Opinionator vs. opinionated: swing and a miss, Jeff McMahan  »

The New York Times Opinionator blog asks: Why should we have carnivorous animals? Your Vegansaurus considered the question, and, of course, had something to say about it.

Certainly we shouldn’t have carnivorous people; our big evolved brains learned ethics, and we’re past thinking of animals of commodity or property. We want to do as little harm to animals as possible, including preserving their lives and their land. But how how can we say that and then say that we want to genetically modify carnivores to evolve into herbivores? A strong argument against eating animals is that it takes away the animals’ choice to live or die—genetic modification of carnivores would deny them a choice as well.

I understand the concept of wanting to protect herbivorous animals, to create a peaceful world, to eliminate violence. But it makes me uncomfortable to meddle with animals’ genetic makeup. You can give your dog exclusively vegan food, but your dog will still want to eat basically everything, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It’s much more disgusting to feed chickens grain and cow brains. It’s much more offensive to pump cows full of rBST. Even simpler, it’s fucking disgusting to have bred eating-animals to obscenely large sizes, sometimes, like turkeys, so big that they can’t even walk. That’s genetic meddling, and it’s gross.

Favoring one species over another is another one of our pro-vegan arguments—specifically, up with humans, down with every other animal. It’s still speciesism to actively work to create herbivores out of carnivores. We’re not “better” than other animals; we’re better able to reason, and act against our instincts, so we choose to live cruelty-free. We have to maintain perspective, though. We’re oughtn’t go all Margaret Sanger on the animals. No, nature isn’t fair or kind, but hasn’t humanity already done enough to mess with the Earth?

We appreciate Jeff McMahan’s messages of anti-violence and veganism. That’s about it, though.


“ I’m not happy that I ate dog. But I’m happy China eats dog. It so proclaims both a particularity to be prized in a homogenizing world and its rationality. Anyone who doesn’t want China to eat dog must logically embrace pigs as pets. „

That’s New York Times opinion columnist Roger Cohen on eating dog in China (we reported earlier in the week about the law proposal to ban the eating of dogs and cats in China).

I’d argue that the person who doesn’t want China to eat dogs must logically NOT EAT OTHER ANIMALS. You don’t have to embrace a pig as a pet, you just have to recognize that pigs are smarter than dogs and if you can’t even do that much, at least acknowledge that they lead horrific lives and terrifying deaths. That’s where logic should get you. One of my favorite parts about Eating Animals is when Foer suggests that if we really gave a shit about sustainability, we would eat the millions of animals that are killed in our nation’s shelters each year. Real Talk.

I love how a lot of commenters (note to self: DON’T READ COMMENTS EVER) are totally all, “Oh I’d eat fluffy! Dish it up!” It’s like, okay go to the shelter, adopt a dog, and then murder it with your carving knife. Then skin, debone, and fry him or her up. What you’ll be doing is still a lot more humane than how it goes down right now in China.

Now, for me, I don’t want to deal with any of that shit and that’s why I choose to be vegan. The rest of you, enjoy Fido!


Yoga, Veganism, and Complaining: I Love Them All So Much  »

I’m a yogi, in the American sense: a couple times a week, I go to a class to practice Hatha yoga, mostly for strength and flexibility. I try to meditate at the appropriate time, but it’s hardly the focus of my practice. There’s a big difference between what I do and what real yogis do: they are trying to reach a pinnacle of meditative ecstasy and therefore achieve “liberation from all worldly suffering and the cycle of birth and death.” I am trying to look good with my shirt off.

When I read the New York Times article about food and yoga, I thought “now I know how new vegetarians feel when they listen to grumpy old vegans talking about honey.”  People really criticize each other about this stuff? Don’t they have anything better to do? What happened to the worldly suffering? But if you think about it, that’s intimately related. The first proscription of yogic teaching is ahimsa, the principle of nonviolence towards living things. How can one be liberated from suffering if one does not embrace nonviolence?

Good question! Let’s ask Sadie Nardini, who apparently started this whole shitshow by writing a somewhat schizophrenic piece about her yoga-practicing, meat-eating ways in the Huffington Post. The Times piece is about the rift in the yoga community between those who eat anything they please, and those who think yoga compels practitioners to (at least) vegetarianism. But below the surface, it’s just as much about the culture of judgment some find in the community.

Nardini’s piece is all about that judgment. Making a fairly offensive Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell comparison, she argues that meat-eaters need to “stay in the closet” to reach the good graces of top-tier yoga instructors.  It’s easy to imagine that she wrote the piece to drum up publicity: “I’m risking a lot doing this, as I am moving to a larger arena in my own teaching, and could turn off the very people who are taking me there” [emphasis mine].  But motivation regardless, do yogis need to be vegan? If they’re not, do they need to hide their diet? Can yogis judge each other for this stuff?

Here’s the thing: the rules are pretty clear. Even Nardini, in her rejection of vegetarianism, makes an argument from ahimsa. It’s a spurious one: she brings up all the canards we’ve heard a thousand times before, about plants feeling pain and insects being killed with the harvest of grain and really it’s fine if you just honor the animal you’re eating and first and foremost, some people just need to eat meat or else they feel yucky and self-harm is the worst of all. Of course, we know the answers to all of these ridiculous objections. If you clear them out of the way, ahimsa is pretty straightforward: avoid doing violence.

Yoga, the real kind, is like any other discipline. There are rules you have to follow. It’s certainly not desirable for yogis to pass judgment on each other for failing to adhere to the rules; ideally, that would be an internal drive. But the thing is, if you’re not following the principles of yoga, you’re doing it wrong. No judgment need be attached to that; it’s just an evaluation of the rules. Much as with “vegetarians” who eat chicken, or “vegans” who eat eggs, it doesn’t matter if your reasons are good.  And it doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person.* It just means you’re not living up to the title you claim.

You can’t make the argument from ahimsa that it’s ok to eat meat; it doesn’t hold water. Eat whatever you want, but don’t pretend that you’re living up to the ideals of a yogi. Start your own thing, be a flexiyogini or whatever, but don’t dilute a meaningful term just because you want the benefits without living up to the responsibilities. We see enough of that already.

*OK yes it does, but because you’re killing chickens, not because you’re breaking rules.

This guest-post has been brought to you by Joel, of Joel and Nibbler.

page 1 of 1
Tumblr » powered Sid05 » templated