Tom:
>>Veganism has had a "free ride" in the sense that most people have
>>accepted it at face value, and not challenged the thin, dubious veneer
>>of ethics it wears. Hopefully, that free ride will end soon!

Martha Seagoe <[log in to unmask]>:
>Can you explain what you mean by free ride and dubious veneer of
>ethics?  Who are the "most people" who have accepted it, the
>diet-conscious folks or the general population?

Tom:
Free ride means that people assume veganism is as moral, as "ethical", or  as
"compassionate" as it advertises itself. But, reality is coming home -
people are beginning to question the vegan philosophy, and find it lacking.
A small sample of that is given below, re: Robbins' book. By the way, my
feeling is that if the vegan diet works for you, fine. I have no argument
with the diet - my criticism is aimed at the questionable philosophy/
ethics it promotes.

Tom:
>>P.S. I sharply criticized "Diet for a New America" on a vegetarian
>>Internet group, a few months after it came out. At that time, I was of
>>course a long-time vegan.

Martha Seagoe <[log in to unmask]>:
>I'd be interested in seeing what you had to say.  Do you still have the
>article in a form you could re-post it?  You could send it to me privately if
>you don't feel the group would be interested.  Or, could you just give me
>a brief rundown of the points you criticized and why?  I personally quite

Tom:
That post is several years old; it is in my archives - somewhere - but it
will take time to pull it, and it is not worthwhile. Let me give you a
very brief synopsis of the points:
* Raw veganism is/can be more efficient than cooked veganism. You can eat
less on a raw diet. (Yes, some rawists are gluttons - but it is possible
to eat less on raw, if you control your eating.)
* The motivation for veganism vs meat consumption is that meat diet is less
efficient/more cruel, i.e. vegan more efficient than meat diet.
* As one can consume less on raw, the ultimate vegan diet is raw, per the
above criteria, i.e., raw vegan more efficient than cooked vegan.
* Conventional veganism ignores the above, hence does not satisfy the criteria
they advocate (efficiency, less cruelty),  hence the conventional vegan diet
is hypocritical. [I don't expect all vegans to be 100% raw - more realistic
is that the vegan movement would encourage others to find the optimal level
of raw that works for them].
* In part I of "Diet for a New America", Robbins tells us how wonderful
animals are, and how totally evil animal experimentation is. In part III, he
argues for the health value of veganism, by using animal experiment data! Did
something change between parts I and III?
* Robbins makes the bogus argument that rainforests are being cut down largely
for cattle ranches. This is so inaccurate as to border on false.

The above is simply an argument against Robbins' book: it is only a tiny part
of the case against vegan philosophy.

Tom:
>>The preceding points [apes not being vegan by nature] also impact the
>>ethical vegan movement, and people are finally starting to question the
>>sort of ethics promoted in veganism.

Martha:
>Are you saying that the notion of apes being vegan was the primary
>foundation for vegan ethics?  I'm probably missing your point here.

Tom:
No - the point was that the basic assumptions of fruitarianism were wrong.
The reality is that nature is not impressed with rawist dogma, or vegan dogma.
Nature simply IS. And, a reality of nature is that we appear to naturally
be omnivores - not herbivores, not carnivores. So, the claims that veganism
is our natural diet, are dubious, to put it mildly.

By the way, I am NOT arguing for meat consumption. One can still be a
veggie - there are plenty of good reasons to be a veggie. It's just that
I try to be honest, and I regard the "eating meat is UNnatural" party
line to be openly dishonest. True ethics means your "compassion" is also
honest. However, I still hear the "apes are fruitarians", "humans are
natural vegetarians" line from proponents of veganism.

P.S. I have been a vegetarian since 1970. I encourage you to be a vegetarian
or vegan - but for honest reasons, and based on an honest model of nature.

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]