Lundeeria : Chapter Seven
December 31, 2010
Chapter 7: Hope for Earth
It was done. Justin and Emma had told the Lundeerians what they had needed to know. The two children were more tired than they had ever been in their lives. And they couldn’t remember a time when they had felt so sad.
Nightingale understood how hard this was for Justin and Emma. She led the twins to a nearby grassy spot that was shaded by some flowering trees so the two could rest. Seeds, nuts, and fruit were brought for them to eat. Fresh water was carried from the pond for them to drink.
Some of the animals stayed with them so they would not feel alone or be afraid. Exhausted, the two lay down after eating and drinking a little of what was brought for them.
Nightingale stayed as well and sang them to sleep. She sang to them of dreams, dreams of Lundeeria as it was now: a peaceful land where all animals respected and cared for one another.
As the two exhausted children rested under the loving care of Nightingale, all the other animals remained at the assembly.
After speaking with the other council members, Tortoise again came forward to address the assembly. “When we began the Dream Seeking, we did not know what would happen. We just knew that we had felt great fear. Now, with a sorrow so great we can hardly bear to even speak of it, we know the reason for that fear.”
“There is an animal on Earth that is not only eating other animals, but treating them without any thought for their welfare. The Earth animals, unlike we Lundeerians, are unable to speak up for themselves. Unable to tell the humans that factory farming and mistreating and eating animals is simply wrong.”
“Fortunately, there seems to be some humans, like Justin and Emma and their parents, who do understand this.”
“In our own ancient past, our ancestors learned that killing is wrong. And although it was not easy, they learned to change. And due to their courage, we have lived peacefully with one another since that time.”
Gazelle came forward and stood next to Tortoise.
“Dear Friends, although we live on different worlds, we are still one with our brothers and sisters on Earth. In our Dream Seeking, we brought two human children here from that world so very far away. Surely it was their goodness and their compassion that helped us reach out to them, to bring them here.”
“The council proposes that through them, we try to speak for all those who cannot speak for themselves. If our ancestors could change, surely so can these humans.”
“We need to dream Justin and Emma back to where they came from. And we need to do so now because their parents must be getting very worried about them.”
As Gazelle finished speaking, Nightingale flew toward the center of the crater. Justin and Emma followed behind her on the ground. As they moved through the immense crowd, the animals parted to make room for the two to pass. As they did so, the children reached out to the animals who nuzzled them, gave soft sounds of greeting, or simply looked on with love. They looked up as birds flew over their heads in encouragement.
“Yes, our parents will be worried,” Justin said.
“But can you dream us home safely?” asked Emma.
Gazelle looked thoughtfully into Justin’s eyes and then into Emma’s. “We dreamed you here without knowing who we were dreaming of. I believe now that we know you, we will be able to return you home safely. But my dear ones, we cannot promise this. If you would like to remain here with us, we will happily look after you and do everything we can to make your lives here good ones.”
Gazelle looked at both of them before adding, “That I can promise you.”
Emma and Justin turned to each other and seemed to know what the other was thinking.
Emma looked back at Gazelle and spoke first. “We heard you speaking of the courage of the ancient Lundeerians. We know it would be safer for us to stay here. And we’d love to live here. To us this is a world more wonderful than anything we could have imagined.”
“But we cannot stay,” Justin said with regret. “We cannot stay even though we are not sure we can return safely home.”
“Tortoise, Gazelle, Nightingale, all the animals of Lundeeria, we will be your voice. We will find a way to speak for you on behalf of the animals on our world.”
“We have learned that humans are not the only ones who know fear. Not the only ones to feel pain, the sadness of losing mothers and fathers, children, and friends.
Emma continued. “We now know that many animals, not just humans, want to live safely. Want to be happy. And free from pain. Like humans, they too love their children. Are loyal to those they love and to their friends.”
“People need to understand. It is wrong for us to think only of ourselves. Wrong to think we are more important than other animals. Wrong to make them suffer, to feel sad and afraid.”
Justin and Emma took each other’s hand. “We need to help others understand this. We are ready to go home.”
What could the Lundeerians say? They didn’t know the words to express how grateful they were to these two young humans. But really, they didn’t need to say anything. Justin and Emma could feel their thoughts. An overwhelming love and gratitude came into their hearts that just a while ago had felt so sad and empty. They looked out at the crater overflowing with animals, and spoke together.
“We know. Thank you. We will never forget.”
With that, they lay down in the same place where they had appeared just hours before.
Nightingale began to sing all the animals and the two humans to sleep. She sang of friendship and love. She sang of a world that needed help and of two human children returning home. She sang of courage and thinking of others not just oneself. And she sang of doing what is right even when ignored or even laughed at by others. As everyone slept, Nightingale guided the dreams of all the Lundeerians and of two small, brave children.
In a little while, Nightingale stopped singing. And again, as if one, the Lundeerians awoke. Then they all heard deep in their hearts the voices of Justin and Emma, “Thank you. We are safe. We are home. We will always remember you and what you taught us.”
The animals knew that somehow things would be better on the world called Earth. Justin and Emma would tell others what they had learned and more and more humans would understand that mistreating and killing, and eating other animals was wrong.
Between Earth and Lundeeria the air seemed to vibrate as all the creatures on Lundeeria and two small children on Earth thought as one: “Love all beings.”
Reader Comments (12)
Let's work to make it a healthier and more peaceful blue dot
in the universe. Please include Earth in your New Year Goals.
A beautiful, and beautifully written story, that should be told to all children. Thank you.
I believe that there is hope for the earth if we go vegan. We need to stop eating animals; we need to stop consuming their secretions, i.e. milk and eggs, since producing these involves torture and killing of animals; we need to stop wearing animals, i.e. leather, fur, wool and silk, since these involve the torture and killing of animals; we need to stop using products tested on animals, since this involves the same.
It is easy to avoid all of these products since there are non-animal substitutes now available for every kind of animal product. It is easy to go vegan. Being vegan is better for your health, better for the environment, and most importantly, it’s the morally right thing to do.
This is a very good article http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/the-vegan-2010spring.pdf entitled Vegetarianism First, by Distinguished Professor of Law and Philosophy, Gary Francione. Professor Francione has been a vegan for 29 years, is a practising Jain, has taught animal rights at university level for 25 years, and has written six books and hundreds of essays advocating for the rights of animals. (The fundamental right which he argues for on behalf of animals is the right not to be treated as a “thing”, that is, the right not to be exploited as the property of humans).
In this article, Professor Francione challenges the conventional wisdom of recommending that people go vegetarian first before going vegan. The whole article is worth reading, but here are some excerpts:
“We should educate everyone, including and particularly omnivores, about veganism and should never promote vegetarianism as morally preferable to being an omnivore.
There is no morally significant distinction between flesh and other animal products. Animals used in dairy are generally kept alive longer than those used for meat, are treated every bit as badly if not worse, and end up in the same slaughterhouse. Moreover, the slaughter of animals for meat and the dairy industry are inextricably intertwined in that there would be no veal industry without the dairy industry and dairy cows are all slaughtered and consumed.
I have said many times that if I were forced to choose between eating a steak or drinking milk and I was to make the decision solely on the basis of suffering, I would choose the steak. To promote vegetarianism rather than veganism is similar to — and as nonsensical as — promoting eating the meat from spotted cows rather than the meat from cows without spots.
When we promote this artificial distinction, it is even more difficult for someone who gives up flesh to go vegan because she sees no reason to. As often as I have heard animal advocates urge that we should promote vegetarianism rather than veganism, I have heard vegans say that they remained vegetarians for many years before going vegan because they believed that they were being “compassionate” and acting morally, and were discharging their moral obligations to animals by not eating flesh but eating dairy products.
We should never present flesh as somehow morally distinguishable from dairy. To the extent it is morally wrong to eat flesh, it is as morally wrong — and possibly more morally wrong — to consume dairy.
I am often asked what to say to a person who expresses agreement with the moral theory of veganism but says that she cannot go vegan right away.
First of all, I always emphasize that it is easy to go vegan. I very consciously reject the notion promoted by many animal advocates that veganism is difficult. It’s easy. I have been a vegan for 27 years now. It was more difficult when I started but it was not that difficult, even in 1982. In 2009, it’s a breeze. And if you want to eat healthily and avoid prepared foods, it’s even easier.
Second, I never encourage anyone to eat cage-free eggs or “happy meat” or organic milk, etc. First of all, all of these animals are tortured. Although animals who are supposedly raised in “free- range” circumstances, or whose products are advertised as “organic,” are raised in conditions that may be slightly less brutal than the normal factory farm, they are all still tortured. I will never portray these products as anything but what they are: gimmicks that are intended to make humans feel more comfortable about consuming nonhumans.
Third, I encourage those who really are unwilling to go vegan immediately to follow the “Vegan 1-2-3” plan. This introduces veganism in three stages. The person goes vegan for breakfast for some period of time (a few weeks, a month). She sees how easy it is and how delicious and satisfying a vegan breakfast is. She then goes vegan for lunch for some period of time, and then for dinner, and then she’s vegan.
Although I think that the Vegan 1-2-3 plan is preferable to eating “happy” meat or dairy, I never concede that eating animal products is ever morally right. I always want to be clear that veganism is the only position that makes sense if you take animal interests seriously. The other person is always clear that even if she is not ready to go vegan immediately, nothing short of veganism will discharge the important moral obligation involved”.
Here is an excellent essay by Dan Cudahy, entitled What is Wrong with Vegetarianism? in which he discusses the moral problems with vegetarianism:
http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-is-wrong-with-vegetarianism.html
Some excerpts:
“Many people are vegetarians for ethical reasons. They object to either the treatment of animals in animal agriculture or the intentional killing of animals, or both. Paradoxically, despite their objections to the treatment or intentional killing of animals, they continue to consume dairy products and eggs, which, as we will see below, certainly contribute more to the suffering and arguably as much to the intentional killing of animals than the consumption of meat products. In fact, to the extent that a vegetarian replaces calories from flesh with calories from dairy and egg products, the vegetarian has increased his or her contribution to animal suffering”.
After discussing the suffering and death involved in milk and eggs, including “free range” and “organic”, as well as the immorality of the property status of animals and treating them as “things” rather than sentient beings, Dan goes on to say:
"The institution of animal exploitation (i.e. slavery) is a moral blind spot in our culture exactly as human slavery was a moral blind spot 160 years ago in America. We need to examine and question our cultural prejudices just as 19th century Americans needed to examine their cultural prejudices.
If we are morally opposed to the institution of animal exploitation and the cruelty and gross injustice it necessarily entails, as any decent person who is aware of the facts included in this essay ought to be (not to mention the facts of other exploitation not included here), our moral baseline must be veganism”.
To summarise, if we take animal interests in not being enslaved, tortured and killed seriously, we need to go vegan as a moral baseline. Veganism is not the most we can do, but the least that we owe to non-human animals as a matter of basic justice. Anyone who takes animal interests seriously but for some reason feels that they can’t go vegan immediately can do so incrementally, at a pace that is achievable for them, according to the 1-2-3 plan as described by Gary Francione. There is no sense in going vegetarian first since it is mistaken to think that there is any difference, morally, between meat and other animal products, since all involve torture and killing.
As vegans, we understand that it is impossible for us to perfectly avoid all harm to non-human animals. Veganism is simply doing the best we can do in an imperfect situation by refusing to use animal products which are easily avoidable and which are totally unnecessary for our survival or our health.
Thank you for your New Year message. I would like to share Christmas and New Year messages from Professor Gary Francione, mentioned in my above post, which are in a similar vein to your own. GLF promotes the practical application of ahimsa through veganism.
A Simple Thought for Christmas 2010
We will never have peace on earth as long as we have suffering and death on our tables or on our backs.
Peace begins with what you eat, wear, & use.
Being vegan is not sufficient for leading a nonviolent life — but it is most certainly necessary.
If you are not vegan, go vegan. It’s easy; it’s better for your health and for the planet. But, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do.
Some Thoughts for the New Year
Dear Colleagues:
It is the obligation of all who embrace veganism to educate others in creative ways about the fundamental moral truth of not exploiting the vulnerable. We must all become teachers of nonviolence in our homes, social circles, schools, workplaces, and communities. We start teaching by our own example.
Ethical veganism is nonviolence in action; it is dynamic harmlessness. It requires that we reassess and reject the insidious ideologies of domination that we have been raised to accept as “normal.” A world that moves toward ethical veganism will be a world that moves toward greater peace and justice as a general matter.
If we stop treating animals like animals, we will stop treating other humans like animals.
Let us resolve to stand up against all forms of discrimination (racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, speciesism) and just say no.
Let us resolve to make the world a more peaceful place in 2011 and let us each do our part in that effort. I will continue throughout 2011 to do Commentaries focusing on the various forms of positive, creative, nonviolent, grassroots vegan advocacy that are emerging and developing in many countries and in all sorts of communities. We should all learn from these advocates!
If you are not vegan, go vegan. It’s easy; it’s better for your health and for the planet. But, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do. You will never do *anything* else in your life as easy and satisfying.
The World is Vegan! If you want it.
Gary L. Francione
If you or anyone else is attracted to these messages or the article in the previous post by Professor Francione, you can find essays, videos, articles, podcast commentaries and other materials at his website address http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
It is also said by some researchers that certain blood types in humans are carnivores - the "O" variety.
Do I see the violence in killing another being for dinner? Yes. Some call this the "balance of nature". As always, issues are not as simple as we would like them to be.
Buddha reminds us there is "the middle way".
Veganism is admirable.
What scientific evidence is there that the Blood Type diet is a healthful diet?
Is optimum health the only criterion, or even the most important criterion, in making a choice about diet?
In what way does killing animals for food maintain the "balance of nature"?
What is your point in mentioning "the middle way"?
Why do you regard veganism as admirable?
You totally ignored my observation there are animals that are born total carnivores. Since they are a natural creation, I can see where it is seen as a balance of nature to keep other animal populations in check. What would you suggest we do with cats and sharks?
The "Middle Way" is about balance and is part of Buddhism. Extremes are not always beneficial. People with certain blood diseases cannot maintain health without animal protein that contains L-Carnitine and other nutrients. Medical fact.
I am hoping you will recognize that not every creature on earth can exist as a Vegan. It's great if you can and it certainly is non-violent with a lower carbon footprint. Americans certainly have taken meat eating to an extreme and unfortunately have spread this eating habit to other parts of the globe.
Like everything, there are gray / middle areas.
I don't see how carnivorous animals keeping other animal populations in check applies to the idea of maintaining "the balance of nature" regarding humans eating meat and other animal products. Can you clarify what you mean?
What I suggest we do with cats and sharks is simply let them be cats and sharks, which includes being carnivores.
I was asking about the Blood Type Diet specifically, since you mentioned this. How does this relate to blood diseases? My understanding is that the BTD is promoted for people in general, not just those with blood diseases. I was asking what evidence there is that the BTD is a healthful diet for people in general.
L-carnitine is available from plant sources. However, even if it's true that some individuals with blood diseases need to eat flesh to survive, this has no relevance for the vast majority of us who don't have a blood disease. For most of us, we can not only survive but be very healthy without eating flesh or any other kind of animal product. Veganism is about refraining from causing unnecessary harm to other animals. It's arguable as to what "unnecessary" means, but if it has any meaning at all, it means that we cannot inflict pain and suffering on animals purely for the sake of pleasure, convenience, entertainment or out of sheer habit. And yet 99.99% of our use of animals is for pleasure, convenience, entertainment and habit. This includes eating animal products which are totally unnecessary for health for the vast majority of us. Why should beings who are every bit as sentient as we are have to suffer and die just so that we can gratify our craving for the taste and texture of their flesh and secretions? If you think about it, the idea is monstrous.
If an individual finds themselves in the very rare situation of needing to eat animal foods to survive, such as someone with a rare metabolic disease, or someone who finds themselves stranded in, or living in, a wilderness area with nothing else to eat, it is still debatable as to whether it is morally right for that person to kill other beings in order to live. However, while it might not be justifiable, it is certainly understandable, and excusable. No-one, including vegans, is likely to criticise their actions. A person who is highly developed, spiritually, might make other choices; they may feel it's better, karmically, and from the standpoint of compassion, that they be killed rather than kill. However, most of us have not reached that level.
So, to clarify, veganism is not about the kinds of decisions we make in crisis or emergency situations; it's about the decisions we make in our everyday lives. Often in crisis situations it's impossible to make satisfactory moral decisions, and those kinds of decisions, such as killing and eating a human or non-human animal if we are starving in a desert or in arctic regions have no relevance, and cannot be generalised to the kind of decisions that we make in non-crisis situations in or day to day lives. When we are shopping in the supermarket we are not in a crisis situation and have a wide range of choice. We can choose to make choices that are based on compassion and justice for non-humans or we can choose animal foods purely in order to feed our own addiction to sense gratification.
Sue K, neither I, nor any other vegan I know of, has ever suggested that "every creature on earth can exist as a vegan". Indeed, the idea is absurd! However, we would say that the vast majority of humans in the developed and developing world today can certainly exist, and thrive, as vegans.
As for there always being "gray/middle areas", do you really believe this? For example, is there a gray area when it comes to rape and torture, or imprisonment and murder of innocents, i.e. those who have committed no crime? Are you saying that sometimes these are morally justified? Most people would totally condemn these as being always and absolutely wrong. If someone imprisoned, tortured, raped and murdered your child, do you think you would be talking about "gray/middle areas"? Or do the "gray areas" only apply when these crimes are being inflicted on those who belong to a group other than your own, i.e. other species?
Can you see that this reflects speciesist thinking? Speciesism is a prejudice just like racism, sexism, classism, ageism or heterosexism that excludes beings from the moral community based on irrelevant criteria. The fact is that every minute of every day, beings who have been unfortunate enough to be born non-human, and who have committed no crime, are being subjected to imprisonment, rape, torture and murder, simply to gratify our desire for their flesh and secretions. I don't see any "gray area" here. We murder 56 billion animals every year, not including fish, for “food” which we don’t need. This is an on-going holocaust for animals involving suffering of unimaginable proportions. I condemn this as absolutely and utterly wrong and refuse totally to be a part of it, as far is in my power. As far as a moral choice goes, it couldn't be less gray.
The sad fact is that most humans are speciesist, albeit unconsciously. We've been conditioned since birth to be that way, but we don't have to remain that way. At one time, it was seen to be perfectly acceptable to be both racist and sexist. Slavery used to be regarded by most people as perfectly OK, the natural order of things. Racism, sexism and slavery still exist, but they are no longer seen to be morally acceptable. We need to see that speciesism is no more acceptable than any other prejudice. The fact that another being belongs to a different species does not give us the right to treat them merely as "things", as simply means to our ends, any more than would be the case if they belonged to a different race.
I'm still not clear about your point regarding "the middle way" as taught in Buddhism and avoiding extremes. How does this apply to veganism?
I'm still not clear about your point regarding "the middle way" as taught in Buddhism and avoiding extremes. How does this apply to veganism?
Obviously we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I'm not sure what it is that we agree or disagree on since you say that you find veganism admirable, but you don’t agree with it. Which is it? I’m sorry, but I don't understand exactly what it is that you are trying to say and you obviously aren't interested in responding substantively to my questions in order to clarify your statements. However, I do accept that you disagree with some or all of what I've said, and respect that you have a right to disagree.
Since I'm still unclear as to what exactly you are implying by your statements, I'll respond to what I think you most likely believe. I apologise if I'm wrong and please feel free to correct me. Although you may not agree with, or appreciate my thoughts, I hope that readers in general will find something of interest here. I think your comments, as I interpret them, are interesting in that they reflect common concerns and therefore provide for some worthwhile discussion, so I thank you for them.
CARNIVOROUS ANIMALS
I hope it is clear now that there is no suggestion that carnivorous animals should be vegan. In fact, it would be an impossibility since they would die even if they could somehow be forced to eat a plant-based diet. Carnivorous animals have a very different physiology to humans, who can eat omnivorously, but whose physiology is closest to that of a frugivore, like that of the great apes. This means that we are most suited to eating plant foods.
Some people think that since carnivorous animals kill other animals, we ought to be able to kill animals for meat. Someone recently asked Gary Francione this question: "Wild animals kill other animals so why shouldn't we be able to as well?" His reply: "So what? I have no idea if animals make moral decisions. They probably don't and they certainly don't do so in the way that normal humans do. We are moral agents and we ought to behave as moral agents. An animal killing another animal is no more relevant to moral norms than is the fact that there are sociopaths who lack normative cognition and kill other humans.
I always find it odd that we claim to be superior to animals by virtue of our developed cognition, etc., and then, when we are asked to use that sophisticated cognition to explain our justification for animal exploitation, we fall back into the excuse 'but they do it too.'"
Although I'm no expert on Buddhism, I know that meat-eating is considered by the Pure Land masters to create negative karma. My understanding from my readings on Buddhism is that if we choose to eat like a carnivorous animal when we are not obligate carnivores, we are increasing our chances of either being reborn as a carnivorous animal or as a "food animal" who will be killed and eaten in order to repay our karmic debt. Since this is a Buddhist blog, I would like to digress at this point from directly addressing Sue K’s concerns to briefly discuss Buddhist teachings regarding the use of animal products.
BUDDHISM AND USE OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS
I recommend that anyone who is interested in this area reads “The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights” by Norm Phelps, who states, "The Buddha's teaching leads us to the realization that we must always strive to harm no sentient being, human or nonhuman, whether or not it is in our selfish interest to do so."
The Mahayana sutras contain many teachings of the Buddha that are very specifically against meat-eating. For example, in the Mahaparinrvana sutra, he says that “the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion”. In the Lankavatara sutra, the Buddha states “Meat-eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I will not permit”. In the Surangama sutra http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/surangama.pdf he praises the avoidance of using any kind of animal product, including meat, cream, milk, butter leather, fur and silk (see Prohibition Against Killing pp 215-217). Some excerpts:
“Ananda, if living beings in the six worlds of existence cease to kill they will not be subject to the continual round of births and deaths. Your practice of samadhi should free you from defilements but if your murderous mind is not cut off, they cannot be eliminated. You may acquire much wisdom but if you fail to stop killing, when dhyana manifests, you will fall into the way of spirits, in which the high rank is attained by the mighty ghost (preta), the middle one by flying yaksas (nature spirits that haunt the wilderness) and chief ghosts, and the low one by earth-bound raksasas (evil spirits).
You should know that those who eat meat, though their minds may open and realize a semblance of samadhi, are but great raksasas who, after this life, will sink back into the bitter ocean of samsara and cannot be my disciples. They will kill and devour one another ceaselessly; how then can they escape from the three worlds of existence?
All bhiksus who live purely and all Bodhisattvas always refrain even from walking on the grass; how can they agree to uproot it? How then can those who practise great compassion feed on the flesh and blood of living beings? If bhiksus do not wear garments made of (Chinese) silk, boots of local leather and furs, and refrain from consuming milk, cream and butter, they will really be liberated from the worldly; after paying their former debts, they will not transmigrate in the three realms of existence. Why? Because by using animal products, one creates causes which are always followed by effects.
If a man can control his body and mind and thereby refrains from eating animal flesh and wearing animal products, I say he will really be liberated. This teaching of mine is that of the Buddha whereas any other is that of evil demons”.
BLOOD TYPE DIET AND HEALTH ISSUES
Sue K, you said “It is also said by some researchers that certain blood types in humans are carnivores – the ‘O’ variety”. This is obviously a reference to the Blood Type Diet which is based on the fundamental belief that the key to a successful diet plan is eating specific food types based on blood type.
I am an “O” type and have been vegetarian since the age of 18, and remained so until the age of 45. I have now been a vegan for 10 years. My husband is also an "O" type and a healthy vegan. So I have to reject the notion that being an “O” type makes one a carnivore or requires one to be a carnivore in order to be healthy. The Blood Type Diet is contrary to what most dieticians believe today based on the sum of scientific research on nutrition. There are many problems with the Blood Type Diet, including a lack of evidence to support it. Please see this article by Michael Klaper MD, Blood Type Diet – Fact or Fiction? in which he discusses some of these problems: http://www.earthsave.org/health/bloodtyp.htm
The “O” type diet is one that recommends a high intake of flesh foods and low carbohydrates, similar to the Atkins diet. The Atkins diet has been widely discredited http://www.atkinsexposed.org/ and is considered a serious threat to health by nutritional and medical experts. Most people are blood type “O” so the authors of this theory are suggesting that a high protein/low carbohydrate diet is best for most of the world’s population. Many studies have successfully debunked the high protein/low carbohydrate diet and this is where the blood type diet theory goes seriously wrong. The overwhelming weight of opinion amongst nutritional experts is that it’s harmful to consume a diet which is high in animal foods as these are too high in fat, protein and cholesterol and low in fibre and other essential nutrients. In addition, flesh when cooked produces carcinogenic compounds.
There is a great deal of evidence regarding the superiority of a plant-based diet. Foremost is the China Study, the most sophisticated epidemiological study ever undertaken in any field. Wikipedia on the China Study:
“The China Study is a 2005 book by T. Colin Campbell, Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, and one of the directors of the China Project, and his son, Thomas M. Campbell II. The book examines the relationship between the consumption of animal products and illnesses such as cancers of the breast, prostate, and large bowel, diabetes, coronary heart disease, obesity, autoimmune disease, osteoporosis, degenerative brain disease, and macular degeneration.
‘The China Study’ of the title is taken from the ‘China-Oxford-Cornell Study on Dietary, Lifestyle and Disease Mortality Characteristics in 65 Rural Chinese Counties’, or China Project, a survey of death rates for 12 kinds of cancer in over 2,400 counties and 880 million people, which studied the relationship between mortality rates and dietary, lifestyle, and environmental factors in 65 mostly rural counties in China. The study, which began in 1983 and was described by The New York Times as ‘the Grand Prix of epidemiology’, was conducted jointly by Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine over the course of twenty years. The study was conducted in China because it has a genetically similar population that tends to live in the same way in the same place and eat the same foods for their entire lives. Nowhere else has such a genetically similar population with significant regional differences in disease rates, dietary habits and environmental exposures.
The authors introduce and explain the conclusions of the study, which correlated animal-based diet with disease. Diets high in animal protein (including casein in cow's milk) were strongly linked to heart disease, cancer, and Type 1 diabetes.
The authors recommend that people eat a whole food, plant-based diet, and avoid consuming beef, poultry, eggs, fish, and milk as a means to minimize and/or reverse the development of chronic diseases. They recommend adequate amounts of sunshine to maintain sufficient levels of Vitamin D and dietary supplements of vitamin B12 in case of complete avoidance of animal products. They criticize ‘low carb’ diets (such as the Atkins diet), which include restrictions on the percentage of calories derived from complex carbohydrates”.
Major health organizations such as The American & Canadian Dietetic Associations state that appropriately planned vegan diets are healthful and provide benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. They also state that a vegan diet is appropriate for individuals during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, and for athletes. Therefore, humans have no physical need for consuming animal products.
ETHICAL DIET
My point in asking the question: "Is optimum health the only criterion, or even the most important criterion, in making a choice about diet?” is this:
It is an established fact that a vegan diet is at least as healthy, and almost certainly, more healthy than a diet containing animal products. This is proven empirically by scientific and epidemiological research, as well as the many people who have been vegan for several years, and even decades, who are enjoying good health. I believe that, based on the evidence, a 100% plant diet is the most optimum diet for good health. But even if the Blood Type Diet – or any other diet - could be scientifically shown to deliver the most optimum health, i.e. better than a vegan diet, would this be sufficient reason to subject animals to unimaginable horror in order to obtain their flesh and secretions, rather than following a vegan diet which delivers merely good health?
The point I am attempting to make here is that what we eat, and wear, and use, is not just about us and our health and wellbeing. Our choices involve others, i.e. non-human animals, who have as much right as we do to not be subjected to pain and suffering. In other words, there is a moral dimension to our choices, not just a health dimension. As Norm Phelps states “It’s a feeble compassion that pulls up short where self-interest begins”.
I believe that the Blood Type Diet is just another silly fad diet. But even if we could get some marginal health advantage from eating animal products as per the BTD, how could we morally justify sacrificing the serious interests of non-human animals in not being tortured and murdered, for the sake of our trivial interest in enjoying marginally better health, when we can be perfectly healthy (more healthy, actually) by leaving animals alone and eating plant foods?
There is a good health argument for a vegan diet, and this is one reason why an increasing number of people are adopting it. However, being a vegan is about a lot more than trying to get maximum health and lifespan for oneself. Being a vegan is fundamentally about rejecting violence towards other sentient beings. If people go “vegan”, i.e. adopt a plant-based diet, purely for health reasons, they may or may not remain vegan. If the vegan diet doesn’t deliver the slimmer, more attractive body they were hoping for, or doesn’t measure up in some other way to their expectations, they will drop it. Also, they may very well be susceptible to claims about the latest fad diet and jump ship to a new diet in an endless search for ultimate health and wellbeing. The moral reason for going vegan is the only one that has real substance and people who go vegan for moral reasons tend to stay vegan.
BALANCE OF NATURE
You said: “Do I see the violence in killing another being for dinner? Yes. Some call this the ‘balance of nature’”. You referred to carnivorous animals keeping other animal populations in check. This simply isn’t relevant to animal agriculture. We are not keeping in check the populations of cows, pigs, sheep and chickens by eating them. We deliberately breed billions of these animals every year exclusively for the purpose of exploiting and killing them. This places a huge burden on our ecology.
It’s difficult to understand how you could see animal agriculture, and especially factory farming, as contributing to the balance of nature. I’m not really sure what you mean by “the balance of nature” but if you mean ecological balance and sustainability, then I am truly at a loss to understand your thinking. Animal agriculture as it exists today is an ecological disaster and a major contributor to global warming. Please see this excellent essay, On the Environmental Disaster of Animal Agriculture http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-environmental-disaster-of-animal.html
Many leading environmental organizations, including the National Audubon Society, the Worldwatch Institute, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and even Al Gore's Live Earth, have recognized that raising animals for food damages the environment more than anything else that we do. You only need to consider the overuse of resources, deforestation, global warming, massive water and air pollution, acidification of the oceans and soil erosion to see that raising animals for food is wreaking havoc on the Earth. See this website, Eco-eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters for more detailed information: http://www.brook.com/veg/
THE MIDDLE WAY AND EXTREMISM
You said “Buddha reminds us there is ‘the middle way’” and pointed out that “extremes are not always beneficial”. I assume that what you are saying here is that you see veganism as extreme and that “the middle way” is an antidote to this type of extremism. A common approach to the question of consuming meat and other animal products is to deflect the discussion away from the suffering of the animals and onto the supposed “intolerance” or “extremism” of anyone who criticises it.
First, let’s deal with the idea that ethical veganism is extreme by quoting Professor Gary Francione:
“There is nothing extreme about ethical veganism.
What is extreme is eating decomposing flesh and animal secretions.
What is extreme is that we regard some animals as members of our family while, at the same time, we stick forks into the corpses of other animals.
What is extreme is thinking that it is morally acceptable to inflict suffering and death on other sentient creatures simply because we enjoy the taste of animal products or because we like the look of clothes made from animals.
What is extreme is that we say that we recognize that “unnecessary” suffering and death cannot be morally justified and then we proceed to engage in exploitation on a daily basis that is completely unnecessary.
What is extreme is pretending to embrace peace while we make violence, suffering, torture and death a daily part of our lives.
What is extreme is that we excoriate people like Michael Vick, Mary Bale and Sarah Palin as villains while we continue to eat, use, and consume animal products.
What is extreme is that we say that we care about animals and that we believe that they are members of the moral community, but we sponsor, support, encourage and promote “happy” meat/dairy labeling schemes.
What is extreme is not eating flesh but continuing to consume dairy when there is absolutely no rational distinction between meat and dairy (or other animal products). There is as much suffering and death in dairy, eggs, etc., as there is in meat.
What is extreme is that we are consuming a diet that is causing disease and resulting in ecological disaster.
What is extreme is that we encourage our children to love animals at the same time that we teach them those that they love can also be those whom they harm. We teach our children that love is consistent with commodification. That is truly extreme — and very sad.
What is extreme is the fantasy that we will ever find our moral compass with respect to animals as long as they are on our plates and our tables, on our backs, and on our feet.
No, ethical veganism is not extreme. But there are many other things that we do not even pay attention to that are extreme".
Now, to address the idea that veganism is a form of extremism that deviates from the Buddhist principle of the Middle Way:
From Wikipedia:
"The Middle Way or Middle Path (Pali: majjhimā paṭipadā; Sanskrit: madhyamā-pratipad; )[1] is the descriptive term that Siddhattha Gotama used to describe the character of the path that he discovered led to liberation. It was coined in the very first teaching that he delivered after his enlightenment.[2] In this sutta - known in English as The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of Dharma - the Buddha describes the middle way as a path of moderation between the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. This, according to him, was the path of wisdom. The middle path does not mean a mid point in a straight line joining two extremes represented by points".
Norm Phelps states:
“The Buddha taught that all desires for things that we think will bring us happiness in samsara are addictions, no different physiologically from alcoholism or drug addiction. Many Buddhist spiritual exercises are designed to help us break free of our addictions – which in Buddhist terminology are known collectively as ‘attachment’ or ‘clinging’ – because they are what bind us to suffering. There is no way to reach nirvana than to free ourselves of them.
Buddhist meat-eaters sometimes defend their diet by claiming that ‘dogmatic insistence’ on a vegan lifestyle is a form of clinging that is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism. Buddhist practitioners, they suggest, should be able to take meat or leave it alone and not make a fetish or their diet.
If a Buddhist vegan diet were undertaken for the benefit of the practitioner, there might be some merit in this claim. But it is not. A Buddhist vegan diet is undertaken out of compassion for the suffering of animals. Every morsel of meat that we eat, every slice of cheese, every omelet, comes at the price of cruel, unnatural confinement and childhood death. We cannot eat animal products even occasionally without supporting the torture and killing of innocent animals. Every retreat from veganism toward ‘moderation’ or a ‘middle way’ is a step further into cruelty and killing.
The Buddha never advocated a ‘middle way’ between good and evil or between compassion and cruelty. And he most certainly never taught that we should strive to conquer our “attachment” to compassion. In fact, he taught that we should do everything in our power to strengthen our compassion. A vegan lifestyle is an expression of compassion, it is not a form of clinging to the addictions of samsara. The attachment that meat-eating Buddhists should be concerned about is their craving for the flesh of murdered animals, not the determination to live a life based on ahimsa.
If insistence on a lifestyle that does not depend on the murder of animals is a form of clinging, what about insistence on a lifestyle that does not depend on the murder of human beings? Is that also a form of clinging? If so, does that mean we should be able to take or leave armed robbery and murder? And if not, what is the difference other than the species of the victim? The argument from attachment is simply speciesism dressed up as Buddhist language.”
Sue K, you said “Americans certainly have taken meat-eating to an extreme”. Meat-eating IS inherently extreme, regardless of the quantity. ANY amount of meat-eating involves torture and killing. If you don’t regard torture and killing as extreme behaviour, then I can’t imagine what would qualify for you.
IT’S GREAT TO BE VEGAN IF YOU CAN
You say that it’s great to be vegan if we can, as though it’s just a personal choice, but not required. Any activity that involves harm and killing of others is not just a “personal choice”. Trivial activities that have no significant effect on others, such as what kind of hairstyle we have, or what colour car we buy, are personal choices. It’s not just a “personal choice” when our behaviour causes someone else to lose their lives. It would be like saying that it’s a personal choice to drive on the wrong side of the road. As one vegan I know said “It’s not just a personal choice when you’re killing my friends and ruining my planet”.
So it’s not “great” to be vegan; it’s the moral baseline, the minimum standard of decency that we owe to non-human animals as a matter of basic justice. If we care about animals, if we take their interests seriously at all, the minimum we owe them is not to incarcerate, torture and kill them. If we can do anything extra to benefit animals, that’s “great”, but we shouldn’t see being vegan as an act of heroism or great virtue on our part – it’s simply the least we can do. Being vegan isn’t a matter of 'noblesse oblige' or even just compassion; it’s also a matter of fundamental justice.
The statement “it’s great to be vegan if we can” implies that some of us can, and some of us can’t. To quote Norm Phelps again:
“With the possible exception of a small percentage of people with severe metabolic deficiencies – people who suffer from a pathology – there is no one in the industrialized world who cannot give up meat-eating and who would not be healthier for it. But there are a lot or people in the industrialized world who do not want to give up their addiction to meat; and like alcoholics and drug addicts, meat addicts are masters of self-deception. They convince themselves that without their daily fix of dead flesh they become listless and experience a non-specific but debilitating malaise”.
Of course, this applies to eggs and dairy as well.
GOING AND STAYING VEGAN - EASY OR DIFFICULT?
How difficult is it to make the change to a vegan diet? Initially, it can be challenging, because of the force of habit. In fact, meat and dairy products are physically addictive, and this is obviously the reason why so many people never give them up even though, like smoking, they know it it’s bad for their health. This is a fascinating video by Dr. Neil Barnard on how meat and cheese, as well as sugar and chocolate, are physically addictive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VWi6dXCT7I
Dr. Barnard advises people to just try going vegan for three weeks, because it only takes 3 weeks for taste buds to adapt and for the person to become free of their addiction. He knows that if a person can do it for three weeks, they generally have no trouble continuing on beyond that. Also, as mentioned before, we can take our time and go vegan in stages, at a pace that is comfortable according to Professor Francione’s Vegan 1-2-3 plan, so there is no need to ever feel stressed by the change. I know a few people who went vegan instantly, when they realised the violence they were supporting by consuming animal products, and who have never reverted. The time we take to go vegan isn’t the most important thing; what’s most important is that we have a sincere aspiration to do so and are moving towards the goal to the best of our ability.
Our motivation in going vegan is the most important determinant in how easy or difficult it is to become vegan and stay vegan. Although it’s easier now than ever before to be vegan, since there are so many more convenience foods available, and because more restaurants cater for vegans, there can be minor hassles and inconveniences at times, but these are more easily borne if we have a strong conviction about why we are vegan. I have to say that I, and others I know, find it easy to be vegan. I understand that some might not find it as easy if, for example, they are doing a lot of travelling or socialising, or if they have very unsupportive family members. However, I really believe that it is our attitude that mostly affects the ease or difficulty in being and staying vegan, rather than external circumstances. And our attitude is dependent upon how thoroughly we have rejected the insidious prejudice of speciesism and how deeply we have embraced the ethic of ahimsa. We should never feel embarrassed or apologetic about practicing non-violence and protecting the innocent and vulnerable, as well as doing something positive for the environment. It can be a good test of character to feel comfortable in not being a herd follower and in standing out from the crowd, and hopefully others will see us as a good example. Whether they do or not, the animals would thank us if they could.
I decided to add this because so many people have asked me "Animals kill other animals so why shouldn't we?" or words to that effect. Gary Francione also says he gets this question a lot. So here it is:
"Some argue that since non-human animals eat other nonhumans in the wild, our use of animals is 'natural'. There are four responses to the position. First, although some animals eat each other in the wild, many do not. Many animals are vegetarians. Moreover, there is far more cooperation in nature than our imagined 'cruelty of nature' would have us believe. Second, whether animals eat other animals is beside the point. How is it relevant whether animals eat other animals? Some animals are carnivorous and cannot exist without eating meat. We do not fall into that category; we can get along fine without eating meat, and more and more people are taking the position that our health and environment would both benefit from a shift away from a diet of animal products. Third, animals do all sorts of things that humans do not regard as morally appropriate. For example, dogs copulate in the street and eliminate wastes in a rather public fashion. Does that mean we should do so?
Fourth, it is interesting that when it is convenient for us to do so, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed 'superiority'. And when our supposed 'superiority' gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.
I agree with him that being vegan doesn't require any sacrifice because there are vegan versions now of anything you want to eat, like mock meat, non-dairy milks, cheese and ice cream, but after a while you don't miss things like meat and cheese anyway and there are so many other foods to eat that you didn't even know about before. My diet is so much more interesting since being vegan. I feel healthier and my conscience is clearer, so for me it's been a gain, not a sacrifice. It's not at all difficult being vegan and yet so many people seem to think that it is. I think we need to do all we can to break down this idea. Lots of things seem much harder when you think about them and are easier when you actually do them.
Gary Francione also says that the large animal welfare groups that say being vegan is difficult and daunting should be ashamed of themselves for giving people an excuse to keep eating animal products in exchange for donations. it does seem crazy to me to be trying to stop the killing of baby seals or dolphins and whales when you're still eating meat, cheese and eggs. Why is a whale more important than a cow or a chicken? Some people think that it's because they're endangered, but the animals themselves don't know or care about their species being endangered. All they care about is being allowed to live and being happy with their friends and families, and it's no different whether they're a cow or a whale or dolphin or a chicken. It's true though that if PETA talked more about going vegan they would lose most of their donations, but that isn't a good reason not to do it, in my opinion, as they are betraying the animals. Unfortunately these days everything comes down to profit.