There are two types of Christians in this world, those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus and the other 98%. The other 98% needs to shut the fuck up. You are the problem. You are the scum of the world. And if you think you're in the 2% that actually lives the life you're supposed to live I can almost guarantee you are wrong.
I've met less than a dozen true Christians in my entire life. And I've been to church quite a lot. There are no true Christians in any church. Jesus did not teach his followers to go to church. He taught them to live righteously. People who go to church do so only to try and impress others with their piety. They dress up all fancy in spite of Jesus' teachings against vanity and arrogance. True Christians want no part of such a dog & pony show.
But where the 98% utterly fail at their attempt to be Christian is in their total ignorance of the teachings they profess to follow. What part of "live and let live" do these inbred fucks not understand? Jesus did not call for you to stand outside bookstores and protest the fact they were selling fictional books about prepubescent wizards. He did not call on you to demand an end to pornography, drugs, card games, or whatever else it is you find offensive. Jesus taught people to lead by example. He taught people to live well and to leave others to live as they choose.
Psalms 1:1 warns you not to stand in the path of sinners. Yet that is precisely what the 98% do. When you are supposed to be displaying tolerance and piety you instead spew hatred and bigotry. How many people have been tortured and killed over the centuries for simply trying to live their lives according to different rules? How many? "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the ten fundamental rules of your faith. It doesn't make exceptions for abortion doctors, gays, or people with different beliefs. Yet you people are perfectly happy to kill "in god's name".
You are also not supposed to worship graven images. How many of you put up trees every December? It doesn't tell you to do that in the bible. Decorating trees was a pagan celebration of the winter solstice. For a Christian to do it is idolatry. But you don't care. You 98% are incapable of thinking for yourselves. You can't even bother to read the book you claim to follow. If you did read it you would never do half the things you do routinely.
But what annoys me most about the Christian 98% is their insistence on claiming that god is the source of morality. I am frequently questioned as to where I get my morals from since I don't worship their god. It never occurs to them that morality doesn't come from god. God is not needed to keep people in check. And the concept of god does a lousy job of keeping people in check. I have never killed anyone. I don't rob people. I find it impossible to even lie to people. And I manage all this without worrying about what god thinks about me. Conversely, there are priests in prison for killing. And a casual reading of the bible shows that god is not as opposed to killing as he claims to be. God commands people to kill on several occasions. God himself kills millions with floods and fires. God orders people to stone adulterous women and homosexuals. Is that the morality you live by? No? Then where do you get yours? What you don't realize is that only inherently bad people need an outside source of morality. Good people don't need a god in order to behave. I am a good person simply because that is the way I live. I am not good because I am trying to impress people. I am not good because I fear going to hell. But you 98% can't grasp that because you are not inherently good. You are inherently spiteful, hateful, bigoted, violent, and ignorant. So you need a strong hand to keep you in check.
Unfortunately, the hand of god just isn't strong enough. Because I look around the world and I see "Christians" doing all manner of things against the teachings of Christ. The inbred fucks at the Westboro Baptist Church are the prime example. I find it hard to comprehend just how vile and ignorant those people are. They are quite literally the lowest form of human life. Clearly, having faith in god has done nothing to make them worthwhile humans. The rest of you 98% are almost as bad. Every time you think "something needs to be done about that" you have failed as a Christian. You are called to witness, not to judge. It is not your place to judge others. Your god even tells you so. But you can't be bothered listening to him. You're too busy demanding the local porn store be shut down.
Live and let live. Or burn in the hell you claim to fear. The choice is that simple. Shut up, leave the rest of us alone.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
On the origin of species
Science tells us that a degree of our behavior is genetically determined. Whether it's coded into the genome, determined by the interaction of our genes and our fetal environment, or determined by the way genes are expressed as we develop science can't say. Science is also at a loss to define how much of our behavior is genetically determined and how much is learned later. We know, for example, that congenitally blind babies know how to smile even though they've never seen a person smile. And congenitally blind adults still use hand gestures when talking even though they've never seen such gestures. Clearly these people are acting on behavior they have not learned.
We even tacitly recognize this idea in our personal lives. Our personal fetishes and taboos have largely been with us since birth. I, for example, never made a conscious choice to be turned on by redheads. Nor can I consciously decide to not be turned on by redheads. It's an urge that has always been there and will be there as long as I draw breath.
If we accept the validity of the hypothesis that some behavior is genetically determined, I think we have to accept a somewhat more radical hypothesis. This is the radical idea that there is not a single human species. If behavior indicates something about your genome then radically different behaviors must indicate differences in the genome. So just like we differentiate between caucasians and occidentals we may have to differentiate between liberals and conservatives or between marxists and capitalists.
Not that I think there's a gene specifically for voting a certain way or similarly minute behaviors. But there is a strong possibility that there is a genetic predisposition to have a mindset which causes you to think in a way that leads you to voting a certain way. And this is why you can never win political debates. You aren't asking your opponent to change his mind. You are asking him to change his genes. Asking a liberal to become conservative is like asking an Asian man to stop squinting or asking a midget to grow. It is beyond the realm of the possible.
So I posit that much of the conflict we see in the world today is the result of interspecies rivalry, not merely a battle of ideas. This conflict cannot be resolved by the means we are accustomed to using since those means typically requires compromise and people cannot compromise their genetics. I think this hypothesis further strengthens the case for absolute individualism. It is impossible to create a system under which so many disparate views can be treated equally. The only way to allow all these views to coexist harmoniously is to remove any hierarchy among them and thereby to let people fully express themselves without coercion. As long as we have a hierarchal system we will have people fighting to put their ideals in control. Because, according to my hypothesis, there is no way we will ever get everybody to agree on a single best way to live.
We even tacitly recognize this idea in our personal lives. Our personal fetishes and taboos have largely been with us since birth. I, for example, never made a conscious choice to be turned on by redheads. Nor can I consciously decide to not be turned on by redheads. It's an urge that has always been there and will be there as long as I draw breath.
If we accept the validity of the hypothesis that some behavior is genetically determined, I think we have to accept a somewhat more radical hypothesis. This is the radical idea that there is not a single human species. If behavior indicates something about your genome then radically different behaviors must indicate differences in the genome. So just like we differentiate between caucasians and occidentals we may have to differentiate between liberals and conservatives or between marxists and capitalists.
Not that I think there's a gene specifically for voting a certain way or similarly minute behaviors. But there is a strong possibility that there is a genetic predisposition to have a mindset which causes you to think in a way that leads you to voting a certain way. And this is why you can never win political debates. You aren't asking your opponent to change his mind. You are asking him to change his genes. Asking a liberal to become conservative is like asking an Asian man to stop squinting or asking a midget to grow. It is beyond the realm of the possible.
So I posit that much of the conflict we see in the world today is the result of interspecies rivalry, not merely a battle of ideas. This conflict cannot be resolved by the means we are accustomed to using since those means typically requires compromise and people cannot compromise their genetics. I think this hypothesis further strengthens the case for absolute individualism. It is impossible to create a system under which so many disparate views can be treated equally. The only way to allow all these views to coexist harmoniously is to remove any hierarchy among them and thereby to let people fully express themselves without coercion. As long as we have a hierarchal system we will have people fighting to put their ideals in control. Because, according to my hypothesis, there is no way we will ever get everybody to agree on a single best way to live.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Get a grip
So Ryan Dunn gets drunk, flies down the road, loses control, crashes, and dies and people call it a tragedy. What if it had just been some no-name shmuck? How many drunks die every day in similar crashes? Does anybody consider those deaths tragedies? No, they don't. But let a celebritard die and the fanboys come out of the woodwork.
Ryan Dunn was a moron. He lived his life doing stupid shit to get attention. You can't gamble your life constantly and expect to never lose. He wasn't about to cure cancer, end world hunger, or bring about global peace. He was just a drunk retard who made a living swimming in septic tanks. The world will not suffer for the loss. And if that is the sort of person you look up to, the world will not suffer when it loses you either.
Ryan Dunn was a moron. He lived his life doing stupid shit to get attention. You can't gamble your life constantly and expect to never lose. He wasn't about to cure cancer, end world hunger, or bring about global peace. He was just a drunk retard who made a living swimming in septic tanks. The world will not suffer for the loss. And if that is the sort of person you look up to, the world will not suffer when it loses you either.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Ignoble savages
So I'm scanning my Facebook newsfeed this morning and see this link. Really? Are we still beating that drum? This drivel is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive.
By way of explanation for those unfamiliar with anarchist philosophy and its various schools, the idea behind this picture is that every last acre of land in this territory was rightfully owned by the Skraelings when filthy Europeans arrived. Europeans then proceeded to rape, pillage, and plunder their way across the continent. They slaughtered everything in sight and stole all the land for their own nefarious purposes. Communists masquerading as anarchists say all land deeds today are invalid because all land was stolen.
And these claims are pure bullshit. It's caucasian self-loathing and revisionist history at its finest.
To review actual history, Europeans arrived peacefully in this territory. They colonized areas and traded with the natives. At least in the northern sections. South of the Rio Grande was definitely a different story. But Plymouth Rock was not a war zone. Nor did it become one for quite some time.
Gradually, more and more Europeans arrived. The colonies expanded. It was not until 1634, 137 years after John Cabot "discovered" the region, that the first violence broke out. This was the Pequot War. And it was started when allies of the Narragansett tribe raided a local trading vessel. They killed the ship's owner and several of his crew, and made off with the cargo. The natives started a war over protecting their trade routes. A war of protectionism. That's far from an anarchic ideal.
If you scan westward you will find more of the same. Homesteaders did not rush out with guns blazing. They found open fields and homesteaded them. That's where we get the word "homestead". This is important because homesteading is universally accepted by anarchist thinkers as a legitimate way of claiming unused land. Most schools of thought consider it the only legitimate way. This is the part I love. The standard within the anarchist community is that a person must "mix their labor" with the land in order to own it. In other words, you only own as much lawn as you are willing to mow or as much field as you are willing to plow. But most plains tribes were nomadic. They didn't have big cities with outlying farms. They followed the buffalo and ate what nature provided. According to the view created by John Locke and held as the standard in the anarchist community, the skraelings did not "own" their hunting grounds. They never applied their labor to it. So homesteaders had every right, under anarchist philosophy, to settle the land as they did.
But the skraelings had never read John Locke. They felt their hunting grounds belonged to them. They took offense at the settlers occupying their lands. And violence ensued. Yes, it was the noble savage that began a policy of ethnic cleansing by attempting to remove white settlers.
Frankly, it's disgracefully hypocritical for anarchists to use the skraelings as a role model. The skraelings did not recognize the Lockean view of property rights which is considered gospel by anarchists. Rather, they used deadly force against peaceful families who were simply exercising their right to make a life for themselves. In addition, anarchists vehemently oppose tighter control of the US/Mexico border by saying the right to move about is an inalienable human right. But they then ignore the skraeling use of violence to prevent "illegal immigration". Step back 200 years and you will see that Europeans heading west were treated the same by the skraelings as modern mexicans are treated when they cross the Rio Grande. So how can any intellectually honest anarchist hold skraelings in any regard?
If you support the idea of Lockean property rights, you cannot begin to claim all land is stolen. It's pure fantasy. And if you support the right of people to move about as they wish without artificial borders, you cannot hold the skraelings as a role model. They didn't invent ethnic cleansing. But they sure as hell practiced it.
There is still more hypocrisy in the claim that restitution must be made to the skraelings. Anarchy is a philosophy of individualism. You can only punish people for wrongs they themselves have committed. You can't punish a person by taking their land or money away from them because you think their great-great-great grandfather did something wrong. And you can't give restitution to people for wrongs that were not inflicted on them. The whole idea is bat-shit insane. It's a complete contradiction of anarchist ideals. Especially since it treats everybody as members of collectives instead of as individuals. Chief Ownsa Casino does not deserve money because Chief Sitting Bull was kicked out of his house. There is no connection between the two other than some vague cultural similarities.
Anarchists need to drop skraelings as a role model. The natives simply don't fit the bill. Nothing about their culture represents the anarchist ideal. Skraelings fought wars with each other, they treated women like property, they slaughtered wildlife far in excess of what they needed, they basically did everything anarchists claim to despise govts for doing.
By way of explanation for those unfamiliar with anarchist philosophy and its various schools, the idea behind this picture is that every last acre of land in this territory was rightfully owned by the Skraelings when filthy Europeans arrived. Europeans then proceeded to rape, pillage, and plunder their way across the continent. They slaughtered everything in sight and stole all the land for their own nefarious purposes. Communists masquerading as anarchists say all land deeds today are invalid because all land was stolen.
And these claims are pure bullshit. It's caucasian self-loathing and revisionist history at its finest.
To review actual history, Europeans arrived peacefully in this territory. They colonized areas and traded with the natives. At least in the northern sections. South of the Rio Grande was definitely a different story. But Plymouth Rock was not a war zone. Nor did it become one for quite some time.
Gradually, more and more Europeans arrived. The colonies expanded. It was not until 1634, 137 years after John Cabot "discovered" the region, that the first violence broke out. This was the Pequot War. And it was started when allies of the Narragansett tribe raided a local trading vessel. They killed the ship's owner and several of his crew, and made off with the cargo. The natives started a war over protecting their trade routes. A war of protectionism. That's far from an anarchic ideal.
If you scan westward you will find more of the same. Homesteaders did not rush out with guns blazing. They found open fields and homesteaded them. That's where we get the word "homestead". This is important because homesteading is universally accepted by anarchist thinkers as a legitimate way of claiming unused land. Most schools of thought consider it the only legitimate way. This is the part I love. The standard within the anarchist community is that a person must "mix their labor" with the land in order to own it. In other words, you only own as much lawn as you are willing to mow or as much field as you are willing to plow. But most plains tribes were nomadic. They didn't have big cities with outlying farms. They followed the buffalo and ate what nature provided. According to the view created by John Locke and held as the standard in the anarchist community, the skraelings did not "own" their hunting grounds. They never applied their labor to it. So homesteaders had every right, under anarchist philosophy, to settle the land as they did.
But the skraelings had never read John Locke. They felt their hunting grounds belonged to them. They took offense at the settlers occupying their lands. And violence ensued. Yes, it was the noble savage that began a policy of ethnic cleansing by attempting to remove white settlers.
Frankly, it's disgracefully hypocritical for anarchists to use the skraelings as a role model. The skraelings did not recognize the Lockean view of property rights which is considered gospel by anarchists. Rather, they used deadly force against peaceful families who were simply exercising their right to make a life for themselves. In addition, anarchists vehemently oppose tighter control of the US/Mexico border by saying the right to move about is an inalienable human right. But they then ignore the skraeling use of violence to prevent "illegal immigration". Step back 200 years and you will see that Europeans heading west were treated the same by the skraelings as modern mexicans are treated when they cross the Rio Grande. So how can any intellectually honest anarchist hold skraelings in any regard?
If you support the idea of Lockean property rights, you cannot begin to claim all land is stolen. It's pure fantasy. And if you support the right of people to move about as they wish without artificial borders, you cannot hold the skraelings as a role model. They didn't invent ethnic cleansing. But they sure as hell practiced it.
There is still more hypocrisy in the claim that restitution must be made to the skraelings. Anarchy is a philosophy of individualism. You can only punish people for wrongs they themselves have committed. You can't punish a person by taking their land or money away from them because you think their great-great-great grandfather did something wrong. And you can't give restitution to people for wrongs that were not inflicted on them. The whole idea is bat-shit insane. It's a complete contradiction of anarchist ideals. Especially since it treats everybody as members of collectives instead of as individuals. Chief Ownsa Casino does not deserve money because Chief Sitting Bull was kicked out of his house. There is no connection between the two other than some vague cultural similarities.
Anarchists need to drop skraelings as a role model. The natives simply don't fit the bill. Nothing about their culture represents the anarchist ideal. Skraelings fought wars with each other, they treated women like property, they slaughtered wildlife far in excess of what they needed, they basically did everything anarchists claim to despise govts for doing.
Monday, April 4, 2011
There will be blood
I am a student of history. Not the sort of history you were taught in grade school. Specific names and dates are largely irrelevant. I study history the way a meteorologist studies the atmosphere. It's the overall currents that matter, not the local gusts. What the currents tell me is that humanity's problem is not an inherent condition of the species. Rather, it is a condition of a subset of the species. That condition is evangelism.
Merriam-Webster defines evangelism as "militant or crusading zeal". Evangelists are so sure of the superiority of their beliefs they are unable to accept that others may have different beliefs. Whether it's Muslims flying planes into buildings, socialists slaughtering millions in gulags, Christians "protesting" funerals, or vegans placing billboards to ridicule omnivores, evangelists simply cannot let others live their lives differently.
And this is where the problem begins. Because there is only one single rule to a moral life; live and let live. I do not control you. You do not control me. We are sovereign equals. The instant you seek to coerce me in any way you have violated my sovereignty. You have aggressed against me. You have initiated a conflict.
But evangelists do not mind this conflict. Because they are certain of the righteousness of their ways. They do not care about my sovereignty. To them, my very existence is immoral. I am but a bacteria infecting the body of their perfect society. And they will do whatever they can to excise me.
And so we have bloodshed. Because I do not wish to be excised. All I want is to be left alone to live my life. Living my life was precisely what I was doing before the evangelist came along to control me. The evangelist broke the peace and forced me to defend my existence. The evangelist spawned discord where there had been harmony.
That is just on the personal scale. Magnify that effect up to the regional or global scale. Factor in all the different evangelist groups with often opposing ideals. Instantly the world comes into focus. If "live and let live" were universally practiced within the human population there would be no war, no crime. War and crime are the result of evangelism. They are the result of people seeking to control their peers instead of simply allowing them to exist in peace. No good can come from evangelism. It is the mindset of the tyrant.
Is there hope for a cure for this condition? No. Evangelism will always be with us. The best we can hope for is to marginalize evangelists so that they don't gain the power they need to hurt others. And one final note for the evangelists who may read this. Your actions define your morality. So if you refuse to let me live in peace, I will return the favor.
Merriam-Webster defines evangelism as "militant or crusading zeal". Evangelists are so sure of the superiority of their beliefs they are unable to accept that others may have different beliefs. Whether it's Muslims flying planes into buildings, socialists slaughtering millions in gulags, Christians "protesting" funerals, or vegans placing billboards to ridicule omnivores, evangelists simply cannot let others live their lives differently.
And this is where the problem begins. Because there is only one single rule to a moral life; live and let live. I do not control you. You do not control me. We are sovereign equals. The instant you seek to coerce me in any way you have violated my sovereignty. You have aggressed against me. You have initiated a conflict.
But evangelists do not mind this conflict. Because they are certain of the righteousness of their ways. They do not care about my sovereignty. To them, my very existence is immoral. I am but a bacteria infecting the body of their perfect society. And they will do whatever they can to excise me.
And so we have bloodshed. Because I do not wish to be excised. All I want is to be left alone to live my life. Living my life was precisely what I was doing before the evangelist came along to control me. The evangelist broke the peace and forced me to defend my existence. The evangelist spawned discord where there had been harmony.
That is just on the personal scale. Magnify that effect up to the regional or global scale. Factor in all the different evangelist groups with often opposing ideals. Instantly the world comes into focus. If "live and let live" were universally practiced within the human population there would be no war, no crime. War and crime are the result of evangelism. They are the result of people seeking to control their peers instead of simply allowing them to exist in peace. No good can come from evangelism. It is the mindset of the tyrant.
Is there hope for a cure for this condition? No. Evangelism will always be with us. The best we can hope for is to marginalize evangelists so that they don't gain the power they need to hurt others. And one final note for the evangelists who may read this. Your actions define your morality. So if you refuse to let me live in peace, I will return the favor.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
My beef, revisited.
I recently did a post exposing the false claims of the ecological benefits of the vegan diet versus a meat-based diet. I did this, not because I want people to stop being vegans, but because I want vegans to stop trying to manipulate me into changing my life. Their claims that veganism is better for the environment are demonstrably false. I included plenty of links showing the amount of resources it takes to produce grains and other “earth-friendly” crops for human consumption. But even if they acknowledge that veganism is no better for the environment they still refuse to let me enjoy my steak in peace.
There was a claim made during a recent debate which absolutely astonished me. It was so devoid of reason and any basis in empirical fact that I cannot believe it was uttered by a sentient being. The claim was that meat is a luxury. The supporting evidence was that millions of people live without meat. The implication being that since millions do it, it must be safe, healthy, and proper. Of course, millions of people take drugs too. That does not make taking drugs safe, healthy, or proper. In the realm of formal logic this is known as “argumentum ad populum”, or appeal to the masses, or appeal to belief. It is a fallacy. The fact any group does something has nothing to do with the morality or efficacy of the act in question.
The implication of the claim that meat is a luxury is that we should do without meat because we don't need luxuries and the world would be better off if we only produced necessities. This is a hypocritical statement coming from a person who is using a computer to get online and pontificate. I guarantee his computer consumed more resources than any meal I have ever eaten. And billions of people exist quite happily without computers.
I could even turn his logic to support my own “alternative” lifestyle. I live barefoot. Given my choice I would not own a pair of shoes. Shoes are a luxury. Millions of people live their entire lives without shoes. Shoes consume vast amounts of resources that could be used for more essential things. This is the same logic as the anti-meat stance. I wonder if my opponent in this instance would acknowledge the validity of my claim and decide to quit wearing shoes? I doubt it. Because the only reason he claimed meat was a luxury was because he could live without it. His claim was solely to justify his worldview. I can guarantee that when faced with his own logic being used to defend an idea he doesn't like he would find some other way of rationalizing his worldview.
Returning to the world of food, there are many items which could certainly be considered luxuries. Coffee, tea, soda, and alcohol are four that come to mind right away. None of these items are essential to human survival. In fact, they each have detrimental effects. How many acres of land could we reclaim by banning the production of these “foods”? How many resources would be saved for use on the essential items we really need? Would my opponent call for these to be eliminated?
But what about the actual substance of his claim? Is there any validity to the idea that meat is a luxury? No. True, there are millions of people who live without meat. But these people all have one thing in common. They all live in advanced societies where it is possible to acquire a broad range of foods and supplemental nutrients. There has never been a vegetarian culture. Because at the subsistence level, meat is essential to survival. Alone in the wilderness, humans need meat of some sort to provide essential nutrients. You can't go out to the garden in the dead of winter and pluck the spectrum of fruits and vegetables necessary to sustain you. But you can carry a spear into the forest and kill a pig. Take away the vast technology that allows people the *luxury* of avoiding meat and they would have no choice but to kill to survive.
The idea that meat is a luxury has another serious flaw. Humans evolved as omnivores. Our arboreal origin still influences our diet. In the canopy millions of years ago we lived on leaves, shoots, eggs, nuts, fruit, berries, insects, and most likely some birds or other small animals. This is the typical menu of any arboreal creature even though some are more selective than others. This is the diet our bodies are adapted to. This is what we have the enzymes to digest. Also, biologists and anthropologists agree that it was increased consumption of meat that gave us the protein we needed to grow our brains and become human. When vegans point out that other primates are mostly vegan, they seem to ignore the fact that veganism is precisely why those other primates are still “other” primates.
Further refuting the idea that meat is a luxury is the growing amount of hard data showing that many of the staples of the vegan lifestyle are detrimental to human health. Grains which are high in fiber cause physical damage to the digestive system. Grains and legumes also contain phytic acid which blocks the absorption of various nutrients. Soy is especially problematic. Aside from the phytic acid mentioned above it also contains trypsin inhibitors, which is important because trypsin is one of the enzymes that breaks proteins into amino acids that can be absorbed and used by the body. Ironically, soy is touted as as a viable source of protein in a vegan diet despite containing compounds that block protein absorption. Soy also contains lectin, which can cause serious problems when consumed in large quantities over a period of time. There is also concern over the phytoestrogens and potential carcinogenic properties of soy.
I am no fear-mongerer. I realize that eating various beans, seeds, and grains in small amounts as part of a natural diet is unlikely to cause serious problems. The body can handle small amounts of toxins regularly and even larger amounts periodically without damage. This is why pipe and cigar smokers are less prone to cancer than cigarette smokers. Their dosage of carcinogenic compounds is smaller and less frequent. Similarly, an omnivorous human who places meat, fruits, and greens at the center of their diet can afford the occasional adventure with grains and legumes. But the vegan diet is heavily based on legumes and grains. This means chronic exposure to the above-mentioned anti-nutrients. That cannot be healthy in the long term.
Yet health is precisely the reason many vegans chose their path. They pontificate ad nauseum on the virtues of their lifestyle. Feel free to believe that if you wish. But do not try swaying me with the tired comparison of the perfect vegan diet with the typical Western diet. As somebody who knows firsthand, I can attest to the fact that it is the attention paid to the diet that makes the difference. People are not fat because they eat meat. People are fat because they eat everything in sight. And there is more science coming out almost daily which shows meat, and hence fat, is not the culprit in the obesity epidemic. Instead, it is the insulin spikes caused by our overly grain-based diet which causes the problem. This is why Westerners continue to get fatter even though the “low-fat” craze has been going on for more than a generation now. It isn't the bacon and eggs. It's that slice of toast covered in jelly which causes an insulin spike that triggers the body to burn the glucose and store the fat for later. Get rid of the glucose rush and the protein and fat in the bacon and eggs will go to build cells, repair cells, fuel cells, or be excreted as excess.
The essential benefits of meat also impact the brain. The brain actually runs better on ketones than on glucose. Ketones are produced when the body burns fat for fuel instead of glucose. This happens in a low-carb, high-protein diet. Ketones are also shown to help maintain a healthy brain and even reduce seizures in epileptic children. Your body burns fat, your brain runs better, how is this a luxury? How is this a bad thing?
I am not trying to sway anybody from their chosen path. As I have said many times in many forums, your life is yours to live. I post this because I am tired of the arrogance displayed by many vegans and vegetarians. They assume I am just an ignorant neanderthal who needs to be shown the light. They are wrong. I have done plenty of research on nutrition over the past thirty years due to my involvement with strength training. I have experimented with many types of diet. There is no empirical evidence showing meat to be anything other than an essential component of a healthy human diet. There is a huge amount of hard data from many studies over many years showing that meat and fat consumption are essential to peak human health. I am not about to dismiss all that simply because a handful of people insist I am wasting resources on a luxury I could easily do without. I cannot do without meat. I will not even entertain the idea. There is no rational reason to sacrifice my health.
There was a claim made during a recent debate which absolutely astonished me. It was so devoid of reason and any basis in empirical fact that I cannot believe it was uttered by a sentient being. The claim was that meat is a luxury. The supporting evidence was that millions of people live without meat. The implication being that since millions do it, it must be safe, healthy, and proper. Of course, millions of people take drugs too. That does not make taking drugs safe, healthy, or proper. In the realm of formal logic this is known as “argumentum ad populum”, or appeal to the masses, or appeal to belief. It is a fallacy. The fact any group does something has nothing to do with the morality or efficacy of the act in question.
The implication of the claim that meat is a luxury is that we should do without meat because we don't need luxuries and the world would be better off if we only produced necessities. This is a hypocritical statement coming from a person who is using a computer to get online and pontificate. I guarantee his computer consumed more resources than any meal I have ever eaten. And billions of people exist quite happily without computers.
I could even turn his logic to support my own “alternative” lifestyle. I live barefoot. Given my choice I would not own a pair of shoes. Shoes are a luxury. Millions of people live their entire lives without shoes. Shoes consume vast amounts of resources that could be used for more essential things. This is the same logic as the anti-meat stance. I wonder if my opponent in this instance would acknowledge the validity of my claim and decide to quit wearing shoes? I doubt it. Because the only reason he claimed meat was a luxury was because he could live without it. His claim was solely to justify his worldview. I can guarantee that when faced with his own logic being used to defend an idea he doesn't like he would find some other way of rationalizing his worldview.
Returning to the world of food, there are many items which could certainly be considered luxuries. Coffee, tea, soda, and alcohol are four that come to mind right away. None of these items are essential to human survival. In fact, they each have detrimental effects. How many acres of land could we reclaim by banning the production of these “foods”? How many resources would be saved for use on the essential items we really need? Would my opponent call for these to be eliminated?
But what about the actual substance of his claim? Is there any validity to the idea that meat is a luxury? No. True, there are millions of people who live without meat. But these people all have one thing in common. They all live in advanced societies where it is possible to acquire a broad range of foods and supplemental nutrients. There has never been a vegetarian culture. Because at the subsistence level, meat is essential to survival. Alone in the wilderness, humans need meat of some sort to provide essential nutrients. You can't go out to the garden in the dead of winter and pluck the spectrum of fruits and vegetables necessary to sustain you. But you can carry a spear into the forest and kill a pig. Take away the vast technology that allows people the *luxury* of avoiding meat and they would have no choice but to kill to survive.
The idea that meat is a luxury has another serious flaw. Humans evolved as omnivores. Our arboreal origin still influences our diet. In the canopy millions of years ago we lived on leaves, shoots, eggs, nuts, fruit, berries, insects, and most likely some birds or other small animals. This is the typical menu of any arboreal creature even though some are more selective than others. This is the diet our bodies are adapted to. This is what we have the enzymes to digest. Also, biologists and anthropologists agree that it was increased consumption of meat that gave us the protein we needed to grow our brains and become human. When vegans point out that other primates are mostly vegan, they seem to ignore the fact that veganism is precisely why those other primates are still “other” primates.
Further refuting the idea that meat is a luxury is the growing amount of hard data showing that many of the staples of the vegan lifestyle are detrimental to human health. Grains which are high in fiber cause physical damage to the digestive system. Grains and legumes also contain phytic acid which blocks the absorption of various nutrients. Soy is especially problematic. Aside from the phytic acid mentioned above it also contains trypsin inhibitors, which is important because trypsin is one of the enzymes that breaks proteins into amino acids that can be absorbed and used by the body. Ironically, soy is touted as as a viable source of protein in a vegan diet despite containing compounds that block protein absorption. Soy also contains lectin, which can cause serious problems when consumed in large quantities over a period of time. There is also concern over the phytoestrogens and potential carcinogenic properties of soy.
I am no fear-mongerer. I realize that eating various beans, seeds, and grains in small amounts as part of a natural diet is unlikely to cause serious problems. The body can handle small amounts of toxins regularly and even larger amounts periodically without damage. This is why pipe and cigar smokers are less prone to cancer than cigarette smokers. Their dosage of carcinogenic compounds is smaller and less frequent. Similarly, an omnivorous human who places meat, fruits, and greens at the center of their diet can afford the occasional adventure with grains and legumes. But the vegan diet is heavily based on legumes and grains. This means chronic exposure to the above-mentioned anti-nutrients. That cannot be healthy in the long term.
Yet health is precisely the reason many vegans chose their path. They pontificate ad nauseum on the virtues of their lifestyle. Feel free to believe that if you wish. But do not try swaying me with the tired comparison of the perfect vegan diet with the typical Western diet. As somebody who knows firsthand, I can attest to the fact that it is the attention paid to the diet that makes the difference. People are not fat because they eat meat. People are fat because they eat everything in sight. And there is more science coming out almost daily which shows meat, and hence fat, is not the culprit in the obesity epidemic. Instead, it is the insulin spikes caused by our overly grain-based diet which causes the problem. This is why Westerners continue to get fatter even though the “low-fat” craze has been going on for more than a generation now. It isn't the bacon and eggs. It's that slice of toast covered in jelly which causes an insulin spike that triggers the body to burn the glucose and store the fat for later. Get rid of the glucose rush and the protein and fat in the bacon and eggs will go to build cells, repair cells, fuel cells, or be excreted as excess.
The essential benefits of meat also impact the brain. The brain actually runs better on ketones than on glucose. Ketones are produced when the body burns fat for fuel instead of glucose. This happens in a low-carb, high-protein diet. Ketones are also shown to help maintain a healthy brain and even reduce seizures in epileptic children. Your body burns fat, your brain runs better, how is this a luxury? How is this a bad thing?
I am not trying to sway anybody from their chosen path. As I have said many times in many forums, your life is yours to live. I post this because I am tired of the arrogance displayed by many vegans and vegetarians. They assume I am just an ignorant neanderthal who needs to be shown the light. They are wrong. I have done plenty of research on nutrition over the past thirty years due to my involvement with strength training. I have experimented with many types of diet. There is no empirical evidence showing meat to be anything other than an essential component of a healthy human diet. There is a huge amount of hard data from many studies over many years showing that meat and fat consumption are essential to peak human health. I am not about to dismiss all that simply because a handful of people insist I am wasting resources on a luxury I could easily do without. I cannot do without meat. I will not even entertain the idea. There is no rational reason to sacrifice my health.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
My beef
My entire philosophy can be summed up in the quote, “live and let live”. It's an ancient quote. It's often cited as the most profoundly noble ideal humans can strive for. Yet it is also the last thing most people even bother reaching for. The one thing in this world that still angers me is when people try to manipulate me into following their path. Often, this manipulation takes the form of physical force via the proxy of govt. But just as often these days it comes in the form of people claiming their way is the righteous way and trying to shame me into joining their cult. They can't simply enjoy their life and accept that I enjoy life differently.
Although they have not yet resorted to the violent brutality of the Inquisition, there are groups today who steadfastly claim the moral high ground and use almost every underhanded tactic they can to prove they are better than you. It started with environmentalists. They have succeeded in using pseudo-science, shame, ridicule, outright lies, and propaganda to sway much of the modern world to their beliefs. But the group I want to direct my tirade towards today is vegans.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people choosing to live the vegan lifestyle. It's their life, their choice. And I harbor no ill will towards those who view it that way. But recently I have begun to encounter militant vegans. These are people who are so convinced their choice is the right one that they have become evangelical about it. They say veganism is the only moral way to live. That is where they cross the line. The instant you claim you are righteous and I am evil for disagreeing, you have ceased to be a worthy human being.
Since morality is such a fuzzy subject and virtually impossible to debate with any objectivity, I will focus on what has become the standard “proof” vegans use to show they are the righteous ones. They have latched on to the popularity of the eco movement and are trying to claim that veganism is better for the environment than omnivorism. They claim that meat creates more pollution, uses more energy, and wastes more resources than a meat-free diet does.
This is absolute bunk. First of all, grains and vegetables are woefully lacking in important nutrients. Essential fats are missing. Protein is in short supply. And vitamins are scarce. You have to eat a broad range of non-meat products to get the same level of nutrition you can get by eating meat. This is important to note because every vegetable you eat is grown in a separate field. The more types of vegetables you need, the more fields we need to grow those vegetables. Vegans like to claim that forests are razed to make room for cow pastures. But they conveniently ignore that those same forests, more even, would have to be razed to make room for the fields of rutabagas it would take to feed everyone. So they can't claim cows are more damaging because they remove forests. Unless they are going to produce the added veggies by magical means that require no fields.
But they don't stop with the fallacious claim of wasted land. They also insist cows waste water. Because, apparently, you don't have to water crops. This link shows the sort of outright lies these folks will resort to in order to “prove” their point.
According to the author of that article, it takes twelve thousand gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef. If you are curious, a typical cow produces somewhere in excess of 500 pounds of beef. So the author of that article is telling you it takes six million gallons of water to raise a cow for slaughter. I have raised cows. I have filled the water trough. I have never seen a cow drink nearly that much water. But just for kicks, let's do some math.
There are approximately 98 million cows just in the United States. If each of them needed 6 million gallons of water that means the entire US cattle population would consume 588 TRILLION gallons of water. That's 588 with twelve zeroes behind it. To help visualize that, there are 1,101,117,147,428 gallons in a cubic mile. That means cows in the US consume 534 cubic miles of water. Still not getting the scale? That is just under ten percent of the volume of the Great Lakes. And that is just the US cattle. China has over 130 million cattle. That still leaves Europe, Africa, South America, Canada, India, Russia.... By the time you add up all these cattle, where does the water come from to support them?
In reality, cows don't use nearly that much water. A typical cow drinks twenty-five to fifty gallons a day. Assuming you raise the cow for two years before slaughter, that means the cow will have drank, at most, 36,500 gallons of water in it's entire life. Or about seventy-three gallons per pound of beef. That's a far cry from the twelve thousand gallons claimed in the above article. Not to mention the fact that every single drop of water consumed in the production of beef is recycled. It is either excreted by the cow, exhaled as vapor in the cow's breath, or consumed by you as that succulent juice in the steak. Water does not disappear. So even if their figures were close to accurate the whole idea would still be a red herring.
But they will tell you it isn't just about what the cow drinks. The other 11,927 gallons per pound of beef are the result of the process of raising cows. Anti-meat types love to claim meat requires much more resources to produce. Shall we compare?
This is how you prepare a field to grow crops. This is how you prepare a field to grow cattle. Is there any question which method is using more resources and producing more pollution? But we're not done yet.
This is how you plant a field of crops. This is how you plant a cow. Again, the difference in the amount of labor and resources is self-evident.
This is how you fertilize a field of crops. This is how you fertilize a cow pasture. The difference in the level of technology is once again self-evident.
This is how you pesticide a field of crops. That doesn't have an analog in the world of livestock. More resources consumed by crops that would not be used by livestock.
This is how you harvest grain. The grain is then hauled to a silo and stored until it is ready to be reloaded and hauled to a processing facility. This is how you harvest cattle. Again, which process involves the least effort and mechanization? Not to mention how much grain gets wasted in the harvesting process.
I challenge anybody to explain to me how all that machinery using all that fuel and producing all that pollution to plant and harvest vegetables can possibly be more eco-friendly than this.
As blunt as I can be, it's pure bullshit. Grains and vegetables have to be grown on big factory farms. There is no other way to grow enough to feed people. They have to use pesticides and fertilizers to make sure they harvest enough to feed everybody. It is unavoidable. Organic methods will not produce enough food on the available land to sustain the population.
And none of this factors in the wastefulness of grains and vegetables. If you pay close attention towards the end of that video on harvesting corn you will see a great deal of corn being dumped over the side of the truck. That may be an unusual occurance to lose that amount. But some is lost every single time a truck is loaded. More is lost in the processing. Since grains and vegetables have a finite shelf-life they have to be treated with more chemicals to keep them from rotting before you buy them. Even so, grocers routinely have to throw away products that have expired. The amount of waste with grains and vegetables is very high compared to meat. Meat can be kept fresh, alive even, until the day you eat it.
Meat, on the other hand, requires very little machinery to grow. It requires no chemicals. Yes, I realize factory farms are the current practice in meat production as well. But meat doesn't require that technique. You can grow cows, pigs, chickens, whatever in small numbers quite economically. I have personally seen chickens being grown in a coop just twelve miles from Manhattan. And wild game is still plentiful for those who wish to harvest it. You can't get food with less expenditure of resources than that.
And meat can be grown in areas where edible crops cannot be grown. Much of Wyoming does not get enough rainfall to support corn or wheat. But cows, sheep, and buffalo can graze on the grass that grows there. There are also areas which are too hilly to allow for fields to be planted and harvested. But, again, livestock can easily graze on the wild grass that grows there. You can't plant corn on a lake; you can harvest the fish that grow in that lake.
I am not trying to convert anybody. How you choose to live your life is your business. But do not come at me with your nonsense in the attempt to convert me to your ways. Live and let live. I'm not bothering you, don't bother me. And definitely don't try to make me out as morally inferior when all the evidence shows that my lifestyle leaves less of a footprint than yours. Eat all the veggies you want. Just shut up and let me enjoy my steak in peace.
Although they have not yet resorted to the violent brutality of the Inquisition, there are groups today who steadfastly claim the moral high ground and use almost every underhanded tactic they can to prove they are better than you. It started with environmentalists. They have succeeded in using pseudo-science, shame, ridicule, outright lies, and propaganda to sway much of the modern world to their beliefs. But the group I want to direct my tirade towards today is vegans.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people choosing to live the vegan lifestyle. It's their life, their choice. And I harbor no ill will towards those who view it that way. But recently I have begun to encounter militant vegans. These are people who are so convinced their choice is the right one that they have become evangelical about it. They say veganism is the only moral way to live. That is where they cross the line. The instant you claim you are righteous and I am evil for disagreeing, you have ceased to be a worthy human being.
Since morality is such a fuzzy subject and virtually impossible to debate with any objectivity, I will focus on what has become the standard “proof” vegans use to show they are the righteous ones. They have latched on to the popularity of the eco movement and are trying to claim that veganism is better for the environment than omnivorism. They claim that meat creates more pollution, uses more energy, and wastes more resources than a meat-free diet does.
This is absolute bunk. First of all, grains and vegetables are woefully lacking in important nutrients. Essential fats are missing. Protein is in short supply. And vitamins are scarce. You have to eat a broad range of non-meat products to get the same level of nutrition you can get by eating meat. This is important to note because every vegetable you eat is grown in a separate field. The more types of vegetables you need, the more fields we need to grow those vegetables. Vegans like to claim that forests are razed to make room for cow pastures. But they conveniently ignore that those same forests, more even, would have to be razed to make room for the fields of rutabagas it would take to feed everyone. So they can't claim cows are more damaging because they remove forests. Unless they are going to produce the added veggies by magical means that require no fields.
But they don't stop with the fallacious claim of wasted land. They also insist cows waste water. Because, apparently, you don't have to water crops. This link shows the sort of outright lies these folks will resort to in order to “prove” their point.
According to the author of that article, it takes twelve thousand gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef. If you are curious, a typical cow produces somewhere in excess of 500 pounds of beef. So the author of that article is telling you it takes six million gallons of water to raise a cow for slaughter. I have raised cows. I have filled the water trough. I have never seen a cow drink nearly that much water. But just for kicks, let's do some math.
There are approximately 98 million cows just in the United States. If each of them needed 6 million gallons of water that means the entire US cattle population would consume 588 TRILLION gallons of water. That's 588 with twelve zeroes behind it. To help visualize that, there are 1,101,117,147,428 gallons in a cubic mile. That means cows in the US consume 534 cubic miles of water. Still not getting the scale? That is just under ten percent of the volume of the Great Lakes. And that is just the US cattle. China has over 130 million cattle. That still leaves Europe, Africa, South America, Canada, India, Russia.... By the time you add up all these cattle, where does the water come from to support them?
In reality, cows don't use nearly that much water. A typical cow drinks twenty-five to fifty gallons a day. Assuming you raise the cow for two years before slaughter, that means the cow will have drank, at most, 36,500 gallons of water in it's entire life. Or about seventy-three gallons per pound of beef. That's a far cry from the twelve thousand gallons claimed in the above article. Not to mention the fact that every single drop of water consumed in the production of beef is recycled. It is either excreted by the cow, exhaled as vapor in the cow's breath, or consumed by you as that succulent juice in the steak. Water does not disappear. So even if their figures were close to accurate the whole idea would still be a red herring.
But they will tell you it isn't just about what the cow drinks. The other 11,927 gallons per pound of beef are the result of the process of raising cows. Anti-meat types love to claim meat requires much more resources to produce. Shall we compare?
This is how you prepare a field to grow crops. This is how you prepare a field to grow cattle. Is there any question which method is using more resources and producing more pollution? But we're not done yet.
This is how you plant a field of crops. This is how you plant a cow. Again, the difference in the amount of labor and resources is self-evident.
This is how you fertilize a field of crops. This is how you fertilize a cow pasture. The difference in the level of technology is once again self-evident.
This is how you pesticide a field of crops. That doesn't have an analog in the world of livestock. More resources consumed by crops that would not be used by livestock.
This is how you harvest grain. The grain is then hauled to a silo and stored until it is ready to be reloaded and hauled to a processing facility. This is how you harvest cattle. Again, which process involves the least effort and mechanization? Not to mention how much grain gets wasted in the harvesting process.
I challenge anybody to explain to me how all that machinery using all that fuel and producing all that pollution to plant and harvest vegetables can possibly be more eco-friendly than this.
As blunt as I can be, it's pure bullshit. Grains and vegetables have to be grown on big factory farms. There is no other way to grow enough to feed people. They have to use pesticides and fertilizers to make sure they harvest enough to feed everybody. It is unavoidable. Organic methods will not produce enough food on the available land to sustain the population.
And none of this factors in the wastefulness of grains and vegetables. If you pay close attention towards the end of that video on harvesting corn you will see a great deal of corn being dumped over the side of the truck. That may be an unusual occurance to lose that amount. But some is lost every single time a truck is loaded. More is lost in the processing. Since grains and vegetables have a finite shelf-life they have to be treated with more chemicals to keep them from rotting before you buy them. Even so, grocers routinely have to throw away products that have expired. The amount of waste with grains and vegetables is very high compared to meat. Meat can be kept fresh, alive even, until the day you eat it.
Meat, on the other hand, requires very little machinery to grow. It requires no chemicals. Yes, I realize factory farms are the current practice in meat production as well. But meat doesn't require that technique. You can grow cows, pigs, chickens, whatever in small numbers quite economically. I have personally seen chickens being grown in a coop just twelve miles from Manhattan. And wild game is still plentiful for those who wish to harvest it. You can't get food with less expenditure of resources than that.
And meat can be grown in areas where edible crops cannot be grown. Much of Wyoming does not get enough rainfall to support corn or wheat. But cows, sheep, and buffalo can graze on the grass that grows there. There are also areas which are too hilly to allow for fields to be planted and harvested. But, again, livestock can easily graze on the wild grass that grows there. You can't plant corn on a lake; you can harvest the fish that grow in that lake.
I am not trying to convert anybody. How you choose to live your life is your business. But do not come at me with your nonsense in the attempt to convert me to your ways. Live and let live. I'm not bothering you, don't bother me. And definitely don't try to make me out as morally inferior when all the evidence shows that my lifestyle leaves less of a footprint than yours. Eat all the veggies you want. Just shut up and let me enjoy my steak in peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)