8 reasons why meat-eating anarchists need a kick up their anthropocentric arses

  • Posted on: 1 January 2015
  • By: rabble

From rabble.org.uk - By Ostracod.

1. Anarchism impoverished

Anarchism, for me, is struggle against all forms of domination. It is a beautifully simple idea that helps call into question every oppressive norm.

But our relationships of subjugation with billions of other species on the earth is one norm that few seem to take issue with; not only are other species unable to communicate their experience to us, but to question means to challenge entrenched habits and world views. If we want to be consistent in our politics, then there’s no way we can continue to ignore the impact our anthropocentricism (human-centeredness) is having on the rest of this planet.

Yet, just because most of us are implicated does not mean that we are burdened with some kind of ‘original sin’. Quite the contrary: the beauty and power of anarchism is that it pushes us all to live lives that are more just, loving, meaningful, satisfying, and collectively free. So when we talk about speciesism, far from being dismissive, we should embrace the challenge it poses, look further into the issue, and do what we can to change the miserable status quo.

2. Alienation from the land

Through civilisation and conquest, insatiable capitalist cultures have alienated most of the world’s population from the ecologies which have been our species’ life support systems throughout its existence. This in turn has desensitised us from the mass enslavement of swathes of non-human lifeforms to the service of humans and capital. Yet, since this alienation is all that many of us city-dwellers have ever known, we do not really appreciate what is being lost. If this rings true for you, then spend some quality time with other animals; look at what they do, how they interact with one another. Read about the taming of the wilderness for capitalist expansion, and learn about the key role animal agriculture plays in transforming vibrant woodland into the monocultural fields that constitute our countryside today.

3. Animals are at the bottom of the dung heap

The sheer scale, intensity, and normalisation of animal exploitation and suffering is greater than that of any of our species. If you don’t agree, (so it sort of goes), you just aren’t paying attention. Hundreds if not thousands of entire species have been enslaved to capitalism, being imprisoned, manipulated, selectively bred, experimented on, used as reproductive machines & killed for our satisfaction, profit, and entertainment.

Each year, around 1,000 million animals are farmed and killed in the UK for ‘food’, while over the same period the equivalent of 86 million chickens are thrown away uneaten. In life, the vast majority of chickens are crammed into sheds with complete disregard for their needs or desires as living creatures, before being killed at 6-7 weeks (naturally, they live for around 7 years). Selective breeding of meaty birds means they’re unable to support their own weight and spend 76%-86% of their time lying down; death from thirst or hunger comes to many. Soiled litter solidifies around their legs producing painful ulcers. In the case of egg-laying hens, the majority kept in cages, the intense stress of their short, miserable lives can lead to self-harm and cannibalism, so many have their beaks cut – without anesthetic – to reduce this risk. Whereas their wild ancestors laid 12-20 eggs per year, human enslavement has produced a modern reproductive machine that lays up to 300 eggs for our pleasure and profit annually. This is to say nothing of the dairy, pork, beef or fish-farming industries. Those animals are not going to be able to tweet about their misery (there is as yet no evidence that pigs are daft enough to while away their time on social media): go read up on it yourself.

Meanwhile, each year nearly 4 million animals in the UK alone are subjected to ‘research’ in the name of science; experiments to test new products like medicines and chemicals (cleaners, plastics, pesticides, food additives etc.), and military trials. The most prestigious UK universities continue to cage and experiment on the same animals for many years on end. These include depraved invasive experiments that physically and psychologically manipulate primates (eg. implanting electrodes into their skulls, removing parts of their brains, studying the effects of deliberately inflicted stress and pain, and so on).

On top of their uses for ‘food’ and ‘science’, there’s the breeding of pets for human pleasure (thousands of which are subsequently held in UK shelters at any one point after being taken from mostly incompetent ‘owners’), and the use of animals to make money in a host of other industries (racing, zoos, circuses etc.).

4. Defensiveness maintains domination

All systems of oppression are supported by defensive attitudes, justifications, trivialisation and denial. Sometimes these claims might be fair enough, but people more often than not simply react to feeling attacked and respond from a selfish position of self-preservation. An anarchist ethic should stem from a desire for individual and collective liberation, so I like to think that when a comrade challenges my behaviour, I put my wounded pride aside for a moment and at least give the point the consideration it deserves.

Yet time and again issues raised around speciesism are mocked, trivialised and dismissed, which is both a massive disrespect to other animals and to those comrades. Ok, so this isn’t helped by the puritannical vegans out there who guilt-trip those who eat the occasional skipped cheese sandwich, but only the laziest and least committed comrade can attribute their crap, anthropocentric attitudes to encounters with the Vegan Police.

5. Animal abuse is inseparable from patriarchy

For me, animal abuse is on the same spectrum as misogyny, homophobia, racism, and the abuse of children, the elderly or disabled. Claims that these analogies are racist/sexist/ableist only underscores the inherent speciesism of such a position, for how can we make exceptions for other sentient beings? The basic principles are there: violence perpetrated for pleasure or gain by ‘strong’ against the ‘weak’.

In one suburban family home, a woman is threatened by a male fist; somewhere in another, a pet hamster gets flushed down the loo: both are worthless rubbish in the eyes of those who wield relationships of possession over them. In the toilets of a hipster bar, a Siamese Fighting Fish lies lifeless and numb on the gravelly bottom of its barren tank; in Croydon, an Afghan refugee friend waits for years on end for word from miserly Home Office bureaucrats: both reduced to mere numbers and objects by those with money in mind.

How can anyone fail see these issues as essentially one and the same, or reject one and justify another?

In 1901, anarchist Elisée Reclus described how as a young man he struggled against almost overwhelming pressure for conformity against his vegetarian ways, “parents, official and informal educators, and doctors, not to mention that all-powerful person referred to as “everybody”, all work together to harden the character of the child in relation to this “meat on feet”…”[1]. Over a century later, the culture of meat & dairy consumption is still maintained by ridicule and social pressure. It is especially bound up in machismo (e.g. you’re a bourgeois wuss if you can’t handle a bit of liver), and marketing that exploits masculine insecurities, even though 99% of such macho posturing revolves around meat pathetically acquired from the likes of Tescos, rather than from creatures that have been hunted (see Carol J. Adams’ The Sexual Politics of Meat for an in-depth discussion on this). If you want to prove yourself an adept hunter, I can think of much better targets than wild boar.

6. Veganism isn’t a middle class ‘consumer choice’

It might sound trite, but for many ‘ethical vegans’, veganism really is a philosophy rather than just a dietary choice. Challenging how we think of animals as products and producers for our pleasure, questioning the ‘necessity’ or inevitability of animal consumption, and varying our diet beyond animal sources is just one part of that, but there are many ways to subvert our relationships with other animals – from fighting the culture of pet breeding, to carrying out acts of liberation & sabotage. In fact, a definition of veganism coined by Vegan Society co-founder Donald Watson, was the notion that animals should simply be free from exploitation and cruelty. This removes some of the emphasis on consumer choices, as favoured by green capitalists & liberals. Too often, critics hone in on hipster vegan cupcake shops or fancy fake cheeses, glibly equating all veganism with shallow ethical consumerism or a bourgeois fad. But where there appears to be a market, we can always expect some corporation to cash in on it (H&M’s recent rip-off of the Kurdish YPJ’s uniform springs to mind as an example). It’s also disingenuous to claim it’s a ‘class privilege’ to eat a plant-based diet – if anything it’s cheaper if you’re not going in for fake meat and dairy substitutes. The irony about these claims is that that the animal rights/liberation movement in the UK is significantly more working class and less dominated by academics than my experience of other major ‘single issue’ movements in the UK at present. Class-based critiques of veganism from feminists with PhDs says more about themselves and where they spend their time than anything else.

There are obviously some people who can’t avoid consuming animals because conditions make it unviable (eg. destitution, certain illnesses, migrants in transit, desert-dwelling peoples…you get the picture); the point is to do what we can because we at least reject speciesism as we should any other system of domination. Unfortunately, many of us are not even there yet.

Attempts to carve out an ethical way of life under capitalism and the state inevitability tend to feel hollow. So what’s the point of changing our individual practices now? Well, apart from the obvious problem that mass insurrection still seems a distant prospect, consistency in our ideas and our actions gives us lives worth fighting for. The existence of relationships based on love, solidarity and respect spare us from unrelenting misery of life under capitalism and compel us to attack the systems which threaten them. Without the inspiring examples of my comrades around the world, I would be tempted with total resignation. Challenging ourselves and each other to question domination in all its guises builds on that affinity and breaks down isolation. Anarchy cannot be perpetually postponed; to whatever extent possible it must be lived in the present.

If respecting non-human life is neglible “lifestylism” as some suggest, then we should see treating our partners with respect (e.g. not abusing them) in the same light. I’m under no illusions about the capacity for veganism to create revolutionary change, but that is as true as for any ‘lifestyle choices': we can’t just content ourselves with changing the way we live & treat each other – we always need to combine this with attack on the structures of power.

7. Veganism is not ‘cultural imperialism’

The basic principles underlying veganism are by no means ‘Western’ (in the sense of a product of ‘Enlightenment’ thought originating in Western Europe); if anything, as capitalist land expropriation first wreaked havoc in that part of the world, quite the opposite is true. Through a close relationship with plants and animals, often amplified by animist beliefs, many indigenous peoples maintain healthier relations with the animals around them – to the point of exaggeration and romanticised cliché. The fact that some prominent English-speaking liberals began to spout loudly about animal welfare in the 19th century does not give the ‘West’ a monopoly on respecting animal life. In fact, some of the discourses in which these were embedded (particularly, seeking a scientific rationale for animal welfare), were more problematic than the practices of indigenous peoples who engaged in hunting for their food, but never sought to enslave the animals in the first place.

There have nevertheless been some overtly racist campaigns from the charity PETA, or imperialist – and frankly ridiculous – concepts such as ‘World Week for the Abolition of Meat’. But just as the existence of liberal feminist charities makes few of us dismiss feminism altogether, this is hardly basis for claims that veganism is inherently ‘Western’ or imperialist. Such an attitude is also patronising and dismissive of the many people and cultures that avoid meat and dairy for spiritual and ethical reasons, either for most of the year or altogether.

Lastly, animal farming goes hand in hand with the continued dispossesion of people from the land. It requires huge quantities of land for production of animal food; this true for both the ‘free range’ animals grazing on pastures and for those eating feed in dark animal factories. By contrast, significantly more people can be sustained on a given piece of land on a plant-based diet than on livestock, which is also far more water intensive. Land grabs from cattle ranching in South America have been a major driver of landlessness of the poor and of destruction of indigenous peoples’ lands and cultures. Arable land is both scarce and poorly distributed; we need to make major changes in our relationships with it if we are to cope with massive population rises whilst resisting unethical practices such as the expansion of human sterilisation programmes or major incursions into what pockets of wilderness remain.

8. Carnivorous appetites mean ecocide

Animal agriculture means habitat loss for wild animals and the precipitation of climate change. The world’s forests, for example, have roughly halved in the past 30 years [2]. Animal agriculture has been a major driver of this, especially in regions like the Amazon, which is both the source of rich biodiversity and approximately 20% of the world’s oxygen output. As anarchists we need to stop supporting the breeding of other living beings and the reproduction of destructive relations with the land – not just as an end in itself, but as one tactic among many in the fight against the immiseration of the earth.

In a world beyond capitalism, neither animal agriculture nor hunting are going to be viable means of survival on a wide scale. The continued breeding and rearing of animals, ethical implications aside, will be unfeasible for many communities due to the intense land and water requirements that it entails. The romantic hunter fantasy of the millenarian primitivists, more ethical on the surface, harks back to an era when the land was carpeted with verdant forests and human was at one with beast. Unfortunately, the post-industrial landscape we are going to be left with is likely to be very different to the forests and steppes we roamed prior to the growth of civilisation. What little wildlife remains will be relegated to the margins and no doubt threatened with extinction by human hunters. Although hunting skills may be useful for individuals in emergencies, it is not a collective solution and will ultimately be suicidal if we see it as such.



I'm about to eat meat right now. Deal with it.

Domesticated ass vegan.

Good grief, the mental gymnastics needed for vegans to claim that meat-eaters are the ones alienated from our habitats & ecologies is mind-boggling

Did you read the last paragraph or did your knee jerk up too quickly and knock you from your chair before you could get there?

Yes, I did read it, but I don't see anything there to contradict what I said in my comment. First of all, it's a bunch of assertions about what the world will certainly be like "after capitalism" which I think is a bit ridiculous and irrelevant; and second of all, the author isn't making a utilitarian argument in the earlier section about alienation from the land that I was referring to, like they are in the last paragraph (all the animals will be gone, you can't eat them, too bad)--they're making the argument (as I'm reading it) that if we were not alienated from the land--if we reconnect to it--we would be re-sensitized to animal suffering and reject meat eating and animal domestication. That's hogwash. All human cultures that I know of in the history of ever who have lived closely with the land have eaten animals, and I'm unfamiliar with many who, presented with the opportunity, have entirely rejected horticulture and animal domestication and the security it provides/labor & risk it saves.

If the author is only arguing against industrial animal agriculture, I agree with them--it's bad, and it's not something that I think most people who care about their land or the earth would go in for. But that's not an argument against meat-eating, it's an argument against capitalism, which...yeah. Anarchists.

But to say that anyone who spends time in nature and observes animal behavior will somehow conclude that eating meat is unnatural and cruel and ecologically disconnected is kind of insane. Even "exploiting" other animals for labor or resources occurs rather frequently in non-human nature--I see it regularly. Ideological veganism is FAR more ecologically alienated than opportunistic meat eating, and I stand by my comment that the mental gymnastics and logical leaps necessary to conclude otherwise are baffling.

need? ahaha fuckin moralist

Nobody cares about nihilism, go back to facebook

Do nihilist have a big Facebook presence?

nihilists love social media, selfies and everything banal. But no, nihilist presence anywhere is as unnotable as their ideology.

Yup. Have the courage to be against all forms of systemic exploitation, not just the ones that affect people you know.

Howbout I have the courage to funnel raw mechanically-separated beef into your throat?

How about we begin by striking some serious blows against oppression of our own species? Wouldn't it follow that if we can't liberate each other with any efficacy than the whole rest of the biosphere too would be a bit of a tall order?

Also kind of cute that this writer others "the puritanical vegan police" as if that isn't the viewpoint of the article. No I'm not just being defensive … you actually are those people, as evidenced by your rhetoric.

I'm not vegan and I don't buy that there's an equivalency between oppressing other humans and "oppressing" animals, but I don't buy this argument either. If you actually believe that the liberation of other animals is necessary and/or desirable, it's kind of crap to say, "Oh, let's liberate ourselves first and then worry about it after, otherwise it's too hard"...I mean, we don't accept that logic anymore when it's applied to categories of people, like women or people of color or queers or whatever; I think most anarchists, even the ones who hate identity politics, still think that arbitrarily oppressing people for whatever reason is bad and shouldn't just be allowed to slide

But you started off by saying it's not equivalent? Can't just inject intersectionality in to my analogy - "I don't see much capacity to even liberate other people" suddenly becomes, "I'm going to focus on liberating my own race/class first" … hahah, that's definitely not what I said.

Animals might very well be "equal" to humans in the grand cosmic scheme of things but part of the problem there is an implied discourse on "rights" which I don't have much time for either. Human rights are a pretty idea that doesn't ultimately mean much without coercion to enforce it and any notion of equality with animals would amount to the same thing.

I personally think the vegans are right in the sense that taboos against cannibalism are social constructs too and as a thought experiment, I wouldn't see any problem with getting your protein that way either so although I am a hypocrite, its not dietary.

Well, what I'm saying is that the argument that we should focus on liberating X group that is most like us (or is us) because that's more doable than liberating all the things is kind of suspect. If you don't think there's really any reason to "liberate" animals (like me) then it's a moot point. But you didn't reject the premise, you said that we maybe we should focus on ourselves first, because we were having a hard enough time of it already.

But if you actually do reject anthropocentrism and believe that animals should be liberated and that domination of animals is equally as bad as domination of other humans, then the argument that we should try to liberate humans first because liberating all species would be really hard is sort of lame. I mean, aside from the unfairness of it (again, if you actually think these things are equivalent, like vegans and proponents of speciesism do)--aside from that, it's actually kind of a dubious claim that focusing on one kind of domination/oppression/exploitation/whatever is actually more effective than going after all forms of domination wherever they crop up. In other words, what's to say it wouldn't actually be easier to liberate the entire biosphere (if that's a thing you want to do) than to liberate one species (us humans) while leaving the relations of domination/control/commodification/ownership in place between us and other species?

In that case, I think the intersectionality analogy is fair. I mean, I don't buy intersectionality in the way it's usually presented and I think their class analysis is anemic to the point of death as well as just being fundamentally wrongheaded, but one thing I actually agree with them on is that trying to remove one form of domination while carefully leaving all the others in place around it, like extracting shitty Jenga blocks from the teetering construct of society as we know it, is futile and actually more difficult than just rejecting all domination whatsoever (knocking over the Jenga block tower, I guess, to torture my simile further).

BTW I definitely did NOT think you were yourself extending the argument to groups of people (liberate your own race/class/whatever first), I figured you didn't think that way--which was what I was trying to point out by going there, that if there's no difference between people and animals, then there's no difference between "liberate people like me first" and "liberate people first" so it's an argument that doesn't hold water if you accept the premise of speciesism & the invalidity of anthropocentrism.

Also agree w/ you that cannibalism taboos etc. (or just taboos against eating animals we like, like dogs/cats/horses in the US) are social constructs and don't carry any actual weight. Although honestly I do have a problem with deliberately killing people to eat them, in a way I don't with animals.

I don't know how to respond to your point about "rights" because I sort of agree with you but sort of don't, and I don't have anything coherent to say about it, really. I agree that rights are usually (maybe inherently) things that require force to maintain and are the product of a whole system of problematic thought, but at the same time I do feel like I have a "right" not to be killed and eaten, or caged, or raped or whatever that derives from more than just my ability to defend myself--I hate to even use the word "moral" on this website, but I do feel like it's morally wrong to kill/rape/imprison/etc. other people, and I would feel as if some fundamental injustice had occurred, some fundamental right infringed upon if I were arbitrarily killed/raped/imprisoned, but I can't articulate a sound philosophical or intellectual justification for it.

That's plenty thoughtful … although you seem fixated on this idea of liberation being applied equally to everything, even as you admit you don't personally see it that way. Seems a bit strange only because historically, liberation hasn't been suddenly applied magically to everyone/thing but has developed mostly through struggle/violence and to a lesser extent; privilege, rights and morality of specific groups who had the strength/resources to liberate themselves.

Perhaps that's the problem here? The process is under-examined? Opinions don't mean much unless you're overly accustomed to bullshit ideas about democracy or you spend too much time arguing abstractions online. Everyone has opinions and they aren't what does the liberating. That's why narratives of inherent rights (human or otherwise) are dismissed as "liberal discourse" because they're never applied equally to all.

As for my theoretical cannibalism, I'd only eat the flesh of my enemies, don't worry ;)

"you seem fixated on this idea of liberation being applied equally to everything, even as you admit you don't personally see it that way."

That's the way most of the vegans I know see it, so I was trying to go with it from their point of view. I mean, I can't really refute the whole idea of speciesism/anthropocentrism except on really gut-feeling, circular grounds (animals are less important than humans because they lack qualities unique to humans...um, no, wait...a pig being imprisoned isn't as bad as a person being imprisoned because they don't experience it the way people do...shit) So while I FEEL strongly that it's bullshit to equate the two, I can't really justify it to myself, so sometimes I try to follow the train of logic that would ensue if I just accepted the premise of speciesism and the idea of animal equality (or however you want to phrase it--"animal equality" is badly put and sounds like some kind of farcical political slogan, but you know what I mean)

"liberation hasn't been suddenly applied magically to everyone/thing but has developed mostly through struggle/violence and to a lesser extent; privilege, rights and morality of specific groups who had the strength/resources to liberate themselves."

True. Which is sort of a problem with animal "liberation", I think--animals can't really liberate themselves, so it's inherently a sort of messianic/charitable kind of thing--us liberating them for their own good. Which speaks to my gut feeling that their lack of human capacities somehow makes them less important, at least within the framework of "liberation" and/or the whole anarchist project--not necessarily, IDK, metaphysically or biologically/ecologically less valuable. But again, that seems really circular--"they're not as important as people because they can't do what people do (and liberate themselves)" is no more sensible than saying I'm not as important as a cow because I can't do what cows do, as far as I can see. But I guess maybe you COULD still say that "liberation" only applies to groups that can liberate themselves, and thus not to (non-human) animals.

"Opinions don't mean much unless you're overly accustomed to bullshit ideas about democracy or you spend too much time arguing abstractions online."

god knows I'm guilty

heheheh I like you. You're alright.

Thanks! I like you too. Appreciate the discussion

White privilege in the house. Some of us eat what we get at the food bank and out the dumpster and nowhere else. H
Hard to be picky when youre dying of hunger, but thats something you wouldnt have any meaningful experience of. People dyin out here n youd rather us starve.

Also i challenge you to construct a consistent argument for consumer choices having moral content. Then you could explain why that moral content should have any influence on the actions of an anarchist individual. Good luck

They did cover that towards the end of the article although I agree with you

Please actually take the time to read the article that someone has bothered to put together rather than just jumping to your keyboard (or making unwarranted assumptions about the author).


"It’s also disingenuous to claim it’s a ‘class privilege’ to eat a plant-based diet – if anything it’s cheaper if you’re not going in for fake meat and dairy substitutes. The irony about these claims is that that the animal rights/liberation movement in the UK is significantly more working class and less dominated by academics than my experience of other major ‘single issue’ movements in the UK at present. Class-based critiques of veganism from feminists with PhDs says more about themselves and where they spend their time than anything else.

There are obviously some people who can’t avoid consuming animals because conditions make it unviable (eg. destitution, certain illnesses, migrants in transit, desert-dwelling peoples…you get the picture); the point is to do what we can because we at least reject speciesism as we should any other system of domination. Unfortunately, many of us are not even there yet."

It's still just ethical consumerism though … boycott tactics. Shitty praxis IMHO unless the goal is to soothe your conscience.

What about if you live in a self-sufficient community? Presumably you are going to have make decisions about how you feed yourselves, how you farm the land, whether your raise animals etc. Maybe veganism is more than just boycott tactics.

Sure, I have those friends too. They live alongside other homesteaders and get in to huge arguments with comrades who raise livestock for meat and it's a much more interesting discourse because it's all done with their own hands, you know?

As opposed to the groceries stores and industrialized agriculture which muddies the waters a lot I think.

Now listen, for someone who still didn't find the proper self-sufficient community because mainly it's run by privileged White liberals in my region, I'd say it's still is a good idea FOR WHOEVER CAN AFFORD IT, and an anarchist priority too.

Though any autonomous commune based on permaculture will NOT make this industrial system fall, and it's more likely that this system will tear this community apart on the long run or unleash its cops and control freaks against it.

Of the non argument pertaining to class and veganism. I've been on and off welfare for 10 years and 5 of those were as a vegan....I'm no longer one, but not because of my care for economics or faulty reasoning about his mystified 'working class'.

My own father spent the first 8 years of his life a vegan not by choice because of poverty, so no one will ever be able to convince me of the validity of that non argument.

Nevertheless, the anon in between is also right about inferring the liberal nature of the charity case syndrome.

Good for you, i am glad you could get welFare. Some of us are felons tho, so check your privilege. Some of us are clearly targeted by racist institutions that make sure we see higher rates of felony convictions. Its a real thing.

I've been in and out of prison. So fuck off with that guilt tripping. Just cause someone doesn't want to eat meat doesn't mean shit . Privilege theory is nonsense.

doing a 12 year bid now living off noodles?

and martinis, stirred not shaken.

Even so, the author makes the effort to essentially call meat eating anarchists shitty folk. Just because there is a brief mention of circumstances "justifying" meat eating doesnt make it cool to have the rest of the article saturated in classist analysis. In fact the author does more of a disservice to themselves by bringing it up at all because it highlights the ridiculous irony in this kind of discourse.

Eating vegan is cheaper if you get all your food from a grocery store like a good little suburbanite.

Hunting and raising animals (chickens for eggs and compost to be used to grow more food) is easily the cheapest option for many of us and depending on the bio region eating animal meat might be one of the only options for food outside of capitalist distribution which requires a great deal of fossil fuels and more.

Go preach at an Inuit. I'm sure they'll be happy to laugh at you.

"Hunting and raising animals (chickens for eggs and compost to be used to grow more food) is easily the cheapest option for many of us and depending on the bio region eating animal meat might be one of the only options for food outside of capitalist distribution which requires a great deal of fossil fuels and more."


Identity politics knee jerk in the house.

Also, the author was arguing for prefiguration broadly speaking, not ethical consumerism as an ends in itself. Christ, when anti-speciesism enters into discussions the level of comprehension really does drop pretty dramatically!

Probably because anti-speciesism is incomprehensible bullshit like morality or Christianity.

Well done, you've rebelled against Christian morality -- but your anarchist politics are somewhat superficial if you think it ends there.

Out of all the dubious arguments in this essay, this one seems the weakest to me. Talk about "ethics" for hunting or agriculture to sustain the world population at it's current rate of growth is always going to be dishonest. You simply can't feed this many people without massively altering and damaging the biosphere and it doesn't have much to do with whether or not you eat meat. There's just way too many fucking people, full stop. I mean, I'm talking broadly about a pretty complicated metric so I could be proved wrong by … maybe a technological leap or something but I highly doubt it.

You are correct. There is as much reason to quit eating wheat/corn/soy/all the other domesticated plants as there is reason to quit eating meat.

There is NOT "as much reason" to quit eating domesticated plants as there is to quit eating meat. Livestock requires a considerable amount of agriculture to feed them. I'm unsure about the exact metrics, but a (non-hunting) meat-based diet requires about 10 times as much _agriculture_ as a plant-based diet. This is the primary cause of Amazon rainforest deforestation.

Everyone suddenly starting to hunt would quickly depopulate all game species, so this isn't a viable option either.

You have a semi-valid point, but I'd point out a few caveats: 1) even among non-hunted, domesticated meat animals, it's possible to raise them without feeding them grains or other crops (grass-fed/pastured meat). This is mostly true of ruminants like cows, bison, sheep, goats, etc. 2) often the land best suited to pasturing these ruminants is ill-suited to plant agriculture (hilly or dry lands, for example, so there's not necessarily any loss of agricultural capacity or efficiency involved in substituting animals for plants 3) many animals can, on a small scale, be raised mostly/entirely on household and agricultural waste (pigs and chickens come to mind, as well as insects, which most people turn their noses up at, but which I eat--for instance, we raise black soldier fly grubs and red worms as a way to process household waste and as a protein feed for our chickens, and sometimes we grind them into "flour" and cook with them 4) some animals convert feed much more efficiently than others, so it depends on what kinds of animals you eat and how they're fed 5) water is another issue--if you factor in water to grow grains to feed animals, then animals are very inefficient, but when you're working on a small scale it's actually often much more efficient in drylands to raise animals, so long as they're pastured--they will find their own water sources and drink it, whereas crops almost inevitably need irrigation, which requires a lot of waste and, more importantly in my eyes, infrastructure & machinery or LOTS of labor in hot dry lands

In some cases there's actually MORE reason to stop eating grains than to stop eating animals, in ecological terms, but broadly speaking industrial animal agriculture is certainly a disaster and more careful consideration of what types and quantities of food can be grown in any given area should certainly be more of a priority than it is (plant or animal, annual or perennial, thirsty or drought-resistant, etc.). This would probably mean less animal products for many people in the US

Your caveats are mostly based on a pretty thoroughly discredited analysis of the impact of grass-fed/pastured meat though, and you're also using a chalk and cheese comparison by implying that industrial monocropping is the only alternative. I know the writings of Fairlie, Keith, Pollan and so on are appealing to people who want to defend their animal product consumption, but the research really doesn't come out on the side of the ideal practices you're defending. I'll leave you to read up on it.

No. What I'm saying has not been "discredited," because it's common fucking sense and totally obvious, it's not some ideological argument or, IDK, cult of personality around famous food writers or whatever (none of which I've actually read, so can't comment)

Point by point:

1) ruminants can flat-out be raised on pasture without supplemental feed, there is no argument here. I do it, lots of people do it, ruminants did it themselves before we came along. They eat grass; this is their natural feed. (There are some exceptions for overbred dairy cattle, for instance, that can have trouble getting sufficient nutrition without supplements because they produce so heavily.)

2) some land is obviously poorly suited to annual plant agriculture; anything with steep slopes will experience erosion when you plow it and you will lose your topsoil. game over. Not to mention that it's hard to use any kind of machinery like plows on uneven land, and irrigation is difficult too. This is why those marginal lands have been used for animals forever, because trying to grow plants on them is a pain in the ass, and why fertile, flat land has always been preferred for plants.

3) I do in fact raise animals and have friends who raise animals entirely on household scraps and scraps produced by my other farming endeavors (wormy or otherwise inedible fruit, reject vegetables, etc. This is normal, and was how pigs have traditionally been fed forever, so there's nothing controversial here

4) there's nothing to argue with here, there's plenty of documentation that some animals will grow more pounds of meat per pound of feed than other animals, so the efficiency of a diet including meat varies depending on which animals you eat (chickens and fish versus lots of red meat, for instance) and on how the animals were fed (raised on corn vs. raised on grass, or raised on purchased feed versus raised on scraps--this is pretty obvious).

5) do you disagree that animals that eat native pasture and drink water directly are less water-intensive than animals that eat lots of grain that has been irrigated constantly? I mean, I think that's fairly obvious.

You make a fair point that I'm comparing the best meat-eating practices to the worst plant-based-eating practices. That's mostly because eating a grain-based diet is usually the benchmark that vegans use (and eat), but let's say we're doing our best to eat a sustainable vegan diet, and we're avoiding any sort of plowing or annual plants. That's more or less what I do on my place, since I'm a permaculturist. So we have tree crops (nuts and fruits), berries, a handful of perennial vegetables (there aren't many) and perennial greens, etc. Unfortunately, we're still left with the problems of irrigation and labor, which are the things I run up against most on my place. Even trees need regular irrigation here in the summer until they're quite old (I'd say about seven years--some of them forever, but not most). That requires either major earthworks (such as swales or keyline plowing) or regular, arduous labor, or industrial products such as piping, pumps, fuel, etc. It is far more efficient in terms of labor and water to use part of my land for animals. The steep dry slopes do well with cattle, and the quality of our soil is actually increasing year by year where we have animals (it's deeper, the nutrient levels are better and more balanced, its organic matter is increasing). To grow plants there we'd have to walk dozens of miles up and down hills multiple times per week carrying hundreds of buckets of water to grow vegetables or establish trees--not gonna happen. I can just put cows out there and they will go drink out of the gravel pits on their own, and once a year I can butcher them. Same with the chickens--they cut down a lot on the labor needed for our vegetable garden (they eat insects, fertilize the ground for us, keep weeds down by eating their seeds and breaking the germination cycle, and prepare new ground by scratching it when we want to plant something) and they live entirely off of scraps, worms we raise on scraps, and what they can forage for themselves from undeveloped land (scrub, weed fields, forest, etc.) Eggs provide nutrients that are otherwise relatively hard to acquire throughout the year from a plant based diet (fat, protein, B12, omega-3 fatty acids), we get them for negative labor (the chickens save labor), and we devote zero productive resources to them (they are fed nothing but waste and what they can glean from unproductive land). They drink out of puddles and old buckets that fill up with rain.

Anyway, my point stands--whether or not animals will make production from a given piece of land more or less productive or more or less efficient or more or less ecologically sound will depend on the land, the types of animals, the types of plants, etc. but a plant-based diet is certainly not categorically more efficient or environmentally friendly than one that includes meat, and often even the most idealized vegan diet that can be produced from a given piece of land or region will be inferior in ecological, nutritional, and labor terms than one that includes meat and animal labor to produce--typically a modest amount of meat, and not necessarily of the sort that people would prefer, however

I think the person you were arguing with isn't going to move, they've bought in to the line that equates the evils of McDonalds rainforest cattle operations as THE metric for livestock, which is fucking ridiculous. It's a convenient argument for someone who's actually just an idealist purist vegan and whatever, good for them.

But of course, the efficiency of huge industrial livestock operations isn't the argument you should be hurling at other anarchists who raise their own meat on little homesteads like people have done for millennia. Folks like yourself are the only ones talking any sense in these kinds of debates.

I was the one who brought up the issue about rainforest cattle operations, though I'm not vegan so not sure how I could be an idealist purist vegan.

I didn't reply to the reply. The reply to my comment was a pretty decent one though, with some caveats of course, which have mostly been mentioned by others: 1) homesteading doesn't seem like it poses much of a threat to capitalism (not sure if it's any better against big agriculture than ethical consumerism).
2) getting to homestead seems like a fairytale to me and probably to a large number of people, not to mention the whole land-ownership thing.

I am the person commenting at hideous length above who raises my own food & I also want to note that I definitely don't think that homesteading alone poses much threat to capitalism at all, especially since I do it within the confines of typical landownership, property rights, etc. (I pay property taxes, I inherited my land, my family is wealthy and the property is substantial etc.--I'm horrible basically) I do it mostly because I like it and because it suits my circumstances (I take care of my aging, sick father at home, I don't work except on the property, and I'm not currently willing to flirt with arrest because my dad relies on me and because honestly I like my life and don't want to screw it up, so I comply with authority to the degree that it takes to make them leave me alone--which, being a rich white person out in the country with tax advantages I don't have to do much, so I can tolerate it) and it allows me some slight degree of freedom to live in community & take care of myself outside the strictures of capitalism (not much, though). My argument was aimed at addressing the ecological aspect of the typical vegan argument. I don't think lifestyle homesteading poses much if any more risk to capitalism than lifestyle veganism, although obviously without capitalism people still do need to have some degree of skill and base in place to feed themselves, so in that sense it's a bit more useful than consumer-choice lifestyles like veganism, I think, but that's about it. Obviously very few anarchists (at least in the US, not as familiar with other countries) will be able to get their hands on land, and squatted or illegally seized land is usually held too precariously to really work as a base for subsistence long term. Clearly as a model for actual, effective anarchist resistance, my way of doing things is hopeless--I mean, I'm riddled with compromise and compliance, as mentioned above, and almost no one has the means to do what I do anyway.

But all of that said, a handful of people with a modest land base who grow food and raise animals for themselves and/or with a modest surplus was/is obviously the closest thing to sustainability that our species has ever achieved and blurred with the hunter/gatherer lifestyle for millennia. Comparing it to industrial agriculture doesn't justify ethical veganism and seems so shitty as an analogy that I would tend to assume it was an ideological perspective.

Vegan polemics guaranteed to get well-fed smug and affluent commenters all fired up! The usual predictable and boring dialogues rife with liberal spawned statistics and vegan utopianist pipe dreams, the reality is that if you've ever gone like I have for 3 days without food all ethics dissolve, petty self-righteous privileged vegan ethical comfort-zones become voids of whining complaints as usual. Just eat it or die!

Well anonymous capitalist pig, I read 2 sentences and realized what the frikkin hell is your privileged opinion on anything that is relevant to an anarchist zone?
2/10 if you're a troll,

This _" allows me some slight degree of freedom to live in community & take care of myself outside the strictures of capitalism (not much, though)."

is irresponsible!

"Clearly as a model for actual, effective anarchist resistance, my way of doing things is hopeless--I mean, I'm riddled with compromise and compliance, as mentioned above, and almost no one has the means to do what I do anyway."

Its the compromise and compliance which permits you to do what your class has been doing for centuries by way of inheritance and lineage!

Fair enough. I mean, I guess I could sell my land (actually I can't because it's an undivided estate, but I could try to sue for division, which would alienate my entire family and make my neighbors and friends think I'm a dick--but whatever, sacrifices for the cause!) and give the money to, IDK, prison support or the local proles or whatever, get another job working for some other capitalist so that I could pay rent to some landlord somewhere and pay to put my dad in a nursing home since I wouldn't be able to take care of him anymore, and meanwhile my land could be deforested and divvied up for retirement mansions like most of the places around me. I'm flat-out not willing to do it, and I don't give a shit if that makes me a bad anarchist or a bad person. I do what I can for my friends and family and for the land itself, which is a whole lot more than I could do if I pointlessly, nobly renounced all my worldly wealth or what the fuck ever. I don't expect poor people to like me; if shit ever gets going to the point where they can come expropriate my shit, I'll be fucking thrilled, but until then I don't see the point in self-flagellation or giving up my life so I can feel less compromised. Before my dad was sick I did riskier stuff, and after he's dead maybe I will again, but seriously I can't see a single fucking effective thing that would be worth doing

if you're not, you got mindfucked by one somewhere along the line ;)

'Not sure,,,' is not being mind-fucked, its about lack of data or skepticism concerning the success of, in this case, homesteading as a viable method of closing down capitalism, which as the poster pointed out, is unlikely. So do you have a viable method of defeating capitalism,,,? Yeah, no one does, because its still in the experimental stage after the setback in the Spanish Revolution! Have you ever looked in the mirror and asked 'Why'? Take your aggression to those who dominate you!

Ermm...no. I was that person and I was arguing based on a pretty coherent understanding of the Simon Fairlie, Lierre Keith, Michael Pollan and co. position, i.e., grass-fed / permie / whatever. I obviously get the difference between industrial fucking monocropping and idyllic little homesteads. Problem is, research indicates that the latter is, in many ways, actually much worse ecologically. Now, we can discuss an ideal future where there are much fewer people and we're thus able to practice (romaticised and partly mythological) harmonious relations with the natural world, but we're not in that ideal (morally normative) future yet; a situated anarchist practice therefore looks different in the present moment to what it would given vastly different, ideal conditions.

"The sheer scale, intensity, and normalisation of animal exploitation and suffering is greater than that of any of our species."

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. It is immiserating to come to this realization and it is a hallmark of domesticity.

The problem lies in the belief that veganism somehow affects this in a way that it purports to. The networks and grids of highways and electricity required in order to move packaged vegan goods from one locale to another surely whipes out countless species, no?

This doesn't mean one shouldn't work against this bullshit notion of anthropocentric superiority, but rather against domestication itself. It shouldn't be a question of not eating meat ever, it should be a question of changing the conditions to ones where beings can live according to removal from technology (and I mean in the sense of Aristotle and heidegger).

Of course, having been a vegan for 5 years, I sympathize with the sense of enlightenment and it definitely brought about a sense of consciousness in me. And typical arguments against veganism are in fact shit, as the state tends to subsidize meat and dairy in order to reinforce deterministic tropes about there existing this infinite human nature predicated on exploiting non human animals.

It's just that veganism in of itself won't solve any real material problems pertaining to non human animals...merely ideological ines pertaining to guilty individuals.

Maybe this is a derailment of the argument but I have to agree. Anything to do with "ethical choice" or boycotting is ultimately about your own conscience and not about "ending domination". That's why I have massive respect for the militancy of the ELF and ALF back in the day and the basis for the affinity I share with them. They attacked their enemies and liberated their allies and that's what I respect about them, even though many of them would hate my dietary choices.

"The sheer scale, intensity, and normalisation of animal exploitation and suffering is greater than that of any of our species."

what is they talkin about are humans not animals are all non-humans under the same conditions are all humans under the same conditions

Agreed. The entire argument is an ethical imperative that humanity should aspire toward (but not one that is to be applied to animals unless these vegans want to rail against a lion or an owl for their "choice" of food) yet us meat eaters are somehow the anthopocentrists?

Veganism is the hight of domesticated moralizing.

1.Become catlady (least 12+ cats)
2.get free catfood (dumpster or food pantry)
3."donate" their blood
(repeat steps 3-5)

In exchange for a blood donation, your pet may receive free pet food, routine physical examinations, blood work monitoring, and potentially free heartworm preventative. Each blood donor candidate is screened for numerous infectious diseases, hemoglobin levels, and metabolic screens (which averages about $700 to $1000 per donor), so this is a great way of getting "free" routine screening for your pet! In exchange, you often have to commit to having your pet donate 4-6 times a year.


What? You can get paid for blood donations? Who does that... just random animal clinics?

No shit Rogers, sounds too good to be true. Helluva way to to solve the problem of overpopulation avoiding them to be killed while making some bucks.

I've been eating some delightful high-quality meat stolen from the local luxury supermarket and got zero problem with that. As long as I'm not paying for it.

That's surely not vegan, though it's an hostile act to the animal exploitation industry, THESE ANIMALS ARE ALREADY DEAD, and I cannot put the meat back in their butchered bodies and bring them back to life. The transformed product, no matter how horrible it seems from a point-of-view, is there in the meat section of the store, and if I and other don't steal it, other people will PAY for it, the business owners will make profits with that, and both will be the ones profiting from these butcheries, not me. So attacking their profit margins IS an act against animal exploitation.

Why should we keep from eating good, nutritious meat once in a while (unless you really can't or don't want to)

Aside from that, PETA and other liberal vegans are fucking Victorian hypocrites for believing they will clamp down on such an industry by forcing small meat producers to close or by moralizing people on what not to eat. I'd like to see them close some of those huge food industry corporations who have members of their board sitting at the FDA.

The anarcho-vegans I know wouldn't have a problem with eating animal products that were attained in ways that freegans attain food.
This mentality seems to be shared by the author and is referred to regarding the dumpstered cheese sandwich in point 4.
Though I do think a lot of people who don't eat animals are put off by the idea in a similar sort of way I imagine many people are put off by the idea of eating humans.

The whole problem of endo-carnivorous (or cannibalism) Vs exo-carnivorous eating habits is something that can be found not just in humans, and I think it's a very complicated problem that leads us back the fundamental ontology of culture. Cats, as an example are very specist in their predating practices.

Yes, there is relevant comparison to make between a meat factory and a death camp, but then again what tells you that society isn't as well treating humans as cattle to send to slaughter, with the only difference that it's not That's the issue I have with militant vegans... that of sticking to one single aspect of an entire system that mechanically and systematically murders or tortures living beings of all kinds and in a way celebrates it through its shit spectacle.

That's liberalism.

The CIA torture camps and the animal experiments in labs and the countless "roadkills" are part of the same system.

You over-privileged suburbanite brat. There's a difference between appreciating something & putting it to full use & "patriarchal imperialistic domination of all things". Just look @ the tribal communities. They couldn't be further from those archetypes & they, wait for it--- EAT MEAT! They appreciate it, respect it & treat it properly. Your bone to pick is not with carnivores, but with twisted individuals & the supply/demand of the agricultural market.

Several of the arguments the author made seemed to take issue with corporate animal production- integrating animals into a permaculture system is one way to bypass several of the negative affects of corporate animal production- such as land grabs, decreasing biodiversity, putting the animal in cages, altering their bodies, using up gigantic amounts of water, ect. (I wont take the time to explain permaculture though). In fact it can often reverse these negative affects and contribute to the healthy, sustainable life of all animals involved. I know of several examples of people who are basically self sufficient.

Second, I find it odd that everyone who eats meat is guilty of contributing to capitalism's rampage against nature, specifically animals, when vegams and meat eaters alike who participate in things like living in a city, owning a computer, having a house, riding a bike, ect all displace animals, kill their population, cause non-human suffering, and so on. I could be more ethical for living in the country and diversifying the biospere around me than a vegan that bikes to a whole foods dumpster even though I eat meat which I grow myself.

Lastly- any thoughts on meats role in human evolutionary development, like meats role in increasing brain size to allow self consciousness and our thought capacity, or allowing humans to become big and strong to continue to survive? I've never heard an argument from vegans touching on the topic but that should put some historical context to eating meat and put it in a positive light, as well as securing it somewhat as a particularly important human behavior /quality (not that refusing to eat meat would make you less human though). If thats the case- is refusing to eat meat not a form of alienation from a "natural self"?

Yeah there's a big difference between having a problem with industrial meat production (which is what the author seems to focus on) and meat-eating qua meat-eating. I'm also not going to reiterate a bunch of permaculture stuff here, but I will say that one of the big advantages I see to permaculture is that it makes land that's already been appropriated for human use productive, and there's a lot of potential for not only preserving the productivity of land currently in use, but potentially even rewilding land, in a way that simply eating "lower on the food chain" (as in veganism mostly based on cheap annual grain monoculture) does not allow for. Some climates may allow for completely vegan permaculture subsistence (I think there's a new book out on it, actually, for I want to say cold temperate climates? not just the tropics) but for most people & places resources are probably best used by a mix of plants & animals--for instance, on my place I provide most meat by hunting (we have invasive hogs here that absolutely wreck not only agricultural land but also delicate riparian areas, and promote the growth of invasive native plants & the destruction of native species through the effects of their rooting in the soil). We also use chickens for super easy energy dense protein/fat production (eggs, and the occasional old hen or cockerel for the pot) as well as weeding, pest control, preparation of new ground for planting, etc. & nutrient cycling of food scraps, offal, etc. Anyway this all goes to say that my land is considerably more productive on less labor, as well as ecologically better off than it would be if I were trying to provide myself a completely vegan diet; it can support more people on less work and there is no degradation, erosion, etc--topsoil depth and soil quality are increasing, etc. etc.

If my choice were between industrial animal agriculture and industrial veganism, I'd probably choose veganism; if my choice were between permaculture that includes animals and vegan permaculture, I'd probably choose animals, but I'd choose either form of permaculture over any form of industrialized agriculture.

If you have invasive hogs its surprising you haven't had Bob Black dropping by to lecture you on some of the alternative uses for pigs!?

oh, ain't nothin' nobody can teach me 'bout what to do with them pigs I aint already tried more'n once, let me tell you

Really, proles, that's disgusting... when we say "FTP" we don't mean it literally!

...don't we!?

Lemme tell you assholes that pigs is a whole lot nicer than most humans. And they love to be loved!

-- Bob Black (pig ffffucker and $10 mail-in rebate)

And if you've never eaten pig cheeks, you're missing out.

-- Bob Black (pig ffffucker and butcher to the stars)

Anyone else here get sarcastic with vegans who keep carnivorous pets which eat more meat protein than the average person in an underdeveloped country? The hypocrisy of vegans is exasperating!

Another ignorant vegan vomiting empty rhetoric.
Vegans of this type need to get a clue about agriculture, ecosystems and biology... and need a kick up their own anthropocentric and ethnocentric arses

If we get rid of animal husbandry how will we be able to milk cows? The goal of true anarchists is to get a rich benefactor to buy us land so we can rewild and milk our cows. You vegan are just ignorant and liberal.

As a long-time vegan who knows a fair amount about agriculture and ecosystems (and enough about biology to feel perfectly comfortable with my lifestyle) let me advise you to do a little more reading on the subject. Clue: it doesn't matter how we produce the animal products and under which social relations, it's still a gigantic ecological fuck-up.

fuckin trolls … seriously though, how is a little homestead with a few goats or sheep and chickens a "massive ecological fuckup"?

Clue: it doesn't matter how we produce the non-animal products and under which social relations, it's still a gigantic ecological fuck-up.

How many more forests will you clear? How many habitats will you destroy for your mass vegan society? After you've destroyed habitats for your agriculture and there are no more animals living, shiting and dying on the land and you're soil is critically impoverished, what will you do? More oil extraction for chemical fertilizers?
Look at Bolivia. There used to be a lot of small subsistance farming where people had some animals on their land... The organic quinoa industry changed all that. Many subsistance farmers decided to use all their land to produce organic quinoa. After only 15 years of this the soil is becoming very impoverished (because monoculture and no more animals), making organic quinoa harder to produce, creating a need to convert more land to agriculture, which means cutting down more forest.
Get your head out of your ideological dreamy ass and get your shit straight

You are a moron. It's simple maths. Animal food production of WHATEVER kind (happy homesteading * population OR industrial monocropping * population) has a far greater ecological impact than plant food production.

Everyone seems to be such an expert on the many merits of their romantic small family farm system vs. big bad veganism, but it doesn't seem that many have taken the time to actually engage with any of the current research in the field. Read some peer reviewed papers on the subject and get back to me. You'll probably be surprised by what you find.

what does it impact, some plants?

I suppose if you had a lake full of fish you'd think it had better be filled up with dirt and planted in corn. Less ecological impact that way, no doubt!


if you want to be a perfect anarchist you have to kill yourself because if you choose to exist you will oppress something even if it is an insect or environment.

admitting you are an oppressor is the best thing an anarchist can do

Well yeah but that's no reason to keep oppressing others when you realize it and can avoid it--I mean I'm not just gonna be like, "Oh well at some point I will inevitably step on and ant and kill it, no one's perfect, so it's cool if I own slaves cuz life would be so much easier that way and I hate housecleaning" or whatever

What did analogies ever do to you?! YOU KILLED THEM!

no the perfect anarchist helps others kill themselves so they are the last one to leave the mothership.

Yet another wanker who listened to one too many CRASS and Conflict albums and thinks that by being vegan that they can somehow magically absolve themselves of all responsibility for being a beneficiary of white colonist culture and claim some absurd moral high ground that magically negates their white privileged status.

don't wank for the animals, wank for mao

All power to the anarcho-vegan people, concentration camps for everyone else.

I'd ship you off to one of those anarcho-vegan run concentration camps except...there aren't any and i'm not vegan. I think you're confusing anarchism with maoism again. But I'll act in good faith and suggest that after you dig your soil 6 feet deep and start to starve, don't bother trying to eat dirt, it's not food.

like a true liberal.

Don't know much about liberals or liberalism either.

I was not suggesting you actually be sent to concentration camp because, I repeat: I'm not vegan, there are no anarcho-vegan concentration camps for non-vegans (afaik even liberal vegans don't suggest this, much less do it), I don't willingly support prisons at all. Anarcho-vegans are not oppressing you, stop pretending they are.

If you're looking for some morons to blindly follow you after saying all that white privilege crap, go to liberalnews, they love that shit, especially the 'radical' ones. They're constantly looking for 'black voices to listen to' and 'black leaders to follow.'

As for being vegan (or at least not eating meat/vegetarian), white privilege has very little to do with it. The vast historical majority of vegetarians have been Indian Hindus and Asian Buddhists. All obvious beneficiaries of white colonist culture. That last sentence was sarcasm.

Yet another wanker who reads too much Tumblr and thinks that instead of contructing coherent arguements to defend your position you can just throw around accusations of "privilege" and "colonist" without any substance to back it up. Seriously, go back to your dorm room at Evergreen college. No one cares.

Go buy another vegan meal with the money mommy and daddy gave you for Christmas, seriously nobody cares. Then cry some cry-baby protein deficient tears while the Based God fucks your girlfriend.

tears don't (or at least shouldn't) have protein in them

vegans on average are no more protein deficient than pure carnivores

BTW The Based God did fuck my girl friend and I was like "OMG THANK YOU BASED GOD, YOU'RE THE GREATEST!"

check yo privilege white boy VS don't you remember what happened in the Spanish Civil War you must be a Maoist...the saga continues.

Before the Spanish Civil War there were no beef steaks for peasants, most of the agricultural wealth was in the possession of the catholic capitalists who supported the Falange.

It was during the Spinach Civil War that anarcho-vegans first rose to prominence. Until of course they were crushed during the 2nd Maoist Privilege Checker Uprising of 1967.

Few recognize the contributions made by the Nihilo-Vegan Brigade of dis-possessed bourgeois youth who volunteered and pledged to cook 20,000 lentil burgers a day for the comrades at the front during the Great Carrot Uprising of '38, which Mao attended as a spectator!

How many people in this thread have responded to this article with the same trivialisation or defensiveness the author discusses?

"All systems of oppression are supported by defensive attitudes, justifications, trivialisation and denial. Sometimes these claims might be fair enough, but people more often than not simply react to feeling attacked and respond from a selfish position of self-preservation. An anarchist ethic should stem from a desire for individual and collective liberation, so I like to think that when a comrade challenges my behaviour, I put my wounded pride aside for a moment and at least give the point the consideration it deserves."

I don't think you are going to encounter much reasonable or honest feedback here in an anonymous comments section. Personally I did give the article a bit of a read and found it interesting but I'll be fucked if I am going to elaborate any further in this cess-pit of maoists, spanish civil war fetishists, privilege checkers, liberals and other assorted trolls.

Yeah, fuck all the trolls on this site, ugh. It's impossible to have any kind of meaningful exchange without a horde of asshole morons and feds interrupting you. Sorry.

seriously, this text set itself up for this kind of response... just look at the title, cheap provocation, and then the pedantic author fakes this nuanced tone to advance the same old ideological bullshit arguments many have heard and addressed time and time again.
To be honest, some of these comments still made the effort to addressed this tired shit with some valid points though, even though it doesn't deserve it imo.

I responded seriously to parts of it, but a lot of it was self-contradictory, straw-mannish, or simply wrong. Vegans constantly characterize anyone who disagrees with them as defensive and self-serving. If every response except abject agreement is read as defensive or trivializing, then, yeah...all the critical responses will seem full of dismissive defensiveness. Funny how that works. Then the vegans all sit smugly around saying "see how defensive they are!" And they wonder why people find them dogmatic, arrogant, and out of touch, not to mention irritating and disingenuous.

heh! Thats the sound of discourse dying, like the exact opposite of an-angel-gets-its-wings. Every time some preachy, sanctimonious little blowhard smugly accuses you of "just being defensive", and angel gets their wings chopped off and deep-fried … mmm mm! Who's hungry?

Have you ever eaten dumpster meat or road kill? Maybe we should let that lay waste?

Realistically there are 2 options-

We should either regard offal or animal co-lateral death by automobile meat as a taboo culinary item and observe the laws of modern Western medicine, etiquette and the dominant industrial morality, or else we develop strong immunity systems by feeding our children these ignored and discarded sources of meat protein. A spin-off benefit would be a decrease in population, although the idea that the earth cannot support more than 7 billion people sustainably has been debunked.

A simple examination of major organs and a little knowledge of how spoiled meat smells and feels can go a long way (no need to boost your immune system). Just clean it proper and cook it through!

I'm fussy! I only go for the fresh roadkill when the bodies are still warm and limp, and rigor mortus hasn't set in. Yeah, I'm a bit fussy, but there aren't any emergency wards within 500 kilometers, and I think it was my immunity which saved me after eating a few of my earlier meals. The actual drivers should collect their road carnage, better than McDonalds, and free food ALWAYS tastes better.

Heard, about bein fussy! There's some cases of CWD and leukemia in the deer pop. here, luckily both are easy to identify and CWD has been safe to eat- although not desireable.

Do you keep the pelt/ hide?

Huh? I cook and eat the whole animal, I'm a total carnivore for chrissakes. Waste not want not dude!

I was vegan for a long time. In some ways it was motivated by the critique of anthropocentrism and the extension of compassion to non-humans described in the article, but it was more motivated by guilt. It was a desire to self-negate as a way of dealing with guilt, not a practical response to an important critique. After about eight years my health was deteriorating so I started eating some animal stuff again and felt a lot better, but by that time the practice of veganism no longer even felt like a relevant way of addressing anthropocentrism, cruelty, and ecological destruction, it was just a habit and a subcultural practice.

Even if all the points the author makes are valid, adopting a vegan diet doesn't necessarily follow. The jump from 'critique of anthropocentrism' to 'veganism' is made by an implicit argument for the importance of moral purity, some desire to avoid hypocrisy, which while understandable, is totally laden in christian baggage and doesn't get you any closer to the kinds of material transformations needed to actually address the issue. It might even set you back, if your B vitamin and iron levels tank over time and you feel exhausted after ten hours of sleep.

tl;dr : vegans got their heart in the right place, but the practice doesn't follow inevitable from the analysis

I've been a vegan for 28 years now. It all started when David Graeber and I were at an Anarcho Maoist Nihilist restaurant in Bristol eating rump steaks when some random guy with a crass logo tattooed on his forehead asked us if we had 10p, so we obliged him and he invited us back to his squat, we smoked a joint of some really dynamite Afghanistan hashish and this dude just rapped to us about veganism and how by eating meat we were actually serving the system. Well that did it for me. The next day I disassociated myself from David Graeber, sold all my belongings and moved into Dial House with crass and spend the next 5 years meditating on being a better vegan. I still think I made the right choice, especially when I see what David Graeber is doing with himself these days.

I've been a vegan for 38 yrs buddy, I'm somewhat gaunt and anemic but what the hell, I got a negative anti-humanoid Buddhist thing going strong, walking to the monastery's latte cafe in the morning without stepping on an ant makes for mostly self-congratulatory conversation over our croissants. I'm insulated here from the realities of having to work and feed my family after paying taxes and rent. Its very easy having piece of mind and attaining Nirvana, why doesn't everyone do what I'm doing, then the world would be a better place!

Jeez … yet another gem from this guy. Thanks for posting! Can only describe this guy's rhetoric as - advanced

Yeah naturalistic fallacies are sooo advanced.

… I guess the one thing all the vegans agree on here is leaving their relentless moralizing almost completely unexamined?

like almost everyone here leaves their relentless moralizing almost completely unexamined. With maybe the exception being Based Troll, who doesn't moralize at all because they don't talk about what we should do at all.

The vast number of interesting and thought-provoking
comments speaks to this site as the best in terms of give and take,
leading to so many interesting and important creative concepts and a veritable multitude of ethical and effective practices.

Anarcho Vegan Maoist Nihilist Non-Privileged PKK supporting Trans Sex Worker POC here..I really enjoyed this article, thanks it really helped reaffirm the choices in life I made and I think more people should become vegans before they end up like David Graeber.

take a look at this and then tell us what we can eat.
Plants can make music..they learn how to make better music and seem to also have consciousnesses...


"Yet, just because most of us are implicated does not mean that we are burdened with some kind of ‘original sin’. Quite the contrary: the beauty and power of anarchism is that it pushes us all to live lives that are more just, loving, meaningful, satisfying, and collectively free."

But this is exactly the logic of original sin, except that it's the church, not the vegan diet, that offers liberation from that sin.

So wait … where can I get my sins absolved? SOMEONE SOOTHE MY EXISTENTIAL ANGST

The first step toward liberation is recognising oppression folks!

Did you read the Gelderloos article? It's quite good.

The Gelderloos article is not very good. It's basically an anarchist defense of animal welfare with a hint of indiginous fetishism.

So instead of mocking you, I'll just ask; how do you figure that, sir or madame or preferred pronoun? I read the same article and your characterization seems so far off that I must regretfully doubt your sincerity

From the opening sentence of the essay it discusses the "treatment" and "abuse" of animals by capitalism, but not once does the essay address the ethical considerations surrounding the "use" of animals by humans. Nor does it address speciesism as a form oppression or social hierarchy. So by only addressing the treatment of nonhuman animals without challenging the use of non-human animals by humans, as well as it's failure to address speciesism, this essay is promoting a welfarist framework. This point is further highlighted by the authors promotion of small scale animal agriculture and "cattle" grazing.

So you didn't bother reading the whole thing… because you're a reactionary moralist … which is part of the point of the article.

Eating meat is a consumer activity.

your mom is a consumer activity


This discussions a good highlight of where anarchism is at in the contemporary USA. Most anarchists spend so much time reading texts that only interest anarchists that they can actually make claims that veganism is a sign of white privilege or privilege in general and believe them. Most can actually make mythical claims that farming grass feed livestock or hunting is a feasible alternative to replace the current levels of meat consumption they partake in. However, even using one anarchist source, Ward Churchill in one speech estimates ( https://archive.org/details/InteligentaindigenaNovajoservo_IntelligentAb... ) that the entire pre-Colombian population of Native Americans in all of North America(USA, Mexico and Canada) was somewhere between 10-30 million. Today just in the United States the total population is over 10 times that -- 300 million, the population of Mexico is another 80 million, the population of Canada is 30 million, that is 410 million! They used to say that USA was so full of forests that a squirrel can travel from branch to branch from New England down to Florida. Today though there are few forests left at all in areas long settled by white colonists, while American carnists raise 6-9 billion land animals to consume. If everyone hunted to try to make up for such a demand, there would not be a single animal alive in North America. But for alot of anarchists reading anarchist texts as their only non-fiction info, they can honestly believe alot of the claims written in this thread that it is a mark of privilege to not eat meat, that hunting or low-scale farming of meat is feasible, that is possible to live up to the consumption of an imperialist Western consumer and hide behind the skirt of pre-Colombian tribes to justify your consumption that they couldn't dream of back then... The amount of animal products most large populations of people ate before the early 20th Century was much less than the consumption of most ethical vegetarians today(who actually eat a shocking amount of animal products due to addictions to dairy, milk, eggs).

I don't think that a single person in the whole comments section here suggested that it was feasible for our current population to maintain contemporary levels of meat-eating by hunting and/or small-scale/grass-fed farming practices . . .

Not eating meat is not a sign of privilege. Ideological veganism is.

You whiny identity politics anarchists are too inbred with your own irrelevant texts and scene to even begin to understand. In the USA where(where you are likely from) to even have the rail network that first allowed the trend of meat being an every meal of everyday trend in the early 20th Century, you had to subjugate, destroy and drive off the Indians to build that railroad system. You need refrigeration, you also need refrigerated rail cars. Or you could just consume the bulk of your calories from starches like corn, potatoes, wheat and rice which can be shelf stable for months without refrigeration. Vegetable matter takes less resources, less labor and less land per calorie and results in less pollution. But to show your privilege and domination you consume meat. Meat is also part of an ideology, but a hidden one known as carnism. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vWbV9FPo_Q

It is so funny how Western anarchists, especially American ones who consume so much compared to the rest of the world through around words like privilege to ignore "consume less" messages.

Unless I'm sorely mistaken, there were damn few vegan Native Americans, even before the railroads. They ate fish and eggs, hunted elk, followed herds of buffalo, dried and smoked meat for the winter, and so forth.

There's no need, opportunity notwithstanding, to eat meat every day, any more now than there was then. There's also little excuse for wasting meat (as in letting dead flesh go to rot...or, in the case of human flesh, sealing it up in a lead-lined coffin to deny the worms, mold, bugs and bacteria a decent meal). But human beings are carnivores, like it or not.

I'm another one here who tried on the vegan thing for size some years ago. Wound up chronically exhausted, with a variety of skin rashes and my hair coming out in clumps. Guess what? A weak human being, with self-imposed illness no less, is also a drain on the ecosystem.

Don't know if there ever existed any vegan spiders, tigers or sharks, but if so, evolution seems to have tipped against them.

human beings are by and large omnivores, with some herbivores(or more accurately non-animal-meat eating and maybe non-animal-product eating, though since ingesting bugs is pretty unavoidable, they're usually MOSTLY herbivorous), and a few carnivores. This last group is known to get scurvy pretty regularly due to insufficient vitamin C ingestion, most commonly prisoners and sailors stranded at sea who don't have access to fresh fruits/plants. Although I think you are using the word carnivore to mean you eat meat and not ONLY meat, this is not the commonly agreed upon definition of 'carnivore.'

Other animals have different biologies, so it isn't necessarily possible for spiders, tigers, or sharks to not eat meat like it is for humans. Except i believe spiders drink blood and not eat meat per se.

In general though, I agree that it's how much meat and how food is obtained that is the major issue.

I think many spiders inject digestive juice and "drink" da result

I was misusing the word "carnivore" to mean, I eat meat, and I don't feel well if I try not to eat meat. I don't eat meat exclusively, and yikes no, that would be quite unhealthy too.

Fortunate here to have some nearby ranchers who sell meat at the farmer's market, and I make sure to get free-range, fertile eggs. No thanks to supporting the corporate meat industry. I eat meat two or three times a week, but certainly don't want the animals tortured to death on my behalf. There's no excuse for what pigs, chickens, and cows endure on the big factory farms.

You are using a pc, consuming ridiculous amounts of electricity, probably driving a car everywhere, consuming a ridiculous amount of animal products. Just stop hiding behind the skirts of Native Americans and indigenous peoples to justify your insane levels of consumption. Neither were or are indigenous peoples perfect, so stop idolizing them also, wankers. Just because indigenous societies did wrong things like abuse and kill animals, does not make it ethical. Humans are not carnivores. Carnivores can gorge up in huge meals. A 300-400 lb. lion can consume up to 40 lb. of meat after a kill, because they often go long between kills. A human needs to eat 2-3 times a day in contrast or will be barely functional and weak. More arguments on why humans are not carnivores and omni-vores:

A vegan eating a whole food plant based diet will have better health than the average carnist who is a health disaster. The leading causes of death in the USA can be avoided or even reversed with a whole foods, vegan diet:

You're making a lot of bizarre assumptions about my inclination to hide from or justify anything. If you want to be a vegan, be a vegan. But since when do anarchists sit around making up rules and restrictions about OTHER people's life choices, much less hoping to enforce them by means of generalized guilt trippery, metaphorical arse-kicking, or other such grouchy lectures?

You are restricting other people's lives, no one wants to work at a slaughterhouse. It is mostly undocumented migrants doing such dirty work for you, but of course you would never do it.

Also saying you are an anarchist means shit. You can say you are as anarchist, the American military is still plundering your lavish lifestyle for you if you live in the West. Scaling down your lifestyle now shows you are about something more than your own comfort from now. Otherwise who cares about your mythical Dungeons and Dragons like position on after the revolution(primitivism or left anarchism) or what you think is a better tactic(insurrectionism) -- you are just poser, since you will never give up the comfort that the American military umbrella provides(constant climate control, plentiful meat, constant electricity, cheap gas to make your feet obsolete for significant locomotion, etc.).

Nice pile of strawman from some suburban marshmallow who borrows Auntie's car to drive a mile and a half to work. You seem to be salving YOUR guilt over your own myriad comforts, cheap gas, etc. etc. etc. by throwing assorted impotent stones in all outward directions. Try solving your own problems first.

If you are eating meat you are likely consuming more resources than me, fake omnivore(as humans are not biological omnivores). If you didn't spend all your time reading useless scenester anarchist texts you would have known this. I was just giving a personal example of how consumer comforts taken for granted by Dungeons and Dragons like anarchists effect people mentally and their world outlook.


... "recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang finds that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions."

What you are spouting is what I call "consumer choice doctrine," which is the normative value of this stage of capitalism. It maintains why interject morals or any other objection into purely transactional equations that seemingly involve only money.

Your palate bias and speciesism is condemning animals to die, widespread ecosystem destruction(most the arable landmass of the world is taken up livestock or feeder crops for livestock), uprooting the few remaining indigenous Amazonian tribes and poor people worldwide to grow soy and other feeder crops for fat Westerners.

But I guess you want to feel good because after the anarchist revolution that will never come, your theoretical views on that is all that matters, not what you do now to stop oppressing the world with your insane consumption levels...

Being an omnivore has nothing to do with market fueled choice. It is simply reality. And their are plenty of other ways to eat meat that do not involve a slaughterhouse and workers. Keep in mind that vegan diets are also built on footprints and productive inputs. That includes the vegan value system on its reified levels.

Also no successful anarchist revolution(s) will have the self sacrifice moralism that you are spouting.

In fact, not even many Greek people these days can afford a playcation in Greece. How insanely consumptive was your airline ticket, or all the fuel it took to get you there and back? Heh...and when you drive to work every day, do you feel good because it's the relatives you're sponging from who've filled up the gas tank? (And do you curse them too, as you're driving around in their car, for being such destructive fat Westerners?)

I am not fat and I was born into a Greek family and didn't go as a tourist. My father and grandmother live in Greece. My trip there was actually the first time I visited my now dying grandmother there in 28 years. Being vegan consumes so few resources, I am not sure you can make a serious case that the bragging meat eating anarchists even consumed less than me in 2014, the year I went. The global share of fossil fuel consumption involved in transportation is dwarved by the larger share taken by animal product consumption. If you didn't read useless anarchist texts and sites all day you may have known that.

"The environmental impact of the lifecycle and supply chain of animals raised for food has been vastly underestimated, and in fact accounts for at least half of all human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs), according to Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change"."

"It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles."

"A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home."

It made me very sick.

But setting all of that aside, I'm truly sorry about your grandmother, and I do apologize for the careless "playcation" assumptions.

You claim it made you sick. What you claim and what actually happened are two different things. High consumption of animal products are linked to the top 10 leading causes of death in the USA and other imperialist Western nations from chronic issues like heart disease(poorer nations to have more deaths from communicable diseases due to poor sanitation):

Here is an example of a once prominent "vegan" inventing fake health reasons for eating meat again, Lierre Keith who wrote this Tolkien-esque excuse after tasting meat again(despite admitting she had always cheated with eggs thus was not actually vegan ever):
“I don’t know how to describe what happened next. […] I could feel every cell in my body—literally every cell—pulsing. And finally, finally being fed. Oh god, I thought: this is what it feels like to be alive.”

Lying is very common, especially amongst stranger, especially on the internet. See this Ted Talk "How to Spot a Liar:

As for my grandmother she is 96 or 97. According to the gravestones, alot of people in my paternal village lived to be 90 or more. Back when my grandmother was young Greece was so poor most Greeks could only consume 12% of their calories animal products a day, while the anarchists from imperialist nations posting here consume more than that by breakfast:

That is why you here so much about the Mediterranean diet being healthy, because back when Greeks were poor they used to have a healthy diet and lifestyle. But now that is not the case, Greek kids are actually the fattest in the world now that they are rich enough to consume huge amounts of animal products and ultra-refined plant foods(like olive oil which they used to turn salads into soups, etc.):

whoa, dis politician

No idea whether YiaYia is vegetarian, but I hope you got up at 4 AM, while you were visiting, to help her spread invisible not-butter on those 100 sheets of phyllo, just so she could make her precious one his Very Special spinach pies.

No idea either whether your family roasted a lamb for your homecoming, or whether YiaYia stood in hot steam whisking, whisking, whisking to make sure your Very Special Homecoming Soup didn't turn into a pot of chicken-lemon scrambled eggs.

But if you turned up your delicate American nose at any of that wonderful stuff, I hope one or another Uncle took you outside for a good hard CHAT.

Your issue is that you're just equating "NA anarchist" with the average consumer slave...

And also anarchists are some of the last people to be considered as statistics in a consumer industrial system. Didja know that most of us actually attack the mass-consumer society and resist consumerism indivudally, or you were just born yesterday?

For an instance, I steal and dumpster-dive most of the food that I eat, and use a car only when absolutely necessary, not because of the carbon footprint stupidity but because of it being a idiotic, costly, deadly machine that was made popular, by unsurprisingly, Henry Ford, the ideologue behind fordism, which is the most anti-anarchic ideology besides full fascism and stalinism.

I doubt that most Western anarchists consume significantly less, infact that would just be plain "lifestylism" to do something now to consume less instead of waste most your time on post-revolution singularity masturbation. Where I live(northern NJ) you cannot really dumpster dive for food as pretty much everywhere supermarket has a trash compactor. Only Aldi's and Trader Joe's don't have compactors and there is no Trader Joe's by me.

Further dumpster diving is not a tactic that can be adopted by significant portion of the population, as it depends on the majority being good consumers and living off the waste of their lifestyle. Veganism on the contrary is a way that all of society could consume and pollute less with their diet.

Dumpster diving and hitch-hiking FTW dude! The total human strike does more for the revolution than all the tea in China.

"Further dumpster diving is not a tactic that can be adopted by significant portion of the population"

Of course. But where are the anarchists a significant "portion of the population"? Am I, as well, a significant portion of the population? I am, we are, beyond the mass society paradigm; it's actually about destroying it. You disregarded the beginning of the comment you're replying to, that was the most important part.

Mass-scale political economy and social-wide revolutionary strategy have got nothing to do with anarchism, at least the anarchism of today's Western world (and much beyond as well). I don't give a fuck about any solution for "populations". While it may be a good idea to give a fuck, that's for another era in History that's gone... that's as far gone as the Voyager probes.

The only plan I and other anarchists have for society is very simple: to stop or incapacitate the machine of progress (development, growth, expansion, whatever you call it) for causing the total collapse of the techno-industrial society while giving enough time to people to realize the future they are being thrown into, and prepare for the total "system failure".

whoa there, maoist! you are wanting to use these hypothetical "veganism is a sign of white privilege or privilege in general" claims to discredit anarchists in general.

The USA thing is for the ocassion, for separating some anarchists from "the Other Anarchists" and you would upgrade it to something more general..

>But for alot of anarchists reading anarchist texts as their only non-fiction info, they can honestly believe alot of the claims written in this thread that it is a mark of privilege to not eat meat, that hunting or low-scale farming of meat is feasible, that is possible to live up to the consumption of an imperialist Western consumer and hide behind the skirt of pre-Colombian tribes to justify your consumption that they couldn't dream of back then...

Talking of privilege is some lowest-common-denominator christian shit.

Hunting and low-scale farming sure are "feasible," just not on some scenarios. And an amount indian niggas couldn't dream of? I have a ~~~source~~~ sayin otherwise: http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/guts-and-grease-the-diet-of-na...

Haha, imperialist. Typical maoist

"DISCUSSION SHOWS HOW INBREED THE ANARCHIST MOVEMENT IS" Ju Ju Just cause weyall tock laaaaack thiass. We here in Texas what we talk about. Spits in can.

There is a whole large movement of primitivist anarchists whose ideology actually supports such fantasies as a way of moving forward. There were commenters supporting fantasies of pastured livestock. And alot of commenters were hiding behind the skirts of Native tribes like the Inuit to excuse their ridiculous consumption levels.

As for primitivists, I think they're a bit out of touch and would find it difficult to scale-up their lifestyle, barring some sort of massive human die-off (which I think many of them would view as Christmas come again, but that's another story).

I was in fact talking about raising pastured livestock here, but it's hardly a "fantasy." I currently get all my meat from hunting and from pastured livestock that I raise myself. On my particular piece of land, there are many areas (such as the slopes around gravel pits) where food animals are easier and less destructive and more productive and efficient to raise than food plants.

Native brush and trees that don't need irrigation are slowly beginning to get a hold on some of the slopes, and the cows don't bother them any--as the slopes reforest, fewer and fewer cows will be able to graze there, but habitat for game animals such as deer, squirrels, raccoons, various birds, etc. will increase, and many of the fruit & nut trees I've planted are maturing and coming into heavier production, so I can rely on them for a greater proportion of my diet.

Parts of my land are prairie and won't grow trees probably ever, barring climate shifts, and those parts will probably always be used for edible grazing animals (I'd like to re-introduce native bison in favor of cattle, but unfortunately that requires incredibly expensive tall, indestructible fencing--which wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for private property and my neighbors, but that's the world we live in, I guess). I don't think that anyone can possibly argue sensibly that it's better for native prairie to be dug up & planted with rice or corn or milo or whatever (or even with native pecan trees, say) and irrigated with pumped ground water than it is to be grazed by large ruminants as prairies evolved to do.

In any case, the vast majority of my meat currently comes from hunting, because as things stand, we have an invasive species of wild hog that are incredibly destructive--they've started shooting them en masse from helicopters just to try to keep them from destroying everything. Deer are also rather overpopulated here. And until we get large carnivores reintroduced (how I would love to see wolves here! but I doubt it will happen), herbivores need thinning out somehow or other, and human hunters are currently their only predators. Allowing them to overpopulate, overgraze their land base, and then die off and repeat, is incredibly destructive and incrementally decreases the land's capacity to support the prey population over time.

So in CURRENT circumstances, the more hogs I and everyone else who's willing can eat, the better, and a modest culling of deer (several per year per hunter) is helpful. Obviously if there were some sort of huge collapse and lots of people began hunting, that would change and hunting on that scale would be very irresponsible.

Another thing that might change would be the way property is owned--right now I have way more land than I need, and way too few people to help me manage it, because that's the way things worked out under our current system of private property & familial inheritance. The balance between plants & animals in the diet would almost certainly shift if you had a greater density of people actually living/working on the land--you'd probably want to grow more plants and less meat, because labor would be less of a limitation and efficient use of space would be more important. I don't think pure veganism would ever make much sense, however, no matter how densely populated it got--animals can make productive use of certain resources in ways that humans simply can't, and without a globalized system so that various plant foods can be gotten throughout the year regardless of season or bioregions, it's very easy for pure vegans to develop nutrient deficiencies over the long term.

I still don't see where anyone has suggested that any of this means that current levels of meat consumption for everyone in the world are sustainable or desirable or would be able to continue without capitalism, globalization, industrial farming practices, etc. Pastured meat and hunting are only fantasies if you think everyone in the world can eat as much meat as your average American does today, using these practices, without destroying everything. It hardly follows that therefore veganism is the only alternative. As I've said about a billion times in my comments here, the sustainable degree of meat & animal products in a diet will depend on population density, bioregion & climate, the property system under which land is owned (or held in common), and a bunch of other contextual factors. For most people I imagine meat consumption would be relatively modest in quantity.

Regarding native tribes, I think that's essentially irrelevant to most of what people are discussing here. I mean, if someone's trying to go convert some indigenous tribe to veganism, I think that person's an ass, but neither does the average Inuit's meat consumption mean much when it comes to what most modern Americans or similar folks are/ought to be eating.

At least you admit there has to be much less meat consumption. Pastured livestock produces more emissions and it takes up far more land, compared to intensive CAFOs(confined agricultural feeding operations). Here is an analysis that shows that Polyface farms the darling of boutique, pasture feeding advocates, actually operates at a net calorie less, since it takes in more calories in grains than it yields in meat:

Grass feed myths of less pollution busted:
"These measurements clearly document higher CH4 production (about four times) for cattle receiving low-quality, high-fiber diets than for cattle fed high-grain diets."

There are so many idiotic things about this argument that I can't even figure out where to start.

1) I'm not surprised that cows emit more methane on roughage than they do on ground up meal. Did this comparison take into account all the fossil fuels and GHG emissions that were used to grow the feed grain, harvest it, transport it, grind it up, store it, etc.? The GHG emissions associated with running the machinery in CAFOs, climate control, and all the other mechanical crap involved? The GHG emissions involved in butchering, processing, distributing, and refrigerating such a large amount of meat--more than local people could ever use at one time? Not according to the article you linked.

2) Yes, grass-fed ruminants take up more room per cow than do CAFO operations, obviously. That means that there will be a far lower stocking rate. Thus, even if you idiotically exclude all the fossil fuels and other forms of pollution that go into CAFOs in favor of pretending that intestinal methane production is the only thing that matters--and if we accept the "four times higher" figure for a grass-fed cow--a piece of land being used to pasture cows will still produce FAR less methane than a CAFO operation on a piece of land the same size, because there will be far fewer cows crammed onto it.

3) Grazing of grasses encourages carbon sequestration in the soil in a way that simply leaving them alone does not, because when the tops of grass are chomped off, the plants drop off a proportional piece of their root system underground, adding organic matter (carbon) to the soil. When they are grazed at intervals that allow them to grow back (not overgrazed), they do this repeatedly, adding more and more carbon to the soil, where it is relatively stable, and removing it from the atmosphere. This improves and deepens topsoil (which is why prairies have such deep, rich soils--even compared to forests) and helps mitigate the accumulation of atmospheric CO2. This would need to be weighed against the methane emitted by the grazers, which to my knowledge has not been done. In sustainably stocked, pastured herds I would not be surprised if the net greenhouse effect was negative. Somehow large herds of wild ruminants have been around essentially forever without causing a global warming crisis of their own, and their removal has obviously done far more harm than good.

4) Other things that emit methane: herds of wild bison and wildebeast, peat bogs, compost piles. Emitting methane does not automatically make something environmentally anathema. If animals are in balance with their environment, if there are not too many of them and they are of appropriate types, if they are having positive effects on soil composition and biology, if their use avoids such destructive practices as CAFOs and annual grain agriculture (wheat, corn, potatoes, rice, etc.), then they will be an ecological positive.

5) How you can say with a straight face that Polyface farms is the "darling of pasture feeding advocates" and then that they "take in more calories in grain than they yield in meat," I don't even know. Obviously if they are feeding GRAIN then their failure is a poor argument against GRASS-FED meat. The guy at Polyface is a capitalist, a Christian, and he farms on a huge scale with minimal awareness of the land. Fuck him. On the other hand, my land takes in no outside feed or supplements whatsoever, the only laborers are people who live here, and it produces enough to feed us plus hundreds of other people every year (most of which I give away to friends in town), and all ecological markers are improving--topsoil depth and organic matter content, soil biological diversity (more organisms under the microscope than there used to be), nutrient balance in the soil, soil PH, plant and animal diversity, etc.

You obviously have no ability to see nuance or context and very little understanding of land, ecosystems, or food systems, so I figure this reply will be in vain, but it sticks in my craw to see people spouting this kind of idiotic, reductivist misinformation as if it has actual meaning.

Here is a good Youtube that inbred anarchists will largely ignore, "how to spot a liar":
It shows how common lying is in our society, especially amongst strangers. To wit, magically on the internet when discussing with vegans, every carnist is some grain fed ethical meat apologist and claims they don't eat much meat -- backtracking on what they unapologetically actually do in real life. But I would bet the truth is you actually consume about as much meat as the median American, probably don't even bother with grass feed boutique shopping, despite the apologia you come up with infront of vegans for the purpose of swaying people on the net, when confronted with a more ethical and environmental option like veganism.

I already presented a source that said that darling farming operation of grass-feed, boutique meat apologists in the USA, Polyface farms(hyped up by Michael Pollan, the paleo community, the deluded permaculture scammers, etc.) actually produces a net calorie loss since it takes up more grain calories than it yields in animal products. Here it is again:

And with total life-cycle costs, grass feed overpriced livestock still takes up more land, more resources and causes more pollution:

Keep spouting the myths from the rich folks in the boutique meat community, the Paleo crowd, etc., it is too funny. Wasting land to graze cattle for meat, is an environmentally beneficial action? What will you disgusting over-consumption advocates come up with next, driving a car is an eco-system service?

Like, did you even read my comments? In fact, I don't bother with boutique meat shopping because I DON'T BUY any meat. I hunt or raise it all myself. I actually probably do eat less meat than the average American, because lots of produce that needs to be eaten quickly tends to displace it from my diet, but I've already explained why, in my context, the more hunted meat I could eat, the better. I kill as many feral hogs as possible for myself, for others, and to feed to the cat, dog, chickens, fish, etc. instead of purchased foods. The best thing would be to kill them all, but they reproduce so quickly that it'll probably never happen.

Why are you bringing up Polyface again as if it's relevant? Seriously, did you read my comment that you're replying to?

Re: the second article you linked:

This is ridiculous. In the transportation section, they say grass-fed cattle were transported 100 miles to be slaughtered. Their feed is comprised largely of supplemental hay, meaning either they're too densely stocked or they're being raised in an inappropriate climate where winter forage is insufficient. They assume that 50% of pasture is irrigated, for god's sake--and say that the grass-fed method is only "less environmentally-desirable" if the pasture is irrigated. I can't believe anyone would even dream of irrigating pastureland, but people are endlessly stupid. This is clearly talking about industrial-scale grass-fed beef farming for profit, which is about as relevant to what I'm talking about as the man in the moon. I'm against all capitalist industrial food production, obviously!

Also, the authors acknowledge that "the carbon sequestration by well-managed pastureland may be a mitigating factor for carbon emissions within the GFD [grass-fed] system, yet it was not accounted for throughout the current study" and follow it up with some hand-waving, which I excuse them for, since (as I said in my last comment) I'm not aware of any good comparative research that's been done on the topic.

For fuck's sake, it is not "wasting land"! I have said a million times that livestock should be confined to areas where other concerns make growing food plants unfeasible--un-plowable steep slopes prone to erosion, natural grasslands and prairies or certain arid areas, the interstices of other food production systems (chickens or pigs foraging in an orchard, for instance), woodlands that are being preserved or reforested but can still supply a modest amount of game, etc.

It's mind-bendingly idiotic to cut down rainforest in order to graze cattle, obviously, and plants are generally more efficient than animals, all other things being equal--the problem is that all other things are *not* equal. You just seem to think that all land is exactly the same and that it's all magically able to grow crops as easily as it can support animals, without taking into account climate, aridity, slope, geography, available labor, climate change, waste, technological inputs, erosion, or...anything else, apparently. You also, as far as I can see, don't really grasp the incredible destructiveness of conventional farming, since you seem to blithely advocate lots of grain consumption, but I think I'm through rehashing this with you, it's gotten pointless.

It explains exactly why I don't believe you are some person raising your own meat yourself and your claims of consuming less meat than the median.

Grain and other starches are the most efficient way to feed large numbers of people. The wild hogs you complain about a negative side effect of raising pigs to eat. Eventually they escape. Hunting and raising your own meat are incredibly inefficiently ways to feed this large global population.

You are not wanting to live on planet earth if you can talk against grains to spout the bs you are.

dem carnists are gonna get u

Yes I watched your insipid TED Talk, irritating though it was.

You don't believe I raise my own meat? Oh, if only there were some way I could defend myself against this dastardly accusation! Oh, wait, there is.

Just for you:


And neither did you post any serious info on why boutique meat eating is more ethical, environmental or advantageous than just eating mostly simple starches with some vegetables, fruits and nuts.

You are making alot of dubious claims that are not common about your personal consumption habits and as a vegan I get this all the time on the internet. Too much for it to be true. I visited my family recently in their small village out of Patras, Greece. There is lots of small scale goat and sheep herding there, but the farmers rely on corn and soybean grown outside the country in addition to all the grazing when the animals are back under shelter. Further Greece is not self-sufficient in meat production and imports from abroad even after five years of constant economic contraction. Alot of the villagers there hunt also, but they only hunt rabbit as that is about the biggest animal wild animal you will find. They actually waste more on guns, ammo and raising hunting dogs than the pathetic amount of rabbit meat they obtain.

You are exaggerating how feasible farming animals and hunting to support a palate bias. Starches take less land, labor, water, produce less pollution and can be shelf stable for months without refrigeration. Further they are health promoting instead of health deteriorating like meat. Meat is loaded with dangerous substances like parasites, live pathogens, endotoxins, saturated fat, trans fats, cholesterol, TMAO (depends on your enterotype), harmane, Neu5Gc, heme iron(while plants have non binded iron that your body can choose to keep and bind or not bind and expel, heme iron is already binded and bioaccumulates in the body no matter what), PAHs (PhIP), added hormones, natural hormones, IGF-1(promotes growth of cancer), it has too much of the cancer promoting amino acid methionine, environmental toxins (PCBs, dioxin, mercury,cadmium, etc.).

That's true, simple starches and vegetables provide all we need. The occasional intersection with meat protein adds some piquancy and novelty to this otherwise bland diet, but yes, go without food for 3 days and a piece of stale white bread takes on the appearance of a 3 course sumptuous experience for the palate. Its all in the palate and water is preferable to beer in regions of underdevelopment.

LOL yeah I just happen to have random deer spines, cow skulls, and sheds full of chickens hanging around, but I don't actually eat any of them. It proves nothing! I don't doubt people lie to you about their consumption habits all the time, but I actually do live this way, which is why I invariably, regrettably involve myself in discussions like this. Do you want pics of me bathing in the blood of cattle or something?

I've posted tons of stuff about why eating animals can be more ecologically friendly than starches, but I can summarize here for you if you like:

The vast majority of grains consumed worldwide are grown in annual monocultures, which involves plowing, digging, chemical fertilization, and pesticide & herbicide use. Almost any sort of annual agriculture on a large scale promotes topsoil loss via erosion, disruption of the soil biology, and usually involves depletion and degradation of the nutrients in the soil. This contributes to desertification and the loss of arable land, as well as poisoning the environment and destroying habitat. The only thing worse than annual grain agriculture for human consumption is annual grain agriculture for the purposes of feeding animals for human consumption. Additionally, some areas such as prairies and grasslands co-evolved with large ruminants and are far better off having cattle, bison, or other herbivores grazing them while maintaining native wildlife habitat, than they are being dug up to grow grains. Furthermore, woodlands can remain intact and provide game instead of being cleared in order to grow grains.

If you are growing perennial grains on a small scale, preferably in polycultures, in areas that have already been appropriated for human use, that's great. Some annual vegetable & grain farming on a human scale is doable without destroying the soil, usually done at home or maybe in an allotment and involving the return of compost, scraps, maybe human waste, etc. to the soil, and with lots of mulching and/or cover crops to prevent erosion, evaporation, etc.--so long as it's not done in sensitive or unsuitable areas.

However, typical annual grain agriculture on anything like the scale needed to feed the current human population is always going to be disastrous. The ideal, if you want my thoughts, is a perennial agriculture based on tree crops (nuts and fruits) that are suited to the environment, need little irrigation (at least after establishment), and require no plowing. These add biomass to the soil over time and help prevent erosion as well as providing habitat. You can grow many things under the shade of these larger productive trees, especially while they are still maturing--smaller fruiting trees and shrubs, berries, perennial vegetables, herbs, and greens, etc. This is exactly the set up I have. I also have a small annual vegetable garden that is farmed as I outline above (intensively, using household wastes). Vegetables are actually incredibly inefficient on a resource-to-calorie basis, but they're nutritionally important so I include them--although I do grow as many perennial vegetables as I can find, and as few annuals. I forage a lot of greens, too. The starches I eat are in the form of perennial tubers and similar--yams, Chinese water chestnuts, edible air potato (not the more common toxic kind), cassava, jerusalem artichoke, etc. No grains, no annual starches. Done on a human scale, preferentially utilizing space that has already been appropriated for human use (yards and lots, public green spaces, and existing agricultural land, in that order of preference). You don't even need any animals, although they do make things more efficient and make better use of space that's not suitable for growing crops--but even without them, an entirely plant-based setup like I just outlined is far more ecological and less resource-intensive than annual grain agriculture, plus healthier, more diverse, and more attractive.

Re: efficiency of hunting: Yeah, it depends a lot on how you do it and what kind of local wildlife you have. I don't use dogs, the animals here are large, and I do a lot of trapping, so there's little trade-off involved in terms of resources invested.

Re: palate bias: Look, I've given up a lot of things I like way more than meat in order to experiment with providing all my own food, including salt, tea, chocolate, sugar, and all processed/purchased foods (except on very rare occasions when I eat with people in town or go to events--like once or twice a year). The amount of meat in my diet is decreasing as more of my crops come into full production, because most of what I grow has to be eaten relatively soon after ripening, whereas animals can hang around basically forever. It's way easier to eat fruit & eggs than it is to butcher a cow or a deer. I have no overwhelming hedonic attachment to meat.

Re: refrigeration and storage: Yes, shelf stability is an advantage of grains. However, I hardly ever refrigerate meat, it's either eaten right away or processed & smoked (we do a lot of hog and deer sausage, some jerky). Eggs and dairy also don't require refrigeration, although I don't do any dairy personally. You're really stuck in this whole industrialized globalized paradigm and you can't seem to engage with anything outside it.

Re: health effects of meat: I think you're right that meat can often be bad for one's health, especially in the context of an otherwise poor diet and sedentary life, and especially in old age, and although I take issue with some of your claims here I don't have the energy to nit-pick them, so let's just say I agree. However, nutrient adequacy is often an issue for people living on grain-based diets, and most diets outside the context of a modern vegan in a developed country with access to unseasonal produce & supplements year round, will benefit from some degree of animal products in the diet. Many people globally actually need more heme iron, for instance, not less, and lack of B12 and omega-3 fatty acids is a problem--iodine and zinc also, to some degree, depending. Grains do cause health problems for many people, although not most, and are relatively low in nutrients per calorie. Legumes and most tubers are a better source of starch, health-wise. We know that human populations can be perfectly healthy eating meat, and the longest-lived and healthiest populations we know of consume(d) meat (in modest amounts). This desirability of meat in the diet is going to vary based on the population we're talking about. I know that concepts such as "context" and "variability" seem to trouble your dogmatic soul, but ignoring them helps no one.

Besides, the question of the ecological viability of meat vs. its health effects are two different questions, and my comments have been concerned with the first. A diet very low in meat likely does promote longevity and in some circumstances optimal health.

So briefly growing soya on already exploited land of an area 80% to feed meat protein entities taking up the othner 20% is your idea of future sustainable agriculture. Frikkin mind-blowing analysis. RM for hunting is a 50 cent 308 projectile and whatever cultural flavor you wish to attach to the experience of going out in the wilds and doing the modern hunter/gatherer thing and blow the protein source into submission. If you are an Eskimo with a communal interrelationship happening, 1 bullet can take out a narwhale and feed the whole community for 6 months of darkness. Its about regional adaptability not the hobby farming kick-start that the bourgeois seem to believe is a return to sustainable roots. Ever thought about where the division of labor and the power to run your fridges, car, house and lobotomy came from? Get back wizard when you work that one out!

It seems to me that if the future is more on the bioregional sustainable side of things then there is going to be some meat eating. It seems obvious to me that the best thing to do is get what you can out of a permacultural existence(which can be quite abundant if done right) and throw in game hunting as a tertiary where meat intake is done on the odd weak or so. I do think that a vegetarian diet is the future for the most part though I reject any exclusive 'only' future.

That's my conclusion also. Ethics and protein wont mix even in a 300 watt food processor. The uber-carnivore is the winner of the end-game.

I say "The only thing worse than annual grain agriculture for human consumption is annual grain agriculture for the purposes of feeding animals for human consumption"

and you immediately reply: "So briefly growing soya on already exploited land of an area 80% to feed meat protein entities taking up the othner 20% is your idea of future sustainable agriculture"

auuuuuughghghgh oh my god I can't even

"Its about regional adaptability"

Which is what I've been saying...

I'm not sure what point you're making about me not being an Eskimo, I can't really parse that part of your comment, but as for "communal interrelationship" my family are shitty white settlers but I've lived here my whole life and so have my family for a couple hundred years, I have community and the food I produce feeds them and vice versa, this is not like some newfangled idea of mine, we've been producing food here for generations, I've updated it a bit to be more ecologically friendly but that's about it.

"where the division of labor and the power to run [stuff] came from?"

I'm not sure what that has to do with veganism or lack thereof? I guess I don't understand what you're getting at here, that labor relations under capitalism are problematic I take as a given...I mostly use biological sources of energy like wood and some limited solar, I don't use cars because I can't drive, and we work our land ourselves, but again I'm not sure what that has to do with veganism...we do use animal labor and prefer it to mechanical or human labor for hopefully obvious reasons.

Lol, you can't drive but you can operate a computer and I guess an ipod and you can also be uber-visceral about the dissection of animal carcasses. Truly awesome juxtaposition of bourgeois talents I must say! I believe you to be either a fundamentalist Quaker or an inbred hill person. Are you aware of how 2nd cousins as partners is genetically taboo? That seems to be the problem, losing track of ones relatives is freaky shit.

No I can't drive because of my seizure meds, not like because I'm so technologically backwards I can't operate a vehicle, LOL.

I admire your sense of humor and you have a good practical knowledge of permaculture. I bet your homemade cooking is scrumptious? Do you hang your meat?

I love the food we eat here! I will admit, though, my tastes get more and more minimalist the longer I stay away from town food. It's getting to the point where I'd just as well go eat a handful or two of raw asparagus, greens, and herbs from the garden for lunch as actually cook, which is weird because I was pretty into food before. Fruit is the best thing in the world, it requires zero work to grow or prepare, I just keep planting more fruit trees. I got some Christmas candy this year from relatives and I ate a truffle after not having any outside food since probably last Christmas--it was a really nice dark chocolate, but it was like getting punched in the tastebuds, the flavor was so intense. I literally dreamed about it later, it was weird. I couldn't decide if it was really good or sort of horrible.

Anyway, we don't usually hang our meat because our climate tends to be warm/humid and really variable, even in winter, so you risk spoilage--this week, for instance, we've had freezing temps and days that almost crept up into the eighties, it's ridiculous. So we tend to try to get the meat dressed out and thoroughly smoked as soon as possible (or just cook it if it's small or we're sharing with a bunch of people). Once it's smoked we can leave it hanging in the smokehouse indefinitely, but it tends to mold after a while. A lot of people I know will just wipe the mold off and eat it anyway. I can do that if it has a casing like sausage, but it kind of grosses me out, so I tend to bring it inside after it has enough smoke on it. A lot of people used to smoke hams around here (we never really did) and they all say that the ham spoils every time now, they can't get one to turn out. Climate change, I guess. My plants are super confused, too--I had apples blooming a couple weeks ago, and a few asparagus popped out earlier this week, and the wild dewberries haven't had a good season in years. Our loquats bloom pretty much year round now, and we never get any loquats. It's kind of depressing.

You're replying to a commenter who's an Holocaust denier, just so you know...

I'm not technically a holocaust denier. I've merely redirected the blame to Stalin, it still happened, but not by gas specifically. I wont give you any links to verify this, I understand that emotions and preconceived versions of the events in 40s Europe are all distorted by the fog of war. I'll leave it at that dude:)

Redirecting to Stalin is a typical rhetorical routine among neonazis and Third Wave zealots. There's a lot of people that died in the Gulags but it took the Soviets years for murdering as much people as the Nazis systematically killed in a few months, in a very well-organized and PREMEDITATED ethnic cleansing operation.

There's a helluva lot of non-Jewish people who died in the war also. I don't need a Zioncentric fanatic such as yourself to brainwash me. Get an understanding of neo-colonialist racism and how the war was a capitalist/communist premeditated attack against the National Socialists in Germany. I don't admire or follow any of these ruthless ideologies, but I do insist upon an accurate and proven historical record at least.

That the Third Reich has invaded or annexed MOST of Europe before the Western allied forces finally decided to go on the offensive against it is a completely accurate and proven historical FACT, where denying it only makes you an historical revisionist, so at that point you aren't worth any discussion at all.

I see that you're another of those third-positionist idiots who just got invited to troll here by Einzige in the vain hope of making your revisionist, antisemitic and anti-antifascist views more accepted, but that's simply not going to work. This ain't 4chan or Reddit here...

Imperialist yankee dog jealous of Japan and put embargo to try stop Nippon production passing yankee and becoming super-power. Pearl Harbor showed you yankee dog We kick out your colonial capitalist chums! kicked out of SE Asia they taking all the produce and use slave labor we showed them with zero fighter and lunatic behind the wheel. We make best car in the world now yankee dog, and we eat dolphin meat to fuck you all up in the sentimental head!!

Considering that a lot of the US financial establishment and some part of the government were under the control of fascists tied to the German-American Bund and America First, who've been actively promoting the anti-war propaganda campaign, it took a long while and sustained inside political efforts for the US to enter the war against Nazi Germany. Hollywood studios also dominated by German producers.

And for your information, Germany had been a major colonial power for almost 100 years when WW2 started, minus the détente caused by the post-Versailles Treaty economic downfall. Nazi Germany has been continuing on what the German Empire had been doing in the 19th century up to the Great War. They were the main aggressive party in the Crimean War, and have provoked WW1 to happen as well.

Not that I want to get involved in this debate but its debatable how systematic the Nazi killing was when you take into account the fact the Germany was facing food shortages and other externalizes. There is the Function vs Intention debate to take into account.


Also www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFlWtdFUh3M

Those are good links and there are also many more including interviews with Jewish inmates from Auschwitz and forensic experts. I'd say I was an extreme functionalist and phew, maybe that will get this virulent pro-Zionist off my back!
The commandant of Auschwitz provided musical instruments and the camp had its own orchestra which played daily, and food was abundant until the squeeze by totalitarian capitalists necessitated severe rationing and medical supplies were ceased. Typhoid and other diseases killed 95% of those in concentration camps.

Yeah I also like to snap off some asparagus and eat it raw. Have you ever heard asparagus growing on a quiet night, it squeaks green revolution? I know this is way off topic, but I think we are kindred spirits dude ;)

You poor bastard … I don't know why you put that effort in to arguing with that troll but I enjoyed your arguments and yes, you are one of the few sensible people posting here. Chances are you won't be back but may I suggest hanging out with other anarchists in real life instead of this shit pit?

Ha, I have a pathological inability to let things go, and I actually think a lot of people sincerely believe that shit, so I always feel sort of compelled to lay out the arguments for the benefit of bystanders. Plus I have bronchitis so I'm not up to doing anything worthwhile and internet arguments help relieve my boredom. I wish there were other anarchists here to hang with! But I'm sort of tied down and my local milieu is more Tea Party-ish, sadly.

Sorry to hear that … healthy networks of like-minds is the holy grail for many of us

The most ubiquitous and dangerous forms of trans fats are hydrogenated VEGETABLE OILS such as margarine, Crisco, and whatever kind of poisonous palm/cottonseed amalgam that the candy companies use to keep your Snickers bar from melting on the store shelves.

If you're a greedy slob in the processed food business, the great thing about infusing vegetable oils with hydrogen is, the oils then take forever to spoil. That's because the mold and bacteria don't recognize that shit as food. Hydrogenation wrecks the amino acid chains in oil, making it useless or even poisonous in terms of nutrition.

Crappy oil binds with good, nutritious oil and can cause oil-based nutrients, such as vitamins d, e, and a, to wind up in the toilet rather than in our brain and muscle cells. That's why margarine is poison. That's why Crisco shouldn't exist. That's why nobody should use Vaseline anywhere, and I mean ANYWHERE, on or in our bodies. That's why it's worth paying the extra money for cold-pressed, cloudy-looking, organic vegetable oil, whether you're going to fry chicken or sweet potatoes.

Give me butter, or even fresh butchered lard, any day over hydrogenated vegetable oil.

ironic how so many vegans like to use the anthropocentric argument when one of the main reasons they have no problem eating plants is because humans don't humanize plants as they do with animals (yet)... Plants don't show emotion or pain, don't have a face etc...


Plants don't have central nervous systems, carnist dolt, you said it yourself. You are just searching for pathetic excuses to justify your speciesism and consumption.

"Humans cannot think and have no intelligence, because they have no CPU. So let's use them as fucking batteries." - some cyborg in the future

Bioelectricity is the process by which currents are sent through neurons back and forth to transport stimuli. Sensations are an electrochemical process. Since plants also have their own electrochemical currents going on, that means it's at least an evidence that they MAY have some form of feelings.

That's why they've been proven through several research to be reacting to several types of music and frequencies differently.

This is the shocking amount of land Americans addiction for animal products takes up, for the ignorant inbred anarchists bandying about words like privilege to ignore a consume less message. But that is just being a typical American, 5% of the world, consuming 30% of its resources thanks to the American military, IMF, World Bank, and other methods of covert and overt imperialism(and no theoretical views of being against capitalism and the state don't mitigate that the only reason you consume as you consume is because of the spoils of Empire):


"The ironic aspect of this head-in-the sand approach to land use is that most agriculture is completely unnecessary to feed the nation. The great bulk of agricultural production goes toward forage production used primarily by livestock. A small shift in our diet away from meat could have a tremendous impact on the ground in terms of freeing up lands for restoration and wildlife habitat. It would also reduce the poisoning of our streams and groundwater with pesticides and other residue of modern agricultural practices."

"Developed Land- Despite all the hand wringing over sprawl and urbanization, only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3 percent of the land area in the U.S., yet this small land base is home to 75 percent of the population." ...

"Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of the U. S. excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. " ...

lately 90% of the comments on @news have been by Maoists, you are no exception.

i ate a vegan sandwich yesterday. haha

I refuse to beg and lose the honor and dignity of the Bushido way! Any bourgeois pet dog or cat which ventures out of its domestic land lorded property perimeter is fair game for butchering and eating, this is legal, an uncollared or unleashed bourgeois pet is technically feral and can be put into the pot. Cat is very like chicken, oregano and garlic and ginger go well with it.

And the American military can technically torture and/or execute a non-US-citizen without trial. What's your point?

this is legal

Human is very like chicken, oregano and garlic and ginger go well with it.

to the wee beasties that feed on dead flesh of all kinds once it's rotting in the ground.

That's why I've always thought of cremation as being a big waste. When my time comes, I want to be wrapped in a cotton sheet and either planted somewhere or dropped in the ocean. No coffin, no formaldehyde, no grisly toxic embalming process. And no damned burning...that's just a waste of good worm food.

Flip side of this pathetic vegan moralizing is I love my dog more than I care about most people. I wouldn't hesitate to kill A person defending my K9 pal.

You wouldn't have named your dog 'Nietzsche' by any chance would you have Hier Wolfenstein?

In the USA a country of 300 million, 800 million humans could be fed by simply diverting the grain used to feed livestock instead of wasting it on the conspicuous consumption of the better off:

When the Haber-bosch process for chemically fixing nitrogen was first developed in the early 21st Century the human population was at 1.5 billion, now we are at 7 billion. But the real problem is the 60 billion or so land animals the richer and more privileged humans want to eat, which is really choking the planet. Already in many swathes of Africa and Asia, livestock are overfed while many humans go hungry or even starve. As we use our easiest to get and cheapest natural gas and oil, this dynamic will implode. Then even exploitative nations benefiting from the spoils of Empire will experience massive starvation and hunger amongst humans, because the rich certainly won't give up their meat eating to evenly distribute grains and plant foods. It is so depressing thinking about the future.

Yes, aren't things terrible, isn't our species awful? Why oh why are people so blind, greedy and cruel. If only they would just all magically become whiny, moralizing idealists …

The goal of true anarchists is to convert the earth into a huge industrial grain factory until there's nothing left but humans and grains.

Ignorant troll that read too many anarchists texts thus making you ignorant on this subject, most of the world's landmass is taken by livestock grazing and the grain crops used to feed the 60 billion land animals that carnists worldwide want to eat:
"Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of the U. S. excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. " ...

Well you have find the perfect so-called movement. Most anarchists just fantasize about how better everything will be after the revolution(which never comes) or fetishize a type of tactics like insurrectionism. Who needs pesky morals to do any of that, since it is all essentially mental masturbation and avoiding what you can do now?

Why would you consume less now and improve the lives of the lowest rung of the social order by going vegan? When you liberate the social condition of the most oppressed, the animals, you improve the social conditions of every human above them, too. But that is just pesky morals, which you pretend to not have. Which anyway is a lie, everyone has morals, you would be morally outraged if anyone murdered your loved ones, especially if it was the state.

Why so serious? Legumes fix nitrogen and granite dust is the organic fertilizer of the future. Take your meds dude and chill out mkay?

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.