This originally was planned to be part of my revisited TVP prepping & marinating article. However to maintain readability I feel compelled to split them as another feature write up in
two three parts.
No, this article is not a repeat viral sharing of the surrounding “dangers” of veganism nor is it for spreading gluten-fuelled mock meats alarmist scare-ware. Nor is it an attempt at extrapolating fears out of Soylent Green.
…And neither that this article was “emotionally” vested or influenced; evidently from the viral campaigns we see today.
We get it. I get it. I have indeed watched Food,inc, and that made me question everything.
This article is to simply implore my positioning of neutrality; from a bird’s eye view. Hence, I assert that everyone read through this, top to bottom irrespective of their pre-conceived notions or expectations. Hopefully, you can draw your own conclusion besides my own – that is –
Leave everyone alone. That’s it. close this browser window. Get on with your own lives.
Oh wait, many people still want “more” explanation. They won’t rest until they “fight the good fight”.
Very well, let’s begin with the meat of my argument. “Them” versus “Me.”. We’ll see, by the end of this article if it is even worth fighting this moral fight over “food”.
“Us” against “you”.
Watch the above “debate”. Two vegans against one.
The successful outcome of all “debates” is the resulting evidences that of winners (survivor) and the losers (pending for “change”). Irrespective, a virtuous notion of a belief, or solution, or strategy – largely revolves around the recoordination of disordered subjectivities (Chaos) – into concise and more concise-“er” – objectivities (Order).
What seems concise thus seemed to be rationally direct. What is “rational” therefore requires it to be visually validated by whomever as direct witnesses.
Hence, the voting system. From whatever is won, achieved, and/or conquered – something “else” as a consequence becomes less desired. Less visible. Less seen. Hence Survivorship Bias.
The “losers” are simply left to redeem at themselves for change or to await coercive, subjugation. Either way, it all appeals towards only one bias. The belief, or the strategy of faith devised – by the Survivors. After all, the winner of two exact replica brains against one – needs no further rationale. Thus, it’s not “us” or “our’s” fault to blame for any persisting frictions between contrasting conviction/s. To “their’s” eyes – it’s the individuals’ “me” or “you” – who seemingly remains as the “problem” in queued one day to be coerced into this objectified – Order.
I’d like to offer this analogy. My very own career.
I make chaotic things simply look (politically) “good” – through all sorts of visual recoordination from disordered origins.
I design everything based on usability. Despite chaotic stresses in my process – I helped imbue all things naive – with some semblance and hint towards Utility and Functionality. Via design element arrangements. Sizing hierachy. Typographical hierachy, line, texture, contrast, colour/hue brightness levels to differentiate depth and perspective. Then once again – recoordinating it all via the grid systems, golden sections, and rule of thirds. You get the “picture”.
More times pragmatically towards pedestrian conformities. However overtime as a consequence my works become more biased and increasingly more industrially homogenous. Yet seldom / lesser towards – expressions of care-free – “freedom”.
Reconciling back from my (back then) Typography lecturer – “Graphic Design is useless if you don’t know how to advertise.”
Indeed, years since I’ve graduated to the day of me writing this – I fully agree to this sentiment. Human beings like order. I don’t like chaos. Because it is difficult to recognise any “usefulness” out of disordered entropy. I like things separated. But for as long they’re left in peace. In their own individualised contexts.
What I do not understand thus, is that of our commanding and crusading from not acknowledging / not accounting the un-survived, the un-seen, or the un-experienced – as evidently moral “confidence” through the lens of just one eye, just one’s conviction against another. Or against few. Or dozens of each their own individualised biological interpretation of this “confidence”.
…Or up to the case of millions. In this case – against all citizens abode our entire planet.
One belief against
We’re nearing 7.75 billion. Yup, nearing figure eight – billion individualised interpretations – for someone else to Coerce and Sort into “better” Order.
Suppose now we’re approaching at a breaking point – for contemplating to legislate everyone in divisive “class” morality warfare. Imagine each individual’s access and rights to living are, bound by these new law/s – confounded and Structured by simply – their way and belief of eating.
Think mass segregation. If a vegetarian wishes to invest in a property he/she shall not invest in a home or property if their building aren’t sanctified or blessed, or built by vegetarian builders and/or employees pertaining towards cruelty-free charter. If meat eaters wishes to file an insurance claim he/she shall be denied – if events pertaining within each claim of damage or predicament involves moral damage to the ethical beliefs or codex of cruelty-free living.
Possible? Maybe. We already have a city fully politicised by veganism. I am indeed moved, Morally speaking.
Impossible? In my own helpless conviction – all the more Realistic.
Why? I call it a futile effort no more differently than establishing yet another Religion.
Similar likewise if anyone telling me to design something “pretty” or simply “make it pop“.
In today’s pedestrian space of linear conformities and linear expectations – no one can hear my screams out of utter frustration; to have witnessed so many unable to elaborate individually their own interpretation behind what each of those sentimalist words mean. To them. To them only.
That ladies and gentlemen, marks my first argument why any food”-ism” to ever dare politically contain all variables of chaos, (which is likely the inevitable vision of veganism) – presents itself a contradiction, an ironic challenge for yet not acknowledging complexity behind every said pursuits towards “simplicity”.
Ecological Martyrdom & Bandwagon Bias.
Okay this brings (some of us) to war like state.
I can hear the screams (the keyboard-totting, SJW pitchforks). But those screams are still amongst the living. Thus emotively concerns only the living.
What about those amongst the dead? In the context of Veganism, Death, indeed is a victimhood attachment, an emotive appraisal to weaponise guilt against the perpetrators above everything else. This involves as a result – platforming the well being and treatments of both flora and fauna – all on a pedestal. The chickens. The grass. The eggs. The cattle. After all the old saying goes “blame the perpetrators, not the victim”.
….Once again, a virtuous nobility indeed. I am in”deed” sold. Alas also I feel guilty and remorseful at the same time to have been granted “life” in the first place. Knowing that my identity is already (involuntarily speaking) am such another perpetrator to the ecosystem.
What or how does the Realist Nature has to say of all this? Nature has no recognitions of “guilt” nor “perpetrators”. Whether flexitarian”ism” or vegan”ism” – I’d wager we should all remain admissive that in one way or another – we belong back to the Earth till our end of days. The grass the cow eats were in just as much pain as the prey being overwhelmed by the lion. Perhaps I’d think twice from cooking that spinach; even if that offers me a more favourable macronutrient.
Everything, I’d dare say thus, sadly – is an impending Ecological Martyrdom. Everything – involves “pain” for the sustenance of something else. That includes both flora and fauna.
….That is the inevitable process of “dying” for the Nature’s next claimant/s of forces – be it the sun, soil, and earth – to continue each of their deserved process of Nihilism.
I am saying “deserved” because there is no definition of “will” in nature. “it” is just “is”. So do we all need to congregate and band-up together against all infidels regardless of “what” they eat? No. Again, quite a silly prospect if you ask me.
If I die being a vegan, then I die being a vegan. If I die being a meat eater, then I die as a meat eater. Inbetween? then I am an inbetween. What has been me remains – as me.
If, somehow persisted beyond life as a ghost – I’d implore others to stop “warring” or “worrying” over each other. Rather – explore Authentically everything that is “you” for you.
Hence, why I use the word “futile” in my conviction against the above seemingly near future, pending mass segregation hypothesis – were it ever to happen in my lifetime. And why the word “Religion” was there. It makes not an iota of difference to the above processes and cycles of “Nature”; if I’m born Christian yet die a Buddhist, Satanist, Atheist, Muslim, Mormon, or Seventh-Day Adventist. Sun and the moon still revolves as they are. All those labels are just political subservience. Not self-authentic subservience. I die for finding what is me for me. Not based from others’ coercive labelling of me.
So, do I think us humans, militantly subscribed to any idea-“lisms” – have a “right” to say in re-organising how the food chain works? How Nature works?
I think not.
…Because Nature recognises no “-ism”. Nor does it advocates humanely “correct” morality.
“Nature” is elusively – many forms of dictatorship. It doesn’t “prefer” anything except its own accords through effects, responses and repercussions. I’d wager just as I wrote previously – that such forms are both Contextual and Cyclical.
Morality VS Reality
“Morality” is often an influence (or affluence) one looks up to almost anything in regards to Veganism. Purity, nobility and preservation. Indeed these are VERY ideal outcomes. But again only for solely respecting “Morality”.
This is sadly – a wishful, speculation that everything is malleable as accordingly to his or her own free “will”.
“Morality” has no value until recognised as an influence – by more than one believed or coerced – entity. “Influence” after all expects linear conformity upon another being, and another, so on and so forth – doesn’t it? An influence, therefore – until imposed upon others – then becomes politics. Politics thus is nothing but mere policed ideology.
“Reality” on the other hand – has no interpretation of “wills”. For each and every outcome of reality – rely upon Primal Admissions and instincts served as its witnesses. Us.
Consider the word “Predator“.
Deconstruct it. Explore every one of its connected definitions and how closely it resembles to “Time”. Time after all “Predates” one thing before – everything else leading to life, the earth, any organic “matter” – their current objectivist manifestations.
Inevitably we can all hope to agree one thing. Something has died or being predated before it – for something else – to progress.
See if nature possess any “Morality”, or recognises binary or conscious expressions of “Respect”, or “harmless” from all forces of geology and astronomy.
…Natural disasters, meteor strikes, solar flares, earthquakes, tectonic plates movements, volcanoes, thunderstorms. Or Cycles between day or night. Moments of cellular oxidations, growth, decline and decomposition.
Is it nature’s “morality” at fault therefore – being the sole cause of our deaths in the above ensuing events? No. It just speaks on its own accord. “English Literature” on the other hand – sentimentalises everything.
Here is an underlying message so often ignored – almost (interestingly) and consistently – nothing in “Nature” seems objectively desired to be eaten. Or to be consumed. If the grass sits happily growing (“growing” – assumes that it NEEDS to be left as is to thus “succeed” in growing, on its own accord), resting atop on its own soil – yet then it is involuntarily chewed out by the cows……then…..to “whom” or “what” should I then shift my guilt towards rationalising my physiological homeostasis?
There is after all the old saying of thermodynamics – “Energy cannot be destroyed, it is remanifested as something else”. Eating grass purportedly impart a belief that all fibres are harmless to the human gut. Yet alone, every plant has anti-nutrients; from Lectins, Thyroid inhibitors, etc – always at ready to wreak havoc against all warm blooded with a pulse. Yet also on the same token it is a precursor to valuable short chain fatty acids and (you guessed it) – gut microbiome homeostasis. Why is it that fibres are so compellingly useful in some circumstances? Yet not for others?
What about plants who are by their inherent nature – carnivorous and extremely deadly to organic beings? Can we speak on behalf of their’s “morality” therefore as to why they are such and such – dangerous to mammals? Can we thus say to these plants – “not to eat this and that?” All we’d get is a blank stare.
Now what if we’re facing a lion? A Great White Shark? Or a Vulture? “Morality” instantly goes out the window.
And…I save the best question for last,
What or how can we explain why there are ex-vegans?
Is there a “moral” explanation why there are are ex-vegans? I don’t know. I don’t speak for each of them. I do not own their contexts. They know what’s best and importantly “enough” for them at an individualised pragmatic & primal admissions.
But one thing remains for sure – they feel in tune to how Reality imposes and effects on them each and every passing minute. They are not afraid for change to survive to become explorers.
Rather than statistical followers.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
So therefore, at the very least, a merit of Veganism is that of a morality march of preservative good will and nobility, at a somewhat accumulutive dire cost at neglecting the much more nuanced side effects – of reality.
<To be continued to the Part 2>