Vegans: skepticism, dogma, democracy & paradox.

we have to ask ourselves as individuals
are we proponents of veganism in the ideological sense that medieval Catholics would propound Christianity as the one true doctrine going around saying either you're with us or against us either you believe or you do not believe and if you doubt if you question if you point out complexities contradictions and paradoxes then you're an enemy of the faith is that how we think about veganism or do we think about veganism like democracy I just saw a video blog about from a ballet see an evolution and i partly agree with him and porky disagree with him I've just come from a really well quite a short conversation with a couple of other vegans that I know from YouTube the first one is Charlie who is the vegan cheater and the second one is a ballast yell a movie n that's how you pronounce his youtube name that his actual name is either maza to be honest with you I haven't kept up with anybody's content except for my boy I zelma Zard abala CL i have been watching his videos because I for me personally his videos are the most relevant and his content makes the most sense to me the value of democracy is limited the value of veganism is limited democracy solves some problems but not others democracy creates some problems but not others I would go so far as to say that it is impossible to be an uncritical advocate for democracy it's it's almost impossible to be an ideological advocate for democracy anyone who supports democracy must at the same time off for a critique of democracy they must be both a supporter and a critic and this goes back to Aristotle lucida T's ancient Greek and Roman sources lucidity is very upset that democracies kept starting Wars for rather silly reasons doesn't mean that dictatorships do not but is a major area of critique nevertheless it would be ridiculous to look back at those ancient authors and say well obviously all these people are simply against democracy because they dare to criticize it now I myself am an example of someone who is accused of not being vegan or people ask me in a ridiculous way are you even vegan at all because i do not uncritical ii endorse veganism I'm willing to really talk about what are the limitations what are the contradictions what are the complexities and what are the paradoxes i'm using paradox in an old-fashioned sense here but it's some ways the most important meaning the word has got i don't mean a charming puzzle when I'm speaking of a paradox this runs contrary to certain tendencies in human nature it's it's very hard for people to develop and open-minded pragmatic down-to-earth approach to politics that's willing to shall we say countenance contradictions to acknowledge recognize contradictions and say okay there are some problems here we can't solve there's some problems here that are outside of our comfort zone and we're going to deal with them one at a time maybe we're going to have difficult and contradictory answers to these questions human nature as seen in religious experiences tends to want to elevate one ideal and the ideal maybe only a few sentences long it's not going to be complicated and to believe that that ideal solves all problems and then to confront the world with the challenge that either they must believe in this ideal either it must be true for everyone in all times or they must reject it so this is thinking of ideas as salvific and as solving all problems and of course Christianity tended to kill huge numbers of people in disputes over incredibly trivial differences between two or three different forms of Christianity I don't know why I said two or three a hundred different forms Chris J a thousand but anyway look at just the history of Switzerland it's unbelievable how many different factions of Christianity thought they had the the truth that would solve all problems and we're going to kill each other for it people have responded amazingly negative lead is something I barely mentioned on this channel this channel I said in passing that getting enough calcium was not easy was not self explanatory on a vegan diet and the fact that people would react to that by attacking me shows they're thinking about veganism the way a medieval person would think of Catholicism either you accept this concepts you know Whole Foods plant-based vegan diet solves all your dietary problems except b12 but aside from b12 there are no complications there are no problems nobody should admit that anything is problematic or complex or contradictory or your auntie vegan either you're for us or against us either you accept the Catholic Church solves all our problems and has no connections or this is this is a dogmatic way of thinking again in a classical sense of dogmatism the contrasting attitude to cultivate is to accept democracy doesn't solve all problems veganism doesn't solve all problems even if I'm a proponent of veganism I should be willing to critique its shortcomings its limitations the same way I'm willing and eager to critique the shortcomings of limitations of democracy even though I'm the most pro-democracy person in the world there's a video on providing a link to so below this video there's a link to a monologue from Jay Kings and Jake is reflecting on the complexity of calculating how much calcium is in your diet so there's more than one reason for something to be complex but even if you just listen to the first few minutes of this video I think Jake does a pretty good job of setting out for you why it's not even easy to know whether or not you're getting enough calcium in your diet you can do it you can do the math very few people do i do not want to be part of a religion that is built on a lie i do not want to be part of a diet that is built on a lie i do not want to be part of a political movement that is built on a lie if your idea of veganism requires that vegans pretend there are no complexities in getting enough calcium there are no contradictions there are no difficulty that this is simple in universal and that anyone who questions the adequacy of calcium and vegan diet is aunty vegan then we're really into you know medieval Catholicism this ridiculous and it's interesting to me I think the people who react this way are themselves least aware of how political and religious their beliefs are look democracy has limitations and they're arbitrary and terrifying and sometimes we come to the limits of human knowledge where nobody has any good answers where we only have good questions if you live in a small town in the eastern United States you may elect the mayor you may elect the sheriff you may elect some really strange titles of local officials that are from like medieval English office holders for city offices that came over before the evolution and words that have dropped out of use even in England some really weird job titles in United States politics and these are general in the east coast north west coast you know the local pretty Provost or something like this you know and yet no where do you elect the guy who's in charge of the nuclear power plant all systems of democracy and again this is actually in Aristotle especially in the constitution of Athens by Aristotle it's reflected on Aristotle's politics and their volumes all democracies in history have been terrified of assigning these sorts of technically demanding positions to elections they're terrified that the most charismatic person will take over the nuclear power plant they're terrified that the most corrupt person may take over the nuclear power plant simply the person who's either very wealthy or person who's taking bribes from industrial lobby groups or what have you and conversely within any given polity within any given the province or state there are probably only a few people who have the technical expertise to play that role well who are you know experts in some combination of nuclear physics and mechanical engineering who have the types of skills and knowledge to be responsible for a nuclear power plant so maybe you only have two or three guys like that who are willing to take the job who aren't already employed by someone who can pay them more money than a government position like this so do you think those guys are going to win the election what if they're ugly what if they speak with a stutter what if they lack confidence they can't stand in front of a crowd and rally support and somebody else can somebody else can win that election who has no scientific qualifications whatsoever what if the best technical experts all have political views that make them very unpopular maybe they were extreme left-wing maybe they're extremely right wing maybe they're just eccentric this is a limitation in democracy this is a paradox in democracy that is fundamental Aristotle did not have a good answer to it it's called the technocratic problem technocratic puzzle whatever you want to say still today we have no good answer for it and one of the hilarious things is that if you look at these types of fields how does the government figure out who will be responsible for a nuclear power plant often the process is very similar in the worst dictatorship and I don't know the most highly rated democracy that democracy seems to just break down and of course we run into all kinds of other problems the case study of Fukushima Daiichi major nuclear accident in Japan just a few years ago really it was a political disaster not a scientific disaster the problems of government oversight of democracy of transparency of accountability as applied to nuclear power it's a paradox it's an incongruous set of contrasts and we we have no solution to it it presents us with unwanted complicated contradictory information and currently there is no simple solution political science is barely a science there are scientific aspects to it which I I'm in the minority of people who like to draw attention that there are scientific aspects to political science but it is certainly a social science what's interesting to me is that diet also although diet and nutrition are based in directly on chemistry biology physiology on hard sciences the vast majority of what we deal with really is the political science of diet it's the social science aspect of diet it's not so what goes on in the laboratory it's okay how do we take these recommendations and findings and apply them to government policy apply them to our own families apply them to our own lives interpret them in a way that makes sense in our culture the basic fact that cigarettes are poison was already known before World War two in many ways our whole civilization is still processing that discovery you know the discovery of the light bulb very rapidly transformed society the discovery that cigarettes are not healthy but are in fact unhealthy indeed poisonous toxic destructive whatever you want to say the fact that cigarettes are bad for you that is taken decades and decades to really process through its implications in terms of personal behavior government policy or what have you and again the complexities that I think we as humans is the human race are dealing with with with cigarettes are now are not scientific their political or they're in the social science about the person it's possible you know some new research will be done finding that cigarettes are even worse for our health and we already know it's possible some new you know some new hard chemistry will turn up some some new details about the effect cigarettes everybody it's certainly possible there will be more scientific breakthroughs of that kind um I I i personally probably won't care I won't be interested that level of detail I am interested the question of how do we as a society reorganize and redefine our values and adapt when I mean when I was traveling with a newborn infant in France it was a real problem that you know the the train stations are still full of people smoking cigarettes the moment the train stops you know the doorway of the you know you're not allowed to smoke inside train it's a real problem was with my pregnant wife who is now my ex-wife was with my daughter's new foreign baby this is this is what you're dealing with the hint a out sympathy some some experiences make these contradictions more vivid in your own mind than others veganism doesn't solve all problems the belief that it should or that it must I think is really a misplaced impulse habitat conservation also does not solve all problems and this contrast is interesting to me because of course in many ways habitat conservation addresses questions that veganism leaves unanswered you could have a society of people who are one hundred percent vegan but who are cutting down all the forests in order to make paper and in order to make wooden chairs and tables obviously we need to address habitat conservation also in addition to above and beyond veganism conversely right now in 2016 the vast majority of people who are real advocates for habitat conservation are meteors many of them are hunters in my society in Canada almost the only people who really care about habitat conservation or either involved in hunting or fishing or other outdoor sports as a terrible irony and it reflects the weakness of urban culture in addressing or even being concerned with those things i wish i could tell you there was a huge chorus of a vegan interest in habitat conservation but there isn't if you really ask yourself honestly are there more vegans today interested habitat conservation or interested in yoga we all know the answer is yoga and there's no meaningful connection between veganism yoga none sorry this is just it's just happenstance right now people who like veganism also happened like yoga but there's there's nothing more to it than that so in short political reality is paradoxical and to a remarkable extent dietary science as its applied to social problems as its applied to our political questions as vegans is by and large paradoxical in the same way we have to ask ourselves as individuals are we proponents of veganism in the ideological sense that medieval Catholics would propound Christianity as the one true doctrine going around saying either you're with us or against us either you believe or you do not believe and if you doubt if you question if you point out complexities contradictions and paradoxes then you're an enemy of the faith is that how we think about veganism or do we think about veganism like democracy as something that is imperfect to begin with it's going to be imperfect every day that it exists and it's going to be imperfect at the end of the process democracy is not even in an historical process of perfecting itself it's in a state of perpetual imperfection and as many limits it has many arbitrary bizarre and corrupt features that today we have no simple solutions to democracy is not a is not like a salvific faith it doesn't pretend to solve all problems and in fact even some of the problems it does pretend to solve when you get into the details things are revealed to be problematic and paradoxical I know that you personally may have felt that veganism improve your acne but don't turn around and denounce someone else because they're a vegan and they've still got acne don't do it nutritional science doesn't work that way human life political reality it is more the way you may be so proud that you lost weight on a vegan diet don't turn around and denounce someone else as being not really vegan because they gain weight because they are fat or they got fat in a vegan diet don't do it that's that medieval Catholic mentality of either you're with us against us etc okay and don't denounce people because they're sincerely engaged in a critique of veganism because they're trying to improve it they're trying to apply it to real world situations that are as diverse as Canada and Cambodia if you believe the anism is for everybody then you must believe that it's not just for people who believe in the same political assumptions you believe in you must believe it's for a teenager in Cambodia and an old man in China and for fat middle-aged people like myself you must believe that people who hate yoga or people who hate riding a bicycle people who are left-wing right-wing and all kinds of other things are going to have to appropriate and assimilate these ideas and apply them to their lives and you know veganism does not have a simple smoking gun scientific fact to back it up I wish it did I wish I could just say to people look you should have zero dietary cholesterol therefore you should be vegan in the same sense that you should smoke zero cigarettes it's not going to be that easy our struggle is always going to be more complex because it's ethical and principal and all of the advice surrounding health diet etc it's going to remain on those shaky foundations of the social sciences it's going to continue to resemble political science more than it does chemistry or physics and like I said before we're going to wrestle with it for decades and decades the same way we've wrestled with the implications of such simple facts as that cigarettes cause lung cancer and that alcohol causes brain damage