the content of the anti-vegan lecture I revived from a masseuse telling me "It's really important to eat right, especially if you're thinking of having kids." Not that I am, but thanks for the advice Ms. Nutritionist - no, wait, you're a masseur so why don't you SHUT THE HELL UP?!
Kids take up resources, and they might choose not to be vegan when they grow up, move out of home and do some procreation of their own. However, veganism in itself is not a reason for remaining childless as demonstrated by the Vegansaurus Happy Vege Kids Series - known to speed up the slow/non existent biological clocks of a generation of vegans.
In addition,and this comes from the position of a staunch animal rescue advocate, adoption is a far better alternative, morally. These kids already exist, on a planet overrun with human beings, and it makes sense to take these ones in (and make them vegan :P) rather than create more. Adopt, don't breed! Also, spay your kids.
Then there are the other lifestyle factors: Kids cost money. Fuckloads of it. And I don't think I'll ever make enough to feel like I ought to squander it on a tiny, loud human being. And time, I like my time. And sleep. Oh and I like to travel, and drink, and study and live in a squalid mess at times. Yeah, I'm selfish like that.
My grandmother describes my one childless aunt as "selfish" and said therefore she would have made a terrible mother. Not to suggest that I think my aunt is selfish, (I think a better word would be "sensible") but I feel, as an evolutionist, that the opposite would in fact be the case. Selfish animals make excellent mothers - always looking out for their own (genetic) interests, which off course, includes the interests of their beloved offspring! And fuck the rest of the world. Gwyneth Lewis's description of the four wheel drive as a "symbol of the desire to protect my family at the cost of everybody else" is the perfect example of this. I'm not sure if the cost to everyone else is that of physical endangerment due to the number of accidents involving four wheel drives, or the carbon footprint impact, but the symbol holds either way.
Again, to paraphrase Polly Vernon, what exactly is 'selfless' about having a child? I really can't stand the whole martyrdom of motherhood - like you're doing the world a favour by spreading your genes? Get over yourself. Similarly, I feel those "your mother gave you LIFE" sentiments a bit vomitous. Ah, she didn't do it FOR you, she either did it because she WANTED to, or you were an accident. And even if you were an accident there's a chance you were wanted to some extent, because babies on the whole, are actually quite avoidable in this day and age.
So to conclude, there a number of green/vegan/evolution/animal rescue based reasons why remaining child free is a valid choice. You can see I am a post grad student just by the number of references I have included here, please take the time to read them, even if you disagree with my thoughts. It might just stop you being the person who asks why a person is child free by choice, when the question should actually be, "why not?"
I'm childless so your kids will have enough food to eat, and clean air to breathe. That's why.
Tuesday 3 May 2011
Vegan Imperialism
I read today on this Food Politics blog about New York thinking of introducing a law forbidding people from buying "soda" with their food stamps. My first reaction to this is: sucks for the poor people! They have so few luxuries in life, and now you want to take away their sugar water too? In the end, you have to accept that people are adults and have the right to eat and drink whatever they choose - even if the money was given to them by the government. Plenty of "if you want soda you can pay for it with your own money" is coming out of this debate. I take exception to people self righteously complaining about "their" taxes paying for people on the benefit. We all pay tax for things we don't agree with and social welfare is just one small piece of the equation. Taxes also pay for defence, even though some of the population don't support war, and just the other day our government voted on this $850,000 injection for the red meat industry. People with no kids still pay for education and people who don't drive still pay for roads. So there is no point in whining about it, we just have to accept that as a society we have some socialist policies and we support each other through taxes. We have to live and let live, it is totally condescending to tell people what they can and cannot buy to eat. And at the end of the day, I don't give a shit. If they get diabetes, if they give their kids diabetes, that's none of my damn business. Even if I have to subsidise their healthcare with my taxes. I am a libertarian in that sense.
The only exception to this rule - my ethics in reference to veganism. I suppose, as a vegan, I am telling people what is best for them and for the animals. But the key difference is this - I don't actually tell people they shouldn't eat meat, dairy or eggs, I just raise the point with them that it is in fact a choice. Just like choosing to farm animals is a choice. Nobody made you. So many people assume that the omnivorous diet is the only option, for nutrition, convenience and societal reasons, and that just isn't the case. Some of the arguments for eating meat are just so inherently weak, so it is important to make people consider that the real reasons they eat meat are: they like the taste, they don't know what else to eat, or they just haven't thought about it. Not that they will die without it. Not that they can't afford the alternatives.
The only exception to this rule - my ethics in reference to veganism. I suppose, as a vegan, I am telling people what is best for them and for the animals. But the key difference is this - I don't actually tell people they shouldn't eat meat, dairy or eggs, I just raise the point with them that it is in fact a choice. Just like choosing to farm animals is a choice. Nobody made you. So many people assume that the omnivorous diet is the only option, for nutrition, convenience and societal reasons, and that just isn't the case. Some of the arguments for eating meat are just so inherently weak, so it is important to make people consider that the real reasons they eat meat are: they like the taste, they don't know what else to eat, or they just haven't thought about it. Not that they will die without it. Not that they can't afford the alternatives.
Friday 29 April 2011
Human Privilege Checklist
Boganette pointed me to this Adult Privilege Checklist and it got me thinking about "personhood" and how a list for Human Privileges might also be in order. Similar to the children's checklist is might be easier to write it from the perspective of the animal, rather than the human privilege haver, because whilst most human beings do not have their children forcibly removed from them, and most human beings are not held in captivity, some of them (usually the naughty ones) are. Needless to say this applies to animals managed and owned by human beings, NOT to wild ones. Here goes, in no particular order, my attempt:
1. I am forced to reproduce for the monetary gain of others
2. My children are forcibly removed from me
3. When I go missing there is no state of emergency called and no search and rescue teams sent to find me
4.When I am hurt or injured, I may remain that way for extended periods or have my life ended as a means of mitigating my suffering
5. My life can legally be deprived from me.
6. I can be owned by another person, and legally am their property
7. I can be confined at length or for my entire life, in conditions that do not suit me
8. I cannot access food or water without a human providing it for me
9. I cannot access medical treatment without the assistance of a human being
10. I cannot express my pain, anguish, and distress in ways that are clear to other beings.
11. I cannot vote, even though the government makes decisions that affect me and other beings like me
12. I can be physically assaulted in a number of ways without the law becoming involved. If the law is involved the likelihood of a fine or jail time for my abuser is unlikely.
13. I am likely to be smaller than my abuser and if I do retaliate I am likely to be killed.
14. If a human being enters my territory and I defend it against them I am liable to be destroyed.
15. If I wander into another animal's property and am killed by that animal, they or their owner are not responsible for my death
16. I am often yelled at and/or punished for behaving in a way that is normal for my species.
17. People feel it is their right to touch or interact with me and if I react inappropriately I will be punished or put to death
18. I am not given a choice about my living conditions, my food type or amount, or my level of interaction with people or other animals.
19. I am not allowed to perform sexual behaviour that is normal for me and I may well be deprived of the ability to reproduce by being surgically altered.
20. I am not able to own any belongings.
20 seems a good amount. Please note that I do not really believe that giving animals personhood is a practical idea, or even good idea in theory. Much the same way that I think that children need to be guided in a world that wasn't made for them, animals have the same need, as they probably would infringe the rights of others if they did everything that felt right to them. However I do think that animals should have certain rights, e.g. the right to bodily integrity and to perform behaviours that are normal for them, and harmless to others. And just to reiterate, I do believe spaying and neutering is essential to reducing the unwanted animal population, and I don't know of any animal rights activists that would disagree with me.
1. I am forced to reproduce for the monetary gain of others
2. My children are forcibly removed from me
3. When I go missing there is no state of emergency called and no search and rescue teams sent to find me
4.When I am hurt or injured, I may remain that way for extended periods or have my life ended as a means of mitigating my suffering
5. My life can legally be deprived from me.
6. I can be owned by another person, and legally am their property
7. I can be confined at length or for my entire life, in conditions that do not suit me
8. I cannot access food or water without a human providing it for me
9. I cannot access medical treatment without the assistance of a human being
10. I cannot express my pain, anguish, and distress in ways that are clear to other beings.
11. I cannot vote, even though the government makes decisions that affect me and other beings like me
12. I can be physically assaulted in a number of ways without the law becoming involved. If the law is involved the likelihood of a fine or jail time for my abuser is unlikely.
13. I am likely to be smaller than my abuser and if I do retaliate I am likely to be killed.
14. If a human being enters my territory and I defend it against them I am liable to be destroyed.
15. If I wander into another animal's property and am killed by that animal, they or their owner are not responsible for my death
16. I am often yelled at and/or punished for behaving in a way that is normal for my species.
17. People feel it is their right to touch or interact with me and if I react inappropriately I will be punished or put to death
18. I am not given a choice about my living conditions, my food type or amount, or my level of interaction with people or other animals.
19. I am not allowed to perform sexual behaviour that is normal for me and I may well be deprived of the ability to reproduce by being surgically altered.
20. I am not able to own any belongings.
20 seems a good amount. Please note that I do not really believe that giving animals personhood is a practical idea, or even good idea in theory. Much the same way that I think that children need to be guided in a world that wasn't made for them, animals have the same need, as they probably would infringe the rights of others if they did everything that felt right to them. However I do think that animals should have certain rights, e.g. the right to bodily integrity and to perform behaviours that are normal for them, and harmless to others. And just to reiterate, I do believe spaying and neutering is essential to reducing the unwanted animal population, and I don't know of any animal rights activists that would disagree with me.
Thursday 21 April 2011
Wednesday 20 April 2011
Shit, I hope I'm not becoming conservative in my old age.
Now as you can probably tell from my last post, I've never been a really militant sort of vegan, though I have always probably more sympathetic to the ALF than their targets. But in the last two months I have visited two animal research facilities (for completely unrelated reasons) and have been quite calm about the whole thing. I still can't shake the NQR* feeling about either place, but I'm not sure they lived up to the idea of animal research facility that I had in my head either.
In fact I didn't even think of one as "that" type of facility until I googled for directions and all these ALF and PETA related thingies popped up.
I've never liked the idea of using animals for research. Yes, even to cure cancer. In fact, maybe especially to cure cancer, because I think curing cancer is like curing old age, I don't think we ever will do it. Murphy's Law says that we already lost the only plant that can produce the compound we need to cure cancer in one of the 100+ rain-forest species we make extinct everyday. Even if it does happen, sometime in the future, we might kill a great many animals in vain until that day finally comes. Either way, I've never been entirely convinced by that "for the greater good" malarchy. Because the "good" is not guaranteed, but pain and suffering are. I especially got angry a couple years back when that beagle farm was on 60 minutes and the guy said that the beagles were "heroes" because they got to save lives. Oh, Hallmark-sentiment-induced vomit. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about animal testing.
So the question of whether I'm becoming a bit more conservative comes from my unexpected lack of discomfort at visiting these facilities. Part of it might come from my knowledge of animal shelters, where animals are killed every day for no good reason other than there isn't a loving home for them. Perhaps animal death for a specific purpose is far better than death for practically no reason at all. It also seems a bit daft to be bringing animals into the world for the specific use of testing when there are so many unwanted ones out their that could be used in their place. And it also makes me wonder why ALF don't target their local SPCA and municipal pound, as I'm sure these facilities put more animals to death each week than any animal testing facility. So whilst I'm not happy that animal testing goes on, I know that far more animals die in shelters and to produce our food, so I guess these things need to be prioritised.
I didn't like the facilities I visited, they had a slaughterhouse vibe about them and I wasn't actually that happy with the condition of the animals that I saw. For animals that had been there their entire lives, they seemed a bit stressed, like this wasn't quite normal for them. Which it of course isn't. Neither place was very clearly sign posted as to what the facilities actually were or what went on there, but they certainly weren't as security conscious as I'd heard such places need to be. So I was left with an uncomfortable feeling in my conscience, but I didn't feel the need to return after hours, free the animals and burn the place down, either. Confused.
Oh yeah, P.S. this sort of thing does exist in NZ. A lot.
*Not Quite Right - like the reject stores in Melbourne
In fact I didn't even think of one as "that" type of facility until I googled for directions and all these ALF and PETA related thingies popped up.
I've never liked the idea of using animals for research. Yes, even to cure cancer. In fact, maybe especially to cure cancer, because I think curing cancer is like curing old age, I don't think we ever will do it. Murphy's Law says that we already lost the only plant that can produce the compound we need to cure cancer in one of the 100+ rain-forest species we make extinct everyday. Even if it does happen, sometime in the future, we might kill a great many animals in vain until that day finally comes. Either way, I've never been entirely convinced by that "for the greater good" malarchy. Because the "good" is not guaranteed, but pain and suffering are. I especially got angry a couple years back when that beagle farm was on 60 minutes and the guy said that the beagles were "heroes" because they got to save lives. Oh, Hallmark-sentiment-induced vomit. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about animal testing.
So the question of whether I'm becoming a bit more conservative comes from my unexpected lack of discomfort at visiting these facilities. Part of it might come from my knowledge of animal shelters, where animals are killed every day for no good reason other than there isn't a loving home for them. Perhaps animal death for a specific purpose is far better than death for practically no reason at all. It also seems a bit daft to be bringing animals into the world for the specific use of testing when there are so many unwanted ones out their that could be used in their place. And it also makes me wonder why ALF don't target their local SPCA and municipal pound, as I'm sure these facilities put more animals to death each week than any animal testing facility. So whilst I'm not happy that animal testing goes on, I know that far more animals die in shelters and to produce our food, so I guess these things need to be prioritised.
I didn't like the facilities I visited, they had a slaughterhouse vibe about them and I wasn't actually that happy with the condition of the animals that I saw. For animals that had been there their entire lives, they seemed a bit stressed, like this wasn't quite normal for them. Which it of course isn't. Neither place was very clearly sign posted as to what the facilities actually were or what went on there, but they certainly weren't as security conscious as I'd heard such places need to be. So I was left with an uncomfortable feeling in my conscience, but I didn't feel the need to return after hours, free the animals and burn the place down, either. Confused.
Oh yeah, P.S. this sort of thing does exist in NZ. A lot.
*Not Quite Right - like the reject stores in Melbourne
Thursday 14 April 2011
The importance of being a moderate vegan
A lecturer in my undergrad degree once told us of a friend of his who was vegan. He said this friend just ended up very angry at the world and began withdrawing from human society. This, as my lecturer pointed out, was a Very Bad Thing. How can you influence society if you're no longer a part of it? You're certainly no use to anyone as he so eloquently put it: "living in a tree and throwing your crap at people."
With this in mind I think it is so important to be an otherwise normal, productive and functioning member of society as a vegan. We're not all the extreme, brick throwing variety of vegan, who send letter bombs to animal testing faculties and won't eat anything if we didn't grow it ourselves, pick it out of a dumpster or otherwise procure it from a 100 meter radius of our homes. No disrespect meant to any of those people, more power to you, but I think, that type of attitude has done a lot to distance the movement from the general population. Certainly, recent bandwagon jumper Ellen and fad diet promoter Oprah have done more for the mainstream acceptance of the movement than they have.
In this way, veganism suffers from the same elitism that is rampant in the punk rock world. Elitism exists because no one wants to get beaten up by a bully wearing the shirt of their favourite band. But elitism stops punk rock from spreading and being shared with others, which is kind of selfish. As Matt from Punkas.co.nz puts it "punk's worst enemy is itself." Veganism needs to be shared, like Punk Rock - and the benefits are communal. Just like when more people start liking your band, said band is more likely to tour and make albums for your enjoyment, the more vegans there are, the more vegan products will become mainstream and readily available for all!
Telling people about the origins of their food while they're eating, or coming across angry, emotional or irrational when you argue the point of veganism is just going to turn people off to you. People can't stand being preached to, and veganism is no religion. Just explain the facts and be reasonable. Being vegan is totally reasonable. Where's the harm in not eating animals? You don't need to. You won't die.
Similarly, don't let anyone make you feel you're not vegan just because you don't subscribe to EVERY linked ideology, because you drink coke, because you indulge in a vegan treat from an unvegan source (e.g. Popsicle Slushy = totally vegan ingredients, but made by Fonterra. I'd argue that you are sending a message to companies saying that you like their milk free products. Where is the harm in that?) or because you wear sweat shop shoes or eat noodles with palm oil and chocolate that isn't free trade... people spend so much time worrying about what is vegan and what isn't, what's punk and what isn't, that they kind of miss the point entirely.
With this in mind I think it is so important to be an otherwise normal, productive and functioning member of society as a vegan. We're not all the extreme, brick throwing variety of vegan, who send letter bombs to animal testing faculties and won't eat anything if we didn't grow it ourselves, pick it out of a dumpster or otherwise procure it from a 100 meter radius of our homes. No disrespect meant to any of those people, more power to you, but I think, that type of attitude has done a lot to distance the movement from the general population. Certainly, recent bandwagon jumper Ellen and fad diet promoter Oprah have done more for the mainstream acceptance of the movement than they have.
In this way, veganism suffers from the same elitism that is rampant in the punk rock world. Elitism exists because no one wants to get beaten up by a bully wearing the shirt of their favourite band. But elitism stops punk rock from spreading and being shared with others, which is kind of selfish. As Matt from Punkas.co.nz puts it "punk's worst enemy is itself." Veganism needs to be shared, like Punk Rock - and the benefits are communal. Just like when more people start liking your band, said band is more likely to tour and make albums for your enjoyment, the more vegans there are, the more vegan products will become mainstream and readily available for all!
Telling people about the origins of their food while they're eating, or coming across angry, emotional or irrational when you argue the point of veganism is just going to turn people off to you. People can't stand being preached to, and veganism is no religion. Just explain the facts and be reasonable. Being vegan is totally reasonable. Where's the harm in not eating animals? You don't need to. You won't die.
Similarly, don't let anyone make you feel you're not vegan just because you don't subscribe to EVERY linked ideology, because you drink coke, because you indulge in a vegan treat from an unvegan source (e.g. Popsicle Slushy = totally vegan ingredients, but made by Fonterra. I'd argue that you are sending a message to companies saying that you like their milk free products. Where is the harm in that?) or because you wear sweat shop shoes or eat noodles with palm oil and chocolate that isn't free trade... people spend so much time worrying about what is vegan and what isn't, what's punk and what isn't, that they kind of miss the point entirely.
Monday 11 April 2011
Introducing: Me!
Ok, so I've resisted writing a blog for some time now, (well, to be honest I have had many failed attempts) mainly because I thought it was meant to be used like a diary, and I thought that was a little self indulgent. And if you write about yourself all the time, I suppose it is. But now I realize it is a tool to facilitate discussion on a given topic that you care a great deal about.
So what do I care about? This was the other struggle I have had, coming up with a coherent theme. But loosley, all the things I do care about do kind of interconnect. I'm a post grad student, a vegan, an evolutionist and I like punk rock music. The relationship between veganism and evolution should be reasonably logical, and punk rock with its left-wing leanings fits in there nicely as well. After all, Greg Graffin of Bad Religion is a zoology Ph.D and Rise Against are a bunch of vegans.
Given my interest in the above things, it will come as no surprise to you that I don't suffer Christianity gladly. It is a problem from my perspective as a vegan, as an evolutionist, and as a punk rocker. From a vegan point of view I disagree with the notion that we are somehow inherently different from, or higher than, other animals, or that we should be given "dominion" over them, evolution never sits comfortably as a subject among a roomful of Christians, and punk rockers generally don't tolerate the authority of some invisible, omnipotent and vengeful deity. Christians or right wing people of any description may not enjoy this blog.
Not all posts will be this well structured or lacking in profanities, I rant too, probably because ranting opinionated prose is the type of stuff I like to read. I like cynicism, sarcasm, facetious bullshit and taking the piss. You might find a vegan recipe, an gig review or a Masterate level analysis on animal welfare. Just depends on the day.
So what do I care about? This was the other struggle I have had, coming up with a coherent theme. But loosley, all the things I do care about do kind of interconnect. I'm a post grad student, a vegan, an evolutionist and I like punk rock music. The relationship between veganism and evolution should be reasonably logical, and punk rock with its left-wing leanings fits in there nicely as well. After all, Greg Graffin of Bad Religion is a zoology Ph.D and Rise Against are a bunch of vegans.
Given my interest in the above things, it will come as no surprise to you that I don't suffer Christianity gladly. It is a problem from my perspective as a vegan, as an evolutionist, and as a punk rocker. From a vegan point of view I disagree with the notion that we are somehow inherently different from, or higher than, other animals, or that we should be given "dominion" over them, evolution never sits comfortably as a subject among a roomful of Christians, and punk rockers generally don't tolerate the authority of some invisible, omnipotent and vengeful deity. Christians or right wing people of any description may not enjoy this blog.
Not all posts will be this well structured or lacking in profanities, I rant too, probably because ranting opinionated prose is the type of stuff I like to read. I like cynicism, sarcasm, facetious bullshit and taking the piss. You might find a vegan recipe, an gig review or a Masterate level analysis on animal welfare. Just depends on the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)