Evolution
The year is 2009 (you knew that?)
The human race is in dire trouble (this is not as definite as the year, don't worry).
In the next century, climate change and war take a terrible toll. Most of the world's population is wiped out. Biodiversity also plunges. Surprising victims of the mass extinction are our domesticated animals; humans can't afford to waste food on meat or dairy production, and within 50 years domestic chicken, pigs, cows and goats disappear. Their wild counterparts are hunted to extinction, along with most animals. Agriculture becomes purely agrarian.
Over the centuries the vegetarianism forced on the human race becomes the norm, and the idea of eating meat becomes as barbaric as the idea of eating people is in 2009. But something is wrong.
The children aren't growing properly. One group of survivors find a source of ancient knowledge. The wise investigate. The ancient texts speak of deficiency in micro-nutrients. Adults can synthesise enough, but developing children need more. They need a dietary source.
The wise are horrified when they realise that the only source of the nutrients to save the children is meat. Perhaps in the past there were vegetarian sources, but in the mass extinction they have been lost. To eat animals is unthinkable. But each generation is getting smaller and weaker.
There is a solution. As the mother provides the child with milk, so the father can provide. A pinprick is sufficient, and the child eagerly sucks. In the group with this knowledge, the children are healthy. Vital. Strong.
Millennia pass. The unknowledgeable struggle on, and eventually evolve to live without the nutrients they don't have. They are a small people, and weak compare to the humans they evolved from, but numerous and prosperous in their purely agricultural society.
The knowledgeable evolve differently. They are strong. But the unusual and ever growing demands of the children mean that families are small. Until a solution is found...
And if you are ever running a fantasy role playing game, and one of your more awkward players should happen to ask exactly how vampires evolved, tell them that vampires evolved from vegetarians.
The human race is in dire trouble (this is not as definite as the year, don't worry).
In the next century, climate change and war take a terrible toll. Most of the world's population is wiped out. Biodiversity also plunges. Surprising victims of the mass extinction are our domesticated animals; humans can't afford to waste food on meat or dairy production, and within 50 years domestic chicken, pigs, cows and goats disappear. Their wild counterparts are hunted to extinction, along with most animals. Agriculture becomes purely agrarian.
Over the centuries the vegetarianism forced on the human race becomes the norm, and the idea of eating meat becomes as barbaric as the idea of eating people is in 2009. But something is wrong.
The children aren't growing properly. One group of survivors find a source of ancient knowledge. The wise investigate. The ancient texts speak of deficiency in micro-nutrients. Adults can synthesise enough, but developing children need more. They need a dietary source.
The wise are horrified when they realise that the only source of the nutrients to save the children is meat. Perhaps in the past there were vegetarian sources, but in the mass extinction they have been lost. To eat animals is unthinkable. But each generation is getting smaller and weaker.
There is a solution. As the mother provides the child with milk, so the father can provide. A pinprick is sufficient, and the child eagerly sucks. In the group with this knowledge, the children are healthy. Vital. Strong.
Millennia pass. The unknowledgeable struggle on, and eventually evolve to live without the nutrients they don't have. They are a small people, and weak compare to the humans they evolved from, but numerous and prosperous in their purely agricultural society.
The knowledgeable evolve differently. They are strong. But the unusual and ever growing demands of the children mean that families are small. Until a solution is found...
And if you are ever running a fantasy role playing game, and one of your more awkward players should happen to ask exactly how vampires evolved, tell them that vampires evolved from vegetarians.
posted by Tony @ 23:09
16 Comments:
At 9:31 pm,
Anonymous said…
I know this is supposed to be a work of fiction but every fictitious story has to have some ties to reality.
Vegetarian children are not the weak and feeble uneducated of our society you make them out to be (surely you know that).
These animals would not die out. Far from it they would just be kept in fewer numbers. Rather than over breed in awful conditions. Inbred to have certain qualities such as greater egg production, higher meat yield. Humans would not let all animals die out. Rather we would curb our own ever increasing populations to avoid it, lay down laws and contingency plans to stop it as is happening with other species around the world in the large number of animals we do not eat.
Nutrition is a widely understood area of knowledge so there is nothing I know of in meat that can not be obtained from other food sources. Meat eating is more a social habit in fact the opposite of your story where vegetarians are seen as the unusual minority. People are too lazy to change the habits of a life time, they have a lack of understanding of nutrition and in fact with the foods we have available in this country there is no need to eat meat any more. People have a strange idea of which animals it is acceptable in their eyes to eat and bizarre reasons why these animals are food and others are not.
In fact there would be more food for the massive population of the world, if we cut the number of animals farmed. 10 Hectares of land only produces enough meat for 2 people, but used for crops can produce enough maize for 10 people, or enough grain for 24 people, or enough soya for 61 people. We feed our cattle with 9lb of food to produce 1lb of meat.
People are starving in this meat eating world of ours.
At 9:33 pm,
RobZed said…
This comment wasn't me :-)
At 5:15 pm,
Tony said…
Obviously since you are anonymous I have absolutely no idea who you are, but I imagine your children are far from weak or feeble, although they may be a bit young to be very educated yet :-)
The story grew from me wondering how vampires might have evolved, it wasn't intended as an attack on vegetarianism.
I acknowledge that humans are not obligate carnivores, and it is perfectly possible to have a healthy vegetarian diet. I might be wrong about this, but doesn't a healthy vegetarian diet depend of world trade i.e. you can't live in rude good health on the produce of your garden for generations unless you are raising a few animals for human consumption? As I say, this might be something I don't understand.
The moral arguments for vegetarianism are debatable. I believe the argument that meat production is inefficient is not an argument for vegetarianism, it is an argument for eating less meat, e.g. once a week, once a month, or only at weddings. This is a good idea, achievable by pricing the environmental damage in to meat, the same way it should be priced in to energy. But it is not an argument for vegetarianism, it is an argument for environmentalism.
The point that people are starving in this meat eating world is disingenuous. Meat eating is not causing starvation. Starvation is usually associated with war or extremely bad governance. Even if meat eating were causing starvation, this would be an argument to cut back to the point where it didn't cause starvation, not to never eat meat at all.
There are also moral arguments to do with animal welfare on farms, but these are also different from being vegetarian.
The moral argument that it is simply wrong to eat meat, I understand and sympathise with. The problem is, I can't understand why it is okay for tigers. If it is wrong, it is wrong. Why doesn't the vegetarian movement call for the sterilisation of tigers (and all other carnivores) in order to halt the eating of meat?
If you find this argument uncompelling, I think you must regard meat eating as bad for humans, as opposed to bad for the animal being eaten. After all, it doesn't matter to a gazelle if they are eaten by a lion or a person.
So, if meat eating is acceptable for animals, why isn't it acceptable for human animals? It is, after all, the product of billions of years of evolution, and undoubtedly natural, if not strictly necessary, behaviour for an omnivore.
At 8:33 am,
RobZed said…
I don't generally argue for or against vegetarianism but two points that are not directly related to this for or against argument.
Tony said: "So, if meat eating is acceptable for animals, why isn't it acceptable for human animals? "
Since some animals kill others of their own species:
Therefore to rephrase (part of) your argument: "So, if murder is acceptable for animals, why isn't it acceptable for human animals?'
Maybe there is an argument here, but currently yours is false, I think, because our belief and morals systems are not the same as animals. i.e. WHY is it important not to kill other humans? For example, might those rules also apply to at least the more intelligent animals (chimps, dolphins, pigs, dogs)?
It's certainly the case that in the UK we feel that killing dogs, cats, horses is wrong. I'm not arguing whether this belief is right or wrong - but since it's a belief then we should try to rationalise it, I think. You can do this for Murder and provide a reason for the belief (e.g. Murder is bad for society). This might still not be acceptable to the vegetarians, but at least it's a better argument!
Secondly...
Tony said "I might be wrong about this, but doesn't a healthy vegetarian diet depend of world trade"
I don't know, to be honest, but vegetarian was an official ration diet during the war. And I *think* all the food had to be produced in the UK for those diets - meat or vegetarian. Of course the population was smaller - about 48 million vs about 60 million.
Additionally, both your and my garden are too small to provide food for just one human - and I think the anonymous poster was pointing out that you'd need less land for a plant based diet rather than a meat based one.
I *think* original travel into Europe was made possible by animals (portable meat plus milk). I'm not sure living in Scotland requires animals even without world trade in today's world?
Perhaps some people are vegetarians for environmental reasons (rightly or wrongly)?
For instance-this vegan page gives a lot of figures (whether you believe them is a different matter):
http://www.vegansociety.com/environment/land/
Here are a couple of other links if you are bored:
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/env_animalfarming.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=a1gW4uV-q8EC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=area+of+land+feed+a+human&source=bl&ots=t2waHFJ5YK&sig=m6Zn_wVfb6wh5O0BAptuksJtOvg&hl=en&ei=Lt4gSpT9E53LjAfVqNG5Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA33,M1
I think this is an interesting topic!
At 4:23 pm,
Tony said…
I think I have failed to make my argument clear.
My question is wholly within the realm of human morality. If it is not okay for us to kill animals, why is it okay for us to allow animals to be killed by other animals?
You may say that from the predator's moral frame of reference, killing the prey is not immoral. Does that make a difference to how we as humans view the act of killing? If it does, then the important actor from the moral point of view is the killer, not the killed. We are saying it is acceptable to be killed in some circumstances, but only certain predators have the moral right to kill you. It is not clear to me why humans should be in the group that is not allowed to kill.
Incidentally, there is an article in a recent NewScientist about animal morals. They key point I took from the article was that morals are highly species specific.
Another NewScientist article come to mind - a few years ago there was an article which started with the story of a woman hiking in the Rockies who got killed and partially eaten by a mountain lion. The conclusion to the article was that we will have to accept such occurrences if we want to conserve mountain lions. This supports the moral position that it is the killer who is important, and not the prey. However, I found that position morally unacceptable, and would rather all the mountain lions in the world were killed to prevent one more human being eaten.
At 6:29 pm,
RobZed said…
Two thoughts:
Tony said: "...there was an article which started with the story of a woman hiking in the Rockies who got killed and partially eaten by a mountain lion. [...] I found that position morally unacceptable, and would rather all the mountain lions in the world were killed to prevent one more human being eaten."
That probably happened to the wolves in various places, including the UK.
Your moral position is not unique. Peter Singer has argued against it and calls it speciesism: discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species (although the term wasn't coined by him. Other scientists and philosophers have argued this an acceptable position.
In a related note, Sir David Attenborough, on a documentary on the life of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, criticised the centuries-old idea running through the Judaeo-Christian tradition which assumes God gave the Earth to man to exploit - as detailed in Genesis 1:28: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.
I'm not sure I'd suggest some sort of species genocide to protect stupid or unfortunate human individuals. There wouldn't be any animals left! (Think dogs, bees, wasp, horses, cows, elephants .. all these have killed people). I appreciate that it would be better if the humans didn't die. But at what cost? And I think this is the problem that one human is of greater value that ALL other life on earth. Still, I concede it might be the right value to have ... and certainly lots of people have argued that.
As for your initial subject: The difficulty for me with the 'it should be the same the for humans and lions' is, I think, that their situations are different. Is it not trivial for humans to decide to eat/not eat meat but impossible for lions to survive without eating meat? You are either protecting the gazelle and sacrificing the lion or vice versa. Your solution (the sterilisation of tigers) is effectively species genocide or maybe imprisonment in zoos with synthetic diets - neither of which I find particularly nice.
I'm also not convinced that this situation (lions therefore should be allowed to eat meat) gives a particularly strong argument for the conclusion 'therefore it's right for humans to eat meat'. I'm not saying that the conclusion is wrong or right here - but that the argument is not strong.
One last thought: assuming some alien species arrives: what is our argument to stop them eating us?
At 9:09 pm,
Tony said…
I imagine it did happen to wolves in the UK, and I'm glad I can go out at night and all I have to worry about are other people.
I think the point about dogs, bees, wasps, horses and cows is invalid because there animals are not generally dangerous. Dangerous gods are almost always manufactured by people, for example. The problem with large predators is that they may deliberately hunt you, and the only thing you can do to prevent it is not go into their territory.
Obviously as an atheist I don't believe that the world was given to man to exploit, I believe (as a darwinist) that human have evolved to exploit the earth, as have all other species. Should we apologies because we're better at it than many of the others?
Obviously we can over exploit the world and that would have disastrous consequences for humanity. However, I think we can live without the very few top level predators which are truly dangerous to people. Their ecosystem job can be done by people - in fact it generally is already, which is why most of them are nearing extinction anyway.
You are entirely correct when you say 'you are protecting the gazelle and sacrificing the lion or visa versa'. What I don't understand is why vegetarians don't insist on protecting the gazelle. Since they (in my experience) don't insist any such thing, I must conclude that the interests of the prey animal are not uppermost in the thoughts of vegetarians. So what is it all about?
At 9:28 pm,
Tony said…
I have another question about vegetarianism. This has exercised my mind for some time.
What aren't all vegetarians vegan?
1) Production of dairy foods is inefficient compared to arable,
2) nobody needs dairy foods to survive,
3) the deaths of many animals is an unavoidable effect of diary farming.
This is the same as the list of arguments for not eating meat. The only difference is that the flesh of the dead animals doesn't end up in the diary food.
This is exactly the same as the difference between a gazelle being eaten by a human and a gazelle being eaten by a lion. In both situations (lion eating a gazelle and dairy farming), it doesn't matter that the animals die, as long as humans aren't eating them. Why?
At 11:10 pm,
RobZed said…
I really hesistate to speak for vegetarians here... previously I was (probably badly) trying to look for strong logical arguments.
However, here goes:
Vegans vs. Vegetarians: There are a couple of things, I could guess - and these are only guesses.
Veganism might be harder to practice than Vegetarianism. Take going out for a meal: vegetarian options are available in nearly all eating establishments in the west. Not so with vegan meals. Another one: Ready meals and desserts tend to contain Lacto-Ovo products.
Veganism is probably seen as extreme. Vegetarianism is seen as peculiar but not extreme. This causes social pressure to conform. I think this and the fact that their parents ate meat are the two major reasons why humans eat meat.
There is also a perception that diary and eggs production does actually kill the animals. (I'm not sure if this was what you are saying - it wasn't entirely clear to me).
For the reasons: Are all vegetarians worried about animal deaths or the absolute efficiency of production? I don't think so.
So reasons I've heard for being vegetarian:
1. Don't like the taste/texture of meat
2. It's a healthier diet
3. It's difficult to morally justify (not sure it's right to) kill animals
4. It's difficult to justify killing intelligent animals.
5. It's more environmentally sound than eating meat
6. It's no harder than eating meat
7. Animals suffer in slaughter houses
8. Because I can and there is no need to eat meat!
9. When the aliens come, the meat eaters are most certain in a less justifiable position for not getting on the BBQ
10. It's cheaper
11. Lessen the suffering of animals
12. Because I was told it wasn't possible to live like that as a child ...
13. Was in a rut with eating so I changed my diet
14. My parents were vegetarian
15. We don't have to eat meat to survive
16. It's my choice
I'm sure there are more reasons, these are the ones I've heard about and can remember off the top of my head. Obviously they don't need to be true or form a logical argument because humans don't operate that way, generally :-)
To ask a question back: why do meat eaters eat meat? Obviously the reasons above apply (assuming you don't disagree). Another one that is given is that it tastes nice.
Also what does this mean? :-)
"Dangerous gods are almost always manufactured by people, for example."
I couldn't agree more ... although I'm not sure that is what you intended.
As for killing all the tigers ... I'm afraid that you are on your own there mate ... I fear such a statement might get people upset :-)
At 11:11 pm,
RobZed said…
RobZed said: "There is also a perception that diary and eggs production does actually kill the animals. (I'm not sure if this was what you are saying - it wasn't entirely clear to me)."
That should have had a not in there somewhere obviously :-)
At 11:52 pm,
Anonymous said…
It pleases me to have started this debate, and that people from both sides of the argument have been given the opportunity to think on this subject. In my experience people are Vegetarian, vegan and Fruitarian for many different reasons, usually very individual for each individual. People who eat meat seem to think we should explain to them our reasons for not eating meat, but to turn this conversation on its head a little. Why do you eat meat??? What are your reasons and why do you think you are justified?
The argument of killing all tigers because they eat animals is preposterous. They have no choice cats have to eat meat or they die, but we have a choice. Most animals (in the wild) kill and eat that meat to survive. We have no claws, no big sharp teeth and are not fast enough to run them down (without the aid of vehicles or herding the poor creatures into sheds, where they can not escape). We can not eat meat unless it is cooked. We are not designed to eat meat. In the past it may have been a survival thing but it is no longer the case. And in some areas of the world it is still true. To them every best wishes they make that catch tomorrow and they and their families are happy and fed. The plain fact is if there were no choice, if my survival depended on it, yes it would probably be different. But it would be a lie to say in this country at this time, I have to eat meat to survive.
In fact the sight of an animal in its original form, dead but still with its eyes, legs, feathers or fur makes a lot of meat eaters go green and turn away. Hence the neat packages available in the supermarket, as far removed from being the actual animal it once was as is possible. When butchers have put turkeys, rabbits, ducks and chickens in their windows in this form, there has been public outcry. But what do they think they are eating? The thought of even preparing a full carcass to eat would not be an option, for most meat eaters. So if they had to first catch it, kill it, gut it and then pluck or skin it and chop up the carcass, before they could eat it. Would there be so many ardent meat eaters in the world, so quick to defend their right to eat them. It may be true that we have become sanitized from the fact that people had to do it, but we now eat more meat than ever before in the history of this country because we no longer have to do this ourselves. Would you be able to take one of your chickens and do what had to be done to prepare your families chicken dinner. Really?
P. S. The point of dangerous gods being created by man was funny due to it obviously being an error but also very true. As it would seem that it is man made gods and beliefs that cause a lot of wars and fighting around the world. As it is our interpretations of these that cause all the problems.
At 11:56 pm,
Tony said…
Er.
In my last post, 'dangerous gods' should have read 'dangerous dogs'.
Sorry about that.
At 10:54 am,
Tony said…
I think we are getting to the heart of the matter. Inasmuch as that is possible, given that different people will have different moral justifications for their actions.
The bottom line is that it is okay to eat meat if you have to, and if you don't have to, you shouldn't.
I guess I can understand this position, but it doesn't seem morally strong. Is there not even a hope or desire that we can adjust the world, sometime in the future, to a place where meat isn't eaten at all?
The argument of removing all predators from the global ecosystem is indeed preposterous. Removing top level predators who might prey on humans? This is a different matter, and not really related to vegetarianism. Incidentally, it seems incongruous that there would be concern about hypothetical aliens who might come here and eat humans, but tolerance for large animals which are already here, already eating humans - if only occasionally.
There is a parallel between these hypothetical aliens and the original subject of the post - vampires. Perhaps in our role playing games, a vegetarian character could try reasoning with a vampire?
My anonymous commentator makes several points which I believe are completely wrong.
1) We cannot eat meat unless it has been cooked. I don't think this is true. Meat is easy to digest. We cook it because we tend to store it, and cooking kills pathogens in meat that is going off. Contrast that with all the major arable crops. Wheat, rice and potatoes all need processing before they can be digested. The development of these processes has allowed a vegetarian diet, but in evolutionary terms they are recent developments. There is no doubt that humans are evolutionarily adapted to eat meat.
2) We are not fast enough to run down animals without the use of vehicles. This comment and others around it imply that we can only hunt because of modern inventions. This is untrue. There is plenty of evidence that humans could bring down mammoths with stone age technology. There are hunter gatherers alive today who can run down large game - we may not be fast but trained humans have great endurance and can run large animals to exhaustion.
I do completely agree with anonymous that the meat industry is too sanitised. I am entirely familiar with the whole corpses of at least one class of animals - fish. I've never killed or gutted one, but I did descale a pair on saturday. I don't think I would have much trouble converting a live fish into a meal.
A chicken? Not one of our pet chickens, but I would be able to kill and prepare a chicken to which I have no emotional attachment. I think if I couldn't say that, I shouldn't eat chicken.
I don't think I could manage a sheep or a pig though, or anything larger. But I guess for killing / butchering large animals, you need a bit of training. I do at all times try to keep in my mind what I am eating, and I am at pains to teach the children the relationship between the fluffy baby lambs in the fields and the delicious tasty sauce on their pasta.
So why do I eat meat? Good question. I do think it is the default position. Human have evolved that way, it is natural, and so the question should be presented in the terms of why should I not eat meat.
However, you might be able to detect some angst here - if I was truly totally unconcerned about my moral position, why would I be concerned about the sanitisation of meat production, for instance? So I guess I await convincing that I should be vegetarian.
This also goes to RobZed's point about why not vegan. Being vegan is very inconvenient - well being vegetarian is quite inconvenient. I am concerned about animal welfare, but if danish bacon is on a 2 for 1 offer, would I refuse to buy it? Would I insist that my partner refuse to buy it? I probably should - so if you read here that she's got fed up and left me, you'll know who to blame :-)
At 10:54 am,
Tony said…
Oh, except that we won't know who to blame because my commentator is anonymous :-)
At 11:11 pm,
Tony said…
Today at Dunlop gala there was a live turkey being raffled for Christmas dinner, and a spit roast pig which was very obviously a dead pig.
So much for the theory that meat eaters can't stand the sight of real dead animals... maybe in the city, but not out in the sticks...
At 5:09 pm,
Tony said…
Hmmm. I read recently that raw meat is actually not easy to digest, as I thought. It looks like Anonymous is right in that regard. I still suspect that it is easier than raw wheat or rice though. But I could be wrong about that too...
Post a Comment
<< Home