Well… it’s been a short semester, to say the least.
My last classes are next week, and the fall semester starts at the end of August, giving me some time to wind down and shift gears. Overall, this semester was great, and I really enjoyed these faster-paced, yet more mature and relaxed college courses. Philosophy in particular, while it’s flung me right back into the pit of my existential crisis, has been quite the class.
We dove, head-first into the content at the start of the semester, starting off with free will vs determinism (which I’m still not quite sure what to think about). From there, we discussed the existence of God, the existence and study of knowledge, and finally, ethics, which leads me to my final paper of the semester wherein I’m asked to critique a vegan philosopher known as Peter Singer.
Oh boy… the ethics of meat-eating is the one topic in life I have a very firm and solid stance on. After all, I’m still rather agnostic about God, I don’t really care about free will vs determinism, and reading philosophers like David Hume and Rene Descartes about the nature of knowledge just made my brain hurt.
But, when the ethics of meat-eating came up, I quickly discovered that I was (and am) the only hunter in my class (in which there are several staunch vegans), as well as the only student who has close family members who farm for a living.
Naturally, during most of the three hour class, my Philosophy professor called on me a lot to give the “ethical meat-eater” stance on things, while I had about three or four students actively defending their stance on veganism (which I enjoyed listening to and engaging with).
For the record, I have nothing against vegans or veganism, vegetarians or vegetarianism. I have good friends and family who were/are vegan/vegetarian, and I strongly respect and understand why they eat the way that they do. Interestingly, however, none of my vegan/vegetarian friends and family have spent much time out in nature or on the farm, which is a point my professor seemed to zero-in on roughly halfway through the class.
“I’m gonna show all you a video. It’s one of my favorite videos on this subject.” my philosophy professor said as he projected a youtube video titled, “Peter Singer abortion and animal rights.”
Right away, I noticed two famous, pointy-headed professors: Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins, standing near a highrise window overlooking a concrete jungle. For the whole ten minutes, we watched those two old professors talk about the ethics of eating meat, the ethics of abortion, and other related issues, with a barren, grey city in the background well below them.
Again, for the record, I don’t have much against Singer and/or Dawkins (even though I think they can be very annoying and insufferable at times). They’re both brilliant professors who have actually helped me explore and challenge my own biases over the years through their books and lectures on Youtube. But, they’re also two old dudes dressed in business formal clothes, standing in a highrise in the middle of a city, talking about shit they really have no real-world experience with (and no, taking a tour of a factory farm ten years ago does not count as “real-world experience” in my book). They are the epitome of the pointy-headed, high-and-mighty professor caricature… if that makes sense. And that’s precisely what my not-so-pointy-headed professor was trying to get at that day.
“Philosophy is an inherently idealistic discipline,” my professor began after the interview ended, “I’m sure you’ve spent most of this class wondering why we are learning about all of these people and their crackpot ideas. After all, the free will vs determinism debate seems futile because there’s no way to prove or disprove it. The study of knowledge is also very out-there for many people. The existence of God is also a hard subject to digest because… well… for many, the existence of God seems just as consequential as the free will debate… Ethics, at least to me, seems to be where modern philosophy currently is. Especially environmental and animal-related ethics, given the state of our economy, of our environment, of social and political stuff around the world, so on… That is why philosophy is important... That said, let’s go back to this video I just showed you. What did you notice?”
Several hands, including my own, shot up.
“Yes!” the prof called on a student on the opposite side of the classroom.
“They’re both famous?” he squeaked.
“Sure.” my prof shrugged, “What else?”
“They both seem to agree that factory farming is bad, but never really go for Singer’s conclusion that we should all be vegetarian as a result?”
“Again, sure. But, I’m trying to get at what one would immediately notice about the video, assuming they had no other context aside from the video itself.”
When the prof said that, the last couple of hands went down, except mine.
“What do you think?” Professor Tom finally called on me.
“Well… I don’t want to be too snarky…” I mused.
“It’s fine if you are. This is philosophy, spit it out!”
“Well…” I smirked, “I think they’re completely disconnected from the issues they’re discussing. I mean… they’re in a city highrise, and neither of them strike me as outdoorsy types.”
“There we go!” my prof clapped his hands, “Keep going.”
I felt a little too in the spotlight and I was beginning to get a little trembly from anxiety, but I continued, “I don’t want to be too accusatory or anything, but I personally can’t see either of those guys spending a day in the woods or on the farm, getting their hands dirty. I think if you’re gonna go so far as to write books about nature and animal liberation and all that stuff, you ought to have experience in what you’re talking about. At the very least, I think this conversation would’ve been received much better by someone like me, had these two had it at an actual farm, or in a National Park. But… that’s not what’s going on here. Somethin’ tells me neither Singer or Dawkins have ever plowed a field or cleaned a fish, nor would they ever stoop down to that level if given the chance. Those dudes are pretty privileged and frankly disconnected from reality, if you ask me. I think Dawkins even admitted that he doesn’t know much about what farming’s really like, so why’s he talking about it? But, I digress…”
“Man, you went for the jugular there.” my prof laughed, “Which is great! I like it when students rip into these philosophers because… well… you’re right. There’s a very good reason why so many philosophers and professors and let’s face it: academia in general- all have a reputation of being pretentious, high-and-mighty, pointy-headed, know-it-alls, etc. And yet, society still values these people and their ideas to the point that our very laws are constructed around Philosophy. Now, why is that? Or- think of it this way. Maya, you said that you have family who hunt, fish, and farm. Do you have any vegan or vegetarian family members who’ve previously hunted, fished, and/or farmed?”
“No.” I answered.
“Why not?”
“Uhhhhmmmm… I don’t really know. My guess is that it’s just a way of life.” I mused.
“Do you know anyone who is a vegan/vegetarian, specifically in your family?” My professor fired back.
“Yes.”
“Who?”
“My aunt, and a handful of distant relatives.”
“And where do they come from?”
“The city.”
“Which city?”
“Denver and Seattle.”
“Why are they vegan or vegetarian?”
“Because they think its unhealthy and mean to eat meat.”
“Why?”
“Uhhhhmmm… animals are cute and sentient, and eating too much meat causes health issues, I guess?”
“Ok…” My professor nodded, noticing that I was really starting to question why he was interrogating me like I was in a court trial, “What about you? Do you eat meat?”
“Yes.” I replied, scowling suspiciously.
“Why?”
“Lots of reasons.”
“Like?”
“Health reasons, ethical reasons, stuff like that.”
“Well… how can you justify eating meat, given that meat is unhealthy and cruel.”
“Because meat isn’t unhealthy if you eat the right stuff, and I think that meat can and should be ethically sourced.”
“How can meat be healthy and ethically sourced?”
“Hunting, fishing, pasture-raised livestock…”
“Ok…” my professor paused for a moment, “If your vegetarian family members- who you said aren’t very experienced in farming or hunting- actually had experience as farmers and hunters, would they be vegetarian today?”
“I’d say no.” I answered quickly.
“Why?”
“Because, if they farmed and hunted, my vegetarian family members would realize that not all meat is unethically sourced, and not all crops are ethically sourced according to Singer’s standards.”
“How so? Elaborate.”
“Ever heard of a skunk in a combine?” I smiled, releasing some tension, “Also, pesticides and plants genetically modified to be toxic to bugs, have done a ton of damage to the world’s ecosystems. Even “organic” farms use pesticides to keep bugs from decimating the crops, and they definitely have to use a lot of “unethical” wildlife removal practices to keep things like voles and gophers out of the fields. And also, a lot of stuff gets imported from across the world via planes and trucks, which release a ton of fossil fuels. Oh, and much of our crops are harvested by severely underpaid, overworked people who don’t have any way of unionizing. The list is endless…”
“Right.” my professor nodded, “This whole conversation- which, by the way, thank you for being a good sport about it- highlights the numerous issues that come up from Singer’s view, and every other philosophical issue out there. Not only does he only go after factory farming, and leaves alone small, organic farms, and won’t even go near hunting and fishing- but he’s also discussing a lot of these issues from a very disconnected, outside perspective. And yet, people like Singer and Dawkins are often more valued by society than the ethical hunter or the small-time farmer, even though they should probably get off of their high horse. Why? Well… think about this, and we’ll talk more about it in a couple days. Class dismissed.”
"Goddamnit..." I thought to myself, "A real life cliffhanger..."
Since last Monday’s class, my professor’s question, “Why haven’t the hunters or farmers in [my] family gone vegetarian/vegan?” has been burning in my mind. Unfortunately, due to the sake of time, we didn’t spend much (if any) class time exploring that question on Wednesday, so I’ve been left to explore it on my own.
To be honest, I’m glad that this question has been posed to me in the way that it has. Not only is it a good question to ponder and meditate on, but it certainly motivates me to get back into hunting and fishing as I once did. After all, hunting and fishing are essential to the conservation and preservation of wildlife and wilderness, given the world we live in today. While hunting and fishing licenses alone only make up around 4% of the total funds that go towards conservation, hunters and anglers still contribute a significant amount of money towards conservation outside of hunting and fishing, through legislation such as the Pittman-Robertson act, which adds an 11% tax on firearms and bows that strictly goes towards conservation, and the Dingel-Johnson act, which taxes fishing equipment for conservation purposes. Hunters and anglers also spend a significant amount of time, money, and effort towards making suitable habitat for wildlife to thrive. Sure, on the surface, the idea of clear-cutting a section of woods for deer sounds bad (trees are necessary to protect the land from erosion, and do provide a habitat for birds and squirrels). But, in reality, it doesn’t just help deer populations. It also helps everything else around the clear-cut, because even too many trees can be a problem for the land (for example, pine needles are acidic, one sick/dying tree can annihilate an entire grove, dead trees can fall over and cause more damage to the land around it, too much tree cover can prevent other plants from getting the sunlight they need to grow, etc, etc).
Long story short, proper conservation and management of the wilderness is a tremendously complicated yet necessary balancing act. Sure, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t need to perform such a balancing act. We could just leave the wilderness alone to do its thing. We could allow bears and wolves do the hunting for us, while we sustained 8+ billion people on organic, pesticide-free crops sprouting from plots of soil on every city highrise balcony, and lab-grown meat. Unfortunately, such a perfect world does not (and cannot) exist.
We live in a world where humanity has fundamentally changed how nature acts. We live in a world where managing the wilderness and wildlife via hunting is a necessity. We live in a world where people (particularly poor people who work three jobs and live in food deserts) rely on fast food to survive. We live in a world where people waste food left and right while others have to skip meals and/or outright starve. We live in a world where most people live as though they’re completely disconnected from nature, even though every human being on earth still relies on nature to survive.
If things were different, I’d gladly eat lab-grown meat and veggies solely harvested from my Tower Gardens, backyard, and the roof of my house. But, we don’t live in such a world. Suffering and death are fundamental parts of life. Everything exists in nature, relies on it, and is part of its sacred cycle, which includes death and suffering. It is what it is.
That said, I still think we could do way better than we currently are. I agree that factory farms are reprehensible. The way that factory farmed animals are treated makes me sick, both literally and metaphorically (as it should). Those animals are often crammed into cages so small they can’t even turn around in them. They’re pumped full of antibiotics and hormones specifically made to make them grow faster, often resulting in them being unable to move due to their weight breaking their underdeveloped bones. Factory farmed animals are hardly even animals; they’re immobile, sick chunks of meat that will be turned into food that will make the people who eat it sick.
The way that crops are grown is also fucked up, though to a lesser extent. Pesticides get into the soil and sterilize it, posing a major threat to the topsoil that is essential for growing crops. Pesticides also pose a major threat to pollinators of all kinds, contributing to their rapid decline. And, some pesticides even cause cancer in humans.
Let’s not forget how those crops go from the field to the table. Most crops are harvested using tractors, which tear up the land and everything in its path in a way that damages topsoil and also eviscerates wildlife (there’s a reason why scavengers often follow the tractors every fall). Aside from that, lots crops are harvested by severely underpaid, overworked undocumented immigrants who have absolutely no say in how they are treated, lest they get deported. Hell, in some countries, slavery is still used to harvest crops that are then shipped across the ocean to the States.
In other words, I don’t think factory farming is morally justifiable, but neither is the way so many crops are farmed. Both things are objectively harmful to animals, the environment, and people. Therefore, I feel obligated to do everything I can to not monetarily contribute to those things, which is something about vegans/vegetarians that I greatly respect.
Things get spicy when I introduce hunting and fishing into the conversation, as hunters and anglers make up enough of those who deeply care about conservation and wilderness management, that their decline has led to a conservation crisis (at least, in the United States and Canada). Meanwhile, most people don’t care enough about the wilderness or wildlife to educate themselves on it, and contribute to its conservation. Instead, most people, even if they claim to be pro-environmentalism, fail to do even the most basic things to keep our wilderness and wildlife healthy and protected.
Case in point: hikers ruin nature far more than they help it (and I say this as an avid hiker myself). Why? Because they pay virtually zero dollars to hike on public lands and trails. And so many people fail to follow the rules and guidelines designed to protect themselves and the wilderness, that those places often have to be closed for restoration reasons. Even then, game wardens come across trespassers all the time.
People who throw their plastics and tin cans in the recycling bin harm nature far more than help it. Why? Because 95% of the stuff we throw in the recycling bin doesn’t actually get recycled, including and especially plastic (which does not degrade for thousands of years, especially when it is buried in the earth).
People who drive cars, ride busses, use any sort of electricity whatsoever, harm nature far more than they help it. Why? Because all of those things burn fossil fuels, which are considered greenhouse gasses, which build up in the atmosphere, which makes the earth hotter, which causes climate change, which causes catastrophic events to occur. Even wind turbines are honestly a net bad for the environment, because it takes so much metal and coal to build them. Even once they’re up and running, they kill a lot of bats and birds, and are also just a general eyesore on the plains (though, of course, wind turbines are far less detrimental to the environment than fracking and coal burning. I’m not one of those “anti-wind turbine” crazies).
Meanwhile, very few people actually do anything to truly give back to nature; to truly offset their environmental impact. Including those who pledge “veganism for the animals/environment.”
My problem with people like Peter Singer is not that they’re vegan/vegetarian. It’s that they remain so far removed from the wilderness that they do little to nothing to offset their detrimental impacts on it. That, and they simply don’t know what they’re talking about. Sure, on an intellectual level, they understand the world very well. But, they don’t know the wilderness like an avid hunter/angler knows it. They don’t know wildlife like hunters/anglers know it. They don’t know farming like a farmer knows it.
In order for one to truly have an impact on the things they profess and discuss, I believe that they have to know it, and not just on an intellectual level. It’s one thing to know what a deer is, and general facts about deer. It’s something completely different to know what a deer is; to live around them, to watch them go about their daily lives, to experience the seasons, the elements, and the environment alongside them, to get up-close and personal to them, to look into their eyes and see their souls through the sights of a gun or a bow (or a camera).
On a much more broader scale, I think people in academia often fail to truly know the things that they have PhD’s in. Because of that, people outside of academia often have a very hard time trusting it. After all, professors can know a lot of things, but they don’t always know the things they apparently know a lot about (of course, some do. But many don’t). And I really think that is why so many people (particularly those on the right and who live in rural places), distrust academia and “educated” people in general. I hope I’m making sense (and tying things together), even though I’m tired.
In other words, idealists may very well be right about how the world should be. On paper, we should live in a world where everyone’s needs are met and are treated ethically, and no animals or environments are harmed in the process. But, in practice, that’s just not possible. And the people who know the wilderness understand this.
Perfection doesn’t exist. People are flawed. Nature is ruthless. Death is both inevitable and necessary. Idealism is fun and useful until it isn’t. It just is what it is.
But, I’m not about to just pick on professors and academics for failing to live by their own words. The average person who visits the wilderness doesn’t know how to fucking behave in the wilderness, thus damaging it and making it unbearable for anyone else (including the wildlife who depend on it) to enjoy.
It’s precisely why I will only hike in Ken Caryl Valley (where only residents and people accompanied by residents of the Ken Caryl neighborhoods are allowed to hike), or in remote, unknown wilderness areas only accessible by experienced 4X4 drivers who know the area well, or on private land (if I have permission, of course). Otherwise, I avoid well-known touristy spots like the fucking plague.