So, it's been a while since I've posted, mainly because I keep on coming up with tons of things to write about and I never seem to have the time to actually write them (if you haven't noticed, my posts tend to be long, rambling diatribes), but here goes.
A couple of weeks ago, theperfectline came up for a gaming/racing weekend, and spent a good amount of time lecturing us on our diets and obesity, diabetes, etc. While I understand the intent behind his sentiments; he was motivated out of concern for his friends, he was wrong on a number of points. I didn't really want to get into it too much that night, because it would have distracted from the gaming festivities, but what the hell - online I have all the time in the world.
First, people who adopt a vegan lifestyle do not do it for health. It was started as an ethical movement and has since had people try to justify it with health benefits, but there is scant evidence of actual health benefits of veganism. In fact, the only study on longevity and diet has the vegan lifestyle and the high meat diet tied for the lowest lifespan (0.94) and a balanced diet with more fish than meat being the baseline (1.00). Even that study did not actually deal with controlling all the variables, but it is the best one out there right now. There is a study from the 7th Day Adventists that tries to justify the choice to be a vegan, but it is not a scientifically rigorous study because it does not control the other variables involved in life expectancy.
Vegans are very prone to vitamin and mineral deficiency; perfectline, you can look all you want, there are no sufficient non-animal product that produces B12 in sufficient quantities. It is a bacterial byproduct (this is how herbivores generate B12). Vegans also do not get enough DHA (an omega-3 fatty acid), iron, calcium, and iodine. They tend to be more prone to osteoporosis later in life, and if the veganism is imposed to early, the lack of fatty acids can lead to brain impairment and late onset puberty (because the fatty acids are necessary to make testosterone and estrogen).
Veganism is purely an ethical choice (there are a number of papers dedicated to this, but I do not buy the ethical equivalence between humans and animals - that is a purely metaphysical stance and is only a matter of religio/philosophical belief). Health benefits are accrued from a balanced diet, and human beings are naturally omnivorous. We have nutritional requirements that can only be met with animal products.
Here is the crux of my argument. Theperfecline has made a classic mistake in confusing weight with health. My brother, for example, is inordinately skinny, but he still has high cholesterol. My cholesterol levels are well below the dangerous levels and from a blood serum perspective, I am far more healthy than he is. He weighs about 140 lbs and is 6' 1" tall. I am between 6' 2" and 6'3" and weigh about 225. For my frame, this is significantly overweight (though it might not be overweight for others - another common misconception is that there is one ideal weight for all men of a given height and one ideal weight for all women of a given height).
I also raised the issue of the eating disorder, and perfectline immediately poo-pooed that idea, but given his lack of close relationships with the people he claims to be healthy, I would wager that he has no idea who may or may not have an eating disorder. In fact, men and women with eating disorders are notoriously good at concealing these disorders. Approximately 10 million women in the US have an eating disorder (that is "have", not have had - this does not include people who have undergone treatment and recovered). That is about 6% of women in this country, and most experts think that this is a low estimate. Something like 30% of women have or have had an eating disorder, and given the image conscious L.A. area, it is likely that the rates are significantly higher there.
An eating disorder is an characterized by an abnormal emotional response to food, rather than one based on hunger, health, or appropriate body image (appropriate is an important qualifier - most eating disorders actually have a form of body dysmorphic disorder where they feel that they never look good enough, thin enough, or attractive enough). Many young women adopt veganism or other similar diets to mask an eating disorder. Since Veganism (capitalization is important, as it really is a religious belief, not a health-based belief) is a socially acceptable choice (lauded by many, as you have seen, perfectline) it is an easy mask for an eating disorder, and I would warrant that a good percentage of the people you know who are Vegans have an undiagnosed eating disorder that they are either aware or unaware of. Veganism is such a good mask for the eating disorder that it is easy for young men and women to believe that they are doing the right thing and use this to bury the obsession with an emotional imbalance towards food.
In terms of practice, Veganism is quite varied, but at its heart it seeks to end the exploitation of any animal. Oddly enough, within the community of Vegans, there is some debate. Some people say that it is okay to have honey because bees nervous systems are so undeveloped - they make an arbitrary cutoff based on nervous systems of skeletal animals, but then get into trouble, because that would clearly indicate that crab, lobster, etc would be okay to eat. It would also mean that cephalopods would be fine, even though it is demonstrable that they are clearly more intelligent than cows and sheep. It really is ultimately an all-or-nothing argument. If you accept the tenets, then you should also not take diabetes medications (containing animal hormones and using animal research) or many other medications for that matter. You should not use anything containing any animal by-product or product - no honey, fish oils (which are very good for you), no traditionally grown produce (where animals are used to till the fields). I would argue that according to the philosophy against animal exploitation, they should not eat any plants in which animal labor was used. Of course since humans are animals, this precludes the use of human labor as it is inherently exploitative - even if farm workers are paid, they often have little to no choice in their professions - ask migrant farm workers if they can choose another profession. So, really, a true Vegan should only eat wild food that they can collect themselves.
Obviously, this is a ridiculous extension, but it is a logical conclusion of the philosophy to which many Vegans lay claim - some try to say "minimize impact" on animals to get out of this ethical conundrum, but then you admit that your life requires exploitation of other species. Since bacteria are more similar to animals than plants (they do not produce their own food), one could make the case that even the use of your own internal bacteriological systems are exploitative, and that B12 supplements should not be consumed, even though they are required for human health. Again, a tad ludicrous, but not a large logical leap.
And as I sit here watching the Fruit Chan horror film "Dumplings" (laden with very interesting social commentary - I highly recommend it), I recall one of my more vehement oppositions to Veganism. It is not that it equates animals to humans, it is that it elevates them above humans. Vegans are so adamant that animals not be exploited that they do not care if humans are exploited to produce the food that they want. While some will adhere to strictly "organic" food (what the hell that means is debatable, but that is for another blog), even organic farms will use migrant workers for very little pay. They never think of these consequences, however, as Veganism is largely a "feel-good" philosophy - I feel like I am doing something good and just whether I am or not.
Which brings me to a final thought. I wonder how many Vegans are in support of embryonic stem cell research. To my mind, this is a clear violation of there ethics unless humans somehow occupy a lower rung on the animal totem pole. If you won't even eat an egg - an unfertilized chicken ovum, how could you justify the use of fertilized ova in experimentation?
Also, the assumption that we eat like that every day is specious at best. You go out drinking every weekend, are we to assume that this means that you cannot refrain from drinking during the week. Alcohol is far more addictive than food, and I would be more concerned about someone who needed to drink every weekend than someone who had a few donuts on the weekend - and since they are calorically similar, who is really less healthy. Couple this with extremely risky behavior behind the wheel of an automobile, Mr. "I've been in 10 accidents" and tell me who really has a riskier lifestyle. And, yes, because you and supergoober are my friends I am concerned by the way you comport yourselves behind the wheel on the road - not on the track, it is much safer to do it there - not because you are bad drivers, but because not everyone on the road will respond appropriately. A ninety mile per hour collision is much more deadly than a little fried food every weekend. As detective Frank Dreben said, "You take a risk getting up in the morning, crossing the street, or sticking your face in the fan."
Please stop sticking your face in the fan, and remove the plank from your own eye before examining the mote in mine.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I guess I could add that all vegans should be pro-life as well, given the philosophical stance towards animals (even unfertilized eggs), but I have long since given up on any rational discussion from anyone who is defending the vegan lifestyle. Any takers out there?
I suppose one argument could be that the vegan argument is purely a personal ethical stance that gives one no rights over arguing what another person should be doing, but if this is the case, they would not seek to promulgate their beliefs. The only other alternative that I can see is that humans have less value than animals do to our loveable vegan friends...
Hmm... I wonder if that is the case? Sure seems like it to me.
MORE RIDICULOUS EXTENSIONS!!!
Love it Prof...love it. Here's some food for thought though....strict Buddhists in China are vegetarians because of their belief in reincarnation, and yet they seem to age very well and are very healthy.....are they strictly vegitarians or do they just not eat red meat or is it a massive intake of soy products?
theprofessor, it's all about the animal exploitation, at least the way I usually hear it argued. Animals have no choice but to be exploited, while even badly-exploited humans can walk away from their jobs. (Sure, tell a migrant farm worker that. Once all the humans are fulfilled in their jobs, I wonder how loudly people will be bitching about their $5 heads of organic radiccio?)
So it's less about the unfertilized egg's (lack of) potential for life, and more about the housing. (There's a discussion on this very topic here.) As far as the housing and other treatment goes, yes. I agree that there are plenty of reasons to avoid eating eggs from battery-raised hens(specifically) on ethical grounds. But there are alternatives.
I always heard that honey was a vegan no-no because it's stealing food from them, and because some of the bees get crushed or otherwise killed during harvest and colony maintenance. I've never heard any arguments that make an exception, except for the strictly personal one.
Ultimately, I feel, as I imagine do you, theprofessor, that being a strict vegetarian is a personal dietary choice based on fantastical notions of humans' place in the world. Interestingly to me, it seems to say that humans should be separate from our animal natures. Virtually all species exploit other species for something -- food, protection, sex, whatever. We're all a part of this world, too.
Choosing not to eat animal flesh as a moral choice? Okay. I'm with you, even if I don't make that choice for myself. But get into the "no animal products" or "no animal exploitation" argument, and I can slippery-slope you all the way through Breatharianism and beyond.
You're right about the argument, but the choice issue is a red herring - if that is the case why should we have any ethical standards for the treatment of any human being. Obviously, I was being very tongue in cheek, but the point on the fertilized eggs is still very relevant - that animal has no choice in how it is treated (46 chromosomes in a cell makes a biologically living animal of the species homo sapiens - difficult to argue otherwise, and clearly unable to fend for itself).
The honey argument is one of theft and of destruction of the home that the bee built, but there are those who argue that this is okay (based on the aforementioned argument of nervous system structure).
While I do agree that we have to separate ourselves from our animal nature to a certain extent, we must acknowledge that we have certain nutritional requirements.
Steve T. - many Buddhists are not strict vegans. Most vegetarians eat a variety of animal products, but do not eat meat or poultry. It is not uncommon for a professed vegetarian to eat fish, for example, and most Buddhists do not fall into the "no animal products, whatsoever" camp.
As far as supergoober goes - pursuing a philosophy to its logical extreme is not a ridiculous extentsion. Well thought out philosophies can bear this kind of scrutiny. I am merely making the point that the Vegan argument is not well thought out, except by a few people who are philosophers and care to delve that deep.
Most people (in my experience) who choose this diet do it for one of three reasons:
1) they are masking an eating disorder.
2) they are engaged in a misguided animal rights/ethical quandry.
3) they want to fit in to a particular subculture.
I don not dismiss the health of a ovo-lacto vegetarian, or of the vegetarian because of long-standing religious tradition, but I notice you conveniently neglected to respond to the bit about driving, eh, supergoober?
Post a Comment