Vegan Hate

As a vegan, do you ever feel marginalised and totally hated on at times?

I experienced this for the first time significantly this weekend. I am a member of a forum, which I joined in order to make friends in a new city. Yeah. Stoopid idea.

For the first time I experienced people feeling hatred toward me for no other reason than I am a vegan. I responded to a comment online that I thought was uncalled for, and quite hateful towards vegans. It was in a kind of "oh they're a minority, fuck them" sort of vein. I will not go into what it is I said on the forum, suffice it to say I made a point, which I think was reasonable, and valid, and I did so without shitting on anybody or verbally abusing anyone. 

And what did I get in return? Measured, sensible and thoughful discourse? Heated debate? No, I got a barrage of homophobic, misogynistic, and obscure taunts and abuse. From people who basically no nothing about me other than I am vegan.

I know vegans aren't a minority in the sense that ethnic groups are, or homosexual people are or woman are (the only minority that's actually a majority!), because the big thing about all those groups is that they aren't a choice, and you're marginalised for being the way you were born. Vegans choose their lifestyles and so, perhaps in return they have to put up with a little shit. But comments like that still hurt, and it is the use of the same, minority bashing language which makes me commiserate with those other groups. I'm angry that they are putting me down just for my choices, and I'm angry for every minority they are putting down with the language they use. I'm sure being called a faggot actually hurts a lot more if you are gay, but the sexist slurs made my blood boil... 

I guess I am just feeling a bit poor me about the whole thing, but it just opened my eyes up to what.... areseholes people can be. 

Why I would love to crew on the Steve Irwin (but never, ever could)

Before I knew that their ships were vegan (I only recently learned this!), I used to think that Sea Shepherd were a bit daft. I lumped them in the same category as Greenpeace I guess, well meaning hippies who fell through where it really matters. For example Greenpeace are often having (meaty) barbecues as fund-raisers. Say what you will about animal welfare, and your beliefs (or lack thereof) in animal rights notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure the environmental reasons for going vegan speak for themselves.
And although I love whales (as indeed I love all animals) and I have worked with them in the past, I was pretty sure that all those well meaning activists were likely to be eating meat from other animals, making their argument against the Japanese (and Norwegians) eating whale meat rather weak, and therefore their campaign somewhat hypocritical. But all that changed when I learnt that their ships are 100% vegan, in the words of captain Paul Watson: "because it is an ecological crime to eat fish; we are vegans because we are marine conservationists and not because we are animal rights activists". Swoon! And I soon learnt that Sea Shepherd are also ideologically differentiated from Greenpeace because of their tactics of direct action, and see the latter as a commodity; people give Greenpeace their money to buy feel-good points and absolve their guilt so they don't have to make real changes to their lived.  I agreed wholeheartedly with this! Now that the assumed hypocrisy was out of the way, I was free to imagine myself running away and becoming a pirate, working down in the galley preparing delicious vegan food for these heroic soldiers in the war against whaling.
Then I watched Whale Wars.
I still love everything this lovely, non-hypocritical vegan organisation stands for, but I so couldn't do it. Not just because I get sea sickness. Not just because I am what the volunteer page calls "a mattress lover". Not even because I would have a problem being prepared to put myself in danger for the cause. It is because I get the unsettling feeling that they don't really know what they are doing. That isn't strictly their fault. For some reason it seems that the very least experienced members end up in the tiny little boat hurtling bottles of rancid butter acid (is that vegan?) at the Nisshin Maru while the most experienced seafarers stay in the bridge drinking hot chocolate and rolling their eyes every time a prop fouler misses it's target. Why aren't the more experienced people, who have made this their life's work, out there? I know that the senior people tell those below them what to do and that's how it works and that's just how it is. It's not the undemocratic nature of it that bothers me, I just suspect that the campaigns would be more successful if they sent out the experienced people to do what they clearly believe they are more able to do. Obviously as a volunteer organisation they can't pick and choose their crew, but I would have the newbies making the food, scrubbing the poop deck and serving the hot chocolate, and once they have earned their stripes THEN they can lower a tiny little boat into freezing water while miles from anywhere. Is there literally ZERO time for training them just a little bit before they are thrown (quite literally) in the deep end?
There are also times however where the seniors seem a little out of their league too. For example in the first two series, Peter Brown is First Mate, a position he is clearly not equipped for. The one scene where he was struggling to steer the ship through ice, and - LOL - the episode where he is rubbishing navigation equipment as "meaningless stuff on a computer screen", they just made me shake my head. I have had bosses who were that exact combination daft and cocky and I cringed imagining having to take orders from someone like that and having them responsible for my safety and well-being on board!
It doesn't seem to me that the newer, more naive members of the crew have a problem with putting themselves in danger, as long as that danger is justified, and that the action is likely to have a high chance of success. Many of the plans seem risky and not well thought out, and the crew are no good to the cause with serious injuries, hypothermia or dead.
I applaud the work of the Sea Shepherd crew as the only ones out there defending the whales, and upholding conservation law where governments fail to do so. I support their direct action and for standing up for what they believe in. I admire the crew's bravery and passion, and Paul Watson for his ability to take both affectionate ribbing and death threats in his stride. I will be buying a Sea Shepherd hoodie and baking pirate themed cupcakes at a fundraiser sometime soon. But you won't see me on the ship any time soon, cus the world needs good, unhypocritical vegans like me. :)

Weight a minute...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.