I've been eating veggie sushi for years!  Ask your sushi chef to prepare you sushi with a myriad of veggies they have on-hand.  I've had mushroom (shiitake), avocado, cucumber, asparagus, radish, Japanese-style pickle, tofu, seitan and more.  I ask them to use their imagination.  

We do have one Buddhist Japanese restaurant in Berkeley, Ca., where they make everything with veggies only, and it's great.  I don't have to suggest a thing, they have a huge menu.

But, my suggestions above work well at the traditional Sushi places.  It's a lot easier than doing all that research to find out what fish is sustainably raised and harvested this week.  

Marcy

"Conscientious meat-eaters?" is like "compassionate conservative." Adding one word cannot override the enormous, devastating environmental consequences that are inherent to animal agriculture.

It requires far less discipline to simply remove all fish from your diet. What could be easier than simply ordering the vegan sushi?

Since I'm living on the other side of the planet (in Melbourne, Australia), I took the opportunity to go look up some more local information.  I've posted the results, with various links etc, in my own blog over here: Sustainable (Australian) fisheries.

Raw fish?  One word:  TAPEWORM!

Get the veggie sushi instead, it is excellent!  Horseradish and other spices more than make up for the absence of fish.

And high buck sushi demand is killing off increasingly rare favorite fish.  As well as all other species caught in the nets of industrial fishing corporate criminals.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

I have to ask you (and anyone else who eats fish), why? If you believe fisheries should be regulated -- why not start by regulating yourself? You don't have to wait for anyone else to take action on the problem. Fisheries are going to collapse in 50 years, and many already have. At this point I think it's clear that the only solution for the foreseeable future is to not eat fish. So why persist?

How can an environmental site say, "of course you can continue to eat at sushi restaurants without feeling guilty"?

Genuinely curious,
Noah

Study Sees 'Global Collapse' of Fish Species

(And that line in the article, "We still have rhinos and tigers and elephants because we saw a clear trend that was going down and we changed it." Um, that's kind of a lie. All of those species are very much on the brink. If I were a fish, I'd be concerned to be as well off as elephants.)

Clearly, if not eating fish works for you, then go ahead, but the reality is that the majority of people (who have no particular ideals) will eat fish regardless of how many idealists decide not to. And there is nothing wrong with that, as long as the fisheries are sustainable, which would mean a price hike to the levels that closer reflect the actual costs.

But, as you realize, whatever we individuals do will only amount to so much.  You wrote, "The idea that eating less fish (or driving your car less) is the solution is actually the problem. We need to take revolutionary action and actually live our values."

Yes and no.

There are at least two levels of moral activism in play, both of which must be respected, IMHO.

David Roberts and his school (right word?) seem to emphasize the higher level, the "macro-level" (if you do not mind the barbaric neologism), to the effect that no good environmental "results" will appear, save by major adjustments of policies and conduct of huge societal organizations, e.g. governments and big business and other global networks.  And therefore, the best moral conduct of environmentalists is to work for such adjustment on that level.

On the other hand, the moral importance of the "micro-level" -- changes we individuals can make in our own choices regarding how we live -- must not be underestimated.  It is hard to measure the "results" of those choices.  And perhaps, if they can after all be calculated well, those "results" will turn out to be minimal and ineffectual.  Nevertheless, those choices will possibly show some local "results," and will in any case focus us morally on the great issues, on the environmental values asociated with them, and on the disciplines of many kinds required in the expression of those values.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

That said, in the real world that most of us live in, people do eat fish (and meat) and want to continue to do so. While the number of vegans and vegetarians is increasing, as well as the number of meat-eaters who don't eat meat all the time for health or environmental or economic reasons, it's going to be nigh on impossible to convince everyone to not eat fish or meat at all. What one eats is often culturally determined, and there are emotional factors as well that we carry with us often from childhood. While I admire those who have the will power to totally change their diets based on information of whatever kind, unless what we eat is making us sick (like gluten intolerance, or diabetes for example) total transformations, as from an omnivore to a vegan, are difficult. Preachy moralizing won't work and in fact may actually be counter-productive.

And I agree, too, that fishing and over-fishing are two different things. Maine, where I live, has a long coastline and a tradition of fishing and lobstering. It's not just a job like working in a deli for these families, it's a way of life, a culture within the state that adds to our diversity and vitality. As I see it, there's no reason small family fishers should be forced to become laborers. On the other hand, can the oceans afford to continue to fill countless cans of cheap tuna and crab, countless packages of inexpensive frozen white fish? I doubt it. It's a complex issue. To me the "bottom line" should be first the health and diversity of the oceans, then the well-being of fishing cultures and small fishers (as opposed to large-scale corporate style fishing).

Frankly, I cannot stand any form of seafood, so that personal preference lets me off the hook, metaphorically speaking, for destroying the world whilst enjoying my sushi.

Again, let me say this:  eat what you like.  Simply understand the consequences of your choices, and modify your behavior accordingly.

In other words - be mindful.  Please.

I know return you to your regularly scheduled argument....

But let us not fool ourselves.  Taste-wise, cuisine-wise, it is not the same sort of thing as sushi made from the finest tuna and salmon.

I love tuna, and I love swordfish, and my memory is vivid with the joy of eating them.  At this point, I have resolved never to eat them again.

But, I strongly approve of Umbra Fisk's practical philosophy, in her response to her correspondent from Michigan: make a plan.  "Once or twice a month" can be extended to "once every other month; and if we go back to that restaurant meanwhile, we shall order vegetarian sushi only."

Far be it from me, to declare what "reality" is all about, and to decide how far certain puritanical suggestions should be followed.

On puritanism: In discussing the situation of the humans and the animals confined on board Noah's Ark for forty days and forty nights -- gathered two by two, one boy and one girl, Yahweh's intention clearly being that at some point they should do their fair share of fucking -- , some of the Talmudic Rabbis seem to have said that they were forbidden from engaging in "conjugal affection" until they got the word from On High that it was OK to proceed.  No doubt, that was just about the toughest part of poor Noah's job.

One imagines the monitor lizards, the emus, the impalas, sorrowfully, nervously, hanging their heads over the side of the Ark, observing down below those mischievous little fishies rolling around in the surf, fucking with abandon, in plain sight, just to tease.

And what, at last, did those lizards, and the rest, end up doing?  Did the puritanical restriction work?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

on eating, and "moral-ism"
unless your a fruitarian your killing something to eat.

But I'm a little confused by the puritanical label. Am I also puritanical for saying that there should be no forced labor? That rich countries shouldn't pillage poor countries? At some point, I guess, those things too rely on individual restraint.

But I'm not talking about self-discipline or only individual change. I am talking about transforming society so that veganism becomes the norm. I think that has to start with ourselves, but not end there. Individual changes do lead to institutional changes. If we can't even restrain ourselves, how can we ask others to?

What's a leading cause of dead zones and global warming? Animal agriculture. Did y'all see the UN report from yesterday, Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars? Sadly, the UN misses the boat too and advocates reforming rather than eliminating or even reducing.

It's not just a question of "eat what you like." It's a much bigger question of what kind of society do we want to live in and create. Food production is probably the most pressing environmental concern at this point, especially since meat-centric culture is rapidly spreading.

Leading cause of global warming = animal ag? Just because it emits more than cars does not make it the leading cause. The leading cause is fossil fuel consumption. Period. It does include ag tractors, fertilizer, truck delivery, etc. But industry is a leading cause.

Dead zones are caused by poor practices rather than 'animal agriculture'. I am not pro-CAFOs but blunt statements like yours, especially if they are factually misleading to prove your point don't work for me.

There's really no need for enmity on these issues.

I will, though, remind Noah of the centrality of animals to capturing nitrogen for sustainable ag. That doesn't mean Noah has to eat animals, though.

Victual Reality

Those of us who eschew an animal product-eating lifestyle are in touch with the real world in which real people have heart disease, diabetes, cancer; we are in touch with the real world of  animals who live tortured miserable lives so that real people may eat their flesh; we are in touch with the real-world environmental consequences of the meat, dairy and fish industries; and we are in touch with the real world of hunger which could be solved if agriculture were devoted to feeding real people instead of real food-animals.

In my real world, the real people I know who have given up animal products are living happier, healthier lives.  Really.

Of course, you may be correct that "people" will always eat fish.  But there will always be people who will not eat fish.  Or meat.  Or dairy.  And with good (real) reasons.

One only need to search the internet for reasons.  http://www.bizarro.com/videos/mov/VeganVideoWeb.mov
The above animated video is by Bizarro comic strip artist Dan Piraro.

It's our real choice to make, and each of us can make it regardless of the condescending comments by someone so threatened by our choices that they have to suggest we are not in touch with the real world.

Marcy

1. Dead zones are caused by fertilizers (thank you Tom for laying out the corn connection), and also directly through the massive amounts of manure animal ag produces.

2. Animal ag is a leading cause of global warming. It's a totally separate mechanism from fossil fuels. In addition to fossil fuel use by animal ag, animals directly produce methane, which turns out to be far more relevant. Check out the summary: Earth Save Report: A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes

3. Vegan-organic farming that requires no nonhuman animal inputs is possible and should be developed further. The Vegan-Organic Network is a great place to learn more.

4. The problem is not only "poor practices," but massive scale. The Earth cannot support the current level of animal agriculture, let alone increase it. The bottom line is that people will have to eat less meat. This is a moral issue affecting other humans in addition to nonhumans.

Noah had aboard the Ark a huge bunch of animals, from teensy tree-frogs, Family Hylidae, to huge elephants -- though the species are not mentioned -- , plus a dysfunctional family, including the ancestors of African slavery.

Jason had aboard the Argo a bunch of prima-donna heroes on the way out; Heracles had along his boy-toy Hylas, but then went AWOL when the water-nymphs got their clutches on Cutey-Pie, and let the Argo leave without him.

On the way back, with Jason in possession of the Golden Fleece, there was dear sweet Medea, model of femininity, oddly madly in love with the pretty feckless Jason, who had with her her dear sweet little brother Apsyrtus, and who chopped him up into sweet little-brotherly pieces, and scattered them over the Black Sea, so that her father, in pursuit, would go paddling hither and thither to collect them, in order to give Little Bro his proper burial, and so let Jason and Medea get away.  Which is what happened.

And as if that were not bad enough, it only got worse from that point.  And nobody lived happily ever after.)

By "Jasonism," named of course for our own dear Jason Scorse, is meant the intimate, necessary inclusion of animal-welfare-related values within the larger range of environmental values.

All sorts of centaurs have written in, bitterly complaining and protesting.

But now, Noah provides, perhaps, a bridge.  Or, perhaps, the promise of one.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

I not threatened by your choices, I was a holy vegan for 13 years of my life. I still have a strict diet with no dairy or unwild meats. Move out her to colorado were it is 9 degrees outside and try and tell me that a vegan diet is healthy.Ship you veggie in from newzealand and mexico and tell me how sustainable your are. Try and tell me I cant be happy and healthy now that Ive decided to nourish my body the way most of all my anscestors have for thousands of years, (Im actually happier and much healthy now). I no longer believe a plant based diet is the grail, do what thou will, I have no problem with it just dont try and make your ideal mine.

Consider location.  
Say you live in a small town near Bristol Bay, Alaska.  You could choose to eat vegan food, grown thousands of miles away in California, and shipped and flown to your town using an extraordinary amount of fossil fuel.  Alternately, you could walk outside, put a net in the river, and catch a wild salmon from a healthy and well-managed stock.  Which is the more environmentally friendly choice?  

There's a good reason that native communities closer to the poles have always eaten more animal foods than those in the tropics.  

Consider land use.
Even the most environmentally friendly farm is taking a section of land out of the wild and devoting it to human use - driving out whatever wilderness once existed there.  In many places, there's so little wild land left that we don't think of this.  But it's not true everywhere.  

Back to the salmon example:
Wild salmon (and all anadramous fish) depend on a healthy wild watershed to exist.  If you buy them (from healthy well-managed stocks), you're supporting the continued health of that ecosystem.
Using my Bristol Bay, Alaskan resident again...  If environmentalists refuse to buy his fish, his other option isn't to start a sustainable organic farm (not feasible in that area).  His other option is open pit gold and copper mining, one of the most toxic industries in the country.  Which would you rather support?

This isn't just a theoretical example.  Right now in Bristol Bay, Alaska, fishermen who depend on salmon are holding up the fight against a proposal to build the largest open pit mine in North America in the middle of the wilderness there (Pebble Mine).
Fishermen in the Tongass are a driving force against logging there, due to the damage it causes to fish streams.

Some fish we shouldn't eat.  But there are some fisheries environmentalists would do much better to support than denigrate.  

Noah, how about this for a headline:
Wetlands and soils are a leading cause of global warming?

It's true. They pump out CO2 and Nitrous oxide (N2O) which are the worst. Draining them for ag probably caused a major pulse back in the day, but even now they still pump out methane (and in very large quantities worldwide). So what's the plan? Let's tarp them all? And how about the fact that all those cows replaced bison, another ruminant with large methane production? Does that not matter? Or were the settlers thinking ahead to make sure that the bison didn't contribute to global warming?

By eating the flesh of animals you are condoning violence.

By eating flesh you are contributing to unsustainable agricultural practices.

By eating flesh you are harming the environment.

By eating flesh you are harming your body.

My body is a temple, not a mausoleum.

A vegan diet is not difficult. If one is concerned about the environment they will change their diet. Otherwise they are just posing, deceiving themselves as well as others.

Is a good mantra, one I use myself. Life evolves, individuals evolve.

I was stating simple truths.

If we want peace we must ourselves be peaceful.

If one lives in the third world one eats whatever is available. Here in the first world we have a choice. Since their is no dietary requirement for us to slaughter and eat animals, the slaughter and consumption of animals is a choice.

If we want to achieve a sustainable society, we must practice sustainability. If we continue to support environmentally unsustainable practices through our diet, we cannot legitimately claim to be environmentalists. If a person is not willing to make the personal changes in their lives then they are not truly committed. They are just standing behind a screen with just their face sticking through. Posing.

Your diet has a greater impact on the environment than the car you drive.

Always when one exposes hypocrisy, one must expect the usual accusation of self-righteousness.

Wherever you are in the first world, you can choose the veggie burger over the beef patty.

No, you weren't.  You were stating your opinions.  And relative to the average McDonald's-eater, you may be right.  But you're stating an absolute position relative to a question that is much more complex than you admit.

Do what you know in your heart, your soul, is the right thing to do.

Is it right to kill?  Is it right to kill a human being?  Is it right to kill a fellow earth-creature?  

Is it right to cause the earth to be polluted by your actions?  Is it right to torture another being?  Is it right to cause the torture of another being by your consumer habits, even though you didn't stand over the animal yourself do the deed?

Is cruelty right?  Can I avoid causing cruelty to be exacted on innocent animals by my purchasing choices?

Centering oneself, asking these questions, you consider what is the right thing to do.

If you care about your health, you can learn more about the ill effects of an animal-product-based diet. This is a different question.  

Suggesting that there is an veggie alternative to fish-based sushi is not being righteous, or self-righteous.  There was no judgement associated nor intended with that piece of information.

I was happy to discover that one of my favorite foods, sushi, was available in veggie-version, and I thought someone else might be interested in considering the alternative.

If, as a meat, fish or dairy-eater you are of the belief that you should eat animal products, why do you defend your position?  That is your decision.    

For example even though you didn't stand over the animal yourself do the deed?

What if I did?  What if I do?  What if about half my meat consumption is rabbit that I raised, killed, and dressed myself?  Because that's the case.

And the other half is consciously raised and slaughtered beef, pork and fish?  By being a careful consumer of meat products, rather than just rejecting them wholesale, I vote with my dollar in support of responsible animal husbandry.

Ditto on the eggs and milk, though we're working on getting some chickens and doing the egg thing ourselves.

Animals can be a critical part of a sustainable food web.  In fact, they are probably essential to creating the sort of productive polyculture that is, IMO, the only hope we have of producing sufficient food for our present population without employing energy intensive industrial ag techniques.  Check out Polyface Farms for an example of this.  Or read some Mollison.

I have thought very carefully about the issues of violence, life and death, and food.  I have no problem at all respectfully and humanely killing an animal for food.  I am very aware of the violence done to the planet and to people by the agricultural systems that produce and ship most agricultural products, meat or otherwise.  I estimate that the total damage/violence done by properly raised meat is less than the damage done by the equivalent amount of less-carefully-raised veggies (even organic, if it's non-local).

Also, for what it's worth, we're doing this in the urban Bay Area, while holding down regular jobs.  This is not some rural survivalist effort.

Your implication and assumption that I am philosophically shallow in this regard is both insulting, and demeaning to the strength of your own position.  I'm not saying that your choices are inappropriate for you, and I'm not asking you to adopt (or even accept) my choices.  I am asking that you open your mind far enough to consider the possibility that there may be more than one right way to life and more than one set of decisions that can be made in support and respect of our Mother.

If you can expand your perceptions to include the possibility of more than one right way, you greatly increase the credibility of the positions you espouse, and your potential to make a positive impact in the global discussions around sustainability.

As far as I know there is no humane way to kill a fish.

As for your poor defenseless rabbit, I do think it's better than factory-farmed meat (assuming you are conscientious in providing your animals with food, water, space, companionship, etc), but I still think it's kind of sick to hold that up as compassionate, especially given that you live an California, where fresh, reasonably local vegetables are abundant all the time.

And if you get chickens for eggs, be aware that you'll either end up feeding them for years after they stop laying, or (apparently more likely in your case) you'll end up thanking them for their several years of egg-laying by chopping their heads off and eating their carcasses, which seems uncalled for.

Let me give you an example: I am enrolled in SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry as a graduate student in the Department of Forest and Natural Resource Management. One time I met this kid at a social event, who, when I said what department I was in, said: 'Oh are you one of the good or the bad guys?' (he was from the Bio department).

That immediately turned me off from maintaining that conversation (and really just made me laugh), and seriously considering that guy's viewpoint just because I realized that he was convinced that he was right. There was nothing I could say that he disagreed with, which would not be attacked from his righteous standpoint. He actually managed to do this with a lot of people, and this probably reduced the circle of people who like him.

Anyway, one of the greatest abilities of us humans, especially the smarter ones, is the ability to listen and consider the opposite viewpoint, despite having prior jusdgements. I hope that becomes a principle for all of us, including radicals, such as militant vegans, or radical environmentalists. Also, having spent some time being like that, I have to tell you that it's a hell of a lot more stressful than flexible thinking.

Death is irrelevant to the dead, only the living.

The carcass of a dead chicken is better off eaten than buried.

Death is as important to life as life itself.

Period.

Dude, your commitment to balance and tolerance fucking blows me away.

We want to live our values -- we have different ideas about what that means.

We know as individuals our choices are mostly symbolic -- that major lifestyle shifts are necessary among the wealthy consumers of the world (among which we all count).

How do we support each other to make the necessary changes and how do we encourage others to do so?

Whan in human history have people of privilege, en masse, given up their privileges? Without a struggle? I can't think of a single example.

How then do we expect the average American to willinging decline to consume cheap fuel and eat meat at every meal?


Orion is the Organizer for the Great Transition Initiative(www.GTInitiative.org)

Humans are, biologically speaking, omnivores.  To think that humans can, or should, act unlike any other omnivore on the planet and live without killing other creatures strikes me as monumentally arrogant.

In most places in the world, strict veganism is a conceit that is made possible only by the application of technology.

How does one humanly kill a carrot? Should I peel its skin before I decapitate it?

What makes a animals life more relevant that that of the plants you eat?

       I can understand  your feeling that people who demand you change your diets are arrogant.  This may show the folly of absolute statements as a way of advocating change.

       But, please look at some of your own comments?  Suggesting that "To think that humans can, or should, act unlike any other omnivore on the planet and live without killing other creatures strikes me as monumentally arrogant."  is itself a form of arrogance.

       So, we seem left with two groups of folks each insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, arrogant and ummmm..... evil???  

       To my fellow vegetarian/vegans, may I suggest that seducing people with delicious foods and gentle loving visions is better than attacking them?

       While I occassionally speak on the subject of vegetarianism, I never tell people they should all become vegetarians.  I prefer to tell people that they have to make their own choices, and then explain what mine are and how I made them.

       I do think that a world with dying oceans and a population that is going to increase by 50% can stand to have lots more vegetarians/vegans (as well as people who eat less meat and fish).

       But telling any individual what the should or should not eat doesn't make sense to me.  

       I prefer to show people that one can live a happy healthy life as a vegetarian, and those who are interested may give it a try.  Some will like it and continue, some will not.  Both are okay.

       People who are not vegetarians are not all evil or non-environmentalists (which should be obvious from the many posts here).  And all vegetarians are not good or environmentalists (smile).

       Personally I am delighted when one of my meat eating friends joins me for a vegetarian meal (even the one who always stops and buys slim jims on the way back to work!).

       The number of vegetarian/vegans in the West is so small, that we should be concentrating on showing people that such a diet is possible and healthy for most people, and finding those who will make the change.  All without turning our backs on our brothers and sisters who are struggling with us to save the world, but have different eating habits.

pace,

patrick

Also, even supposing you wish to respect the desire of all life to keep living (in which regard it's hard to say plants don't feel pain, as they certainly respond to inputs that either advance or hamper their quest for survival), you kill fewer plants by eating plants than by eating an animal that ate plants.  This has been discussed extensively, even in other threads here at Grist.

I don't regard meat eaters as evil, but I do think they're fooling themselves at some level, and allowing their taste buds to rule their morals, which I think is unworthy of a lot of the smart folks here.

As to openmindedness: You'll notice I never claimed to be openminded, just pointed out the hypocrisy of claiming to and then not being so.  I personally am extremely opinionated and have great difficulty being civil to people I think are idiots.  I do try, though, you'll notice.

Are you Tibetan, or a hypocrite?

Greenengineer, I applaud your efforts to humanely subjugate other creatures for your personal dining pleasure. I know all about Joel Salatin and Polyface farms. I find myself in almost total agreement with Joel on most issues. (It is the killing I have a problem with.) What he has done with a farm that was destroyed by industrial ag practices is commendable.

It reminds me of my childhood. I grew up in the country. Everyone I knew, except for the preacher, lived on a farm. I remember vividly the boyhood rite of passage, when I suppressed my compassion for another living creature, while I committed the act of taking it's life. Killing is learned it is not natural, at least not for me.

I naturally liked animals better than people. Animals were always nice to me while people could sometimes be terribly cruel, I was in a quandary as a child. I guess in once sense it was like being homosexual. I had to suppress my natural instincts. In this case, my instinct for compassion.

Becoming a vegan was similar to coming out of the closet. I no longer had to suppress my compassion and my temperament changed. Not completely, I am still a little aggressive. Especially when I feel someone is being condescending about my choice of lifestyle.

I understand why people feel threatened by vegans. Everyone has to in someway disconnect, not think about the killing/cruelty part of their diet, or in your case Greenengineer, suppress your natural compassion. Compassion that I am sure you have, since you care about more than yourself.

All humans are naturally compassionate beings.

Do you salivate when you see an injured puppy?

No. You feel the same compassion you would feel for an injured child, unless you have disconnected. The disconnect does not stop at animals, it is easy to use the same discipline learned when killing an animal to take the life of a human.

I am so optimistic about the future. I believe that as humans become aware of the disconnect between ourselves and the environment, because of global warming, extinction of species, deforestation, etc., that human culture will adopt a plant based diet.

Contrary to your assertion that humans are omnivores, there is no taxinomical definition of an omnivore. Most species are omnivorous. In other words most species can extract nourishment from plant or animal foods. Humans are especially well equipped to eat both plants and animals, although not as well as canines. (Whom I suspect taught us how to hunt more efficeintly.) However when more than 10% of our calories are derived from animals, we put our health at risk.

Just because we can, does not mean that we should. There are many good reasons not to eat meat. There are scant few for a person living a reasonably affluent lifestyle to eat meat. The number one reason is, because it tastes good.

I don't want my generation to be known as the most selfish generation.

The reason that I decided to post was because of the "real world" comments directed toward those who choose a vegan lifestyle.

First let me point out that being vegan means that you are in an extreme minority, a fast growing minority, but a minority never the less. To sit back and be open minded to those who believe that we are part of some out of touch with reality cult is not something that I care to do. One hundred and fifty years ago you could hear the same rhetoric about abolitionists. "They are self righteous", "they don't live in the real world", "slavery/sacrifice is sanctioned in the bible", etc. etc.

I am not militant, but I am not going to passively sit back and let someone condescendingly infer that I don't live in the real world.

I live in the real world. Most of the people I know eat meat. I personally believe that the best thing for the animals, the environment, and humans in general, is a plant based diet.

I came to that conclusion on my own, as must everyone. I do not intend to argue the point further, I do not think less of anyone for eating meat, but I will never condone the practice. I look forward to the day when more people realize that it is not necessary for animals to die to satisfy their hunger. Until then I will eat gourmet vegan fare and "sigh".

It seems that GreenEngineer was the one to use the term "militant vegan" first.  Perhaps he (he?; or, rather, she?) had in mind certain obnoxious, in-your-face types that he no doubt encounters frequently in the Bay Area, and NOT anyone who writes to Gristmill.

The people who generally write reliably here on issues related to animal welfare are most certainly not "militant," if that is understood in a bomb-throwing way: Willa, Jason Scorse, Sarah van Schagen, Andrew Sharpless, Pandu (none of whom save Jason is vegan, we are led to understand).  To be sure, Willa has a sharp tongue (for which she is all the more lovable), and Jason suffers from his episodes of para-autism (for which he is all the more lovable, though in a different way).  But really, there is no "militancy" here.

Save, possibly, defensively.  Which is totally understandable.  Neither vegans nor homosexuals (nice analogy, SkyHunter; obviously imperfect, but nice) are acceptable minority groups everywhere in America, yet.

On fish: Thanks to Willa for bringing up the very important issue of the suffering of fish.  There is indeed no humane way yet used to kill a fish, according to the various ways in which fish are caught and killed.

Since their biology is so different from ours, we have a hard time understanding and appreciating their experiences.  But we understand enough to know that a huge hook through the top of one's head must hurt, and the subsequent failure to move freely must be horribly stressful.

We also understand enough to know that fish are adapted to respond to changes in water pressure, depth-related, with great sensitivity.  They are not adapted to moving between depths rapidly, and they are most certainly not adapted to living above the surface of the sea.  When fish are caught in nets, and hoisted rapidly to the surface, there is no doubt that that causes great pain.

When they are dropped from those nets onto decks of fishing vessels, they are asphyxiating.  Imagine your dog or cat in a closed plastic bag.

Every fish that we eat has died a horrible death, such as we would never wish for our dog or cat.

Thinking about "reality," in a compromising mood, I have more or less endorsed aquaculture, with the conditions that certain environmentally destructive aspects of that industry be corrected.  I would add to those conditions, that a swift, painless death for the fish must be figured out.  It is unacceptable, that they should be allowed simply to asphyxiate on an open-air deck, once they have been hauled up from below the surface.

On the people of Alaska:  In connexion with our Church, we happen to be in regular touch with people in the RC Diocese of Fairbanks, and Yup'ik people in the lower Yukon Valley.  So, I have nothing against the people of Alaska.

But this, from McKittre, strikes me as egregiously illogical:
<<
Using my Bristol Bay, Alaskan resident again...  If environmentalists refuse to buy his fish, his other option isn't to start a sustainable organic farm (not feasible in that area).  His other option is open pit gold and copper mining, one of the most toxic industries in the country.  Which would you rather support?
>>

While I remain skeptical about the "organic fish" business, and wish well to this Alaskan fisherman, nevertheless I strongly doubt that he has one and only one "other option."

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

"Before my eyes a barley sprout literally cried out when its roots were plunged into hot water. True, the plant's "voice" was registered only by a special and extremely sensitive electronic instrument which revealed a "bottomless vale of tears" on a broad paper band. As though it had gone crazy, the recording pen wriggled out on the white paper track the death agony of the barley sprout, although, to look at the little plant itself, one would never have guessed what it was going through. While its leaves, green as ever stood upright, the plants "organism" was already dying. Some kind of "brain" cells within it were telling us what was happening.

Tibet-and my home in Colorado-

 Tibet and Tibetan Buddhists have historically eaten meat. There's very little arable land in Tibet. The rugged Himalayas do not support vegetables like the plains of India. Our high-altitude land here is similar to Tibet.

The logic that justified the Buddha's original teachings cuts both ways. Say we served all vegetarian food here. Our demand for plant food would be so intense that we would have to destroy animal habitat to grow it. From that point of view, vegetarianism or veganism kills animals, too. You could debate about this forever, of course, but if we take a truly macrobiotic approach to living here, meat-eating makes sense for this climate, just as it did in Tibet.

1. benjamin2012, the Hawaii thing was bothering me. It goes like this: privileged (assuming white) North American man justifies eating fish by pointing to traditional dietary habits of an illegally occupied land whose traditional food culture was destroyed by colonization. This does not compute for me. People all over the world are having their food choices limited by force due to the inherently unsustainable attitudes inherent in industrial capitalism. Their forests are being clear cut to raise cattle for export. Any "real" solution is going to have to rely heavily on people in Western nations consuming less. Period.

2. benjamin2012, I just want to point out that no one is forcing you to live in Colorado. But that is a very micro view of this discussion. I'm more interested in the question of why aren't environmentalists promoting veganism? In the face of global warming why aren't environmentalists taking the impact of our food production head-on? The issue didn't even make it into An Inconvenient Truth, for example. I repeat, this is a moral issue. People in other countries are going to start dying in massive numbers in large part because of a system of animal agriculture that there is very little priority in addressing. This promotion can occur both on an individual level and in terms of what policy changes are sought.

3. mckittre, To suggest that I must support fishers in order to help them fight against loggers and miners is a false choice. This logic sounds like supporting "the enemy of my enemy" with CIA money. That always seems to come back and bite us in the butt.

4. atreyger, yes, corn is also fed directly to humans (and used in far too many processed products that should be eliminated as well), but  "Most of the [corn] crop is used as the main energy ingredient in livestock feed." 67% of the corn consumed in this country goes to livestock. Also note that other crops, like sorghum, oats, and hay also wholly or in part go to feeding animals. To claim that this is "poor practice" is misleading. This is standard practice, and that needs to be acknowledged. It is not misleading or inaccurate to state that "animal agriculture" is the leading cause of the dead zone, because it is. You may wish that animal agriculture was practiced differently, but it's not at all helpful to view what's going on as simply in need of different practices. Fundamental re-thinking is what's needed. We only got to the state that we're in by viewing animals as commodities -- the heart of animal agriculture. We are experiencing the logical conclusion of that mindset.

5. atreyger, You seem to be suggesting that humans are not causing climate change. Blaming wetlands for climate change is something the Bush administration would endorse. Wetlands have existed since before us. "Livestock" animals now outnumber humans 3:1. That's new. That's a problem.

1. Hawaiians have always eaten fish, just like the Japanese, Norwegians, Icelanders, etc. See post about eating according to where you live by benjamin2012. It makes sense energetically (both biological and oil-based) to eat foods that are immediately available to you in your locality. The Hawaiian example holds true, despite your hand-waving about industrial capitalism. You also never quite state what the problem is, so it's hard to approach your line of thinking.

2. Ok, no one forced him to live in Colorado, but who forced you to live in a temperate climate? Obviously, there's no need to argue about choice of location. Moral issue? Not sure if you are trying to separate the morality of being a vegan from the global climate change perspective. You are right about CAFOs, I am not an apologist for the meat industry.

3. BS statement all around, you should probably support all three of those professions becoming sustainable, unless you live in a cave with no computer (whoops), do not use any wood products (and you know that you do), and do not eat fish (check).

4. I agree that industrialized agriculture requires elimination (not to say that it hasn't found some useful approaches). The change of practice is necessary, after all that's exactly what you are trying to promote. If you're proposing something like getting rid of a system, and reducing our economy to anarchy, then obviously you're in the wrong discussion, I would suggest that you join some anarchist militia. I'm not trying to say that's what you're trying to achieve, but you do not really provide a reasonable approach (except prohibition, yea, those work).

5. No, draining wetlands and tilling soils creates major amounts of GHGs, and is probably one of the major parts of all GHGs emitted by agriculture. And I wasn't saying that to subvert the discussion, I was using it in conjunction with the bison example. Well maybe a little bit of subversion, but only to point out that we cannot divorce some of the realities of the biogeochemical cycle from globabl climate change.

But anyway my points are:

 1. You did not address the replacement of prior large ruminants with new ones (bison v. cattle).

 2. You seem to be suggesting a change in the world. Great, how are you going about it?

 3. Practices need to be changed. If you're saying that the standard practice is poor, then you and I are in full agreement.

 4. You are attempting to change the opinion of as many consumers as possible to become vegan. I say that's unnecessary and undesired, sensu benjamin2012's point about locality of food supplies and displacement of land for vegetable production.

 5. You need to outline the problem you're trying to solve, it appears that you're attempting to solve two problems with one solution: your own moral perspective on veganism and current global climate crisis. Not sure if that's possible.

I'm out.

Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
www.brook.com/veg



Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters at www.brook.com/veg

The environmental case for veganism is well-documented. Consider the 29 Nov 2006 UN FAO report, Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options:

"The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock's contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency. Major reductions in impact could be achieved at reasonable cost."

Interestingly, that report also notes that, "In light of these facts, the livestock sector may well bear the prime responsibility for worsening hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. This is confirmed by Donner (2006) who shows that a dietary shift away from grain-fed beef to vegetarianism in the United States could reduce total land and fertilizer demands of Mississippi Basin crops by over 50 percent, with no change in total production of human protein. The change would return nitrate-nitrogen export by the Mississippi River to levels at which the Gulf of Mexico 'dead zone' was small or non-existent."

An easy solution to environmental problems is to go vegan. But instead of acknowledging that, people are simply saying, oh that's too hard. Sure it's a lot easier to tell people to buy a hybrid, but imagine if environmental groups actually lobbied for changes in food policy, both on an individual and an institutional level. Veganism cannot be dismissed when it hasn't even been tried.

"Our species may not have crawled out of the oceans to build civilization, but our willingness to protect the oceans is a bulwark not just of the ethics of environmental stewardship but also of the responsibility to keep cities from being poisoned or falling into the ocean and millions from starving to death. It's a pretty high price to pay for sushi."

--"Want Fish? Ethics First, Please" The Scientist Dec. 2006 by Glenn McGee, director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College, where he holds the John A. Balint Endowed Chair in Medical Ethics.

Checkout www.sustainablysushi.com -- all the info you could ever want is coming soon.

Any questions?  E-mail me at casson@sustainablysushi.com