Poison Ivy (2022) is such a good comic but the antivegan rant in the second issue comes to a wrongheaded and mininformed conclusion.
Setting aside animal rights for ten minutes, the idea behind eco veganism or climate veganism is that if you go vegan, ninety nine times out of a hundred that also happens to be the more eco-friendly and climate-friendly solution.
Bringing up one specific example where that is not the case (she talks about agave syrup) is very welcome and appreciated. And there could’ve been a million other great examples since one percent of everything is still a lot of decisions where plant based isn’t the solution. That’s not the problem I have with her rant; that’s the good part of the rant. Framing that good part in a “veganism, god that’s so stupid” is disrespectful and I didn’t appreciate that but the main problem I have with the rant is what comes next.
She says predators are great because they keep prey from overgrazing and that’s why she’s close to being a full carnivore herself. Technically true but crazy misleading since 60% of the mammalian biomass on earth is factory farmed and brought into this Earth for the express purpose of being eaten by “carnivores” such as herself. In the real eco system there’s not a lot of prey nor predator animals out there. Only 4% of the mammalian biomass on Earth are wild animals.
I’m not under the impression that the author agrees with the character on this. The character (Poison Ivy) is a power-hungry killer. But I did want to bring this up because some readers, many even, might still take away the wrong conclusion about predators and prey.
I’m grateful for comics that make me think—I’ll get to that in a second—but in a world where the balance is skewed towards way to much meat-eating, these rants are really irresponsible because a lot of o people (not everyone) might take them at face value and justify their ribs and burgers.
Now to the make thing part. I am realizing that veganism’s three pillars (ethics, planet, health) don’t make any sense. Don’t worry vegans, I’m gonna end up recommending plant eating at the end but do worry a little bit because:
This one makes the most sense of the three. You love the animals so you don’t eat the animals, what’s not to get? But I’m not fully onboard since I love plants also. I know some vegans eyeroll at this and think that it’s satire or not serious or just stupid because obviously to them fish have feelings and daisies don’t. Of course from a burning building I’d save a chimp before I saved a house plant. They’re not equally sacred in every sense of the word sacred. Just in some senses.
Now, veganism will lead to a lot less plants being killed than meat-eating since if you eat a cow that ate seven plants per burger, that’s worse for those poor plants than just eating the one plant, but then we’re still at the “99 out of 100 veganism will happen to reach the right result” land where veganism kind of coincidentally helps but isn’t the whole of the law.
The eco system is a complex web and we want it to keep going in a healthy and good way. Here is where the aforementioned “ninety nine times out of a hundred that also happens to be the more eco-friendly and climate-friendly solution” comes in. Ideally, I’d like to flip it and be eco-friendly first and if ecofriendliness leads to veganism 99 out of 100, as I believe it does, then that’s great, but trying to design permaculture and farm systems based on an idea to entirely exclude animalia sees untenable to me. We don’t need to snack on actual cows but we can have a couple of animals in there like in a worm compost (be careful about worms in the new world since they’re an invasive species there) for example.
I’m still vegan (or at least I am “on the plate”; in materials I do have some animal based but I try to do that sparingly and prefer plant fibers. I just hate plastic more) because it’s great to tie into a shorthand, a community that I’ve got one foot in one foot out of, into a label on foods and at restaurants, a framework, something that’s an existing part of society (when I started out in 1999 it was a very tiny part but it was still something real even though I didn’t know anyone at first). To me I justify that by how reciprocal the 99/100 thing is here in my estimation. Mostly, eating plants is better for the environment and vice versa.
And I really do think it’s awesome when those one percent gets questioned and maybe that can eventually move us to a world where this ecology horse is actually in front of the veganism cart for once instead of the other way around. Again, that wasn’t what I had a problem with in Poison Ivy’s monologue.
Here’s the one that makes least sense of all for two reasons:
It’s not fully known what the most healthy food for humans is. Now while the camp that says “eating plants and cooked starches is the best” is the camp that to me lays out the most compelling argument and has the most evidence and makes the most sense, it is still one camp among several competing “camps” and “schools” in nutrition science. I absolutely do not wanna promote false balance or sow doubts on good science, but I’m just saying there’s a lot of unknowns in the field. Not enough unknowns to justify the animal ag industry’s outright lies, but enough unknowns for me to try to show some uncharacteristic humility and respect for the depth of the topic.
For the planet pillar, I’ve been telling myself that the veganism is a good short hand that gets me 99% of the way there before I have to use my own actual brain every now and then, that is absolutely not true for health. Yes, if we the yay-cooked-starches camp are correct, then yes eating healthy will 99/100 mean eating plants but it’s not a reciprocal relationship this time. There are sooo many ways to eat unhealthy junk that’s technically vegan. To me, this ttinvalidates the entire ‘health’ pillar*. If I would slightly prefer it if the planet pillar was the horse before cart, here it this *vital.
I’m not saying veganism can neglect health. A foundational axiom in veganism is that we shouldn’t harm animals or planet since we don’t have to. And that “we don’t have to” part is only legitimate as long as eating plants can be healthy. It doesn’t have to be the healthiest—if eating pork for example had some slight health benefits over eating oatmeal (which I’m absolutely not saying; this is a hypothetical. Oatmeal forever), we should still stick to the oatmeal for the sake of the planet—but it needs to be healthy enough or “don’t eat meat” would’ve become as absurd as saying “don’t breathe out carbon dioxide”.
So yes, health is crucially important, but it’s not a load bearing “pillar”. If your health journey leads you to eating plants (and to ditching the meat goggles and letting you see the impact on the planet and the animals) that’s awesome but the reverse is absolutely not guaranteed.
This was all vegan philosophy 601 stuff. If you’re a scrub don’t overthink it; eat plants and be happy.