Capibara of Doom

I don’t have a problem with veganism.  I have a problem with the “cute/furry” defense of veganism.  The health argument seems questionable.  I can understand the “living creature” argument.  I agree with the effect is has on our humanity.

As its been presented to me, the “cute/furry” defense is that animals are too cute and/or furry to eat.  It seems to me that is a very immature and bigoted idea.  To say that one life is inherently more valuable than another because of its appearance is, by definition, bigotry.  It also seems immature.  To determine the value of a life by how it makes  you feel is self-centered.  I can understand a child thinking this way, but for an adult to think this way betrays immaturity.  That isn’t to say its inexcusable.  I’ve known adults who recognize this as faulty logic but, for their own peace of mind, chose not to eat meat.

In terms of health, I haven’t read any conclusive study that indicates the very act of eating animal products has a detrimental effect on health.  That isn’t to say that the average western diet isn’t seriously askew.  The amount of animal products that the average American consumes is actually pretty disturbing.  From my time in Europe, they seem to have a somewhat better balance, but are still far from ideal.  The problem doesn’t seem to be the mere presence or absence of animal products, but the overall diet choices.  Many vegans actually eat just as poorly as others, but with different side effects.

I understand the statement that meat comes from living creatures and that it necessitates a certain amount of suffering.  This argument goes that we should cause as little suffering as  possible in an effort to help create a better, more peaceful future.  I can understand this.  I agree to a certain point.  However, this is not a deciding factor.  All life has suffering, the only difference is amount and cause.  If a chicken were in the wild, they would most likely fall victim to a predator.  So, how much more humane is death by a compassionate hand versus the jaws of a fox?  Of course, the chicken may not have been hatched in the first place, but that seems to go off point.  

I agree with the effect modern diets create, both in our environment and in our collective psyches.  The bottom line is that, generally, meat costs more to produce than the equivalent plant based food source.  It also takes more resources; more water, more land, more equipment.  So, one could argue that veganism is the logical next step in the modern diet.  However, I don’t see this actually happening.  While the logic and science are sound, the social mores are prohibitive.

The argument I find least put forward, and the one I agree most with, is what the meat and dairy industry do to our selves.  How great is our gluttony that we are willing to create the monstrosities that are modern factory farms?  How great is our indifference that we are willing to force animals to live in such conditions?  How great is our greed that we are willing to pollute our environments?  In a world in which we treat animals with such casual cruelty, is it a wonder that we can be so cruel to each other?  Are we so self-deluded that we think vaguely defined words such as “free range” or “organic” have true meaning?  

Gone are the days when humanity lived in balance with our surroundings.  In its place, we have sought to “improve” on nature.  That idea seems like pure hubris.  We can change, we can improve.  But to think that we can improve the basis of life?  It seems a bit much to me.

But, what do I know?  

There has been a quote by Isaac Asimov making the rounds on Tumblr:

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” 

I have a few issues with this quote.  I see the two main points being made, on the surface, as:

• There nature of anti-intellectualism in the US
• “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge”

There is somewhat of a ‘cult of anti-intellectualism’ in the US.  However, I think the why is more important than the what.  Intellectualism in the US carries the trappings of elitism.  Academia, and intellectuals in general, seem to view the rest of the populace, generally speaking, with disdain if not outright contempt. For their part, the rest of the populace feels marginalized and somewhat powerless when confronted by the intellectuals who, as they see it, run and own their world.  The bulk of the populace take joy in the errors of the intellectuals, whose authority rests on their supposedly better minds.  So it is, on its most basic level, a dysfunctional relationship. It seems to me that the only solution will be found when intellectuals acknowledge that all people have worth and possibly solid ideas while the rest of the population acknowledge that others, who are also human and of no greater inherent worth, may know more than they.

On the other point:  I might put forward that ‘my ignorance’ is just as good as ‘your knowledge,’ and perhaps better.  It is the ignorant who question authority, challenge it, and make it prove itself.  Intellectual incest is a very real thing and sometimes the educated, like all people, can lose sight of things.  We all need checks and balances.

However, the more disturbing part of the quote, and the main focus of it, seems to be the equality statement.  If we say that anyone is greater than another, irregardless of the cause, we are flinging open the door to classes of citizenry.    Yes, a society run by intellectuals is a good concept.  But, as any political scientist will tell you, a well-run monarchy is the best and most efficient form of government.  Yet, few would like to live under such a government.

If we were to say that the sole function of government was to oversee our collective administrative issues, a technocracy would be wonderful.  But this is not, and realistically will never be, the sole function of government.  The moment we choose to allow or command government intercession in our social lives, it becomes necessary to allow all people an equal say in governance.  If not, we create a class system with an ‘aristocracy’ and ‘subjects.’  To say otherwise is to say that not every person should be allowed say in their lives.  If you are pro-choice, you are against the idea; you would have no inalienable rights, only what the ruling class dictates.  If you are against government intrusion into your life, you are against the idea; the government would not be answerable to you.

In a democracy, ignorance is politically equal to knowledge; otherwise we are no longer a democracy.  The shame is that this allows people to remain ignorant, without encouraging them to seek knowledge.  In such a case, the power-hungry will always seek to abuse the ignorant.  The knowledgeable have the responsibility to realize the difference between ideas and facts and support facts while considering ideas.  Only by encouraging knowledgeable, reasoned, civil discussion can we improve our situation. 

Just read Camus’ An Adulterous Woman. Wow. The first of six short stories in Exile and the Kingdom.

An amazing work. It strangely reminds me of Dostoevsky’s White Nights. It seems less a character study and more a study of the human condition. Powerful, compelling, and a very quick read; Camus shows his ability. To write such a strong story while not going over the top is a difficult task, but one he pulls off with ease.

Two thumbs up.