Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

5

I think it's a valiant attempt with some major blind spots. He bases his argument on the premise that omnivorism is believed to be unethical (i.e. traditional PALEO is unethical) because it results in the death of animals. He then argues that if you accept that premise, you should also believe that being an herbivore is unethical because everything we eat (veggies included) results in the death of animals one way or another. One example: farming razes fields, killing cute little gophers. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-eating-meat-ethical/#axzz1r66vf5dG

I don't think being Paleo is unethical, but I do think Sisson misses some big points:

(1) If you farm your own veggies, or find small, environmentally responsible veggie farms, this could greatly reduce or even eliminate animal killing (ants totally do not count, I assume we're talking about relatively sentient beings).

(2) The premise could be inaccurate--it might not be the death of animals that is the root of ethical questioning, but rather, the sheer magnitude of the animal deaths or the mechanisms by which they die. So, for example, veggie farming might kill animals, but eating meat kills more animals. So maybe it's considered to be unethical because you aren't reducing impact when you could be, NOT because there is death per se.

What do you think?

[EDIT: I think this post has drifted into areas already covered by other posts (my bad!) we should probably close it (needs a moderator or three more votes). Look here for posts about ethics of paleo: http://paleohacks.com/questions/9826/paleo-vs-vegetarian-a-question-of-optimal-health-vs-evolved-compassion#axzz1r6SYVgbI).]

edited Apr 4 2012 at 21:12

asked Apr 4 2012 at 18:39

PaleoVenus
1,654●2●17

2

Where do organic farms get their fertiliser from? – sarah-ann Apr 4 2012 at 19:53

1

PaleoVenus, sarah-ann's question is a fair one worthy of discussion. sarah-ann, when I had a garden I didn't use fertilizer myself. I made compost from kitchen scraps and always used a generous layer of mulch. I also had a huge "butterfly" garden and many bird-friendly shrubs. I pretty much had to elbow my way through the yard-life to get to the garden but they left plenty for me and in 10 years there was no sign of decreasing fertility even without fertilizers and pesticides. I'm definitely a meat-eater but I don't know if you HAVE to have farm stock to garden. – Nance Apr 4 2012 at 20:07

Agreed, Nance, Sarah-Ann makes a good point, as I'm sure from a practical perspective, many organic farmers do rely on domesticated animal waste for fertilizer. But from a philosophical perspective (and I do think this ethical question is a philosophical one) you make a good point that it is possible to produce fertilizer without relying on 'evil' farm stock. – PaleoVenus Apr 4 2012 at 20:16

wordsdrawnigh · Accepted Answer · 2012-04-05 04:38:13Z UTC

I suggest that anyone who is interested in this topic check out the book The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith. She essentially deconstructs the arguments in support of vegetarianism from three realms: biology, politics and ethics.

In regards to ethics, the arguments in support of vegetarianism can be dismantled from numerous angles. While vegetarians are justified in their disgust and horror over factory farming, the leap to disregard all meat eating as unethical often goes unexamined. The existence of vegetarianism can in many ways be traced to our increasing alienation from the world of nature. Keith suggests that vegetarianism is often intertwined with a denial of the reality of death (not to suggest that the SAD meat-eater is not also in denial), a refusal to accept the inevitability that our survival is dependent upon the death of others (be they animal, vegetable, fungi). Vegetarians are just as presumptuous about the lack of plant sentience as most meat-eaters are about non-human animal sentience (see: The Lost Language of Plants by Stephen Harrod Buhner, which presents a fascinating explication of the biological mechanisms suggestive of plant sentience). There is no escape from some kind of killing for our survival (good luck trying to be a fruitarian/scavenger), and only a people who get there food from the grocery store could think otherwise.

Fundamentally, vegetarianism is dependent upon the unsustainable practices of agriculture. Modern veganism, in particular, is also dependent upon the globalized industrial food chain. Vegetarianism (via agriculture) literally feeds on entire ecosystems in the service of its ideals. Animals raised on pasture (provided they are not allowed to overgraze) can actually build topsoil and enhance biodiversity, whereas agriculture erodes topsoil and consists first of all in the removal of all life from the land to be cultivated.

But to accept that agriculture is unsustainable would mean that we would also have to accept that civilization is not sustainable, that the Paleolithic (by which I mean "indigenous") is not something from which we can pick and choose. It is the only sustainable and therefore the only truly ethical social/ecological arrangement that is available to humans.

gydle · Answer 2 · 2012-04-04 19:40:12Z UTC

8

Another thing that was not mentioned was the fact that most of the animals we eat - poultry, pork, cattle, goat, sheep - would not exist had we not deliberately bred them over centuries for use in human consumption. These animals are just too maladapted (read: stupid - with the possible exception of pigs) to survive in the wild. So the question becomes: was it ethical to undertake husbandry in the first place? Is the "ethical" alternative to let these species completely die out?

answered Apr 4 2012 at 19:40

gydle
4,945●3●16

ooh interesting, i haven't seen that anywhere. It's not exactly a 'free willy' situation is it?! – PaleoVenus Apr 4 2012 at 19:48

The same could be said for us as well. How many civilized (i.e. domesticated) humans could live for more than a few weeks in the wild? – FED at LiveCaveman.com Apr 5 2012 at 0:51

2

If Tom Hanks could do it, so could we ;) WILSOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!! – Nemesis Apr 5 2012 at 2:04

we can't live without the props of civilization, true, but it's us that has put them there. :) the cows aren't shoveling their own manure... – gydle Apr 5 2012 at 6:03

Jay · Answer 3 · 2012-04-04 19:17:45Z UTC

I don't think it makes sense to focus on the magnitude of animal death since it is a function primarily of the magnitude of animal life, whether domesticated or wild. Rather, the relevant metric should be (i) the quality of animal life and death and (ii) the diversity of animal life. To that end, transitioning to pasture-based animal husbandry practices should alleviate some of the ethical obstacles to eating meat, provided it doesn't result in a material increase if deforestation (which I don't think it would).

Thus, I'm all for the focus on ethics of eating meat - but not because I think eating meat is unethical - rather, just because the likely result of that focus is an increased awareness of the horrors of CAFO facilities and perhaps an increased willingness to pay a bit extra for pasture-based meat.

Anthony · Answer 4 · 2012-04-04 19:05:25Z UTC

3

Regarding your first point: As Mark mentioned, the question he was answering didn't allow consideration of nuances such as local vs. factory-raised with regards to meat eating, so it only seems fair to not allow that consideration with regards to vegetable/grain farming as well.

answered Apr 4 2012 at 19:05

Anthony
694●3●10

	Fair point, except--the nuances Mark was not allowed to consider would not eliminate the killing of animals. So they're not really on the same plane. What I'm saying is that it is possible to not kill animals when eating vegetables. It is not possible to not kill animals when eating meat. – PaleoVenus Apr 4 2012 at 19:43
	(that is, if you DON'T consider a slow death-by-grains existence to be 'killing an animal') :) – PaleoVenus Apr 4 2012 at 19:49

Joshua · Answer 5 · 2012-04-04 21:30:58Z UTC

Frankly, the only reason we are able to make this distinction between ethical and nonethical eating is because of meat. Do other omnivores in Nature question their ethics?

No?

Our only distinction between them (other omnivores) and us, is complex communication and philosophy. Many (myself included) truly believe that we evolved those traits when we discovered something more defensive (and offensive) than anything else in the animal kingdom - the ability to collaborate beyond the mentality of the pack/herd.

Those skills of collaboration (communication, religion (love it or hate it), community, technology, art) were easier to develop when we gradually discovered the benefits of having multiple, calorie-dense food sources.

In other words, meat gave us the evolutionary tools we needed to survive. It gave us another food source when long-departed ancestors were (most likely) severely affected during famine and climate change due to having considerably less varied (and calorie-sparse) food sources.

The inclusion of meat into the hominid diet made us what we are today. Therefor, meat eating is ethical - and makes the implications of not eating meat quite unethical for our continued evolution.

There are many other variables that could be discussed in regards to ethics that might cast it in an unfavorable light. Many of those were not allowed to be defended or even discussed thanks to the ridiculous limitations set on the original essay. Is eating meat sustainable for the growing world's population? I'd like to say yes, but I don't believe that. Are modern factory-husbandry and slaughtering practices ethical? Again, I really don't believe so. Is distinguishing between what animals are "ok" to eat, and which ones are verboten, ethical? No, especially as it has the potential to alienate cultures which make no such (or considerably more liberal) distinctions.

This essay was doomed from the start, as the restrictions laid forth did not even go into the intricacies of "ethical meat". That is why, in keeping with their rules, by my "boiled down" primal conclusion, meat eating is logical, and in the Natural world, logic trumps ethics.

This sleep-deprived rant was brought to you by the letter M. For Meat.

FED at LiveCaveman.com · Answer 6 · 2012-04-05 01:06:54Z UTC

I think that it is ultimately neither "ethical" or "unethical" to eat meat.

To the extent that we fancy ourselves as "ethical" beings, we at least owe it to ourselves to back that sentiment up with actions that show a concern for the well-being of creatures specifically bred, raised, and killed for our consumption.

Speaking to my original statement, however, is it "ethical" for a bacterium to fatally infect a child? Is it "ethical" for a lion to take down a gazelle? We can say, well, the lion and bacteria don't know what they are doing. So the problem is not the act itself, but the intention, or awareness of the act?

We want to conduct ourselves in accordance with our ideals, but when "pushed" or "pulled" we rationalize how we are still "good" in spite of doing something "bad".

I say this as a person who "tries" to be ethical and I do my best to buy more expensive food that was responsibly produced, harvested, raised. But, if I am broke (which has happened on more than one occassion), I will eat CAFO meat since my ultimate responsibility is to myself. Were we to live in a world of unrestricted abundance, we could also be unrestricted in our beneficence.

Can we be better stewards? Absolutely, it would ultimately benefit us as well as the animals we eat. Can we answer the question of whether or not it is "ethical" to eat meat? I suppose it depends on your ethics.

Kevin · Answer 7 · 2012-04-04 19:51:52Z UTC

1

The real question should be "What are really meant to eat?" - once there is a 100% irrefutable answer ethics are mute, oh wait, there is! Now, where's my steak :-)

answered Apr 4 2012 at 19:51

Kevin
11●1

This is somewhat self-justifying. Paleo is not 100% irrefutable unless you already believe that the the elimination of sentient life is ok. It also does not make ethics moot because you can believe paleo is 'meant to be' and yet we should make an 'ethical' choice to endure self-sacrifice in order to preserve sentient life. I think you are hitting a key issue, though, by weighing humanity's health against the value of animal life. So maybe the real question should be: does animal life have greater intrinsic value than humanity's health? – PaleoVenus Apr 4 2012 at 20:43

also, take a look at this: paleohacks.com/questions/9826/… – PaleoVenus Apr 4 2012 at 21:04

1

Self sacrifice weeds out the weaker of the species. – Warren D Apr 4 2012 at 21:15

weaker in what sense? Maybe physically weaker, but ethically stronger? :) Think Gandhi. – PaleoVenus Apr 6 2012 at 17:08

Heather · Answer 8 · 2012-04-04 22:03:45Z UTC

1

As far as I am concerned, per my spiritual practice, animals, plants, and humans are on equal footing. Nothing is better than anything else, and so we honor our bodies by eating what is designed to do, with an omnivorous diet. Now, I also believe we should do so with the least pain and harm to the ecosystem, as earth is our Mother. So my meat is pastured, and my veggies organic and local whenever possible.

Just in case you were wondering, I'm a Neo-Pagan. Certainly not all Neo-Pagans believe the way I do, but that's the path I take.

answered Apr 4 2012 at 22:03

Heather
389●1●7

I am sooooo 100% with you on that one! I don't practice any religion and wasn't raised religios either (I was raised in Northern Germany) but my entire world view and belief and value system I guess could best be defined as pagan. And I find it all so simple. The only thing complicated nowadays is human bred farm animal vs. wild prey, we humans have already messed up so much I have to make compromises and eat a species that was bred purely for food. – ulcova Apr 5 2012 at 0:25

Exactly! We have to make do with what we can with the system we have now. – Heather Apr 5 2012 at 10:02

this makes little sense to me. If nothing is better than anything else, then why do we get to kill plants for our own survival, rather than sacrificing ourselves for the plants? You can say you value all life (sentient or non-sentient) equally, but you have to admit we don't behave that way. We dominate other forms of life, though perhaps some of us do it more respectfully than others and with less impact. – PaleoVenus Apr 6 2012 at 17:13

Because that is not what plants need; they don't require human meat to survive. They have their ways of getting their nutrients as we have ours. Some plants are even carnivorous, but they entrap bugs, s they are designed to do. We are built to be omnivorous, and therefore, we should be. The attitude of human dominion over other beings, IMHO, is a big part of what is wrong with human civilization. It's one of the reasons why I cannot be Christian. Sure, some people are more respectful than others, but I would say that those who are not have forgotten to be a part of nature. – Heather Apr 7 2012 at 14:02

1

Nature is inherently cruel (and other things of course). I laugh when vegetarians freak out while watching nature videos of animals killing other animals for food. It's like they expect animals to just be cute and fuzzy, when that's far from the case. – Heather Apr 12 2012 at 20:35

show 7 more comments

Cacktus Wayfinder · Answer 9 · 2012-04-05 01:11:31Z UTC

1

I want to know. Is dying ethical?

answered Apr 5 2012 at 1:11

Cacktus Wayfinder
3,884●7●20

OddBallin · Answer 10 · 2012-04-04 22:03:08Z UTC

I'm sending in my essay to the NY Times in a few days (fine-tuning it at the moment; it's hard to condense the passion and the information into 600 words), and I avoided touching on exactly those two arguments. As someone who is very familiar with vegetarianism and veganism, those two arguments sprang to mind almost immediately when thinking out my answer. While I thought about mentioning and then trying to refute them, I chose not to because instead I wanted to focus on the individuality of ethics, health and diet. Though I did mention that many lives are lost in order to provide for most vegan diets as well, I didn't want to waste time attacking the "other side" and instead wanted to spend those precious 600 words explaining why I feel it's okay to eat meat (that I can't help but specify as humanely-raised - on the off chance that they pick my essay, I do NOT want to seem in any way supportive of CAFOs).

I do think it's a nice idea to try to harm as few creatures as we can, and if that's possible and works out well for someone then good for them; I just know it doesn't work for me, and many others, so I refuted the idea that it was unethical for me to eat it. Instead I try to respect and be thankful for each and every life that is sacrificed for my well-being, which I think is more than most vegans do (I say this not as an attack, but because they seem to be oblivious to the realities behind their food).

Rob Palmer · Answer 11 · 2012-04-05 04:49:40Z UTC

0

The whole "farming vegetables kill animals, too" argument is flawed. We should not let perfect be the enemy of good. You wouldn't tell someone to either adopt paleo 100% or not make any lifestyle changes at all, would you? We can make better choices that reduce suffering, not necessarily eliminate it and that's something noble and worth striving for.

answered Apr 5 2012 at 4:49

Rob Palmer
747●7●11

1

Except many believe that a plant based diet will result in more deaths. So the issue is not just that farming kills animals, but rather increasing veganism/vegetarianism will result in more animal harm and suffering. (see here for example: theconversation.edu.au/…) – Todd B Apr 5 2012 at 13:58

OMGeebies. Todd B., what a great resource, Sisson should have taken a cue from that article. This should not be hiding in a comment, post it as an answer! – PaleoVenus Apr 5 2012 at 21:25

Good point. That article adds a new dimension to the debate. Looks like I should shut my mouth until I know what's what. – Rob Palmer Apr 8 2012 at 23:07

George Brodie · Answer 12 · 2012-04-05 08:43:41Z UTC

0

Killing is when there is no purpose to the act. The purpose for humans slaughtering animals is to utilize the entire body for multiple purposes (or as much as possible). If we just went around stabbing animals or stepping on them for the fun of it then I see the point about ethics.

answered Apr 5 2012 at 8:43

George Brodie
2,027●1●9

hmm...I don't think you can get out of it that easily. If i kill my neighbor and use his entire body for some purpose that i think is justified, does that make it okay> Killing with a purpose is still killing, the trick is to evaluate the purpose, e.g., killing for revenge versus the death penalty. I would argue that all ways in which we end the life of a sentient being (voluntarily or not) are on a spectrum and we have to draw the line somewhere and explain why we draw it. – PaleoVenus Apr 5 2012 at 21:21

JJ · Answer 13 · 2012-06-02 13:34:32Z UTC

I believe the main issue is that: could you yourself be the one killing the animal which you will eat. I havn't searched extensively on any discussion on this but this is what is hardest for me right now. I have friends who go hunting and kill the animals. I am having trouble with imagining my own self being the person to do it. I have been a vegetarian and vegan over the last 5 years, but for health reasons I have started to turn towards paleo. I eat fish readily, but want to start red meat again.

Hack Sisson’s Response to Ethics of Meat Eating

13 Answers