The Rabbit Died

At one time those were the code words meaning that a woman was pregnant. We didn't say the word “pregnant” in public then. We were too delicate. Maybe the rabbit didn't think so, though. She gave her life to confirm (or not to confirm – she died irrespective of the test's outcome) the pregnancy. Actually she didn't really “give” her life. (It was taken from her by some doctor or lab technician who wanted to take a peek at her ovaries.) But she died for a good cause. Her involuntary forfeiture made the arrival of the stork more understandable.

Times change, though. Nowadays even if we didn't have more advanced tests – ones not requiring the sacrifice of the rabbit – we would find a way to protect the poor animal from harm, even if we chose to kill the fetus. The protection of animals has become an important priority in our culture, and among strict vegans (it would be disingenuous to suggest that all vegans are cut from the same cloth) it is considered improper to “exploit” animals in any way. Many, in fact, eschew almonds (http://almondsarenotvegan.com/) because the pollination of almond trees requires bees. (Of course, there's no denying the fact that if that is your approach, virtually all the fruits and vegetables we eat – or use for clothing, construction, etc. – suffer from the same kind of shortcoming (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees) which limits the intake of those who won't eat animal products either. But I won't pursue that point except to note that wiseGEEK tells us that honey bees pollinate about $15 billion worth of crops in the United States each year. So it's an economic issue as well as a moral one.

We live in a time of animal rights – and human wrongs. While cruelty to animals ought not be accepted, advocates of those rights – those who speak for animals – sometimes lack perspective. According to the first chapter of the Bible, “G-d said 'Let us make man in our image and likeness. Let him dominate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky … and every land animal that walks the earth. … G-d said to them [humans], … Fill the land and conquer it.
'” Not everyone accepts this teaching, but it is hard to contradict the evolutionary tree that puts humans at the top of the animal kingdom – a fact that those who disdain “speciesism” consider anthropocentric. (Plants and other Eukaryota are beneath, while farther down the tree are the Archaea and Bacteria. Where viruses fit in is not clear. But what is evident is that the distinction between plants and animals simply reflects which branches we mark off as being significant. The DNA sequences of all living things have much in common because they ultimately evolved from the same common ancestors. Humans, for example, share about 50% of the same DNA sequences that occur in bananas.) There is a hierarchy, however, whether we're comfortable with that fact or not.  (Incidentally, see http://www.wisegeek.com/are-vegetables-dead-when-you-buy-them-at-a-grocery-store.htm. It may be food for thought for some vegans.) 

Notwithstanding the reality, however, there are many whose mission it is to prevent exploitation of animals and to protect them from humanity (as an example, see http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm). For some the commitment is absolute, even if the implications are not fully appreciated. For example, electricity which is usually produced through the burning of fossil fuels, and transportation based on the same form of energy do not raise a second thought, while a well-kept horse who pulls a wagon is being exploited.

There are, however, exceptions to the rules of animal protection. No one would think of trying to stop a large fish from eating one that is smaller, nor prevent a lion from stalking an antelope. And you'd probably fail if you tried switching a predator to kale. Nurture shouldn't be, and, in fact, isn't always victorious over nature. Nor morality over reality. In terms of dietary preferences, for example, while some may view veganism as morally superior to carnivorism, the latter is normal, and not evil, for some species.

And animals have long played an important part in our lives. They were prominent in mythology (eg Pegasus, mermaids, and satyrs), we used them for prophesy (reading entrails), they were food and sacrifices, we hunted and fished – even using live bait, we used them for transportation and agriculture, pulling carriages and chariots among other things, and we benefit even now from their use socially and for entertainment, as guide dogs and therapy animals and in zoos. And, as I have mentioned, they played a large part in our farming (herding and providing organic manure in addition to pulling plows), medicine (think cow pox and Botox for example), as well as house pets (do veterinarians exploit animals?).

Which of these uses represents inappropriate use? Which is inherently evil? Cannibalism, of course. But to avoid them all we'd have to go back hundreds or thousands of years, and even then we wouldn't succeed. We have always exploited animals for our benefit – and some of them have eaten us when they had the chance. Nature has made us what we are. Our intelligence – which is greater than that of a banana or a rabbit – has given us domain over many other forms of life.

My intelligence, however, sets the limits for me. I oppose cruelty, to animals – human and not. That includes medical use as well as hunting for sport. But I do not turn away from reality. I would not bounce a ball on an ant, but I recognize that I step on some unintentionally. And I endorse the use of medicines to kill parasites – vegetable or animal. I see the value of a veterinarian if not a taxidermist. And a Saint Bernard with brandy.

And I love a steak.

Next episode: “Arts and Science” – We're in the “Age of Enlightenment,” but not of discernment.

For The Sake Of Our Children

As you sow, so shall you reap.ⁱ

I'm a proud sow and so. I almost called myself a defiant sow and so, but I thought better of it. “Defiant” is a very bellicose word. It suggests a militaristic approach: an angry, arrogant, and aggressive one that is the antithesis of every value I hold. I envision a world in which peace and freedom are the primary characteristics of all humanity.

I believe – as I'm sure you do – that our children should grow up in such a world. It would be a world in which love and fellowship would guide our every move; it would be a world in which Mankindⁱⁱ would be “at one” with all the plants and animals that share our world and, in fact, with the Universe itself. That was the world sought by some friends of mine – a couple – who, in the Woodstock Era, played a major role in the founding of a commune based on these values. The commune was known as Eutopiaⁱⁱⁱ and the founders envisioned a community in which all members were equal and participated in all aspects of the society's life. Not only would the adults be able to promote and experience a moral and ethical life, but their children – and they would come eventually – would mature with only those views which their parents knew to be true, and to be the proper foundation for lives of virtue. Nothing was too good for their children. Nothing was more important.

And the early members of Eutopia were dedicated to the idea that they were all residents of the same sphere, and all shared responsibility for protecting it as well as themselves. Their motto was “Save our world and save ourselves.” And soon enough they became known as SOW And SOs.^iv And so it was that they – and now I – have come to change the world.

First a little about the Eutopia they built: The residential units, which are little more than dormitories, are single storied constructions^v situated on a prairie in South Dakota, not too far from Rapid City. The community is adjacent to the Black Hills and the South Dakota Badlands, and its main structure – which serves as a meeting hall, the seat of “government,” and the site of any “large” congregation – especially a noisy one – is underground, built into one of the foothills. The intent was to place such a site in a location from which loud noises would not emanate. This would be a protection against sound pollution. Since they were living among the wildlife native to the area, it would have been unfair to disturb the true owners of the land in their homes. Similarly, no light escaped from the meeting hall, so as not to be intrusive in this regard. There were skylights, however, so that there would be light during the day with no use of electricity. But they were covered at night.

The dormitories, too, were shuttered at night so no light would escape. Since no radios or television sets were permitted, noise was not a major consideration.^vi And the light was provided by candles, which the residents made themselves. There was electric light – low power consumers such as fluorescent and LED – in the meeting hall, with solar and wind energy for generation of the electricity, as well as with the power provided by a backup generator. It was run using vegetable oils, so as not to require fossil fuels. No official use of animal products was permitted nor was any exploitation of non-human species.^vii Thus they were all vegans and the foods they ate were all home-grown without any animals used for plowing.^viii And they eschewed the use of any fertilizers – the chemical ones were not natural, and the natural ones originated from animals. Plumbing needs for the dorms and the hall were solved with wells^ix for the inflow, and a septic field for the outflow – widely separated, of course.

Food was a major concern. They were all vegan converts but, for the most part, largely unaware of what that meant, and how it was different from vegetarian. So when they learned that honey was forbidden, as well as mayonnaise and many commercial breads and cakes, they had to make some adjustments. There were other strict rules: everything had to be natural and organic; no gluten was permitted nor were there high-fructose corn syrup, fats (especially trans-fats), artificial colors or favors, or anything considered an allergen – especially nuts. And nothing that had been radiated or contained GMO ingredients. Specifically that related to genetically modified plants, since no animal products were permitted.^x They were “green,” and let permitted breads sit until covered with green mold before they ate them. They knew that penicillin came from bread mold, so this was a way of treating some infections. They also used vegetables and fruits rich in anti-oxidants, recognizing that there was oxygen in the air all around and in the air they breathed. It's a problem for which they (now “we”) have not yet found a solution.

I'm one of them now, but things haven't changed much over the years. We keep contagion to a minimum with rubber gloves to protect our hands and cotton elbow-covers which are always worn in case we should cough or sneeze. These, like the rest of our clothing, are laundered using washboard and stones. No artificial soaps or detergents are ever utilized. For our personal needs we use sanitizing liquids, towelettes, and natural soaps with anti-bacterial capabilities. It's a hard life, but our children are worth the sacrifice.

Finally, we teach – no, we emphasize – love and tolerance. We never attack each other,^xi but if we did we would turn the other cheek. We're very much at peace. And we're self-governing. That means that each of us makes his own rules which we value as long as they don't impinge on others. Some may view this as anarchy but we see it as complete freedom. Peace and freedom are what our lives are all about.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Those words were written several months ago but I learned something which I conveyed to the elders and, after lengthy discussion and, ultimately, action by the group, everything has changed. What I learned was what I overheard. It came from our children, who had a council of their own^xii – a council that we established and supported. One of them, one with an iPad^®, informed the rest that virtually everything we taught was nonsense with no scientific basis. The general response was that they all knew that already but didn't want to confront their parents. As soon as they were old enough they planned on moving out and joining the “real world.” They had tolerated this silliness to achieve peace. Soon they would have freedom.

They understood the value of peace, but otherwise they had learned almost nothing from our wisdom. Although many members were ill or had died young, our sacrifices were for naught.

And now, as there is no Utopia, there is no Eutopia.

Next episode: "Nota Bene – Not" –  There is an end to all good (bad and mediocre) things.

I        While that expression derives from Galatians 6.7, it is actually a rephrasing of an older idea originally found in Ecclesiastes 11.1, “Send your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it.” Some translations prefer the word “Cast” rather than “Send,” but the one I used, Tanach, the Stone Edition by Artscroll, chose “Send.” A footnote in this volume reads ”Charity should be given even to strangers; generosity will not go unrewarded.” Later in chapter 11, in verse 4, Kohelet, identified earlier as David's son, King Solomon, speaks both of the man who will never sow and the one who will never reap. A modern of the expression, one somewhat different in implications, is “What goes around comes around.”

ii       And that certainly includes women and children as well, but the masculine form is used because that has been the tradition in the English language, as it is in many other tongues. For this reason it is important to state that wherever a masculine noun or pronoun is used it refers to both sexes and to all ages, unless it is otherwise stated.

iii      This commune was to be ideal, and all of its principles were to be followed. Only those who agreed to them would be allowed to join. The clear delineation of those principles was an important factor in convincing others to commit themselves and to join. Even more so, however, was the dedication of the founders to a goal that appeared to be as close to perfection as possible (while still being achievable). They were charismatic personalities, and their beliefs were so powerful and attractive that those who heard the message were mesmerized by it and yearned-for permission to be a part of the movement. The marijuana also helped.

iv       I myself joined the movement only after a couple of decades. I had not known of its existence originally even though it was organized by some friends, but, ultimately, when I learned about Eutopia, I was completely taken by everything it represented (even though marijuana was no longer a staple there), and I petitioned for membership.

v        Wheelchair accessible.

vi       Some of the younger residents had iPads^® or other electronic devices that were battery-run. They were intellectually harmful and were discouraged, but no one made a fuss as long as they were used quietly.

vii      Any product that had been tested on animals was forbidden. The included most cosmetics and virtually all medicines. We did use traditional formulations and those generally considered safe even though never tested. Also used were vitamins and those preparations that strengthened our immune systems so we wouldn't need FDA approved medicines. Vaccination of the children was rejected both because the vaccines contained animal products and because everyone knew they were unsafe.

viii     They did use corn-oil powered tractors, however initially there was much debate on their use because of the measurement of their engines by horse power. Of course they recognized that they weren't using actual horses, but they also knew that the concept had developed from such use, and they were hesitant to benefit from the original exploitation. Eventually, however, they were accepted, though it was viewed as a compromise of their original principles.

ix       Bottled water was proscribed because of the wasteful and toxic plastic bottles and the fact that some of the waters contain added ingredients like fluorine and chlorine. Natural water was more healthful and less expensive. (Apropos the plastic bottles, on the rare occasions when we purchase commercial products we make sure the packaging is minimal and recyclable. No plastic packaging is permitted.)

x        Free-range and hormones are obviously not issues. Nor is the use of antibiotics in animals.

xi       And we avoid contact with the outside world. Even so, we have great love and respect for those we never see.

xii      Even at a young age we taught them self-government was the backbone of the community.

7

7ⁱ

 

                                                            

I know what it's like to limit one's appetites and one's activities. I know how rewarding self-discipline can be. In fact I'm troubled by the lack of self-control of so many of our children and adults, who have been taught that no one should judge anyone else, and all of us can have what we want. I fear that the idea that we should have no limitations placed on us leads to a kind of narcissism and lack of concern for others – and, indeed, for religious doctrine – that says, “I am the measure of all things.” It's hard to fault the approach of modern parents, that of building a child's-self confidence and self-image. That behavior is meritorious, but too often such an approach is substituted for the control that emphasized limits, and respect for others, that were considered critical parts of child-rearing in previous generations.

I'm an observant Jew. Specifically, I observe the Sabbath – which means that for one day a week I do not ride any motorized vehicle, cook, or turn electricity on or off. It's a challenge, but for me and many others it's a rewarding way of life. The restrictions are quite limiting, but I accept them as “right,” and build my life around them.

And every day of the week – not just the Sabbath – I limit what I eat. The foods permitted to me have been supervised and approved by various agencies I trust, and are free from any non-kosher content. That means I refrain from, among other things, pork, shellfish, and even kosher species not slaughtered according to specific standards,ⁱⁱ and by an individual learned in the laws that are applicable to this practice. The laws are strict and they're difficult to follow, but they conform to the traditions of my people and to a respect for the feelings of the animals that form a part of our diet.

I've written before about veganism.ⁱⁱⁱ I noted that I really didn't understand it. There are various reasons given for the philosophy, including sensitivity, morality, taste, and self-discipline, and I understand them all in the abstract. But it was my view that the restrictions would be impossible to actually carry out without many compromises being made. I haven't changed my view. In addition, however, other restrictions have occurred to me that reinforce my wonder. The one of greatest concern – in addition to previous limitations I've mentioned, is the one made famous by the 1967 movie, “The Graduate.”

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Benjamin: Yes, sir. Mr. McGuire: Are you listening? Benjamin: Yes, I am. Mr. McGuire: Plastics.

Plastics. Almost the foundation of our society, these materials are based on dead dinosaurs. It's hard to find a manufactured product that does not include them. They're obvious in most packaging, but are less visible in automobiles, electronic devices, washing machines, and just about everything else. Mr. McGuire was prescient in an economic sense, however the material itself limits the use of all these products by those who abjure anything that derives from animals.^iv After all, fossil fuels are off limits.

But there are alternatives.

Although mostly derived from petrochemicals, and, therefore, anathema to vegans, there is a form of plastic^v that is produced from purely vegetable sources. It's called polylactic acid and is manufactured from vegetable starch – corn starch in the United States. While it is only used in a small number of products at the moment, it must be reassuring to know that its applicability may increase.

But there's a large cloud in front of that silver lining. Along with the use of corn ethanol as a substitute for gasoline, the origin is likely to be problematic. According to Wikipedia, it will have “a negative impact to human food supply. It takes 2.65 pounds of corn to make a pound of polylactic acid, the commonest commercially compostable plastic. Since 270 million tonnes^vi of plastic are made every year, replacing conventional plastic with corn-derived polylactic acid would remove 715 million tonnes from the world's food supply, at a time when global warming is reducing tropical farm productivity.”

There are other limitations as well. Not all types of plastics can be used for every task. And polylactic acid can't be expected to replace all the other varieties. Which means that some limitations will remain.

When you consider these restrictions along with all the others,^vii the burden of a truly observant vegan becomes obvious. I can only marvel at the dedication of those who would observe a scrupulous observance of these principles.

But I still don't understand them.

Next episode: “Seasons Of Our Discontent” – It ain't over till it's over – and maybe not even then.

i     Actually the “7” should be within a triangle made up of arrows, as a symbol of a particular type of packaging.

ii    In some locations these standards are outlawed in the name of “animal rights.” Other methods of killing animals are perfectly acceptable, but from their perspective, if it's kosher, it's not kosher. There are many who see the legal restrictions as a way of legitimizing and sanctifying anti-semitism. It's a way to pretend bias is motivated by virtue.

iii      “The Amoeba And The Oak Tree,” June 17, 2012.

iv    And that includes living animals as well as those killed for what they can provide. Milk and wool, for example, even though they can be derived from their sources without requiring slaughter, are seen as products of the “exploitation” of animals and, therefore, unacceptable.

v     It's recyclable, too. Number 7. “Other.”

vi    It's the British version of Wikipedia.

vii   No transportation in any vehicle that uses fossil fuels, no use of electricity – even to power vehicles that don't use gasoline, avoidance of non-meat products of animals – products like leather and felt, and, of course, the food itself. No good deed goes unpunished.

The Amoeba And The Oak Tree

                                                                                                                                    

It's hard to condemn something you don't understand,ⁱ but it's easy to raise the questions that make your understanding difficult. And that's what I intend to do since I'm a little confused by one of the major trends of our society: Veganism.

Yes. It's a major trend. There used to be vegetarians, and the biggest questions when one came over for a meal dealt with whether he would eat dairy products or eggs. And it turned out that a few even had fish. But they all drew the line at meat.

It now appears that vegans consider conventional vegetarianism, no matter how strict, to be inadequate. In fact it causes grief to animals. At least that's the contention of some of them.ⁱⁱ

As far as I can determine, their philosophy is based on the view that it is immoral for humans to use animals for any benefit. Thus the use of leather and wool would be proscribed as would the use of any products tested on animals. Even honey, which is an animal product, should be avoided. Circuses and other animal-based entertainments (eg horse racing and dog shows) would be eliminated. Pets are out.  And, of course, neither meat nor animal products should be part of our diet. In fact, a “life-style” based on veganism will solve the problem of animal abuse and provide better health for its adherents.ⁱⁱⁱ

Whether I subscribe to that philosophy or not, I have two real problems with implementing it. The first is reality, writ large, and the second is that I really don't know what an animal is from an evolutionary standpoint.

Reality first. Most of the power used to run our transportation, to operate our manufacturing plants, to keep the lights on in our houses, and even to fuel the machinery that farmers use to plant and harvest our vegetables, is derived from fossils. And those vegetables – especially the “organic” ones – are fertilized with animal products. (Mothers' milk comes from animals, although I suspect that vegans draw the line on human products.^iv) In third world countries where farmers cannot afford farm machinery, animals are used to help in working the fields. Guide dogs for the blind and other kinds of service animals are critical to some who seek to lead a more normal life. Abjuring all these things would put us in wooden shacks with thatched roofs eating whatever we could forage from nearby plants.

But the second problem – one of evolution and definitions – is even more perplexing. What is an “animal?” According to Dictionary.com it is

any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike (sic) nutritional modes.

That, however, is a human definition and, interestingly, is somewhat circular and problematic. It would be a surprise if animals didn't have “animallike nutritional modes,” but if this simply means that they ingest other species and cannot make their own food by photosynthesis, then the sea slug, Elysia chlorotica, which contains chlorophyll and can survive for up to nine months based on its own production of food,^v is a plant, not an animal. And carnivorous plants,^vi like the sundews, and the pitcher plants, and snap trap plants like the waterwheel plant and the Venus flytrap, are animals not plants.

If the differentiation of animals and plants is based on locomotion, then while it is true that higher plants have a root system that ties them to a particular location, they may climb and send out shoots from that place, and the species may move based on the spreading of its seeds. Many biologists consider bacteria to be plants, even though some of them have flagella and can move from place to place.  And some animals, like sponges, barnacles and coral, are sessile.

Another part of the definition, and one that seems to be the presence of a cell wall. Plants have them, but animals don't. Both have cell membranes, although the usual differentiation is that animals have cell membranes and plants have solid cell walls.

But all of these criteria are based on the fact that we've chosen to define organisms this way. We've drawn a line at an arbitrary point in evolution. If all life arose from molecules in a primordial “soup,” then plants and animals have the same ancestry and the differentiation is based on a human definition. For some reason we have chosen to define animals as superior to plants. I find it difficult to view an amoeba as more advanced than an oak tree, but the former is an animal, and the latter a plant. It may be a clear distinction to vegetarians, and may be a deciding factor in their behavior, but I am less certain – at least based on these criteria.

The distinction, then, relates to where you draw the line. Salt and water were never alive (although they may contain organisms) but steak was. And so was bread. We know that plants react to time, light, and temperature, and to nutrients as well. But does wheat feel pain when cut? It certainly doesn't have a neural system similar to those in animals, and it doesn't scream out. But there is no question that cut plants have characteristics different from those attached to the ground. And there is increasing evidence that some plants can communicate with each other.

So where do we draw that line – if at all? And why? Is it possible to live without what we call animals, and do we want to? What is clear to the vegan is less clear to me. When these questions are answered, I'll be better able to form an opinion on veganism.

Next episode: “Now You Know Everything” – Or at least I do.

i     Actually, it's not that hard. It's foolish and unfair however. That, of course, doesn't stop people from doing it.

ii    For example, see: http://www.ivu.org/news/evu/news95/veg_n.html. While the article favors vegetarianism, it mentions some of the objections of vegans – objections which are often stressed with great venom.

iii    A position with which not everyone agrees. Perhaps you'll find the following op-ed of interest. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html.

iv    If that's the case, of course, cannibalism would be permissible. Or maybe that's pushing it too hard.

v     http://www.independent.com/news/2010/jan/30/first-known-photosynthetic-animal/ While the building blocks for the photosynthetic process are derived from plants, the organisms we define as plants originally derived their own chloroplasts from incorporated cyanobacteria, and the chloroplasts became par of the organisms.

vi    It's of interest that the first well-known work on the subject, Insectivorous Plants, was written by Charles Darwin.