Note: If you are completely set on eating meat or are stubbornly argumentative in the face of sound reasoning, you’d be best to return to whatever it was you were looking at beforehand.
Over the course of two years, I have experienced discrimination for my dietary choices. This discrimination isn’t in the popularly conceived sense of being confined to certain water fountains or sections of the bus, but it does exist. Occasionally it’s a light-hearted jab, which I can find some humour in; but other times it’s not. Like the old condescending, “… oh, that’s right, you don’t eat meat,” as if to imply that it’s me who’s out of his senses.
It is quite rare for me to go out of my way to push my choice to minimize animal consumption on others. In fact, even the light-hearted jab isn’t something I do to anyone that I don’t know well. I don’t question anybody else’s decision to buy the food that they want, but if I’m pressed upon it, then yes, I will give my firm opinion on the subject. And to prevent any of said pressing, my opinion is that people who eat meat haven’t given it enough thought.
(For the sake of fair argument, I will remove moral ethics from my point completely.)
Consider the meat industry. Their chief responsibility is to make money. In many factory farms, the animals are given regular injections of various chemicals to increase their growth. These chemicals continue along through the food chain both by direct and indirect consumption, meaning that in some capacity, you are ingesting the same chemicals. They affect all physiological aspects of your health.
Consider the pharmaceutical industry, which supplies the meat industry with the chemicals. Their chief responsibility is also to make money, and the best way to do this is to keep manufacturing costs low, which includes health standards. These chemicals are, of course, unnecessary, because animals will grow so long as they eat and exercise; however, the main goal of these industries, as with all industries, is to make money.
Consider the environment, this place that we live. The process of farming animals is an incredible source of unnecessary waste. This includes direct biological waste as well as the emissions from the transportation of the animals and products. And while it’s true that fruits and vegetables are also transported, this counter-argument is meaningless since the process of harvesting animals requires seven times as much food.
Consider global economics. The majority of the world’s population is starving when there is enough food on the planet to feed everyone. The problem is, as mentioned previously, most of this food is being used to feed the animals that are subsequently consumed by humans. For the sake of comparison, one acre of land could produce 20,000 kg of potatoes or 110 kg of beef.
Consider local economics. Our country currently spends between $60 billion to $120 billion annually to treat medical problems – such as heart disease, cancer, obesity, and food poisoning – that are by-products of consuming animals.
When I decided to minimize my meat consumption years ago, I did so with all of these things in mind. I thought about all of these points very carefully before I made my personal choice. So when I say I believe that people who eat meat haven’t thought about it enough, I don’t say it to make anyone else feel inferior or myself superior. I say it to highlight the fact that this sort of decision is not as simple as is often implied. I was asked once if it was because I didn’t want to kill animals. The answer is no, I have killed animals in my life. Most people that eat meat can’t even say this much.
I am not out of my senses because of what I choose to eat; I am in more sense than most. The reason people choose to eat meat is not for any logical reason, it’s simply one of those things in life that we’ve come to accept. And believe me, I accept that. I understand that people have their own personal tastes and beliefs. They have the right to that, and I don’t dispute that, and I certainly won’t ridicule someone for it. And for this same reason, I also don’t think that my tastes and beliefs should be blindly ridiculed. I’ve thought about it. Have you?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Mythbuster (A Quote)
"Myth: We have to save the Earth. Frankly, the Earth doesn't need to be saved. Nature doesn't give a hoot if human beings are here or not. The planet has survived cataclysmic and catastrophic changes for millions upon millions of years. Over that time, it is widely believed that 99 percent of all species have come and gone while the planet has remained. Saving the environment is really about saving our environment: making it safe for ourselves, our children, and the world as we know it. If more people saw the issue as one of saving themselves, we would probably see increased motivation and commitment to actually do so."
-Robert M. Lilienfeld and William L. Rathje
-Robert M. Lilienfeld and William L. Rathje
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Redefinition Of Humanity
We haven’t lost our humanity; we’ve redefined it as something more than muscle and blood and skin and bones. Now, our humanity is all batteries and pixels and satellites. We’ve extended ourselves so far outward that there’s nothing left inward. We’re entirely hollow, and ironically – but not surprisingly – hollow things are fragile and easily collapse in on themselves, which explains why our culture has become so self-centered.
Most people, and I’ll provide myself as an example, have an opinion of themselves that is diluted with self-importance. I drive just a little bit faster than the speed limit because I want to get there sooner than everyone else. I keep online journals because I think what I have to say is interesting. I think I’m a little bit better because I use proper punctuation, spell “yeah” correctly, and rarely – if ever – misuse a possessive s.
Lately grammar has become so ill-formed that it barely resembles the English language, which is clearly a reflection on our collective intelligence. Basic language skills are the only thing we have to communicate with, and if we can abandon these so easily, what else might we sacrifice as we evolve? What else have we already lost?
We’ve gone from fists to hammers, sundials to microchips, rocks to missiles. Technology is just an extension of our limbs. We’ve got devices that we can operate as easily as we can think, but this has not made us any more intelligent; it has made us detached. We do not hunt or harvest, we do not build, we do not have sex strictly to reproduce. We are not the creatures that came down from the trees to begin civilization. We are anachronisms on a cultural timeline, out of place and out of mind, doomed to a destiny of repetition simply because we do not correct our mistakes. Not that this matters, though; we do not make mistakes. We make oversights. We make excuses.
Our global conscience is of questionable existence because of our narrow focus. In a broader horizon, we would see our past and our future, with our present somewhere in-between on a skewed line drawing closer and closer to the edge. There are sustainable societies in both our past and our future, like the covers of a story gone absurdly out of control of its author, yet we continue to write. And the grammar that we use is as flawed and imperfect as we command it to be. They’re not just typos; they are examples of our sloth. And being lazy, even in what might seem to be the most minor instances, impedes our development as society, because it does not just stop at these tiny imperfections. The smallest crack in a pane of glass will make its way across the entire surface unnoticeably until one day there is nothing left to see through. Our humanity is already as fragile as this, with cracks running out from the center. Thankfully, we can still see the past, and thankfully, we can still see the future. The question is, can we see through the glass clearly enough to see the immediate and, hopefully, the best direction to proceed?
Most people, and I’ll provide myself as an example, have an opinion of themselves that is diluted with self-importance. I drive just a little bit faster than the speed limit because I want to get there sooner than everyone else. I keep online journals because I think what I have to say is interesting. I think I’m a little bit better because I use proper punctuation, spell “yeah” correctly, and rarely – if ever – misuse a possessive s.
Lately grammar has become so ill-formed that it barely resembles the English language, which is clearly a reflection on our collective intelligence. Basic language skills are the only thing we have to communicate with, and if we can abandon these so easily, what else might we sacrifice as we evolve? What else have we already lost?
We’ve gone from fists to hammers, sundials to microchips, rocks to missiles. Technology is just an extension of our limbs. We’ve got devices that we can operate as easily as we can think, but this has not made us any more intelligent; it has made us detached. We do not hunt or harvest, we do not build, we do not have sex strictly to reproduce. We are not the creatures that came down from the trees to begin civilization. We are anachronisms on a cultural timeline, out of place and out of mind, doomed to a destiny of repetition simply because we do not correct our mistakes. Not that this matters, though; we do not make mistakes. We make oversights. We make excuses.
Our global conscience is of questionable existence because of our narrow focus. In a broader horizon, we would see our past and our future, with our present somewhere in-between on a skewed line drawing closer and closer to the edge. There are sustainable societies in both our past and our future, like the covers of a story gone absurdly out of control of its author, yet we continue to write. And the grammar that we use is as flawed and imperfect as we command it to be. They’re not just typos; they are examples of our sloth. And being lazy, even in what might seem to be the most minor instances, impedes our development as society, because it does not just stop at these tiny imperfections. The smallest crack in a pane of glass will make its way across the entire surface unnoticeably until one day there is nothing left to see through. Our humanity is already as fragile as this, with cracks running out from the center. Thankfully, we can still see the past, and thankfully, we can still see the future. The question is, can we see through the glass clearly enough to see the immediate and, hopefully, the best direction to proceed?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The Subconscious Danger of Personification
When you have time to spare and aren’t feeling too motivated, do you sit down and watch television? Or do you watch the television? Sure, it’s a minor difference, but it’s arguably very significant; which is why I’m going to argue this significance.
Television is a noun. Not a proper noun, either, just one of those everyday commonplace nouns, like radio. Now, when you’re in your car and you want to listen to some music, you don’t listen to radio, you listen to the radio. Why? Because radio is a noun and requires that tiny preposition. Now, let’s pretend your radio is broken and you had your friend Sam sing for you. You would be listening to Sam, not to the Sam, because Sam is a proper noun. So why, then, do most people watch television when they should be watching the television? Because we’ve over-inflated its status in our lives.
Television is no longer just some household item that we turn on when we want entertainment and off when we’re finished. It sits in the center of the living room with every seat angled in relation to its presence, often still turned on simply for the background noise. It becomes like another member of the household and we watch Television the same way we would watch Sam. The programs on it are intended to make us emotionally involved so that we tune in to see advertising for products that we think we must need because we trust Television as much as we’d trust a member of our family. We’ve personified it as someone important in our lives.
Television is a dangerous beast and it’s easy to become fascinated by its luster. That’s the point. It was designed that way. It is an efficient device for controlling your time and manipulating your mind. It is soma, it is the opiate of the masses, it is the new religion. And if you let it, it will consume you.
Television is a noun. Not a proper noun, either, just one of those everyday commonplace nouns, like radio. Now, when you’re in your car and you want to listen to some music, you don’t listen to radio, you listen to the radio. Why? Because radio is a noun and requires that tiny preposition. Now, let’s pretend your radio is broken and you had your friend Sam sing for you. You would be listening to Sam, not to the Sam, because Sam is a proper noun. So why, then, do most people watch television when they should be watching the television? Because we’ve over-inflated its status in our lives.
Television is no longer just some household item that we turn on when we want entertainment and off when we’re finished. It sits in the center of the living room with every seat angled in relation to its presence, often still turned on simply for the background noise. It becomes like another member of the household and we watch Television the same way we would watch Sam. The programs on it are intended to make us emotionally involved so that we tune in to see advertising for products that we think we must need because we trust Television as much as we’d trust a member of our family. We’ve personified it as someone important in our lives.
Television is a dangerous beast and it’s easy to become fascinated by its luster. That’s the point. It was designed that way. It is an efficient device for controlling your time and manipulating your mind. It is soma, it is the opiate of the masses, it is the new religion. And if you let it, it will consume you.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
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).
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).
Friday, October 12, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, September 7, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
