conflicting messages
23 June 2006 19:09![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amulUnlike my usual half-witted banter and jibes, this is a serious question about vegetarianism and veganism, although it's possible that I've been unable to extract my serious curiosity from my general habit of disdain. I'd like some honest input and feedback.
I do not understand why so many products are made by companies supporting these two philosophies which pretend to be meat.
It seems to me that if you choose not to eat meat, for whichever of the many reasons people espouse these days, that you should not eat meat. You shouldn't pretend to eat meat. It seems to me that by making Tofurkey sandwiches, and fake gyro platters, you're still supporting the industry which you claim to oppose. You're acknowledging the supremacy of the meat industry by acting like meat is something which can only be sidestepped, not truly avoided.
There are foods out there which are not meat, and which don't pretend to be meat. You don't have to eat things which are meat-substitutes, which seems a lot like talking crap about Microsoft while still using Windows because "it's too strong a market force."
Plus, it seems like cheating to me. If you're going to make a sacrifice for something you believe in, then you should actually have to sacrifice something for that belief. What good is the person who tells his children not to smoke and then sneaks behind the shed for a drag? What morality is there in winning by a technical loophole?
"Oh, I'm not eating a bacon cheeseburger. I'm eating a tofurkey burger with fake bacon and cheese substitute. Because, you know, while I really oppose eating animals, i just like the taste of them too much to stop."
Mahatma Gandhi got an entire country to listen to him by engaging in ritual fasting until people worried about his health enough to listen to him. He didn't sneak a cheeseburger during bedtime and argue, "Well, religious harmony is really important to me, but I'm kind of hungry." The hippies of the 60s didn't hold sit-down protests except when they had class.
In order to affect change, you must sacrifice for your ideals. If you don't change your way of thinking about the world, then how can you change the world? How can you even argue that you have changed?
On top of all of this is the simple fact that meat substitutes taste bad. They taste about as close to the meats they're trying to mimic as Purple Drinks taste like grapes. Saag, on the other hand, tastes exactly like itself and it isn't meat, either.
"Oh, but it's so much harder," people will tell me, "to make tasty, nutritious meals that are not meat or meat-substitutes. It takes more time, it takes more effort."
Well, yeah. That's why meat became so popular in the first place, and to willfully ignore that while protesting it seems a charlatan's trick. it seems like avoiding the real issue.
I agree that meat has far too much prevalence in our society. I agree that there are many products which use animal byproducts when they don't have to. I also agree that I'd like my food to be made out of, you know, food.
But I think that if you're going to stop eating meat, then you should stop eating meat. if you think meat is something our culture can do without, if you think that we need to, as vegans are so fond of saying, "change our traditions," then how about we start with yours? How about you try to give up your dependance on meat-centric meal planning, give up trying to eat things with Egg Substitutes and Cheese Substitutes and Fake Meat Patties and actually try to stop eating the stuff?
If you're going to make a sacrifice, then it should cost you something. I don't see how you can argue any different.
I do not understand why so many products are made by companies supporting these two philosophies which pretend to be meat.
It seems to me that if you choose not to eat meat, for whichever of the many reasons people espouse these days, that you should not eat meat. You shouldn't pretend to eat meat. It seems to me that by making Tofurkey sandwiches, and fake gyro platters, you're still supporting the industry which you claim to oppose. You're acknowledging the supremacy of the meat industry by acting like meat is something which can only be sidestepped, not truly avoided.
There are foods out there which are not meat, and which don't pretend to be meat. You don't have to eat things which are meat-substitutes, which seems a lot like talking crap about Microsoft while still using Windows because "it's too strong a market force."
Plus, it seems like cheating to me. If you're going to make a sacrifice for something you believe in, then you should actually have to sacrifice something for that belief. What good is the person who tells his children not to smoke and then sneaks behind the shed for a drag? What morality is there in winning by a technical loophole?
"Oh, I'm not eating a bacon cheeseburger. I'm eating a tofurkey burger with fake bacon and cheese substitute. Because, you know, while I really oppose eating animals, i just like the taste of them too much to stop."
Mahatma Gandhi got an entire country to listen to him by engaging in ritual fasting until people worried about his health enough to listen to him. He didn't sneak a cheeseburger during bedtime and argue, "Well, religious harmony is really important to me, but I'm kind of hungry." The hippies of the 60s didn't hold sit-down protests except when they had class.
In order to affect change, you must sacrifice for your ideals. If you don't change your way of thinking about the world, then how can you change the world? How can you even argue that you have changed?
On top of all of this is the simple fact that meat substitutes taste bad. They taste about as close to the meats they're trying to mimic as Purple Drinks taste like grapes. Saag, on the other hand, tastes exactly like itself and it isn't meat, either.
"Oh, but it's so much harder," people will tell me, "to make tasty, nutritious meals that are not meat or meat-substitutes. It takes more time, it takes more effort."
Well, yeah. That's why meat became so popular in the first place, and to willfully ignore that while protesting it seems a charlatan's trick. it seems like avoiding the real issue.
I agree that meat has far too much prevalence in our society. I agree that there are many products which use animal byproducts when they don't have to. I also agree that I'd like my food to be made out of, you know, food.
But I think that if you're going to stop eating meat, then you should stop eating meat. if you think meat is something our culture can do without, if you think that we need to, as vegans are so fond of saying, "change our traditions," then how about we start with yours? How about you try to give up your dependance on meat-centric meal planning, give up trying to eat things with Egg Substitutes and Cheese Substitutes and Fake Meat Patties and actually try to stop eating the stuff?
If you're going to make a sacrifice, then it should cost you something. I don't see how you can argue any different.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Another view
Date: 24 Jun 2006 05:31 (UTC)To begin with, I think very few vegetarians/vegans will argue that meat doesn't have a favorable taste to those who eat it. Becoming vege/vegan because "meat tastes bad" just doesn't hold any gravity. Taking this into consideration, it's more than understandable that those who don't eat animal products might still desire a similar taste- there's nothing unethical about savory food. To call it "vege pork," "vege beef," etc. could be said to advance the notion that exploiting animals for food is okay; that I will concede, but the error lies in the naming, not in the food or taste itself.
As for lauding M.K. Gandhi, I think you should be wary who you use as an example of not cheating: Gandhi stated many times as a part of Satyagraha that anyone could be beaten by love and non-violent resistence. During WWII, however, he said that Hitler could not be stopped by satyagraha, and that Jews should all simply die as martyrs instead of trying to reform the nazis. Cheating? You tell me.
Gandhi was a tremendous civil servant and a wonderful human being, but even he had his shortcomings. (Just for the record, Gandhi was also a vegetarian.) My point in illustrating this is that no one is flawless. But, to succumb to the taste of something by consuming a substitute that is similar but is NOT made of animals is not cheating. Vegetarians who sometimes eat fish and chicken, and vegans who occasionally dabble in cheese are the cheaters.
This is not to say that I favor vegan substitutes for meat- I truly do prefer products, as you mentioned, like Garden Burger and seitan, which taste less like meat and more like savory vegetable alternatives. If I could, I'd eat nothing but raw fruits, veges, grains, and nuts.
Also, in response to your mention of sacrifice, I see things in a reversed light: I see veganism as a sustainable, easy life and omnivorousness as a sacrifice. I say this because when I first became vegetarian, and then vegan, I lost 60 pounds (250 to 190), became much healthier, and I now know that I'm eating without causing suffering to any other creatures or to the environment. For what might be thought of as sacrificing some things I used to eat, I gained health, a clear conscience, I preserve lives, and I preserve the natural world. I think the "sacrifice" here is far outweighed by the benefits.
Conversely, for those who eat animal products, I think they're not only sacrificing their bodily health, but they're also sacrificing the lives and content of other beings, and they're sacrificing the well-being of fields, ground-water, rivers, and oceans, all in exchange for a comforting taste. I ask you, does the sacrifice here outweigh the benefits?
I'm not asking you to become vegetarian/vegan, but I do wish you'd be less hostile toward those who are trying to ease the suffering of others in this world. I'll end by saying that I'm happy to continue this discussion if you're interested- I can go into more depth about the arguments underlying vegetarianism/veganism, and you can tell me more about why you're unsure of them.
Also, if you'd like, I met an awesome guy named Praveen the other day who is a Hindu from India who also happens to be vegetarian. Maybe he can offer you a different perspective than I since you both share a common religious and cultural background.
The offer stands, man, it's up to you. Cheers.
Re: Another view
Date: 24 Jun 2006 08:45 (UTC)-I had hoped that I had made it clear that my hostility towards vegans comes not from what they're actually doing, but the way that most of those I've met have presented what they're doing. You, specifically, seem to have a really grating tone of moral superiority every time the topic comes up which I'm so bored with, but that may just be may just be the emotional context which I usually struggle with around you. Either way, I don't think it would be helpful to discuss this with you, although I appreciate the offer.
-I was a vegetarian up until my teens. Eating meat was a choice I made, with quite a bit of thought behind it. If I needed to talk to a Hindu about this, I would talk to my parents, or any of my in-culture friends. I chose to present the question here. Again, I appreciate the effort, but I rarely ask serious questions like this one without carefully choosing the forum in which I wish to discuss them (clearly, this is not the case in times of emotional stress :)
no subject
Date: 26 Jun 2006 03:46 (UTC)Re: Another view
Date: 24 Jun 2006 11:55 (UTC)no subject
Date: 26 Jun 2006 03:41 (UTC)no subject
Date: 26 Jun 2006 07:00 (UTC)*sigh* This is a distraction, and I'm letting myself use it to avoid the actual subject at hand.
no subject
Date: 3 Jul 2006 20:42 (UTC)