Conscious Eating

I am not a vegetarian. I don't eat particularly badly, but I am not even close to a role model. The ethical arguments (Factory Farming) and existential arguments (Climate Change) for reduced meat consumption are slam dunks, but every time I make a concerted effort, it changes the relationship I have with food. I am not an excessive eater, and do enough exercise, so food simply becomes a big source of enjoyment. Comfort food. Cultural food. Food that keeps us connected. Like I believe investing is a team sport, I think the same is true of diet. It's much easier if we eat better together, and it isn't that relevant if any particular individual is reducing their meat consumption, if they get swamped by others eating up the left-overs. 

Not About You

I have had a couple of attempts at becoming a Vegetarian. I am completely convinced that we need to dramatically reduced our meat consumption. The two most compelling reasons for me are environmental sustainability, (the amount of food needed to produce meat) and the horrors of factory farming. I am not vegetarian.

The push back I have is that it is not that relevant if I, Trevor Black, am a vegetarian. It is very relevant if the 7.5 Billion people on the planet are eating too much meat. The minute I put myself on the moral high ground and start preaching to others that they too should do what I am doing, my experience has been that defence mechanisms kick in. Whatever the issue.

We are nudged. We move from where we are, not from where others want us to be. The best form of judgement, in my experience, is when someone who likes me and is on my side says, 'do you think we are doing this wrong?'

The same is true of the other messy issues we are working on. I am not a fan of pitch fork attacks on individuals who get it wrong. If someone gets it wrong, we have gotten it wrong. Whether the issues is racism, privilege, sexism, homophobia, intolerance or any of the other ills we perceive in others. It is amazing, for example, how in South Africa (which is fundamentally a very religious, conservative society) someone who is very aware of race and gender issues can still be homophobic. Someone who is liberal can still be unaware of their privilege. A feminist can still be racist.

There is a push for 'personal' experience and to speak from your perspective. From your 'lived experience'. While we can only see things from our perspective, we would do well to own all our challenges.

If you live in a racist society, and you are not racist, well... it's not about you. 

Monotongue Life

I just made Moong Dal for the first time. Yesterday I ate a Mango for the first time. The one is more embarrassing that the other. Moong Dal is a literacy thing. Mango is a toddler thing. Much of what we put in our mouths and our heads is an accident of geography. 'Mother tongue' extends to our taste buds and our diets. The friend who just taught me to make Moong Dal learnt by helping her grandmother in the kitchen. Cooking was a part of her upbringing. She didn't use measurements, the ingredients have become words to her that she uses with the same ease as she speaks. She said her father was quite a cook. Her mother reserved her skills for groups of 50 or more. Most of her learning was with Gran.

Yellow Moong Dal

I also learnt to cook a few dishes from my mother, but cooking was largely a functional experience. We enjoyed the dishes we had and my Spaghetti Bolognaise is the kind of thing that legends are made of. It wasn't a continually changing, evolving hobby though. In fact, my repertoire narrowed over time to my favourites. Then I largely outsourced it to ready meals. I think eating healthily is a big contributor to happiness, but I am also trying to respond to various other challenges which make me think eating more of a plant based diet is worth trying. I am consciously trying to add things rather than trying to give things up though. I don't want it to feel at all self-sacrificial because I think the hero in me is a weakling. Expanding my diet feels very similar to learning a new language since there are a whole bunch of things I simply don't know how to cook, what they are, or how they taste. There is also the issue of having to train the taste buds. The idea of tasting something to see if you like it is only half the battle. There is stuff you may love... eventually. You have to get to the juice. Think of red wine, whisky, coffee or any other number of acquired tastes. I admit freely I have very little knowledge of spices. We talk about variety being the spice of life and yet without training you can live a monotongue life.

Source: Elite Spice

The Mango bit is a bit more embarrassing. I think I have even written about it on this blog before to publicly shame myself into eating more fruit. The stubborn, irrational toddler in me still gets a gagging feeling when handling messy fruit. There is something about the texture that makes me, to overuse the word, irrationally cringe. So yesterday I treated myself half parent, half toddler and sliced up a mango, breathing through the cringes. I kept telling myself how much I love mango juice. Then I ate it piece by piece. 'Now that wasn't so bad was it' big Trev tells toddler Trev. I even considered making train noises as I lifted the pieces to my mouth.

What my Moong Dal teacher did suggest though was to go visit Farmer's markets. Add to the story. The story and the friends was what convinced me to train my pallette for red wine and coffee. The idea of finding places that release food from being chore, and allow a tale from seed to tongue with all the senses involved in between sounds rather appealing. 

Exciting times.

Devastating Effects (by Ariella Caira)

Guest Post: Ariella Rosanna Caira

Ariella is a freelance musician and an electric cellist with Sterling EQ, earth and animal lover, yogi and vegan. It is my opinion that some of our biggest challenges in terms of the more thorny issues we are facing are not a case of debating the cold hard facts. We need to understand the relationships and emotional response and wade our way through the minefields. Ariella's thorough and heartfelt response to one of these has all the touches of an artist. She has done some of that wading. It is difficult to be happy when the impact you have isn't sustainable. Ariella writes beautifully, and I hope you find her piece as genuine and kindly provocative as I did.

------------------------------------

The Devastating Effects of a Plant-Based Diet

by Ariella Rosanna Caira

Veganism absolutely ruined my life. At least it completely destroyed my ideologies about food, my old eating habits and my indifference to what I was consuming. There I was thinking I'd simply be rejecting using, eating and wearing animal products, that the rest of my life would go on as before, but boy, was I wrong. "Going green" was like experiencing a seriously devastating break-up. My divorcee's dishonesty seemed to be everywhere: the gelatin lurking in a seemingly innocuous sorbet, the milk protein hiding in the dark chocolate I had thought was lactose free, the bit of leather trim on a handbag I was eyeing and the honey in my shampoo. Everything was tainted. The Ronalds and Colonels seemed to sneer at me from their fast food logos. Adverts which once made me salivate now made me physically sick. I started to see things through a different pair of glasses; a view which made me see quite clearly that cow's milk is quite literally the secretion from a lactating bovine intended as a growth formula for a baby cow and not as a daily beverage for an adult as well as our skewed ideology of speciesism which says pat the dog but make a patty out of the pig.

I became obsessive: spending ages scrutinising food labels, getting emotional in the meat aisle and boycotting restaurants which refused to keep soy milk. I felt alone. I felt like I'd been given this new knowledge that no one else was aware of and I didn't know what to do. No one in my family shared my sentiments. I dared not attempt any sort of debate with friends for fear of alienating myself (hell hath no fury like a person's diet under fire). Life before this "awakening" was so blissfully simple and safe! But I couldn't unlearn the facts I had absorbed from books like 'Eating Animals' by Jonathan Safran Foer or those hard-hitting doccies like 'Food Inc, The End of the Line' and the ultimate 'Earthings'. I couldn't forget, but I also seemingly couldn't move forward. I was trapped in the same meat-centred society as before with the same principles and ideologies, but my beliefs and Truth had changed. I had changed. And it was then that I realised that if I was going to make this sustainable and indeed pleasant for myself, I would have some work ahead. I couldn't expect the biggest transition of my life to be a piece of (vegan) cake - changing habits of a lifetime was going to require a little patience. We live in a world where we expect things to come easily, but nothing good and enduring happens overnight.

And so I began my journey and the first thing I needed to change was my attitude. I had an undeniable calling to follow this lifestyle and come hell or high water I was going to embrace it and make it work for me, so much so that I would love every challenge it presented along the way.

I started to read. A lot. I discovered blogs, forums, chat groups. I was certainly not alone. I connected with locals through social media. I discovered alternate recipes for favourite treats like chocolate truffles and carrot cake. I began to frequent markets and became a regular client of an organic fruit and veg supplier. I started to only eat local, in season and recycle everything that was recyclable. I became a better cook, experimenting with new foods and flavours. This also made me more economical and more connected to my local community and what the small businesses were producing. I became healthier, replacing saturated fats and hormone-filled animal products, with fresh fruit and vegetable salads and juices and my skin, hair, nails and energy levels thanked me for it. Heck, I even started cooking food for my dog to avoid buying the processed kibble we automatically assume is good for them!

The effects of this choice were reaching far beyond what I put on my plate. My actions of shopping and feeding, which before were selfish and unconscious, were now purposeful, meaningful, extending beyond myself and having an actual visible effect on my environment and the people around me. Without proselytising, friends and family were getting curious about my choices and sampling a slice of the vegan pie. I learnt to smile at the inevitable negative comments and calmly deflect the age-old arguments regarding the calcium and protein myths. I became strong enough to not feel embarrassed or ashamed of my veganism and rather to wear it with a mixture of humility and pride, explaining to those who would give my pitying looks at social gatherings that it's not because I "can't" eat certain foods but rather that I "choose" not to. But most importantly I became empowered. I was conscious of every choice: I no longer just accepted what was foisted upon me as a consumer by supermarkets and the corporate powers that be. If the media purported something as healthy or nutritious, I would immediately second-guess it, looking deeper for the true (almost always financial) reason behind the promotion, instead of grabbing greedily at the two-for-the-price-of-one on offer. I was in control of my own life and my own decisions. My health, my environment and my choices mattered and had a right to be nurtured. My powerlessness turned to power as I stopped struggling with the challenges of being vegan and began to wholeheartedly embrace my Truth.

And this journey also brought my partner and me closer together. We've come a long way from the first weary (hungry) weeks where "crème brûlee" and "4-cheese pizza" seemed to wave at us from every menu and limp, unexciting salads were the order of the day. We hardly ever step foot in a mall these days and when we do the life-sucking force of the place, which we were previously numb to, is now quite tangible. Instead we juice carrots and beets collected from the local co-op and have been on many explorations together discovering new restaurants and eateries which we proudly support. We engage in stimulating conversations about animal rights and read articles and watch revealing documentaries together. We sometimes laugh that date night has gone from sushi and an escapist rom-com to kale chips and Cowspiracy. He's learnt to stirfry and we bought a wok in celebration and we're planning a summer veggie garden so we can harvest our own health from the back yard. I'll admit we've become eco-nerds: we get fired up about recycling, maintain our grey-water system and are investigating solar power options. But our vegan life isn't thick with rules and regulations, stifling us and unforgiving if we err. Rather, we question and look for ways to do things better, not "perfectly", together, with patience and consideration and always with love. We're healthy and happy and better functioning members of society than before because we are awake and aware. We are living consciously, knowing that this planet isn't simply here for us and our pleasure. Rather, we are on it, however briefly, and have a fundamental obligation to treat it with consideration and care because without it, we simply would not exist.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In writing a blog about several topics in which I admit to being a complete beginner, I am going to have to rely heavily on the people I am writing for who cumulatively know most of what I am likely to learn already. I would love it if some of you found the time to write a guest post on the subject of happiness or learning. The framework I use for thinking about these things is what I call the '5 + 2 points' which includes proper (1) exercise, (2) breathing, (3) diet, (4) relaxation, (5) positive thinking & meditation, (+1) relationships, (+2) flow. Naturally if you would like to write about something that you think I have missed, I would love to include that too. If you are up to doing something more practical, it would be awesome if you did a 100 hour project and I am happy to do the writing based on our chats if that is how you roll. Email me at trevorjohnblack@gmail.com

Triumvirate of Yumminess

We are creatures of habit. We have a few favourite things and often we can get a lot of pleasure by going back to them. To avoid things going off (I really hate tossing globby milk down the sink and stale bread into the bin), I tend to live fairly hand to mouth. Since branded stores have taken over convenience stores in the UK, things actually cost the same as the main shops and so it isn't a luxury to just pop into a small shop. So that's what I do. This isn't all good though because I am less good at planning what I eat since my elephant is doing the shopping. I shop when hungry. This means my fridge if very sparse, which is also a good thing since I don't tend to snack. It is not a good thing when the hungry elephant feels hard done by and enters the Sainsbury's. Almost on autopilot, I don't even grab a basket. I typically just grab three things - a curry, a juice and a white chocolate magnum icecream. 

The most cunning diet I have heard of allows you to eat whatever you want. The catch is you have to set up a whatsapp group with a few willing friends and you have to send a pic of whatever you eat. So just before you eat the chocolate filled doughnut, you send through a snap. Then you feel like another... but... and the embarrassment sets in. I have never tried this approach since I the only people who would really want to participate in receiving the pictures would be those involved.

I am also not a fan of diets that aren't sustainable. I would like to eat more healthily, but I don't want to set myself up on a pedestal where I am racked with feelings of self pity every time I look at what everyone else is eating. Food is a great pleasure in life and I don't want to deprive myself of that. My plan is to get into cooking and more specifically, to make a hobby of vegetarian cooking. If I can cook awesome meals that I look forward to and just happen to be healthy, I can wean myself off those ridiculously yummy tikka masala curries.

The trick will be that whatever I learn will need to be as easy as my triumvirate of yumminess. I know eating well is an important part of happiness. I know there are issues with factory farming that mean we should eat significantly less meat. Eating is one of the most stubborn habits to change and it isn't logic that is in control. Food brings comfort. It rewards. It triggers memories. It binds relationships. Changing your diet while keeping the good bits needs the most cunning of cunning strategic plans.

Putting Issues Aside

There is too much going on in the world for us to figure it all out. 'The Humans' by Matt Haig is a story of an alien taking the form of a maths professor to prevent other humans from discovering the profoundly important proof the unfortunate chap has figured out. The alien has no 'cultural base' and so observes and tries to figure out the meaning of some human interactions. He takes spitting and the middle finger as a friendly greeting for example - unaware of the fact that this was related to him being found naked in the middle of a highway.

From when we are little we learn one way of doing things. For the most part we take big people as superior individuals who have figured it all out, so we accept lots of things. Our elephant** also gets deeply trained in the ways of the tribe. Slowly. With patience and love. In this period as children learn, everyone celebrates their small steps forward. We pick up the explicit lessons, but we also pick up the stuff that doesn't get expressed. We form habits. Our elephants fall in love with sweets.

My elephant loves South African sweets. I am quite diligent in getting through the tantrum tunnel of sweets by most check out counters in the UK because I just have to get passed the Kit-Kats and Peppermint Areos. My elephant hasn't fallen in love with the UK sugars. If I go to a South African shop, all bets are off, and if I make it out with change I have depleted all my self-control reserves.

Source: www.buysouthafricaonline.co.uk

Now that is just sweets. When it comes to the important stuff - the big ticket items - you can't just walk out of the Saffa shop. Issues such as religion, politics, sex, and diet can define the groups you have become a part of. Challenging the issues isn't necessarily challenging the issues - it is challenging the relationships that someone has. It is challenging the whole set of rules. For someone to change their mind about a big ticket item, they often have to leave the world they know. To get them to change their mind, you have to convince them not only that you are right, but that it is worth it for them to agree.

The chances that we don't have any doubts about the way things are done or our beliefs is very small. We all have only a certain amount of intellectual and emotional energy. We are quite good at putting issues aside because they make our head spin or because it feels like we are getting into uncomfortable territory. The food debate is one of these areas. As a South African, meat is very much a part of my culture. It is not just 'tantrum tunnel' stuff. A meal doesn't feel like a meal without meat. At a boy's braai (barbeque) in South Africa - chicken is considered the salad, and the balance to the meal is provided by bread and beer, completing the three food groups. If you go visit someone for a meal, there is close to a 100% chance it will be meat based. You will be putting them out and expecting a special meal if they know otherwise.

People don't like feeling judged. For the most part, I get the sense that most people are less evangelical about their religions nowadays in liberal societies partly because they realise that it makes being friendly tough when the other person literally feels you are bad and are going to burn for eternity. In a way, this is why it is tough to emotionally engage with the meat debate. It isn't just you who will have to change your mind. Most people will disagree with you as an early adopter. Most people will feel you are judging them, even if you aren't, if they know that your dietary choices are for ethical reasons. This has nothing to do with whether the arguments are valid. Here is just one example of why this debate is important:

The Rise of Meat in China pic.twitter.com/HVkLLjtxCy
— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) October 22, 2014

I will carry on in my attempt to figure it out for myself. Here are three books that have been recommended to me as I wade into the subject. My interest is happiness, and I do believe diet is a big part of that, but I also believe relationships are a big part of it - so figuring out the best overall approach to chipping away at one problem has to take everything into account.

Onwards.

'Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer deals very directly and persuasively with our emotional and cultural attachments to food, and what it means for eating meat. I thoroughly recommend it.' - Isabel Goodman

'Speaking as a person who is passionate about food, I can empathise with your reactions to ceasing being a meat eater. Have you read "Meat: a Benign Extravagance"? In it Simon Fairlie makes a good case for the need to change the way we feed livestock, as well as the manner in which they are kept, he puts forward a sensible argument for meat being acceptable. His scholarly analysis is impressive and the book should be read by anyone piling into the meat/vegetarianism debate'.
Kate Griffiths- Lambeth (@KateGL)

Stuart Torr (@muttface) recommended 'The Ethics of What We Eat' to me many years ago and it has just sat on my bookshelf.

*Rider: Rational-side. Explains and justifies behaviour and attempts to direct it. Trains the elephant.

**Elephant: Decision-making, action taking emotional and automatic side. Listens to Rider when it wants to.

Happy Meal

If you had to choose a chief candidate for a happiness battleground - what we put in our mouth would have to be right up there. Tastes, like music or photographs, can link almost directly to memories of happy times. Food is a part of our identity. Our favourite dishes are friends. When we are sad - there is the buddy we turn to. To celebrate, we might have a favourite restaurant that we go to as a reward for a job well done. It can also be the glue that holds relationships together. A meal your mother made you. Somewhere you and your friends love meeting. Perhaps a memory of when you fell in love with someone. Cooking may be where you find your sense of flow.  It can be central to a national cultural identity, e.g. the braai.

It is also one of the biggest disconnects between what we rationally know we should eat, and what we want to eat. Beyond the simple question of eating healthily, there are now more questions being raised about the sustainability and ethics of how we generate our food. In 2008 I had an epic series of blog post debates with Stuart Torr (@muttface) on Vegetarianism with myself arguing for the meat eaters. In theory, I was trying to understand his decision not to eat meat, but in truth I was defending myself. We didn't resolve much other than I agreed:

1. Meat makes up too large a proportion of most wealthy people's diets.

2. The practises in factory farming are very concerning and there is persistent animal cruelty.

I subsequently started getting into Yoga, in which Vegetarianism is a very central part of the philosophy. Diet has not been one of the areas that I have focused on. This is in part laziness, in part not having enough time, and in part a deep emotional connection to the food I eat.

The amount of self-control required to not eat meat in a culture where there are only a few vegetarian options on most menus is huge. ORDER ENVY. I am not just fond of some meat meals, I have had a lifelong love affair with them. My brothers would argue that Trev and Spaghetti Bolognaise are synonyms. Then there is ignorance. I don't know how to prepare tasty vegetarian meals and to ensure that I am getting all the elements I need to stay healthy. None of these things were a problem on the two month long yoga courses I went on, and I felt awesome.

A very happy Trev. A very tasty meat free meal.

For the more militant activists out there, the ones who believe that our current culture of meat eating is perpetrating a holocaust (thus breaking Godwin's law), I think addressing some of the cultural and emotional attachments may be a better approach than a direct attack using moral philosophy. Jonathan Haidt (@JonHaidt) talks of being intellectually convinced after reading Peter Singer's (@petersinger) work but that it didn't affect his behaviour. It just added a layer of guilt. A video of a slaughter house stopped him eating meat for a while because it induced disgust, but that faded and the meat eating habit returned. I have a fair amount of self discipline and yet struggle when it comes to food. Reducing how much meat we eat and so helping to reduce the demand that leads to undeniably cruel practices within factory farms is going to have to rely on some very serious Elephant Training. What we eat and logic are only acquaintances. What we eat and our emotional engines are lovers.

Polite Chunks

We use chunks as shortcuts in conversation. Certain bits of information are assumed as known so that we can move forward to discussing other things. One of my high school maths teachers, Mrs Chick, used to describe Maths as a tower of building blocks. The foundation had to be solid and almost automatic before you could go to the next level. First you learn to count. Then you learn to add. Fast forward, fast forward, Calculus, fast forward, super fast forward, String Theory.

This works well in maths. In philosophy and language less so. We assume we are using words that have meaning to others because they have meaning to us. The Curse of Knowledge makes it incredibly difficult to empathise and explain a concept to someone because we forget how we thought before we understood. It gets even more complicated than that though. If we know that someone can fight with some material with us not being there and afterwards they will think the same as us, that is one thing, but what about when that is not certain?

Source: Wikipedia

There are several very complicated, very emotional topics that continue to divide people. Yesterday, I spent six hours reading through a more than 300 comment thread on Facebook on the topic of Veganism. More specifically, the question was posed:

A note to my Christian friends,
As hard as it is to see posts from friends about the meat/dairy/eggs on their plates, I struggle the most with those that come from Christians.
Correct me if I’m wrong; Is the Christian life not meant to be guided by compassion? If so, how can you be okay with the fact that you support a system of brutal cruelty? How can you salivate over the flesh of a fellow earthling? Can you really call yourself a compassionate Christian, and support an industry that can only be called an animal holocaust?It took me many years to undo the societal conditioning that makes us feel okay about using and eating animals, and I get that for most people, this process takes time. But I beg you, please think about the principles you try to live by, and follow them to their logical conclusion.
[Constructive comments/questions/discussion welcome; trolls won’t be entertained.]

For the most part the thread was very constructive. I was reading it from the perspective of looking at how people actually talk to each other about difficult topics. As soon as someone feels attacked, I think they tend to clam up, go on the defensive or disengage. Here are a few examples of things that once said are unlikely to get the person you are arguing with to listen very hard...

'I think you are missing the point'
'That isn't a very strong argument'
'I am not sure where you are going with this. Let's get back to the topic.
'You point is weak and repeating it over & over again will not give it more merit'
'If you can believe that you can believe anything'
'I am really sorry you are incapable of grasping'
'That point has been so thoroughly disproved elsewhere I don't think it is worth disputing'
'If you are a Christian then I have to say you have very little understanding of the bible'

At this point, the comments hadn't descended it into name calling, and then name calling was actually rather brief, before things recovered. My point is just that in working toward things improving and the world becoming a happier place, there are lots of very thorny topics we need to work through where we are coming from very different places. Sometimes words we think mean something to us, e.g. Christian, God, Muslim, mean very different things to different people. Words are powerful. Questioning things requires a lot of patience.

The frustrating thing for lots of people is that they don't understand how a 'good person' could possibly disagree. It makes them mad when they explain what seems like something obvious, and the penny doesn't just drop for the person they are talking too. Jonathan Haidt has written a fantastic book on this subject. It is tempting to just not talk about these issues. To keep politics, sex, religion, and in this case food habits out of polite conversation. The problem is most of these issues are very serious. They are not just a preference for vanilla or chocolate ice-cream. Before we can sort them out though, we need to get better at talking to each other.

New Habits

I have recently returned from a month long Yoga course. It is the second of its type I have done and on both occasions I have come back feeling awesome. Life is not as controlled an environment as I was in, and the challenge is adjusting back but keeping some of the good habits. Life is a collection of habits after all. When we repeat things, we start doing things automatically so we can focus on other things. Stating the obvious, it is easier to keep good habits in environments that lend themselves towards good habits.

"Those who showed the greatest self-control reported more good moods and fewer bad ones. But this didn’t appear to linked to being more able to resist temptations — it was because they exposed themselves to fewer situations that might evoke craving in the first place."
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2013/06/24/self-disciplined-people-are-happier-and-not-as-deprived-as-you-think/#ixzz2bxGMMAm4 (HT - Marginal Revolution)

I have written posts before about attempts to create simple good habits like making my bed and eating more fruit. On those two accounts, I continue to be atrocious. When I came back from the first Yoga course, I tried being a weekday vegetarian to cut down my meat intake. I lasted about 6 months but then fell back into my normal routine.

My plan now is to try adding things rather than consciously taking away. To try and create new habits rather than trying to stop old ones. Part of that plan is in cooking. I am going to try making healthy cooking a hobby. Perhaps the simple act of being excited about learning a new meal will reduce the habit of curry and pizza.

Let's see.

Vegetarian Cooking

Some of you would have read the series of posts 'Vegetorrian vs. Carntrevor' that Stuart and I wrote while I was in Bermuda last year. It didn't convince me to become vegetarian, but probably did make me realize that I was probably eating too much meat, and that it is possible to be a vegetarian and not be... well, let me just stop there.

This morning, I went to a 'vegetarian cooking course for beginners' at the Yoga Centre that I have been going to for the last 6 weeks or so. The Yoga has been what I can only describe as life changing, so I figured I should give the cooking bit a go to. I have very little (read none) intention of cutting meat out of my diet, but would love to know more about preparing good tasty vegetarian food to balance it out a bit.

Unfortunately, I still have the issue of fitting in an hour of cooking into a 12 hour work day, 90 minutes of exercise, 90 minutes/2 hours of commuting and an interest in reading and blogging... and of course you also need to try and get 7 hours of sleep. But hey you say... there is 90 minutes spare there. Hmmmm. Cue small badly played violin.

It would be rather good to have ready prepared, but healthy meals available. Vancouver had it (wonderful city but far from everywhere).

Anyway... The cooking workshop was interesting, and the food was really really tasty.

No Sugar

My office canteen serves a great meal, and each day there is a choice between a meat option and a vegetarian option.

Like cutting down on drinking coke (thanks to the sister-in-law), I am trying to cut down on the amount of meat I eat (thanks to my arch-enemy/sole blogging commenter).

So today I looked longingly at the Lamb Tikka Masala, I cried a little inside as I heard the words... `ratatouille please'... escape from my mouth. It's not that I don't like vegetables, because I do. It is just so hard when I know how much I like meat.

Then I get home to my brothers place, and ask him if he wants a cup of tea. Yes please... no sugar!

My other oldest brother drinks diet coke. My middle brother has no sugar in his tea. And I am trying to drink water instead of other drinks, and choose vegetables over meat more often.

What is the world coming to! Yup... the long term benefits will be there. But the little boy in me is sulking a little.

Haidt talks about reading Peter Singer's `Animal Ethics' and being intellectually convinced that he should become a vegetarian. But he didn't, instead he just felt a little guilty every time he ordered a hamburger. Then he saw a video of a slaughter house that disgusted him into not eating meat... briefly. As the memory of the video faded, so did the lure of meat become more convincing.

Hmmm, there are so many things where the long term goals of one approach far outweigh the short term benefits of the easy option...

But... we live in the short term.

And it is easy.

But... baby steps. I did eat the ratatouille... and not the curry, so that is a small victory. hmmmm.

Unwilling Empathy

Grrrr

Although Stuart and I have both tired for now of the vegetarian debate, I was unwittingly forced to empathise today with the uncomfortable position that vegetarians are put in.

I have been safe till now from stopping eating veal cause it isn't that common in South Africa. But in Bermuda it is everywhere... basically half of most restaurants dishes are veal.

But, there are plenty of other options for Carntrevor so I am fine.

Today, I was having lunch with two colleagues who both ordered the most amazingly tasty looking veal chops. I got incredible order envy as I salivating looked at their dishes.

Nonetheless my meal was very tasty. The envy is not where the empathy comes in.

The veal chops were apparently amazing, and Grandpa Spanner (a colleague) offered me some.

TB: no thanks.
GS: why?
TB: I don't eat veal.
GS: Why? Don't you like it.
TB: No, I love it.
GS: So is it on principle that you don't eat it.
TB: I am not a vegetarian, veal is the only meat I don't eat.
GS: Why?
TB: Look, both of you are eating veal... I really don't want to talk about it now. Enjoy your meal.
XX: Is it because of the way the raise the animals.
TB: (uncomfortable) All I will say is that a friend of mine who is a vegetarian managed to convince me to stop eating veal after telling me how it was prepared. But I really don't want to spoil your meal, so let's rather just leave it.

hmmm....

On the comments of Stuart's latest response to our debate, Tracy continues the discussion of judgement.

Thinking more of why people get offended:

1) the conversation normally comes up WHILE people are eating meat. So it is (kind of but not exactly the same) like standing next to someone having sex and saying, I don't believe in sex before marriage. I think it is wrong.

2) It is a ethical judgment as opposed to a religious judgement, which is why people who are vegetarian for `religious reasons' don't seem to get judges. They don't eat meat, not because they object to animal cruelty practices of factory farming. Rather they don't eat meat because `God said so'. It seems easier to dismiss them and not feel judged because you can justify yourself by saying, oh, I don't believe in their God.

This could be seen as strange since ethics and religion are often viewed as tied. The thing is religious views are often not challenged to see if something is right or wrong on ethical grounds with a sound rational argument. It is what it is. So it is easier to dismiss.

Maybe I am not expressing myself well... but perhaps it is easier to have `religious tolerance' than it is to have `ethical tolerance'.

By not eating meat, you are not saying... I don't eat meat, but go ahead believe whatever you want. Effectively you are saying, I believe it is wrong to eat [farm-factory produced] meat and by eating it you are effectively endorsing cruelty to animals.

That doesn't sit easily.... hence the offence taken.

voyeurs and vegetarians

On the current topic...

Bryan Caplan:

I often disagree with people who know more about a given topic than I do. ... I reason, if I did immerse myself in the modern literature, it's a lot more likely that I would arrive at a sophisticated version of my current view than that I would radically change my mind. ... When I argue with people who are better-informed than I am ... [I ask] "If I saw and read everything that you've seen and read, what would I conclude?" ... Even though the disputants are not on a level playing field, that isn't the real reason why they hold different views. ...

I suspect that Robin Hanson will be disturbed by my heuristic. After all, its lets every person retain his view that his prior is "special." You could even call my method the Anti-Hansonian Heuristic, because it deliberately ignores the fact that lots of smart people persistently disagree with you. In response to Robin, though, I'd say that (a) it's almost impossible to convince anyone that his prior isn't special - and my heuristic improves the quality of beliefs despite this impasse; and (b) since my prior is special (laugh if you must!), this is a great heuristic for me to live by.

Robin Hanson:

I'd like to say Bryan bites a bullet here, but alas he just gums it, as he doesn't engage the hard questions: what exactly is his better-origin scenario/story, and what evidence supports that story over less-flattering stories? That is, how could Caplan tell the difference between a situation where his prior was good and mine bad, vs. a situation where his prior was bad and mine good? If he grants that a reasonable person, long before our births, would have thought these two situations equally likely, what later evidence could have convinced this reasonable person that Bryan's prior turned out better?

I have never read a book on why you should eat meat... or on why it is bad. So the discussion Stuart and I have been having has (for me) more been one of getting an understanding of his argument. As such, I probably went about it the wrong way, saying points that I felt and getting explained why I was wrong and then putting up a feeble defense. I should really have been asking more questions. Hopefully not leading questions.

That being said, I know of a few people who have been following our discussion (the voyeurs) but no one has commented... and I imagine most are meat eaters too.

Do I think that if I had read enough and thought about it enough, I would still believe what I do. I would like to think not, but that is probably what I think.

I probably agree with Hanson more than Caplan when I am just talking about something that doesn't seem important. But it is hard to do when you eat 3 meals a day... and 2 of them include meat.

I am full of Bias

In my discussions with Stuart on vegetarianism I have been making an attempt to understand his way of thinking. I believe it has been an honest attempt...

but... there has been a strong bias, as he has pointed out pointedly in the comments to my last post on the subject.

I pointed recently to a discussion between two professors taking opposite sides on the moral realism debate. For and against.

The discussion is very calm and balanced. Both would be said to be arguing for their side of the argument, but they were both at pains to express with clarity the arguments of the other side to show that they understood.

I was pretty impressed. It was a very dispassionate argument. Anyone who knows anyone in my family and our history of debate would not use the word dispassionate to describe us. Most of my friends over the years have also held strong beliefs and discussions have been less of an attempt to find the truth than to win the argument or debate.

I have tried not to do this here, and yet failed. Reading "Mundane Dishonesty" on Overcoming Bias (read this it's funny cause its true) made me feel a bit better. I am interested in finding the truth, but that doesn't make me any less attached to the lies.

Should a not say `I hope vegetarians don't have an argument that convinces me because I like eating meat'? It's the truth.

Can I have an affection or attachment for one side of the argument? I would say yes, but then to compensate for this bias I should work extra hard at trying to prove myself wrong. I can say `I hope I am right, but let me look at X, Y, and Z'.

On the contrary, we probably spend more time trying to prove to others that we are right.

In this particular case, I also realise that I haven't done my homework. I am not a meat eater because I have read widely on the subject, mulled over both sides of the story and come to a well thought out conclusion that I am able to defend.

I am a meat eater because my parents are, my friends in general are and it is all I have ever known. I have changed other opinions that were because of the same reasons and I changed them despite a fondness for my previous opinions....

So I think it is possible. I am biased....

But I will try to compensate by attacking that bias.

Vegetorrian vs. Carntrevor

Stuarts response to `How to frustrate a Vegetorian' was `Many of us are not suicide bombers!'

Perhaps one or two people have been spectators to our debate, if true could someone comment on whether the accusation `Trevor gives the impression of wanting to argue for a conclusion he already holds' is valid? I thought I was trying pretty hard to find the weakness in my argument?

The next accusation is that I treat people who hold `anti-death' vegetarian views as weird. Again... I don't think this is true, I may disagree and not understand their point of view though.

Another accusation is that I am retreating to pointing out the holes in "most vegetarians" arguments. While I have read Stuart's posts on his vegetarianism, I have not read a lot on the subject other than on his blog. I am not trying to understand other vegetarians and do believe that many of them have not thought through their motivation to even a fraction of the extent that Stuart has. I would think this is true of most voters, most religious devotees, sports fans... and pretty much any other view people hold. Most people don't think things through and then asked for a logical explanation will struggle. So... no I am not retreating to the "most" argument since I think Stuart agrees that "most" arguments are riddled with holes and illogical... I am more interested in compelling arguments.

Here are some points I think have come from our discussion. (I am not reviewing all the hundreds of post, I write quickly and what comes in to my head... so if I forget a point, it hasn't sunk in...)

1) Most meat eaters eat too much meat in their diet.
2) Including meat in your diet likely to allow for a healthier diet. Vegetarians are not de facto healthier than people who include meat in their diet.
3) I accept that adopting a general rule of not eating meat because of animal suffering is an acceptable one. I have to work out my own justification for the opposite view that I currently subscribe to of not getting sufficiently upset about it to stop eating meat.
4) I also accept that the "I am a vegetarian" approach is more tactful than demanding "cruelty-free" meat.
5) The anti-death view that does not depend on animal suffering is the one I understand less. I have not read or heard an argument for this view yet that convinces me as a strong argument. I accept however that death may upset some people and so they prefer it not to be in their diet. I do not find it compelling enough to upset me or make me uneasy. I find the suffering view stronger.
6) I don't have a problem with raising animals for the sole goal of eating them if the conditions in which they live are fine.

The thing is people don't like feeling like they are being morally judged, which is probably a large reason why vegetarianism gets under the skin of others. I would imagine most people would be upset with the degree of animal suffering if it was conspicuous. It isn't. We don't see the animals in the farm factories.

Is it a problem making people feel uncomfortable about things that you believe to be true?

Well... for the most part I get upset with religious people who do this because I see little justification in judgement.

As I said, this kind of thing gives me `impending doom' because I find the idea of being very accepting of different points of view very appealing. Hard-core truth seeking is not in that game. It actually pushes you to feel uncomfortable in a far more real way when logic and reason are involved.

In most places this easier because this more intellectual than practical... but here you are being as practical as it gets. What am I going to eat.

Yes, I eat more meat than I should. I like vegetables but don't eat as much of them as I should... because I prefer meat. I eat negligible amounts of fruit.

How to frustrate a Vegetorrian

Carrying on from Stu and my epic vegetarian debate.

Stu's primary concern was my regular comment that I just don't understand the logic behind vegetarianism... or `why people don't eat meat'.

It seems his answer is (and he will correct me if I am wrong)

I don't eat want to eat meat that is produced as a result of excessive (in my opinion) cruelty. Since I can not be certain of how commercially produced meat was obtained, and the conditions under which the animal lived, I feel more comfortable not eating any commercially produced meat.

I accept this as a reasonable stance. I do not think it is the generally accepted view of vegetarians, but it is a view I can understand better. Now that I know his true stance, I will seek out a suitable vendor of such cruelty free meat and supply Stu with a juicy burger, some tasty chicken or some lekker biltong.

It probably requires a better understanding of farming practices and cruelty in general to achieve this aim.

A couple more points though.

1. Stu, I read your blog and your comments but I can not claim to have a photographic memory and remember your position on every point. I have often been accused of having a memory like a sieve and offer my sincere apology.

2.

'vegetarians are healthier than meat eaters'

is not the same as 'Being a vegetarian will make you healthier', in the same way as

Men are wealthier than women.
More Black-Africans are in prison in South Africa than White-Africans.

I would guess that vegetarians (by choice) are more a smaller group, and spend more time becoming aware of dietary requirements to ensure a balance. You will have to provide better evidence that meat is in fact not good for you before I accept that excluding something from your `universe of acceptable foods' can actually make you healthier.

3. You would have noticed in my points that I didn't argue they were strong... `That is a cop out I know'

More on Greens & Reds

I will need to print out and read through all of Stuart and my discussions about the vegetarianism question, Stu's last post was here and mine here.

But... here are some more thoughts for now.

1) I accept that factory farming has some excessive cruel practices. I would rather not associate with these, and given the easy choice wouldn't. I would even pay a premium over cruelty derived foods. Not given the choice, and not knowing how the meat was obtained... how strongly do I feel about this? Not sure. I also believe people shouldn't starve. Do I feed myself and clothe myself with the bare minimum and send the rest to charity? No. How much should I? I am not sure.

Does it leave me feeling uneasy... yes.

2) I do not accept that the logical conclusion to saying that cruel practices exist is to not eat any meat that's commercially available.

If there is demand for meat that is `cruelty free'... the invisible hand will provide.

3) Stu, do you believe it is wrong to eat meat irrespective of whether it was cruelly obtained or not?

On the `impending doom' post...

Say I were to accept that the majority of meat was cruelly obtained, I also know this is unlikely to change if I stop eating meat since most people won't. Especially since vegetarianism is also a pretty elite, top of maslow's hierarchy concern. If you are starving... you don't really care what you eat. We are a long long way from being able to feed the world on a meat free diet, let alone a diet at all.

That is a cop out I know... hence the impending doom.

What I do have a problem with is the inconsistency. If you believe that anything obtained through cruel means is unacceptable... how can you drink the cappuccino that you don't know where the milk comes from. How can you buy leather shoes?

Is it possible to live a consistent cruelty free life? Maybe not now, but maybe it is something we can work towards. Again a cop out.

Sucking the Joy?

I have just finished reading Gary Kasparov's `Why Life is like Chess' which I am sure will inspire many posts, but that is not the point of this post. One of the things he said was that he believes success is a result of four factors... talent, knowledge, experience and self awareness. The first three are often spoken about but the last one less so.

I often blog about the `Feedback Loop' and my belief in the importance of someone helping you crit yourself. My brother questioned how to choose this person... which obviously is tough. But, I think your most important feedback loop is yourself... the self awareness that Kasparov talks about.

One of my Feedback loops or challengers is Stuart. He has had a fair amount of success in getting me to change some of my more stubborn beliefs and I applaud this BUT one of the stumbling blocks I am going to have to overcome is an onsetting fear of `factual depression'.

Before anyone panics (my thousands of readers hmmm), my personal philosophy doesn't really let me get depressed anymore so I am a pretty happy camper no matter what set backs come my way.

But what I mean... is sometimes accepting certain facts and truths can take away joys (and pain) that make life interesting.

Take Stuarts new found disloyalty to sport's teams. So now he supports `attractive football', not one particular team. Blah blah blah. I watch rugby when the Sharks play and when South Africa plays... I even watched SA play the Netball World Cup final in 1995... not because I am a netball fan but because I am a passionate SA sports fan. Take that illogical fanaticism away and I wouldn't have watched. I seldom watch neutral rugby games and struggle to get into football by `deciding' what team to support. If there was suddenly a SA team in the premiership... maybe it would be easier.

So what's my point... I like my lack of rationalle in sports. I like not being logical sometimes. It is why I love painting abstract paintings and enjoy conversations with Phil Southey... not logic is required.

Today as I walked down the street in Hamilton outside of the cool airconditioned offices to buy a very tasty Chicken Salad Baguette to eat in the local park, I was struck by the implications of not finding the answer I want in my vegetarian debate. Those who have followed it will notice I have tried (successfully or not) to remain relatively objective. The practical implications of not eating any commercially produced meat that is not `cruelty free' is not an appealing one. Veal was easy to give up because it is hardly on any South African menus. It is very common here in Bermuda. But I am ok... because I have trusty chicken. Now I am faced with the not so pleasant possibility of not being allowed one of my favourite things.

And that sucks. More so than the other `much more significant' things I have changed my mind about in the last few years. In fact some of those things had benefits.

I always thought of Stuart as a liberal. He is not. He is in fact one of the most strong back boned hardened believers in what he has fought to understand and very far from a tree hugging hippy.

A `let it be'/`accepting' attitude doesn't actually seem consistent with the attempt to seek the truth. It seems seeking the truth actually requires tougher questions than even the traditionally tough religious requirements.

Hmmmm.... I like the idea of being a crazy all accepting hippie with long hair running crazzily through the forrest wearing nothing but the moonlight.

Applying logic to everything seems dangerous. (but unavoidable?)

P.S. I am not conceding the debate or any points yet in this post stuart, I just felt obliged to let you in on the impending sense of doom I am feeling

What don't I understand?

Following on from here.

Before I responded to our growing list of points... as I was driving on my scooter between beaches in paradise yesterday, I was trying to figure out what it is that I don't understand about vegetarianism.

1. I don't like the extremists. I think they do any cause harm.
2. I don't accept the fact that not eating meat at all is a logical conclusion to saying that cruel practices exist.
3. What I don't understand is why someone would believe it is wrong to eat meat irrespective of whether it was cruely obtained or not.

I do accept and would understand someone saying I will not eat meat from anywhere I can not be certain that their practices are not cruel. I accept that you can determine your own threshold for what is cruel, and if you feel strongly enough about it not eat meat from any of those places.

But then you are not a vegetarian, i.e. someone who does not eat meat at all. You just object to animal cruelty and act accordingly. This may lead you to hardly ever eating meat... or

given enough support could lead to a measure of transparency where a new term is coined and an organisation `accredits' certain farmers for subscribing to minimizing cruelty.

More Meat?

Following up Stuart's responses here and here.

Firstly I would like to admit that I am not widely read on the subject. I would like to read a couple of books from the strongest arguments on both sides. But... before I do that, it probably makes sense to come up with a list of questions I am trying to answer. Independent thoughts. So, discussing the arguments with Stuart from both sides makes sense as a starting point.


1. There are some animals that even an omnivore will not eat. Why?

This varies by omnivore.

2. There must be some level of cruelty to which each of us would object.

The thought of a calf not being allowed to walk so that it doesn't grow muscles seems excessively cruel to me. Hence my choice of not eating veal. It is an easy choice since veal was not a large part of my diet, although it is very tasty. I don't try convince other people, and if I went out to dinner and veal had been prepared by my host, I would most likely eat it.

3. We need a definition of moral status.

4. I agree with what you say. A right can be independent of an obligation if it is not possible or realistic to place an obligation on someone or something. But then there needs to be a different sent of rules of why those rights should exist, other than... because I don't want that to happen to me. Because then the right is being confered rather than given in exchange for an obligation.

5. I think acting the same as nature is the default. If a compelling argument or even sufficient to give an injunction (how would you say this better Greg?) is found, then you can stop people from acting in that way. No, I don't think vegetarians are immoral by refusing to eat meat. It can be frustrating in a social context but there are lots of people with other dietary constraints so that is not an issue in my mind. (I still find aggressive vegetarians annoying but we have agreed not to go there)

6. I don't think vegetarians cause more suffering than omnivores (? is there a better term than omnivores or are vegetarians herbivores?).

7. If the animal rights people were wrong and succeeded... this could cause harm depending on how you look at it. There will be far less cows, pigs, chickens, goats etc. available other than those kept for milk (assuming that is ok) and zoos. Take you great grandchild to visit a wild zoo cow.... this could be seen as bad? From a balanced diet perspective... it may be unhealthy for us to exclude meat from our diet. The emotional trauma caused by unfounded guilt. Can you think of some examples Stu?

8. If meat eaters are wrong, we will have left a trail of suffering. This is not good. We already leave a trail of suffering. William Wallace... freedom fighter and rapist. Harry Truman, ended a war and was a war criminal. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Shaka, Henry VIII, Verwoed... everyone has a shaddy past that we try to evolve from. Evolution should be without shame if convincing arguments come up, learn from the past but don't feel ashamed if you learnt and changed. On the other hand, if the arguments were there and you just ignored them till it was convenient, then there should probably be some shame. I am 80% confident (for non Mutt-Blog readers, Stu likes attaching a % to every belief) that eating meat is not a problem in itself. I am uncertain as to where I would draw the line as to what meat is wrong to eat given the cruelty in obtaining it.

I am satisfied with my default of eating meat also because I enjoy it. Meat tastes good. If the belief that what I am doing decrease that enjoyment, I will eat less. If it decreases it to the point where I dislike eating meat... I will stop.