Could Veganism Cause Extinctions?

For millions of years, hominids evolved as ever more efficient killer apes. This allowed entire human races or subspecies to live off meat. Such as the Homo Sapiens Sapiens variant Cro-Magnon, or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis. Meat was a hyper concentrated energy source. just ask seals, dolphins, killer whales, humpback whales, polar bears and walruses.

East Africans, tall and lean, evolved to run down exhausted preys in the mid-day sun, they became ancestral to many people today (most of all of them, according to the “Out of Africa” theory). Cro-Magnon looked like ancestral Scandinavians, tall and strong, ready to fight the fiercest lions, wolves and bears. They are ancestral to many people today. They long lived in present day France, when France was landlocked by enormous glaciers on towering mountains, all around, or the giant ice sheets form the north, and the icy seas, west and south. Then non-glaciated Europe was a land of tundra, and enormous herds of often gigantic beasts.

Hunting is our past, how we evolve, and so was war. Vegans want to change all this. They claim that the future is not to touch adversely the smallest hair or feather. Thus they suggest to not use any animal product whatsoever. Instead, one should go fully agricultural. Agri-cultural means to cultivate the ager, the field. Hence the question: Vegans say they are friendly to beasts, they want to live off fields they cultivate, but are fields friendly to beasts?   

Pure Veganism Would Lead To The Extermination Of This Species

Pure Veganism Would Lead To The Extermination Of This Species

This is the paradox: is one friendly with others, when one exclude others? (The question is not just for Brexiters) When vegans exclude all animal species, are they friendly to animals?

Nature is good and evil. Gods stand above nature (supernatural), they don’t exclude it. Could it be that, when vegan want to exclude evil, they want to exclude nature?

How so? Very simple. Contemplate the world we have. Look at the Auroch. The last auroch died in a royal preserve in Poland in the Seventeenth Century. Europeans domesticated aurochs perhaps 25,000 years ago. Through a careful mix of natural and artificial selection, over 10,000 generations, Europeans created the European domestic cattle (meanwhile Indians and Africans were doing the same with their own breeds; the African zebu was probably evolved in India first; it resists well to African diseases such as sleeping sickness, malaria…)

Or consider sheep and goats: millions live today. They are descendants of their wild ancestors.

What do vegans want to do with all those animals? Through these millions of these domesticated animals survive the ancient species which graced the Earth for tens of millions of years.

This is not an idle question. Take chicken. The rooster was made by the Romans into the symbol of Celtic lands (which they called “Gallia”, the land of chicks…) In the wild, chickens, initially from South East Asia, are basically extinct. By refusing the presence of chicken inside plates, and in the fields, vegans condemn the species to terminal extinction.

Does hard core veganism allows to ride on horses and run dogs?

Conclusion: hard core veganism would lead to the terminal extinction of the most megafauna. They claim to be friendly to the individuals, but they will kill the species.

Solution: keep on using animal species, but do it in what is, ironically enough, called a “humane” way. If a rooster has a beautiful, easy, comfortable life, and then loses by surprise its head in a laser explosion, is it so bad? Would this sudden death be worse than enjoying life prior to this impromptu, sudden, unforeseen and painless demise?

Is veganism, pushed to extreme, the psychological equivalent of a brat who declares to his mom that he will refuse to breathe, rather than to eat its vegetables? Mummy here, being nature herself?

There is an extremely powerful metapsychological objection to veganism: we have seen that story, the story of renouncing life, many times before. Periodically, a slave religion arises, and recommends to us to lay prone, refuse life, reject even self-defense, accept to live small, barely eating, afraid to bother others in all and any way. This apparently bizarre cult is only natural, and is an evolutionary selected mode of operation: that of the prey which surrenders to those red in fang and claw.

When an animal of one of these species which get preyed upon, is surrounded, and death is unavoidable, it is often seen surrendering to its fate: this is part of the co-evolution of ecological systems (something not well-known, but still a fact). Not the evolution of the fittest individual as the naive evolutionists of the 19 C had it, but the evolution of entire ecological systems, as individuals made of multitudes. Is the vegan is a beast which wants to die and disguises this as a lofty language, while dragging hundreds of large species in its hateful discourse? Hateful of what? Hateful of life itself. Life is about living, thus suffering and dying. Not that the latter activities are necessarily something to look for, just the opposite. But mitigating and escaping them, is the spice of life.

Thus it is not excluded that the rise of veganism corresponds to surrender to mighty plutocrats: instead of tearing and shredding plutocratic substance, vegans decide that broccoli is all the protein they need. ‘They are starving? Let them eat grass!’ Say these new Marie-Antoinettes of the abysmal age.

Thus we have seen that story before. Whenever great plutocrats rise, We The People tends to roll on its back, presents its belly, and waits for horror, persuading themselves that horror is all what they ever wanted. Buddhism preaches that it is better to give up on life in full, rather than indulge into giving and receiving suffering. After its creation by a Princeling (not a coincidence), Buddhism took over most of India. But the predators laid in wait. They re-took all of India.

Vegans can preach. The only way what they preach can not lead to mass extinction, is by reserving around half of the land mass to total wilderness, in all and any ecological zone. That could, even should, be done. However, refusing the essence of life, preferring non-existence to death, is another matter entirely.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “Could Veganism Cause Extinctions?”

  1. De Brunet D'Ambiallet Says:

    Vegans are metaphysicians, indeed.

  2. Duviel Says:

    Solution: still use species, but do it in what is, ironically enough, called a “humane” way. If a rooster has a beautiful, easy, comfortable life, and then loses by surprise its head in a laser explosion, is it so bad? Would this sudden death being worse than enjoying life?

    If I live a fulfilling life, raise my kids to full adulthood and then die “by surprise in a laser explosion” I would be okay with that. Better then withering away.

    I just want to make it to 70 before the laser explosion. Lol.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed Duviel, indeed. however, 70 seems still a bit young to me… The FDA could perhaps be persuaded to lift its refusal to test anti-aging treatments… Say by an older president, somebody we will certainly have reigning over the US soon…

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        “being”, instead of “be”, was a typo, BTW, so I went back and corrected it…

      • Duviel Says:

        Im 34 so maybe once I get closer to 70 I’ll want a bit more, Lol.

        certainly a quick sudden death would be my best case scenario. As long as my kids are through college.

        I’ll take 100 as long as im still in good health. Just did not want to seem greedy, Lol.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Bill Gates recently eructed that it was “egocentric” to want to prolong healthy life… And that makes me feel that he is not sincere about the mission of the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation. If he does not want to extend healthy life, does he just want to use five star hotels and travel, and power provided by said Foundation?

      • Kevin Berger Says:

        FWIW, the nurse who takes care of my impotent and not-quite-dead, but getting there, grand-parents, seems to be of the opinion that the cut-off between “still healthy”, and “it’s all downhill from here, one foot in the grave, the other on a banana peel”, is 70. This from his experience dealing in geriatric care. A bon entendeur, salut.

  3. dominique deux Says:

    Death in a slaughterhouse is unpleasant indeed. And man can make it extremely and unnecessarily unpleasant, despite regulations. Most responsible operators know it is in their interest to minimize stress; animals do not witness their “colleagues” demise, and are made unconscious before going under the knife. Botched jobs happen, like they do in prisons or hospitals, and should be avoided and prosecuted. (as an aside, despite lowbrow Islamic clerics’ insistence on being beastly, Islam does allow stunning, and all of the sheep meat shipped to Mecca from New Zealand has been stunned). There even is a stunning pistol for fish.

    However, death does not come easy in the wild either. Starving to death or being eaten more or less alive is the common lot. Among some species, this is a family affair.

    Consistent Vegans will tell you with a clear conscience that all domesticated animals, for which they have nothing but contempt, have to be erased from the surface of the Earth. A frightening mindset, so easily extended to us primates. The (toothless) Eurocrat ruling that farm animals should be raised in such a way as to “express their natural needs and instincts” (such as foraging or taking dust baths) is simply superior in ethics and logic.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      My point is that erasing the domesticated ones would be a giant megafauna extinction. So radical vegans, not only are wrong about the nature of Homo, or the nature of live, but they are exterminators, like their apparent inspiration, the vegan Adolf Hitler…

      • Kevin Berger Says:

        As you point out, radical vegans are all about nihilism, ultimately, just as deep ecologists or Rapture millennarists. Even the décroissance fellows have an unpleasant anti-humanist streak – the old saw about a puritan being someone who is deeply troubled and angry that someone, somewhere, is having fun at this very moment.

  4. Gmax Says:

    Veganism is not exactly the latest fad, but it is a bit like the gluten phobia craze, or avoiding scrupulously all milk products. It is something people do because they are slaves. It is easier to mangle and being all indignant about what they eat than fight the plutocrats who reign over them

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Those who have absolute power corrupt absolutely the minds of those they reign over, so as to reign ever more absolutely.

      • Kevin Berger Says:

        Heh, brings me back to the shibboleth(s) of the US “Conservatives”, and, to be fair, of a great chunk of the US “Progressives”, from “gun rights” to “LGBT rights”. Then again, the great drive of the last 30, 40 years+?, seems to be about dissolving society/societies into as many isolated and if possible infighting sub-elements. Fads made into “moods”, as you put it.

  5. hazxan Says:

    Hi Patrice, surprised you haven’t had some furious responses to this – the accepted wisdom seems to be that we all have to go vegan to “Save The Planet”.

    I agree with you, though – vegan agriculture would be human extinction within decades. Rather than repeat the arguments, have you ever read “The Vegetarian Myth” by Lierre Kieth? Recommended – she (like me) is an ex-vegetarian/vegan who eventually gave it up due to health reasons.

    That the vegan/vegetarian diet is healthier than meat is a myth, it is also a myth that grain and soy monocultures would save the planet. It would be the death of it. Modern urbanites have forgotten the cycle of life, that we all eat and we are all eventually, food. That plants and animals are interdependant.

    There is also an interesting correlation between agriculture and civilisation. They seem to go hand-in-hand. And as Jared DIamond suggested, agriculture is the biggest mistake the human species ever made. It’s been problems, problems, ever since. Agriculture always depletes the soil (where hunting/gathering sustains it), hence always ends in having to gather together an armed force to grab land off your neighbour. Maybe it’s something in the grains (a recent addition to our diet) that has been sending us a bit insane?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I think the furious ones know enough about my positions to be real careful, lest they get turned against themselves (like when I point out that the Nazis are obsessed more with Judaism than the Zionists themselves… Although I never censored Nazis, I notice they don’t appear anymore… Same happen, long ago with Jihadists. They use to write, 6, 7 years ago… Now what they do is block me on the greater Internet, with other methods… ;-)) Notice how low key the Brexiters have become… Now that their Jihad left them in the middle of desert, leaderless…

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: