Introduction Opposition to killing per se Opposition to modern practices Opposition to exploitation Inefficiency Destruction of the planet Health Natural human diet Cultural atavism Spiritual well-being The entrainment of violence and terror Defying the 'Illuminati'
There is perhaps a sufficiency of information available covering this subject, but I shall add my own particular brand of discourse to that pile, both as a personal exegesis and in the hope of contributing something worthwhile and original. I'm going all web 2.0 by including a set of suitable tags and deploying them appropriately. The tags are formatted such that they may be utilised by microformat-aware browsers.
Life is precious. Whatever our personal spiritual views, most would agree that the entity we think of as 'ourself' is a unique thing. To casually destroy such an entity must surely seem, if considered deeply enough, a terrible act. We imagine this act perpetrated upon ourselves; our loved ones; people we know; fellow countrymen; those with whom we share a similar culture; all human beings. The circle widens to acknowledge our common humanity. Yet even a casual observation of other primates, other mammals, going about the business of life reveals a rich existence in many ways not dissimilar to our own. If we can acknowledge the worth of life to another species, then we must, by simple extrapolation, extend that idea to all sentient beings. The clever-clevers may attempt to bamboozle with insistence on definitions and limits, but the wise ignore their brayings and bleatings. Compassion arises naturally once barriers are removed.
Anyone in the industrialised West who clings to the romantic image of animals living out a modest life in natural surroundings, to be humanely concluded by a tearful farmer with a captive bolt pistol, has clearly never ventured in thought beyond the typical 1950s propaganda imagery fed to post-war nations. The reality is genuinely horrific, the only phrase to do justice being 'Eternal Treblinka'. 'Factory farming' may not in itself sound so bad, but that innocuous phrase covers a hideous parade of practices that don't bear close examination: overcrowding in communal spaces, no room to turn in individual pens; a grossly unnatural diet laced with hormones and antibiotics; absence of natural light; removal of young immediately following birth; the list could go on. The results: meat is cheap, profits high! No, life is cheap, and disease, once confined to the creatures themselves confined, now jumps the species barrier with scares and epidemics alternately fuelled and hushed by a fickle media pursuing only profits.
Exploitation can have different connotations: in its neutral sense, referring perhaps to external conditions, it speaks of opportunities taken, positives optimised. In reference to 'natural resources', it begins to acquire more sinister overtones, as its meaning shades into that of 'plunder' and 'pillage'. When living creatures are involved, any positive connotation of the word exists solely in the tissue of gloss spun by desparate PR lackeys and believed by wide-eyed fools. The concepts of human rights and animal rights must be interlinked here. They are not necessarily identical, rather they share some basic premises. As we move beyond the law of beasts (survival of the fittest) and into a world shaped by will, by intention, so must our worldview change: there is no longer any logical requirement for dominion - that belongs to the old ways of thinking. The era of the truly human celebrates individuality within the context of equality, that is to say it encourages personal development that does not adversely affect the chances of others to develop. And what could be more detrimental to an individual's rights than being incarcerated with a short view to death?
Can anyone actually think that it's acceptable that a significant proportion of their fellow humans are moderately to severely malnourished? Sadly, yes, fortunately only a small minority. Yet a large majority who would answer in the negative are simply not prepared to admit their own part in the cause, nor participate in a meanigful way in one of the obvious solutions. Of course, it isn't as simple as "go vegan, then there's enough for all". Yet when the web of food economics is exposed, that simple idea will be seen to strike the problem at a number of different points: the obvious extra provision (reckoned variously at a factor of between 5 and 20); removal of the requirement for poorer nations to export grain for cattle feed to the richer nations; reduction of erosion due to grazing; encouragement towards domestic consumption of foodstuffs; and so on.
The debate regarding the root cause of global warming is essentially moot: it is happening (that is, average global temperature continues to rise), and it makes no sense whatsoever to continue with practices that have been shown to worsen the situation. The West's voracious appetite for flesh foods is one of the major contributers to global warming via methane emissions of cattle (yes, cow-farts are killing us!). But that isn't the only problem: factor in rainforest destruction for grazing, soil erosion caused by grazing, slaughterhouse by-products packed with hormone and antibiotic residues pouring into the environment and we're looking at a very bleak picture indeed.
This hardly needs further exposure: 'vegan' has practically re-branded itself as 'healthy eating' (from its previous association with 'compassion'), but I shall include it here for completeness and for a cynical assessment of that re-branding. Numerous studies have shown that a nutritionally-balanced plant-based diet is the healthiest regime for humans. It goes without saying that there are studies that show the opposite. But a quick glance at their sponsors soon demonstrates vested interests. Would anyone sane set more store by the results of a study sponsored by the meat industry over an independent survey? Of course not, only the desirously self-delusional will do that.
And that re-branding? Well, like everything else that reaches a certain size, the vegan movement itself has become that little bit corrupted, by exploiting the natural selfishness of the majority and appealing to it rather than lofty ethics: this will improve your life!
It would be deliberately misleading to suggest that small quantities of meat are injurious to health. That would be akin to the vested interests suggesting that it promotes health! The health argument alone is insufficient to argue convincingly for the vegan diet, but it nevertheless forms a part of the puzzle and certianly points to greatly reduced consumption.
Examination of the human digestive system strongly suggests that flesh foods have not formed a part of our formative evolution. Biologically, our closest cousin with regard to digestion is the gorilla, a fruitarian. The key features of the alimentary canal supporting this are:
So whither the origin of our flesh-eating habit? I would suggest that flesh-eating became a necessity during times of scarcity (e.g. ice ages). Given this perhaps pivotal role in our history, it's not surprising that it remains an atavistic icon in the collective unconscious. But the essence of humanity is the transcendence of mere habit and the application of will. What was once essential may no longer be relevant, may even, in this case, be detrimental to our future.
Additional to the species-memory survival atavism already mentioned, I porpose that a cultural atavism also exists: meat has become equated with wealth and status. That bloodlust and power are historically intertwined is surely a sine qua non. The powerful obviously possessed great wealth and indulged their bloodlust, outside of war, in their private reserves of beasts. Eating the victims of their pogroms was a further demostration of that power. Thus was established a linkage in the collective unconscious that manifestly survives to this day: how we are bound by the actions and thoughts of our forebears!
There is no doubt that ceasing the consumption of animal-based foodstuffs brings about a spiritual change... if approached in the correct manner. Espoused as abstention, or any other of its grim cognates, veganism is unlikely to lead to positive change within the subject. Indeed it may result in a hardening of the attachment to a position, perhaps eventually forcing its own negation. Better to approach in a positive manner, as the casting aside of chains, as the exploration of fresh territory, as the relinquishment of a dark and outmoded past for a bright and joyous future. Thus will the combination of physiological, psychological and spiritual benefits be maximised. Many report positive changes within weeks, even days. But the gradual changes that are only manifest after months, maybe even years, are those that are most profound: one feels lighter, calmer; discernment replaces discrimination; one's attachment to 'positions' loosens, that is acceptance replaces the dualism of belief/hositility. And the intellectual and spiritual landscapes open out to a much richer life that may rely less heavily on the materialistic.
I include this as a separate entry in order to highlight something implicit in other reasons as a separate phenomenon worthy of consideration. All actions may be considered as possessing a kind of wake, such as a ship leaves in the sea. I use the word "entrainment" as meaning "that which is drawn behind". Every killing involves a kind of violence, and full consideration of #1 and #2 should sufficiently illustrate this - the violence is committed by those whose job it is to stun, to string up, to throat-slit the doomed creatures... who in turn experience the mind-numbing terror of watching their companions stunned and dragged and strung up to the death-conveyor, awaiting their turn, who scent the blood of their own. And this entrainment we consume, take into ourselves to become a part of us, whether as physical residues of terror-chemicals or as some subtle matter-memory. Thus is the horror perpetuated.
The meme of 'The Illuminati' is generally considered as belonging to deranged conspiracy theorists or just plain crackpots, yet those who scoff too readily should perhaps apply the brake and consider other possibilities. Let's list some of the standard ideas:
Or try this: a meme condensed from a combination of overall behaviour that mimics the above and the 'desire'/belief of people for such an organisation to exist.
In other words, it matters not whether the organisation exists in any of the specified forms, since it at least appears to exist, and can for practical purposes be treated as though it does. And so the relevance of this rather far-out reasoning to the subject in hand: the Illuminati wish to gain complete control of the population as this represents the state of ultimate power. In order to achieve this, they must at least maintain the status quo. Essential to this is the maintenance of the illusion of division, as this, in its turn, is essential to the maintenance of the fear required to perpetuate the lie that the State (or whatever governing/ruling body) is a continued necessity. Flesh-eating requires the illusion of division: the healthy of mind would no more debase, terrorise and consume parts of themselves than they would eviscerate a loved one. Hence the, to those who choose to see, rather striking promotion* by the State of a flesh-based diet, despite solid scientific evidence that this detracts from individual and planetary health, and that it is frankly illogical in the face of mass starvation. And of course, the palliative to state-enforced repression is the oh-so-temporary illusion that increased consumption will make life so much better.
So defy the Illuminati, whether or not they 'really' exist, and free yourself from illusion.
*includes subsidies, commissioned studies, media representation...