DIALOGUE
 |
Yummy Vegan Food is My Mission in Life | |
| The struggle against injustice begins on your plate | ||
 by Isa Chandra Moskowitz, May 16, 2007
19 comments
|
||
TAGS:
From this Dialogue
Hi again Charles,
My mission in life is to make yummy vegan food, because taste is usually the main complaint of people who see the ethical reasoning for veganism but can’t give up their old foods. I don’t usually debate these things because people get defensive. Even the mere thought of veganism seems to provoke some people.
I am vegan because it is an easy way to make a difference. I hate oppression. I hate racism and sexism and homophobia, and I want to see an end to the war in Iraq. All struggle is interconnected. I realized this at a fairly young age, mostly from participating in feminist and anti-racist activism. It made me look at my own life, and the changes I could make to create the world I want to live in. And no one has ever given me a good reason to believe that non-human animals should be exempt from this. People know it would be wrong to kill a dog, yet don't extend their empathy to a cow.
I don’t subscribe to the same spirituality as you, so your reasoning has no sway on me. I guess we are trying to persuade the audience and not each other. Maybe some people will become ethical omnivores and others will become vegans. More likely, people will just decide that we are both wingnuts. And of course someone will post something like “IF goD dint want Us to eat animalz Y did he Make them oUt of Meet??! ROFL!!!11111”
Arguing the Extreme: It'd feel great to listen to Neil Diamond 24/7, but would it be right?
Your main point seems to be: “I feel in my heart that it is right to kill animals and so it is right to kill animals.” But ethical systems don’t work that way. If they did, one could say, “We should all be listening to Neil Diamond, shooting heroin, and playing Dungeons & Dragons all day because my heart tells me it is right.” And even more to the point, how come my heart tells me not to eat animals and yours tells you that you should?
You ask if your personal eating habits are relevant to the discussion. Of course they are! Isn’t that the point of this debate? I think the only ethical issues worth tackling are ones that we can actually apply to our lives. I am curious what happens to the male calves where you get your dairy or the male chicks where you get your eggs. Also, how many eggs do the hens lay a year? Is the cow forcibly impregnated? Are her babies taken from her? Many times people hear the word “free range” and what they think they are getting is far removed from reality.
People claiming to be ethical meat eaters do not always eat the way they would ethically prefer, because the ideas that govern ethical meat eating are arbitrary. Why not eat “unethical” meat when you see no inherent flaw with eating meat?
Factory farming is cheaper because the full cost is not reflected in the price of the final product. As Michael Pollan points out in Omnivore’s Dilemma, factory farming is directly and indirectly subsidized, and externalities like aquifer depletion and animal welfare just don’t get priced at all. As long as this remains true, the cost of your idyllic farming techniques will also be unknown, since it’s a niche market that exists in the shadow of—and must compete with—industrial agriculture. If it becomes common farming practice, we will need to find cheaper protein sources to feed the people who can’t afford steak, and cheaper vegetable crops again become attractive.
But the fundamental vegetarian concern is still not being addressed here: Why kill the animal that we do not need to kill? Why not allow the chicken a pleasant and long life, instead of a pleasant and short one?
If we see all creatures on the farm as equivalent contributors to the ecosystem, would we shrink from killing the farmer who is too old to farm any longer, or the child born with a deformity that would prevent her from contributing to the ecosystem? If not, then how are you not creating a hierarchy of needs with humans at the top? Why not run the farm for the benefit of the chickens, who would live long and happy lives, regardless of whether they contribute, while everyone else lives or dies in order to accommodate their needs? Unless you embrace the idea of a chicken-centered farm, it seems like you fail to avoid the human-centric morality that you disdain.
In response to your claim about the ten-calories-per-each-meat-calorie argument, that’s nice but I wasn’t addressing the pasture land in terms of environmental impact. I was addressing your notion that plants have feelings. So regardless of what is grown on this land, if plants do indeed have feelings on par with our own (again, your thoughts on the subject, not mine) then you would be killing x amount more plants to produce your meat, and creating however many times more pain and suffering. But while on the subject, the less land we use for our meals, the more land that reverts back to wilderness, which would be more efficient and sustainable.
A Great, Wise Spirit, or Just a Kick-Ass Tree?: Redwoods are super tall I have stood in awe of the redwoods. But I didn’t find myself in the presence of a great and wise spirit. I found myself in awe of a fucking amazing tree. I would say that for me it is up there among the most wonderful experiences of my life, and I’ve met Huey Lewis, so that is saying a lot. I would never say it’s “just wood," so I am not really sure who you are arguing with here.
I can’t help but notice that you avoided the choice I presented you with, between the redwood and the child, and instead inserted your preference for the redwood over your own life. I mentioned the child because she is more directly analogous than you or me: I am asking you if you would take your ethical foundation to its logical conclusion and kill the redwood, the seat of ancient and wise life, or the child. I assume you avoided answering this because the answer you would have provided was sociopathic.
“Shall we dismiss millennia of shamanic experience that says that plants have the ‘necessary hardware’ for sentience?” My immediate and emphatic response is yes. If to do otherwise would lead us to destroy the planet, then how is it that I, with absolutely no ties to shamanic beliefs, am doing my best not to destroy the planet? There are many ways to be an environmentalist, and they're not all spiritual. This is a fallacious appeal to tradition. Stating that something has been done for thousands of years doesn’t justify doing it.
Even if plants do indeed have some level of consciousness (or if rocks or air do, for that matter), with animals there is not the slightest doubt. Animals’ suffering is profound and intense. We don’t need shamans to detect it, it is easily recognizable. Animals’ joy is palpable and infectious. Most six-year-olds can see and feel these things.
It is not my desire to live in a natural world. That was a stated desire of yours, and so I was asking you how you reconcile your want for a natural world of beauty with doing things that are unnatural and unbeautiful, like taking calves away from their mothers and drinking the milk that was intended for them. Instead of answering my question you turned the argument around into something else.
The Animal That Follows The Noble Eightfold Path: Man is the only species that can liberate itself from samsara
Animals generally do not choose to become Buddhists and are not capable of detaching themselves from suffering in the way you describe. If I have endured discomfort for something important, then it has been by choice. No animal is willing to endure discomfort or pain so that they can become our dinner. You focus on your feelings, but never consider the will of the cow, the chicken, the pig, and so on.
Death and pain may very well be part of life, but that doesn’t make causing death and pain acceptable. With that line of logic, you could justify everything from bullying a child in grade school to the torture or prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Of course animals are going to die whether or not we kill them. I am going to die, you are going to die. We’re all going to die. That is another reason why I usually don’t participate in these conversations. I would rather be bird-watching or dancing or baking or writing letters to my senator. If you pay attention to what I'm saying, you'll see that my protest is not against death. It's against killing.
Love, Isa
NEXT: Stop, for the love of the Earth!
 |
Isa Chandra Moskowitz is a vegan chef and the author of Vegan with a Vengeance and Vegan Cupcakes Take Over More... |
19 comments | leave a comment
And prostitution need not contradict Jewish beliefs
On the anniversary of Hitler's death, we Godwin ourselves sill...
Te'DeVan "Rocketman" Kurzweil tells us how he's going to change...
Six months of Jewcy's Iran coverage
If Tom Cruise Was A Jew, How Would He KJW?
| Dev Blog | Privacy | Submissions | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | FAQ | Masthead |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Anonymous
More incoherent rambling from Isa
You say you want an end to the war in Iraq, but did you support the march to war, like most of your Jewish compatriots? Do you oppose all wars, even wars of defense? If we take your no-killing-any-time philosophy to its natural conclusion, then the allies wouldn't be justified in firebombing Dresden to bring the Holocaust to an end.
What I hate most about vegans is their fake morality. I don't see any vegans calling for humans to reduce procreation so that we can lessen the impact on mother earth. Would the earth be better off if all humans converted to vegetarianism? Not if more virgin forests had to be cut down to grow more crops to make up for the dense calories that meat provides. BTW, factory farming of animals is a Western phenomenon that is not practiced by most of the world.
Isa
I don't remember who but...
A wise and very beautiful woman once said "Even the mere thought of veganism seems to provoke some people." I'm gonna check wikiquotes to verify who.
Todd X
I am a little biased
That said...this was a great response.
There is nothing extreme or radical in her position. It is simple and elegant. The last two sentences spell it out in case any of you anti vegans out there want to hate. (Why is it always the anti vegans that are so pompus and arrogant when defining vegans? I digress). You can disagree with Isa's argument, but not her logic. Her logic is sound. She does not draw examples from unobservable belief systems, quite the contrary. She use the arguments modern Ethyology has been positing for years. Animals are sentient creatures that have rich emotional and intellectual lives that is observable, predictable, replicable, and can be verified by other researchers.
Moreover, Isa has argued for animals rationally, not emotionally or spiritually. She has defined her argument clearly and stated it quite simply. She did not side step the argument by bringing in factors that first had to be accepted as fact when only faith was offered as a support. So you may not agree with her position but you have to admit, so far she has all but curbstomped Charles' argument.
Todd X
OK Dick thank you for your self righteous indignation
First Off War is something humans commit against one another. it has a logic however twisted, but it is humans fighting humans. This is not the same as dietary choices. And virgin forest? what the hell are you talking about. far less land would be needed to feed the world we would have more forests. And factory farming? like most Western ideals it has been exported.
You are just want to attack Isa because you do not agree with her well reasoned convictions. You bring up the phrase 'Jewish compatriots' what's up with that?
akatombo
Nicely written, Isa.
I can't think of anything worth adding to Isa's response, incoherent ramble that it is. If only the same were true of the comments section, but alas...
a) what Todd X said,
b) Anonymous, if you don't see any vegans "calling for humans to reduce procreation so that we can lessen the impact on mother earth", you obviously haven't been paying attention. Human overpopulation is a very hot topic among vegans, and has been for many years. There have been countless articles on the subject along with endless pasionate (and heavily moderated) debates. See [url=http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/04overpop.html]this article[/url] from 11 years ago as but one example.
Rachel8889
Thank you Isa for eloquently
Thank you Isa for eloquently articulating a response to Eisenstein that is both respectful and powerful.
At the end of the day this is simple arguement: is it right to kill animals gratuitously, because we have the choice to? For me, the answer is no.
The only thing I miss as a vegan is the convenience of being able to get a vegan meal immediately upon craving it. The vegan food I've had, based on Isa's recipes and those of other vegan cooks, is incredibly delicious and satisfying, so that giving up convenience so animals may not be tortured and killed on my behalf is a very small sacrifice indeed.
Elisa
isa, i love you.
that is all.
Anonymous
travel amateur
I am a Chinese travel amateur, recently has made about the "travel China"website, welcome you the suggestion, Thank's
http://www.travelachina.com/
KinkyJews
Go vegan!
Love to see some of your recipes on Jewcy. Perhaps some vegan Jewish holiday cooking ideas.
-Member of KinkyJews and Fellow Vegan
BJ
Isa!
You're the best :)
rad.badger
Re: more incoherent rambling from Isa
Anonymous: "Not if more virgin forests had to be cut down to grow more crops to make up for the dense calories that meat provides. BTW, factory farming of animals is a Western phenomenon that is not practiced by most of the world."
Worldwatch Institute says: 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of the world's beef, and 68 percent of the world's eggs are produced in factory farms. In the U.S., four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 60 percent of pigs, and 50 percent of chickens; according to its National Pork Producers Council, 80 million of its 95 million pigs slaughtered each year are reared in factory farms
And didn't you read what Einstein said in "Kill the Cow Save the Tree"? 10 calories of grain to produce 1 calorie meat. Caloricly dense indeed! Selfish, selfish meat...
Anonymous
Thanks, Isa
For demonstrating why this dialogue was a non-starter. As you and many of your passionate supporters have made abundantly clear, veganism/vegetarianism is a quasi-religious commitment that, like religious belief itself, provides a community of belief bound by a common moral and ethical (and often aesthetic and political) framework. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this - many of us yearn to live on a higher ethical and spiritual plane. But don't try to impose it on others. For anyone over the age of say, nineteen, the belief that humans and animals are equal in dignity is no more demonstrable (or refutable) than the divinity of Jesus.
Isa
You're welcome
Hi Anonymous!
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I would just like to point out that jewcy asked me to participate in this converstation. In no way am I imposing anything on you, you were free to stop reading or to respond to anything I said at any point. I do feel like meat eaters get defensive when discussing this issue and are quick to attack not the arguments for veganism but vegans themselves, like you have done here.
TAC
Why veganism is silly.
Animals are resources; part of what sustains us. And for many of the 6+ billion people on this earth it is a luxury they cannot afford and, in fact, need more of. I assume you would not attempt to sustain your objection to killing in parts of Africa or Asia where the population is malnourished and in desperate need of protein? Or does necessity suddenly make animal slaughter acceptable?
There are a plethora of good reasons for the fortunate living in advanced societies to abandon meat, not the least of which is the environment. However, objecting to killing animals on moral grounds makes each act of animal slaughter evil. Thus, through the course of countless millennium of human history each animal slaughter was at best a necessary evil. I cannot adopt a worldview in which our ancestors were basically forced to commonly commit such "immoral" acts simply to survive, even if such a view gives me the self-indulgent satisfaction that, in a world full of suffering, that of the animals does not go unnoticed.
Anonymous
rad Badger
"Worldwatch Institute says: 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of the world's beef, and 68 percent of the world's eggs are produced in factory farms. In the U.S., four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 60 percent of pigs, and 50 percent of chickens; according to its National Pork Producers Council, 80 million of its 95 million pigs slaughtered each year are reared in factory farms"
Since most of the meat in the world is consumed in the Western world, its not a surprise that most meat production comes from factory farms. Most of the world cannot afford meat and live in a permanent state of malnutrition. Of course, the situation in the US is not much different, except here people suffer from malnutrition because they eat junk food.
Can you explain deforestation in India, where most people are vegatarians? An Indian friend of mine complained that Indians have never won an Olympic Gold medal because they don't eat meat, and can't build the requisite muscle mass.
Also, for people who posted that Hindusim forbids meat, that is completely untrue. It is Buddhism that forbids killing, and Hindus adopted vegetarianism after Buddhism became popular and started attracting a lot of lower-caste Hindus. The ancient Hindu epics are full of references to meat-eating, hunting and animal sacrifices. BTW, most Buddhists eat meat.
rad.badger
Regarding malnutrition: meat
Regarding malnutrition: meat provides protein and iron, correct?
100 grams of soybeans has 36.5 g of protein and 15.7g of Iron, vs 100g Chicken w/ less than 31g of protein and 1.06g of Iron, and 100g of beef with 24g of protein and 2.44g of Iron.
Not sure how you feel about soybeans? How about lentils with 28g and 9g respectively, or the common kidney bean with 25.3g (still more than beef) and 8.7g respectively. And beans are cheaper than meat, fathom that!
Now for the athletics concerns of your friend, a sampling of vegan/vegetarian athletes:
Andrew Reynolds - pro skateboarder - vegetarian
Arto Saari -pro skateboarder- vegetarian
Bille Jean King -Tennis champion- vegetarian
Brendan Brazier - ironman triathlete - vegan
Carl Lewis -Olympic Track Star - vegan
Dave Scott - tri-athlete -vegetarian
Edwin Moses -Olympic champion - vegetarian
Ed Templeton -pro skateboarder-vegan
Gary Player -golfer -vegetarian
Geoff Rowley-pro skateboarder- vegan
Jack LaLanne -Fitness guru- vegetarian
Joe Namath -football player- vegetarian
Jamie Thomas -pro skateboarder- vegan
Lawrence Phillips -Football player(49ers)- vegetarian
Lucy Stephens -tri-athlete- vegan
Moses Itkonen -pro skateboarder- vegan
Martina Navratilova -tennis player - vegan
Peter Brock -race car driver- vegan
Peter Burwash -Tennis champion- vegan
Ruth Heidrich -3 time Ironman- vegan
Sally Eastall -Marathon runner- vegan
Anonymous
Che Guevara was a murderer.
Che Guevara was a murderer. Long Live A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC CUBA!
Anonymous
vegan
Vegan is a American Indian word, It means, poor hunter.
Bruno Mitchell
Say it ain't so Joe?
Steakhouse owner Joe Willie is a vegetarian? Really?
Post new comment