Check it out: link.
I think I might have to enter this. Hope to see some of you there!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Thought on the nature of our relationships with animals
Sometimes I am somewhat disappointed by what I see as a lack of intellectual vigor and critical thinking within the AR community. It seems that many of us become trapped into certain ways of thinking, and never move on from there. And to be perfectly frank about it, some of the people that shout the loudest are among the least intelligent of us. I think it is time to have an intellectual reawakening in the AR movement, where ideas are shared and discussed in thoughtful ways yielding productive dialogue.
Among one of the general misconceptions made by many advocates of animal rights is the assumption that all relationships between humans and animals are zero-sum games. First, what is a zero-sum game (ZSG)? In layman’s terms, a ZSG refers to a situation where, in the course of an interactive relationship, there are winners and losers. Think of this like a home poker game. If there are five players, and I win $50, then the sum of the losses of the other players are $50. If there is a winner then there must be losers.
ZSG easily lend themselves to exploitation, so it’s not surprising that many advocates of animal rights buy into this notion. They assume that all relationships where humans interact with animals are exploitive in nature.
The thing is, not all relationships, or even most relationships are ZSGs. This has been born out with the idea of trade. Centuries ago, the dominant idea was that trade was good for one country (the exploiter) and hence, bad for another (the exploitee). This notion, known as mercantilism, helped usher in the brutal practice of imperialism. Since then, economists (starting with Adam Smith) noted that trade could be, and often is, good for all parties involved. A simple example: if I have a field that grows wheat very well, and you have a field that grows corn very well, it makes no sense for me to grow any corn on my field or for you to grow any wheat on yours. Instead, we should each specialize in what we grow best, and maximize output, and trade with each other. We will have more overall if we do that. This is known as a positive-sum game (PSG). Note that not all positive-sum relationships have to be mutually beneficial, but PSGs are necessary but not sufficient for a mutually beneficial relationship. There are three types of PSGs involving two sets of actors: one where one party wins and another loses, another where one wins and the other yields little to no benefit but is not harmed, and the last where all parties involved win (mutually beneficial PSGs).
Can our relationships with animals be mutually beneficial PSGs? Yes, I believe they can. Many of us have such relationships in the form of having pets. (Some more radical advocates of AR believe that even pets are a form of exploitation, but I would argue that is an extreme position in the AR community.) This is a mutually beneficial relationship in that we provide food, shelter, and health care to an animal to degree that he would not receive in the wild. In turn, we receive companionship (and, as is the case with my cat, a hell of a lot of amusement). This is a win-win relationship, hence it is a PSG.
ZSG relationships include, most notably, factory farming for both dairy and meat. I think this clearly extends to “free range” animal agriculture as well. (One could even argue, that given the health problems associated with meat and dairy consumption, this is actually a negative-sum relationship which harms both parties.) Animal testing for cosmetic or medical purposes also is a ZSG. This would extend to the production of most dairy and the production of most eggs as well (even the “humane” alternatives).
Mutually beneficial PSGs include pets (which I do not morally consider ownership), and some traditional and, in the west somewhat rare instances of production of animal products. This includes one unusual example of a woman who has rescued chickens, who she feeds and provides shelter. In turn, she consumes the eggs. Let’s say she were to sell some of these eggs. Does that make this an exploitive relationship? I would argue it does not based on the logic I discussed above – just because someone benefits from a relationship does not mean the other party necessarily loses.
I think it’s important to understand the difference between a ZSG and a PSG in order properly categorize exploitive versus non-exploitive relationships. Doing this allows us to move beyond absurd and offensive views many less intelligent AR advocates express. (I have actually seen an idiot compare a person riding horses from a family farm to human slavery!) This “test” gives us a logical guideline by which to go beyond making arguments based on emotion and vitriol to making arguments based on sound, logical reasoning.
Among one of the general misconceptions made by many advocates of animal rights is the assumption that all relationships between humans and animals are zero-sum games. First, what is a zero-sum game (ZSG)? In layman’s terms, a ZSG refers to a situation where, in the course of an interactive relationship, there are winners and losers. Think of this like a home poker game. If there are five players, and I win $50, then the sum of the losses of the other players are $50. If there is a winner then there must be losers.
ZSG easily lend themselves to exploitation, so it’s not surprising that many advocates of animal rights buy into this notion. They assume that all relationships where humans interact with animals are exploitive in nature.
The thing is, not all relationships, or even most relationships are ZSGs. This has been born out with the idea of trade. Centuries ago, the dominant idea was that trade was good for one country (the exploiter) and hence, bad for another (the exploitee). This notion, known as mercantilism, helped usher in the brutal practice of imperialism. Since then, economists (starting with Adam Smith) noted that trade could be, and often is, good for all parties involved. A simple example: if I have a field that grows wheat very well, and you have a field that grows corn very well, it makes no sense for me to grow any corn on my field or for you to grow any wheat on yours. Instead, we should each specialize in what we grow best, and maximize output, and trade with each other. We will have more overall if we do that. This is known as a positive-sum game (PSG). Note that not all positive-sum relationships have to be mutually beneficial, but PSGs are necessary but not sufficient for a mutually beneficial relationship. There are three types of PSGs involving two sets of actors: one where one party wins and another loses, another where one wins and the other yields little to no benefit but is not harmed, and the last where all parties involved win (mutually beneficial PSGs).
Can our relationships with animals be mutually beneficial PSGs? Yes, I believe they can. Many of us have such relationships in the form of having pets. (Some more radical advocates of AR believe that even pets are a form of exploitation, but I would argue that is an extreme position in the AR community.) This is a mutually beneficial relationship in that we provide food, shelter, and health care to an animal to degree that he would not receive in the wild. In turn, we receive companionship (and, as is the case with my cat, a hell of a lot of amusement). This is a win-win relationship, hence it is a PSG.
ZSG relationships include, most notably, factory farming for both dairy and meat. I think this clearly extends to “free range” animal agriculture as well. (One could even argue, that given the health problems associated with meat and dairy consumption, this is actually a negative-sum relationship which harms both parties.) Animal testing for cosmetic or medical purposes also is a ZSG. This would extend to the production of most dairy and the production of most eggs as well (even the “humane” alternatives).
Mutually beneficial PSGs include pets (which I do not morally consider ownership), and some traditional and, in the west somewhat rare instances of production of animal products. This includes one unusual example of a woman who has rescued chickens, who she feeds and provides shelter. In turn, she consumes the eggs. Let’s say she were to sell some of these eggs. Does that make this an exploitive relationship? I would argue it does not based on the logic I discussed above – just because someone benefits from a relationship does not mean the other party necessarily loses.
I think it’s important to understand the difference between a ZSG and a PSG in order properly categorize exploitive versus non-exploitive relationships. Doing this allows us to move beyond absurd and offensive views many less intelligent AR advocates express. (I have actually seen an idiot compare a person riding horses from a family farm to human slavery!) This “test” gives us a logical guideline by which to go beyond making arguments based on emotion and vitriol to making arguments based on sound, logical reasoning.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Vegetarian dating
For most of my twenties I was married to a very nice woman. After about six years of marriage (and another two in a relationship before that), it just wasn’t working. I’m not going to get into the specifics, but rest assured that there is nothing in the way of animosity or resentment against her. She really is a nice person, and we still talk sometimes. I wish her all the best, and genuinely hope she has a happy life.
After our relationship ended I swore to myself I would not seriously date another meat eater. Not eating animals is simply that important to me. I don’t think people that meat eaters are bad people, but I’m not going to compromise this. The disadvantage here is obvious: it limits my options. But I have to stay true to myself, and my values.
After my marriage I got into a very serious relationship with a vegan girl. I’m not going to go into spill-my-guts details here, but I will just say that it ended with my being very hurt, and wound up propelling me into a months-long legitimate depressive episode where I could barely function. I am now, thankfully, on the other side of that chapter of my life. However, unlike with my divorce, there is a lot of resentment and animosity here (on my part at least).
So over the past several months I have been doing a lot of dating. As I was married during most of the “prime” dating years of my twenties, this is something completely new to me. And now that I am “on the market” I am playing by rules where I won’t seriously date anyone who is not at least a pescetarian. I will casually date (and have done so, semi-rarely) some girls that eat meat, though honestly it does make me a little uncomfortable when eating out, but I deal. So, I have never had a “normal” dating life, and I realize I probably never will, and I am totally okay with that. Regardless, the whole process has led me to learn a lot about myself.
So anyway, here are some observations about veggie dating (and dating in general I guess):
It is much easier to guys to be picky about dating based on eating habits than women. The reason? Basic dating economics: more chicks are vegetarians. I see female friends of mine that have a lot of trouble finding a veggie guy, and simply cannot be as picky as me. I am in a hell of a lot better position than they are, so I certainly can’t judge them.
Some people are just fucking mean. Sometimes there is simply nothing there between two people – there is no spark. Sometimes there is the unfortunate “one-sided” spark where one person feels something but not the other. Unfortunately, this happened to me a few months ago, with me being the sparkee. The other person obviously didn’t feel anything. How do I know? She cut off all contact. All of it. No goodbye, no “I’m sorry but there just isn’t anything there,” nothing. While this was far from a life altering event, in the midst of my depression it was not a reassuring experience.
People are going to get hurt. Dating is a blood sport, metaphorically speaking. I am reminded of a common theme in the best TV show ever, The Wire: “it’s all in the game.” Meaning, there are some inherent dangers in the endeavor. You are probably going to get hurt in some way shape or form, and unfortunately you are probably going to hurt somebody, no matter how hard you try not to. There are certain precautions you can put in place. The main one is simply honesty. Be honest with her and (perhaps more difficultly) yourself. If there is nothing there, tell her. However, hurt will still happen, just hopefully not as much than if you were not deceptive. I have put in a conscientious effort to not hurt anyone, and I have failed. Now I have not devastated anyone the way I was devastated, but my hands aren’t clean either, no matter how hard I tried to keep them so. You can’t make yourself feel too guilty about it though. It’s really part of the game. The best you can do is to treat other people with consideration and respect.
Confident guys are more successful at dating. A lot of guys think the assholes get all the girls, and this is not necessarily the case. I have seen lots of self proclaimed “nice guys” complain about how all the nice girls date jerks. I have noticed this to an extent, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the asshole factor chicks go for. It’s confidence. In college I was too shy, awkward and introverted to be very successful at dating. I was scared at getting shot down. After college I took comfort in the safety of relationships to shield myself from what I thought was the harshness of the cutthroat world of dating. Since then I have developed a lot of confidence. I am not scared to ask a girl out. I am not ashamed when I get turned down – it happens. I will kiss a girl if I like her, or at least try to.
Overall, being single is not bad. There are pitfalls sure. Again, someone will get hurt, and while hurting people is not okay, it’s important to realize that it’s part of what you sign up for. I’m not going to get too much into my own situation because this blog is more about vegetarianism in St. Louis than bullshit details and journal entries.
Anyway, I hoped someone finds this perspective on dating from the perspective of a straight vegan male useful, enlightening, interesting, or at least good for a laugh.
After our relationship ended I swore to myself I would not seriously date another meat eater. Not eating animals is simply that important to me. I don’t think people that meat eaters are bad people, but I’m not going to compromise this. The disadvantage here is obvious: it limits my options. But I have to stay true to myself, and my values.
After my marriage I got into a very serious relationship with a vegan girl. I’m not going to go into spill-my-guts details here, but I will just say that it ended with my being very hurt, and wound up propelling me into a months-long legitimate depressive episode where I could barely function. I am now, thankfully, on the other side of that chapter of my life. However, unlike with my divorce, there is a lot of resentment and animosity here (on my part at least).
So over the past several months I have been doing a lot of dating. As I was married during most of the “prime” dating years of my twenties, this is something completely new to me. And now that I am “on the market” I am playing by rules where I won’t seriously date anyone who is not at least a pescetarian. I will casually date (and have done so, semi-rarely) some girls that eat meat, though honestly it does make me a little uncomfortable when eating out, but I deal. So, I have never had a “normal” dating life, and I realize I probably never will, and I am totally okay with that. Regardless, the whole process has led me to learn a lot about myself.
So anyway, here are some observations about veggie dating (and dating in general I guess):
It is much easier to guys to be picky about dating based on eating habits than women. The reason? Basic dating economics: more chicks are vegetarians. I see female friends of mine that have a lot of trouble finding a veggie guy, and simply cannot be as picky as me. I am in a hell of a lot better position than they are, so I certainly can’t judge them.
Some people are just fucking mean. Sometimes there is simply nothing there between two people – there is no spark. Sometimes there is the unfortunate “one-sided” spark where one person feels something but not the other. Unfortunately, this happened to me a few months ago, with me being the sparkee. The other person obviously didn’t feel anything. How do I know? She cut off all contact. All of it. No goodbye, no “I’m sorry but there just isn’t anything there,” nothing. While this was far from a life altering event, in the midst of my depression it was not a reassuring experience.
People are going to get hurt. Dating is a blood sport, metaphorically speaking. I am reminded of a common theme in the best TV show ever, The Wire: “it’s all in the game.” Meaning, there are some inherent dangers in the endeavor. You are probably going to get hurt in some way shape or form, and unfortunately you are probably going to hurt somebody, no matter how hard you try not to. There are certain precautions you can put in place. The main one is simply honesty. Be honest with her and (perhaps more difficultly) yourself. If there is nothing there, tell her. However, hurt will still happen, just hopefully not as much than if you were not deceptive. I have put in a conscientious effort to not hurt anyone, and I have failed. Now I have not devastated anyone the way I was devastated, but my hands aren’t clean either, no matter how hard I tried to keep them so. You can’t make yourself feel too guilty about it though. It’s really part of the game. The best you can do is to treat other people with consideration and respect.
Confident guys are more successful at dating. A lot of guys think the assholes get all the girls, and this is not necessarily the case. I have seen lots of self proclaimed “nice guys” complain about how all the nice girls date jerks. I have noticed this to an extent, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the asshole factor chicks go for. It’s confidence. In college I was too shy, awkward and introverted to be very successful at dating. I was scared at getting shot down. After college I took comfort in the safety of relationships to shield myself from what I thought was the harshness of the cutthroat world of dating. Since then I have developed a lot of confidence. I am not scared to ask a girl out. I am not ashamed when I get turned down – it happens. I will kiss a girl if I like her, or at least try to.
Overall, being single is not bad. There are pitfalls sure. Again, someone will get hurt, and while hurting people is not okay, it’s important to realize that it’s part of what you sign up for. I’m not going to get too much into my own situation because this blog is more about vegetarianism in St. Louis than bullshit details and journal entries.
Anyway, I hoped someone finds this perspective on dating from the perspective of a straight vegan male useful, enlightening, interesting, or at least good for a laugh.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Another recipe
Why “freedom”? Because fuck those freedom hating French, that’s why – whenever America wants to liberate a country it’s those pesky French that have a problem with it. Anyway – we kicked their commie asses in doublya-doublya two, so… yeah. Soup this good deserves an AMERICAN name!
Here is what I do to make it:
Peel and thinly slice 3 lbs of yellow onions, and saut̩ in a mixture of margarine (I use Earth Balance) and extra virgin olive oil. I use probably about 4-5 tablespoons total Рthat might feel fatty but this is traditionally a fatty soup. Caramelize the onions on medium-high heat Рthis might take a bit of time, so be patient.
I added about 6 cloves of chopped garlic when the onions start getting a nice brownish color, and let them cook for a couple of minutes.
Then I deglazed with 2/3rd cups of white wine. I like to use Three Buck Chuck, but whatever you want to use is fine. Turn the heat up to high and add some fresh cracked black pepper. Then I added 5 cups of veggie broth, which I had warmed up on the side with a couple of bayleaves.
Bring this up to a simmer, and cover on low heat. Let it cook for 20 minutes, stirring halfway through. Add salt to taste (though I didn’t need any).
Put it in the fridge and serve it for that rad girl that is coming over for dinner tomorrow night. :)
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
What, this blog still exists?
[a bunch of personal crap I deleted]
I never meant this blog to be a personal sounding board, but I also never intended to go months without posting on it. Oh well, I blame the chemical reactions in my brain that were a response to life changing events, maybe not all of them bad (buying a house, for example). I met some awesome people in the past several months. Some of it was through dating, some just randomly. I am moving on with my life now, and hope to blog more. Getting out of depression is hard. I hope it's not as hard to find out who I am now. I have heard the Japanese think that depression is a transformative experience. I can definitely see that.
I want to post a recipe to it has at least the pretence of relevance for this blog. Both my omni mom and Cokaru both loved this, and will testify to its beef stewedness. I just make this recipe up in my head, tried it, then wrote down what I did on my Facebook page. I was really happy with the results.
“Beef” (seitan) stew:
2 medium small onions, largely diced
3 carrots, chopped
3 small celery stalks I needed to use before they went bad, chopped
9 small red potatoes, chopped
^^ saute all this until the onions start to caramelize
Add in half a head of minced garlic, half a standard bag of frozen sweet peas, and the "beef" -- the equivalent of a standard (9oz?) package of seitan (though mine is homemade, so I eyeballed it. I use the recipe from The Veganomicon, which they also use here). Chop it up into chunks.
Deglaze with a bottle of Schlafly Oatmeal Stout. Add in several sprigs of rosemary, finely chopped and three bayleaves. Add some red pepper flakes, and the equivalent of a standard container of veggie broth (though I use Better than Bullion)
Bring it up to a boil, then simmer covered while you type what you just did on Facebook.
Get up to go stir it, tasting it to make sure it doesn't suck. I added an arrowroot slurry to thicken it up a bit.
I never meant this blog to be a personal sounding board, but I also never intended to go months without posting on it. Oh well, I blame the chemical reactions in my brain that were a response to life changing events, maybe not all of them bad (buying a house, for example). I met some awesome people in the past several months. Some of it was through dating, some just randomly. I am moving on with my life now, and hope to blog more. Getting out of depression is hard. I hope it's not as hard to find out who I am now. I have heard the Japanese think that depression is a transformative experience. I can definitely see that.
I want to post a recipe to it has at least the pretence of relevance for this blog. Both my omni mom and Cokaru both loved this, and will testify to its beef stewedness. I just make this recipe up in my head, tried it, then wrote down what I did on my Facebook page. I was really happy with the results.
“Beef” (seitan) stew:
2 medium small onions, largely diced
3 carrots, chopped
3 small celery stalks I needed to use before they went bad, chopped
9 small red potatoes, chopped
^^ saute all this until the onions start to caramelize
Add in half a head of minced garlic, half a standard bag of frozen sweet peas, and the "beef" -- the equivalent of a standard (9oz?) package of seitan (though mine is homemade, so I eyeballed it. I use the recipe from The Veganomicon, which they also use here). Chop it up into chunks.
Deglaze with a bottle of Schlafly Oatmeal Stout. Add in several sprigs of rosemary, finely chopped and three bayleaves. Add some red pepper flakes, and the equivalent of a standard container of veggie broth (though I use Better than Bullion)
Bring it up to a boil, then simmer covered while you type what you just did on Facebook.
Get up to go stir it, tasting it to make sure it doesn't suck. I added an arrowroot slurry to thicken it up a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)