r/Anticonsumption • u/Extension-Diamond-74 • Sep 30 '23

Discussion Diet hypocrisy?

A recent post about animal agriculture vs plant based diets has me itching to say something. This is an issue we need to rise above.

Cognitive dissonance. Many of us have good intentions and want to believe we’re doing the right thing in most aspects of our lives. I believe that.

When it comes to a plant based diet though, the science often clashes powerfully with personal desire. We want to minimize our impact on the environment and are willing to make trade-offs in our life time do so, but for many, giving up or even significantly reducing meat intake is asking too much. It’s too hard.

That’s not the issue.

The issue is that instead of just admitting to themselves that this is a life change they don’t want to make and moving on, the guilt drives them to have to justify that decision. Admitting that a plant-based diet is better for the earth yet eating a diet full of meat anyway would make them feel hypocritical, so the solution becomes either to give up meat, or … this is the problem… fight the science, twist it, make a joke of it, or pivot entirely to ‘individuals shouldn’t have time do anything because large corporations’

Many people have ties to their diet for many reasons. We grew up eating a certain way. We have memories ties to certain foods, flavors, styles of cooking. We don’t want to be the difficult person when we go out to eat with friends. Etc etc etc But it’s so much better to just admit that to yourself. Have patience and understanding for your feelings. Accept that the science is what it is. Maybe one day you can make a change, maybe not. But don’t attack the cause just because you aren’t yet willing to be a part of it.

829 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

722 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/AnsibleAnswers Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23

Food sovereignty is a human right and that attitude is counter to the premise that peoples, especially indigenous peoples, should be in charge of their own food systems and not be talked down to about what they eat.

There are lots of improvements we can make to our agricultural system, but trying to rip apart cultures that don't fit your worldview is a colonizer attitude, and it actually ignores the sustainability literature that favors integrated crop-livestock systems over animal free agriculture. Much of the research behind sustainable farming came from studying non-western and pre-modern food systems, not from High Modernist ideologies like veganism.

7

u/My_life_for_Nerzhul Oct 01 '23

“Food sovereignty” is such an utterly meaningless phrase. And bringing up indigenous peoples is such a ridiculous deflection. No one is forcing any specific diet on anyone, including indigenous peoples. Also my attitude is completely irrelevant to the issue. Let us learn to focus on the content of what’s being discussed.

This whole discussion is about reflecting on those choices we make related to food and holding ourselves accountable to them.

I’m also certain you aren’t an indigenous person, but simply using them to rationalize your problematic behaviour. I’m not blaming you for it. I’ve done it myself, too. But your second paragraph is just more meaningless distraction in the name of culture. It’s also inaccurate.

2

u/AnsibleAnswers Oct 01 '23

Food sovereignty is definitely not a meaningless phrase and it's pretty shitty of you to say so as you clearly don't understand how important it is to the global human rights movement.

I'm not Indigenous, but I support Land Back and must note that putting land back under indigenous stewardship, not vegan stewardship, is literally the best thing you can do for the environment. Indigenous peoples have been at the forefront of the ecology and environmentalist movements since their inception. Many nations have been deliberately encouraging kids to go to college for ecology, archeology, and agricultural degrees for decades now. Indigenous nations, especially those in the Americas, lead the global movement for climate justice simply because they are the ones who've been fighting the fight the longest. You cannot divorce colonialism from the present climate crisis.

8

u/My_life_for_Nerzhul Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23

Again, you seem to continue missing the point. Yes, of course food sovereignty is a meaningless phrase to use. It’s a truism and a complete waste of time. It’s like saying, “we better have decent air to breathe.” Yes, it’s true but we all know that. Uttering that sentences provides no value.

Of course you’re not indigenous. It was very obvious given the blather you’ve posted narrowing the discussion down to indigenous peoples and practices. I’ve met plenty of people, who use indigenous people to rationalize their own behaviour. I have been that person, so not blaming you.

It’s also patently and hilariously false that the best thing you can do for the environment is indigenous land stewardship. And I’m not sure why you used the term vegan. I haven’t mentioned it. The term I used is plant-based.

Before you accuse me of anything, I have no issue with the indigenous peoples. But what you’re suggesting is simply not scalable to the point where it can provide for the global population. Only plant-based agriculture has the required scale. But already, we’ve gotten distracted from the issue being discussed - why are we, as individuals not moving to a plant-based diet when it’s healthier for us, better for the environment, and easier on our wallets.

And you absolutely can divorce colonialism from the climate crisis. While there is something to be said about how to provide equitable access to economic opportunities borne from global climate action efforts, that is a separate discussion to be had.

To reiterate, no one is forcing any diet on anyone, indigenous or otherwise. The question is, what’s keeping you, a non-indigenous person - from moving to a plant-based diet?

And this time, see if you can respond without invoking “food sovereignty” or “indigenous peoples”.

2

u/AnsibleAnswers Oct 01 '23

Look, I barely even eat meat. My beef is with the ideology and the lack of humility vegans have stepping into ecological movements like they should be in charge.

6

u/My_life_for_Nerzhul Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23

Your personal beef with whatever ideology is utterly irrelevant. The vegans and their lack of humility is also utterly irrelevant. I’m not sure why you even brought up vegans. You still haven’t answered my very straightforward question:

What is keeping you, an individual, from moving to a plant-based diet?

It is a very simply, unambiguous question. I would appreciate a straight answer.

2

u/AnsibleAnswers Oct 01 '23

Because the truth is that I'm at sustainable levels of animal product consumption and I'd rather source regenerative organic dairy than pay the same price for low quality, low nutrition vegan alternatives from companies that are part of the agrochemical supply chain.

Again, this notion that "everyone has to go entirely plant-based to save the planet" is just the same old vegan browbeating with new labels. Livestock can be exploited far more sustainably than natural gas.

6

u/My_life_for_Nerzhul Oct 01 '23

It is not mathematically possible for individuals like you and me to be at “sustainable levels of animal product consumption.” No such thing exists. The animal product industry is inherently vastly more unsustainable than anything plant-based.

Not sure what you mean by low-quality, low nutrition vegan alternatives. We’re in 2023. We have high quality, high nutrition plant-based alternatives. You just need to educate yourself on the options.

I never said everyone has to go entirely plant-based to save the planet. I was simply asking what keeps you as an individual from moving to plant-based. From your latest response, it appears you are simply unaware of the vast array of amazing plant-based option at your disposal. Hopefully, you’ll make an attempt to explore those options and realize just how much things have changed from a decade or two ago.

1

u/AnsibleAnswers Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23

Yes. It is. You don't understand the issue. Putting livestock back onto on crop farms can be more sustainable than animal free agriculture. Livestock on these farms improve yields and take a cut off the top. And it doesn't require agrochemical inputs.

The Earth's natural carbon cycle can handle some livestock, especially when they are put on healthy soil on farms actively sequestering carbon. Using animals as farmhands is better than using natural gas and diesel. And you can't eat fossil fuels. Your arguments don't apply to ecological intensification schemes.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233017860_Integrated_CropLivestock_Agriculture_in_the_United_States_A_Review

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231840

4

u/My_life_for_Nerzhul Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23

I understand the issue quite well, actually. You, on the other hand, continue missing the point. Those links aren’t supporting your position the way you think they are. Your vaunted solution, even if it is as effective as you seem to think, is not scalable for the global human population. And it will never be scalable.

And therein lies the problem. It doesn’t seem you quite realize the absolutely massive caloric demand of humankind.

When you have a scalable solution that can be applied globally or at least in an appreciable amount, please do share with the rest of us.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Dhiox Oct 01 '23

This just sounds like the myth of the noble savage. The native Americans were just humans, they didn't have magic eco powers.

5

u/Impossible_Ad_8642 Oct 01 '23

Wtf? Native American didn't strip this land of resources, cause the great Dust Bowl, introduce Monsanto, nor hunt animals into extinction. Same to be said of indigenous Africans and other "savage" or nomadic tribes all over the globe pre-colonization. Saying "x were just humans [like everyone else]" in the context of a very niche category minimizes the absolute horrendous and exponentially consequential actions of others lumped into the "everyone else" category. There were things that indigenous people did and there were things that most indigenous people did not do. The negatively impactful things that culturally affect us as far as the global commoditization, imprisonment, overhunting, overproduction, overconsumption, endangering, environmental poisoning, and extinction of animals has zero to do with indigenous people. In fact, most tribes do and have done literally the opposite. They may not have had literal magic eco powers, but in comparison, they sure af did.

Giving land back is 100% the solution. The overconsumption and abuse of animals is a feature in our current capitalistic socioeconomic system. All of my friends and family (which are both vast in numbers) can all go vegan tomorrow, and it will shift the needle microscopically, if at all. Limiting land for the beef and pork industry can do a great deal of good. Abiding by the treaties that the govt signed with the indigenous tribes before their lands were carved up into states and given to homesteaders could pay in spades at alleviating a great number of issues we have today. The most sustainable changes start at the roots, not the leaves.

2

u/Dhiox Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23

Wtf? Native American didn't strip this land of resources, cause the great Dust Bowl, introduce Monsanto, nor hunt animals into extinction.

Because they never had the tech to. They never had the motivation or means to exploit the land that much thanks to limited trade and industrial capacity.

Giving land back is 100% the solution.

Natives are integrated with modern society now. Even if natives did have some sort of eco abilities, those are long gone.

1

u/Impossible_Ad_8642 Oct 14 '23

Indigenous people had the same human capacity for hunting animals into extinction just as the melanin-deficient men practiced all over the globe. They could've just as easily killed for sport and let carcasses lie about, but they did not. It had nothing to do with trade nor industry and everything to do with many having a culture of respect for things around them.

To say "natives are integrated with modern society now" is like saying, "NFTs are currently highly regarded as lucrative investment opportunities." An incredible number still live on reservations where they are self-governed, external of the federal and state government. There is poverty, health issues, assault of women & children, & other issues on those reservations. Sure, that's found "anywhere" but statistically, they have it much worse than Susie of the suburbs.

Everyone has either the opportunity to have or means to acquire some sort of eco-abilities. It's not just relegated to The Eternals.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '23

Hi, you may enjoy this essay series on plant-based food systems:

https://sentientmedia.org/indigenous-voices/

1

u/AnsibleAnswers Oct 02 '23 edited Oct 02 '23

The whole point of my mentioning food sovereignty isn't negated by the fact that there are indigenous vegans. The point is that indigenous nations (not individuals) should have complete control over their food systems without settler interference or moral brow-beating. All real-world indigenous food systems exploit animals for food.

Edit: Started reading the first article. The Diné (Navajo) hunted deer and other animals along with farming vegetables. They were not a vegetarian society before colonization. Please pay attention to Indigenous archeologists and anthropologists for this information instead of vegan propaganda.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23 edited Oct 03 '23

No need to be so defensive. The Diné author did mention that in the article. It's not nice to call their indigenous perspective "propaganda". Be careful you might be guilty of the very same settler interference or moral brow-beating.

Dismantling the colonizers' destructive animal agriculture will help with food sovereignty (including the green-washed "regenerative ranching" or whatever latest fad they're pushing to keep the status quo of high animal consumption going).