My Indisputable Argument For Omnivores

I know half of you are already dying to dispute this...

Homo sapiens were designed to consume nearly anything living on this planet. With the exception of various poisons and physical impossibilities, we can survive on almost everything Mother Nature has to throw at us; plants, animals, whatever. If it’s got a brain or a seed, we’ll eat it. It seems that man is a very evolved species of hunter-gatherers; so much so that we’ve gathered the ability to not actually hunt. We now have the technology to artificially grow animals purely to supplement our dwindling food supply! Mother Nature ain’t got nothing on us!

In order to speed up the process of harvesting animals – which, as you might guess, can take awhile – some companies inject the critters with all sorts of sketchy chemicals like steroids and hormones. These chemicals, as well as others present in their food and water supply, are absorbed into their bodies. Most farm feed is a combination of left-over grain, corn, and other animals. Even vegetarians aren’t safe because they’re eating the same grain and corn, which are sprayed with harmful pesticides and fertilizers. And not only that, but man and animal alike, we all share the same finite sources of water, which inadvertently keeps recycling these dangerous man-made chemicals; some of which just barely pass safety regulations! The result is a disgusting mix of various things that you otherwise would never consider eating.

So, when you think about it, you can’t be certain if anything you’re eating is chemical-free, not even if you grow it yourself. Vegetarians eat chemicals that affect plant growth. Omnivores eat those same chemicals in addition to biologically altering hormones. Bad news for everyone, huh? It seems to me that the lesser of these two evils is the herbivore diet; you’re still getting poisoned but at least it’s a smaller dose!

Our global population is growing rapidly and our food supply is being pushed to exhaustion. Because of this demand, the factory farms are going to constantly increase their production, which subsequently means more unnatural techniques will be used. And all those massive, money-hungry corporations have already shown their disregard for ethical and humane standards, so who can say that their new techniques will be any safer for us than their old techniques?

Now don't go quoting me out of context yet. I'm not saying that omnivores are the downfall of society – not unless they also vote conservative. I'm saying that their food is more genetically tampered with than a vegetarian's food. Personally, I think that’s sick.

Unless our government starts protecting us from literally eating ourselves to death, stop encouraging those Frankenfarms! If you buy meat, look for organic, grain-fed food.

For more information, check out the popular book Ecoholic by Adria Vasil (www.ecoholic.ca).

The Breakdown of the Democratic State

A functioning democracy requires an informed and involved population. Both of these parts are equally crucial to a democratic system of government. Currently, with unnerving regularity, these are being compromised, and we only have ourselves to blame.

It is far too simple to say that the media is at fault for the lack of adequate and relevant information presented. I don’t personally believe this. We operate on a capitalist economic system and the same supply-and-demand structure regulates how media organizations function since they are nothing more than an established private business. It’s true that they can sometimes offer a significant amount of detracting discourse, however it is the responsibility of the population to demand the relevant information. It is inarguably more important to be more concerned about society than entertainment, but we have become so withdrawn that we accept – and expect – the opposite. Entertainment will not - and should not - define a nation's actions.

In Canada, voter turnout has been in a reasonably consistent decline, from 69% in the 1993 Federal election to 64% in 2006, with dips to 61% in-between. I think that the majority of voters agree that their vote doesn’t make any difference, but at what point does this actually happen? Does your vote make a difference when you’re the only one voting? Of course it does. So what about when there are two people? A hundred? A million? At what number do you unilaterally decide to remain silent and allow the government to operate without your consent? And what if the majority of these non-voters voted the same way? It’s not that farfetched when you consider that non-voter disenfranchisement could be directly linked to their political beliefs.

Here’s a hypothetical situation. There are ten people lost in the forest; four of those people want to wait for help to arrive, three want to start building shelter and gathering food, and the remaining three don’t vote at all. So the majority has decided that they wait, and in the meantime the whole group suffers because there is no help coming and the people that could have made a difference decided they couldn’t. Multiply this by several million and this is what is happening in our country. If you aren’t involved or informed, you’re just waiting for things to get worse. That's how you've voted.

Our Evitable Future

(Yes, I’ve created the word ‘evitable’ which would logically be the antonym of ‘inevitable.’)

Whether you choose to believe or ignore the obvious, if mankind continues along our littered path, we are destined to end up with only a handful of outcomes and fewer choices than we have now.

Fossil fuels will become non-existent, and we will be forced to seek out other sources of energy. We’ve already begun looking into renewable sources, but since we still have oil left in the ground we are not nearly focused enough. We are more likely to hit an abrupt end rather than wean ourselves off slowly, and this will cause further problems. As fuel costs increase, more and more of the working force will be unable to get to work. If public transportation remains inadequate to support this growing group, businesses will have to become centralized. Locations that are not near major traffic arteries will find it harder to keep reliable staff, which will strain the economy in many ways.

Biological fuel sources will be developed further, which is clearly not a perfect answer to the fuel crisis. Biofuel is created from harvested crops which could otherwise be used as food. This is an important aspect to focus on, because everything is dependent on these crops. Animals that we raise for human consumption require seven times the amount of food that they end up providing, and since humans are not likely to give up their precious steaks, this is going to further strain the agricultural sector. Farmers have a number of obstacles during a growing season, which includes weather and the requirements of plants. Some plants, like corn, need such a high concentration of nitrogen that it takes a lot more effort to sustain the soil every year. Further, our escalating weather patterns are not likely to be any more predictable than they are now, so if we have a few consecutive seasons of bad weather, there will be less grain for these three demanding groups; humans, animals, and fuel.

When there does happen to be sufficient yield to sell, farmers will always sell their product to the highest bidder. Once fossil fuels are diminished, and if electric cars aren’t available, the most likely highest bidder will be the fuel companies. If most of our food is being converted to fuel, then the costs of food will increase. As food costs increase, the price will proportionally increase. Seeing as how the demand for food will always be increasing, famine and poverty are not unlikely possibilities. When the population becomes impoverished and malnourished, both the health care sector and the general labour force begin to feel that extra burden. Once this happens, the majority of the population will be unhappy and social class tensions will increase, leading to crime and violence.

The root of this problem is, of course, our dependency on oil. We have to urge our government to plan ahead with our fuel problems. Not only do we need vehicles that are powered through completely renewable sources that do not impede on our food supply, but we need those vehicles and fuels affordable.

A Realistic Approach To Capitalism

A government is comprised of a body of people that were born no more or less able for their job than you or I. There is no divinity, inherited gene, or magical elixir involved. Government, then, is merely a group of individuals working alongside each other. Often, each of these individuals has their own political interests which clash with the interests of other individuals or the group itself. Very ineffective. Now take a similar body of people who do have a common goal, such as a large corporation. Whereas a government’s attention is diluted, a corporation’s is saturated: they want to make money.

A corporation with such enormous financial weight has significant political gravity that can be used to influence individuals, even members of government. Ironically, it is the lack of government cohesion and response that has lead to this current corporate dominance. Government created the laws that enabled corporations to expand their sphere of influence past merely the consumer. It is now so far out of control that it’s nearly irreversible.

A government cannot cross a border and set itself up in that country’s market as easily as a corporation can. Globalization and multi-national corporations are not an ideal solution to the world’s problems, and in fact are often the direct source of them. For example, the violent oppression occurring in most third world countries is directly related to corporations using those countries for their commercial productivity, whether through resource or labour exploitation.

The market for a product does not simply exist without reason; it exists because there is a demand for it. Whenever you spend money on a product, you are condoning the actions of its production in every aspect, from development to shipment. Each dollar you spend is a resolute vote, and it is your duty as the deep-thinking and conscientious consumer that you are to vote for what you believe in. The threat of globalization is a reality. We are allowing developing countries to be used as a commodity to “enhance” our lives. The ideals of capitalism have no concept of moral boundary. It sees every place and every thing as an opportunity to sustain the corporation’s profitability. It responds only to the market.

A corporation that responds only to the market has only one Achille’s heel: the market itself. Government can affect the market in some ways through tariffs and regulations, but this has little impact on the ability of the product to be sold. For example, cigarette manufacturers are forced to put warning labels of a certain size on their packaging, but this does not stop people from buying them. The consumer has more ability to affect a corporation than government does, and we have much more power as an individual consumer than we often believe. Any corporation that has any intention of staying in business will accommodate the consumer. The only thing that has to change to see a dramatic shift in ethics is our demand. If we tell these companies what we will and won’t buy, it is unquestionably true that their products will change. As these products change, so will the world. Standards of living will improve globally, which will dynamically reduce hostility and segregation.

To paraphrase Karl Marx, consumers of all lands unite!

A Brief Look At Idiocy

Consider for a moment the last time you thought to yourself, “why are there so many idiots in this world?” Well, ponder that rhetorical question no more! I have the answer, and it’s so simple that even an idiot could have thought of it… and maybe I did! The number of idiots is increasing in direct proportion to the overall population!

Given the fact that our population continues to grow despite overwhelming scientific evidence suggesting it’s unsustainable, there is exponential possibility for future idiots. Let’s assume that only 1% of the population are idiots, which is likely a low estimation. Two centuries ago, there were about 900 million people on the planet, which works out to roughly 9 million idiots. Today there are about 7 billion, which works out to 70 million idiots! That’s a massive increase in idiocy! These idiots are everywhere, too! They aren’t restricted just to one city, like Ottawa, they’re spread out all over! They’re driving drunk on the roads, stopping in the middle of the walkway at the mall, being president of the United States… it’s idiot madness out there!

We have a predisposition to control our pet population through spaying and neutering, with the logic being that we don’t want to have stray animals running around. Imagine if we applied this same approach to people! This way we wouldn’t have stray humans all over the place, reproducing uncontrollably and being nuisances! Before you get your panties all in a bunch, by “stray humans” I do not mean homeless people. We are all nothing but strays, physically or mentally. We live on a planet with finite resources and area. We have the ability to live peacefully with each other and with nature… but we choose not to. We continue in our habitual ways, possibly due to arrogance and possibly due to ignorance, unwilling to compromise or change. Maybe we’re all idiots, some just have better disguises than others?

Ideological Balance

The fundamental flaw of communism is that it requires individual sacrifice of self-importance. The fundamental flaw of capitalism is that it requires a global sacrifice of conscience. Each of these ideologies has its own unique reasons why it cannot be sustainable.

Capitalism is what we are currently experiencing. Its effectiveness is arguable, since the opinion of the upper class is very positive and the opinion of the lower class doesn't matter. The middle class, which is the largest of the three, is completely indifferent. We are content because we can afford more 'needs' than those below us and some of the 'wants' of those above us. We trudge through our workplaces like the systematic slaves that we are, conformed to the routines of life and distracted by the lustre of meaningless pop culture. Ultimately, the average working class person is unconcerned because they don't have to struggle to live. If you look at this same society from the perspective of those who have been failed by it - those who don't have the security of health or food that we do - the flaws are obvious. Whether you admit it or not, there are many who suffer needlessly because of capitalism, and it certainly does not provide equality for everyone. Especially those who we capitalize upon.

Communism in our society still has residual negativity surrounding it from the McCarthy era. This is possibly the longest lasting and thus most effective propaganda campaign that has ever been achieved in modern history. A properly functioning communist society requires an entire nation to come to the realization that individuals are not as important as the whole. I concede that this is an impossible task, especially when applied to this cultural folderol we embrace. If communism were to be implemented, it's hard to predict what the outcome would be. Most likely, though, we would still trudge through our workplaces like systematic slaves, still conformed to our routines, and still distracted by red herrings. The advantage of communism is that every individual is treated equally and provided for. The disadvantage is it breeds a lethargic workplace, which is the same disadvantage as capitalism... and if you don't believe me, look at corporate and government employees.

I do not endorse a strictly communist ideology, even though its benefits clearly outweigh capitalist benefits, because the plausibility of changing an entire nation's thinking quickly enough to actually function is so unlikely it borderlines ridiculous. However, it is absolutely unquestionable that the capitalism we have now is equally ridiculous. It sets a mentality that the most important thing in life is money and that we are defined by what we own, which creates incredible moral instability. When we think of money in this way, we essentially deify an intangible concept. Money then develops religious characteristics, which is very dangerous. In the course of history we've seen that religion is often misapplied - or misinterpreted - by people of influence strictly for personal gain, resulting in innumerable wars and atrocities. This trait is not historically unique, we can observe the consequences of financial religion in the cases of Enron, Bre-X, and most recently the Conrad Black scandal.

Continually raising the minimum wage has little positive effect on the economy. What this does is raise the wealth of the lower working class up modestly, while the rest of the working class remains stagnant. This essentially only raises the class difference between the poor and the lower class. In turn, companies raise their prices to compensate for the wage increase and there is no degree of significant achievement. All that was accomplished was to make somebody who has no money less likely to be able to afford the same basic necessities that he needed before. Is this progress? What needs to be done (if only as a sign of good faith to the vast majority of the population) is to bring down the level of difference between the upper class and the middle class. Once there is more regulation on the out-of-control upper class and we are closer to a social balance, we can enjoy the economic and ethical prosperity of a properly functioning society.

Values

Where did our values go? Were they taken from us or did we willingly dispose of them? And why did we lose our values in the first place?

Generation by generation, we continually lose more and more of our values as a global society. We take more things for granted now than in the past because the access to excess is inflating faster than we can handle. Things that should be important to us - concern for our environment, for life, and for our future - are being shrugged off as flippantly as swatting a mosquito. We disassociate ourselves from group mentality long enough to overemphasize the importance of our individuality, then flop back when it suits us. The significance of this is staggering; it means we're indulgent to convenience. This indulgence results in ultimately determining the extent of our greed and what we are willing to compromise for the sake of personal comfort.

Take, for example, drive-through service. In the last ten years, the number of drive-through services has increased substantially. It used to be a few fast food restaurants that would offer this service, now it nearly establishes your existence in the marketplace. Everywhere I look, the line up at the drive-through window is longer than the line up inside the store. It goes without saying that drive-through service offers very little to civilization - indeed, it provides absolutely no benefit other than convenience - so why are so many people supporting it? Along similar parallels, the concept of the dollar store provides us with equal convenience but also no benefit. The majority of these products are produced by companies which are more than willing to exploit developing countries to make a profit. The economic principle of supply and demand dictates that by buying these products we are encouraging the companies to continue with their unethical business practices. This lack of ethics trickles down to the individual consumer who, aware of it or not, is part of the slave labour process. Both of these are examples of individuality conflicting with the well-being of the group, which helps explain why we gave away our values: mankind is inherently greedy.

So, finally, where did our values go? We put these values into every dollar we spend. When we shop at a multi-national company, we are putting value into the idea of globalization. When we shop at a company that uses sweatshop labour, we are putting value into the idea of human exploitation. When we shop using drive-through service, we are putting value into the idea of lethargy. Every time you choose to spend money, there are consequences. These consequences range from affecting the global community to affecting our own personal judgement, and they accumulate without restraint. Eventually you will reach a point when you question your choices as a consumer. You will be forced to choose between your greed and your guilt, and when you reach this point, ask yourself one simple question: what do you value?

Love

I've been receiving a lot of backlash for my views on the word 'love.' Let me address this as openly and concisely as I possibly can.

Love is the most dynamic and fulfilling emotion that human beings are able to experience. It is able to transcend multiple emotions, bringing us joy as well as misery. We rely on it for our society to function properly but ironically its misuse has become detrimental. I personally value love very highly. I regard it with the esteem it deserves, and I refuse to use it as flippantly now as I did in the past.

It seems that every form of media capitalizes on this emotion to evoke response from its audience. Subsequently, just like violence, we've become so completely desensitized that it has lost a significant amount of its meaning. We are so regularly inundated with the phrase "I love you" that we can hardly escape its prevalence. The entertainment industry glamourizes it so well that we all want to experience love. We want to be like the current celebrity couple who are so madly in love for a few months. We want to be like any number of characters on any number of shows who find the love of their monthly love life everywhere they look. We want to fall in love left and right, essentially trivializing its foundation with the frequency we've been taught.

Love is not something you merely say, it is something that you have to build. It is something with significance that you have to work at, something that must be earned not with a few words but with many actions. Instead, we have people declaring their unequivocable love to one person on one day, then to another person on another day. When you've said this same contrived thing to so many people during your life, at what point can you realize that you are truthfully and honestly in love? And, more importantly, how can you believe somebody that has said this so many times?

Saying that you love somebody should not be a conditioned response, it should be a heartfelt and sincere declaration of a deeply valued emotion. There are so many ways to express your adoration for somebody verbally which can be more accurate. As individuals, we must reach an apex of sincerity with ourselves, if only to be more capable to function properly as a society. By continually neutralizing this positive emotion, we are doing ourselves and the people we love a disservice.

I can't ambiguously denounce everybody who has ever said "I love you" as absurd. I can, however, question their intentions. I refuse to believe that people fall in love with accurate realization within a few months. I personally believe that those who claim they do and are still together twenty years later were merely guessing correctly. When I fall in love, I don't want to guess. I want to know with absolute certainty. I want to be able to believe in myself as much as I want to be able to believe in her.

Biased Anti-American Propaganda

I was watching a Talking To Americans segment on Youtube recently while I was hard at work. Below the video was an exchange between some Americans and Canadians, sometimes even coming close to actual debate. It incited me to share my own thoughts on the United States and Americanism.

The U.S. education system is drastically failing its citizens. On a study of grade 12 students, the U.S. ranked 19th out of 21 countries in math and science general knowledge. (www.heritage.org/Research/Education/WM134.cfm) According to a NAEP assessment in 2000, 32 percent of fourth grade students were proficient in reading. These statistics get much worse when you look at math, science, and history, so it's not too farfetched to assume an equally unflattering subject would be world relations. From my two recent experiences in the U.S., I have found that Americans know little about the world within their borders and even less about the outside world. Americans are so naively confident in their greatness that they have very little willingness to expose themselves to other cultures. I feel empathy towards them because they are presented with such opportunity and yet so much distraction. Americans don't want to know about the world because they are the world, and what bits of culture they do want to experience can be conveniently imported as novelties.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that the United States and Canada share the world's longest border. We are both victims of circumstance that enable us to be mutual trading partners. It is very important to note that the products and resources we trade are dynamically different; the US imports from Canada resources they need while Canada imports resources they want. Canada pumps fresh water south, and we get Survivor in return. Canada ships out softwood lumber, and they give us Christina Aguilera. Canada sends oil, and the U.S. gives us National Enquirer. Do you see the relation here? I certainly do not. We revel in the mediocrity that the United States sells us. Their national achievements are severely declining, but the fact that they have so much fun in the process makes it desirable. National concerns are given diligent attention until the commerical break is over, and then it's back to American Idol. Their culture is so overbearing, loud, and obnoxious that we can't help but be inundated with the products of their trivial culture. Canada is like their little brother, idolizing them when we are equals and wanting their unnecessary possessions.

Despite how close we are geographically, the differences are striking. Canada thrives on tolerance. The United States thrives on intimidation. If we continue to idolize the United States for the most unimportant accomplishments, we will be assimilated too far into their culture to be distinguishable. How powerful can a country truly be if it can't recognize the anchor of its downfall and cut itself loose? Canadians have to realize that our country is a graceful swan with an ugly duckling complex. We have such an incredible nation with so much diverse culture that drives us to be strong. We are one of the few nations with the capability to keep most of our international trade minimal and become self-relient. The United States is able to survive because of its ferocity; because they spend more money on their army than they do on teaching their kids. They are so preoccupied with power that they don't even see how powerless they actually are. So why do we insist on envying them? They rank 139 out of 172 countries in voter turnout. That's far removed from actual applied democracy.

Former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau described Canada-U.S. relations as "sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."

A Moment On Vegetarianism

I was accused this past weekend of being a vegetarian. The nerve! I immediately rebuked this statement, citing as example the eggs I had just ordered to eat for the very meal we were at. Please keep in mind that I wasn't denying the accusation out of a fear of being seen as a weak person, it was out of complete admiration and respect for true vegetarians.

I find it loathsome that there are people who insist they are vegetarian but still include things in their diet such as chicken and fish. The entire gamut of what humans can eat must either be grown or born, and these two categories are quite distinct. A true vegetarian ignores the second category completely and does not have the lissome willpower to be selective among its contents. I have no fundamental problem with what a person chooses to eat and I would never cast judgment upon them for that. The problem I have is when that person labels himself as something he most assuredly is not, and I have an even bigger problem when that person vehemently defends their incorrectly self-appointed status. As for my status, I consider myself a perfect omnivore. I will eat absolutely anything that I kill myself.

Imagine a scenario where, for the sake of argument, everybody had to raise, nurture, and kill animals themselves in order to eat. (I will preemptively avoid an impractical counter-point by saying that this fictional scenario begins tomorrow.) Do you truly believe that the average person who has been raised in a culture that encourages personal comfort would be able to kill without it being a necessity for survival? Sincerely doubtful. I admit that given a life or death situation, even I would be able to commit murder; but this is genuinely not the case. Thankfully, there are other options at my disposal that don't burden my conscience. The collective intelligence of our society has not yet been able to give significant value to the actual ethics of our lives, and this is apparent in nearly every aspect of our culture. We still demand bigger and faster every things, we pollute with the ferocity of a coal-powered lion, and we compromise true art with excess.

The biggest reason that I have chosen to significantly decrease the amount of meat that I consume is a concern for the environment. In North America, more than 60% of the wheat, corn, and grain we grow is used to feed farmed animals; of that food, most of it goes to keep the animal alive rather than actually making it grow. Further, it takes seven times as much land and resources to raise a farmed animal than it does to make the equivalent amount of food in fruits and vegetables. Allow me to present another sadly implausible scenario: if everybody on our planet immediately became vegetarian overnight, we would have enough food to feed us all.

You may want to tell me that you have the right to eat meat. While I agree that you certainly do have the right to eat meat, you also have the ability not to.

Biodiesel and Global Warming

For the last year or so I've been thinking that I would be driving with a calmer conscience if I had a smaller, more efficient vehicle that used a biodiesel-fueled engine. However, I have recently come across some information that, while being perfectly obvious, never quite occurred to me. Biodiesel is derived from biological sources such as vegetable oils and grains that could be otherwise used as food. And seeing as how the majority of people on this planet are already either starving or malnourished, maybe using the fuels that our bodies need isn't the most viable solution to the energy crisis.

If there is any pyrrhic victory that can arise from the global warming situation, it may be in food supply. Some scientists believe that the over-abundance of carbon dioxide in the air as well as the rising global temperature may actually help vegetation. A warmer northern climate would extend the growing season, which would allow more abundant crops to be harvested. Further, plants can be genetically altered to have the same drought-resistance that a cactus has. This would mean that if we experienced desert conditions in Alberta, our crops would not suffer. (Although the economics that tie themselves to this possibility create the impossibility itself.)

It is important to note, however, that with global warming, the inherent danger is not a more comfortable temperature; rather, it is the unpredictability of escalating dangerous weather patterns. Harvesting a massive crop of wheat will still be quite difficult during a tornado or hail storm, no matter how big an umbrella you have.

Sometimes I think that the same people who doubt the existence of global warming are of the same lineage as those who doubted the existence of gravity. And we all know where those same people are today... floating in the clouds somewhere.

Darwin's Consept Revisited

Consider evolution as a more abstract whole. The survival imperative of living organisms is to adapt or perish, but this imperative could be less species-oriented than science believes. All organisms on this planet could be living in a completely symbiotic relationship where the survival of one species depends on and is affected by another (possibly seemingly unrelated) species. This implies that a species doesn't necessarily evolve on its own; all species evolve simultaneously in order to benefit the planet as a mutual whole.

Now, consider evolution as simply a process rather than a forward-moving process. If evolution is possible, then an eventual retrograde of a species must be as well. Traditional discussion of evolution involves an organism developing new characteristics or mannerisms in order to live longer for the mere fact that it has to. When an organism is born, its default setting is to survive by reproducing in order continue the existence of its species. However, if all species evolve to increase the stability of all species, then a reverse-evolution of one species is possible if it benefits the global ecosystem... even if that leads to its extinction.

The human race has been fighting nature in a multitude of ways this past century. A variety of diseases, cancers, and natural phenomena have been antagonizing us and science is still struggling to keep up and understand. Maybe we aren't supposed to. This could be the next logical step in evolution; the end of the human race. Once again, think of the planet as a global whole. In the 20th century, man has created more setbacks to nature than anything else and a disgusting majority of our technological advancements are only for our own personal progress. Our extinction would definitely benefit the planet. We do not engage our planet in a symbiotic relationship; we are parasitic in nature, and our most significant evolution as a species has been our overwhelming apathy and greed.