A Higher Ugliness

It looks like more and more people start being aware of how important food is in our modern day society. Not only is eating a social phenomenon, it is also a way to show who you are, politically, culturally and economically.

As a vegetarian I tend to think I have all the answers ready. I have thought things through for myself. Most people usually did not. Defending vegeteranism therefore has for me become a game that I have gone through so many times that I hardly enjoy it anymore. I usually go through the obligatory arguments I have long ago formed in my head and usually people start to understand. It is part of my vegetarian mission statement to make people understand so I never avoid the argument.

In the Vooruit Mo is organizing political debates. Live debates with interesting guests. Yesterday it was about eating animals in a time of food and climate crisis. If it weren't for the fact that the bill featured the impressive name of Jonathan Safran Foer I probably would have yawned away the occasion, favoring my book over a night of watching the same arguments over and over again.

As a matter of fact, the title in itself should have been reason enough not to go. It is my strong belief that we should not link vegetaranism to climate change. There is a link, surely, but trying to convince people to leave their steak on the account of climate change seems risky. What happens if climate sceptics turn out to be right in a couple of years? It has been a cold winter, hasn't it?

It was not Jonathan Safran Foer that provided the thought provoking ideas. However, his companion Louise Fresco, a Dutch writer and scientist that was once at the top of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) did. She explained clearly why we eat meat. For a crowd which had among its members prominent and activist vegans like Michel Vandenbosch this is quite a couragious thing to do. No uproar followed when she summed up the four reasons she sees to eat meat:

Historically we have been eating meat for the largest part of history.

Meat is more efficient in nurturing us.

It belongs to our cultural tradition.

Sometimes we can not produce anything else but meat.

These are reasons why we eat animals. It would be wrong to conclude from that that it is morally just to eat animals but it is important to understand why we came to where we are now.

All in all Louise Fresco did not seem to take much offense in people eating meat or fish. Neither did Jonathan Safran Foer, who stated he had become vegetarian at least 25 times in his life. Their case being: we should as a whole, as the human race, consume less meat.

The debate about whether it is at all ethical to kill an animal for our nutritious enjoyment was never touched upon. Which to me as an ethical vegetarian is my main gripe to the evening.

No matter how efficient, animal friendly and environmentally friendly you can produce meat, I will not eat it as long as it involves the killing of a being with feelings. Most people however seem not to be worried about the killing. We can make the killing happen humanely. Didn't we gather experience in that matter while executing criminals after their stay in death row? An analogy I would not dare to bring up.

Animal rights activists are jumping on the climate change bandwagon because it is good for marketing the vegetarian idea. In the long run, as the industry starts producing meat in more efficient and animal-friendly ways, this approach could hit us back really hard. In the long run it is not a good tactic.

The report of the evening is online on the website of MO. Much rather than that it would be interesting to look at this TED-talk from Louise Fresco about biological farming, and how it might not be such a simple solution as you might originally think:

The MO-paper is pretty elaborate and interesting, partly in Dutch and partly in English. Download it from their web site, it's a PDF.

Popping up in the blogosphere recently was an essay by film critic Roger Ebert who has lost the capacity of eating. He can no longer eat. What he misses the most? The social aspect of dining. Beatifully written piece: Nil By Mouth.

One of the most interesting and influential voices in America is Michael Pollan. His book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, is one I should probably read. However, I have a slew of other books piled up. Luckily Kottke has built up a nice list of references to Michael Pollan for in between reads. This piece Unhappy Meals is a case against nutritionism and is hugely inspiring.

Some interesting fact to take away: the production of rice produces methane which is one of the evil gases for climate change.

Another one: according to how you make the calculations (and I'm quoting Louse Fresco here) cheese could be worse for the environment than meat. Some explanation here on the interwebs.

A farmer in the room said his pig production farm emitted less CO2 than the production of soy beans does, so don't get too excited about your tofu burger either.

And meanwhile developing countries increase their consumption of meat. According to this report meat has become totally trendy in india.

---

Naam:
E-mail: (wordt niet getoond)
Website: (niet verplicht)
Commentaar:(volgende tags zijn toegelaten: [b]bold[/b], [i]italics[/i], [url]http://...[/url])