Speciesism and (unrelated) newspapers

I have two things on my mind today: speciesism and newspapers.

For those who don't know, speciesism is a term used by people who think the lives of humans and non-humans have equal value: a cat or pig or mouse has the same value as a human. Generally, speciesism refers to the believe that humans are the dominant species.

I believe speciesism is a problem, but it is very difficult to convince others that it is. You have to believe in your core that all life has equal value. Although, clearly, I care more about beings which possess a nervous system allowing them to feel, more so than I do a flower or a tree.

The main reason I'm vegan is because I've seen enough evidence of non-human suffering and presence of non-human emotions and personalities that I believe they should have rights to their own bodies.

An argument presented to me is that non-humans cannot make the same decisions as humans, and they cannot express their desires to us, so the rights they have don't really have to be on the same level.

Although I see where this idea comes from; non-humans have different methods of communications and their emotions are not expressed plainly on their face, discomfort is clear when repeated artificial insemination and lifelong containment are forced upon hundreds of thousands of female cows, or when family units that happen in nature are torn apart by factory farming. Or when animals are killed.

Non-sequitur: although "print" paper is dying, I've decided that online journalism will ultimately be better because of it's variety and because it will help the environment by cutting down on paper production. The trick will be separating fact from fiction, which remains a problem in print journalism anyway.

Just needed to clear my head. 

Philosophizing about Veganism: A Third Installment

Surprisingly, I managed to sit down and write a third installment today. This one has some actual quotes for me to go off of, a primary source document to recommend, and an approved philosopher to reference.

My friend Blondie sent me this article thinking I would find it interesting and could use it in my continued fight against speciesism. She was correct.

The document I will reference is an essay titled “All Animals Are Equal,” written by Australian philosopher Peter Singer. Singer is currently a professor of bioethics and Princeton and has written several books on the sanctity of life, both human and otherwise, with titles such as The Life You Can Save, The Lives of Animals, Animal Liberation, and The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter.

For a taste of Singer’s work, check out his TED talk on effective altruism: http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism.html

What I’ve decided to do from this post is to take three quotes from “All Animals Are Equal” to discuss in depth because the essay itself is so tight that it’s really necessary to read the whole thing to comprehend most excerpts except these three. I will post a link to the full essay at the end of this post. For now, let’s start with quotes.

1. “The racist violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of his own race, when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of other species.” (Singer, 5).

This is the simplest point that can be made about Veganism. All lives are equal, no matter what race, sexuality, gender, or species. If you believe in equality for all, you should believe in equality for ALL.

2. “We regard their [animal] life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish. l say "taste" deliberately—this is purely a matter of pleasing our palate. There can be no defense of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products.” (Singer, 5).

I have made this point in several posts before this one. One does not need to eat animal products to obtain the necessary nutrients to survive. Animal products are pleasing to the palate and easily accessible. That is an inevitable truth. But really think about this: we as humans inflict pain on other beings because they taste yummy. We cause suffering for our pleasure. For our convenience. For our cheeseburgers and ice cream and dumplings and meatballs and pizza and spaghetti and shampoos and fancy cars and bad-ass jackets and entertainment and Valentine’s Day presents. But do we need any of it? No. And when you put yourself in the place of the once living product you are using, you don’t really want to want it anyway.

3. “But what is this capacity to enjoy the good life which all humans have, but no other animals? Other animals have emotions and desires and appear to be capable of enjoying a good life. We may doubt that they can think—although the behavior of some apes, dolphins, and even dogs suggests that some of them can—but what is the relevance of thinking?” (Singer, 7).

The point is that what we eat and use can feel. Animals have lives and families, even if these lives and families do not seem to be as advanced as ours. They experience pleasure, fear, anger and pain just as we do. Why would we want to intentionally cause pain when pain is preventable?

Expect the fourth installment next week.

For the full essay: http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm   

Veganism Drives It Home.

Here is Cordain’s Campbell's (wow, am I tired) final argument, a masterstroke against the Paleo diet argument.

    1. Non-genetic changes to the body can take place too. Just because our distant ancestors needed to hunt to survive does not mean we cannot get the proper nutrition and sustenance from a solely plant based diet.

   

    2.A holistic approach to nutrition study makes more sense than a reductionist approach because nutrition is about how foods work together to sustain us, not how each individual nutrient effects each individual aspect of the body.

    3. DIET BASED ON INSTINCT DOESN'T OPTIMIZE HEALTH. It optimizes pleasure. Bam.

   4. Both Cordain and Campbell have research supporting that milk (casein) has negative health effects, not positive, despite what corporate tells you. Soy ice cream tastes good. So does sorbet.

Read The China Study by T. Collin Campbell. I highly recommend it.

Protein debate series concluded. If you’re just tuning in now, start at the beginning and find out the protein based argument for Veganism.

Bean’ Vegan. 

What is the argument against Veganism?

As a vegan, I am not unbiased. I hold a strong belief that veganism is the only way to go, both for ethical and nutritional reasons. However, I do find it important to discuss the argument against Veganism because to understand the opponent is to overcome the opposition.

Continuing on with the series, Cordain’s argument against veganism is that there are no evolutionary reasons as to why humans should require a low, and not a high protein diet. Humans have been hunting as well as gathering for multiple centuries, so why would eating meat be bad?

Also, Cordain argues that Campbell’s statement that a diet of around ten percent protein intake is proper, as opposed to the fifteen to seventeen percent that Cordain supports, is based only on nitrogen management in the body, and not the protein that is required for the body to function properly in other ways.

A huge point that Campbell pursues in both The China Study and “The Protein Debate” is that consuming animal protein provides an ideal environment for tumor growth and mutation. He consistently demonstrates this correlation in both studies based on animal reactions as well as the cross examination of the American meat based diet to the rural Chinese plant based diet. The argument Cordain makes against this is that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. This is a potentially valid point.

Finally, Cordain exerts that the study Campbell completed with rats showing the effect casein (milk protein) has on tumor growth is not valid in this argument because Campbell did not specifically test meat based proteins such as actin and myosin.

What do you think? How will Campbell drive home is point that veganism is better in his rebuttal against Cordain?

Stay tuned. Bean out.

What does Campbell have to say?

Continuing from my last post, here are Professor Campbell’s main points about why vegan is better than paleo. Firstly, it is important to note that Campbell is the author of The China Study, the most comprehensive nutritional study ever conducted. Its formulation involved twenty years of research and supplication from other nutritional studies conducted before it. I highly recommend renting it from the library or purchasing it for your own collection. It’s a tough read, but it’s fantastic.

Moving on; here are some main points from Campbell’s argument. The first thing he asserts is, of course, that a vegan diet leads to better health. Campbell states that ingesting animal products such as meat and dairy have been shown to lead to steroid and growth hormone imbalances in the human body. As a matter of fact, both Campbell and Cordain agree that consuming dairy products in unnatural and unhealthy for humans. Thinking about it logically, the only animals to consume dairy after infancy are humans, and other animals certainly don’t drink the milk of other species. It’s kind of bizarre and disturbing, when you think about it.

Another point Campbell scores for the vegans relates to the actual method of experimentation and research each debater subscribes to. Cordain supports the reductionist approach, studying each nutrient individually, whereas Campbell takes a holistic approach, studying how all of the nutrients work and react together. Need I say more?

The final major point Campbell makes is that the consumption of animal protein has been positively correlated with higher rates of cancer such as breast, prostate, kidney, colon, and ovarian cancer. It has also been correlated in the same manner with cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, and kidney stones.

Next time, I will post Cordain’s rebuttal to Campbell’s points.

Bean out.

What is the “Paleo” argument?

As I mentioned in my last post, Professor Loren Cordain is the man responsible for the nutritional theory known as “The Paleo Diet.” The Paleo Diet recommends that people eat like our evolutionary ancestors did: a non-processed balance of meats, vegetables, and few whole grains.

In “The Protein Debate,” Cordain reports benefits such as reduced gut size and metabolic activity, as well as an expansion in brain size for those who eat as he recommends. He also reports that the Paleo Diet allows for a better blood lipid profile, lower blood pressure, insulin sensitivity and glycemic control.

Another mainstay of Cordain’s argument is that meats have more of everything (different proteins and nutrients) packed into them whereas a vegetarian diet requires many different foods to provide the same nutritional content as one piece of meat.

Another interesting tidbit to consider about Cordain’s Paleo Diet is that Cordain supports the reductionist approach to studying diet. This means he supports the method of dietary study where the scientist studies one nutrient at a time as opposed to studying diet holistically and observing how everything works together an affects the human system.

So what is Campbell’s argument? And why do I subscribe to the vegan approach, even though Cordain makes some interesting points? Read on this week to find out more.

Bean out.

For your own research purposes, check out the full debate: http://www.catalystathletics.com/articles/downloads/proteinDebate.pdf

Analyzing “The Protein Debate”

Protein. Calcium. Evolution. These are buzz words of nutrition. One needs protein for energy and muscle growth. One needs calcium for bone and cartilage strength. Evolution dictates diet. In a way, all of these statements are true. But they are oversimplified statements, and they need to be studied and expounded upon to produce any beneficial and reliable knowledge. For that purpose I will turn the spotlight over to Professors Cordain and Campbell.

These two men have very different approaches to nutrition. Professor Loren Cordain champions the “paleo diet”: a way of eating that promotes the study evolutionary biology in order to deduce the proper nutrition requirements from the history told in the chemistry of fossils. Campbell subscribes to the vegan approach: an all-natural, all-plant diet that he has been studying and advocating for well over two decades.

“The Protein Debate” http://www.catalystathletics.com/articles/downloads/proteinDebate.pdf is a compilation of their arguments and rebuttals to each other’s views on diet and nutrition.

This marks the beginning of my week long blog report on the two very different and well supported arguments concerning diet and the reasons as to why you should subscribe to the vegan approach.

Bean’ healthy. 

Nature's Retribution: How Killing Animals Could Kill You.

So I just read a TED blog post about nutrition and its link to diabetes (http://blog.ted.com/2013/06/25/why-our-understanding-of-obesity-and-diabetes-may-be-wrong-a-qa-with-surgeon-peter-attia/) and posted a comment linking to my blog because although there was a faint mention of nutrition being a significant factor in the reduction of obesity and type 2 diabetes, there was no information as to where to research further nor exactly what a change in your diet and therefore nutrition could do for you.

The following information in this post I give full credit to The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted: The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Wright Loss and Long-Term Health (I must have a thing for wordy titles or something) by T. Colin Campbell, PhD and Thomas M. Campbell II, MD. Forward by John Robbins, Author, Diet for a New America. I will cite page numbers, which hopefully will not vary from the hard copy version of this book because I have one of those nifty, virtual book devices.  

Keep in mind; I am taking these quotes out of the full context of the book to provide to you tidbits of information that may promote your interest in the concept of vegan nutrition. If you’re interested, get the book. Most libraries and bookstores carry it. My blog serves to promote discussion and interest in research; it is not a source of irrefutable factual information.

1.      “We spend far more, per capita, on health care than any other society in the world, and yet two thirds of Americans are overweight, and over 15 million Americans have diabetes, a number that has been rising rapidly” (pg.3).

Holy crap. That is terrifying information all on its own. Think about it, if we’re making such great leaps and bounds in medical science, why are we all so ill? How many people do you know with high cholesterol? High risk of heart disease? Cancer? Osteoporosis? Diabetes? How many of these people are on medications? How many of these medications are actually reversing the effects of the disease and not just alleviating the symptoms. If evidence was presented that a whole foods, plant based diet could reverse your disease, improve the quality of your life, or lengthen the life of your loved ones, would you make the switch?

2.      “What made this project especially remarkable is that, among the many associations that are relevant to diet and disease, so many pointed to the same finding: people who ate the most animal-based food got the most chronic disease. Even relatively small intakes of animal-based food were associated with adverse effects. People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease” (pg.6).

‘Nuff said folks. READ THE BOOK.

3.      “We initiated more studies using several different nutrients, including fish protein, dietary fats and the antioxidants known as carotenoids. A couple of excellent graduate students of mine, Tom O’Connor and Youping He, measured the ability of these nutrients to affect liver and pancreatic cancer. The results of these, and many other studies, showed nutrition to be far more important in controlling cancer promotion than the dose of the initiating carcinogen” (pg.66).  

The argument presented in The China Study is that although the carcinogen is the initiator of cancer within the body, it’s the nutritional environment within the body that promotes the development of cancer. Evidence is presented that a plant based, whole foods diet can prevent the development and spread of cancerous cells. Dude. It’s worth a try, right?

       4.      “It is extremely puzzling that these new government-sponsored 2002 FNB recommendations now say that we should be able to consume protein up to the extraordinary level of 35% as a means of minimizing chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease. This is an unbelievable travesty, considering the scientific evidence. The evidence presented in this book shows that increasing dietary protein within the range of about 10-20 % is associated with a broad array of health problems, especially when most of the protein is from animal sources” (pg. 308).

Some of the most common questions I face as a vegan are “what about protein?” or “how are you healthy?” or “don’t you need to eat animal products to survive due to the evolution of humans to eat animal products?”

I get plenty of protein. I am healthy because I attempt to vary my diet. No, you don’t need animal products to survive and be healthy. There’s plenty of evidence out in the world that shows that vegans are healthy, often healthier than omnivores, as long as we’re not junk-food vegans (which, honestly, I started out as before learning how to sauté vegetables and grill eggplant burgers. I ate two packs of Oreos in one month. That’s gross.)

Seriously, read this book. What I have provided are only the summary passages after a crap-ton of evidence on why a whole foods, plant based diet is the best way to go. There’s also plenty of evidence as to why we all think large amounts of protein are so important, how the only vitamin D you need is 15 minutes in the sun every three days (although I highly recommend getting outside a LOT more that than), and how big corporations are in cahoots with the government regarding nutrition education and guidelines for purely fiscal reasons, and not for the much more important reason of protecting the health of the American citizens.

Once again, read the book if you want the facts. Do not make nutritional decisions based off of this one blog post. I am not a professional. I am just a concerned college student.

Bean out.

Citation:

1.      Campbell, Thomas Colin, and Thomas M. Campbell. The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Dallas, TX: Benbella, 2006. Print.

Judgement face.

So I finished reading Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World Version 2.0: Revised, Expanded & Updated by Jenna and Bob Torres just now. I never did find that “Vegan Freak” forum that people were talking about. However, I have concluded that these authors were definitely spreading the right message about how to communicate veganism to others in their book. Negatively impassioned endorsement of one’s beliefs is not recommended. It is stated to be counterproductive. I’d like to expound on that.

San read my last post on the blog and told me that she was surprised I had never heard of the online “vegan culture” that involved ethical vegans tagging pictures of food on Tumblr with words such as “murder” or “corpse” or “dead flesh.” While I would not necessarily disagree with these tags or wish to euphemize the issue of animal cruelty, making harsh public judgments on others using only trigger words and using these trigger words within posts not related to animal rights seems wrong to me and counterproductive.

We all have different beliefs. We all think that we’re right. Telling someone they are wrong without circumstantial and factual evidence and a clear understanding of that person’s world view will not change their mind. In fact, it may make them want to rebel against your argument further. I’ll update this later with a citation containing text evidence from a psychological study relevant research (assuming Blondie can find the sheet for me). Later the next day...

Blondie found it. The article is titled:

How facts backfire

Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains Here's the link. Check it out: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

That copied and pasted a lot bigger than I expected...

Anyway, Vegan Freak is a good book to read and it provides some great advice to vegan peeps. I’m still working on finding a time to post the excerpts from The China Study along with my own summary and commentary. Presently, I’m trying to read all of my library books before I return them on Wednesday.

Bean out.

Oxymoronic.

I was going to post another "in the rain" story, but this takes precedence.

So, I am a vegan. And now I am a confused vegan. I am a confused and alone vegan who hits my six month mark in about four days. I started reading this book about Veganism called Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World Version 2.0: Revised, Expanded & Updated (dude that is a long title) by Jenna and Bob Torres. In the book, they mention a vegan freak forum. I guess the site got shut down because I can't find it. I'm also astonished because it appears that this site is (or was?) some sort of hardcore, clandestine community by invite only that had a lot of issues with judgmental members.

This really makes me sad.

We're not going to be able to help one another and convince others of our mission and morals if we're too busy making others who are trying it out feel bad about themselves. I think criticism at that level only makes people want to give up more because who wants to be part of an isolationist community that doesn't wish to accept others who are not quite at the same level of hardcoreness as they are.

Obviously, I am not blaming the forum or jumping to any conclusions (because I have no flipping idea where the forum is), and I am enjoying the book very much, but I do think it needs to be put out there that not everyone can just change what they were raised doing and eating at the drop of a hat. I recommend reading the book The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business by Charles Duhigg. It's enlightening, and it will make anyone think twice before judging another who has trouble breaking a habit. I used to judge people about stuff like that too, so now I really understand both sides of being a habit-breaker and being someone judgmental of people who cannot break habits.

 Anyway, back to the forum. Does anyone know where this thing went? Also, it'd be interesting to hear both sides as to whether an "invite only" social-issues forum would be helpful because it keeps out spammers, or harmful because it can leave out people who want to be part of the community but are having trouble succeeding or finding someone who can invite them in.

Veganism is hard, even if you understand all the humanitarian and nutritional reasons to quit. Animal products are DEEPLY ingrained in our culture, but it is not as difficult to quit as one would think.

 My next entry will probably expand upon veganism. I've pulled a lot of passages from The China Study by T. Colin Campbell PhD and Thomas M. Campbell II, MD backing up the nutritional argument for veganism. I'll just turn it into a series because there are a LOT of medical reasons to drop animal products. I am an ethical vegan too. Actually, I am an ethical vegan first and foremost. But I'll get into that later. I don't want to alienate anyone from the blog, and I'll post disclaimers up before sharing any particularly disturbing ethical reasons to be vegan.

 Hoping to hear feedback. Bean me up, Scottie.

Bean out.