| HN Mirror

"Because animals are food, that's literally the most natural thing ever"

Correct, animals are food and I reckon that vegans and vegetarian philosophies forget that fact. We humans are omnivores and eons of evolutionary history have established that we're well adapted to eating meat as a significant portion of our diet.

"Nature is violent, period."

Absolutely, nature is very violent. It seems to me that much of the reason for why vegans and those who do not like eating meat or reject it altogether comes down to the argument about it being cruel to animals (in ways that's true and rightly it ought not be so). Nevertheless, I think it's misplaced logic and it often has more to with the fact that modern Western society has now been divorced from the process of slaughtering and preparing animals for food for many years and that long absence has meant that some significant numbers of people now develop squeamishness at even the thought of the process. Whether, I'm right or wrong, the fact remains that that for most of human history people have never had the luxury of ignoring the fact that nature is both violent and cruel and that gathering one's food had to involve both. In the not-to-distant past, one's only alternative would have been to starve.

I eat considerably more fish than I do meat, lamb, beef, etc. but that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy meat—that I certainly do. Recently, I had some lamb chops, which I'd not eaten in many decades (they having been a staple food in my childhood), and I simply cannot express how much I enjoyed them—so much so that it's now a truly memorable experience. To my mind, there is no meat substitute—and I've tasted many—that comes anywhere near the real thing. That's not to say that I don't like them, I do but there is always something missing. No matter how good the vegan/vegetarian chef is, no matter the circumstance, I always feel that something is missing in these substitutes (it's as if my body was calling out 'where's the beef?').

That said, I must point out that I'll often eat things that not only vegans would reject but so would many others—I'll pick a lemon off a tree and eat it straight, same with boiled lentils without any condiments, completely unsweetened cocoa (which is very bitter), noodles that haven't been cooked or softened, drinks with lots of bitter quinine in them (but not often as it's dangerous in excess), and so on. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate food that a gourmet would salivate over, I love first-growth Bordeaux wines with a passion but I can no longer afford them since prices have skyrocketed, same with excellent cheese but I don't each much due to its high animal fat content. (I recall once being in a cheese shop in Normandy with French relatives who thought I'd gone a little mad when confronted with such a vast range of chèvre cheeses. I love chèvre with a passions and the fact that I couldn't taste every one was extremely frustrating.)

This is where vegans and I part company; I can never imagine myself willingly giving up a great delicacy like chèvre. It makes no sense to me whatsoever to do so, and from my perspective there has to be a whiff of Puritanism about veganism when I consider that so little is to be gained from such a harsh regimen (right, for me, adopting the practice would truly be medicine). From a selfish perspective, the more vegans the better, as there would be less competition or demand for cheese and therefore it'd be cheaper for me to purchase. I reckon there's another factor at work here too, most vegans that I know and come across never seem to have the same passion for food that I do, thus it's much easier for them to act out of principle. As the saying goes, 'some eat to live, others live to eat', and I'm firmly with the latter.

[Note, I've not forgotten the matter of environmental veganism which is integral to my argument but it's full subject of its own and too long to include here, so I'll post it separately.]

As humans, it's good that at least a large percentage of us try to reduce the suffering of animals whenever and wherever possible. However, look at the facts, which are that a huge percentage of animals eat nothing else except other animals, thus cruelty is innate within the animal kingdom. Let's take a tuna for instance, it eats smaller fish and that process continues down the food chain to the tiniest living things (it's why these top feeders so easily accumulate heavy metals like mercury).

Whenever I see a film of say a lion chasing a wildebeest I always hope that it escapes capture and being eaten, but that belies the fact that if that didn't happen the lion would then starve as it eats essentially nothing other than meat. The lion's only concern is that the wildebeest is food; it has no concern for the wildebeest's suffering whatsoever.

Essentially, we humans are the only animals who have concern about the pain and suffering experienced by other animals—yes, I know there are a few odd exceptions but my point is generally the case. What I've always found somewhat strange is that nature requires animals to suffer when they're in the process of becoming food—nature is not only violent but it's also cruel. Of course, implying that animals suffer cruelty and pain presupposes that they also exhibit some degree of sentience—and I'm almost certain that they do. Whenever I accidentally tread on my dog's tail and he yelps in pain I don't believe that I'm seeing just an automatic response from an automaton. If I did then I'd just ignore it, instead what follows is a lovey-dovey hugging session between us and he seems to accept the fact that I didn't mean it and I'm sorry. The upshot of this is that nature doesn't give a damn if animals suffer. However, as humans, we understand their suffering through having an anthropomorphic connection with them—we know what pain and suffering is, so it also hurts us to see them suffer.

That nature has left us with this horrible dichotomy is the problem—but it's our problem, not nature's! Many of us hate to see our food suffer whilst we're preparing it to eat, so much so that we usually leave it to the less squeamish in society to carry out the dirty work. I've seen animals killed and have partaken in eating them hours later but that hasn't lessened my concern that we need to take great care over the welfare of these animals and it's absolutely paramount that we do not let them suffer in the process of becoming our food.

As you'll have gathered I like my food very much but I'd suggest that vegans would have more chance of convincing me to adopt their ways than they would many others. Remember, at a pinch, I'll eat dry noodles and plain boiled lentils (if you've lived on army ration packs then you'll have learned to eat just about anything). However, I would suggest that convincing a statistically significant percentage of the population to adopt veganism when such a small† percentage of the population is now vegan will be extremely difficult. In a world that's already so picky about its food I just don't see it happening. In fact, I reckon that one may as well whistle Dixie.

† In my post on environmental veganism, I'll provide these statistics.