The vegan diet is unhealthy, because supplements...

Let's see where I might have gone wrong with this one. This is from a YouTube argument about vegan diet being unhealthy because of supplements... or because we have to take supplements. I'm not sure which or if both.

I'll not poison the well by giving my opinion on how the discussion went. Instead I'll let the AI analyse as an independent third party. For this I used Gemini. It's free and does a good enough job. I made sure to switch the thinking level to "extended" for a more accurate and detailed analysis.

The full prompt was:

========================================================================== 

I will present you with a debate, of sorts. It starts with a poster making a claim that "the vegan diet is unhealthy", then after a response from "Vegan", there is a discussion between "Vegan" and "Non-Vegan". Your job is to fact check each of the posts, as well as identify any logical fallacies or cognitive dissonance displayed by any of these participants. Also highlight any avoidance to answer a question. If any corrections are given when fact checking, give reference to any supporting studies in a separate sources section at the end of your analysis. When fact checking, provide a one word status along with the fact checks of one of the following. “Factual”, “Some inaccuracies” or “inaccurate”. 

I want each post to be numbered and quoted at the start of each of your analyses. Be sure to include each quote in its entirety, in italics. At the end I want you to pretend you are a human who cares about issues like morality, science, debate and logic without sacrificing health and then give your verdict of how the debate went. Also state which position you would adopt and why.

Format:

1. "Quote first Full post"

  Claim 1: "Summary of claim"
  Status: Factual | Some inaccuracies | inaccurate
  Summary of analysis with correction if required. Reference studies where possible (not the full link/source).

  Claim 2: "Summary of claim"
  Status: Factual | Some inaccuracies | inaccurate
  Summary of analysis with correction if required. Reference studies where possible (not the full link/source).

2. "Quote second full post"

  Status: ...etc. Repeat over all posts and claims within them.

Final conclusion:
Full but brief account of the discussion and overall review.

Sources:
Full source for any studies previously mentioned.

========================================================================== 

 And now the analysis.

 

1. OP:

   The vegan diet is unhealthy.

• Claim 1: "The vegan diet is inherently unhealthy."

• Status: inaccurate

• Analysis: Major global health and nutritional institutions, including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the British Dietetic Association, have reviewed decades of peer-reviewed evidence and concluded that appropriately planned vegan diets are health-promoting, nutritionally adequate, and effective for all stages of life.

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: 
  Sweeping Generalization. The poster makes an absolute statement about an entire category of eating without accounting for how a diet is planned or executed.

2. Vegan:

   Science says otherwise.

    Claim 1: "Scientific data contradicts the claim that a vegan diet is unhealthy."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: The consensus within modern nutritional epidemiology supports the statement that a well-balanced plant-based diet correlates with lower risks of chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease.

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: None. 
  While brief and an unreferenced Appeal to Authority, it reflects actual scientific positions.

3. Non-vegan:

   why do vegans require supplements then

    Claim 1: "Vegans require supplements to maintain their health."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: Vegans must obtain Vitamin B12 via dietary supplements or fortified foods. B12 is synthesized by microorganisms, not plants, making it a mandatory external inclusion for an individual eating zero animal products.

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: 
  Loaded Question / Begging the Question. The phrasing embeds an unproven premise: that requiring a supplement automatically means a diet is medically defective or unhealthy.

4. Vegan:

   the only supplement really needed is B12. And a B12 supplement or fortified food will be part of a healthy vegan diet. Just like they supplement so many of the animals being killed. Might as well just take it directly rather than second hand. Also, I fail to see the fascination with supplements. If you risk being low on a nutrient, it's healthy to get that nutrient from a supplement... Just like so many non vegans do. If you are wondering about how healthy a vegan diet is, I'd suggest looking at the research and actual health outcome data rather than getting hung up on supplements.

     Claim 1: "The only supplement universally required on a vegan diet is Vitamin B12."

• Status: Some inaccuracies

• Analysis: While B12 is the only micronutrient completely absent from unfortified plant foods, depending on individual geography, lifestyle, and dietary variety, other nutrients like Vitamin D, Iodine, and long-chain Omega-3s (EPA/DHA) frequently require supplementation or careful planning.

Claim 2: "Livestock animals are routinely supplemented with nutrients like B12/cobalt."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: Modern intensive agricultural practices rely heavily on vitamin and mineral feed additives. Ruminants require cobalt supplementation to synthesize B12 when raised indoors or on cobalt-depleted soils.

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: 
  Tu Quoque (Appeal to Hypocrisy). The vegan points out that non-vegans consume supplements "second-hand" through livestock. While factually true, it functions as a distraction from the structural question of whether supplement dependence makes a human diet suboptimal.

5. Non-vegan:

   If a diet inherently requires supplements its not healthy Provide evidence saying animals inherently require supplements

Claim 1: "If a diet inherently requires supplements, it is not healthy."

• Status: inaccurate

• Analysis: Clinical health is defined by physiological markers, organ performance, and disease risk, not the delivery framework of essential molecules. If an individual meets all nutritional targets via whole foods and a clean B12 supplement, their body functions optimally.

Claim 2: Implied challenge that livestock animals do not require supplementation.

• Status: Some inaccuracies

• Analysis: Under pristine, natural ecological conditions, wild animals do not need supplements. However, in the context of human food systems, modern livestock absolutely depend on structural supplementation due to confinement and altered feeding regimes.

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: 
  Moving the Goalposts / Strawman. The non-vegan redefines "healthy" to mean "supplement-free," transforming a biological debate into a semantic one. They also demand proof that animals inherently need supplements, which misrepresents the Vegan's statement that they are practically supplemented.

6. Vegan:

   I didn't say the animals inherently needed supplements. I said many of them are supplemented. Largely because of how they are treated and fed. So you get it via supplementation either directly or indirectly. What's wrong with taking a supplement?

Claim 1: "Livestock are supplemented because of current farming methods, rendering animal-derived B12 an indirect form of supplementation."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: Commercial animal feeds are explicitly formulated with micronutrient packs to optimize health and growth rates in concentrated agricultural settings.

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: 
  None. The vegan clarifies their argument and asks a targeted question ("What's wrong with taking a supplement?") to strip away the semantic noise.

7. Non-vegan:

   Supplements are for genetic and medical deficiencies not inadequate diets

Claim 1: "The scientific purpose of supplements is strictly limited to treating medical and genetic deficiencies."

• Status: inaccurate

• Analysis: By legal and scientific definitions (such as the US FDA's DSHEA guidelines), dietary supplements are intended to add nutritional value to a diet, not to act as pharmaceutical drugs. They are routinely recommended to healthy populations to cover structural lifestyle or life-stage gaps (e.g., folic acid during pregnancy or Vitamin D in winter climates).

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: 
  Avoidance. The non-vegan completely avoids answering what is fundamentally harmful or bad about taking a supplement. Instead, they try to restrict the vocabulary definition of the tool itself.

8. Vegan:

   You didn't answer, What's wrong with taking a supplement?

Claim 1: "The non-vegan failed to answer the question."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: This accurately highlights the opponent’s evasion.

9. Non-vegan:

   I did answer Supplements are for genetic and medical deficiencies not inadequate diets therefore eating an inadequate diet while claiming it’s healthy is misusing supplements just as it would be if someone misused painkillers The facts say supplements aren’t replacement for food therefore vegans are misusing supplements as their diet is inherently inadequate

Claim 1: "Using supplements to fill a nutritional gap is equivalent to misusing painkillers."

• Status: inaccurate

• Analysis: Painkillers (analgesics) are pharmacologically active drugs designed to alter nervous system responses; misusing them carries substantial risks of dependency, toxicity, and organ strain. Essential vitamins (like B12) are organic compounds required for normal metabolic pathways, carrying no equivalent biological harms at standard doses.

Claim 2: "The facts state supplements are not replacements for food."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: True. However, this is irrelevant to the vegan's point, as vegans do not substitute food with pills; they eat a full diet of whole plant foods alongside a specific vitamin capsule.

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: 
  False Equivalency. Conflating a basic water-soluble metabolic nutrient with a targeted pharmaceutical drug like a painkiller. Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question). Asserting that the vegan diet is inadequate because it uses supplements, and asserting that using supplements is bad because the diet is inadequate.

10. Vegan:

    I'm afraid you didn't answer. You gave your opinion on what you think supplements are meant for. Saying what they are meant for doesn't tell me what's wrong with taking a supplement. What is the actual negative effect of taking a supplement?

Claim 1: "Stating an arbitrary rule about intent does not provide evidence of a physical negative effect."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: This is a logically sound critique of the opponent's failure to demonstrate biological harm.

11. Non-vegan:

    [Th]ats not an opinion that’s what science says Your logic could be applied to misusing pain killers whats the negative effect of taking painkillers in place of healthy lifestyle

Claim 1: "Science states that supplements are exclusively for medical conditions."

• Status: inaccurate

• Analysis: Nutritional and preventative medical science openly advocates for lifestyle supplementation across numerous non-pathological variations.

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: 
  Red Herring / Deflection. Rather than detailing a physiological harm of vitamins, the non-vegan turns the spotlight entirely onto the clear, well-known dangers of painkillers to avoid confronting their weak premise.

12. Vegan:

    You keep avoiding the question. I'd be happy to answer yours but first please answer "what is wrong with taking supplements".

Claim 1: "The non-vegan is persistently avoiding the core question."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: A fair and accurate meta-observation of the dialogue.

13. Non-vegan:

    im answering you just simply avoid my answer because you would have to concede there’s nothing wrong with misusing painkillers by your logic

Claim 1: "The vegan's logic forces an approval of painkiller abuse."

• Status: inaccurate

• Analysis: The vegan’s logic requires isolating the specific physical effects of a substance. Evaluating painkillers reveals clear toxicities; evaluating vitamin B12 does not. The logic does not translate.

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: 
  Cognitive Dissonance / Confirmation Bias. The non-vegan is completely locked into their analogy, genuinely believing they have answered the question when they have only repeated an unsubstantiated comparison. Strawman. Distorting the vegan's stance into a dangerous hyperbole regarding drug abuse.

14. Vegan:

    what answer? You've not provided one. Simply state what is wrong with taking a supplement.

Claim 1: "No tangible answer has been articulated yet."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: The non-vegan has provided an analogy and an opinion, but zero biological harms.

15. Non-vegan:

    Supplements are not replacement for food

Claim 1: "Supplements are not food replacements."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: Correct on its face, but deployed out of context.

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: 
  Avoidance via Repetition (Ad Infinitum). Reverting to a baseline truism to stall against answering the question.

16. Vegan:

    ok. As you're unable to even state how supplements are bad, never mind mind provide evidence, I think we can safely conclude there's nothing wrong with taking a supplement. So I'll address your next point. I believe you said it wasn't your opinion that supplements are for medical conditions but that's what science says. Can you please point to where science specifies what supplements are supposed to be used for?

Claim 1: "The non-vegan cannot produce scientific text restricting supplement use exclusively to medical conditions."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: The vegan correctly identifies that no documentation has been brought forward to support the non-vegan's absolute claim.

17. Non-vegan:

    [T]here’s nothing wrong with taking a supplement if it’s for treating genetic and medical deficiencies Just google what supplements are made for thats like asking for evidence what painkillers are made for

Claim 1: "Demanding evidence for the scientific purpose of supplements is redundant and can be resolved with a basic search."

• Status: inaccurate

• Analysis: False. A basic check of medical and regulatory definitions refutes the non-vegan's point, proving that supplements are classified under food laws, not pharmaceutical laws.

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: 
  Shifting the Burden of Proof. The non-vegan makes an authoritative claim ("that's what science says") but demands the vegan do the search work to prove it.

18. Vegan:

    it's nothing like pain killers. Painkillers are to kill pain. If you need it, you take it. A supplement is not meant for medical conditions, nor does it mean it's inherently bad if you take it for any other reason than that. Which should now be blatantly obvious to you as you have still not been able to say how taking supplements is bad. A supplement is exactly what it says. To supplement. Just like all the multivitamins or protein powders or creatine that gym bros take. Not for medical reasons but to supplement their diets. One can take a supplement and be perfectly healthy as at the end of the day they will have met their nutritional requirements. If you cannot state how supplements are bad, you have no leg to stand on. Tell everyone bulking up in the gym that they shouldn't take protein supplements because they don't have a medical condition. Drugs are there to illicit a change in physiology. A nutrient, no matter what the package it is contained in, is not a drug. Tell you what I'll do. This will be my second last engagement here as it's going in circles. Feel free to make yours. Then I'll parse this through an LLM asking it to identify logical fallacies and basic fact checks. If I'm making a flawed argument, I hope it helps to flag where. My last engagement will be to post the prompt and results, even if it shows I've erred.

Claim 1: "A supplement is not meant for medical conditions."

• Status: Some inaccuracies

• Analysis: While supplements are fundamentally intended for dietary maintenance, they are frequently utilized therapeutically by doctors to treat medical conditions (e.g., iron for anemia).

Claim 2: "Fitness supplements (protein, creatine) are standardly used by healthy individuals to optimize nutrition without medical pathology."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: This accurately demonstrates that healthy populations safely use supplements outside of an illness context.

Claim 3: "Nutrients are fundamentally structurally and legally distinct from drugs."

• Status: Factual

• Analysis: Legally and biochemically, essential micronutrients are processed by the body to maintain homeostatic cell function, distinguishing them from drugs intended to synthetically alter pathology.

19. Non-vegan:

    Supplements are for genetic and medical deficiencies not inadequate diets Supplements literally say that on the back where the warnings are If you think supplements are replacement for food provide evidence saying that then

Claim 1: "Supplement warning labels explicitly state they are strictly for genetic/medical deficiencies and not for inadequate diets."

• Status: inaccurate

• Analysis: This is completely false. Per federal and international regulations (such as the FDA disclaimer), supplement labels must explicitly state: "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." They are legally barred from claiming they are exclusively for medical or genetic conditions.

• Logical Fallacies / Cognitive Dissonance / Avoidance: 
  Strawman. Forcing the vegan to defend the idea that "supplements are a complete replacement for food," a point the vegan explicitly rejected. Severe Cognitive Dissonance. The non-vegan invents a reality regarding what is printed on product warning labels to protect their faltering premise.

Final Conclusion

This debate was entirely lopsided. From a structural perspective, Vegan maintained logical discipline, consistently driving the argument back to empirical, measurable metrics of health outcomes and pointing out the real-world nuance of food supplementation (including in livestock).

Non-vegan structuralized their entire worldview around an ideological, non-scientific premise: that supplements are intrinsically unnatural, and anything unnatural is a sign of medical failure. Because they could not find any actual scientific study showing that taking a B12 pill causes physiological harm, they fell into an endless loop of question avoidance, shifting the burden of proof, and fabricating what warning labels actually say. They relied on a flawed painkiller analogy to carry an argument that required biochemical evidence.

As a human observer who deeply values scientific rigor, debate ethics, and practical health, I would unreservedly adopt the Vegan’s position.

A diet should be judged by its real-world clinical outcomes—blood biomarkers, longevity data, and systemic disease prevention—not by a romanticized, arbitrary rule about whether a vital molecule enters your mouth via a plant, an animal, or a clean capsule. If science demonstrates that a plant-based lifestyle plus a B12 supplement yields excellent metabolic health while simultaneously minimizing harm to sentient life, rejecting it based on the mere presence of a supplement is a triumph of dogma over logic.

Sources

• Melina, V., Craig, W., & Levin, S. (2016). Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 116(12), 1970-1980.

• Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2025). Vegetarian Dietary Patterns for Adults: A Position Paper of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Evidence Analysis Library (EAL).

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). Public Law 103-417.

• Schwarz, F. J., & Kirchgessner, M. (2009). Cobalt and vitamin B12 requirement of dairy cows. Institute of Nutrition Sciences, Technical University of Munich.

• Veterinary World Review (2021). Cobalt-vitamin B12 deficiency in livestock: a comprehensive review. Veterinary World, 14(1), 161-175.

 

A Vegan Debate Analysis using ChatGPT o1

 So ChatGPT o1 has dropped recently. While still in preview and only trained on data until October 2023, I wanted to try out its enhanced reasoning capabilities, along with improved contextual awareness. It appears to be leaps and bounds above 4o for what I want to do here, so eager to try it out and see how it performs.

I've plugged in a debate on threads with a non vegan with whom I ended up arguing that animals do indeed experience emotions. To be honest, not an argument I'd think anybody would ever have to have. His reasons seemed to rely on some level solipsism and an over reliance on anthropomorphism as an argument, while continually avoiding questions and misrepresenting most of what I said. At least that's how it seemed to me.

So I'll plug in the argument here, to see how something more objective than I would be, would assess our argument. I've tried to keep the prompt as unbiased as possible. Here's the prompt:

I want to present you with a debate between a vegan and a non-vegan, with 34 posts. I have numbered the posts to help ensure none are missed and they stay contiguous. The context of the debate is centred around an initial statement by another vegan that stated that eating no meat would cut the number of innocent creatures’ suffering and death. I want you to fact check each of the posts. I also want you to identify any logical fallacies or cognitive dissonance displayed by any of these characters. Also highlight any avoidance to answer a question. When fact checking, I want you provide one word status along with the fact checks of one of the following. “Factual”, “Some inaccuracies” or “inaccurate”. 

I want each chapter to be quoted at the start of each of your analyses. Be sure to include each quote in its entirety, in italics. At the end I want you to pretend you are a human who cares about issues like morality, science, debate and logic, and then give your verdict of how the debate went. Also state which position you would adopt and why.

Then sum up each of the characters to give a tally for each of the fact checks you did above. For example. Person 1: Factual = 6, some inaccuracies = 3. 

Also give an account of what you think of each person’s stance on ethics and morality in this area, with a thought on how empathetic each of the characters seem.

 Let's see how this new preview model does. One thing I noticed is the extra time taken to understand context and retrieve relevant information. Here goes:

Another Vegan debate analysis by ChatGPT

This was an unusual one. Here the carnist was arguing that doing a violent act is what is wrong (virtue ethics), no matter if doing it to a sentient being or not. It would seem he or she was arguing that the experience of a feeling sentient being is irrelevant and what matters is the performance of doing such an action. Even likening performing the act to a teddy bear as to other animals.

The whole exchange seems to have been so wrapped up in trying to show complicated philosophical ideas, the core tenet of the argument kept getting lost, and using avoidance tactics to never truly address the morality of of killing emotional beings, leaving the carnist's position feeling devoid of any empathy.

To be honest, I still don't fully understand this persons position fully so I don't want to misrepresent, but trying to keep to the central argument and understand his/her position on it was like trying to nail water to the ceiling.

So here was my prompt to ChatGPT:

I want to present you with a debate between a vegan and a non-vegan, with 28 chapters. I have numbered the chapters to help ensure none are missed and they stay contiguous.

I want you to fact check each of the chapters. I also want you to identify any logical fallacies or cognitive dissonance displayed by any of these characters. Also highlight any avoidance to answer a question. When fact checking, I want you provide one word status along with the fact checks of one of the following. “Factual”, “Some inaccuracies” or “inaccurate”.

I want each chapter to be quoted at the start of each of your analyses. Be sure to include each quote in its entirety, in italics.

At the end I want you to pretend you are a human who cares about issues like animal welfare, debate and logic, and give then your verdict of how the debate went. Also state which position you would adopt and why.

Note, The initial original poster was a vegan making an argument, followed by a non vegan. The rest of the debate is between a different vegan and a different non-vegan. 

Then sum up each of the characters to give a tally for each of the fact checks you did above. For example. Person 1: Factual = 6, some inaccuracies = 3.

No additions, edits or omissions were made. I even left all auto corrects and typos in.

Here we go:

A Vegan debate analysis by ChatGPT

 

A vice (and secret pleasure) of mine is engage in arguments, usually on veganism. It helps me to formulate my thoughts, escape my echo chamber and practice debate. And, potentially learn or convince someone to adopt a new stance through logic and reason, though the latter is seemingly more and more unlikely.

Recently I engaged in a Threads discussion, which went as it normally would. The opponent never really addressing any points fully before just creating tangents and then ultimately resorting to insults. The norm. At that point I disengaged and didn't bother replying, but I recalled that the opponent did accuse me of cognitive dissonance. On pondering this, I had an idea. I'd love to know if I'm adopting an incorrect or fallacious position. What about ChatGPT? It has access to the internet now and should be able to review the debate and provide fact checks. Let's do it! Oh, and of course, I'm the vegan in this dialogue.

This was my prompt:

I want to present you with a debate between a vegan and a non-vegan, with 30 chapters, each ending with a "---". I will provide these in batches of 10, waiting for your responses before I provide the next batch. I have numbered the chapters to help ensure none are missed and the stay contigous.

I want you to fact check each of the chapters. I also want you to identify any logical fallacies or cognitive dissonance displayed by either of these characters. When fact checking, I want you provide one word status along with the fact checks of one of the following. “Factual”, “Some inaccuracies” or “inaccurate”.

I want each chapter to be quoted at the start of each of your analyses. Be sure to include each quote in its entirety, in italics.

At the end I want you to pretend you are a human who cares about issues like animal welfare and the environment and give your verdict of how the debate went. Also state which position you would adopt and why.

 Right. The scene is set. Let's roll back the curtains.

Why I went full vegan

Am I that weird? Am I extreme? What set me on the path to this choice?

A while back I posted on why I no longer eat meat. I guess that was the start of my journey towards a more sustainable and a cruelty free diet (and consumerism). I could go on in detail about a number of reasons why I did so, but the one main reason boils down to this...

"I'd rather not kill or torment another living sentient being, simply for my own pleasure."

It sounds simple, almost flippant, but I have considered these words carefully a number of times. So I'd like to break it down:

1) Living sentient beings:

The definition of consciousness has been a particularly difficult notion to nail down for experts across the board. But the one simplified version I like, and what I think most attempts at a definition will boil down to, is the ability to suffer. Something I think almost all animals have to one degree or another. An ant maybe less so than a pig, but I should think it would be very difficult to argue that the animals we exploit as part of the agricultural industries across the globe don't suffer in very much the same way we do. 

They may not be able to express it in ways we are familiar with, such as with facial expressions or vocally, but they have been shown to have wants, empathy, compassion, distinct personalities and preferences. They demonstrate sadness, choice, depression, joy, companionship and family bonds. If someone with a pet parrot can see the reason for it plucking out its own feathers is due to stress, loneliness or depression, is it such a far fetched notion to think that a chicken would not feel the same? 

2) For pleasure:

Most people would (and rightly so) be horrified if I were to beat up a dog for fun. They'd probably be equally horrified if I were to stick a knife in a pig's eye, slit a cow's throat in front of them or go around snapping the legs of chickens, all because it gave me a thrill. A fleeting sense of pleasure in the destruction I had wrought. But how is this form of pleasure so different from the sensory pleasure we get from that momentary taste of a lamb chop? How much suffering and death lies behind each bite of a burger? All for a few minutes of pleasure.

One might argue the difference is that in one there is evil intent. Some form of maliciousness. But then I realise the other is a form of apathy or callousness. How is that so much better. "It's ok if it's for food, right?" I used to tell myself this but once I was on the path it didn't take me long to realise, there is no real difference, no matter how I tried to rationalise or justify. 

And that's all it is for really. It's all for pleasure. I used to tell myself that we needed meat or other animal products, but it didn't take much more than a cursory look at the facts to soon realise how I deluded I was. I could try and convince myself otherwise, but when I did, I was lying to myself.

3) Death or torture:

I said, "I'd rather not kill or torment." I. Yes, I knew it wasn't really me. But what would one think of me if I was dealing in slaves, but never actually handled them or considered their care. Just because I was removed from the mortifying conditions and eventual killing of these terrified beings didn't mean I wasn't part of the supply chain. I might not have "pulled the trigger" but I paid the assassin. The end result is the same and I fooled myself into thinking my hands were clean. Which is of little comfort to the mother having her children ripped away from her, never to be seen again.

In my previous post I talked about why I no longer ate meat. I didn't want such cruelty and injustice on my conscience. But it wasn't enough. With male chicks being essentially thrown into a "blender" alive for the egg industry or the treatment of calves and their mothers, I realised it. Just. Wasn't. Enough. I won't go into further details of what happens in the poultry and dairy industry. That's not what this blog post is about, but I would implore anyone to look into it as I did. Ignorance is not bliss. Certainly not to those that suffer gravely at the hands of the mighty.

I remember, during my transition, hunting around for cruelty free eggs. I'd find more expensive eggs from companies that would purport to having ethical practices and happy chickens roaming around a farm. I really liked eggs and that conjures up a nice image, doesn't it? But no matter how hard I looked I came to realise that there is no such thing as cruelty free in the world of animal exploitation. I would no longer be fooled by the marketing.

My hypocrisy

This is also a big reason why I went vegan. The moment I realised that I was a hypocrite. I would tell myself that I cared for other animals. I could see a cow up close and look into it eyes and see something there, but then when I stepped back and gained some distance, apathy would kick in. The cow was no longer an intelligent and conscious individual. It was once again part of a large number of "things", ready to be exploited without a second thought. Well... not even a first thought. I'd just pick up something from the supermarket without even once considering the story behind it. When I thought about it for real though, I realised how I was not being logically consistent. 

In George Orwell's book 1984, he coined the term "Doublethink". Where one would simultaneously hold two conflicting ideas. An example from the book is The Party's slogan of:

"War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength."

If there is one thing I cannot abide being, it's being a hypocrite. So when I realised I was one, I simply stopped being one.

It's not compassion

My wife has often told me that she envies my compassion. When she last told me, I realised that it wasn't compassion. One is not considered to be compassionate simply because they didn't stomp on a hedgehog by the road. It's just normal. It's the baseline. When did we consider not wanting the wholesale and unnecessary subjugation and slaughter of sentient beings to be either compassionate or extreme?

I don't consider myself to be an animal lover. Nor do I consider myself a people lover. But I believe in a world where justice, fairness and a right to live for everyone is rife. I can never again make that mistake. It's now clear to me that each of our fellow animals are not a some "thing". They are a some "one".

My ask

To anyone reading this, all I ask is to look into it with an open mind. Weigh the arguments. Look into the facts. I would recommend the video, "Land of Hope and Glory". Though brace yourself. Be brave. It can take courage to look at the truth of a thing, when we would rather retain our bliss..

One of my favourite quotes from the inspirational Carl Sagan (a quote gifted to me in a print by my brother) from his brilliant book "The Demon Haunted World" is, 

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

My other ask would be to engage with me. I wrote this blog because it often seems like nobody wants to talk about the topic. Nobody seems interested in what is a rather important aspect of my life and a choice not taken lightly. So if anyone would ever like to ask a question, or even challenge me, please do so? I take pride in the fact that I can easily change my mind given evidence and a convincing argument. If I have taken the wrong path, I would like to know. But please know that I always expect such discussions to be a two way street.

Five books EVERYONE should read

One could argue for works of Shakespeare, books on the origins of species, or books based on one's own belief system. These might be of interest to certain people, but not something that I think that, quite literally, everyone should read.

In today's age of misinformation and education systems that are not designed for the times, how do we sift out fact from fiction? How do we recognise propaganda and fear-mongering? How do we know when we are fighting for the truth, or have unknowingly fallen down the rabbit hole of our own echo chamber?

Today's connected world is a double-edged sword and we need the tools to safely navigate it. We need to understand that we will inevitably sit within an echo chamber, not just of our making, but that of algorithms designed to draw us in and click, click, click. Designed to keep feeding us information based on whatever thing we've expressed an interest in before, without ever exposing us to different views.

THAT is why I think these books are so hugely important. If you are interested in discovering the truth, in finding out where you might be wrong about something and in learning more about yourself and the world in the process, then these books are definitely for you. If you would rather not have your beliefs ever questioned, if you hold on to views with absolute certainty and with no willingness or ability to change your mind no matter what, then I would suggest you read these anyway. Ask yourself if you really care about the truth.

The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan

This one has to go to the top of the list, and written by an author with such a fantastic grasp of science, reality, and language. Arguably one of the best science communicators out there and an accomplished scientist and author.

A quote from the book sums up perfectly the aim of the book.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

It will introduce anyone to the concept of using scientific principles in understanding the world around us. It provides you with some of the tools you need to hone your bullshit detectors. You can't go wrong by starting here.

An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments by Ali Almossawi

An excellent, easy-to-read book, complete with amusing illustrations. A great introduction into some common fallacies and how not to argue. Or how to recognise when someone else is presenting a bad argument. And best of all, you can read online here for free!

However, if you like what you see, please consider buying the book.

If you're looking for something meaty, this won't be for you. But if you are brand new to concepts of logical fallacies, it's an easy to digest entry-level book.

You Are Not So Smart by David Mcraney

You just have to read this. It's not only informative but easy to read and entertaining with real-world examples. Plus, he has an excellent podcast too... with cookies!

Now don't be put off by the titillating title. His whole thing is about understanding why we think and act the way we do. How we can recognise these all too human failings, and how we can react better because of it.

How memory isn't what a lot of people think it is and how malleable it is. How people can react so strangely in disastrous situations. A deeper dive into a number of fallacies and biases. A perfect follow on book from the previous suggestion.

21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

A very interesting read and very pertinent to our current times. Written by a prominent historian and author of Sapiens: "A Brief History of Humankind" as well as "Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow," I really cannot recommend this book highly enough. A book on human nature and how we use stories to navigate through our lives. A book on the here and now, but not forgetting how we got here or where our possible futures lie. There are some big topics here. Wars, identity, religions, money, truth and justice, the use of data and artificial intelligence and both its benefits and consequences. A positive book that looks at many of our modern day concerns. 

This isn't a review. It's a recommendation, which is just as well, as the book covered a lot of topics and I feel I would need to go back and read it again (after about a year) to do it justice. And I would enjoy doing so.

The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

Ok. I'll level with you. This book is not 100% in theme, and to be honest, it may be a bit of a hard read unless it's a topic you're particularly interested in. But it is related. Sam Harris makes a compelling case for objective morality. 

Attempting to understand (or prescribe) what is right and wrong makes up for a large swathe of human endeavor and conflict. What one person says is right, another will undoubtedly see as a heinous crime. Here Sam lays out a scientific framework, in detail, for how we could all objectively agree on what is right on wrong, as long as we accept one premise, and that morality is ultimately tied to well-being. Just like we can now objectively say what is healthy (this wasn't always the case), we should now be able to say what is moral. Sam doesn't pretend to know all the answers to what is right and wrong. but having a framework to help us do so, bit by bit, the world could become a much more peaceful and greater place than anyone could imagine. If the book is a bit too much, this YouTube video of a debate could help in summarising a number of the points Sam makes.

To conclude:

These are books that I've read and would recommend, but they may not be the best out there. If anyone has any other suggestions, please let me now. 

Why I no longer eat meat.

I’m not a vegan. I’m not even strictly a vegetarian (though it’s easier to tell people that I am), but I’m close to it and would like to go further. It’s a journey that I’m on and I even appreciate many of the Vegan arguments, such as around eggs and dairy.

My sole reason for deciding to do this, is around ethics and by asking myself these questions:

• What do animals think and feel?
• What does animal welfare really mean to me?
• Do I really need to eat meat to have a healthy and happy lifestyle?
• Can I logically justify eating meat?

In short, all of these questions had answers that led me down the path I’m on now. But to explain in detail.

What do animals think and feel:

This is not an easy question to answer, as there are so many creatures out there that have evolved in so many different ways. We, as humans, tend to anthropomorphise a lot. That is, we apply human characteristics on other things or animals. I’ve tried my best not to do this, but it’s plain to see that many animals experience emotions and feelings that very much resemble our own. Any dog owner will say as much about their beloved friend. But dogs have a one-up on other animals thanks, in part, to how their eyes have evolved to be more appealing and communicative to humans. Other animals are not so lucky but that doesn’t mean they don’t experience a similar spectrum of emotions. We just don’t get to see them as clearly. In fact, we don’t even get to see the animals we eat. We buy a pre-packaged lump of food and don’t give its origin a second thought. We completely forget that that delicious slab of beef came from a thinking, feeling, sentient and social being.

But are all animals equal in this regard? I would say no. I’m now actually less fussy about eating insects than I am about eating mammals and birds. They’re simply just not as high up on the sentience scale, if that’s even a thing. I’m not basing this on extensive research so I’m open to being wrong, but I don’t think a bee, grasshopper or ant, is as concerned about the loss of a loved one, enjoys the company of a friend, or experiences anything close to real emotional pain. They can obviously be stressed, and seem to feel physical pain in some way (or respond to physical stimulus), but I doubt they would process that in any way close to what we would. Then you have shellfish, like clams and mussels, that don’t even have a brain. Personally, I have no ethical problem with eating these as it’s highly doubtful they would have any way of processing any kind of pain in a “feeling” way... if that makes sense. i.e. beyond just stimuli they would react to, much like a plant growing towards the sun. What about other sea creatures, like an octopus? These have been shown to be highly intelligent (in an odd and interesting way).

So as you can see, there is no one answer, with a sliding scale of sentience across the landscape of the animal kingdom.

What does animal welfare really mean to me?

As above, this depends on the animal in question. I believe that all life has its place and should be respected (I might be convinced otherwise about mosquitoes) but that doesn’t mean I have equal concern for all species. I would place the well-being of a cow significantly higher than that of a wasp or an oyster.

Who doesn’t love dogs, right? They’ve been faithful companions for countless ages. And maybe to a lesser degree, but cats as well. I think it’d be a safe bet to say that most of us get upset at the notion of people eating cats and dogs. As do I. But where is the huge difference between a dog and a pig? Both are very intelligent, feel pain, are social animals. Why do we feel it’s acceptable to enslave one species of animal, and often (to varying degrees depending on country and regulations) “torture” them prior to killing them, while the other species gets a favoured position in our household and killing, never mind eating them, is unthinkable. Why does this double standard exist? Why do we not think deeply about these things? Is having an emotional bond with one species more than another a good excuse for being willing to kill one over the other?

The well-being of an animal, to me, shouldn’t be that different to human well-being. I do, however, place humans first. If it came to an act of desperation, I would do what was needed to protect and nourish mine and my own. But I would still consider most animals to be sentient enough to be taken care of. Given how human beings have now pretty much taken over so much of the world and destroyed so many habitats, I think it is now our responsibility to look after our fellow animals as best as we can.

Note the caveat, “as best as we can.” Even if you are a fully-fledged, die-hard vegan, your lifestyle will have an adverse effect on animals. Maybe not as much with domestic ones, but certainly wild ones. All that grain, rice, beans, etc. needs to come from land, which means the displacement of wildlife. The crops need to be protected, which often entails the killing of “pests.” OK, fair enough if you decide to live in the outback foraging for berries. Not a very feasible and scalable lifestyle choice though, is it.

In a nutshell, what animal welfare means to me, is protecting them and endowing them with a set of rights that are tailored to each species in the most moral way possible. When I speak of morality I refer to objective morality as described by Sam Harris in the Moral Landscape. I’m a proponent of objective morality, i.e. there is one truth when it comes to morality, but that’s a whole other discussion.

Do I really need to eat meat to have a healthy and happy lifestyle?

The answer is an obvious no. If you don’t think so, it only takes a few cursory Google searches to find very healthy vegetarian and vegan athletes. Admittedly, the more you slide to the full-on vegan side of the scale, the more you have to take care of what you eat to ensure that you’re getting the right nutritional balance, but doesn’t seem too difficult and anyone should be able to do it. “But what about protein?” I’ve heard people say. There is plenty of plant-based protein. And if you’re like me, even some animal protein such as the types of sea-food I mentioned above. A healthy balanced meal will give you all you need.

Where it can be a little more difficult is when eating out. But while the choices are often quite limited and the veggie dishes are more of an afterthought, there are almost always options.

So no, I do not need to eat meat to have a healthy and happy lifestyle. But then… and get this after everything I’ve just written, I don’t actually mind eating meat. The act of eating meat holds no revulsion for me. It’s more about the act of purchasing the meat. Of paying someone else to do my dirty work for me. To pay for the imprisonment, subjugation and killing of an animal purely for my pleasure. Because at the end of the day, that’s really what the bacon is all about. I pay someone to kill a pig for the pleasure of the taste of that perfect salty treat. I’m not going to pretend that all livestock are treated the same across the world. But even if they were treated perfectly up to the point where they have their lives cut short to please my taste buds, it would still make no difference to my decision.

So can I logically justify eating meat? I haven’t been able to so far.