Keep Your Veganism to Yourself

To vegans proposing moralistic claims about eating meat is unethical, is it there anything wrong with animals who consume animals? If so, do we have an ethical duty to sterilize all predator species? If not, why is it ethical for animals who consume animals to do so but not humans that are actually part of the animal community? And if you don’t think  humans are part of the larger animal community, what are they?

I am not nor will I ever be Vegan.

Reason, Morality, and Emotions?

Stop pretending that all Americans could ever go vegan

MORALITY: values, morals, and ethics

David Sztybel argues in his paper, “Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?” (2006), that the racism of the Nazis is comparable to the speciesism inherent in eating meat or using animal by-products, particularly those produced on factory farms.ref Y. Michael Barilan, an Israeli physician, argues that speciesism is not the same thing as Nazi racism, because the latter extolled the abuser and condemned the weaker and the abused. He describes speciesism as the recognition of rights on the basis of group membership, rather than solely on the basis of moral considerations.ref

“A nationwide poll conducted in April 2006 by Harris Interactive reported that 1.4% of the American population is vegan, in that they eat no meat, fish, dairy, or eggs (1). Vegan diets are growing in popularity today among teenagers and youth, especially females. For many vegans, nutritional choices center around taking better care of the earth’s resources and the environment, ethical issues about animal care, the use of antibiotics and growth stimulants for the production of animals, the threat of animal-borne diseases, and the health advantages of a plant-based diet (26). In addition, the potential of allergies from dairy products and lactose intolerance have fueled the popularity of soy-based dairy substitutes.” ref

Why Your Dog Is Smarter Than My Baby | Popular Science

“Anthropocentrism, also known as homocentricism or human supremacism, has been posited by some environmentalists, in such books as Confessions of an Eco-Warrior by Dave Foreman and Green Rage by Christopher Manes, as the underlying (if unstated) reason why humanity dominates and sees the need to “develop” most of the Earth. Anthropocentrism is believed by some to be the central problematic concept in environmental philosophy, where it is used to draw attention claims of a systematic bias in traditional Western attitudes to the non-human world. Val Plumwood has argued that anthropocentrism plays an analogous role in green theory to androcentrism in feminist theory and ethnocentrism in anti-racist theory. Plumwood calls human-centredness “anthrocentrism” to emphasise this parallel.” ref

Anthropocentrism and Nature – Philosophy

Anthropocentric axiology: Axiology is learning about the values, their character, location, and relationships. Authors, which represent anthropocentrism, were f. e.: Kant, Popper, Sartre etc. ref

According to, an anthropocentric argument for atheism is my atheism, axiologist atheism: Axiological (or constructive) atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. MarxNietzscheSartre, and Freud all used this argument to some extent to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness. Yes, I am an axiologist atheist, which is an Anthropocentric argument for atheism, generally in a way that relates to the argument from evil. Axiological Atheism Explained | Damien Marie AtHope

“So glad to see you are OK and losing exess weight, for great health and no exess fat become Vegan, here it is how is scientifically demonstrated.” – Commenter

My response, Thanks for your support. I will not go vegan but am trying to eat less to lose weight.

“You’re welcome, but you should, Nature says so, check the documentaries if you haven’t already, all Science and fact backed, I hope you reconsider and go slowly but steadily becoming Vegan, avoid specially fats like cheese and meat, processed meets, eat whole with no pesticide plant based food, there is a burger that even bleeds like meet, taste practically the same.” – Commenter

My response, You are welcome to believe in veganism, but I don’t and feel it is unnatural and flawed in its morality proclamation as it wants to say humans are not different but, yet everything is contingent on humans having a difference you then believe makes them required to be vegan that you don’t hold for anything else. That is BS egocentric anthropocentrism if you want to believe that humans have an obligation to be vegan then all other animals do as well. You don’t so you are using a special pleading fallacy. Do you want sterilization of all nonvegan animals? No, you don’t feel a need for that, so you welcome their nonvegan lifestyle? Veganism is an extreme diet nothing more or to some a cult.

Keep your Veganism to yourself:

“So, you consider things carefully before believing? hahaha no dude, you’re just like the other people that wants to keep eating the tasty but damaging animal products, and going against Nature as it’s demonstrated Scientifically, well suit yourself.” – Commenter

My response, It seems that you don’t believe the science articles in my blog or did you not look at it?

“The documentaries are from the top researches in Cancer and other diseases and are doctors that care for their patients personally and are far more complete that those articles probably. I read 1 of them in parts, since it was lengthy at the end it concluded “FURTHER RESEARCH NEEDED” the research is done, they and you just don’t know it, that’s why I posted the link to the Documentaries, which you clearly avoided, then come and try to accuse me of it, but whatever, you’re prime candidate for heart attack and many other diseases, I just wanted to save you all the trouble you’re heading to, but it’s you’re right to choose.” – Commenter

My response, Sorry Vegans: Here’s How Meat-Eating Made Us Human:

Good Vegan, Bad Vegan; I have no argument with people who adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet for health, religious, environmental or ethical reasons. But I object vehemently to proselytizers who distort science or the support for dietary advice offered to the more than 90 percent of us who choose to consume animal foods, including poultry and red meat, in reasonable amounts:


“Yeah the myth that out brains developped because meat gave us lots of proteins and Complex B vitamins which allowed us to develop a big brain, but medical scientists researched and found that plant based food give way more nutrients that animal based food, we have the digestive system of herbivores, meat make us sick, so check mate for meat eaters.” – Commenter

My response, Health effects of vegan diets, by Winston J Craig

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 89, Issue 5, 1 May 2009, Pages 1627S–1633S,


Recently, vegetarian diets have experienced an increase in popularity. A vegetarian diet is associated with many health benefits because of its higher content of fiber, folic acid, vitamins C and E, potassium, magnesium, and many phytochemicals and a fat content that is more unsaturated. Compared with other vegetarian diets, vegan diets tend to contain less saturated fat and cholesterol and more dietary fiber. Vegans tend to be thinner, have lower serum cholesterol, and lower blood pressure, reducing their risk of heart disease. However, eliminating all animal products from the diet increases the risk of certain nutritional deficiencies. Micronutrients of special concern for the vegan include vitamins B-12 and D, calcium, and long-chain n-3 (omega-3) fatty acids. Unless vegans regularly consume foods that are fortified with these nutrients, appropriate supplements should be consumed. In some cases, iron and zinc status of vegans may also be of concern because of the limited bioavailability of these minerals.

Vegan Betrayal: The Myths vs. the Realities of a Plants-Only Diet:

Ordering The Vegetarian Meal? There’s More Animal Blood On Your Hands:

“Keep piling up the BS and pseudo science and calling it truth, there are complete lies of really bad done studies paid by pharmaceutical and animal products industries, you’re searching on the Internet and throwing whatever it’s convenient to you.” – Commenter

My response, Environmental impact of omnivorous, ovo-lacto-vegetarian, and vegan diet; A high inter-individual variability was observed through principal component analysis, showing that some vegetarians and vegans have higher environmental impacts than those of some omnivores. Thus, regardless of the environmental benefits of plant-based diets, there is a need for thinking in terms of individual dietary habits:

The Hidden Cost of Veganism – Lierre Keith #143:

“BS, scientifically proven Plants are way more efficient in nutrition and resources, but keep searching and finding BS.” – Commenter

My response, So, you are in the cult of veganism then if you claim facts of science are not science that is cult behavior. Lol

“Keep believing that you’re not addicted to meat products and getting fatter, fat is food in reserve or exess, that’s because you eat too much even when you eat a normal portion, no you’re projecting again your ignorance and pretexts over me and calling it science, then calling me a cultist for actually believing in scientists and Science.” – Commenter

My response, So, you agree with science but only if it fits your beliefs but when you don’t like the facts you claim it as pseudoscience like how you are deficient in vitamins in a vegan diet. And even if I agree it is healthier as you believe this saying its heather to be vegan is stating a diet preference as I can choose to have an unhealthy diet if I so choose to, it is not a morality thing just a diet choice. My being addicted to meat products and getting fatter is a personal life choose one that does not contain a morality claim just pointing out a difference in preference as I can choose as a life stance to be fat so I can remove the fat shaming people feel free to do as if t is a moral value they get to hold over any who are so afflicted.

“As I clearly wrote before and you avoided, there are pseudo-scientific studies that say the opposite, I made sure wasn’t my case, I searched for the Truth, read testimonies of people and tested myself, got down 22 Kgr, like 50 Lbs, not exercise, only, Vegan food, improved my life greatly, again you’re projecting your perspective on me, because you’re addicted to the flavors and the good feelings and pleasure center substances released on your body from animal products. And now you victimize yourself, as I refered or implied fat shaming, really childish.” – Commenter

My response, And again, I hear you still trying to push your self-preference for your extreme diet a choice I don’t have to make.

“Yeah because you don’t want to look for truth but for whatever food you want to pleasure yourself with, if not you’d started watching the documentaries and compared with the opposing arguments, instead of collecting articles that are convenient for you, but I’m the cultist hahaha.” – Commenter

My response, Look I get that you want me to hear about the value of veganism as you care for me and for that good will I thank you but as for the diet of veganism I want nothing to do with it so you can keep it to yourself, it’s your choice great do you and I have already looked in to it quite a bit and I reject it.

“Have you watched the documentaries I linked? Do you know the China Study on Cancer? known as the Atlas of Cancer? Have you heard of the 800+ Studies released by the WHO (World Health Organization) about plant-based food? Did you know that is has been demonstrated scientifically Veganism is the healthy way of eating from 1930 onwards? By your comments I know you are ignorant about all these questions, because that and more is explained in those documentaries, why is valid and even the counter arguments why they aren’t, but suit yourself, keep accumulating fat plaque within your blood vessels until they get so much, blood cannot longer circulate and you suffer a heart attack, that’s not a belief, that’s a medical fact, I thought you might want to avoid the event and even eliminate the fat and restored the damaged vessels that do suffer severe damage before a heart attack, they get infections, and even a heart attack is the quick easy way out, you can get Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, embolism, thrombosis, gangrene, diabetes type 1, etc, but OK, you want to go that way of self-destruction, nothing for me to do...” – Commenter

My response, I don’t want to hear about veganism you have now again told me about it, so then you should have no problem from here on out keeping your diet to yourself.

“All your beautiful writing about ethics, examination, and many other things you’re supposed to analyze the evidence I gave you with, then judge by comparison and merit, you’re not doing so, you’re being completely partial and dishonest intellectually, but I am wrong? you have betrayed all those nice images you post all the time dude, not me, I have my intellectual integrity intact because I made sure I was looking for Truth, not to be a fan of some nutrition method, you’re just running away from evidence.” – Commenter

My Response, Veganism is a self-chosen moral belief, it is not an ethic we all must follow.

“Wrong, studies are on their way to prove that we’re Herbivores, by physical and metabolic structures and functionality, hence plant-based food is the healthiest way to go, you just want it to be a moral issue, to have a valid pretext to reject it and keep your fat food addiction alive. I’m depressive too, I know it’s not easy, will never be, but every day we must fight the good fight, the fight to find Truth, and over Truth, you can build progress. In your blog I read “I want all positive change”, clearly you don’t or you’d had watched the documentaries I posted, you reject them just because you want to keep eating what you like, you care for your dopamine fix, and not yourself, you’re selfish to the point of self-destruction, according to your blog, you have a “bad heart”.” – Commenter

My Response, See now you are making your veganism cult thinking all over several posts as I thus you already were demonstrating this pushiness of your veganism even after I said keep it to yourself, right? So you are not respecting that are you? Yes, I did have my heart stop for a few seconds from drugs at 15 and my liver also failed at 17 also do to drugs and alcohol. Thus I quit hard drugs and alcohol but I don’t see it see any moral failure for those who don’t stop its the harm they do that can be judged if they hurt no one but themselves it’s just their free choice, not one I want anymore.

“I simply refute the fallacy you’re answering with, especiallyy because you cowardly refuse to watch the documentaries in favor based on Science and years of research and proven results, just because you want to keep believing that what you’re doing is right, to get your pleasure, clearly not because of health, a medical doctor told me the belly fat is the worse, you have plenty of it, plus the documentaries I know how urgent is that you lose that fat, If you had watched the docs you’d agree with me. I have seen like 100 episodes of Intervention Series, addiction is because of depression, severe in many cases, and depression in turn because of emotional traumas, and yes, it’s common to leave 1 addiction for another if you don’t have support groups, I see clearly now that this is your case, you left drugs and alcohol for food. The moral wrong is that addicts are running away from their problem: emotional trauma while compensating the depression feelings, that’s damaging their lives and bodies, you see nothing wrong with that? then you don’t even see the problem as you don’t want to see a benefit on Veganism, everything you don’t want to face. You asked what animal were you and why, I think you’re an Armadillo or a Turtle, those animals solve their problem by getting out of their shells, the hiding, is temporary, which we all need from time to time.” – Commenter

My Response, There you go acting like a cult you are asked to stop talking about your diet of veganism and you refuse to then are told again to stop with talking about it and you refuse to and look at your complete disrespect to what I said as here you are yet again. Ok, I will make it clearer if you continue to do it I will become irritated and I will consider blocking you, so it’s to you.

“I started to write this post before you posted you said you didn’t want to write about it, it’s on another thread. But more running away… So I’ll leave you with this suiting song for you, take care.” – Commenter

My Response, Can you now stop talking about veganism as I have asked?

“I did twice, I wrote suit yourself, you kept arguing, so I thought you changed your mind.” – Commenter

My Response, Cool, then we are good.

Think there is no objective morality?

Good Vegan, Bad Vegan – The New York Times

Veganism (also known as strict vegetarianism or pure vegetarianism) is a philosophy and lifestyle that avoids using animals and animal products for food, clothing and other purposes. In practice, a vegan (an adherent of veganism) commits to the abstention from consumption or use of animal products, including meat, fish, and poultry, animal gelatin, honey, eggs and dairy products, as well as articles made of silk, fur, wool, bone, leather, feathers, pearls, nacre, coral, sponges and other materials of animal origin. Most vegans also avoid products that have been tested on animals. People become vegans for a variety of reasons, including ethical concerns for animal rights or the environment, as well as more personal reasons such as health benefits and spiritual or religious concerns. ref

Sorry Vegans: Here’s How Meat-Eating Made Us Human | Time

Morality: all subjective or all objective?

YouTuber Who Claimed Veganism And Faith Cured Her Cancer Dies

“Damien, what do you think about what is just and equal concerning all sentient beings? Shouldn’t it include the non-humans too, thus Veganism?” – Questioner 

My response, Veganism is an extreme diet with extreme thinking that is not for me.

“Ok, but veganism isn’t a diet, it’s a moral baseline.” – Questioner  

My response, Yes, veganism claims are morals, not ethics as in you personally attach morals to something personal, not ethics that is a morality that involves others. Veganism is anti-humans killing to eat, not anti-humans killing to eat. So, it’s pushing a special pleading fallacy. Veganism as ethics is a lie as no vegan has any issues with life-killing life just with human life which is one of the animals that kill. If it was morality then they should wish all killing animals stopped killing thus would support sterilizing them all so this truly ends the killing. Extinction is the only way to solve this made up veganism morality claim that one wishes to stop suffering, this worldwide issue:

African rock python (Python sebae)
American black bear (Ursus americanus)
Argentine black and white tegu (Salvator merianae)
Asian water monitor (Varanus salvator)
Black-headed bushmaster (Lachesis melanocephala)
Blood python (Python curtus)
Bornean clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi)
Brown bear (Ursus arctos)
Burmese python (Python bivittatus)
Central American bushmaster (Lachesis stenophrys)
Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus)
Coconut Crab (Birgus latro)
Colocolo (Leopardus colocolo)
Cougar (Puma concolor)
Crocodile (crocodylinae)
Crocodile monitor (Varanus salvadorii)
Diamond python (Morelia spilota spilota)
Dingo (Canis dingo)
Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx)
Fossa (Cryptoprocta ferox)
Gray wolf[note 1] (Canis lupus)
Green anaconda (Eunectes murinus)
Human[note 2] (Homo sapiens)
Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus)
Inland taipan (Oxyuranus microlepidotus
Jaguar (Panthera onca)
Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis)
Lace monitor (Varanus varius)
Leopard (Panthera pardus)
Lion (Panthera leo)
Maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus)
Mulga snake (Pseudechis australis)
Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus)
Perentie (Varanus giganteus)
Boa constrictor (Boa constrictor)
Red wolf (Canis rufus)
Reticulated python (Python reticulatus)
Scrub python (Morelia amethistina)
Snow leopard (Panthera uncia)
Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta)
Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii)
Tiger (Panthera tigris)
Wolverine (Gulo gulo)
Yellow anaconda (Eunectes Noteaus)
Yellow-headed water monitor (Varanus cumingi)
Yellow monitor (Varanus flavescens)

The south polar skua both preys on other seabirds and bullies them for their catches.
African harrier-hawk (Polyboroides typus)
Albatross (Diomedeidae)
Antarctic skua (Stercorarius antarcticus)
Barred eagle-owl (Bubo sumatranus)
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Blakiston’s fish owl (Bubo blakistoni)
Brown fish owl (Bubo zeylonensis)
Cape eagle-owl (Bubo capensis)
Common raven (Corvus corax)
Crested eagle (Morphnus guianensis)
Crowned eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus)
Eurasian eagle-owl (Bubo bubo)
Forest eagle-owl (Bubo nipalensis)
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus)
Great skua (Stercorarius skua)
Harpy eagle (Harpia harpyja)
Harris hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus)
Lappet-faced vulture (Torgos tracheliotos)
Martial eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus)
New Guinea harpy eagle (Harpyopsis novaeguineae)
New Zealand falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae)
New Zealand harrier (Circus approximans)
Northern giant petrel (Macronectes halli)
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Pel’s fish owl (Scotopelia peli)
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Philippine eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi)
Powerful owl (Ninox strenua)
Rock eagle-owl (Bubo bengalensis)
Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Shelley’s eagle owl (Bubo shelleyi)
South polar skua[1] (Stercorarius maccormicki)
Southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus)
Spectral bat (Vampyrum spectrum)
Steller’s sea eagle (Haliaeetus pelagicus)
Tawny fish owl (Bubo flavipes)
Verreaux’s eagle owl (Bubo lacteus)
Wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax)
White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla)

The electric rays are marine predators of the tropics.
The great white shark, a paradigmatic apex predator.
The killer whale or orca is an apex predator of most of the world’s oceans.
The saltwater crocodile is the largest living reptile and is the dominant predator throughout its range.
African lungfish (Protopterus annectens)
Alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii)
Alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula)
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)
American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus)
Arapaima (Arapaima)
Atlantic blue marlin (Makaira nigricans)
Atlantic goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara)
Baiji (Lipotes vexillifer)
Baikal seal (Pusa sibirica)
Black caiman (Melanosuchus niger)
Black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci)
Black marlin (Istiompax indica)
Amazon river dolphin (Inia geoffrensis)
Bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas)
Common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina)
Electric catfish (Malapteruridae)
Electric eel
Electric ray (Torpediniformes)
False gharial (Tomistoma schlegelii)
Gharial (Gavialis gangeticus)
Giant freshwater stingray (Himantura chaophraya)
Gilded catfish (Zungaro zungaro)
Goonch catfish (Bagarius yarrelli)
Goliath tigerfish (Hydrocynus goliath)
Great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda)
Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus)
Great blue heron (Ardea herodias)
Great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran)
Great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias)
Human[note 2] (Homo sapiens)
Humboldt Squid (Dosidicus gigas)
Kaluga (fish) (Huso dauricus)
Killer whale (Orcinus orca)
Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
Leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx)
Lionfish (Pterois)
Lion’s mane jellyfish (Cyanea capillata)
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)
Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus)
Moray eel (Muraenidae)
Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii)
Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy)
Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus)
Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus)
Nile perch (Lates niloticus)
Northern pike (Esox lucius)
Piraíba (Brachyplatystoma)
Pseudoplatystoma (Pseudoplatystoma)
Redtail catfish (Phractocephalus hemioliopterus)
Salmon shark (Lamna ditropis)
Saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus)
South Asian river dolphin (Platanista gangetica)
Semutundu catfish (Bagrus)
Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)
Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)
Australian trumpet (Syrinx aruanus)
Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier)
Walleye (Sander vitreus)
Wels catfish (Silurus glanis)
Whale shark (Rhincodon typus)
Vundu (Heterobranchus longifilis)y these killing animals. ref

“I’m not an anti-human. I’ve never heard of that saying. This doesn’t describe the veganism I know.” – Questioner

My response, That sounds like a kind of Speciesism. Moral codes are species specific, so they can be difficult to compare with each other or with humans.” Prof Bekoff believes morals developed in animals to help regulate behavior in social groups of animals such as wolves and primates. … “Human morality was not formed from scratch but grew out of our primate psychology. Scientists studying animal behavior believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans. Until recently, humans were thought to be the only species to experience complex emotions and have a sense of morality. But Prof Marc Bekoff, an ecologist at University of Colorado, Boulder, believes that morals are “hard-wired” into the brains of all mammals and provide the “social glue” that allow often aggressive and competitive animals to live together in groups. ref

Now, as an axiological atheist, I agree that humans are way better at it as adults are better that a young child. Only humans make true reasoned moral judgments and critical thinking moral choices. Dale Peterson’s aim in his new book The Moral Lives of Animals is to downplay what is unique about human morality. … But humans and animals negotiate ‘conflict’ by fundamentally different means. Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says ‘yes’. And speaking of babies and morality, a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don’t create one. A team of researchers at Yale University’s Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion. Dr. Karen Wynn runs the Baby Lab, and she and her team have been studying the minds and behaviors of babies for decades. About eight years ago they began running a series of studies on babies under 24 months to see how much these babies understand about good and bad behavior. refref

Axiological Morality Critique of Pseudo-Morality/Pseudomorality?

Moralistic fallacy

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that an aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is “if X were true, then it would happen that Z!”, where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing. What should be moral is assumed a priori to also be naturally occurring. The moralistic fallacy is sometimes presented as the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy. However, it could be seen as a variation of the very same naturalistic fallacy; the difference between them could be considered pragmatical, depending on the intentions of that who uses it: naturalistic fallacy if he wants to justify existing social practices with the argument that they are natural; moralistic fallacy if he wants to combat existing social practices with the argument of denying that they are natural.

Steven Pinker writes that “[t]he naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Today, biologists denounce the naturalistic fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave (as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK).” Pinker goes on to explain that “[t]he moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. It lies behind the bad science in nature-documentary voiceovers: lions are mercy-killers of the weak and sick, mice feel no pain when cats eat them, dung beetles recycle dung to benefit the ecosystem and so on. It also lies behind the romantic belief that humans cannot harbor desires to kill, rape, lie, or steal because that would be too depressing or reactionary.”[1]

Moralistic fallacy:

  • With its destructiveness and tragedy, warfare is not of human nature.
  • Meat eating harms the animal population, plus the environment it comes from, it can’t help with anything related to psychology.
  • Both genders ought to have equal opportunities, they can well do all things just as well.
  • Look, adultery is breaking faith for someone, why would nature allow wanting others while you’re with someoneelse?
  • This pill should have therapeutic effects, it is going to. (An instance of the placebo effect.)

Naturalistic fallacy:

  • Why warfare? Violence is instinctive for us!
  • Don’t bother with vegetables, humans have eaten meat for thousands of years.
  • Men and women do not share roles, men have more muscle and women make the births.
  • Let people cheat, they are able to want more partners. ref

Axiological Ethics not Pseudo Morality

McLovin wrote: And if is-ought problem is ignored, what stops me to make an argument like this:
1. If plants are living things, then plants have moral value.
2. Plants are living things.
3. Therefore, plants have moral value. ref

Axiology, Morality and the Dignity Being:  “Human Entity”

All this addresses animal ethics but not animals held responsible for ethics and why this issue is relevant is many vegans say that we need to end Speciesism. Are we the only animal Vegans hold ethically responsible because that seems like Speciesism when it’s needed and a rejection when it is usful and dalfins Being alive is a prerequisite for a sentient organism and if an appeal to the future value of life, would abortion likewise immoral under vegan logic? What about killing pests? If we accept this vegan logic then I guess we must not kill pests, which will kill us if we never kill them as they will become a plage. I have been told by a vegan that for them they feel it wrong to kill anything with a face, more Special Pleading, as she means bugs can be killed, well then, can we ethically eat them as food? Then the other non-killing things vegans are against honey, eggs, milk; they then say those too are unethical which they are not claiming something like we are stealing their labor or some other nonsense. If you want to be vegan cool, keep it to yourself. What about keeping house pets? How is that ok using them in that way, denying their freedom is harm, in the same way, taking milk, honey or eggs would be in vegan logic, right? I have let go of several vegan friends as they spam vegan shit and harass me for not being vegan. To better grasp a naturalistic morality one should see the perspective of how there is a self-regulatory effect on the self-evaluative moral emotions, such as shame and guilt. Broadly conceived, self-regulation distinguishes between two types of motivation: approach/activation and avoidance/inhibition. one should conceptually understand the socialization dimensions (parental restrictiveness versus nurturance), associated emotions (anxiety versus empathy), and forms of morality (proscriptive versus prescriptive) that serve as precursors to each self-evaluative moral emotion.

The Science Of Why Vegans Get Sick – Wellness Force

“Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership. The term is sometimes used by animal rights advocates, who argue that speciesism is a prejudice similar to racism or sexism, in that the treatment of individuals is predicated on group membership and morally irrelevant physical differences. Their claim is that species membership has no moral significance. The term has not been used uniformly, but broadly embraces two ideas. It usually refers to “human speciesism” (human supremacism), the exclusion of all nonhuman animals from the rights, freedoms, and protections afforded to humans. It can also refer to the more general idea of assigning value to a being on the basis of species membership alone, so that “human-chimpanzee speciesism” would involve human beings favoring rights for chimpanzees over rights for dogs, because of human-chimpanzee similarities.” ref 

“Anthropocentrism is the grounding for some naturalistic concepts of human rights. Defenders of anthropocentrism argue that it is the necessary fundamental premise to defend universal human rights, since what matters morally is simply being human. For example, noted philosopher Mortimer J. Adler wrote, “Those who oppose injurious discrimination on the moral ground that all human beings, being equal in their humanity, should be treated equally in all those respects that concern their common humanity, would have no solid basis in fact to support their normative principle.” Adler is stating here, that denying what is now called human exceptionalism could lead to tyranny, writing that if we ever came to believe that humans do not possess a unique moral status, the intellectual foundation of our liberties collapses: “Why, then, should not groups of superior men be able to justify their enslavement, exploitation, or even genocide of inferior human groups on factual and moral grounds akin to those we now rely on to justify our treatment of the animals we harness as beasts of burden, that we butcher for food and clothing, or that we destroy as disease-bearing pests or as dangerous predators?” The notion that anthropocentric thinking is an innate human characteristic has been challenged by a study of American children raised in urban environments, among whom it appears to emerge between the ages of 3 and 5 years as an acquired perspective. Children’s recourse to anthropocentric thinking seems to vary with experience and cultural assumptions about the place of humans in the natural world. Children raised in rural environments appear to use it less than their urban counterparts because of their greater familiarity with different species of animals and plants. Studies involving children from some of the indigenous peoples of the Americas have found little use of anthropocentric thinking. Study of children among the Wichí people in South America showed a tendency to think of living organisms in terms of their taxonomic or perceived similaritiesecological considerations, and animistic traditions, resulting in a much less anthropocentric view of the natural world than is experienced by many children in Western societies.” ref

Special Pleading – Logically Fallacious

“Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.” ref

Health effects of vegan diets 

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 89, Issue 5, 1 May 2009, Pages 1627S–1633S,


Recently, vegetarian diets have experienced an increase in popularity. A vegetarian diet is associated with many health benefits because of its higher content of fiber, folic acid, vitamins C and E, potassium, magnesium, and many phytochemicals and a fat content that is more unsaturated. Compared with other vegetarian diets, vegan diets tend to contain less saturated fat and cholesterol and more dietary fiber. Vegans tend to be thinner, have lower serum cholesterol, and lower blood pressure, reducing their risk of heart disease. However, eliminating all animal products from the diet increases the risk of certain nutritional deficiencies. Micronutrients of special concern for the vegan include vitamins B-12 and D, calcium, and long-chain n-3 (omega-3) fatty acids. Unless vegans regularly consume foods that are fortified with these nutrients, appropriate supplements should be consumed. In some cases, iron and zinc status of vegans may also be of concern because of the limited bioavailability of these minerals. ref

Vegan Betrayal: The Myths vs. the Realities of a Plants-Only Diet

by Harriet Hall, MD

Harriet Hall, MD also known as The SkepDoc, is a retired family physician who writes about pseudoscience and questionable medical practices. She received her BA and MD from the University of Washington, did her internship in the Air Force (the second female ever to do so),  and was the first female graduate of the Air Force family practice residency at Eglin Air Force Base. During a long career as an Air Force physician, she held various positions from flight surgeon to DBMS (Director of Base Medical Services) and did everything from delivering babies to taking the controls of a B-52. She retired with the rank of Colonel.

Vegetarians come in several flavors. Ovo-vegetarians eat eggs, lacto-vegetarians eat dairy products but not eggs, ovo-lacto-vegetarians eat both eggs and dairy products. Pescatarians eat fish but no other animals. Vegans eat nothingderived from animals. Vegans have claimed that a plants-only diet offers a multitude of health benefits, is better for the environment, and is the only ethical choice. While some of them respect the dietary choices of others, some of them proselytize with religious-like fervor and are working to get their diet adopted by all of humanity. In her new book, Vegan Betrayal: Love, Lies, And Hunger In A Plants-Only World, Mara Kahn questions those beliefs, pointing out that no human population has ever endured on a plants-only diet; that while some studies have shown short-term health benefits, long-term follow-up is missing; that long-term vegans frequently experience “failure to thrive,” go off their diet, and feel better when they return to eating meat; and that veganism might actually harm the environment and might not even save animal lives overall. The book is really three books interleaved into one:

  • The story of her own experiences as a vegan.
  • An evidence-supported analysis of veganism and vegetarianism
  • Some rather woo-woo ideas about finding a unique diet for each individual

I can highly recommend the first two, but I deplore the third.

Her personal story

At age 19, she went to Europe alone, backpacking, hitchhiking, and falling under the spell of a new acquaintance who persuaded her to become a vegan. She returned home and shocked her very conventional family by refusing to shave her hairy armpits, wear a bra, or eat any food derived from an animal. She is a  great storyteller; her vivid recollections are described in colorful language and are often hilariously funny. I very much enjoyed the anecdotes of her life in various parts of the world first as a vegan, then as a vegetarian. Eventually, she realized that her health was suffering and in slow steps, she gradually incorporated more and more animal foods into her diet. She says, “I never missed the taste of meat, not once. What I did miss was the after-meal sensation of being energized and well nourished.” She experienced “overwhelming protein/fat hunger,” and tried to satisfy it with yogurt and coffee.

Health claims

Much of the [published nutritional] research is faulty[, according to Kahn]: in some studies, vegetarians are lumped with vegans and occasional meat-eaters. Not one respected study has ever shown a long-term vegan diet to be healthier than any other, and most research uncovers troubling deficiencies. They claim meat-free diets are healthier, but healthier than what? Then the typical unhealthy American diet [?]

Control for lifestyle habits, as every useful nutrition study must, and then compare a vegetarian or vegan diet to one of whole plants and judicious amounts of wild-caught fish or pastured meat—like the seafood-loving Mediterranean diet or the animal-adoring French diet—and the health advantages either disappear or are greatly surpassed.

[Kahn says] research has shown vegan deficits in many key nutrients including iodine, iron, zinc, taurine, vitamins A, D and B12, selenium, protein, calcium and omega-3 fatty acids. Yes, it is possible to get adequate nutrition from a vegan diet; but in practice, many vegans don’t. She observes vegans eating huge amounts of carbs and vegan junk foods and skimping on their protein and vitamin needs. This is particularly a concern for teenage girls who are still growing; teenage girls are a big part of the vegetarian demographic.

[She says] a famous Seventh-day Adventist study found that “vegetarians live longer than meat-eaters,” but fish eaters were lumped with vegetarians and they live even longer. And there are plenty of other groups that eat meat and live longer than Seventh-day Adventists, including Okinawans and Sardinians. No studies show that veganism is the healthiest of diets and some suggest that it is not.

Vegans often cite Campbell’s controversial book The China Study (see also here), but the subjects in his study were not vegans and most of them weren’t even vegetarians.

[Kahn reports that] more and more disillusioned ex-vegans are offering testimonials like Angelina Jolie’s claim that an all-plants diet “nearly killed me.” [She hypothesizes that] vegans may feel better at first simply because they are eating fewer calories and have replaced processed and junk foods with healthier fruits, vegetables, and grains. But the feeling doesn’t last.[She points out that] the standard nutritional recommendations to eat more veggies and fruits are about adding more plants to the diet, not about eating only plants.

Bottom line: Research shows that a mainly plant-based diet is healthy, but the findings can’t be used to justify a plants-only diet. [I agree with this conclusion.]

Vegans are often malnourished

[Kahn reports that] there is a high dropout rate. “Once you pull out all animal-sourced food, a whole lot of nutrients have suddenly gone missing or exist in deficient amounts.”

While it is possible to get adequate nutrition from plants alone, it requires a lot of knowledge and discipline, and in practice, many vegetarians begin to suffer from insidious borderline malnutrition. Kahn argues that dietary recommendations tend to underestimate the amount of protein needed for health. When vegans get hungry they tend to gorge on carbs when what they need is protein.

“Too-thin vegans are eating animal flesh after all: their own.” Protein starvation leads to self-cannibalization.

Vegans often rely on soy for protein, but soy can [sometimes] be harmful to health in various ways [although it does also have proven health benefits]. One of the prominent side effects of all-plant diets is flatulence, which can range from a mild inconvenience to a serious problem.

It may be possible for individuals with naturally lower protein needs who can tolerate large amounts of legumes, lead low-stress lives (a low-stress life, what’s that?) and keep a vigilant eye on daily quantity, quality, and amino acid completeness. Easy? No, it is not.

Arguments from evolution

[Kahn finds vegan arguments from evolution unconvincing. I agree. What follows reflects my own thoughts on the subject:] You may have heard vegans, fruitarians, or other food faddists claim that humans were not designed to eat meat. They cite our lack of fangs and claws for bringing down prey. Admittedly, humans are not carnivores, although they can thrive on a diet of raw meat alone. Humans aren’t herbivores either: they lack the rumens and multiple stomachs of animals like cows. Cows are equipped to eat a 100% plant-based diet; humans are not. Raw food faddists argue that humans didn’t evolve to eat cooked food, ignoring the fact that cooking makes some nutrients more available and food more digestible. Demonizers of wheat argue that our ancestors were hunters/gatherers, not farmers. Some argue that we can’t digest meat; that’s simply not true. We can and do digest it. Plant protein is actually less digestible than meat protein. Arguments from evolution tend to miss the point: humans are not carnivores or herbivores, but omnivores. Evolution equipped us to thrive on a wide variety of diets. Our ability to eat whatever foods were available allowed us to survive in very diverse environments.

History and purity

Kahn delves into the history of vegetarianism and veganism. Much of it is bound up with ideals of purity. Fasts and dietary prohibitions, food-related rituals, and purification rites have been prominent in most religions. Pythagoras’ followers could eat meat, but not bone marrow, because they believed it concealed messages from the gods. For them, it was beans that were absolutely prohibited. Go figure! In some cultures, specific animals and foods were endowed with special meanings. Group cohesiveness was promoted when hunters distributed meat to others in their tribe. Shared meals have an important social function in today’s world, from family dinners to wedding celebrations and Thanksgiving feasts. Our dietary choices and customs are more emotion-driven than fact-driven.

Food ethics

As human history progressed, the circle of compassion enlarged to include animals. I think it’s fair to say that the majority of vegans and vegetarians chose their path mainly because they are repelled by the idea of killing animals. But [Kahn suggests that] perhaps they should examine their conscience more closely. Don’t they realize they are eating animals in many plant foods? The FDA allows 60 insect fragments per 100 gram candy bar; 225 insect parts and 4.5 rodent hairs or excreta per 100 g pasta; 10 whole insects and 35 fly eggs per 8 ounces of raisins. To be consistent maybe vegans should be more reluctant to kill plants. [As Kahn reports,] new research indicates that plants have a degree of awareness, change their behavior in response to environmental conditions, communicate with other plants by chemical signals, and [some researchers have even suggested they] may perceive pain. [These are intriguing findings, but I don’t see any reason to believe plants can suffer.]

Kahn says:

Our food choices involve ethics, no doubt about that, but trying to impose a single moral code of eating on all people is profoundly unethical. In following a well-planned vegan diet, an unknown percentage of us will suffer, our health and quality of life. Surely the compassion that lies at the heart of ethical veganism extends to human animals.

Environmental concerns

It is generally accepted that plants-only diets are better for the environment. [Kahn suggests that] that may not be true.

Even if you repudiate the eating of animals, you are killing animals by proxy at every meal. Consider the field mice, pheasants, snakes and tender young rabbits—all of the innocent wild beings diced and sliced by the tiller that prepares the soil for your favorite grains.

If we gradually moved to the larger foraging mammals only, … and raised them on their natural diet of 100% grass using a no-till, pasture-forage model, this might mean fewer total animals killed (domestic and wild) than in the all-vegan model. Let’s give this intriguing idea a closer look.” [she goes on to present a plausible argument] [Note: I have not researched this and won’t venture a personal opinion.]

She argues for ethical hunters, sustainable agriculture, abolishing factory farms, and being kind to the animals we are going to eat.

Woo intrudes

On the subject of veganism, Kahn’s information is evidence-based and reliable and her reasoning plausible; but unfortunately when she turns to other subjects she goes off the rails. Her concerns about GMOsglyphosatesugarfructosewheat, “inflammatory” foods, and bottle-feeding are alarmist and not based on rigorous science. She quotes unreliable sources like an Ayurvedic doctor and Weston Price. She consults a TCM practitioner. Her criticism of statin drugs is misguided. She believes in superfoods and bioidentical hormones. She talks of adrenal exhaustion and yeast overgrowth. She consults a naturopath for nutritional advice and is given homeopathic remedies. She thinks there are proven benefits of guided imagery; there aren’t. She cites a study where guided imagery and therapeutic touch (!) were used to treat PTSD in soldiers. She consults medical intuitives. They intuit that she should increase her intake of fat and protein, but she refuses to follow that advice until it is echoed by an MD she believes is knowledgeable about nutrition, Dr. Diane Schwarzbein. She believes acupuncture was effective in restoring her daughter’s absent menses. She believes in metabolic typing tests and diets based on metabolic type. She stresses bioindividuality (i.e., you are so unique that studies don’t apply to you). She thinks all the cells of the body are conscious, and you can rely on the wisdom of the body to tell you what foods your body uniquely requires.

The real problem

What I really could not bear at such a tender young age was the biological truth of our earthly existence. Every creature is food for others, including me, including you… the vegan argument is, in fact, is a profound denial of nature. We are animals. And our living and dying and nourishing are utterly entangled with other animals.

She now accepts her participation in this natural cycle with a conscious and reverent approach.


Ideology can be persuasive, but harsh reality often ruins an appealing idea. People can die from fanatical diet beliefs.

What did my own journey teach a comically naïve if earnest youth who thirsted for carnal knowledge and hungered to abolish all animal suffering? Its hard truth was this: the very real dangers of a rigid ideology, born of the mind and the emotions, which does not line up with the biological realities of the body. For as much as I longed to honor and respect my animal brethren by not eating them, the earthly reality is that I need to do exactly that.

I wish I could recommend this book for its funny, engaging human story and its trenchant analysis of plants-only diets, but the later chapters are contaminated with beliefs not based on scientific evidence. Too bad! [She is an excellent writer, and it might have been an excellent book if she had asked science-based reviewers to critique the more wooish subjects during the editing process.] I agree with the author that the evidence for health and environmental benefits and the ethical and evolutionary arguments are insufficient to justify a plants-only diet [for the whole population. Those who choose a plants-only diet for whatever reasons can thrive on it, but only if they are careful to ensure good nutrition.] ref

Living on the veg: Should we all go vegan?

By Chelsea Whyte

Veganism is trending but is it just the latest food fad, or do claims that it’s better for your health and that of the planet stack up? We now will dig into the evidence, I FLUNKED out of veganism the first time because I wasn’t getting the vitamins and micronutrients I needed. I was out of balance. I went to the doctor feeling lethargic and vaguely unwell and was told I had two options: give up being vegan or start taking large amounts of nutritional supplements. I chose meat and dairy. The quantities of pills I had to take irritated my stomach and I wasn’t willing to tough it out. That was two years ago and I’d been vegan for three. Then veganism exploded into the mainstream. Celebrities from Natalie Portman and Serena Williams to Formula 1 driver Lewis Hamilton have all declared themselves to be vegan. At first I figured I had done my trial and knew where I stood. But I’ve looked into the environmental and health impacts again, and am having second thoughts. Vegans made up just 1 per cent of the US population in 2014. Three years on, an additional 16 million Americans – 5 per cent of the nation – had joined the club. In the UK, their numbers are smaller but also growing. A 2016 poll suggests that just over 1 per cent of Britons never eat meat or animal products. According to the UK Vegan Society, that’s a more than threefold increase in 10 years. The trend is hippest among 15 to 34-year-olds. Stores and restaurants have jumped on the bandwagon with “plant-powered” menus, vegan supermarket shelves and vegan farmers’ markets. In short, veganism is the new foodie movement. ref

Ordering The Vegetarian Meal? There’s More Animal Blood On Your Hands


Please note: the author of this article is Australian, and much of the information in the following article applies specifically to that area of the world. Farming practises differ around the globe.

The ethics of eating red meat have been grilled recently by critics who question its consequences for environmental health and animal welfare. But if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do. Renowned ethicist Peter Singer says if there is a range of ways of feeding ourselves, we should choose the way that causes the least unnecessary harm to animals. Most animal rights advocates say this means we should eat plants rather than animals. It takes somewhere between two to ten kilos of plants, depending on the type of plants involved, to produce one kilo of animal. Given the limited amount of productive land in the world, it would seem to some to make more sense to focus our culinary attentions on plants, because we would arguably get more energy per hectare for human consumption. Theoretically, this should also mean fewer sentient animals would be killed to feed the ravenous appetites of ever more humans. But before scratching rangelands-produced red meat off the “good to eat” list for ethical or environmental reasons, let’s test these presumptions. Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in:

  • at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein
  • more environmental damage, and
  • a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.

How is this possible?

Agriculture to produce wheat, rice and pulses requires clear-felling native vegetation. That act alone results in the deaths of thousands of Australian animals and plants per hectare. Since Europeans arrived on this continent we have lost more than half of Australia’s unique native vegetation, mostly to increase production of monocultures of introduced species for human consumption. Most of Australia’s arable land is already in use. If more Australians want their nutritional needs to be met by plants, our arable land will need to be even more intensely farmed. This will require a net increase in the use of fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and other threats to biodiversity and environmental health. Or, if existing laws are changed, more native vegetation could be cleared for agriculture (an area the size of Victoria plus Tasmania would be needed to produce the additional amount of plant-based food required). Most cattle slaughtered in Australia feed solely on pasture. This is usually rangelands, which constitute about 70% of the continent. Grazing occurs on primarily native ecosystems. These have and maintain far higher levels of native biodiversity than croplands. The rangelands can’t be used to produce crops, so production of meat here doesn’t limit production of plant foods. Grazing is the only way humans can get substantial nutrients from 70% of the continent. In some cases, rangelands have been substantially altered to increase the percentage of stock-friendly plants. Grazing can also cause significant damage such as soil loss and erosion. But it doesn’t result in the native ecosystem “blitzkrieg” required to grow crops. This environmental damage is causing some well-known environmentalists to question their own preconceptions. British environmental advocate George Monbiot, for example, publically converted from vegan to omnivore after reading Simon Fairlie’s expose about meat’s sustainability. And environmental activist Lierre Keith documented the awesome damage to global environments involved in producing plant foods for human consumption. In Australia, we can also meet part of our protein needs using sustainably wild-harvested kangaroo meat. Unlike introduced meat animals, they don’t damage native biodiversity. They are soft-footed, low methane-producing and have relatively low water requirements. They also produce an exceptionally healthy low-fat meat. In Australia, 70% of the beef produced for human consumption comes from animals raised on grazing lands with very little or no grain supplements. At any time, only 2% of Australia’s national herd of cattle are eating grains in feed lots; the other 98% are raised on and feeding on grass. Two-thirds of cattle slaughtered in Australia feed solely on pasture. To produce protein from grazing beef, cattle are killed. One death delivers (on average, across Australia’s grazing lands) a carcass of about 288 kilograms. This is approximately 68% boneless meat which, at 23% protein equals 45kg of protein per animal killed. This means 2.2 animals killed for each 100kg of useable animal protein produced. Producing protein from wheat means ploughing pasture land and planting it with seed. Anyone who has sat on a ploughing tractor knows the predatory birds that follow you all day are not there because they have nothing better to do. Ploughing and harvesting kill small mammals, snakes, lizards and other animals in vast numbers. In addition, millions of mice are poisoned in grain storage facilities every year. However, the largest and best-researched loss of sentient life is the poisoning of mice during plagues. Each area of grain production in Australia has a mouse plague on average every four years, with 500-1000 mice per hectare. Poisoning kills at least 80% of the mice. At least 100 mice are killed per hectare per year (500/4 × 0.8) to grow grain. Average yields are about 1.4 tonnes of wheat/hectare; 13% of the wheat is useable protein. Therefore, at least 55 sentient animals die to produce 100kg of useable plant protein: 25 times more than for the same amount of rangelands beef. Some of this grain is used to “finish” beef cattle in feedlots (some is food for dairy cattle, pigs, and poultry), but it is still the case that many more sentient lives are sacrificed to produce useable protein from grains than from rangelands cattle. There is a further issue to consider here: the question of sentience – the capacity to feel, perceive or be conscious. You might not think the billions of insects and spiders killed by grain production are sentient, though they perceive and respond to the world around them. You may dismiss snakes and lizards as cold-blooded creatures incapable of sentience, though they form pair bonds and care for their young. But what about mice? Mice are far more sentient than we thought. They sing complex, personalised love songs to each other that get more complex over time. Singing of any kind is a rare behaviour among mammals, previously known only to occur in whales, bats and humans. Girl mice, like swooning human teenagers, try to get close to a skilled crooner. Now researchers are trying to determine whether song innovations are genetically programmed or or whether mice learn to vary their songs as they mature. Baby mice left in the nest sing to their mothers — a kind of crying song to call them back. For every female killed by the poisons we administer, on average five to six totally dependent baby mice will, despite singing their hearts out to call their mothers back home, inevitably die of starvation, dehydration or predation. When cattle, kangaroos, and other meat animals are harvested they are killed instantly. Mice die a slow and very painful death from poisons. From a welfare point of view, these methods are among the least acceptable modes of killing. Although joeys are sometimes killed or left to fend for themselves, only 30% of kangaroos shot are females, only some of which will have young (the industry’s code of practice says shooters should avoid shooting females with dependent young). However, many times this number of dependent baby mice are left to die when we deliberately poison their mothers by the millions. Replacing red meat with grain products leads to many more sentient animal deaths, far greater animal suffering and significantly more environmental degradation. Protein obtained from grazing livestock costs far fewer lives per kilogram: it is a more humane, ethical and environmentally-friendly dietary option. So, what does a hungry human do? Our teeth and digestive system are adapted for omnivory. But we are now challenged to think about philosophical issues. We worry about the ethics involved in killing grazing animals and wonder if there are other more humane ways of obtaining adequate nutrients. Relying on grains and pulses brings destruction of native ecosystems, significant threats to native species and at least 25 times more deaths of sentient animals per kilogram of food. Most of these animals sing love songs to each other, until we inhumanely mass-slaughter them. Former Justice of the High Court, the Hon. Michael Kirby, wrote that:

“In our shared sentience, human beings are intimately connected with other animals. Endowed with reason and speech, we are uniquely empowered to make ethical decisions and to unite for social change on behalf of others that have no voice. Exploited animals cannot protest about their treatment or demand a better life. They are entirely at our mercy. So every decision of animal welfare, whether in Parliament or the supermarket, presents us with a profound test of moral character”.

We now know the mice have a voice, but we haven’t been listening. The challenge for the ethical eater is to choose the diet that causes the least deaths and environmental damage. There would appear to be far more ethical support for an omnivorous diet that includes rangeland-grown red meat and even more support for one that includes sustainably wild-harvested kangaroo.

Thanks to many colleagues including Rosie Cooney, Peter Ampt, Grahame Webb, Bob Beale, Gordon Grigg, John Kelly, Suzanne Hand, Greg Miles, Alex Baumber, George Wilson, Peter Banks, Michael Cermak, Barry Cohen, Dan Lunney, Ernie Lundelius Jr and anonymous referees of the Australian Zoologist paper who provided helpful critiques.

Mike Archer AM does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. ref

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Environmental impact of omnivorous, ovo-lacto-vegetarian, and vegan diet

With several authors.


Food and beverage consumption has a great impact on the environment, although there is a lack of information concerning the whole diet. The environmental impact of 153 Italian adults (51 omnivores, 51 ovo-lacto-vegetarians, 51 vegans) and the inter-individual variability within dietary groups were assessed in a real-life context. Food intake was monitored with a 7-d dietary record to calculate nutritional values and environmental impacts (carbon, water, and ecological footprints). The Italian Mediterranean Index was used to evaluate the nutritional quality of each diet. The omnivorous choice generated worse carbon, water and ecological footprints than other diets. No differences were found for the environmental impacts of ovo-lacto-vegetarians and vegans, which also had diets more adherent to the Mediterranean pattern. A high inter-individual variability was observed through principal component analysis, showing that some vegetarians and vegans have higher environmental impacts than those of some omnivores. Thus, regardless of the environmental benefits of plant-based diets, there is a need for thinking in terms of individual dietary habits. To our knowledge, this is the first time environmental impacts of three dietary regimens are evaluated using individual recorded dietary intakes rather than hypothetical diet or diets averaged over a population. ref

Here is info from an ex-vegan Daniel Vitalis

Not that I agree with everything Daniel Vitalis is the host of the ReWild Yourself Podcast states or thinks even about veganism as I fell he is harsher to veganism than I would for one. I am cool with vegans if they keep their diet to themselves not that I hate veganism, I feel if they do it for personal morals then cool do you just don’t they to tell me to do it as if its ethical.

The Hidden Cost of Veganism – Lierre Keith #143

by Daniel Vitalis

In past episodes of ReWild Yourself Podcast, I’ve explained why I’m not a vegan (ReWild Yourself Podcast #94) and, instead, why I’m a conscientious omnivore (ReWild Yourself Podcast #100). In my personal quest for the most natural diet for the human animal, I was a vegan for about 10 years, and The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith was an impactful read for me as I transitioned back to an omnivorous diet. I’m thrilled to have Lierre Keith — former vegan, best-selling author, and environmentalist — join us (The Hidden Cost of Veganism – Lierre Keith #143) to share about her experience with veganism. Lierre spent 20 years eating a vegan diet, and in that time, she did significant damage to her body. Only when she began to introduce animal foods back into her diet — eating a more balanced, omnivorous diet — was her body able to heal and regenerate. Lierre also explains the destructive history of agriculture and why veganism is not the answer for ecological restoration of our devastated prairies and forests. This is an important conversation for all of us interested in eating the optimal human diet while living with a light ecological footprint on this planet!

**Please note: The audio quality of this interview is not excellent because we recorded over Skype. We apologize in advance for the audio quality, but we think the content makes up for it!


  • Show introduction:
    • Poison ivy, nettle stings and tick bites
    • Harvesting Hopniss, Apios americana
    • Upcoming Florida hunt + gather trip
    • Subscribe to my newsletter
    • Q&A: Thoughts on gardening vs wild food foraging
  • Introducing Lierre Keith
  • How Lierre came to write The Vegetarian Myth
  • The damage veganism can do to the human body
  • The results of Lierre’s 20 years of veganism
  • What led Lierre to ecological restoration
  • Why are vegans so angry?
  • Agriculture and our hierarchical civilization
  • Is organic farming a way forward?
  • Restoring the prairie grasslands
  • The future of Lierre’s work
  • What keeps Lierre motivated in her work
  • Lierre’s prognosis for the future of the human species
  • How to find Lierre’s work

Daniel Vitalis is the host of the ReWild Yourself Podcast, and the founder of SurThrival, a premier line of food-based nutritional supplements. He is a writer, public speaker, entrepreneur, and lifestyle pioneer in the sphere of human health, personal development, and strategic living. He’s especially interested in the meeting place of ancestral health and lifestyle design. He is best known for relentlessly flouting taboo — and exposing the forces of domestication wherever they lurk — in his lucid and provocative interviews, essays, videos, and dynamic on-stage presentations. Daniel can be seen in the hit documentary film “Hungry For Change”, and has been featured in The Huffington Post, RT, Marie Claire magazine, as well as countless other interviews and media appearances. When not traveling, he lives rurally in the Pine State of Maine. ref

Natural Morality?

How Do I Gain a Morality Persuasion or Make a Change to it?

Objective and Subjective Logic?

Real Morality vs. Pseudo Morality

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Show one: Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses.

Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!

Show seven: Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)

Show eight: Paganism 4,000 years old: Moralistic gods after the rise of Statism and often support Statism/Kings: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)

Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO

Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO

Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO

Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO

Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO

I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.

The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.

An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”

My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?

I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.

I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.

This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO

Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): by “History with Cy

Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)

Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Eridu: First City of Power)

Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)

Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)

Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)

Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (King Lugalzagesi and the First Empire)

Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)

Show #8: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Naram-Sin, Post-Akkadian Rule, and the Gutians)

Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)

Show #10: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Third Dynasty of Ur / Neo-Sumerian Empire)

Show #11: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Amorites, Elamites, and the End of an Era)

Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston:  

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.”

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist. 

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so. 

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago. 

“Animism” is needed to begin supernatural thinking.
“Totemism” is needed for supernatural thinking connecting human actions & related to clan/tribe.
“Shamanism” is needed for supernatural thinking to be controllable/changeable by special persons.
Together = Gods/paganism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or QuotesMy YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email:

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This