Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
New York Times "Distinguished Journalism in Public Health" for Series on Distracted Driving HONORED by HSPH
Press Releases
2009 Releases
Harvard School of Public Health Honors The New York Times for "Distinguished Journalism in Public Health," Citing Series on Distracted Driving
For immediate release: Wednesday, December 2, 2009Boston, MA -- The Harvard School of Public Health’s Center for Health Communication will honor The New York Times for “distinguished journalism in public health” at a luncheon event at the Harvard Club of New York City on Friday, December 4, 2009. The Center’s newly established journalism award cites The Times’ path-breaking series “Driven to Distraction,” which drew widespread public attention to the dangers associated with driving while texting or phoning. HSPH Dean Julio Frenk will present the award to Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of The New York Times.
The December 4 luncheon also will celebrate the “21st Birthday” (i.e., legal drinking age) of the National Designated Driver Campaign to prevent drinking and driving, which was launched by HSPH’s Center for Health Communication in late 1988.
Dean Frenk commented, “The New York Times’ in-depth series on the dangers of distracted driving has catapulted a previously neglected public health issue to a position of prominence on both public and policy agendas. Research has shown that distracted driving is like drunk driving in the danger it represents, and it is the new 21st century challenge to safety on our highways. The Times’ coverage of distracted driving constitutes a compelling example of distinguished journalism in public health.”
The Times’ reporting included the disclosure of previously suppressed research documenting serious hazards associated with the use of cell phones and other electronic devices while driving. The Times’ “Driven to Distraction” series led to enactment of new state laws and promulgation of new federal policies, as well as greatly enhancing the public’s awareness of the problem.
The Times’ reporting team was led by Matt Richtel, a correspondent in San Francisco. It featured unique online features by Chief Producers Gabriel Dance and Tom Jackson, working with Producer Danielle Belopotosky, and photographs by Chang Lee and others, as edited by Picture Editor Merrill Oliver. The series was edited by Deputy Business Editor Adam Bryant and Assistant Managing Editor Glenn Kramon, in consultation with Business Editor Lawrence Ingrassia.
The HSPH Center for Health Communication’s innovative Designated Driver Campaign was created by Jay A. Winsten, HSPH Associate Dean and Frank Stanton Director of the Center, in 1988, and was conducted throughout the early 1990s in partnership with leading TV networks and Hollywood studios. The campaign successfully demonstrated how a new social concept—the “designated driver” —could be rapidly diffused through American society via mass communication, catalyzing a fundamental shift in social norms. The campaign broke new ground when TV writers agreed to depict the use of designated drivers in more than 160 prime-time episodes of programs such as Cheers, L.A. Law, and The Cosby Show. Public opinion polls found that a majority of Americans embraced the designated driver concept, contributing to a sharp decline in alcohol-related traffic fatalities.
Jay A. Winsten commented, “In celebrating the “21st Birthday” of the Designated Driver Campaign, we are cognizant of the unfinished work in traffic safety, including the growing problem of distracted driving which The New York Times almost single-handedly brought to the forefront. In launching the Center’s new award for distinguished journalism in public health, and presenting the inaugural award to The New York Times, we hope to encourage other news organizations to commit the necessary resources to tackle other pressing issues in public health.”
(Additional information on the Designated Driver campaign is available at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/chc/harvard-alcohol-project/.
(To view the “Driven to Distraction” series on NYTimes.com, go to http://www.nytimes.com/driven.)
For more information:
Robin Herman
617-432-4752
rherman@hsph.harvard.edu
The HSPH Center for Health Communication ( http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/chc) is widely recognized for its pioneering contributions to the field of mass communication and public health. In addition to the Designated Driver Campaign, the Center created initiatives to curb tobacco smoking, youth violence, alcohol abuse, and domestic violence, and sponsored a mid-career journalism fellowship. Currently, the Center is spearheading a national media campaign to recruit volunteer mentors for at-risk youth, and is planning a major initiative on global health.
###
Harvard School of Public Health is dedicated to advancing the public's health through learning, discovery, and communication. More than 400 faculty members are engaged in teaching and training the 1,000-plus student body in a broad spectrum of disciplines crucial to the health and well being of individuals and populations around the world. Programs and projects range from the molecular biology of AIDS vaccines to the epidemiology of cancer; from risk analysis to violence prevention; from maternal and children's health to quality of care measurement; from health care management to international health and human rights. For more information on the school visit: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Win and let win
Or is that 'live and let live'? Depends on who in your 'space' is winning but not cutting you in on it...as if you or I really NEED that person to 'cut us in on' her or his 'win' (or SEEMING win).
Monday, November 16, 2009
Meat and Cancer: Lecture at the Harvard School of Public Health
HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Department of Nutrition
Meat and Cancer
Rashmi Sinha, Ph.D.
Senior Investigator, Deputy Branch Chief Nutritional Epidemiology Branch Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics National Cancer Institute, NIH
Monday, November 23rd, 2009
12:30-1:20 p.m.
Harvard School of Public Health
Kresge Building, Room 502
651 Huntington Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts
Contact Colleen Bertrand for more information (617-432-1851, cbertran@hsph.harvard.edu)
Department of Nutrition
Meat and Cancer
Rashmi Sinha, Ph.D.
Senior Investigator, Deputy Branch Chief Nutritional Epidemiology Branch Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics National Cancer Institute, NIH
Monday, November 23rd, 2009
12:30-1:20 p.m.
Harvard School of Public Health
Kresge Building, Room 502
651 Huntington Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts
Contact Colleen Bertrand for more information (617-432-1851, cbertran@hsph.harvard.edu)
Meat and Cancer: Lecture at the Harvard School of Public Health
HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Department of Nutrition
Meat and Cancer
Rashmi Sinha, Ph.D.
Senior Investigator, Deputy Branch Chief Nutritional Epidemiology Branch Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics National Cancer Institute, NIH
Monday, November 23rd, 2009
12:30-1:20 p.m.
Harvard School of Public Health
Kresge Building, Room 502
651 Huntington Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts
Contact Colleen Bertrand for more information (617-432-1851, cbertran@hsph.harvard.edu)
Department of Nutrition
Meat and Cancer
Rashmi Sinha, Ph.D.
Senior Investigator, Deputy Branch Chief Nutritional Epidemiology Branch Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics National Cancer Institute, NIH
Monday, November 23rd, 2009
12:30-1:20 p.m.
Harvard School of Public Health
Kresge Building, Room 502
651 Huntington Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts
Contact Colleen Bertrand for more information (617-432-1851, cbertran@hsph.harvard.edu)
Saturday, November 14, 2009
What makes 'confidence schemes' ethically problematic for ethically sensitive persons?
Cruelty to persons around the world and throughout natural history is pretty awful.
Aesthetically, that makes ANY kind of metaphysical confidence pretty darn difficult for us mere mortals.
Even if some observable PROGRESS - moral progress, not merely technical improvements in methods and mechanisms - devices and dynamics - could be evident, the needless suffering and victimization make 'lipservice' to prior conceptualizations seem pretty unethical to sensitive folks like us.
But then, who really knows?
Aesthetically, that makes ANY kind of metaphysical confidence pretty darn difficult for us mere mortals.
Even if some observable PROGRESS - moral progress, not merely technical improvements in methods and mechanisms - devices and dynamics - could be evident, the needless suffering and victimization make 'lipservice' to prior conceptualizations seem pretty unethical to sensitive folks like us.
But then, who really knows?
What makes 'confidence schemes' ethically problematic for ethically sensitive persons?
Cruelty to persons around the world and throughout natural history is pretty awful.
Aesthetically, that makes ANY kind of metaphysical confidence pretty darn difficult for us mere mortals.
Even if some observable PROGRESS - moral progress, not merely technical improvements in methods and mechanisms - devices and dynamics - could be evident, the needless suffering and victimization make 'lipservice' to prior conceptualizations seem pretty unethical to sensitive folks like us.
But then, who really knows?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
World Public Gives China, US Low Marks on Climate Change: Hu Jin Tao, Obama Prepare to Talk Together
Go to Printer Friendly Version... 
Email to a friend...As Hu Jin Tao, Obama Prepare to Meet, World Public Gives China, US Low Marks on Climate Change
November 11, 2009
With President Barack Obama on his way to meet his Chinese counterpart in Beijing for talks on global climate change and a range of other issues, a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org shows that publics in more than half of 20 nations disapprove of the way China and the United States are dealing with global warming.(Photos: Pete Souza/White House Photo, Office of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom)
The poll asked respondents to grade China and the US on several dimensions. China gets poor marks for how it handles human rights--on average 52% say China does not respect human rights while just 36% say it does. The US does better, with 50% saying it is respectful and 38% it is not.
People around the world regard both superpowers as cooperative, but they also see both countries, especially the US, as using the threat of military force to coerce other nations. Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao are expected to focus on climate change, economic concerns, and nuclear issues related to Iran and North Korea when they meet Nov. 16 and 17. The climate change question is of particular importance in the run-up to December's conference in Copenhagen, where 192 countries will attempt to conclude a new treaty on climate change. All eyes will be on China, the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases, and the United States, which long held that distinction.
The WPO poll, conducted during April and May, finds that people in 11 nations disapprove of how [China] is "dealing with the issue of climate change." Clear majorities in six nations -- France (74%), Britain (73%), Germany (72%), the United States (69%), South Korea (69%), and Egypt (58%) -- are disapproving, along with pluralities is five other nations. Only in Pakistan (93%), Nigeria (69%), Kenya (64%), and Indonesia (55%) do majorities approve.
Likewise, majorities in six nations disapprove of the US handling of global warming--Egypt (68%), Britain (65%), France (62%), Pakistan 62%), Turkey (56%), and Germany (56%) --, as do pluralities in five. Nigeria, Kenya, South Korea, India and Indonesia are the only countries where majorities express approval.
Across the 20 nations polled, approval of China's record on climate change is somewhat lower than for the US. On average, 34% approve of China (42% disapprove) while 39% approve of the US (41% disapprove). WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 20,349 respondents in 20 nations that comprise 63 percent of the world's population. This includes most of the largest nations--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Mexico, Chile, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and South Korea. Polling was also conducted in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. Not all questions were asked to all nations. The margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between April 4 and July 9, 2009.
WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
Throughout the poll, some groups of countries consistently favored one superpower and were critical of the other. Most notably, people in most Muslim countries gave China positive ratings and the US negative ratings. Among European countries, the US tended to rate high and China low. Kenya and Nigeria hold consistently positive views of the two superpowers, and Turkey has consistently negative views of both.
China and the United States are both seen as cooperative. Asked "if you think each is or is not generally cooperative with other countries," an average of 59% responded positively with regard to the US, and 53% for China.
On a nation-by-nation basis, the US is judged cooperative by 15 nations and not cooperative by four nations. China is seen as cooperative by eleven nations and uncooperative by seven.
At the same time many nations see these big powers as using "the threat of military force to gain advantages." This is especially true of the US: all nations polled, including the US itself, sees the US this way--on average 77%.
Views of China are less sharp: on average 46% say China does the same, while 41% say it does not. Ten nations say China uses military threats, eight say it does not. Among its neighbors majorities see China as threatening in South Korea (75%), and India (54%) and views are divided in Indonesia.
An area in which people around the world judge China considerably more harshly than the United States is respect for human rights. Majorities in nine countries say China does not respect human rights -- especially France (88%), Germany (88%), South Korea (87%), the US (86%), Britain (86%), and Poland (80%). However, seven, say China does respect human rights: especially Pakistan (91%), Nigeria (77%), and Kenya (67%).The United States respects human rights in the view of 12 nations, especially. Majorities who disagreed were found in 6 nations, especially the Muslim nations of Pakistan (79%), Turkey (70%), Egypt (68%), and Iraq (60%), but also Mexico (61%).
Asked overall whether China or the US "is playing a mainly positive or negative role in the world" views are mixed. On average the split is dead even for the US, with 40% of respondents overall seeing a positive role and an identical number seeing a negative one. The overall positive response for China is higher, 44%, but still short of a majority, while 34% respond negatively.
Only in Kenya, Nigeria and South Korea do clear majorities say that both China and the US play a positive role in the world. A Majority in Turkey sees both superpowers playing negative roles.
Despite tense relations, Taiwanese views of China are not as negative one might expect. Large majorities believe China uses the threat of military force to gain advantages (70%) and does not respect human rights (76%). However slightly more than half (51%) say that China is playing a mostly positive role in the world. The same number agrees that China is mostly cooperative with other countries in the international arena.
Publics in China's special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau have very favorable views of Chinese policies. Overwhelmingly majorities agree that China is playing a mainly positive role in the world (81% Hong Kong, 81% Macau) and that China usually cooperates with other countries (85% Hong Kong, 89% Macau). Roughly two-thirds of both publics reject any notion that China uses its military power to intimidate other countries (68% Hong Kong, 69% Macau). A slight majority in Macau (51%) and a plurality in Hong Kong (45%) support China's actions in combating climate change.
The exception is on human rights. A large majority in Hong Kong (62%) say China is not respectful of human rights while views in Macau are mixed with many declining to answer.
Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.
Share article on:Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.
Facebook
Go to Printer Friendly Version... Email to a friend...
World Public Gives China, US Low Marks on Climate Change: Hu Jin Tao, Obama Prepare to Talk Together
November 11, 2009 With President Barack Obama on his way to meet his Chinese counterpart in Beijing for talks on global climate change and a range of other issues, a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org shows that publics in more than half of 20 nations disapprove of the way China and the United States are dealing with global warming.
(Photos: Pete Souza/White House Photo, Office of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom)
People around the world regard both superpowers as cooperative, but they also see both countries, especially the US, as using the threat of military force to coerce other nations.
Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao are expected to focus on climate change, economic concerns, and nuclear issues related to Iran and North Korea when they meet Nov. 16 and 17. The climate change question is of particular importance in the run-up to December's conference in Copenhagen, where 192 countries will attempt to conclude a new treaty on climate change. All eyes will be on China, the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases, and the United States, which long held that distinction.
Across the 20 nations polled, approval of China's record on climate change is somewhat lower than for the US. On average, 34% approve of China (42% disapprove) while 39% approve of the US (41% disapprove).
WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 20,349 respondents in 20 nations that comprise 63 percent of the world's population. This includes most of the largest nations--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Mexico, Chile, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and South Korea. Polling was also conducted in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. Not all questions were asked to all nations. The margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between April 4 and July 9, 2009.
WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
China and the United States are both seen as cooperative. Asked "if you think each is or is not generally cooperative with other countries," an average of 59% responded positively with regard to the US, and 53% for China.
On a nation-by-nation basis, the US is judged cooperative by 15 nations and not cooperative by four nations. China is seen as cooperative by eleven nations and uncooperative by seven.
Views of China are less sharp: on average 46% say China does the same, while 41% say it does not. Ten nations say China uses military threats, eight say it does not. Among its neighbors majorities see China as threatening in South Korea (75%), and India (54%) and views are divided in Indonesia.
An area in which people around the world judge China considerably more harshly than the United States is respect for human rights. Majorities in nine countries say China does not respect human rights -- especially France (88%), Germany (88%), South Korea (87%), the US (86%), Britain (86%), and Poland (80%). However, seven, say China does respect human rights: especially Pakistan (91%), Nigeria (77%), and Kenya (67%).
The United States respects human rights in the view of 12 nations, especially. Majorities who disagreed were found in 6 nations, especially the Muslim nations of Pakistan (79%), Turkey (70%), Egypt (68%), and Iraq (60%), but also Mexico (61%).
Asked overall whether China or the US "is playing a mainly positive or negative role in the world" views are mixed. On average the split is dead even for the US, with 40% of respondents overall seeing a positive role and an identical number seeing a negative one. The overall positive response for China is higher, 44%, but still short of a majority, while 34% respond negatively.
Only in Kenya, Nigeria and South Korea do clear majorities say that both China and the US play a positive role in the world. A Majority in Turkey sees both superpowers playing negative roles.
Despite tense relations, Taiwanese views of China are not as negative one might expect. Large majorities believe China uses the threat of military force to gain advantages (70%) and does not respect human rights (76%). However slightly more than half (51%) say that China is playing a mostly positive role in the world. The same number agrees that China is mostly cooperative with other countries in the international arena.
Publics in China's special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau have very favorable views of Chinese policies. Overwhelmingly majorities agree that China is playing a mainly positive role in the world (81% Hong Kong, 81% Macau) and that China usually cooperates with other countries (85% Hong Kong, 89% Macau). Roughly two-thirds of both publics reject any notion that China uses its military power to intimidate other countries (68% Hong Kong, 69% Macau). A slight majority in Macau (51%) and a plurality in Hong Kong (45%) support China's actions in combating climate change.
With President Barack Obama on his way to meet his Chinese counterpart in Beijing for talks on global climate change and a range of other issues, a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org shows that publics in more than half of 20 nations disapprove of the way China and the United States are dealing with global warming.(Photos: Pete Souza/White House Photo, Office of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom)
The poll asked respondents to grade China and the US on several dimensions. China gets poor marks for how it handles human rights--on average 52% say China does not respect human rights while just 36% say it does. The US does better, with 50% saying it is respectful and 38% it is not.
People around the world regard both superpowers as cooperative, but they also see both countries, especially the US, as using the threat of military force to coerce other nations. Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao are expected to focus on climate change, economic concerns, and nuclear issues related to Iran and North Korea when they meet Nov. 16 and 17. The climate change question is of particular importance in the run-up to December's conference in Copenhagen, where 192 countries will attempt to conclude a new treaty on climate change. All eyes will be on China, the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases, and the United States, which long held that distinction.
The WPO poll, conducted during April and May, finds that people in 11 nations disapprove of how [China] is "dealing with the issue of climate change." Clear majorities in six nations -- France (74%), Britain (73%), Germany (72%), the United States (69%), South Korea (69%), and Egypt (58%) -- are disapproving, along with pluralities is five other nations. Only in Pakistan (93%), Nigeria (69%), Kenya (64%), and Indonesia (55%) do majorities approve.
Likewise, majorities in six nations disapprove of the US handling of global warming--Egypt (68%), Britain (65%), France (62%), Pakistan 62%), Turkey (56%), and Germany (56%) --, as do pluralities in five. Nigeria, Kenya, South Korea, India and Indonesia are the only countries where majorities express approval.
Across the 20 nations polled, approval of China's record on climate change is somewhat lower than for the US. On average, 34% approve of China (42% disapprove) while 39% approve of the US (41% disapprove).
WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 20,349 respondents in 20 nations that comprise 63 percent of the world's population. This includes most of the largest nations--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Mexico, Chile, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and South Korea. Polling was also conducted in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. Not all questions were asked to all nations. The margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between April 4 and July 9, 2009.
WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
Throughout the poll, some groups of countries consistently favored one superpower and were critical of the other. Most notably, people in most Muslim countries gave China positive ratings and the US negative ratings. Among European countries, the US tended to rate high and China low. Kenya and Nigeria hold consistently positive views of the two superpowers, and Turkey has consistently negative views of both.
China and the United States are both seen as cooperative. Asked "if you think each is or is not generally cooperative with other countries," an average of 59% responded positively with regard to the US, and 53% for China.
On a nation-by-nation basis, the US is judged cooperative by 15 nations and not cooperative by four nations. China is seen as cooperative by eleven nations and uncooperative by seven.
At the same time many nations see these big powers as using "the threat of military force to gain advantages." This is especially true of the US: all nations polled, including the US itself, sees the US this way--on average 77%.
Views of China are less sharp: on average 46% say China does the same, while 41% say it does not. Ten nations say China uses military threats, eight say it does not. Among its neighbors majorities see China as threatening in South Korea (75%), and India (54%) and views are divided in Indonesia.
An area in which people around the world judge China considerably more harshly than the United States is respect for human rights. Majorities in nine countries say China does not respect human rights -- especially France (88%), Germany (88%), South Korea (87%), the US (86%), Britain (86%), and Poland (80%). However, seven, say China does respect human rights: especially Pakistan (91%), Nigeria (77%), and Kenya (67%).The United States respects human rights in the view of 12 nations, especially. Majorities who disagreed were found in 6 nations, especially the Muslim nations of Pakistan (79%), Turkey (70%), Egypt (68%), and Iraq (60%), but also Mexico (61%).
Asked overall whether China or the US "is playing a mainly positive or negative role in the world" views are mixed. On average the split is dead even for the US, with 40% of respondents overall seeing a positive role and an identical number seeing a negative one. The overall positive response for China is higher, 44%, but still short of a majority, while 34% respond negatively.
Only in Kenya, Nigeria and South Korea do clear majorities say that both China and the US play a positive role in the world. A Majority in Turkey sees both superpowers playing negative roles.
Despite tense relations, Taiwanese views of China are not as negative one might expect. Large majorities believe China uses the threat of military force to gain advantages (70%) and does not respect human rights (76%). However slightly more than half (51%) say that China is playing a mostly positive role in the world. The same number agrees that China is mostly cooperative with other countries in the international arena.
Publics in China's special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau have very favorable views of Chinese policies. Overwhelmingly majorities agree that China is playing a mainly positive role in the world (81% Hong Kong, 81% Macau) and that China usually cooperates with other countries (85% Hong Kong, 89% Macau). Roughly two-thirds of both publics reject any notion that China uses its military power to intimidate other countries (68% Hong Kong, 69% Macau). A slight majority in Macau (51%) and a plurality in Hong Kong (45%) support China's actions in combating climate change.
The exception is on human rights. A large majority in Hong Kong (62%) say China is not respectful of human rights while views in Macau are mixed with many declining to answer.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
David Roberts writes critically about PETA's PR: Should citizens of conscience become vegetarians?
Vegetarianism and environmentalism
On PETA’s latest campaign 256
-
Posted 11:42 PM on 16 Sep 2007
by David Roberts -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Just 'cause I love poking the hornet's nest, I thought I'd weigh in on this brouhaha about PETA, vegetarianism, and environmentalism. As I see it, there are three core questions:
1. Should citizens of conscience become vegetarians?
To me, the answer to this question is pretty obviously yes. I don't see how it can be seriously argued.
Depending on your inclinations, you can heed the health arguments, the moral arguments, or the environmental arguments (regardless whether you agree with the UN study that meat production is the No. 1 contributor to global warming, it is obviously a very large contributor, never mind CAFOs' horrid effects on land, air, and water). Taken together, these arguments strike me as dispositive. It is not possible to participate in industrial animal farming with clean hands.
Add to all this the fact that unlike giving up a car, moving closer to work, or retrofitting a home to be more energy efficient, giving up meat involves virtually no cost or inconvenience. Eating meat is entirely an aesthetic choice, based on taste and habit. Taste and habit are not convincing counterweights to the arguments against meat.
So yes, you should eat less meat; ideally you should eat none. You ought to be a vegetarian.
Two additional notes:
This is a deeply silly question. The term "environmentalist" is socially contingent and highly contested. Environmentalism has no metaphysical essence. "You aren't an environmentalist" is moral judgment masquerading as an assertion of fact.
Every discussion I've ever witnessed about who is or isn't an environmentalist, or what does or doesn't count as environmentalism -- and believe me, at this point I've seen plenty -- contains vastly more heat than light. Feelings are hurt, umbrage is taken, but nothing is ever learned, no consensus is ever reached. It's a peacock show through which everyone parades their biases and preconceptions.
What makes an environmentalist? Is it enough to care about (write about, advocate for) environmental policy, or must you also engage in activism? Must you take action to green your own life? If so, how much? Drive less, or not at all? Turn off lights, or go off grid? Eat less meat, or go vegetarian?
I don't know, or much care. There are lots and lots of things decent human beings should do. Nobody's able to do them all. We all do a little; we should all do more. Those of us on more or less the same side gain very little by furiously judging each other's personal choices in a futile attempt to define the tribal boundaries of environmentalism.
3. Is PETA's latest campaign counterproductive?
It's important when thinking about this question to disentangle your own response to the campaign from the question of its overall efficacy. I'll freely admit it bugs the crap out of me. Proclaiming who is and isn't an environmentalist bugs me. Using Al Gore as a foil bugs me. Using global warming opportunistically, as a convenient wedge, bugs me. The whole thing is irksome.
However, the campaign isn't designed to secure my moral or aesthetic approval, or yours. It's designed to spread awareness of something you and I already know: that eating meat is environmentally destructive and exacerbates global warming. A sober, fair-minded, carefully argued campaign would not achieve that goal. It would sink without a ripple.
As I've argued before (in connection to another PETA campaign), it's extremely difficult to make yourself heard over the din of pop culture and 24-hour media. There aren't many people looking around for information on the destructiveness of their most intimate habits. Virtually the only way advocacy campaigns can gain any traction is by generating some controversy. Despite what you may think, that's not all PETA does, but they do it a lot and they do it well. That's why you know who they are. That's why we're having a debate about vegetarianism and environmentalism.
As annoying as it is, I count the campaign a success, because of the hundreds of advocacy campaigns going on right now, this is the one we noticed. That's what PETA set out to achieve, and they achieved it.
1. Should citizens of conscience become vegetarians?
To me, the answer to this question is pretty obviously yes. I don't see how it can be seriously argued.
Depending on your inclinations, you can heed the health arguments, the moral arguments, or the environmental arguments (regardless whether you agree with the UN study that meat production is the No. 1 contributor to global warming, it is obviously a very large contributor, never mind CAFOs' horrid effects on land, air, and water). Taken together, these arguments strike me as dispositive. It is not possible to participate in industrial animal farming with clean hands.
Add to all this the fact that unlike giving up a car, moving closer to work, or retrofitting a home to be more energy efficient, giving up meat involves virtually no cost or inconvenience. Eating meat is entirely an aesthetic choice, based on taste and habit. Taste and habit are not convincing counterweights to the arguments against meat.
So yes, you should eat less meat; ideally you should eat none. You ought to be a vegetarian.
Two additional notes:
- Yeah, yeah, the equation is different if you eat only humanely raised animals purchased from local farmers, or if you hunt and kill your own meat. But about 0.001% of Americans do that, and there could never be enough of that kind of meat to match current consumption levels, so it's a distraction from the real argument. At least for me, the argument for vegetarianism is not categorical; it's contingent on the actual state of industrial livestock farming.
- I'm not a vegetarian, so I'm a big fat hypocrite. I eat meat -- not nearly as much as the average American, but some. I choose local and humane when I can, but lots of times it isn't an option. My personal eating habits give me considerable incentive to justify meat consumption. But I'd rather acknowledge my hypocrisy than use a bunch of bullsh*t arguments.
This is a deeply silly question. The term "environmentalist" is socially contingent and highly contested. Environmentalism has no metaphysical essence. "You aren't an environmentalist" is moral judgment masquerading as an assertion of fact.
Every discussion I've ever witnessed about who is or isn't an environmentalist, or what does or doesn't count as environmentalism -- and believe me, at this point I've seen plenty -- contains vastly more heat than light. Feelings are hurt, umbrage is taken, but nothing is ever learned, no consensus is ever reached. It's a peacock show through which everyone parades their biases and preconceptions.
What makes an environmentalist? Is it enough to care about (write about, advocate for) environmental policy, or must you also engage in activism? Must you take action to green your own life? If so, how much? Drive less, or not at all? Turn off lights, or go off grid? Eat less meat, or go vegetarian?
I don't know, or much care. There are lots and lots of things decent human beings should do. Nobody's able to do them all. We all do a little; we should all do more. Those of us on more or less the same side gain very little by furiously judging each other's personal choices in a futile attempt to define the tribal boundaries of environmentalism.
3. Is PETA's latest campaign counterproductive?
It's important when thinking about this question to disentangle your own response to the campaign from the question of its overall efficacy. I'll freely admit it bugs the crap out of me. Proclaiming who is and isn't an environmentalist bugs me. Using Al Gore as a foil bugs me. Using global warming opportunistically, as a convenient wedge, bugs me. The whole thing is irksome.
However, the campaign isn't designed to secure my moral or aesthetic approval, or yours. It's designed to spread awareness of something you and I already know: that eating meat is environmentally destructive and exacerbates global warming. A sober, fair-minded, carefully argued campaign would not achieve that goal. It would sink without a ripple.
As I've argued before (in connection to another PETA campaign), it's extremely difficult to make yourself heard over the din of pop culture and 24-hour media. There aren't many people looking around for information on the destructiveness of their most intimate habits. Virtually the only way advocacy campaigns can gain any traction is by generating some controversy. Despite what you may think, that's not all PETA does, but they do it a lot and they do it well. That's why you know who they are. That's why we're having a debate about vegetarianism and environmentalism.
As annoying as it is, I count the campaign a success, because of the hundreds of advocacy campaigns going on right now, this is the one we noticed. That's what PETA set out to achieve, and they achieved it.
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
Ask Umbra on canned and frozen foods 
Ask Umbra on sex ... chicken sex, that is 
More on No Impact Man and personal eco-behavior David Roberts writes critically about PETA's PR: Should citizens of conscience become vegetarians?
Vegetarianism and environmentalism
On PETA’s latest campaign 256
-
Posted 11:42 PM on 16 Sep 2007
by David Roberts -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Just 'cause I love poking the hornet's nest, I thought I'd weigh in on this brouhaha about PETA, vegetarianism, and environmentalism. As I see it, there are three core questions:
1. Should citizens of conscience become vegetarians?
To me, the answer to this question is pretty obviously yes. I don't see how it can be seriously argued.
Depending on your inclinations, you can heed the health arguments, the moral arguments, or the environmental arguments (regardless whether you agree with the UN study that meat production is the No. 1 contributor to global warming, it is obviously a very large contributor, never mind CAFOs' horrid effects on land, air, and water). Taken together, these arguments strike me as dispositive. It is not possible to participate in industrial animal farming with clean hands.
Add to all this the fact that unlike giving up a car, moving closer to work, or retrofitting a home to be more energy efficient, giving up meat involves virtually no cost or inconvenience. Eating meat is entirely an aesthetic choice, based on taste and habit. Taste and habit are not convincing counterweights to the arguments against meat.
So yes, you should eat less meat; ideally you should eat none. You ought to be a vegetarian.
Two additional notes:
This is a deeply silly question. The term "environmentalist" is socially contingent and highly contested. Environmentalism has no metaphysical essence. "You aren't an environmentalist" is moral judgment masquerading as an assertion of fact.
Every discussion I've ever witnessed about who is or isn't an environmentalist, or what does or doesn't count as environmentalism -- and believe me, at this point I've seen plenty -- contains vastly more heat than light. Feelings are hurt, umbrage is taken, but nothing is ever learned, no consensus is ever reached. It's a peacock show through which everyone parades their biases and preconceptions.
What makes an environmentalist? Is it enough to care about (write about, advocate for) environmental policy, or must you also engage in activism? Must you take action to green your own life? If so, how much? Drive less, or not at all? Turn off lights, or go off grid? Eat less meat, or go vegetarian?
I don't know, or much care. There are lots and lots of things decent human beings should do. Nobody's able to do them all. We all do a little; we should all do more. Those of us on more or less the same side gain very little by furiously judging each other's personal choices in a futile attempt to define the tribal boundaries of environmentalism.
3. Is PETA's latest campaign counterproductive?
It's important when thinking about this question to disentangle your own response to the campaign from the question of its overall efficacy. I'll freely admit it bugs the crap out of me. Proclaiming who is and isn't an environmentalist bugs me. Using Al Gore as a foil bugs me. Using global warming opportunistically, as a convenient wedge, bugs me. The whole thing is irksome.
However, the campaign isn't designed to secure my moral or aesthetic approval, or yours. It's designed to spread awareness of something you and I already know: that eating meat is environmentally destructive and exacerbates global warming. A sober, fair-minded, carefully argued campaign would not achieve that goal. It would sink without a ripple.
As I've argued before (in connection to another PETA campaign), it's extremely difficult to make yourself heard over the din of pop culture and 24-hour media. There aren't many people looking around for information on the destructiveness of their most intimate habits. Virtually the only way advocacy campaigns can gain any traction is by generating some controversy. Despite what you may think, that's not all PETA does, but they do it a lot and they do it well. That's why you know who they are. That's why we're having a debate about vegetarianism and environmentalism.
As annoying as it is, I count the campaign a success, because of the hundreds of advocacy campaigns going on right now, this is the one we noticed. That's what PETA set out to achieve, and they achieved it.
1. Should citizens of conscience become vegetarians?
To me, the answer to this question is pretty obviously yes. I don't see how it can be seriously argued.
Depending on your inclinations, you can heed the health arguments, the moral arguments, or the environmental arguments (regardless whether you agree with the UN study that meat production is the No. 1 contributor to global warming, it is obviously a very large contributor, never mind CAFOs' horrid effects on land, air, and water). Taken together, these arguments strike me as dispositive. It is not possible to participate in industrial animal farming with clean hands.
Add to all this the fact that unlike giving up a car, moving closer to work, or retrofitting a home to be more energy efficient, giving up meat involves virtually no cost or inconvenience. Eating meat is entirely an aesthetic choice, based on taste and habit. Taste and habit are not convincing counterweights to the arguments against meat.
So yes, you should eat less meat; ideally you should eat none. You ought to be a vegetarian.
Two additional notes:
- Yeah, yeah, the equation is different if you eat only humanely raised animals purchased from local farmers, or if you hunt and kill your own meat. But about 0.001% of Americans do that, and there could never be enough of that kind of meat to match current consumption levels, so it's a distraction from the real argument. At least for me, the argument for vegetarianism is not categorical; it's contingent on the actual state of industrial livestock farming.
- I'm not a vegetarian, so I'm a big fat hypocrite. I eat meat -- not nearly as much as the average American, but some. I choose local and humane when I can, but lots of times it isn't an option. My personal eating habits give me considerable incentive to justify meat consumption. But I'd rather acknowledge my hypocrisy than use a bunch of bullsh*t arguments.
This is a deeply silly question. The term "environmentalist" is socially contingent and highly contested. Environmentalism has no metaphysical essence. "You aren't an environmentalist" is moral judgment masquerading as an assertion of fact.
Every discussion I've ever witnessed about who is or isn't an environmentalist, or what does or doesn't count as environmentalism -- and believe me, at this point I've seen plenty -- contains vastly more heat than light. Feelings are hurt, umbrage is taken, but nothing is ever learned, no consensus is ever reached. It's a peacock show through which everyone parades their biases and preconceptions.
What makes an environmentalist? Is it enough to care about (write about, advocate for) environmental policy, or must you also engage in activism? Must you take action to green your own life? If so, how much? Drive less, or not at all? Turn off lights, or go off grid? Eat less meat, or go vegetarian?
I don't know, or much care. There are lots and lots of things decent human beings should do. Nobody's able to do them all. We all do a little; we should all do more. Those of us on more or less the same side gain very little by furiously judging each other's personal choices in a futile attempt to define the tribal boundaries of environmentalism.
3. Is PETA's latest campaign counterproductive?
It's important when thinking about this question to disentangle your own response to the campaign from the question of its overall efficacy. I'll freely admit it bugs the crap out of me. Proclaiming who is and isn't an environmentalist bugs me. Using Al Gore as a foil bugs me. Using global warming opportunistically, as a convenient wedge, bugs me. The whole thing is irksome.
However, the campaign isn't designed to secure my moral or aesthetic approval, or yours. It's designed to spread awareness of something you and I already know: that eating meat is environmentally destructive and exacerbates global warming. A sober, fair-minded, carefully argued campaign would not achieve that goal. It would sink without a ripple.
As I've argued before (in connection to another PETA campaign), it's extremely difficult to make yourself heard over the din of pop culture and 24-hour media. There aren't many people looking around for information on the destructiveness of their most intimate habits. Virtually the only way advocacy campaigns can gain any traction is by generating some controversy. Despite what you may think, that's not all PETA does, but they do it a lot and they do it well. That's why you know who they are. That's why we're having a debate about vegetarianism and environmentalism.
As annoying as it is, I count the campaign a success, because of the hundreds of advocacy campaigns going on right now, this is the one we noticed. That's what PETA set out to achieve, and they achieved it.
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Cheap Eats in the Area: Peace o’ Pie
Cheap Eats in the Area: Peace o’ Pie
Peace o’ Pie As we step into the tiny storefront home of Peace o’ Pie pizzeria in Allston, we are enveloped by the aromas of cheesy, tomatoey goodness. Gorgeous, bubbly-crusted pizzas occupy diners at nearly every shiny table. Walls in avocado green frame the scene. Behind the bamboo counter, a young chef scoops tantalizing pies from the oven. In short, everything about the place looks and smells like a regular, trendy pizzeria, but the ingredient list is far from standard. Peace o’ Pie is scrupulously vegan.
Read the full Globe review (Denise Taylor, Globe Staff)
Pictured, Vegan pizza at Peace o' Pie.
487 Cambridge St., Allston. 617-787-9884. www.peaceopie.com All major credit cards accepted. Entrance accessible; no restroom.
Get more information about Peace o’ Pie
Pictured, Vegan pizza at Peace o' Pie.
487 Cambridge St., Allston. 617-787-9884. www.peaceopie.com All major credit cards accepted. Entrance accessible; no restroom.
Get more information about Peace o’ Pie
Cheap Eats in the Area: Peace o’ Pie
Cheap Eats in the Area: Peace o’ Pie
Peace o’ Pie As we step into the tiny storefront home of Peace o’ Pie pizzeria in Allston, we are enveloped by the aromas of cheesy, tomatoey goodness. Gorgeous, bubbly-crusted pizzas occupy diners at nearly every shiny table. Walls in avocado green frame the scene. Behind the bamboo counter, a young chef scoops tantalizing pies from the oven. In short, everything about the place looks and smells like a regular, trendy pizzeria, but the ingredient list is far from standard. Peace o’ Pie is scrupulously vegan.
Read the full Globe review (Denise Taylor, Globe Staff)
Pictured, Vegan pizza at Peace o' Pie.
487 Cambridge St., Allston. 617-787-9884. www.peaceopie.com All major credit cards accepted. Entrance accessible; no restroom.
Get more information about Peace o’ Pie
Pictured, Vegan pizza at Peace o' Pie.
487 Cambridge St., Allston. 617-787-9884. www.peaceopie.com All major credit cards accepted. Entrance accessible; no restroom.
Get more information about Peace o’ Pie
Sunday, November 08, 2009
The meaning of agnosticism
"I think we're really just guessing!"
"When you don't know, you don't know." - Maynard S. Clark
Saturday, November 07, 2009
How many dumb animals died for THAT fur coat?
But how about cruelty-free nonleather animal-free product lines?
Remember (a) Aaron Feuerstein's Malden Mills, that made PolarFleece out of recycled plastics (including soda bottles and used water and milk jugs) AND (b) the fake furs with which he had made his millions before, from millions and millions of "tiny little polyesters" (which is the rejoined vegan animal rights activist Sylvia Vitale used to give when another ARA chided her for wearing a fake fur to an animal rights protest).
Q: And how many dumb animals died for THAT fur coat?A: Millions and millions of "tiny little polyesters"
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Great Molasses Flood
Boston's Modern Must-Sees 
Site of the Great Molasses Flood
On January 15, 1919, a gigantic tank filled with 2.3 million gallons of molasses burst, sending a crushing, 30-foot, 14,000-ton wave along the waterfront near the North End. The accident killed 21 people and injured 150 more. Today, a plaque commerates those who died; some say that on a hot, humid day you can still smell the molasses. (Globe file photo)
Location: Lagone Park in the North End, Boston
Public Transportation: North Station (Green or Orange Line) - www.MBTA.com
Cost and Hours: Free, open 24 hours/day
Site of the Great Molasses Flood
On January 15, 1919, a gigantic tank filled with 2.3 million gallons of molasses burst, sending a crushing, 30-foot, 14,000-ton wave along the waterfront near the North End. The accident killed 21 people and injured 150 more. Today, a plaque commerates those who died; some say that on a hot, humid day you can still smell the molasses. (Globe file photo)
Location: Lagone Park in the North End, Boston
Public Transportation: North Station (Green or Orange Line) - www.MBTA.com
Cost and Hours: Free, open 24 hours/day
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Hoffmanism
Hoffmanism is a philosophy propounded by Christian vegetarian minister, Rev. Frank L. Hoffman of Athens, New York.
Hoffmanism teaches 3 points:
The 4th point of Hoffmanism seems to be, according to his followers’ interpretations, that it matters not whether we know anything, think anything, or do anything of significant personal or historical effort because God doesn’t really care what we do.
While this sounds at some points like hyper-Calvinism, Hoffman was ordained a Methodist minister, through reared Jewish.
Frank Hoffman’s Venues
After seminary, Frank Hoffman served without compensation in the Federal Church of Athens NY for about a decade. Early in the 20th century, he started a web-site-based e-mail list called variously Veg-Christian or VC or VCList at http://www.All-Creaturers.org
Based upon his web traffic, one might be tempted to think that he boasts millions of followers (millions of unique site visitors, and the number of daily visitors seems to be increasing progressively. With a US population of about 306 million, he could claim several percent of the entire US population with his minimalist ‘Christian vegetarian theology’.
Criticisms of Claims about Hoffmanism
(1) Critics of these presumptive claims of millions of Hoffmanites could easily point to the many pro-animal, animal rights, and vegan websites sub-hosted at www.All-Creatures.org. However, Frank Hoffman himself does no claim any followers at all, no members, no explicit doctrine(s), and no behavioral requirements (including intellectual expectations).
(2) Other critics note that assumptions of ‘site visitors’ and occasional e-mail posters (that they’re on the right page (with the minimalist teachings) bears no resemblance to any kind of historical understanding called Christianity by any stable regularly-gathering faith community claiming to be Christian. However, network associations with minimalist ‘consensus statements’ could, while not claiming to be ‘a church’ (as Hoffman at times claims – ‘an online church’, have some value.
(3) Further criticism is that some of Hoffman’s followers are merely emotionally needy vegetarians, but messages of love have long attracted folks with a particular spiritual need to be reassured that a culture of noninjury is socially, historically, and morally desirable. Further, ad hominem criticisms do not address the legitimacy of a teaching.
What might emerge from Hoffman’s influence is very unclear.
The three points of Hoffmanism
Hoffmanism teaches 3 points:
1.
1 - God loves all persons unconditionally.
1 - God loves all persons unconditionally.
2. 2 - We should realize this unconditional love and love every other person unconditionally.
3. 3 - All persons should be vegan (that is, to neither eat animal products, nor consume, wear, or endorse the production of anything that involves the suffering or involuntary use of another person, particularly nonhumans, who cannot voice their unwillingness to participate in uses that compromise their freedom and/or well-being).
The 4th point of Hoffmanism seems to be, according to his followers’ interpretations, that it matters not whether we know anything, think anything, or do anything of significant personal or historical effort because God doesn’t really care what we do.
While this sounds at some points like hyper-Calvinism, Hoffman was ordained a Methodist minister, through reared Jewish.
Frank Hoffman’s Venues
After seminary, Frank Hoffman served without compensation in the Federal Church of Athens NY for about a decade. Early in the 20th century, he started a web-site-based e-mail list called variously Veg-Christian or VC or VCList at http://www.All-Creaturers.org
Based upon his web traffic, one might be tempted to think that he boasts millions of followers (millions of unique site visitors, and the number of daily visitors seems to be increasing progressively. With a US population of about 306 million, he could claim several percent of the entire US population with his minimalist ‘Christian vegetarian theology’.
Criticisms of Claims about Hoffmanism
(1) Critics of these presumptive claims of millions of Hoffmanites could easily point to the many pro-animal, animal rights, and vegan websites sub-hosted at www.All-Creatures.org. However, Frank Hoffman himself does no claim any followers at all, no members, no explicit doctrine(s), and no behavioral requirements (including intellectual expectations).
(2) Other critics note that assumptions of ‘site visitors’ and occasional e-mail posters (that they’re on the right page (with the minimalist teachings) bears no resemblance to any kind of historical understanding called Christianity by any stable regularly-gathering faith community claiming to be Christian. However, network associations with minimalist ‘consensus statements’ could, while not claiming to be ‘a church’ (as Hoffman at times claims – ‘an online church’, have some value.
(3) Further criticism is that some of Hoffman’s followers are merely emotionally needy vegetarians, but messages of love have long attracted folks with a particular spiritual need to be reassured that a culture of noninjury is socially, historically, and morally desirable. Further, ad hominem criticisms do not address the legitimacy of a teaching.
What might emerge from Hoffman’s influence is very unclear.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Google search/feed for 'vegan' for October 26, 2009
Google search/feed for 'vegan' for October 26, 2009
veg*an
Vegan Children's Book Signing & Ice Cream SocialSan Francisco Chronicle - 4 hours ago Join Café Gratitude for a vegan ice-cream social and booksigning with Ruby Roth, author & illustrator of "That's Why We Don't Eat Animals: A Book About ... Crunching the numbers on a vegan in a Hummer“A vegan in a Hummer has a lighter carbon footprint than a beef eater in a Prius.” Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin of the University of Chicago published a ... Hunter College Students Demand More Vegan OptionsPETA (press release) - 5 hours ago New York -- If you are a university student these days, it's easy to find top-notch vegetarian and vegan foods--unless you attend Hunter College. Ellen DeGeneres Teaches Audience How To Cook Vegan MealEcorazzi - 10 hours ago If you've ever wanted to know why we gave the coveted Vegan Celebrity of 2009 first place prize to Ellen Degeneres, just watch this video. Using cancer to push a vegan diet wrongheadedBemidji Pioneer - Oct 25, 2009 No one in his right mind would deny the importance of cancer prevention, but Krista Haynes' cynical use of Breast Cancer Awareness Month to promote ... The Green Picture: Madonna Plants A Tree At New Academy For Girls In MalawiEcorazzi - 4 hours ago Tracy Warner: Well, it's pretty easy to become vegan overnight if you have a sweet vegan chef like this guy. ... beforewisdom: Women are human beings => are ... PETA speaker pushes vegan dietPETA official Bruce Friedrich speaks about the benefits of a vegan diet at the Florida Gym Saturday. The emaciated, crippled steer was teeming with ... Vaute Couture's Vegan Winter CoatsVaute Couture, a small fashion house in Chicago, is an "activist fashion label" known for their vegan coats. Enter to Win Two Popular Guide and Cookbooks, Go Dairy Free and My Sweet VeganGo Dairy Free - 1 hour ago While My Sweet Vegan provides all of the sweets you will need to create smiles throughout the season: Soy-Free Coconut Fudge, Pumpkin Pecan Pie, ... Galaxy Nutritional Foods Launches New Soy-Free, Vegan "Cheese" BlockGo Dairy Free - Oct 25, 2009 Until recently, Galaxy Nutritional Foods was the only option with their Vegan Rice "Cheese" Slices (keep an eye out for Daiya Foods, as they may soon give ... New South Park Episode To Take On Japanese Whalers, Dolphin HuntEcorazzi - 2 hours ago Tracy Warner: Well, it's pretty easy to become vegan overnight if you have a sweet vegan chef like this guy. ... beforewisdom: Women are human beings => are ... Jamie Lee Curtis Is A Flower Child For AIDS Charity Halloween EventEcorazzi - 5 hours ago Tracy Warner: Well, it's pretty easy to become vegan overnight if you have a sweet vegan chef like this guy. ... beforewisdom: Women are human beings => are ... Woody Harrelson supports World GO VEGAN Week from October 25 to 31Examiner.com - Oct 25, 2009 "We encourage people to use this week to educate their community about the vegan lifestyle as a compassionate, sustainable, and healthy way of eating and ... Most choose vegetarian diet for their beliefsA: There are four main classes of vegetarians: vegan, lacto-ovo, ovo and lacto. - Vegans consume strictly plant sources of nutrients. Can Your Diet Make You Happy? AlterNet Pictures: Village Of Sleepy Hollow Pumpkin BlazeEcorazzi - 9 hours ago Tracy Warner: Well, it's pretty easy to become vegan overnight if you have a sweet vegan chef like this guy. ... beforewisdom: Women are human beings => are ... Vegan recipe for the day: Chile-hot bright green soybeans with garlicLos Angeles Times - Oct 23, 2009 But it was such a popular dish that we asked Times test kitchen manager Noelle Carter to hand down a special dispensation in honor of Vegan Month of Food. Veganism myths bustedWKOW-TV.com - 10 hours ago MADISON (WKOW) -- October 25-31 is World Go Vegan week, a time where vegans hope to share and educate about their reasons for avoiding all animal products. Propagandhi hits the road with Supporting CasteCalgary Herald - 6 hours ago For 12 years, Hannah has been a promoter of the vegan lifestyle, which he and his entire Winnipeg-based entourage have adopted -- not so much as a ... Chipotle: Hot or Not?Motley Fool - 3 hours ago Restaurateur opens first all-vegan eatery in downtown BellinghamThe owner, 31-year-old Justin Bilancieri, touts it as the only vegan restaurant in Bellingham. "I had been wanting to do this for a while," Bilancieri said. More results for veg*an » |
Email this story
Sunday, October 25, 2009
The 30% Solution
I would like to be an abolitionist also, and I think I have some pretty good reasons for wanting to do so, to think that way, to consider myself an abolitionist.
Moral status is for many ethicists independent of the claimant’s social position in the ‘hierarchy’ (phylogenic scale, in this case) or their role in socially constructing ethical theory. In other words, moral status is not a private social product; it’s public to the extent that it is widely accorded the belief that it’s morally true (in some meaningful sense).
In other words, to claim that nonhumans ought not to be brutalized is somehow believed to be a morally true statement, and the place and status of the ‘ought’ will be thought to be correct. Is ‘ought’ indicative of a duty that is ‘owed’ to the claimants (in this case, those for whom the claim is made)? Yes.
To claims that animals ought NOT to be brutalized is further qualified by ‘in science’ or ‘in the name of science’.
There are at times qualifiers which modify the ‘ought’ (as in ‘just war’ theories), and I do NOT believe that science qualifies as a ‘just war’ modification of our obligation to not harm vulnerable sentient beings. Lab animals are not individually out to harm us deliberately; if rodents were to consume our grain or other crops, we with capacity to construct our social relations with the ecological ‘others’ could be expected to do so in order to protect OUR interests without negating ours.
We have many moral illustrations of the long history of attempting to benignly address the needs of others without harming ourselves – some more gracious, some more loving, some more brilliant than others. Consider one which many of us know: the Hebrew proscription (as in the narrative about Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz) to leave the corners of the field ungleaned so that the poor scavengers could find enough to get by with some reasonable effort. They didn’t have a free food pantry as such, but they were given (by conscious forethought) enough to take by a modest amount of effort on their parts – and it was 100% plant-based food, too, unlike many of the free food pantries you and are asked to support, which conflicts with many of OUR deeply-held moral values about not trading off the interests of some – the animals – in order to address the interests of others – the class of persons benefitting from our exploitation and abuse and murder).
But this illustration shows how those without ready access to meeting their needs are seen as morally significant persons with interests that we ought to consider. Short of socializing all effort and recruiting these persons (perhaps they were antisocial or uncooperative, but the narrative doesn’t paint them that way, nor even suggest as much), the social ‘solution’ seems to have been widely affirmed – at least b y those who subscribed to the moral teachings of ‘leaving the corners of the fields’ (of grain) for the outsiders to glean after the ‘main’ gleaning had been finished.
Was this a potential ‘waste’ of edible grain? Perhaps. Is there a risk of inefficiency? Perhaps. But the system was widely known.
In thinking about nonhumans in the context of our (socially constructed) ‘duties’ to care for our fellow human beings AND to provide extra for them (as a safety net when they are injured or get ill, whether because they have been personally careless or inept, or because they were vulnerable to the malice of others), one claim (the appeal to do science on behalf of future victims and potential victims) runs afoul of the prior moral claims of nonhumans to not be harmed by direct intentions, by direct interventions.
Given that there are these claims to provide a medical safety net, even those who favor those socially-constructed claims can understand that killing or harming unwilling animals because of their vulnerability is morally objectionable. In other words, it can REASONABLY be considered objectionable based on the physical characteristics of these sentient nonhumans.
Given the ‘moral difficulty’ of solving these problem, compromise solutions are often presented, as the ‘public option’ is offered in the USA as a compromise between single-payer and what single-payer’s opponents call ‘market-driven’ solutions. SP friends are unhappy with the compromise; free-market advocates are unhappy; whether the compromise works for the greater benefit and satisfaction of the vast majority is not yet known (and can only be reasonably predicted).
In the vegetarian (and vegan) world, we have the 10% solution, which is offered to meateaters to consider life with meatless meals. One meatless day per week would be about 1/7 (or 14.2857%), which they TERM ‘the 10% solution) in that (THEORETICALLY) it could free about 10% of agricultural land (and presumably return it to a ‘wild’ state (though it’s likely to be exploited by real estate developers). The term 10% is widely-known in monotheistic religious contexts when talking about ‘tithing’ (giving 10% ‘off the top’).
But I’ve long suggested the 30% solution as follows:
The overwhelming proportion of researchers in the life sciences (whether they use animals or not) are researchers only, not fund raisers. They depend upon funding (for laboratories, salaries, supplies, and animals). They seek funding from corporations, government grants, private foundations, individual benefactors, and some other sources. Grant money typically has an overhead percentage that goes to the hosting institution(s).
I propose that a ‘first 30%’ be given to fund aggressive research INTO nonanimal research methods – methodological research into developing and validating nonanimal research methods.
This suggestion itself is likely to make me (in the aggregate) far MORE enemies in the vegan world than I’ve already made in my 30-35 years of veganism, but let it be discussed.
It’s not abolitionism; it’s likely to be termed ‘welfarism!
However, short of addressing the CLAIM that is widely-accepted that some things NEED to be researched and understood and that, to date, nonanimal research methods (for doing WHAT WE THINK WE NEED TO DO/RESEARCH) are not yet available with a confidence level sufficient to warrant their use instead of animal methods (not in conjunction with animal research methods), we have no quick response EXCEPT the moral argument that animals are not ours to eat, wear OR EXPERIMENT UPON.
(I accept fully that NO person is ours to eat, wear, or experiment upon, and I wish folks like Bill Maher and the ‘social deconstructionists’ we accept into our camp would understand that some interpersonal social behaviors that are widely accepted by the morally casual’ either are or lend themselves more to experimenting upon sentient beings (and as such, should be frowned upon and denounced. But I digress.)
But let’s do a little analysis here of my suggested “30% solution” that would fund the development and validation of nonanimal research methods in the same way that tobacco taxes and penalties on tobacco companies fund aggressive health education about the risks and harmful effects of tobacco use. In a libertarian political context (and more and more dietary vegans are TERMING themselves libertarians; I’ll see HUNDREDS of such ‘libertarian vegans’ at the upcoming Boston Vegetarian Food Festival), what else can we do? Yes, it’s a political and moral compromise, and we’re not coming back to the animals OR ‘the district’ with the solutions we had wanted. But in the same spirit that we send elected representatives to our democratic legislative bodies and expect them to bring SOMETHING back that is better than no representation at all, is the 30% solution a totally contemptible half-way ‘solution ‘ in light of the historical hope that we WILL – with the intelligence, ingenuity, collaboration, funding, and moral will to do so – be able to develop somehow the social consensus that replacing animal models in ALL basic science (as in toxicology and other research, including military wound research) is both desirable AND feasible, and we offer a provisional means to help our societies get to that point of total abolition of animal research?
Here’s the current downside of NOT replacing animal models:
Not only are animals sacrificed in research facilities, but the credibility of the moral claim that NO animals are ours to eat, wear OR EXPERIMENT UPON is diminished BECAUSE we’ve already consented to let them be experimented upon BECAUSE of the moral gravity of the moral claim that our fellow humans need a medical ‘safety net’ that is perpetually improved.
Yes, we are being asked to trade off our abolitionism for two things: (a) funding (finite) and (b) widespread public support for the belief – consensus – that research on animals is something that is morally objectionable, needs to be replaced, and MUST be replaced within the foreseeable future. The ‘win’ here is that we work for the public agreement on the 3 Rs agenda, which they don’t FORMALLY approve or support AT THIS TIME.
This suggestion MAY be all wrong, but I’d like to see us incubate a discussion.
I further suggest that CLAIMS by researchers to love their animals because we can see that they love their dog(s) and/or cat(s) cannot be trusted BECAUSE they are not signing on to the replacement agenda in the 3Rs: reduce, refine, and replace.
For nearly 3 decades of street outreach, particularly at Harvard, when I see that I can make NO headway with researchers (some really DO want to see some possible consensus, perhaps because they tend to like me – as a bright person, accepted collegially), I suggest that the ACID TEST of whether or not they ARE talking in good faith is their public and wholehearted acceptance of the 3 Rs standard and THEIR willingness to fund and support replacement research. Short of that WHOLEHEARTED acceptance of the 3 Rs to the point of sharing funding, I call their ‘moral pleas’ (of innocence and good will in a morally difficult context) ‘mere huff’ (and something to be publicly protested).
Of course, if NO experiments on nonhumans have ANY applicability to human beings [http://www.safermedicines.org/faqs/faq16.shtml], then the 3Rs is moot and we should reject all medical experiments on animals (for human interventions) as unscientific . However, the 3 Rs seems to suggest that (a) some experiments on nonhumans are less than optimal and should be replaced; (b) some experiments on nonhumans are less than optimal and should be refined, and (c) some experiments on animals are morally objectionable but AT THIS TIME are scientifically necessary to get WHAT WE THINK we need to know (and we may find that there are other ways to reach the goal of health populations without pharmaceutical or surgical interventions.
That’s not how the 3 RS is always read, but closer study of the 3 Rs does seem to suggest that as a valid reading.
At the Longwood Medical Area’s annual lab equipment 2-day exhibition, a number of research facilities DO offer nonanimal research methods, but in that context there’s a certain anxiety about billing themselves as nonanimal research method developers. But here are some of the non-ethical ‘drivers’ or forces moving less-than-concerned animal researchers towards replacement of animal models wherever possible:
(a) Cost – experimental animals are VERY expensive to (i) purchase, (ii) house, and (iii) maintain, and (iv) hygienically and safely dispose of
(b) Contagion – working with experimental animals poses some health risk to human researchers AND to those (i) associated with those human researchers [cleaning cages, cleaning labs, in the department, traveling with them on public transportation, family members and friends, other colleagues] AND (b) those who deal in animals [hopefully HIPAA-compliance in the USA reduces some of this concern, but it’s still there].
(c) Ethical discord among researchers and their communities
(d) Risk of violence developing among researchers who work with animals (a recent study, I believe at Cornell, showed that interpersonal violence among researchers who deal with animals is potentially volatile).
(e) Potentially better results from nonanimal research methods
(f) Repeatability of experiments is easier and cheaper, and science is nothing if not repeatable.
(g) Training (surgical training specifically) needs to be done FAR more times than is affordable using animal-based models for surgical training; healthcare is plagued with medical errors, and systems- research, including work offered by Dr. Donald Berwick of Cambridge-based IHI – the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, suggests that we need to require much higher levels of surgical practice and that is not affordable without shifting to simulation modules, as offered by SimuLab and a few other providers (in the USA).
So let’s think NOW about the 30% solution and, as we near the tipping point for shifts in research paradigms, perhaps th entire house of cards (or most of it) will fall IN OUR LIFETIMES.
Vigorous debate is encouraged!
Moral status is for many ethicists independent of the claimant’s social position in the ‘hierarchy’ (phylogenic scale, in this case) or their role in socially constructing ethical theory. In other words, moral status is not a private social product; it’s public to the extent that it is widely accorded the belief that it’s morally true (in some meaningful sense).
In other words, to claim that nonhumans ought not to be brutalized is somehow believed to be a morally true statement, and the place and status of the ‘ought’ will be thought to be correct. Is ‘ought’ indicative of a duty that is ‘owed’ to the claimants (in this case, those for whom the claim is made)? Yes.
To claims that animals ought NOT to be brutalized is further qualified by ‘in science’ or ‘in the name of science’.
There are at times qualifiers which modify the ‘ought’ (as in ‘just war’ theories), and I do NOT believe that science qualifies as a ‘just war’ modification of our obligation to not harm vulnerable sentient beings. Lab animals are not individually out to harm us deliberately; if rodents were to consume our grain or other crops, we with capacity to construct our social relations with the ecological ‘others’ could be expected to do so in order to protect OUR interests without negating ours.
We have many moral illustrations of the long history of attempting to benignly address the needs of others without harming ourselves – some more gracious, some more loving, some more brilliant than others. Consider one which many of us know: the Hebrew proscription (as in the narrative about Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz) to leave the corners of the field ungleaned so that the poor scavengers could find enough to get by with some reasonable effort. They didn’t have a free food pantry as such, but they were given (by conscious forethought) enough to take by a modest amount of effort on their parts – and it was 100% plant-based food, too, unlike many of the free food pantries you and are asked to support, which conflicts with many of OUR deeply-held moral values about not trading off the interests of some – the animals – in order to address the interests of others – the class of persons benefitting from our exploitation and abuse and murder).
But this illustration shows how those without ready access to meeting their needs are seen as morally significant persons with interests that we ought to consider. Short of socializing all effort and recruiting these persons (perhaps they were antisocial or uncooperative, but the narrative doesn’t paint them that way, nor even suggest as much), the social ‘solution’ seems to have been widely affirmed – at least b y those who subscribed to the moral teachings of ‘leaving the corners of the fields’ (of grain) for the outsiders to glean after the ‘main’ gleaning had been finished.
Was this a potential ‘waste’ of edible grain? Perhaps. Is there a risk of inefficiency? Perhaps. But the system was widely known.
In thinking about nonhumans in the context of our (socially constructed) ‘duties’ to care for our fellow human beings AND to provide extra for them (as a safety net when they are injured or get ill, whether because they have been personally careless or inept, or because they were vulnerable to the malice of others), one claim (the appeal to do science on behalf of future victims and potential victims) runs afoul of the prior moral claims of nonhumans to not be harmed by direct intentions, by direct interventions.
Given that there are these claims to provide a medical safety net, even those who favor those socially-constructed claims can understand that killing or harming unwilling animals because of their vulnerability is morally objectionable. In other words, it can REASONABLY be considered objectionable based on the physical characteristics of these sentient nonhumans.
Given the ‘moral difficulty’ of solving these problem, compromise solutions are often presented, as the ‘public option’ is offered in the USA as a compromise between single-payer and what single-payer’s opponents call ‘market-driven’ solutions. SP friends are unhappy with the compromise; free-market advocates are unhappy; whether the compromise works for the greater benefit and satisfaction of the vast majority is not yet known (and can only be reasonably predicted).
In the vegetarian (and vegan) world, we have the 10% solution, which is offered to meateaters to consider life with meatless meals. One meatless day per week would be about 1/7 (or 14.2857%), which they TERM ‘the 10% solution) in that (THEORETICALLY) it could free about 10% of agricultural land (and presumably return it to a ‘wild’ state (though it’s likely to be exploited by real estate developers). The term 10% is widely-known in monotheistic religious contexts when talking about ‘tithing’ (giving 10% ‘off the top’).
But I’ve long suggested the 30% solution as follows:
The overwhelming proportion of researchers in the life sciences (whether they use animals or not) are researchers only, not fund raisers. They depend upon funding (for laboratories, salaries, supplies, and animals). They seek funding from corporations, government grants, private foundations, individual benefactors, and some other sources. Grant money typically has an overhead percentage that goes to the hosting institution(s).
I propose that a ‘first 30%’ be given to fund aggressive research INTO nonanimal research methods – methodological research into developing and validating nonanimal research methods.
This suggestion itself is likely to make me (in the aggregate) far MORE enemies in the vegan world than I’ve already made in my 30-35 years of veganism, but let it be discussed.
It’s not abolitionism; it’s likely to be termed ‘welfarism!
However, short of addressing the CLAIM that is widely-accepted that some things NEED to be researched and understood and that, to date, nonanimal research methods (for doing WHAT WE THINK WE NEED TO DO/RESEARCH) are not yet available with a confidence level sufficient to warrant their use instead of animal methods (not in conjunction with animal research methods), we have no quick response EXCEPT the moral argument that animals are not ours to eat, wear OR EXPERIMENT UPON.
(I accept fully that NO person is ours to eat, wear, or experiment upon, and I wish folks like Bill Maher and the ‘social deconstructionists’ we accept into our camp would understand that some interpersonal social behaviors that are widely accepted by the morally casual’ either are or lend themselves more to experimenting upon sentient beings (and as such, should be frowned upon and denounced. But I digress.)
But let’s do a little analysis here of my suggested “30% solution” that would fund the development and validation of nonanimal research methods in the same way that tobacco taxes and penalties on tobacco companies fund aggressive health education about the risks and harmful effects of tobacco use. In a libertarian political context (and more and more dietary vegans are TERMING themselves libertarians; I’ll see HUNDREDS of such ‘libertarian vegans’ at the upcoming Boston Vegetarian Food Festival), what else can we do? Yes, it’s a political and moral compromise, and we’re not coming back to the animals OR ‘the district’ with the solutions we had wanted. But in the same spirit that we send elected representatives to our democratic legislative bodies and expect them to bring SOMETHING back that is better than no representation at all, is the 30% solution a totally contemptible half-way ‘solution ‘ in light of the historical hope that we WILL – with the intelligence, ingenuity, collaboration, funding, and moral will to do so – be able to develop somehow the social consensus that replacing animal models in ALL basic science (as in toxicology and other research, including military wound research) is both desirable AND feasible, and we offer a provisional means to help our societies get to that point of total abolition of animal research?
Here’s the current downside of NOT replacing animal models:
Not only are animals sacrificed in research facilities, but the credibility of the moral claim that NO animals are ours to eat, wear OR EXPERIMENT UPON is diminished BECAUSE we’ve already consented to let them be experimented upon BECAUSE of the moral gravity of the moral claim that our fellow humans need a medical ‘safety net’ that is perpetually improved.
Yes, we are being asked to trade off our abolitionism for two things: (a) funding (finite) and (b) widespread public support for the belief – consensus – that research on animals is something that is morally objectionable, needs to be replaced, and MUST be replaced within the foreseeable future. The ‘win’ here is that we work for the public agreement on the 3 Rs agenda, which they don’t FORMALLY approve or support AT THIS TIME.
This suggestion MAY be all wrong, but I’d like to see us incubate a discussion.
I further suggest that CLAIMS by researchers to love their animals because we can see that they love their dog(s) and/or cat(s) cannot be trusted BECAUSE they are not signing on to the replacement agenda in the 3Rs: reduce, refine, and replace.
For nearly 3 decades of street outreach, particularly at Harvard, when I see that I can make NO headway with researchers (some really DO want to see some possible consensus, perhaps because they tend to like me – as a bright person, accepted collegially), I suggest that the ACID TEST of whether or not they ARE talking in good faith is their public and wholehearted acceptance of the 3 Rs standard and THEIR willingness to fund and support replacement research. Short of that WHOLEHEARTED acceptance of the 3 Rs to the point of sharing funding, I call their ‘moral pleas’ (of innocence and good will in a morally difficult context) ‘mere huff’ (and something to be publicly protested).
Of course, if NO experiments on nonhumans have ANY applicability to human beings [http://www.safermedicines.org/faqs/faq16.shtml], then the 3Rs is moot and we should reject all medical experiments on animals (for human interventions) as unscientific . However, the 3 Rs seems to suggest that (a) some experiments on nonhumans are less than optimal and should be replaced; (b) some experiments on nonhumans are less than optimal and should be refined, and (c) some experiments on animals are morally objectionable but AT THIS TIME are scientifically necessary to get WHAT WE THINK we need to know (and we may find that there are other ways to reach the goal of health populations without pharmaceutical or surgical interventions.
That’s not how the 3 RS is always read, but closer study of the 3 Rs does seem to suggest that as a valid reading.
At the Longwood Medical Area’s annual lab equipment 2-day exhibition, a number of research facilities DO offer nonanimal research methods, but in that context there’s a certain anxiety about billing themselves as nonanimal research method developers. But here are some of the non-ethical ‘drivers’ or forces moving less-than-concerned animal researchers towards replacement of animal models wherever possible:
(a) Cost – experimental animals are VERY expensive to (i) purchase, (ii) house, and (iii) maintain, and (iv) hygienically and safely dispose of
(b) Contagion – working with experimental animals poses some health risk to human researchers AND to those (i) associated with those human researchers [cleaning cages, cleaning labs, in the department, traveling with them on public transportation, family members and friends, other colleagues] AND (b) those who deal in animals [hopefully HIPAA-compliance in the USA reduces some of this concern, but it’s still there].
(c) Ethical discord among researchers and their communities
(d) Risk of violence developing among researchers who work with animals (a recent study, I believe at Cornell, showed that interpersonal violence among researchers who deal with animals is potentially volatile).
(e) Potentially better results from nonanimal research methods
(f) Repeatability of experiments is easier and cheaper, and science is nothing if not repeatable.
(g) Training (surgical training specifically) needs to be done FAR more times than is affordable using animal-based models for surgical training; healthcare is plagued with medical errors, and systems- research, including work offered by Dr. Donald Berwick of Cambridge-based IHI – the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, suggests that we need to require much higher levels of surgical practice and that is not affordable without shifting to simulation modules, as offered by SimuLab and a few other providers (in the USA).
So let’s think NOW about the 30% solution and, as we near the tipping point for shifts in research paradigms, perhaps th entire house of cards (or most of it) will fall IN OUR LIFETIMES.
Vigorous debate is encouraged!
Celebrate October 25 - 31 - World Go Vegan Week, by sharing it with others enthusiastically - and go vegan, if you haven't already
I'm celebrating October 25 - 31 - which is World Go Vegan Week, by sharing it with others enthusiastically.
Please join us in the celebration... and go vegan, if you haven't already
http://www.worldgoveganweek.com/
Please join us in the celebration... and go vegan, if you haven't already
http://www.worldgoveganweek.com/
|
 Recent undercover investigation of egg hatchery horrors; the egg industries tiniest victims. Click here to learn more.   | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| For more great ideas, visit our Action Center. | |||||||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)