The word "ideological" is too readily thrown about for "ideological" purposes. I am as critical of this in my own circles as in those of my opponents. For example, I am vehemently opposed to the conservative government that we currently have here in Australia, but when a sympathetic relative dismissed its views as "ideological", I pointed out that our principled opposition to those views is, in just the same sense, "ideological" in itself. All that it really means (if we are to be fair) to say that somebody is working from an "ideology" is that that person has, and bases his/her choices in, principles.
Of course I have principles, and
of course you, too, have principles. In this sense, neither of us is any more
nor less "ideological" than the other.
In other words, my basic ideological principle is that
avoidable harm should be avoided. You seem to have a different ideological principle: that harm to animals need not be avoided if there is (what you perceive to be) a health advantage to humans.
I am most concerned about countering your ideological principle as I have stated it, and with demonstrating that my own is far more justifiable.
I am far less concerned with the evidential question of whether there is, in fact, a health advantage to humans in a non-vegan diet. Whilst I do not believe it to be true that there is such a health advantage, and that it is, in fact, the case that the opposite is true, I also acknowledge that, evidentially, these questions are very fraught with controversy, and with the problem of a field of study which is massively complex, and in which, whilst reductionism - e.g. looking at individual nutrients in isolation - is often employed, and is
sometimes relevant, the far-too-infrequently-employed holistic approach is probably far more often both helpful and relevant.
I have in this sense indulged you by allowing you to present your case - that there are (in what I would view as an unhelpfully reductionist sense) potential deficiencies with individual nutrients in a vegan diet, and that any putative health
benefits to a vegan diet are a result of research based in comparisons with junk-food non-veganism rather than with healthy non-veganism - without presenting an opposing case. To be honest, whilst I know that a strong opposing case
could be mounted, and whilst many (most?) other vegans in my position
would eagerly mount it, I am simply not interested in even trying.
For example, there are many vegans who would argue, based on what they would claim to be science, that early humans were essentially frugivores/vegans, and thus that the "natural" diet for humans is not, as carnists would like us to believe, omnivorous, but fruitarian/vegan. And maybe they are right. I sure hope so. But maybe they're not. I simply don't know, and thus, I am not willing to (merely) opine. (Perhaps you might be willing to acknowledge that, in this sense, I am not such an "ideologue" - in the sense of "one who promotes false evidence due to preconceptions" - after all? It would be nice if you were). Maybe you will react to that possible argument with a vehement counter-argument. Maybe not.
I really don't care.
None of this evidential stuff is simple, and I am certainly not going to trust that you have the definitive answers.
For the most part, all this is only tangentially relevant to my basic position: namely, that a vegan (actually, I go further than veganism:
I recommend, ethically, a variant of fruitarianism) diet is (1) ethically compelled and (2)
sufficiently healthy.
I strongly maintain that the fact that a vegan diet is
at a minimum "sufficiently" healthy is well established by the available evidence, and I also strongly maintain that if you dispute that, then the burden of proof lies with you, and, furthermore, that you are far from having met it.
At best, you have suggested with respect to several individual nutrients that vegans may not in principle obtain enough of them by some sort of normative standard. OK, so, here are the problems with that:
- You have failed to establish that such normative standards with respect to individual nutrients can be applied in isolation i.e. independent of the overall diet which a person consumes.
- You have failed to identify any actual, and widespread or typical negative health effects of any putative inadequate levels of consumption of individual nutrients in vegans as they actually exist. What do I mean by this? Let's say that for nutrient X you hypothesise an inadequate intake in vegans. Fine, but this is a normative statement which is of no actual relevance unless it results in actual health problems. It's all very well to say "Sir, you are deficient in nutrient X", but if that sir is, in fact, perfectly healthy and suffering no ill-effects despite a nominal "deficiency", then this is a meaningless statement. So, where is your evidence that the putative inadequate intakes that you cite are having actual, real, negative health effects in vegans? And moreover, that these negative health effects are widespread and typical, bearing in mind that your original claim was quite definitive: that "Animal products are the basis for healthy humans".
- You have failed to establish that, even if you can meet the above two points, it is impossible or inordinately difficult for any vegan deficient in any particular nutrients to overcome that deficiency through supplementation.
- You have failed to establish that omnivores, even on the most healthy of omnivorous diets, are not equally subject to deficiencies i.e. you are assuming some sort of - at least relative - "completeness" of an omnivorous diet. Again, whilst it would be possible to - and whilst many (most?) vegans in my situation would eagerly take up that option - mount the case that omnivorous diets are no less subject to "deficiencies" than vegan diets, I am not interested in even trying. But on the other hand, I repeat that you have not as yet provided any evidence that omnivorous diets are any less subject to deficiencies than vegan diets.
In that case, I will explain, because I want you to be sure.
"Carnism" is a term coined by social psychologist, Dr. Melanie Joy.
On her website, it is defined as follows:
dictionary.com
defines an "apologist" as "a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc".
You have "made a defence in writing" of "the belief or idea" that is "the opposite of veganism", that we should "eat certain animals", that "eating animals [is] a given", or at least that eating animals is "a necessity for survival"; hence, you are, by definition, a carnist apologist.
So, unless you think it is confusing to label a person accurately, I am not sure how you could any longer remain confused as to why I have so labelled you.
(Incidentally, it's interesting in the light of your own choice of words to note Dr. Joy's choice of words (emphasis added): "Carnism is the invisible belief system, or
ideology [...]")
"So", what that response tells me is that you have no direct counter to what I wrote, from which I infer that you accept it as sound. To reiterate, what I wrote is that '
in the end, it comes down to a choice to unnecessarily end a life. "But we took good care of our victims" is not a valid justification for murder. It wouldn't be in the case of murdering humans, and nor is it when the victims are animals'. I take it then, since you do not offer any direct refutation of what is in fact that cut-and-dried, that you accept it, and that you thus feel forced to justify your immoral choices through a "But what about
you, huh?" - a turning-of-the-tables, "but you're just as bad" type response.
OK, so, we've established (pending any real defence) that you have no moral justification for your choices, but sure, let's then switch focus:
what about me? Are my choices really no worse than yours?
I directed you to my pre-written response to arguments as to animal deaths in agriculture, which you dismissed with this:
This sort of dismissiveness does your case no favours. I take your suggestion that I am an "ideologue" to imply that I am a biased, black-and-white thinker who ignores reality, yet when I present a nuanced response to a complex question
based on an acceptance of reality, you ignore the substantive points that I make in favour of a knee-jerk rejection based on the fact that my arguments indeed accept (current) reality.
Veganism is a reaction to a problem: the problem of the institutionalised and normalised violation of the rights of non-human beings. Any real-world vegan is going to have to accept that the resolution of such entrenched problems is going to be complex, and beset with difficulties, and thus develop sensitive positions which acknowledge the complexities. You have ignored and summarily dismissed my attempt to do exactly that.
So, please allow me, in this space, to summarise what I
actually put forward, rather than to allow to stand your summary dismissal of it based on my acknowledgement that there are in fact real-world problems which require a thoughtful response:
- Firstly, I made the obvious point that even in principle, it is not possible to consume animal products without harm to animals, whereas it is in principle possible to consume fruit (by the botanical definition) products with neither harm to animals nor (which is also important to me) to plants.
- Secondly (and which is the entire basis on which you dismissed my position without further justification), I acknowledged that currently, what is possible in principle with respect to fruit food sources is not - at least through mainstream sources - possible in practice.
- Thirdly, I suggested that to conflate what is currently possible in practice with what is possible in principle would be a bad mistake, in that it would encourage us to mistakenly accept arguments that consumption of animal foods is in principle no less justified than consumption of fruit foods, and thus forestall the possibility of social and agricultural changes which align what is possible in practice with what is possible in principle.
- Finally, I suggested that given all of the above, we should do our best to not just reject animal products, but to lobby for or otherwise attempt to manifest changes to plant-based agriculture which adjust its practices from being incompatible with a vegan ethic to being (which is in principle possible) compatible.
Now, if you would like to point out how my reasoning fails, then please do that. As you have indicated of your views on consciousness, I am open to critique. But reactive, unsubstantiated dismissals do nothing to help me to correct my views, nor to demonstrate the soundness of your own.
In my opinion: no, not at all - not if it realises that the consequence of that is an early death at the hands of the farmer.
Neil, please think about it. Does a wild animal simply lay down and allow a predator to kill it? Or does it buck desperately, running for its life, kicking at the predator and doing everything in its power to avoid succumbing?
Of course animals are
fully aware of death and what it means. When an animal approaches a slaughterhouse, does it meekly submit to the knife?
Of course not. It knows full well what is in store for it, and it resists as powerfully as it can. You present an utterly impoverished view of the nature of awareness of animals. They are vastly more cognitively capable than you give them credit for.
As for how a steer might have knowledge that hanging out on the farm would ultimately lead to an early death: this was a hypothetical i.e. an "
if we could get a steer to know this, then what would it choose?" It was not a statement that steers actually possess such knowledge. But on the other hand, steers are far more intelligent than you appear to give them credit for, and it would - and I say this definitively and unequivocally -
not surprise me were steers to work out for themselves what was going on, and what the risks were based on mere observation, and potentially even on psi, and to do their utmost to avoid them.
Neil, please, let's be real. You
don't kill steers because you think that it's less harmful to do so than to adopt a vegan diet - that is merely an ad-hoc argument that you adopt to use against me. You kill steers because you think that there's nothing wrong with killing selfishly in the first place. How do I know this? Because you have explicitly stated that you eat animals for what you perceive to be health benefits,
not because of a concern to reduce harm. If you were genuinely concerned about harm reduction, then you would have adopted a vegan diet, because, as the links I provided in my pre-written response show, that is the best way to reduce harm to sentient beings
even right now, despite any arguments for future harm reduction. So, please, don't come at me with these disingenuous defences. Your choices are morally bankrupt because, despite any entailments of my own vegan choices,
your choices are based on the view that an animal's fundamental interest in its own life is subordinate to your own trivial dietary interests.
Oh boy. Where to start.
Perhaps in the obvious place: your claim that the national dietetic associations of the USA and of Australia are "government organisations".
This just has no basis in fact. Both of these are (as "association" implies) independent, membership-based organisations. Neither, as best I can tell, is based on, or even accepts, government funding.
The Dietitian's Association of Australia describes itself as "
a non-profit member organisation". It "represent{s} more than 5,700 members, who are employed in a wide variety of areas including clinical dietetics, community nutrition, education, private sector, government, research and industry".
The
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), as the former American Dietetic Association is now known,
describes itself as "the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals founded in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1917, by a visionary group of women dedicated to helping the government conserve food and improve the public's health and nutrition during World War I".
Wait? Was "government" mentioned in that description? Well, yes, it was. But let's put this in context: that initial partnership with government was necessarily evidence- rather than propaganda-based: after all, if you are trying to work out how to conserve food in a war which you must win, propaganda is not going to cut it, only evidence-based research and advice will - else you are going to fail, and sabotage your chances at winning the war.
The description continues: "Today, the Academy has over 75,000 members — registered dietitian nutritionists, dietetic technicians, registered, and other dietetics professionals holding undergraduate and advanced degrees in nutrition and dietetics, and students — and is committed to improving the nation's health and advancing the profession of dietetics through research, education and advocacy".
In other words, these organisations are both
independent from government and
membership-driven. And who are their members? Qualified dietitians! So, essentially,
you are rejecting the conclusions of independent groups of the experts most qualified to come to those conclusions, on no other basis than the
false claim that those organisations are instruments of government.
But let's look into this independence from government a little more.
Wikipedia claims the following of the AND:
Do you see any mention of government funding there? Me neither.
But let's look at the question of bias a little more critically - we are, after all, on a skeptical forum. What about bias due to corporate sponsorship? As far as the above quote goes: I would
definitely not describe either Coca Cola nor PepsiCo as vegan sympathisers nor advocates; as for General Mills, that's a more involved question, but it certainly would appear to have no inherent investment in vegan advocacy or in the manipulation of science to a vegan agenda.
And as far as the Dietitian's Association of Australia goes, is there a bias due to corporate sponsorship? Well, yes, very plausibly,
but, if so, that bias favours the meat, dairy and junk-food sector, not the vegan community, just as I pointed out in my first response.
So, from where is this supposed vegan bias of which you accuse these organisations coming? Or, could it be that you accuse them of bias
out of your own bias?
I'm going to avoid further discussion of specific points of nutrition, mostly because, as I said, this area is complex and fraught, and because even experts disagree, and I am not even an expert. What I will leave it at is this: that the conclusion of independent groups of experts, such as the national dietetic organisations of both of our countries,
even when biased by corporate sponsorship to come to the opposite conclusion is that vegan diets are not just healthy, but beneficial. Getting into discussions based on "But what about the potentially inadequate intake of nutrient [X]" is not something in which I am going to indulge you any further. If any individual person - vegan, vegetarian, or carnist - discovers that s/he has a deficiency, then by all means, let that person investigate the cause and attempt to correct it. But to suggest that vegans necessarily and unavoidably, and more especially, uncorrectably, have any more problems in this respect than do the members of any other dietary group is just unjustified, and I thoroughly reject that suggestion.
And I believe that to be possible on a vegan diet, I simply don't base my position on it, because, even if it's not,
it doesn't justify murder.
I last had a full blood test several years ago; I can't recall whether it was before or after I transitioned from lacto-ovo vegetarian to vegan-fruitarian, but probably it was before or at least not very long afterward. It came back totally normal except for a slight deficiency in vitamin D. I no longer voluntarily accept the entry of needles into my body, so that is more than likely going to be the last blood test I take.
I was at that point taking no supplements whatsoever.
Not true. In a large population, even a minority can be, and in this case, is, large.
What evidence do I
need? In the first case, I'm not suggesting that we all ought to survive off synthetic meal replacers anyway, but in the second, the ethical argument for veganism trumps the need for evidence other than prima facie, deferring conclusive proof to the outcome of experience.
But as for the possibility of a vegan diet in general being sustainable over multiple generations, you might like to consider that according to
this 2006 Hindu times article, 31% of Indians are vegetarian, by which it might mean "vegan", since it adds that another 9% of the population are "vegetarians who eat eggs". Is there any evidence that that 31% (plus the additional 9%) of the Indian population has been drastically dragging down the overall health of the Indian population over the course of India's history?
Since you dismissed with little comment the link I shared with you to
a site profiling many top-level competitive vegan athletes, that's not surprising. You accuse me of bias, yet your own bias shows blatantly - you are not even willing to consider the evidence for healthy vegans.
Given that there are so many healthy vegan athletes at the top levels of competition, there are certain to be vastly more at less competitive levels, and many more who are neither competitive nor even interested in athletics - and in fact this is what observation tells us to be true: you can find enthusiastic, successful vegans all over the place, especially on social media. If this diet is necessarily such a nutritional failure, then how come there are so many of us doing so well on it; well enough to tout its benefits?
If this diet is so unhealthy, then how is it that Dr. Dean Ornish was able to use it to
reverse coronary heart disease?
If this diet is so unhealthy, then how is it that Dr. Esselstyn was
also able to use it to
reverse coronary heart disease?
If this diet is so unhealthy, then how is it that Dr. Neil Barnard as part of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
was able to use it to improve diabetic outcomes relative to the standard diet recommended for diabetics, to improve menstrual symptoms, and to improve weight-loss outcomes in the absence of any caloric restrictions?
Why do you make the false claim that these are government organisations? Why do you make the claim that the conclusions of membership-based associations of experts cannot be trusted
even when they are biased by corporate sponsorship against those conclusions?
Dude, I told you that this was beneath you, you would have been better to have left it there. It is beneath you because misleading analogies are beneath a person of your intelligence.
It is ideological in the sense that it is based in principle. So, I would hope, is yours. It is not ideological in the sense that it is arbitrary, divorced from reality, and/or based in biased or black-and-white thinking. I would hope that you do not believe that yours suffers these flaws either.