Random
Buy a book; help Japan.
I was thinking yesterday about the parallels between the literary world and the culinary world while my domestic goddess sister and her chef boyfriend spoke to each other about various chefs (the brilliant ones and the megalomaniacs) and restaurants (from gastronomic pilgrimage sites to pretentious failures). The uneasy union between these two disparate worlds? The cookbook.
So, if you are the home-cook variety of lit geek, consider adding one more book to your collection: This all-star collection of recipes from giants of the culinary world– all the proceeds from the sale of this e-book (yeah, I said it) will go to the recovery in Japan.( I can’t think of a better excuse to buy an ebook.)
Of course, you’re not going to find any mass market recipes in there– no sir. These recipes are from chefs who’ve earned things equivalent to the Pulitzer. If you’ve ever wanted to brush up your knife skills or broaden your kitchen repertoire past your mom’s lasagna, now is the time. Braised black cod and wakame soup awaits you.
an awesome berkeley foodie organized this:
http://bakesaleforjapan.com/
and i baked cookies in my very own kitchen for it!
check out the ‘why we love the japanese’ vid posted 3/24 it’s cute
(these folks first did a bakesale for haiti, raising ~$23,000)
good food makes the world a better place
Mimi-I love that idea. Food=Love.
Catherine- I’ve been thinking about how to get our digital recipe collection ‘reviewed’ by a literary journal. Cookbooks definitely operate at the intersection of the culinary and literary worlds. Thank you so much for the post!
Phil
http://keeprecipes.com
So help those in suffering by fetishizing the suffering of non-human animals. No thanks. There are better options available.
seriously?
it’s one thing to be a vegetarian/vegan, it’s another thing to hold it against people
Ha ha, this is why I think vegans are such a laugh. I mean really, go eat a big mac and grow a pair you fucking pussy. Oh and donate to the red cross while youre at it, ya self righteous plank.
Ha ha, this is why I think vegans are such a laugh. I mean really, go eat a big mac and grow a pair you fucking pussy. Oh and donate to the red cross while youre at it, ya self righteous plank.
I like this idea. Food for good.
Another book exists called Quakebook. People submitted stories and writing and 100% of proceeds go to help Japan.
I wrote about it on my blog. I also include where you can buy it.
http://wordzeal.com/social-media-and-writers-writers-help-japan
If your motivation for being vegan/vegetarian is based on moral principles, then it makes sense to hold it against people who are participating in a morally blameworthy action–one that increases a significant amount of suffering in the non-human animal world–then it makes sense to hold it against people for fetishizing that suffering as a means, in this case, to solicit donations and alleviate suffering of humans. One should not have to come at the expense of the other (literally and figuratively speaking).
Moreover, donating directly to the Red Cross to help the Japanese ought to be seen as a good in it of itself. Why we would even need to make it an instrumental good, in that you get something in return, just shows how morally impoverished most people are. How morally blind can you possibly be that to do the right thing you need some sort of recompense?
If your motivation for being vegan/vegetarian is based on moral principles, then it makes sense to hold it against people who are participating in a morally blameworthy action–one that increases a significant amount of suffering in the non-human animal world–then it makes sense to hold it against people for fetishizing that suffering as a means, in this case, to solicit donations and alleviate suffering of humans. One should not have to come at the expense of the other (literally and figuratively speaking).
Moreover, donating directly to the Red Cross to help the Japanese ought to be seen as a good in it of itself. Why we would even need to make it an instrumental good, in that you get something in return, just shows how morally impoverished most people are. How morally blind can you possibly be that to do the right thing you need some sort of recompense?
I’ve never met a vegan with actual consistent moral principles. Veganism is cultural cache for upper class white people. Zzzzz
Even if you don’t know any vegans with “consistent moral principles,” it does not follow that being vegan (tout court) means that you are morally inconsistent. This moral inconsistency would be a shortcoming of the individuals you’ve met, and not an argument against veganism itself.
Also, I think it is brutally naive to make this a racial issue. I’m black. And I’m low-income. This has nothing to do with elitism. I honestly don’t know what’s elitist about eating veggies; I actually save a good deal of money that way.
If you think this has nothing to do with elitism, you don’t know much about the human species.
The whole “foodie” thing is awfully decadent though. I’m really starting to hate it as a cultural phenomenon. Most people eat rice and beans, if that. Whatever, it’s just a mild annoyance in my life, like, ugh, I don’t know, ugg boots or something if they’re still cool.
I don’t see that huge of a difference between being a “foodie” and a “poopie”. Let’s get all extravagent and flourishy and obsessive about taking a dump, why don’t we? Okay, I guess there are websites for that…
Japan, yes, help people, etc, I just wanted to complain about something today.
I totally agree. And if you haven’t already, I think you might enjoy reading this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/03/the-moral-crusade-against-foodies/8370/
Pretty sure I’m the only HTML-reader in Japan. The Nihonjin can use all the help they can get, obviously, but down here in the south the most consequential ramification of everything that’s happened seems to be that the men can no longer purchase their favorite brands of cigarettes.
I don’t have an “argument against veganism” anymore than I have an argument against not liking spicy food. People can eat whatever they want. I certainly don’t believe in forcing anyone to eat things.
I don’t, however, believe that many vegans in the first world actually save many if any animal lives by being vegan. Locally slaughtered animals, or locally harvested vegetables for that matter, surely cause less deaths than the number of rodents and insects that die in mass agriculture farming and cross-country transportation that most food goes through. When vegans are confronted with these facts, the normal response is “Well those deaths don’t count because they aren’t intentionally being killed” which is beyond lame as an excuse.
Animal rights is a confused theory, one must be a moral agent to have rights and animals aren’t moral agents. Morally veganism is mostly a religious argument. One must take it on faith that a certain level of brain activity entitles these living things to certain rights and those living things to other rights. If one disagrees with the original premise, not much can be said.
Dear God. Foodies are awful, but BR Myers is one of the dumbest humans alive.
this is a pretty special sentence: “So help those in suffering by fetishizing the suffering of non-human animals.”
The way you frame your argument makes it seem as though most non-human animals are not factory farmed, which they are. And this is a significant point that should not be overlooked. Nevertheless, what your suggesting is that mass agriculture and cross-country transportation, and what is killed in the process, is somehow a knock against veganism. It isn’t. In fact, by reducing our consumption of non-human animals and their byproducts, and locally growing our fruits and veggies, a lot of the problems that you are discussing would vanish. This would be end result if most people switched over to a plant-based diet, and not something that will happen if we don’t.
As far as your vegan friends (who I wouldn’t take to be representative of all vegans as you seem to be inclined to do) and their so-called moral inconsistency, remember, it is not an all or nothing deal. Obviously, because we live in a world that is so dependent on non-human animals and their byproducts, fucking up is inevitable. Only after I became vegan did I realize just how many products have some form of non-human animal byproducts in them. But striving for moral consistency is sure as hell a lot better than being morally inconsistent all the time (like most people who give some non-human animals a free pass purely based on aesthetic reasons while other less aesthetically pleasing animals, who have the same cognitive capacities [if not more] as dogs and cats, get worked over for no good reason).
Also, I think it is uncontroversial to suggest that cows, pigs, and chickens are capable of suffering a great deal more than insects. If someone was going to either give up honey or “hamburgers,” I would happily let them hang on to the honey.
Lastly, you say that non-human animals are not moral agents. But that is just the byproduct of a society that denies rights to some animals and not others for purely arbitrary and, you guessed it, inconsistent reasons. You probably think it is morally reprehensible to slit the throat of your neighbor’s dog. And yet you take it on “faith” (to use your words) that there is a certain level of brain activity going on inside of him/her (notice that I did not refer to the dog as “it” which is yet another way that we make non-human animals absent from moral consideration by failing to recognize that they are male or female). Well, I would ask that you extend that same moral consideration to all non-human animals who don’t have the benefit of being fuzzy or cute and lack the superficial qualities that prevent them from being a part of our moral landscape.
These are not religious arguments at all (there is nothing metaphysical about it), this has everything to do with our physical, tangible, world and how it is that we treat other physical, tangible creatures. And I want to suggest that we can do a whole hell of a lot better.
With that said, I know this is an odd place to have this debate. However, I appreciated your response. Thanks for it.
Oh, I absolutely don’t think we should ignore that most meat is factory farmed in horrible conditions. It absolutely is. But the death of a cow is one life and, if we believe in the idea that all animals are morally equal, it is fair to note that far more animals die in the various stages of production, transportation and consumption of said dead cow. Similarly many more die in the production, transportation and consumption of a pack of vegan chicken wings. For example, many insects and rodents are killed by large scale farming equipment when vegetables are planted.
You idea that these problems would end by switching to vegan diets seem naive. Mass agriculture is cheaper than locally grown foods, so would not disappear with vegan diets. Right? Just as it is right to to point out most meat is factory farmed and shipped across the country, most vegetarian products are as well.
It also avoids the inconvenient fact that mots experts seem to agree that polyfaced farms that involve animal and plant production are the most sustainable methods of farming. It is, of course fair to note that they don’t account for much farming currently, but they are likely the most sustainable.
I appreciate the discussion as well and apologize for my overly snarky first response.
Regarding moral agents, to quote wikipedia: A Moral agent is “a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong”
Animals murder each other, rape each other, cannibalize each other, torture each other, and do a million things that, if they were humans, we would find morally abhorrent. Animals don’t act in reference to human notions of right and wrong. A creature does not have “rights”, at least in my view, unless they have the responsibility of rights. If they violate another creature’s rights, they need to be punished.
But obviously vegans dont’ want to punish all animals that eat another animal or in some other way violate another animal’s rights. So, really they don’t believe in rights.
I don’t think that a thing has to have rights, in this sense, to be protected. I don’t at all think animals should suffer unnecessary suffering, but I think we can prevent that without a false notion of “rights.”
“Well, I would ask that you extend that same moral consideration to all non-human animals who don’t have the benefit of being fuzzy or cute and lack the superficial qualities that prevent them from being a part of our moral landscape. ”
But don’t you think this is ironic given your earlier comment about insects not counting because of lower brain activity? This is actually part of the reason I don’t find vegans morally consistent, in practice at least. Their compassion tends to be based on the cuteness of animals. They say, or many say at least, that all animals should be treated equally, but what they mean is that cute mammals should be treated like humans, but washing a gross spider down the sink is okay.
That said, I do think it is fair to separate this stuff according to brain activity/sentience. However, I understand why many vegans avoid this. If you go that route, you almost immediately cede much of the ground and instead of a debate about moral absolutes, it is merely a debate about where to draw the line. It is much easier for a meat eater to then argue that much of what they eat should pass the test. This is the same conundrum anti-abortion activists face, and they go for the more logically dishonest yet morally compelling argument that all stages of life after conception “count” the same.
To head off the more obvious response that we treat babies as moral agents and give them full rights even though they don’t actually know right from wrong, I dont’ think that’s true. Children have the potential to know right and wrong, but there is a reason we slowly doll out rights to people as they grow up. Also, if a baby was constantly raping and murdering other babies, we’d probably punish it and lock it away from society.
Anyone really interested in what you guys are talking about should look into Paul Shepard, an absolute giant who is criminally underappreciated. Starting with The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game, Thinking Animals, and The Others: How Animals Made us Human.
Appreciate the response. First of all, I wouldn’t take Wikipedia as a moral authority on who is considered to be a “moral agent.” In many philosophical circles, this is a hotly contested issue, and not one that has been settled by any means.
But anyway: I was never suggesting that we should take our moral cues from non-human animals. Yes, they do nasty things to each other and they do not know the difference of right from wrong. So it would be ridiculous to bring a monkey to trial for throwing her shit on a fellow monkey (or human being for that matter). However, it is not ridiculous to suggest that we–presumably those of us who can appreciate the differences between right and wrong–have a moral responsibility toward non-human animals (just ask Michael Vick). And I was simply suggesting that you ought to extend the same moral consideration that you show to your neighbor’s dog to other non-human animals as well. Otherwise, you would be participating in the kind of moral inconsistency that you find so unacceptable.
Also, I think you may have misunderstood me when you say that a vegan’s “compassion tends to be based on the cuteness of animals.” I said nothing of the sort. I don’t think pigs are cute, or cows, chickens, etc. And I think a lot of what motivates their mistreatment is that fact that they aren’t cute.
Furthermore, I do believe that killing insects counts for far less than slaughtering some more sophisticated mammals. That is to say, swatting a fly and killing a dolphin are not the same thing, and the differences therein have to be acknowledged. Of course, this does not mean that insects count for nothing, but we need to have our priorities in order: cows, pigs, chickens, dolphins, and so on–have the cognitive capacity to suffer far greater pain than insects do. This has nothing to do with cuteness, and everything to do with their biological makeup.
With that said, you seem to think that the vegan has to be morally consistent AT ALL COSTS or else the whole enterprise isn’t worth the trouble. This is absolutely the wrong way to look at it. Like I said before, striving for moral consistency is sometimes the best we can do. If a vegan swats a fly and doesn’t think twice about it, but has sworn off non-human animal flesh and their byproducts, then she has gone a significantly long way in reducing the suffering in this world. Or, at the very least, she is striving not to support industries that thrive off of killing non-human animals–which is a significant step in the right direction, I believe, if you do not think that they should be needlessly tortured and killed by us.
As for the objection you anticipated, I never considered bringing up children into the picture. But Peter Singer makes a good point when he says that the only reason we treat non-human animals badly, in most cases, is because they are of a different species. And that is what we base our prejudice against them on. Yet, as Singer notes, many humans with significant brain damage do not have anything close to the cognitive capacity of, say, a monkey–or even in some cases, a cow. However, we do not think twice about treating them as moral agents. And rightfully so. So we can’t use intelligence as the litmus test for what we can kill and eat and what we can’t. Otherwise, we are being “speciesist” as Singer would put it (it’s an ugly neologism, I give you that). But oftentimes that’s the bar we set to justify slaughtering non-human animals: they don’t have capacity to “reason” and we do. This is an old, old Aristotelian notion that has stuck around for over two thousand years now (“man is a rational animal”). And it is high time that we got rid of it.
Regarding your last point: I have to admit, I’m not big on the environmental arguments for veganism. I think it’s icing on the cake. But I think it’s the wrong motivation to be vegan. Because if there were suddenly a way to slaughter non-human animals in an environmentally sustainable way, it would still be wrong to do it. There is no right way to kill a non-human animal, no matter how environmentally-friendly it may be. And there is no such thing as “humane slaughter,” which is one of the more cruel and insidious oxymorons that has gotten itself accepted into the mainstream lexicon.
I’ll just conclude with what I always say when people ask me why I’m vegan: “Because I have nothing against animals.”
I’m not taking wikipedia as any kind of authority, merely quote a common phrasing (its actually taken from Webster’s dictionary) of moral agency. Whether some philosophers employ different definitions isn’t really relevant. This is the definition I’m employing in my argument.
Regarding killing your neighbor’s dog, your problem in trying to shift this scenario to random animals is that the human (the neighbor) disappears. Much of the problem we feel in killing a neighbor’s dog is that there are human beings who love that dog and will suffer from its loss. We would feel horrified if someone snuck into your house and killed your pet fish in a way we wouldn’t about someone fishing in a pond. Similarly, we don’t feel the same about killing wild dogs or wolves as we do about killing domesticated pets. The connection to a human is key here, although certainly many vegans might wish that wasn’t true.
“If a vegan swats a fly and doesn’t think twice about it, but has sworn off non-human animal flesh and their byproducts, then she has gone a significantly long way in reducing the suffering in this world.”
This is where you and I fundamentally disagree. Putting aside the question of whether decreasing suffering is some necessary goal, I don’t believe that someone stopping eating meat has even sucked a drop out of the well of suffering. As I’ve been arguing, far more animals suffer at the production and distribution of ANY food products, not to mention the various non-food related ways that humans harm animals or the harm that HUMANS suffer in much of our food production (how much vegetarian food is made from products picked by migrant farm workers?) or even to get into the question of how much wild animals suffer in their life. Indeed, someone who tried their best to eat locally grown meats and meat products from animals raised well and organically would greater reduce the suffering
Someone stopping eating meat has basically done nothing to stop suffering. Certainly nothing “significant.” So what have they done? They’ve done something that makes THEM feel better. And they’ve also done something that is relatively easy, simply buying different products at the store.
I also think Singer is dead wrong. We don’t treat human vegetables or people with significant brain damage as we treat fully functioning human beings. We don’t allow them to make their own choices, we make choices FOR them. They do not have the rights that a normal person has.
The reasons we don’t slaughter them are not about their cognitive abilities or even really their rights, although some sentimentalists might think so, but more to do with their connection to other humans, their relations, and the fear of what would happen to a society that started cannibalism. People also recoil from the idea of eating human flesh grown in a lab, although certainly that chunk of flesh has no rights.
My example of killing the neighbor’s dog was to show that it would be against our moral intuitions to do so (moreover it would be against the law) but that that same courtesy isn’t extended to other non-human animals for arbitrary reasons (they aren’t cute, playful, etc.). Once again, in your example, you equivocate the killing of a dog to a killing of a fish. These actions are not equivalent. I have already established that by showing how biological complexity and the capacity to suffer plays a significant role here. With that said, you say that “we don’t feel the same about killing wild dogs or wolves as we do about killing domesticated pets.” First thing, you are stretching yourself thin by appealing to “we” in this case. As if the majority of people wouldn’t be horrified if someone slit the throat of wild dog or wolf, or indiscriminately punched them and kicked them simply because they do not have owners. I think it’s not a stretch to say that most people would find this kind of behavior appalling. So yes, the connection to a human is key, but that we recognize that it is morally blameworthy to cause needless suffering to non-human animals. The point is that most people make exceptions for the non-human animals that they own but not the ones that they eat, and, once again, this is an example of their moral inconsistency. Most vegans, on the other hand, at least strive to be morally consistent.
As for your other point: I do not buy the claim that “far more animals suffer at the production and distribution of ANY food products,” which seems like an empirical question that would only support becoming vegan (citation[s] upon request); on top of that, becoming vegan would limit the amount of suffering based on your argument here. Because most foods, as I have already stated, have non-human animal or their byproducts in them. Everything from chap stick, everything made with sugar (rather than evaporated cane juice) that is filtered through bone char to make it appear more “white,” and, of course, “meat”-products, and the list goes on and on. So if you want to put a limit on production and distribution, then becoming vegan would be a great way to do so. (Usually vegan companies support sustainable practices and are locally-oriented). Having said that, your argument would suggest that simply cutting out non-human animals and their byproducts from our diet is only the tip of the iceberg and that we need to do a lot more to reduce their suffering (humans are certainly not excluded from this point and should not be exploited, either). And I am very happy to agree with you on this point.
But when you say that “someone who tried their best to eat locally grown meats and meat products from animals raised well and organically would greater reduce suffering,” I have to ask: In comparison to what? It would be a step in the right direction to get away from the habit of buying factory-farmed meat; but again, I contend that non-human animals are being slaughtered for an arbitrary need on your part (that they taste good) which means sacrificing a major interest on their part (being alive). The suffering that is being perpetrated by satisfying your arbitrary interest is one that comes at a great cost to other living beings that are being discriminated against for no good reason.
Once again, when you say that all a vegan is doing something “relatively easy, simply buying products at the store” you have made great strides in proving my point: if it is so easy, then it would be easy to give up. And so it ought to be done with ease as it would be a smooth transition. Not because it makes someone feel warm and fuzzy, but because it is the right thing to do. Furthermore, if the need for non-human animals and their byproducts didn’t exist, then a great deal of unnecessary suffering would be prevented.
Personally, I work with the local humane society and other animal outreach programs, and I have witnessed what it is like for non-human animals to suffer significant trauma, what it is like for them to be in pain, and I have decided that I want absolutely no part of any practice that contributes to that suffering. Going vegan isn’t the be all end all, but it is a good starting point, and one that would have a significant impact on this earth if everyone were to abide by it. And note that my reasons for doing so are philosophical and based on moral principles, and not because I am “sentimentalist.” (Although the bifurcation between “emotion” and “reason” is yet another relic of a bygone era, particularly of the Cartesian flavor, that ought to be left beyond.) The only reason it would appear to have a negligible impact on suffering is because of the extent to which other people exploit non-human animals by comparison. But that doesn’t even begin to trivialize my cause, it only shows how desperately it is needed.
Quick correction: I said in the 4th paragraph, “if it is so easy, then it would be easy to give up.” I meant to say, “if it is so easy, then it should be easy to do away with the need to eat non-human animal products and their byproducts.”
Um, actually I equate killing a fish to…killing a fish. My point is that the pet fish, by virtue of its connection to a human, has made the killing seem like a crime, not the relative intrinsic worth between a pet fish and a wild fish.
You keep talking about suffering but you’ve already admitting suffering isn’t actually what you care about. An animal that was raised in a great environment, treated well, and then slaughtered in its later years quickly and painlessly would still be abhorrent to you, even though such an animal would surely have “suffered” less than a wild animal.
Your dog argument now seems to hinge on the emotional language of “slit its throat.” Yes, we would be appalled by anyone who seemed to take delight merely in killing creatures for no reason. We’d be appalled by someone who threw fish on dry land just to watch them die. Those situations are different from someone who kills without sadism to reduce wild populations for their own good, clear pests form their crops, or get food. To a vegan, all killing may be the same (like the religious person believes the killing of all “human” life from conception to old age is the same), but that’s not how most people feel and it isn’t inconsistent to recognize the differences.
“I have to ask: In comparison to what? ”
In comparison to your typical vegan in North America. The typical one who eats packaged foods and processed foods with the same regularity than a non-vegan does. Remember, you were the one that claimed that simply going vegan at all greatly reduced the suffering in the world.
Your talk of “great cost” is again abstract near religious language that doesn’t really mean anything. You’ve already admitted that the suffering is not the problem, it is the death. But death is not necessarily suffering. Would a well-raised domestic animal prefer a quick death in the wild? Who knows. They don’t have the capacity to understand these options or make a choice. There is no “great cost” involved in the eating of meat EXCEPT to our environment, but that is a question of mass production of anything including mass agriculture.
I’m still seeing no reason to believe that veganism is anything more than a a lifestyle choice for mostly wealthy Westerners to feel unique and self-righteous. It certainly isn’t unique in that regard though.
“Usually vegan companies support sustainable practices and are locally-oriented”
[citation needed]
there is a slight shortage of beer in supermarkets, conbini etc, in tokyo, otherwise stuff carries one (so I am an HTML-reader also)
I say donate directly, or just ignore everything. probably it will happen to you soon enough and it won’t matter who donates what by what method or to who, you may be in a gymnasium and be glad of a new pair of socks
one = on
nohow
on
http://tinyurl.com/64twv57