Vegan Simplicity

When I started writing My Face Is on Fire a couple of years ago, I did so with a couple of intentions. I wanted to write about veganism, but I also wanted to write about other issues involving the ethics of consumption that have to do with over-consumption in general. Cheap oil (among other factors) has facilitated a sort of rampant consumerism in "developed" countries, and this consumerism has enabled our becoming disposable societies. Cheap oil facilitated the Green Revolution, which has left us with a hyper-industrialized agricultural system which has poisoned the land, water and air around us, and which has also left global food production--much of the world's actual seed supply--in the hands of a very few gigantic biotech companies. It's also left us eating questionable concoctions out of disposable (albeit sometimes recyclable) paper, plastic and metal packaging--foods whose ingredients sometimes travel halfway around the world to get to the machines used to slap them together before they hit the store shelves.

So along with talking about the ethics of veganism, when I started this blog, I wanted to focus on the things we can do to reduce our consumerism by eating lower on the food chain, relying less on manufactured goods, and supporting agricultural practices that don't involve tithes to Monsanto (i.e. practices which are instead focused on supporting organic agriculture, and on even growing some of your own food while avoiding chemical fertilizers, pesticides and frankenseed). I think that with veganism as its foundation, an ethical consumption mindset that also involves consideration for treading lightly can lead to a lifestyle that is healthier for us, for non-humans, as well as for the environment we all share. It can also be a fun and educational process, as you teach yourself methods you can use to simplify your life and pass on any acquired knowledge or skills to others interested in learning more.

I'm sure that some vegans get a bit of a negative knee-jerk reaction to mentions of things like "locavorism" and "small-scale organic farming" because of the emphasis often placed on animal use and exploitation when discussing either--particularly in purportedly hip mainstream articles about either topic. The truth is, though, that there are so many benefits to be enjoyed from incorporating a variety of fresh and unprocessed plant-based foods into your diet and in knowing what's been used to grow them. I also think that along with treading more lightly when choosing what we eat, that we have so much from which to benefit in learning how to simplify our lives in other ways that leave us consuming--and spending!--less.

I've been chatting with a number of fellow vegans (as well as non-vegans) over the last few months, mostly via email or in some discussion forums, about how pricey or difficult to track down certain processed vegan items and personal care products can be. While doing this, I've realized that there are too many instances where veganism ends up deemed "too difficult" because of the expense or scarcity in some stores of items with otherwise readily-available non-vegan equivalents. In many cases, the items in question are, in fact, items that are neither critically essential nor completely unaffordable if consumed in moderation. That being said, while extending the blog's focus to include the exploration of less expensive lifestyle choices for vegans that rely less on manufacturing and instead lean more towards sustainability and voluntary simplicity, that could be an interesting "issue" to tackle. Over the next while, I hope to include tips, tricks and do-it-yourself instructions for a variety of things that may be helpful to those interested. I look forward to getting some feedback on it all in the posts to come.

Conscientious Killing

A friend sent me a link last night to yet another article where attempts are made to justify a sense of ethical correctness to killing animals for food. The piece was posted on a site called Eco Child's Play which touts itself as being about "green parenting". The term "conscientious carnivores" is used to describe people who "just aren't ready" to stop eating animals but who are "honestly trying to live as green as possible". According to the piece's author, some of the purported reasons people won't stop eating meat are that they're "just not healthy without some animal protein in [their] diet and that there is some logic to the argument that humans are biologically omnivorous". The thing is that just because humans can eat meat, does not mean that they need to eat meat.

A link is given to back up the statement concerning omnivorism, but the article to which it leads actually states outright that we "are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice." It goes on to state that the best "arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical and health concerns". Strange that this article would be referenced in a piece that's all about how to seek out happy cows to eat because although you want to pat yourself on the back for being "green", you're "not ready" to make the right choice.

It's a real shame that so many of those involved in environmentalism today are hopping on the "happy meat" bandwagon. It's alienating a lot of people who've been a part of the movement who aren't desperately seeking excuses to continue raising animals for food.

Connecticut Company to Make Motor Oil from Animal Fat

Green Earth Technologies, Inc. claims that it can make an animal-derived product chemically identical to crude oil, and intends to use animal fat from slaughterhouses to make it. You can read about it here.

I don't even have the words to describe how disgusting this is to me on so many different levels.

Humanure Toilets

I've started researching the composting of human waste. In underdeveloped countries, pathogens from human waste going directly into water used for drinking are a seriously significant cause of illness (and death), so there's an extra incentive to find alternate means to dispose of this waste. What could be better than composting it and using it to replenish the soil? In developed countries, we waste so much water with our current toilet / sewage systems that composting toilets seem to provide a logical and environmentally ethical solution that really can't be ignored, either. I'll be posting more about this down the road once I've done some more reading up on it.

World Water Week -- John Anthony Alan on biofuels and on consuming less meat

It's World Water Week in Stockholm. At least 2500 experts have gathered in Sweden at the Stockholm International Water Institute to discuss water-related issues ranging from sanitation to sustainability. The winner of the institute's 2008 Stockholm Water Prize, British professor John Anthony Allan, took the opportunity to issue a warning about what he predicts will be the frightening global impact of the increasing use of biofuels. He also stated that meat consumption is just plain old bad news for the world's environment -- particularly because of the huge amount of water wasted in raising animals for food. He called upon people to lower their meat consumption. The sad truth is that this isn't groundbreaking news. Experts have been talking about the meat industry's impact on global water supplies for years; we just haven't been listening.

Bits and blurbs in the news about animals we call 'food'

Doug Moss had a short (but effective) opinion piece in emagazine.com a few days ago about how the majority of environmental leaders and advocates are still refusing to face (and address) the impact of the meat industry on the world around us. It reminded me of an opinion piece in the New York Times I'd read last summer that raised similar points.

Less than a year after a HSUS' investigation into downer cow abuse at the Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. slaughterhouse and meat packing plant in Chino, CA led to the biggest voluntary meat recall in US history, another investigation has revealed that the goings on there seem to have been the industry norm, rather than the exception. Ironically, a bill was defeated last Wednesday that would have required video surveillance in California slaughterhouses to prevent similar acts of cruelty in the future; slaughterhouse owners and meat industry lobbyists are no doubt relieved.

Less plastic, please!

The province of Ontario recently announced that its LCBO stores are phasing out plastic bags. Their stock is expected to run out between now and the end of this summer and the liquor stores will be supplying paper or cardboard boxes on demand or encouraging customers to bring or buy reusable ones. It's kinda funny how just 10-15 or so years ago, I remember having to argue with cashiers about not having purchased items placed in plastic; these days, most places seem to (finally!) be encouraging their customers to move away from them.

I think it's great and hope that the Ontario's move sets a precedent for other province-run liquor stores around the country. In Ontario alone, this move will eliminate 80 million plastic bags a year, and their long-range plan is to cut the entire province's number of plastic bags used by half by 2012.

(I love how the president of the Canadian Plastics Industry Association was quoted as saying ''bans send out the wrong message''. I mean, what else could he possibly have said, this silly, silly man?)

Harwood's ''Eco-terrorism is a misnomer''

Matthew Harwood of The Guardian wrote an opinion piece a few days ago that I felt was long overdue in the mainstream media. After watching the media (most notably, its more conservative elements) jump on the post-9/11 terrorist-labelling fanaticism that seems to be Washington's new at-home raison d'être, I've been hoping for someone to step forward and present a level-headed piece addressing this whole new media obsession with using the term ''eco-terrorist'', specifically with regards to the organization ELF (aka Earth Liberation Front) and the animal rights oriented ALF (aka Animal Liberation Front).

It's illogical enough that these groups whose creed and modus operandi state explicitly that no harm to any form of life should occur during any of their acts and that all precautions should be taken to ensure that none occurs are being likened to suicide bombers and others who commit acts with the specific intention of taking human life, but what skews things even further is that radical right wing groups -- even ones seeking to harm and / or kill people -- seem to have completely averted being painted with the same brush, either by government or the media these days. As Harwood puts it:

It would be a shame if groups that firebomb property with no one inside get more scrutiny than those inclined to park a truck bomb outside a building teeming with people and then proceed to detonate it. [...] Destroying innocent life for political purposes is terrorism. Destroying million-dollar properties for whatever reason is felonious vandalism.

Harwood doesn't condone the acts committed by groups like the ELF, but simply makes a strong case against their being called something they're not. And these days, when even a group like Greenpeace starts getting called a terrorist organisation in the blogosphere (gah -- did I just use that word?), I think it's important to start making an important distinction before the slippery slope worsens.