On Becoming a Flexitarian

Originally posted on 13 September 2014 (so when I was almost 24). I’ve since become vegetarian and try and only non-animal products in many cases (aka vegan).

“A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.” – Leo Tolstoy

The Flexitarian or semi-vegetarian diet means eating a mostly vegetarian diet but occasionally eating meat. People choose a flexitarian diet for multiple reasons. Some (including me) are against the animal suffering, others are concerned about the environment, and others do it to lose weight (and be healthier). In this blog, I will argue the benefits of the flexitarian diet and how it has worked out for me in the past few months.

Animal Suffering

I believe that animals in themselves have an intrinsic ethical value. I argue this from a consciousness perspective, the more conscious (or aware) an animal is of its environment, the more its life should be valued. It is for this reason that we people value the lives of other people, we have full consciousness and can make reasoned decisions. A more limited level of awareness is present in animals, an elephant for instance ‘mourns’ for the loss of a life partner. A pigeon that pecks a lever to get him food also shows awareness, but this is a lesser form than that of the previous example. I believe that the more conscious or aware an animal is, the more we should value its life (read more in a previous essay).

Because animals have an intrinsic ethical value, I believe that it is wrong to harm them. The problem is that we are doing it on a large scale. We put chickens in farms with millions stuffed together. We cut off their beaks without anaesthetics so that they will not peck each other to death for being stuffed so close together. In other cases we separate mothers from their children right after birth, all the while knowing that these animals are conscious beings. And we feed animals until they can almost not stand up straight anymore, just so our meat can be just a bit cheaper. And as I will argue further on, this suffering is not needed in order for us to have a balanced diet.

Environment

My second argument is concerned with the environment. The process from the birth of an animal to the meat you can buy in the grocery store is one that puts heavy demands on our environment. Here are some numbers: 40% or our land is occupied by animals meant for human consumption, 13.5% of CO2 expulsion is caused by animals meant for human consumption, 1/3rd of global fresh water is used in the production of meat. This means that the burden on the environment is of epic proportions. And not only do animals for human consumption take up space, produce CO2, and consume a lot of water, they also need to be fed grains and wheat that could otherwise have been used by us humans. With the current state of technology, it is in no way responsible to eat a lot of meat.

Losing Weight & Becoming Healthier

A third argument for cutting back on meat is the health benefit associated with it. People who eat a flexitarian diet – on average – weigh less than (full time) meat-eaters. Eating a more plant-based diet also helps keep cholesterol and blood pressure in check, and heart disease (number one killer) at bay. Two reasons for this are 1) less consumption of cholesterol & fat, and 2) more fibres. As can be noted these benefits are the ones that are associated with a vegetarian diet and the benefits will thus increase if you cut out meat all together. One thing to keep in mind is the chance of anaemia, keep eating things with iron to prevent it. Another concern could be your protein intake, but many alternatives are available, ranging from beans to tofu.

My Journey – Why Flexitarian and not Vegetarian

So why not vegetarian? Convenience. At social events, company dinners or family gatherings it prevents me from going through a big hassle. I know that animals have suffered in making the food, but at the same time the food is already there and I am not the person to force my own eating habits onto others. But when it comes to my own house and food I have, that is all vegetarian. My sandwiches do not contain any meat, and when I make dinner it is all vegetarian (which has been cool, because I can experiment with all kinds of ingredients I have never eaten before).

Conclusion

Some people might argue that there is no such thing as semi-vegetarian, you are either a meat eater or not. I believe that making small steps is already an improvement over eating meat every day. Being a flexitarian is really easy and maybe something that many more people would subscribe to instead of going full-vegetarian. It is beneficial for your health, the environment and the animals. So the better proposal may be: Why not?

“If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.” – Paul McCartney

More on Flexitarianism:

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/flexitarian-diet – About the Flexitarian diet

http://www.webmd.com/diet/flexitarian-diet – More about the Flexitarian diet

http://vegetarian.about.com/od/glossary/f/flexitarian.htm – What is Flexitarian

Intrinsic Ethical Value

Currently, I am taking a Coursera (online university courses) on Practical Ethics. Next to lectures and readings the course also consists of writing assignments, this is the fourth (and last) one. In this short essay, I am arguing for the intrinsic ethical value of sentient animals. Written May 2014.

Do animal or plant species have intrinsic ethical value?

No. Only animals that possess consciousness (sentience), partly or wholly, have an ethical value. This argument is made in consideration of two schools of thought. Holmes Rolston’s “respect for life” and Peter Singer’s reaction. It is also assumed that the environmental ethics discussed take into account not only the human interest (anthropocentric) but also considers the interest of animals (biocentric) and plants (ecocentric). I will argue why there is no intrinsic ethical value in all plants and animals.

Rolston argues that value, or valuing, can be done outside of consciousness. He argues that without consciousness an animal or plant is still able to determine right from wrong. A plant that sits in a dark room with only one source of light will grow towards this light source. A chicken will always choose to stand on grass over dirt. From very conscious beings (e.g. humans) to basic organisms (e.g. non-arthropod invertebrate animals), every animal and plant values, and has value.

Singer argues that not everything has intrinsic value. He argues that consciousness includes a certain amount of awareness. Only when an animal (or plant) shows signs that it is aware of the act of valuing, then it has intrinsic ethical value itself. An elephant that mourns for its lost partner exhibits that it is valuing. A pigeon that pecks at the lever that will get him food, maybe so. But not a plant that is driven solely by mechanical drives to grow towards the light.

One might then argue that we are also driven by mechanical processes, that our genes are the driving force behind all of our decisions. Upon abstraction, this argument certainly holds and is strongly defended by Richard Dawkins (in The Selfish Gene) and alike. The argument, however, does not hold when you try and add up all mechanical processes that lie beneath all our judgments. This is where Singer argues that our consciousness makes the difference. We are aware of the processes that go on, we can judge them ‘from a distance’ and use our consciousness to ignore the mechanical needs.

To further strengthen this argument one can look at the mechanical processes from the other side. If mechanical processes are the only thing that is needed for intrinsic ethical value, then does this include heat-seeking missiles? A heat-seeking missile will fly towards the heat generated from engines from air or land targets. It is however difficult to detect value, or good for that matter, in this action. Without consciousness, there can be no value.

But what if we take a more holistic approach and look at the intrinsic ethical value of animals and plants as ecosystems. Within an ecosystem, everything from the biggest animals to the smallest bacteria play vital roles in preserving the balance (or deal with the continuous change). Preserving an ecosystem has ethical value, but not all specific species and animals are granted the same recognition. When a species is not conscious of its contribution, but only reacts to mechanical processes it will not be ‘bad’ to not preserve it. There is no harm done when a non-conscious animal or plant is removed, no pain will be felt. It is only the pain for conscious animals (e.g. humans) that has intrinsic value.

This does mean that other animals should have the same equality of consideration that we extend to human beings. A monkey that loses his home due to deforestation will experience pain. Differing in the level of consciousness, or sentience, the intrinsic ethical value of animals can be considered. This implies that humans are not the only species that have intrinsic value, but does not include plants or animals without sentience.

A final note must be made about the level of consciousness or sentience. In this argument, it can be defined as the ability to feel. This is the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences (qualia). It is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness. Through observation (or interaction) sentience can be detected in many animals.

Intrinsic ethical value lies within all animals that are sentient. Plants and animals that lack this criteria do not have an intrinsic ethical value. Animals should therefore be treated with the same moral importance as humans. And even our (non-living) environment deserves care, because of the value we humans ourselves give to it.

References & Further Reading:

1. Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, week 11; Topic 11: Environmental Values (1): Is Anything Other Than Sentient Life of Intrinsic Value?

2. Dale Jamieson, ed., Singer and His Critics (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 1999). Pages 247-268. http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hrolston/Singer.pdf

3. Carlo Enrico Lombardo, Values and Information in Rolston’s Environmental Ethics. http://www.academia.edu/3046059/Values_and_Information_in_Rolstons_Environmental_Ethics

4. Aleksander, I. (2002) Understanding information, bit by bit: Shannon’s equations. In Farmelo, G. (Ed.) It Must be Beautiful: Great Equations of Modern Science. Pp. 213–230. Granta Books, London.

5. Derr, Patrick George; Edward M. McNamara (2003). Case studies in environmental ethics. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-7425-3137-6

6. Judi Bari (1995). “Revolutionary Ecology: Biocentrism & Deep Ecology”. Alarm: A Journal of Revolutionary Ecology.

Gameful Mindset

Life is a game.

That’s the premise of the gameful mindset – seeing life as a series of challenges. Adopting a gameful mindset can change a brick wall into something you have to do a double jump to get over.

The concept comes from Jane McGonigal, senior researcher at the Institute for the Future and scientist who looks how games can improve our lives. Between her TED Talk and several books, she explains how games specifically and a gameful mindset, in general, can help your life.

Games

“If I’ve learned anything from video games, it is that when you meet enemies, it means that you’re going in the right direction.” From first-person shooters to Super Mario, when things get more difficult you know you are on the right path.

In games, you press save and continue walking towards the danger. But how does it apply to real life?

In Real Life

When we are confronted with challenges we fall outside our comfort zone. Our instinct is to go back to our comfort zone and feel safe again. But in this way, we will never progress and discover new things.

What games have taught me is that you just need to press save. Just think about the great things you have. You have a roof over your head, you have friends and family to support you. What I’m saying is that your comfort zone is really big and that you are only changing a very little aspect when confronted with a challenge. Take a moment to look at your life (press save) and take on the challenge.

Level Up

Jane McGonigal and others have actually implemented a gameful mindset into real life. Two applications, SuperBetter (available in the App Store) and Habitica (awesome website), make it possible for people to gain support, tackle challenges and improve their lives in a fun and engaging way.

What I want to leave you with it the idea that life can be like a game. You won’t always defeat the boss at the end of a level or win the race, but playing in itself is already worth it.

Futuristic Novels

Since not long ago I’ve become captivated by futuristic novels.

The three that I’ve read are The Martian by Andy Weir, Ready Player One by Ernest Cline, and I Robot by Isaac Asimov.

Visions of the Future

Each novel presents us with a different future, some more realistic than the others. What I love about them is that they present us with a mirror. Not a mirror for looking back, but a mirror for looking forward.

In The Martian, we are asked the question of how far humanity will go to save a man. In I Robot we are presented with many of the dilemma’s we will face (or are already facing) with artificial intelligence.

And at the same time, they showcase very human skills. When reading The Martian I was struck by the ingenuity of the main character and how much he wanted to live. And in Ready Player One, I couldn’t put down the book because I was rooting so badly for the underdog to win.

Broadening the Horizon

Above everything else, futuristic novels have broadened my horizon. They help me understand that there are many possible futures. And they have taught me that shaping that future is very much in our own hands.

Of course, these books are only but a few of the books available that broaden our horizon. If you have any book suggestions (futuristic or not) please leave them in the comments below.

Forever Learning

When most people graduate they stop learning. It has been fun (or not) and now that you’re an adult, why should you keep on studying?

One Career

When you get your first job it’s very likely that you will learn skills on the job. But when I’m confronted with people who’ve been in the same job for years, I feel like I could just as easily been speaking to their 20 years younger version. They’ve become compliant and lack the incentive to learn.

Not only in work do I see that people stop learning. Even in my own life I regularly take my knowledge for granted. I can swim as fast as years ago and new cooking recipes are few and far between.

Changing World

That’s a problem.

The world is changing at an exponential pace (more on this in a later post). Our computers become smarter every day, jobs get automated. Whole industries get uprooted and many people lose their jobs.

Humans need not apply.

Keep on Learning

One remedy against becoming a victim of this changing world is to have a wide base of knowledge.

This has two distinct advantages. The first is that you have a wider understanding of the world and everything in it. The second is that you learn to see how concepts between industries/jobs/interests are linked.

By continuing to learn you can make yourself more future-proof.

And it can be fun, just listen to John Green (author, vlogger, awesome):

Here are some more educational YouTube channels I like:

CrashCourse – Animated courses (on anything from Psychology to World History)

TED – Sharing ideas

CGP Grey – Animated explanations

Kurzgesagt – In a nutshell

MinutePhysics – Physics explained

Numberphile – Math quirks

Periodic Videos – Periodic Table

…see more of my subscriptions right here