"This Is Hope" is a crossover book for self-identified environmentalists, species rights advocates, vegans and vegetarians, those dedicated to true sustainability, fish and wildlife "management" professionals, students of deep ecology, and those who want to know the biocentric solutions for our dietary, consumer, and reproductive choices.
Will’s Blog

Part 1: Critique of Michael Pollan’s book, Omnivore’s Dilemma

Species rights, environmentalism, and our human ecology are entering a new era. We are connecting the dots between the necessities of a vegan new human ecology (see www.greenvegans dot org) and problems that include human overpopulation, environmentalism, destructive economic systems, the plight of the poor, species rights, and social and economic justice. What follows are sixteen installments from “This Is Hope: Green Vegans and the New Human Ecology” / How we find our way to a humane and environmentally sane future. Each installment will be posted at www.thisishopethebook.com. Though “This Is Hope” covers many subject areas using 730 citations, these modified excerpts focus on Michael Pollan’s book, “Omnivore’s Dilemma”, and the damage it has done to our understanding of ecosystems and the food choices needed to protect them.

Part 1

iStock_000010719376XSmall

More than 70 percent of the Mississippi basin’s botanical agriculture yield, most being corn and soybeans, is grown to feed      livestock. It has destroyed 99 percent of the original prairie ecosystem. This watershed area extends from Montana to Minnesota to Ohio and Louisiana. Soil, livestock sewage, and manufactured fertilizer are transported off this land by rain, wind, and melting snow. Contaminants flow from stream to river to ocean from mile after square mile of corn and soybean fields and large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). This pollution and eroded soil are transported down the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. Along the way, this excess nitrogen fertilizer and animal waste fuels explosions of plant life.

 

Eventually, algae growth explodes and along with other organisms die in massive numbers before sinking to the sea floor in the Gulf. As this organic matter decomposes, it depletes oxygen in the water. Bottom-dwelling fish and individuals from countless other species suffocate and a dead zone is created. Little if any life escapes death. This year, the dead zone is forecast to be the size of New Jersey.

 

Simon Dinner writes in the periodical “Global Environmental Change” that the dead-zone-producing nitrogen fertilizer flowing to the Gulf of Mexico would be cut by over half if humans adopted a vegan diet. He concluded that the dead zone in the Gulf would disappear. Imagine if we could test his conclusion and watch how much the land, rivers, and the Gulf of Mexico would respond to our vegan human ecology. Certainly, the damage would be substantially reduced.

 

Earth is pockmarked with more than 400 oceanic dead zones of our doing. They affect 245,000 square kilometers and double in number every 10 years because of human activities usually related to agriculture. In 2006, a dead zone formed to cover 1,200 square miles of ocean off the coast of Oregon where 80 percent of the water column was affected. The seafloor was carpeted with dead fish and invertebrates. This is one of the few documented instances where a dead zone occurs naturally and cyclically.

 

But naturally does not take into account an important detail: Climate change is altering weather and wind patterns that strongly influence the strength and direction of oceanic currents. A change in the currents that bring oxygenated water into potential dead zones can be disastrous to marine life. Those currents also mix warm water at the surface with cold water upwelling from the depths and bring the appropriate nutrients for marine species. The distribution of temperature influences not only the amount of oxygen but also which species are present and the ratio of species to others of the entire food web.

 

This is just one way animal agriculture impacts ecosystems and the viability of our future. First, agricultural runoff creates dead zones that harm ecosystems. Second, animal agriculture’s greenhouse gasses (GHGs) add significantly (26 to 51%) to global warming. Global warming alters the wind and water currents that normally bring oxygenated water into dead zones. The same GHGs emitted from animal agriculture that warm the atmosphere melts glaciers and Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves. This melted water is fresh, not salty. The added freshwater alters the ocean’s salinity, especially near shore. Because freshwater is less dense than saltwater, it lies on top. This increased layering of ocean water, combined with changes in weather and wind patterns, may further affect major oceanic currents.

 

Since these currents distribute cooler and warmer waters around the globe, they influence weather patterns that impact the yields of food crops. This cycle of destruction started in the agricultural fields and returns there. Animal agriculture is responsible because most of the world’s plant crops are fed to farmed individuals from other species. Animal agriculture accounts for 70 percent of global agricultural land used. Livestock graze 22 to 26 percent of Earth’s ice-free surface.

 

GHG-spewing hamburger-eating carnists (the people and culture behind the eating of animals, a term coined by Melanie Joy, author of “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows” are changing oceanic currents and weather patterns a hemisphere away. They determine crop yields, grain prices, and the prevalence of hunger. With dead, climate-ravaged soil, it will do little good to own or till land that is dry, hard-baked pan. From oil to meat to cars, a growing segment of humanity is enriched while ecosystem health and biodiversity declines. More and more of us gorge ourselves in midst of insufferable poverty where at least 48 percent of humanity lives on less than two dollars per day.

 

The neo-omnivore movement is proposing a wholly unsatisfactory and unworkable response to these issues. They deny the extent to which we must change our behavior and foolishly cling to the current human ecology that idolizes meat. They deserve special consideration. Next: Michael Pollan’s book, “Omnivore’s Dilemma”.

Action Needed for Chickens Now!

 

Yellow chickensIn collaboration with other organizations, Green Vegans sent variations of the letters you see below to our Senators Maria Cantwell (a co-sponsor of the bill) and Patti Murray and Congressman Jim McDermott, all from Washington State. Other organizations will be urging their members and people opposed to the “rotten egg bill” now sitting in House and Senate committees to email and call their congressional delegations to oppose these bills.

 

The hens need all state congressional delegations to get this letter and your calls. AFTER reading the letters below, immediately contact your congressional representatives. Tell them you oppose the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments (Senate bill 820; House, H.R. 1731). Just cut and paste these letters and enter your Senators’ and Congressperson’s name and address, then “sign it”. Go to http://whoismyrepresentative.com/  for their contact information, send the email and then call the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Defeat this bill.

 

Senate Bill Letter:

 

Date: __ June 2013

 

Sen.  _____________

 

Address _______________

 

Re: S. 820: Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2013

 

Dear Senator_______________,

 

S. 820, the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2013, is a far worse bill than proposed in 2012. Though the bill amends an Act that addresses itself entirely to the quality of table eggs and concerns about maintaining public health, the S. 820 amendments take on an entirely new subject: changes in the housing of hens who produce table eggs. Though this letter does not cover all the flaws and threats of the bill, these are our major concerns. We oppose this bill in its entirety and ask you to oppose it for the following reasons.

 

First, no person, organization, or state government may improve the welfare and treatment of egg-laying hens if it differs from the inadequacies of the Act.  There is no sunset language in this bill. According to the proposed bill, no person, agency, or act of Washington State government could implement science-based improvements based on studies of animal behavior before or after 2029 when the bill comes into full implementation: Requirements within the scope of this Act with respect to minimum floor space allotments or enrichments for egg-laying hens housed in commercial egg production which are in addition to or different than those made under this Act may not be imposed by any State or local jurisdiction [Section 4(b)(c) of the bill]. S. 820 will disenfranchise your constituents from this matter—completely. We hope this issue alone, the disenfranchisement of the people of Washington State, will move you to oppose this misleading bill.

 

Second, S. 820 removed important definitions and deadlines. It currently states: “(a) The term ‘adequate environmental enrichments’ means adequate perch space, dust bathing or scratching areas, and nest space, as defined by the Secretary of Agriculture, based on the best available science, including the most recent studies available at the time that the Secretary defines the term.” The deadline schedule for the Secretary of Agriculture to define “adequate environmental enrichments” has been deleted from the 2013 version of the bill. The deleted section from 2012 read, “The Secretary shall issue regulations defining this term not later than January 1, 2017, and the final regulations shall go into effect on December 31, 2018.” The number of nesting spaces serves as an example of the need for clearly defined implementation. Research demonstrates that the lack of nesting opportunity is extremely stressful to the hen as it is one of several innate behavioral needs. Yet the Secretary is not required to specify any interior changes to cages excepting square inches per hen, itself a gross denial of the hens’ basic needs.

 

Third, the 2012 version of the bill used the word “must” consistently as the implementing mandate, as in “must provide environmental enrichment”; the 2013 bill (the “Amendments”) replaces “must” with “shall” throughout. We believe “must” was replaced with “shall” to further weaken the minimal, humane-washing changes it proposes. Going to the U.S. Federal Register Website, “Drafting Legal Documents / Principles of Clear Writing / Section 3” you will see they believe it correct to, “use ‘must’ instead of ‘shall’” because: “shall imposes an obligation to act, but may be confused with prediction of future action” while “must imposes obligation, indicates a necessity to act”. The plain English use of “must” in the 2012 bill is obvious when compared to “shall” in the 2013 bill. That change must be opposed along with the bill.

 

Fourth, cruel practices will continue under this bill: burning off the sensitive tips of beaks ensures a lifetime of pain and suffering—in addition to disabling the hens’ ability to groom their feathers and pick off lice; the wholesale slaughter of male chicks at birth, often by suffocation or grinding while alive, will continue because they do not lay eggs; female chicks will never experience the enriched experience of bonding with a mother hen; the maximum space allowed in caged confinement when the bill is fully implemented in 2029 is one square foot for the larger brown variety of hens; yet the overwhelming number of hens used in the US egg industry are the smaller white leghorn variety. They will theoretically receive a maximum of only 124 square inches per hen, or fourteen percent less than one square foot. After enduring this bill’s impacts, not a single hen will be spared from a life of deprivation before slaughter.

 

Fifth, there are no criminal penalties for violating the provisions of this bill. If the Secretary of Agriculture finds noncompliance, he submits reports to various committees. Eggs without carton labels describing how the hens were raised “shall” not be part of commerce. Eggs coming from covered sources that do not provide the “enrichment” and tiny space allocations less than those as scheduled in the Act as amended by S. 820 are prohibited from commerce. But, again, there are no provisions for penalties, confiscations, fines, or any other impediment that would stop that commerce even after a notice, if any, was given.

 

Sixth, these amendments apply to egg-laying hens, but the Act they are being appended to is about egg handling and grading to maintain public health. We do not see any specific provisions that hen cages can be inspected and reported, only the facilities where eggs are “handled”. In addition, there are no appropriations to pay for the compliance inspections, reporting, and enforcement, if any.

 

Seventh, S.802 does not include over 56 million commercial egg-laying hens who are “in production” in any given month. This is multiplied over the course of every year as the egg-laying hens are killed and replaced when productivity declines. “All layers in the United States on April 1, 2013 totaled 348 million…. The 348 million layers consisted of 292 million layers producing table or market type eggs, 53.0 million layers producing broiler-type hatching eggs, and 3.11 million layers producing egg-type hatching eggs.” (USDA, Cornell, 2013). S.802 only covers table eggs. In addition, all flocks of less than 3,000 hens are excluded from this bill. Why should any hen be denied consideration by the proponents of the ill-conceived S. 820?

 

Eighth, this bill does not protect human workers or hens from ammonia. Read more ›

Ecologically Barren Animal Welfare Reforms

We must find a way to deepen our empathy and refine our campaigns and communication approaches. As we advocate for the end of animal agriculture and the entirety of carnism, we must respond as we would if these individuals from other species were from our immediate family. Their ability to suffer as we do demands the golden rule. That is the unchangeable sun in the sky. If we lose sight of that…. then we are lost.

     That we both failed and succeeded in past species rights and environmental campaigns reflects there are numerous peer-reviewed studies that clearly demonstrate how humans variably receive and act or do not act on information. We must understand and implement this knowledge in our communications with non-vegans and non-vegan environmentalists, among others. However, we also must not make this mistake: If we limit ourselves to the limitations we find today in people who are resisting change, we will end up forever trying to tweak animal agriculture, for instance, with welfare reforms instead of abolishing it. We need to find more effective ways to achieve abolition. Fortunately, human behavioral responses to compelling circumstances are not set in stone.

     Our external environments (ecosystems) and human consciousness are changing rapidly. We are in a head-on collision course with rock-solid evidence that we need to change our human ecology—our multiple behaviors that include dietary change. Climate change, acidic oceans, and the accelerating loss of biodiversity are threats to everyone. Animal agriculture is responsible for much of it. If we are to survive, we must adapt and to adapt we must change our behaviors. Oddly, this bodes well for a veganic (vegan organic) new human ecology because resistance to change will shrivel in proportion to the external dangers we face.

     If we can’t be moved quickly by the suffering of individuals from other species, perhaps our self-interest will be the self-compassion that lifts the lives of farmed animals out of animal agriculture. We already should be planning our abolitionist campaigns in anticipation of how much a deteriorating biosphere will motivate people to be more open to our messages. This requires us to approach abolitionism from a more biocentric platform; we are part of biodiversity, one species among many that need healthy ecosystems to not just survive, but also to avoid suffering. This is different than the anthropocentric (human-centered worldview) strategies we see coming from the largest organizations pushing animal welfare reforms. They apparently believe we have the time and right to create change slowly. They are stuck in the illusion that incremental welfare reforms are the practical and easier pathways workable with today’s human inflexibility. Though understandable, there’s one thing to never forget: Inflexibility is non-adaptive in a fast changing world. It leads directly to suffering and death that includes humanity. Can you see how this fatal foolishness is an asset for our abolitionist platform? Since animal welfare reforms leave both the cruelty and ecological destruction of animal agriculture intact, they are non-adaptive to today’s ecosystems. Animal welfare reforms are an ecologically indefensible position…and not survivable. 

     Species rightists must become deeper than deep ecologists and environmentalists must become veganic new human ecology advocates who don’t pee in their pants when addressing the human overpopulation debacle. We can do better than what is being done at this stage of human/other species relationships than modernizing the animal agriculture industry. We can do better than subsidize the killing of pigs and supporting retailers who will not change their animal agriculture business model in any reader’s lifetime. I will keep posting about this issue here as I do in my book to remind everyone that our comprehensive strategy has to be a reformation of our human ecologies. There are practices and human behaviors that must stop. What I ask at this point is that no one automatically accepts that what we’ve tried in the past, and the current incremental welfare strategies adopted by national organizations today, are the only paths to the future.

The Devil’s Egg Bill… is back

Unmoved by critics who condemned what was called the “rotten egg bill” in 2012 (US Senate Bill 3239), the same nonprofit animal welfare organizations have returned with their 2013 effort, The Devil’s Egg Bill. It is weaker and more harmful to egg-laying chickens than last year’s version. The 2013 Senate Bill 820 is a misguided return to an animal welfare mistake that locks you, me and every organization and state out of improving the lives of chickens forever entombed in animal agriculture. Go here to see a side-by-side comparison of the 2012 and 2013 bills. S.820 is fairly convoluted with special rules applicable to California only because of that state’s legislation, Proposition 2, that had set cage and confinement standards for chickens and individuals from other species.

AFTER reading this posting, immediately contact your congressional representatives. Tell them you oppose the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments in all bills. Use the information below and feel free to cut and paste it into your emails to them. Call the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or go to http://whoismyrepresentative.com/

The highlights of S. 820: Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2013

As proposed and posted online 25 April 2013:

  • The 2012 version of the bill used the word “must” consistently as the implementing mandate, as in “must provide environmental enrichment”; the 2013 bill (the “Act”) replaces “must” with “shall” throughout. I’m not an attorney, but “must” and “shall” are implementing words that I fear were changed with intention to weaken the bill. Going to the U.S. Federal Register website, “Drafting Legal Documents / Principles of Clear Writing / Section 3” you will see they believe it correct to, “use ‘must’ instead of ‘shall’” because:

“shall imposes an obligation to act, but may be confused with prediction of future action”
“must imposes obligation, indicates a necessity to act”

The impacts that this (must/shall) language change will have on egg-laying hens is up to Senators and attorneys to debate, but the plain English use of “must” in the original bill appears far more robust than “shall” in the 2013 Act. That change should be opposed.

Environmental Enrichment

  • The 2013 Act: “(a) The term ‘adequate environmental enrichments’ means adequate perch space, dust bathing or scratching areas, and nest space, as defined by the Secretary of Agriculture, based on the best available science, including the most recent studies available at the time that the Secretary defines the term.” The deadline schedule for the Secretary of Agriculture to define “adequate environmental enrichments” has been deleted from the current Act. The deleted section from 2012 read, “The Secretary shall issue regulations defining this term not later than January 1, 2017, and the final regulations shall go into effect on December 31, 2018.”
  • New cages have 9 years to implement environmental enrichment; existing cages have 15 years.

Floor Space

  • Existing cages. At the end of four years and until 15 years post passage of the Act, the larger brown hens get 76 square inches to live within; white hens get 67. After 15 years, browns get 144 square inches; white hens 124.
  • New Cages. Beginning year three and until year six, browns get 90 square inches, whites get 78 square inches of floor space. Between years six and nine, the allotment is 102 for the browns, 90 for the white hens. Nine to twelve years, 116 browns, 101 whites. From year twelve to fifteen years out from passage of this Act, browns get 130, whites 113. After fifteen years, the grand prize is 144 square inches for brown hens, 124 for white hens.
  • Allotted floor space for chickens “shall” be increased incrementally over many years uses a few ways to measure progress. Remember that brown hens are larger than white hens and thus are allotted additional square inches.
  • The first measure is floor space divided by the number of birds still in a cage by certain deadlines as I described above.
  • A second measure was added. At years six and twelve, surveys are taken to see if 25% and 55% respectively of the hens are caged according to the Act. By 31 December 2029, all environmental enrichments, and the glory of 144 square inches for brown hens and 124 for white hens, is the end result of S. 802. A report is made at each of these incremental stages. HOWEVER…

 No person, organization, or state government may improve on any provision of this Act if it differs from the Act though betters the lives of hens. And, there is no sunset language in this bill that would allow individuals, organizations, or states to make improvements after 2029—in effect, forever—unless Congress passed a newer bill.

  • Box labels are defined loosely, but there appears to be no penalties (confiscations, fines, criminal charges) for mislabeling. There is only a vaguely worded prohibition in commerce.
  • Insanely cruel practices will continue under this bill: burning of the sensitive tips of beaks; the whole sale slaughter of male chicks at birth; and not a single hen will be spared from slaughter after living a life confined to at most, 144 square inches, a floor area square 12 inches to a side. Aggressive birds may get more, the cooperative, less.
  • There appears to be no companion appropriations bill to pay for overseeing compliance of S.802.
  • There appears to be no penalties for violating the provisions of this bill. If the Secretary of Agriculture in any of his reports finds noncompliance, he submits the reports to various committees, and perhaps declares that provisions are now in effect regardless of compliance (unclear to me if this moves up the timetable for reforms). Eggs without carton labels describing how the hens were raised “shall” not be part of commerce. Eggs coming from covered sources that do not provide the “enrichment” and tiny space allocations less than those as scheduled in the Act are prohibited from commerce. But, again, there are no provisions for confiscations, fines, or any other impediment that would stop that commerce even after a notice, if any, were given. I’m hoping I missed something on this point.
  • S.802 does not protect over 56 million commercial laying hens every month, and many more millions over the course of every year as the egg-laying hens are killed and replaced when productivity declines. Why? “All layers in the United States on April 1, 2013 totaled 348 million…. The 348 million layers consisted of 292 million layers producing table or market type eggs, 53.0 million layers producing broiler-type hatching eggs, and 3.11 million layers producing egg-type hatching eggs.” S.802 only covers table eggs. IN ADDITION, all flocks of less than 3,000 hens are excluded from this bill. According to the USDA, “Flocks with more than 30,000 layers account for over 80 percent of all layers.” So, the remaining, unknown number of flocks below 3,000 hens are part of this percentage, inferred somewhere below 20%, and not covered by this bill.
  • Forced molting (the deprivation of water, food, and light to increase egg production) is allowed to continue for two more years AFTER the act is passed.
  • The Act allows 25 ppm of ammonia in the air in egg-layer housing but the 2013 version allows temporary increases for unusual conditions. At 25 ppm, “Marked eye, skin, and respiratory irritation” occurs in humans. (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) at here.
  • This bill is an ecological disaster. I will post a separate blog on that aspect in the coming weeks.

Specific to California

  • Environmental enrichment. For new cages installed after the Act is enacted, enrichment commences three months after passage of the bill, an item that I would expect to affect a fraction of total cages in California; existing cages have until 1 January 2024. Last year’s bill simply stated that “All caging devices in California must provide egg-laying hens housed therein, beginning December 31, 2018, adequate environmental enrichments.” For the vast majority of California hens, this adds five years before enriched cages are required.
  • Floor Space. There are similar benchmarks and phasing in of environmental enrichment and allocations of floor space in California over time, excepting they are structured differently. The California Department of Agriculture is eventually handed back authority over the provisions of this ACT—after 15 years. California Proposition 2, driven primarily by the Humane Society of the United States, the same organization behind S.802, was decisively passed by voters there in 2008. In part, it provided that, ““Fully extending his or her limbs” means fully extending all limbs without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the case of egg-laying hens, fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens.” It is set to go into effect 1 January 2015. If this Act passes, all the work of volunteers and monies spent will be cast aside. Chickens will be denied Prop 2’s provisions for an additional nine years. A similar initiative was stopped mid-signture collection in Washington State as a sign of good will by HSUS to United Egg Producers, the entity they tried to negotiate a fair bill with, but failed in decency.

S. 802 is convoluted and complex in its proposed changes. I’ve not included all of them. Though there are deep disagreements about what strategies best serve laying hens, in this case the end result of this Act leaves intact an insanely cruel industry. For whatever relief supporters of this Act believe they are providing for these hens, most consumers will certainly think the issues about chickens in animal agriculture have been settled. For all the petition-gatherers, and the once believable reputations of mainstream “animal groups”, it is essential they take another look at this disaster of a bill. You tried to negotiate with the largest industry imaginable and lost. This bill must be defeated. Your alliances with industry, pig slaughter businesses, retail meat outlets, and celebrity chefs must stop. Their intent is to increase the slaughter and all the terrible consequences chickens and other species experience in animal agriculture in their awareness minute by minute.

We must review the vegan movement’s mission and the diversity of its messaging. Diversity can be a strength, and I believe it is still. But there are lines that have been crossed. One of them is the arrogant assumption any subset of organizations has a right to stop all future “improvements” and lessen the remaining cruelties, if not end them, by the rest of us, including state governments. We operate within a constantly changing environment that requires adaptive strategies. It’s time to refine those strategies, and stop legislating the institutionalization of the slaughter billions of chickens who need us to stop the industry, not enable its continued existence.

Do we believe consumers are too stupid, uncaring, overwhelmed, and incapable of personal change? Or do we follow the examples of other justice movements that succeeded when it seemed impossible? When we defeat this bill, we will have an enhanced responsibility to stop animal agriculture’s harm and death for all chickens and other species. What could we otherwise accomplish by 2029, when this act “shall” allow up to 144 square inches of living space for some chickens? The New Human Ecology, a vegan human ecology, is an efficient platform we will continue to promote for all chickens, individuals from other species, people, and ecosystems. Kill the bill. And then work together on a different strategy.

FOR ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND and documentation about this proposed Act, be sure to study these websites and support their work as well: United Poultry Concerns and Humane Farming Association.

Prairies, Corn, Wheat, and Soybeans

In the United States, 80 percent of the corn and 22 percent of wheat is grown for “livestock” food. Some 75 percent of the soybean crop in the U.S. goes to feed them. Corn and soybean crops occupy a combined 145.2 million acres of U.S. habitat but this varies year-to-year. More than 70 percent of the Mississippi basin’s botanical agriculture yield, most being corn and soybeans, is grown to feed livestock. This watershed area extends from Montana to Minnesota to Ohio and Louisiana. It is pockmarked by genetically modified organisms (GMOs) whose pollen spreads with the wind. Soil, livestock sewage, herbicides and pesticides, and manufactured fertilizer are transported off this land by rain, wind, and melting snow into the Gulf of Mexico where it creates a massive “dead zone”.

That is slowly becoming common knowledge. It’s more complicated than that as market conditions change and other uses for these crops come into play and produce their own byproducts that are fed to animal agriculture’s victims. And we know that livestock, including the egg and dairy food businesses at any scale, returns a small fraction of the corn’s energy and nutritional value as edible food. Still, we seem not to comprehend the extent to which ecosystems are obliterated by animal agriculture.

When we graze millions of non-native cattle and sheep who displace the original species, or feed them with fields of botanical crops that have the same effect, we cannot avoid profound outcomes for our human ecology, ecosystems, and wildlife management. Pretending we can make it work by killing wolves and coyotes, poisoning prairie dogs, and killing millions of native birds by chilling them to death with chemical sprays, the insanity of it all rolls on and on like a steamroller chasing you in a nightmare.

Some one to two percent of the Midwest prairie ecosystems remain. These two images show rough comparisons of where the original prairie ecosystems existed and now where the highest producing areas of corn and soybeans are grown instead.

 

Michael Pollan’s omnivores, “humane” organizations that partner with any form of animal agriculture and its retailers, the countless “environmental” organizations that refuse to acknowledge the issues of human overpopulation and deny we must end animal agriculture, and it must be said, good people who are stuck in vegetarianism as I was for 30 years, are responsible for needlessly destroying biodiversity and perpetuating the unfathomable suffering that remains unacknowledged by the majority of people on the planet.

But there is a grand possibility in all of this. We are the new response. As more of us use our power and switch to veganism and other environmental tenets, impacts upon ecosystems and species drops precipitously, and we do it more effectively than any mainstream environmental organization proposes. We end the harm to billions of individuals from other species, domesticated and wild, sentient and non-sentient, and the sacred ecosystems that enable all life.

Our Vegan Choices Increase the Odds of Ecosystem Recovery

We are searching for material sustainability and have not yet found it. Unwilling to distinguish between the excesses of what we think we want and deserve and our true needs, our predations upon the environment remain wildly out of control. Wildlife and ecosystem management agencies and NGOs cannot overcome the ferocious inertia of our unceasingly destructive human demands, beliefs, and practices. However, our vegan choices increase the odds of ecosystem recovery.

Ecosystems are energy-intensive, complex physical and biological behemoths. As human ecologist Garrett Hardin noted, “The basic insight of the ecolate citizen is that the world is a complex of systems so intricately interconnected that we can seldom be very confident that a proposed intervention in this system of systems will produce the consequences we want.”[Hardin, Garrett. “An Ecolate View of the Human Predicament.” From a talk later developed into his book, Filters Against Folly. 1985.] With a great deal of time and effort, we can disrupt ecosystems, and we can influence and alter them to favor us over all other species. But we do not have the ability to replicate them nor control the multitude of fluctuating biosphere variables. We are inept in managing their infinite minutiae, the environmental wealth we inherited.

Intact, healthy ecosystems have within them the abilities to harness inputs from solar energy, biochemical processes, the required physical structure, biological communities, nutrient cycles, and the results of all these factors interacting with one another. The innate abilities of Earth dwarf our efforts to control with confidence her reactions to what we have done. We live for the hope that ecosystems have enough remaining function to heal sufficiently.

Restoration can be done successfully, as long as we remember what successful means in this context. In one telling study that reviewed 240 projects to restore ecosystems, the authors found that 83 recovered by meeting 94 different criteria, 90 had partial recovery, and 67 showed no recovery at all. [Jones, H.P., Schmitz, O.J. 2009. Rapid Recovery of Damaged Ecosystems] The authors cautioned that defining recovery was an elusive goal. It does not necessarily mean a state of pre-human exploitation with all of the original species and relationships returned. Some of the restoration may only have achieved a past state of human alteration.

Optimistically, there could be more recovery coming if the studies had run long enough to find it. The authors expressed optimism: “The message of our paper is that recovery is possible and can be rapid for many ecosystems, giving much hope for humankind to transition to sustainable management of global ecosystems.” However, as their media release notes, “… if societies choose to become sustainable, ecosystems will recover …” That is the key. If we choose to become sustainable. The current human ecology is not sustainable; the new human ecology has a chance at becoming so. No chance—or a chance. (From This Is Hope: Green Vegans and the New Human Ecology)

 

CITES and Veganism

Whatever our initial reasons for stepping onto the vegetarian or vegan pathway, we grow over time into a broader and deeper understanding of the reasons to improve and expand our efforts. Veganism is a product of my past vegetarianism, for instance. Because food choices are at the center of our relationships with family, friends, individuals from other species, ecosystems—and as we eventually learn—social and economic justice for the poor, our vegetarian and vegan choices are visibly connected to other issues.

The CITES conference that opened three days ago in Bangkok, Thailand is one example. CITES stands for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The fates of many species and individuals from those species are deliberated in this forum. Here, too, is an arena for vegans to prevent suffering and needless death. This was the case when a three-person delegation returned to the International Whaling Commission meeting last year in Panama. At every meeting we stated our names and our organization, Green Vegans. Whenever we spoke, when others saw the placards at our tables, and on everything we wrote, we were there audibly and visibly repeated as “Green Vegans, Green Vegans, Green Vegans.” A first, I think.

Thanks to undercover investigations, numerous books, and the work of many people, consumers are at minimum vaguely aware of animal welfare issues and growing towards at least the idea of species rights without specifics. Science is expanding our awareness of the physical and psychological needs of individuals from other species as well as the environmental impacts caused by our food choices. Still, human behavior is not changing quickly enough to avoid more tragedies. As a result, a relatively small vanguard of professional environmentalists is trying to stem the loss of biodiversity, loss of habitat, and in some cases stop wanton cruelty (whaling and sealing, for example). As at CITES, their opponents are global economic systems that do not know the value of a life or ecosystem—something we are already familiar with in animal agriculture. They serve the minority of humanity that can afford to buy an unequal and unsustainable portion of resources while the impoverished struggle without.

What is our lesson in this? We cannot afford simply to “be vegan” and then rest. The same reasons for our becoming vegans and vegetarians also compel us to become knowledgeable environmentalists, advocates for reduced human populations, and social and economic justice. While we may not be able to cover personally all areas equally, we must act on the reason that these issues also cause grievous harm to individuals of other species and people, harm our health, and make sustainability impossible.

Increasing human populations increase the harms done to both domesticated and wild individuals from other species and their ecosystems. The decline of ecosystems and free-falling to extinction cause excruciating physical and psychological pain, misery, and bewildering homelessness during the process. These are calls for vegans to act.

As vegans, we must expand into other causes where we find the same issues that reside within the vegan belief system. Environmentalism is an easy spot to jump over the false barrier of these social movements. Instead of a slow introduction into front-line environmentalism, and to those of you who already are there, I’m asking you to jump into the deeper end of the pool now. Get your feet wet.

Here are two links related to the CITES meeting now underway. From a guest blog by Dr. Margi Prideaux at the Shiftingvalues website is a summary of the difficulties wildlife advocates face. You will also see between the lines indications that without our vegan new human ecology message in this and similar forums, they will not succeed in saving biodiversity and abundance. They will not be able to stop the harm we care so deeply about as vegans. http://www.shiftingvalues.com/cites-conference-risks-driving-a-split-in-international-efforts-on-the-conservation-of-elephants-manatees-and-polar-bears. You can then follow the conference here, http://www.cites.org/

This isn’t more work for us. These are opportunities to help effectively BECAUSE we are vegans. In doing this we improve and complete the characteristics of veganism.

Wolves Are Slaughtered By Our Human Ecology

We accept that predation in nature is real. It can be difficult to watch. However, the ongoing (and increasing) slaughter of wolves by various state and federal agencies is simply wrong. The agencies are serving hunters (5.5% of the U.S. population) and animal agriculture that grazes livestock on public land. The agencies promote the status quo human ecology, our behavior.

Hunters do not replace natural selection pressures. Ecologically and genetically, not all wolves are created equal. Aside from the tragic physical and psychological terror these agencies, ranchers, and hunters promote, the genetic composition and behavior of surviving wolf populations will be altered. Our duty is to bear witness to these acts, the photos, and news stories about the indiscriminate slaughter of wolves that seem to never end. Though it may feel futile at times, do not turn away. We must oppose however and whenever we can the archaic human ecology that turns ecosystems into cattle pastures and vast landscapes of monoculture GMO corn and soy.

A few weeks ago, I attended a public informational presentation on the state of wolves, mostly those in the northwest U.S. and Washington State in particular. There were agency speakers representing a wide variety of experience with wolf reintroduction (wolves returned to Washington without human reintroduction) and being the go-between livestock interests, hunters, and wolves. Though there were some shouts “what about hunters” from the back of the room, the audience of at least a few hundred people was docile. The speakers were not challenged. One U.S Fish and Wildlife speaker spoke to the resiliency of wolves under heavy hunting pressures and implied we didn’t have to worry—something to the effect that they just spring back. No mention of genetics, behavior, or the methods of killing. Suffering is not a consideration.

While I sensed that one of the speakers who had retired from his job was not entirely happy with grazing on public lands (just my impression, not his statements), there seemed to be little concern about what will happen both ecologically and politically (policy) in Washington when wolf numbers reach stated management goals. There was no mention of ending private ranching that usurps the ecosystems of public lands for any state. Hunters were appeased, though.

In a handout, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) included this part of their management plan guidelines: “If any ungulate population falls 25 percent below its population objective for two consecutive years, and/or if hunter harvest decreases by 25 percent below the 10-year average harvest rate for two consecutive years, WDFW may consider reducing wolf abundance in affected areas, where applicable with federal law.” There have been over 1,000 wolves killed in the U.S. in the past five months, several in Washington. I suggest you visit the blog Howling for Justice for updates https://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/.

I witnessed this process play out in Alaska decades ago. Get ready for wolf hunting seasons that look more like deer hunting every year. One thing is certain, wildlife management agencies are stuck in a human ecology that is no longer adaptive to ecosystems. In the midst of losing the war to stop biodiversity loss, we will see sincere efforts to return an unnaturally low number of wolves to ecosystems whose genetic selection is always being hunted. The minority hunter and rancher interests rule ecosystems. That will not change until we do.

The most powerful tool and comprehensive approach to reform we have is the vegan new human ecology. Those who self-identify as environmentalists must understand that this war on wolves will not be won otherwise.

Why Human Ecology?

It took time to build the title of my book, This Is Hope: Green Vegans and the New Human Ecology. I’ve long understood the connections between my meals, the suffering of nonhuman animals, and environmental impacts. And I was already aware of the field of study called human ecology. But it was during the research aspect of my writing I fully understood that my vegan human ecology alone would not accomplish enough. What was and is needed is a thoroughly reformed new human ecology. Read more ›

GreenVegans.org
Subscribe to This Is Hope

Why do vegans allow vegetarianism to define veganism?

April 22nd, 2017

Shake hands, declare independence  We must end our non-critical acceptance of vegetarianism’s[...]

The 2016 Election: Endless Green Vegan Opportunities?

November 30th, 2016

It’s difficult to imagine what the next several years will be like after this—the 2016 U.S. electi[...]

Are Vegans Vegetarians? Conclusion

September 19th, 2015

We lost the struggle for the original definition of “vegetarianism” and “vegetarian” in 1847, 168 ye[...]

Are Vegans Vegetarians? Part 4

August 17th, 2015

Food producers are harming veganism because of the way they label their products “vegetarian” an[...]

Are Vegans Vegetarians? Part 3

July 26th, 2015

Before I describe how international and U.S. organizations inappropriately reference veganism as veg[...]