It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if: Vegitarianism, Anti-Intellectualism, and Technophobia run Rampant

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
What if Radical Vegetarianism(mostly promoted by PETA), Cultural Anti-Intellectualism, and Technophobia runs Rampant?




posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


I'll play. I love this one. For the record, all that follows is simply my opinion and speculation. Also, I won't delve into the how's of the accomplishment of getting rid of the technology and the why's of the populations change over to a vegan diet. There was a war, or something... I dunno... Someone else will hopefully field that.

Also, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'anti-intellectualism' but I feel that Ingrid Newkirk and her ilk (Peter Singer, also comes to mind. A man who simultaneously mixes anti-intellectualism and intellectual masturbation... Usually in the same sentence... It's a thing. But I digress) are the veritable poster children for my understanding of the phrase, and we'll just leave it at that for now.

Anyway...

I'm not sure about the causality on this one... In other words, which came first? The chicken or the egg, but somewhere in the 90's the concept of 'Animal Rights' began to be taken as 'should be the same as human rights', and the dirty, ugly anti-human streak that was previously something of an aside within the movement began to manifest more and more. The ideology began to draw more and more angry, stunted people who hate the human race (and themselves) far more than they love any animal, and these are currently the most vocal members within it.

The leadership within the movement has become largely a gestapo worthy bunch of (albeit charismatic) sociopathic, colossal thugs, that draws more, like-minded sociopathic, but sycophantic, little thugs.

Because of the prevalence of these sorts of personalities within the movement, I feel that if they were to lose the complex social infrastructure (largely dependant on technology) that allows them the diet that is the member-card for the indulgence of this Superiority Complex Club, they would find survival... More... Complicated than they had anticipated.

Many would try to maintain their ideals, sure. However, in the crush of survival-of-the-fittest in such brutal circumstances (i.e. without the complex societal infrastructure previously mentioned), they would need to look back to meat for additional fast-and-dirty calories.

So, what is a morally superior, animal loving, starving vegan to do to ensure her own survival or the survival of her children? Can't eat animals, that's bad. But there aren't any supplements or supermarkets anymore, so where does one get protein? Or heck, just enough to survive on since the land is not as prolific in supporting edible plant life as she had thought (or was told) it would be.

The leadership in it's current madness would rather quickly hit upon the idea of eating human beings. Humans are bad remember? They destroyed everything. They are evil... Except the morally-superior-not-animal-eating-us. Or those of The Us, that are still acting and thinking 'correctly' that is. (i.e. obeying and fawning over the leadership.)

Long story short, I think they would become cannibals. Survival mixed with a group that perceives itself as morally superior enough that the lives of others doesn't matter is a bad mix, no matter what. And... Honestly, a common enough justification in and of itself that we can see historically how this usually goes...

However, when you add that their entire premise for that sense of superiority is based upon an off kilter concept that humans are mostly vile because they eat other animals, you have very interesting set of circumstances.

As a slight aside, I would like to mention that not only do I feel eating meat is a biological necessity in most... Shall we say... Less technologically proficient circumstances, but I also feel that many of us are pretty hard wired to seek out animal sources of protein. (I must acknowledge that this is possibly highly subjective, and certainly arguable however.)



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


If you've seen the show Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, it seems we have more to fear from the USDA than from PETA because they consider french fries to have a child's needed daily intake of vegetables. I would fear the USDA adopting some type of vegan agenda and then substituting all of the vegetables and fruits with $2.00 a case processed vegetable-esque food.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I am not a vegitarian, an anti-intellectial, or a technophobe.

Even so, I don't see what the three really have to do with each other at all.

The first cartoonish image of the typical vegitarian to leap to my mind is the NPR-listenin' Latte-sippin', college-town-livin' cliche of the pointy-headed "liberal" intellectual that Rush Limbaugh loves to hate. Also, lots of educated California techies (or at least people who used to have jobs in silicon valley back when there was a middle class) are highly-educated health-food nuts who at least verge on vegitarianism. So...I have to ask, what made you throw these three qualties togehter? Seems kind of random to me.

On the other hand, Hitler was a vegitarian...but he did have a big personal library...not sure it made him much of an intellectual, though. But I think his efforts in the race to build the world's first nuke probably exclude him from the technophobe category...still, two out of three is close...are you expecting a mass explosion of evil little Hitler clones running amok or something?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
I am not a vegitarian, an anti-intellectial, or a technophobe.

Even so, I don't see what the three really have to do with each other at all.

The first cartoonish image of the typical vegitarian to leap to my mind is the NPR-listenin' Latte-sippin', college-town-livin' cliche of the pointy-headed "liberal" intellectual that Rush Limbaugh loves to hate. Also, lots of educated California techies (or at least people who used to have jobs in silicon valley back when there was a middle class) are highly-educated health-food nuts who at least verge on vegitarianism. So...I have to ask, what made you throw these three qualties togehter? Seems kind of random to me.


The OP qualified 'radical' veganism as characterized by PETA specifically. I'd also add ELF (Earth Liberation Front), and ALF (Animal Liberation Front) as some further examples to illucidate the point. They would certainly incorporate the 'technophobe' idea to varying degrees as well. These aren't people who 'verge' on anything.

You're right, most vegetarians are kind-hearted, perfectly reasonable people. I admire their resolve, and even have a certain sympathy for their moral point. However, there is a nasty, human-hating, we-are-at-war-with-the-animal/earth-exploitists mentality spreading like a cancer within the 'Animal Rights' movement.

More and more of your latte sipping stereotypes have been snagged by this frenzy, and left their teaching gig to become rabid, militant 'freedom fighters' for animal rights. Or, your techies and well-educate's are channelling all of their 30-something disillusionment with life in general, into a disaffected fight-for-the-animals-by-hating-the-rest-of-the-human-race self indulgent ego trip. Again, not all, or even most, but enough.

To clarify; the current dogma (ah ha ha) is: no human interaction with animals (or nature by many counts), because human interaction = 'exploitation'. 'Exploitation' means any animal kept, hunted, or especially bred for interaction with human beings; be it food, companionship, work, research, or what have you. This latter is made by something evil (human beings), for an evil, selfish purpose and must be eventually eliminated. It's an understood that all domesticated animals must eventually be phased out. Now, many do feel that the animals should be kept for the rest of their lives, and no longer bred until eventually the domesticated strain is no longer. However, it is becoming more common to simply say 'Sorry pup, it's for your own good. You can't help that you are a human made abomination... But you are...' And many animals are simply euthanized.

Some organizations (ELF) is one example, will stoop to intimidation--death threats, digging up dead relatives and holding the body until compliance (I'm not kidding on that last bit), vandalism, even arson.

Anti-intellectualism is an opinion, but I'll indulge poking fun at them with it. Technically morally wrong even by my standards, and a crappy argumentative tactic, but I'm only human after all.

However, there is a certain circular login inherent within their ideology. I'll try to be succint... It goes something like this: 'Humans are just animals so we should be kind to our brother and sister animals because we are just like them, but we are better than they are because we are so superior we don't have to (if ever we did need to) exploit them anymore, but they are better than we are because they are more natural and therefor are (somehow) kinder and more pure, so humans are evil by comparison, but we are better so we have a responsibility, and...'

Around, and around, and around... (I did say 'try' to be succinct). This eventually spirals into 'Humans are bad. Done.'

Anyway, within the 'radical' ideology, that is getting alot of media support, and becoming the defining ideology, the 3 things do rather connect. Perhaps loosely, but not randomly.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
MODS:
Please update your title to properly reflect reality.


You could probably just remove the 'What If'



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by redhorse
 

Anti-Intellectualism in this thread refers to the Dumbing Down



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhorse
reply to post by masonicon
 

So, what is a morally superior, animal loving, starving vegan to do to ensure her own survival or the survival of her children? Can't eat animals, that's bad. But there aren't any supplements or supermarkets anymore, so where does one get protein? Or heck, just enough to survive on since the land is not as prolific in supporting edible plant life as she had thought (or was told) it would be.


Good post. Your vegan in this situation would struggle to survive and would have to eat constantly. Nuts and pulses would become highly prized.

A recent program on UK demonstrated that it was impossible for a human to survive on a raw vegetable based diet - the group could not eat enough to provide the required calories. The energy density of their diet wasn't high enough.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Last i checked legumes and nuts had plenty of protein. Thow in some vegetables with protein and you'll be fine.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bismos
Last i checked legumes and nuts had plenty of protein. Thow in some vegetables with protein and you'll be fine.



They do have protein. However, I don't know about fine, more-or-less functional, but not fine.

Lets focus on legumes as an example. They are more sensitive to soil nutrient deficiencies than many things. Phosophorous and potassium are critical to making a sustainable crop of legumes.

Now, legumes are really good at adding nitrogen to the soil for other crops if you are rotating, (which I suggest you do), with a catch that is. Most of that nitrogen can't be added back into the soil useably without livestock forage.

So within a relatively short amount of time your soil is depleted, and you can't grow squat. At least not on purpose. So without Home Depot, or your local friendly garden shop, or a nice little herd of cows or sheep to replace micronutrients in the soil, all you'll be growing is weeds within a year or a decade or so tops.

I come from a long line of farmers and ranchers. It's friggin' hard, and complicated. Which is why I raise a few horses and paint for a living. I'm contemplating sheep, because I like sheep; but it would just be to have some around to pat on the nose, and the occasional lamb chop. Moving on...

Protein however, is only a portion of the problem. Lets look at Omega 3 fatty acids. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)-primary structural fat in the brain and the retina of the eye; essential for brain and eye development and function. Here I get to cry 'for the children', because without this stuff they could be in trouble. Also, these fatty acids are good for helping inflammation and strengthening the immune system. The most readily availabe source of this is oily fish. Everybody knows this. However, these fish get it directly from algae. Might as well skip the middle man... er... salmon... whatever, right? This makes sense.

Thing is, many coastal regions where this algae would be available do not have suitable topography or soil type or chemistry to support crops of legumes, or much or anything really. There are a few exceptions, but not enough to readily maintain a healthy diet. Without a local health food store to get her algae supplements our vegan (and her children) could be in big trouble.

Point is, there are very few places that could offer all sources for what is necessary without animal protein in at least supplementary amounts. If they hold to their ideals human populations would be limited to small pockets that could sustain them. In this scenario it is highly arguable whether or not we/they could maintain enough of a population for long term species viability.

Oh, and one more thing. Our vegan had better be prepared to build some serious fences around her garden or crops (there go more trees). 'Cause without hunting, land encroachment, and vehicle mortality rates, she'll be up to her armpits in deer in no time. I mean, population explosion, and deer WILL get to your garden before you can. Now, in a few years the natural predators would bounce back and help mitigate that problem, but then she'll need even bigger fences.

Now, all of the nuts and bolts that I've outlined here are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There is alot more there. None of it is fun, easy, and surviving much of it will require a series of compromises that will whittle away that vegan moral soapbox to match sticks. Or, they will be forced to incomporate a social justification to get some fast and dirty animal protien; and the most likely one in my estimation (based on their current rhetoric and 'ideology') is cannibalism...

I hear we taste like pork.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I think this is one of the most sociologically astute posts I've read in a while here on ATS.

We cover a lot of useful and important topics, but if and when things break down in our society, the factors mentioned here would take precedence.


Many of us have never been very close to the food chain, living in cities, or towns where we are not involved in our food supply except mainly as consumers.

This lack of knowledge is what seems to stand out to me the most.

These different factors are not going to vanish, but rather play a role in the greater story.

A couple of points to add to the thread:

Evolutionists maintain that consumption of animal proteins are what caused the enlargement of the human brain, including the frontal lobe, which is more pronounced in humans that apes or other primates. Earlier human specimens have a much smaller braincase, similar to that of a chimp.
Once tools began to be used, and group hunting took place, supposedly the extra protein, specifically meat, spurred the evolution of our brains into something more human. Because of the meat.

Some people who refuse to eat meat become weak and mentally foggy over time, compared to their counterparts who eat meat.

Many cult leaders use this as a first step to weaken the potential member's reasoning and resistance, makes them more compliant and easier to manipulate. It seems to show up as a tactic in many of the most influential movements, notably the Hare Krishnas, who, when they began to build their numbers in the 70s, practically enslaved their devotees for the purposes of selling books and raising money for the movement. A close relative of mine was recruited by them and intimately observed their tactics.

He quickly realized that the lack of meat helped maintain control of the members, who were docile and easily directed.

Of course, being raised by ordinary people descended from farmers, he "didn't fit it" and quickly left.

The social dynamics listed by the OP are not going away. There IS a movement that loves any animal more than any human. They DO believe that all humans are guilty of "something" and that all animals are innocent.
This is called anthropomorphism, attributing human characteristics to non-human forms or creatures, i.e. the Sun as a smiling face, or the human skills of Scooby Doo as he talks and acts in a human way.

Animals are not under a moral code, therefore they cannot be guilty, but nor can be they be innocent. These are human characteristics. Only applicable to humans.

And if the humans forget to pay attention or even learn about their food chain, once it's cut, there will be no putting it back together for many.

The majority of my childhood was split between cities and my grandfather's beef farm. Families are needed for the harvest of the huge gardens he planted, and we learned by doing, by repetition. It follows the seasons, so we were brought into harmony and the rhythm of nature by seeking our food. I was horrified and then respectful when I finally understood what happened to the cows. I was glad they had such a good life there, which they certainly did, and eventually came to be a much more thankful consumer because of these things, and a very harsh critic of lesser and crueler ways of raising our livestock.

Kinder treatment is morally just, and produces better meat, as well. The system is not broken, it is just unknown by most of us, unaffected by us, and perpetuated by us, since we have few alternatives.

Exercising them, refusing to eat meat that comes from abused and neglected animals is one of the healthiest and most responsible steps one can take if animals are truly a concern. The business has to be supported, so every dollar one spends on humanely-raised animals supports a better food chain all the way around.

One cannot learn farming on the fly. It takes time to see the results and there just are not start-overs, because seedtime and harvest are matched to the flow of the seasons and the changes in weather, which triggers vegetables to do certain things at certain times, protects crops during the winter by freezing certain fungi and pests, to keep their numbers in balance. If one makes a mistake in sustenance farming, and has no stored food, one will surely die. Very little room for error.

That is why growing at least some vegetables is so crucial, to learn and take the unfamiliarity out of it before tougher times come. Understand why hybrid seeds would lead to starvation. Invest in and grow some heirloom plants, because they have been preserved for many reasons, all good for people.

Organic meats are expensive, I know, but there are much more affordable alternatives that supermarkets have made us forget. Many farmers will gladly sell their meat to private customers, and let me tell you, a deep freezer and a once a year purchase of meat, supplemented throughout the seasons with seasonal fish and game, hunted or caught by others, will make life a ton easier. It's a different way to buy, but the bottom dollar will soon convince you it's more than worth it.

And when you taste the difference in the meat of animals who are respected, valued, nurtured and truly cared for, you will surely know why it matters, and what a difference in taste and nutrition it makes when your animals are raised with decency and care. And you will experience a feeling Winn Dixie can't provide, GRATITUDE.




top topics



 
4

log in

join