Vegans, what should we do about Sam Harris?
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that skeptics and atheists, self-professed free thinkers, ought to be able to understand the common prejudices, logical fallacies and basic lack of critical thinking that keeps the vast majority of us consuming animals and their secretions for food, clothing and other uses. This is especially the case since some of them say that their ethical code, based on science and rationality, is superior to any moral precepts taught by religious traditions.
There has been a new article in Salon written by Steven Stankevicius titled New Atheists Must Become the New Vegans. As Salon is well-known for being anti-Sam Harris, and opposed to the New Atheists in general, I couldn’t be surprised. But I knew that this article, particularly because of the title but for other reasons also, would lead to some serious repercussions for vegans and veganism. Now we hear that it was Salon who approached Stankevicius to publish the article, and also manipulated the title to be particularly incendiary.
The original article was shared widely about atheist pages and websites, and many of us were engaged in dousing fires around the internet. Not a particularly pleasant task at all when the opposition is so disagreeable. Here I would like to write about my understanding of what’s happening with Sam Harris, and best way vegans should deal with this backlash. I want a vegan world as much as anyone. But long story short — let’s let Sam Harris go. The last thing we want is someone whining about having to eat vegetables in his podcast or blog.
The author gives the New Atheists way too much credit. I have followed Sam Harris for a relatively long time, from before the time I was vegan myself. I would say that my reading of Harris and other authors was part of my quest for the understanding that eventually led me to veganism. Along with other vegans, I have also thought that it would make sense for Sam Harris to be vegan, given his writings on morality.
Contrary to this article’s author, I propose that it is not any link with pseudoscience that stops atheists from becoming vegans. It isn’t pseudoscience but basic lack of understanding and fundamental reluctance to doing the necessary research. As far as I know none of the other New Atheists, Dawkins, Shermer and others have ever referenced any pseudoscience and outlandish claims as the barrier to veganism. They know that veganism is morally right. Rather, I think it is a variety of other reasons, some more legitimate than others. Dawkins for example, has said that he eats meat the same way he sings Christmas carols, out of habit, tradition and convenience.
Let’s consider Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is definitely rational, scientific and widely-claimed by atheists. At repeated junctures he fails to align his values with veganism, even when catastrophic climate change is at issue. In conversation with vegan Mayim Bialik, he jests that we will need to terraform Mars before we can raise cows for beef. In a later event he says we should rely on new inventions to scrub greenhouse gases from atmosphere rather than reduce his consumption of methane-emitting cows. This is dumbfounding hypocrisy from someone who has made a video for PETA to endorse the intelligence of other species!
The prejudice of human supremacy is too ingrained for atheists to overcome. As an atheist Sam is not going to say that God put animals here for us to eat. He doesn’t think we are the favored offspring of a supernatural power who created the rest of the universe for our own human benefit. He accepts the evidence for evolution. Humans are animals, among all the other types of animals on earth.
Nevertheless, there are other reasons why the prejudice of human supremacy is hard to shake off. Humans have taken over the earth, we have wrested habitats from other animals, and our population is burgeoning whereas other free living animals have dwindled dramatically. So by the evolutionary definition, we are the “successful” species. This is a Might-makes-right argument to be sure, but scientists are likely to accept it.
We have language and certain aspects of abstract cognitive skills that other animals do not have. We are biased in elevating those capabilities over and above those of other animals. As an extremely smart human whose living is dependent upon his intellect, Sam is as subject to the bias as much as anyone else.
Please note that human supremacy and its sibling, speciesism, are PREJUDICES and not pseudoscience.
Unrelenting arrogance can be a roadblock. Sam is a smart guy. I think, over and above human supremacy, Sam feels superior to most other humans, let alone other animals. To be a vegan, you have to practice some humility. You have to be able to entertain the thought that a banana slug values their life as much as you value yours. He has said, “I don’t want eating and food preparation to become a religion.” Well, veganism is not a diet. It is a philosophy and an understanding that will deeply affect how you view yourself. It is not religion, by any means, but the idea needs to take over your mind, and infiltrate every cranial nook and node to identify and eradicate speciesist notions.
There are lots of questions and at each point you have to be open to the idea that veganism is possible. I am not sure if his decades-long practice of meditation will help him here. It surely ought to, and I have heard him concede to Maajid Nawaaz, among others, that he has learned things from him.
To some extent, this will shake his world. He will have to spend time absorbing it all. There is a chance that a full understanding might change his priorities with respect to his life tasks. Farmers and others who make a living by exploiting animals are willfully ignorant of animal rights. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” Sam already has his work cut out for him, in terms of topics like atheism, radical Islam and next up, artificial intelligence. Does he have the bandwidth for veganism?
Sam has been very resistant to the idea of eating a diet devoid of animal foods. Even in this last podcast, he complains that he is going to have to tackle some of the momentous questions that face him, all the while ‘eating vegetables.’ He is pouting, he is sulking. We really cannot drag him kicking and screaming to veganism. We can’t start a petition to force him to eat only ‘vegetables.’ He hasn’t even done the cursory search to know the vegans do not just eat broccoli and kale!
His position on plant-based diet has hardly shifted since that first Youtube video where he answered the question on vegetarianism. He said then that he tried it, for six years no less, and then gave up because of ‘lacking protein.’ He then asked for help to become vegan, and we gave it to him. There is some evidence that he understands more now, like eggs and dairy being no different from flesh. But he still sounds churlish about recognizing that truth. Now he is saying that he buys “cage-free eggs.” No doubt some of us have already informed him about the humane myth and the marketing lies behind cage-free, free range and animal welfare certifications.
Neither have his ideas about animal sentience changed since the first Youtube video. He is still talking about how to rank order animals so that he can figure which ones are ok to kill and eat. So much of this great work has already been done, and he has not even followed up on his references. He reminds me of the gentleman who got up and asked after a talk on plant-based eating, “Can’t we eat ANY animals?” I know these people are panicking at the thought of not eating animals, and want us to absolve them for eating at least chickens or fish. (Sam has already recognized “bivalve veganism”).
Sam seems to have some concerns about his health. He is prone to minor ailments such as the colds and congestion he mentions on his podcasts, and the tinnitus he has blogged about. If Sam feels he is being coerced into veganism, he is going to blame every little sniffle and muscle twinge on not eating animal foods. He will resent it, and probably whine about it in his podcasts. We don’t really want that, we want vegans who are inspired, who realize that other lives have value, who have some measure of empathy and compassion. Sam complaining on his podcasts and blogs about vegans and plant-based diets does nothing to further the cause. Note that the large majority of ex-vegans have attributed their lapse to lacking nutrients, or an unhealthy obsession with food and eating.
For some people, it does seem to be hard to give up on those animal foods because of something akin to an addiction. Dr. Klaper has suggested that the standard American diet heavy on meat creates nutritional mutants by actually changing DNA. An “addiction” does not mean they cannot go vegan, but just that they might need a carefully calibrated transition. The implication of this hypothesis is also that parents are morally obligated to raise their children vegan so that they do not fall prey to the addiction. This is an important point as Sam is particularly worried about raising his two daughters on a plant-based diet, and this hypothesis suggests that it is the best thing he could for them.
The general idea that atheists, or any group, SHOULD be vegan is off-putting. When it comes to vegan advocacy, I begin to have so many reservations about the practice of what marketers call “STP” — segmentation, targeting, positioning. STP advocacy sounds like this: If you are an atheist, then go vegan, because you are rational and scientific. If you are a feminist, then go vegan, because you know that the rights of females matter.
There is only a certain distance you can go in saying anyone should be vegan because of they subscribe to other ideologies. There is no more reason for atheists to be vegan than it is for say, Buddhists to be vegan. The former might consider that they are rational and scientific, but the latter consider themselves compassionate and mindful. We vegans, even the rational and scientific ones, are not above asking the new-age crowd why they are not vegan, as the dead bodies of animals will contain the karmic vibrations of tortured spirits. In short, we would use any reason for anyone to be vegan. So to single out atheists to be vegan, when in reality all of humanity should be vegan, is irritating if not downright offensive. So, rather than insist that a group of people must or should be vegan for some specific reason of ideology, it is better to soon move onto the idea that veganism is a social justice cause, for all of humanity.
I can understand that atheists would bristle at the being told that they need to go vegan, or they are not really good atheists. Atheists share a common lack of belief in a God or gods, and it is indeed a stretch to make that include other precepts. Furthermore, we cannot assume all atheists are educated in science, and you cannot rely on rational or scientific arguments. Some atheists have actually been “damaged” by religions that made them feel guilty, shamed, and fearful about life now and the afterlife. They are quick to feel the same types of pressure when we exhort them to go vegan. They react badly to being told they should do anything based on atheism. They consider their ‘freedom’ to use animals in the same way as their freedom to stop following a religion.
My experience of arguing with atheists and skeptics about veganism was so much more unpleasant than arguing with members of other groups. Unlike some of the other groups like Buddhists, feminists, or dog rescuers, atheists will have no reason not to say, “I don’t care,” and they often do.
We might consider when it hurts us to say someone MUST become vegan. Marshall Rosenberg said that “The most dangerous of all behaviors consists of doing things because we are supposed to.” Veganism is not a punishment, and no one should see it that way. We do not want Sam merely to perform veganism but to deeply understand the injustice that animals have been subject to.
Rather than ‘musts’ and ‘shoulds,’ perhaps Sam would benefit from having conversations with people who share his interests: vegan scientists who work on animal cognition, or vegan martial arts fighters. But really, Sam’s reservations are just about not knowing what to eat, and not knowing how it is possible for him to not eat any animals. I think the best suggestion is ultra-athlete Rich Roll, as Rich has his own successful podcast series, and he and Sam will mutually benefit from sharing audiences. Rich’s conversion from unhealthy life patterns to his phenomenal accomplishments as a plant-based ultra-athlete is remarkable and I can envision a great conversation between them.
Maybe the best we can expect from Sam Harris, at the moment, are the concessions we already have. We might hope for more, but in the meantime, however, I suggest we just let it go. Repeated interrogation about what he is eating isn’t going to help much.
