Reasoning in good faith from evidence to conclusions is out of fashion, or more properly, still out of fashion. That's one aspect of the nonsensical views criticized in Crypto-religion. Those views, "that Americans have long been ambivalent about science", uniquely so in the author's view, were rebutted by pointing out the religious nature of scientific ambivalence in other parts of the world. Such ambivalence is more common than in the US but isn't attributed to religious views, though even a casual look shows that it is.

Consider food fetishes. Many religions have them, and one of the clearest indicators of unreasoning faith in modern crypto-religion is food obsession and non-scientific, or even anti-scientific, justifications for them. Organic religion, vegetable religion and a bewildering variety of other health and diet fads are staples of life in many parts of the supposedly developed world, though the behaviors are more appropriate for the developing world where education is not as available.

This review of The Bloodless Revolution: Radical Vegetarians and the Discovery of India makes that connection clear, and even revels in it, continuing a wave of crypto-religious primitivism and anti-scientific thinking that characterized the boomer generation, though it was old fashioned even then. [via A&L Daily]

Although the word 'vegetarian' was not coined until the 1840s, as long ago as the sixth century BC Pythagoras propounded a theory of immortality that entailed the transmigration of the soul between living creatures - and thus the immorality of eating the flesh of any of them. Pythagoras was thought to have encountered this theory while travelling in Egypt, to which country it was believed to have been introduced by philosophers from India. His doctrines were later advocated by such philosophical giants as Socrates, Diogenes and Plato and would become a seminal part of the Hellenistic philosophical tradition. Pythagoras may not have visited India himself, but Alexander the Great certainly did; and when Alexander arrived in Taxila (now in Pakistan) in 326 BC and encountered Brahmin, Jain and Buddhist ascetics (he called them 'gymnosophists') who also believed in reincarnation and non-violence and therefore did not eat meat, the link with (if not 'the Discovery of') India was confirmed. Just as this evidence of an early and exotic provenance lent credibility to Greek philosophy, so the existence of a culture that had survived 'even thrived' for so long on a meat-free diet has inspired the vegetarian movement ever since.

The exact opposite case has been argued as well, that the advent of agriculture and the degeneration of human diet to a fairly small number of starchy, staple foods was anything but thriving. It was bare survival which stunted minds and bodies and enabled oppressive political and cultural forms to develop. The misery of such existence was both enforced and soothed by the balm of religion - believing preposterous things without evidence, having faith rather than, and in opposition to, knowledge.

People decide to be vegetarian for the same reasons now as 2,000 years ago - it is good for their health and they don't like the idea of killing animals. In Europe, at least, religious considerations and the debate over whether or not animals have souls play a smaller part in that decision than they used to; health concerns, on the other hand, have been forced to the fore by modern intensive farming methods and our reluctance to partake at second hand of the cocktail of chemicals "antibiotics, growth hormones, etc" that goes into meat production. The most potent arguments, however, and this is where Stuart is at his most compelling, are ecological and economic. It has long been known that a vegetable diet sustains many more people per acre than meat, yet great swathes of irreplaceable rainforest are being destroyed every year to make way for grazing and for the cultivation of soya beans, "the bulk of which are used to feed animals which end up on the plates of the affluent West and, increasingly, China". Even the most resolute of meat-eaters must surely agree that something has to change.

These are nonsense claims, anti-scientific claims - which have in the past gotten a pass because they are religious doctrines. Europeans do not have less religion, they simply deny that their religious practices count, that they are reasoned behaviors though that is simply absurd. Every part of the above graf is nonsense.

- "People decide to be vegetarian for the same reasons now as 2,000 years ago - it is good for their health and they don't like the idea of killing animals."

Being vegetarian is not good for your health. With effort it is possible to eat a healthful vegetarian diet, but that isn't an attribute of vegetarianism. It is even easier to eat a healthful diet if such religious inhibitions are not a factor. Besides, vegetable production kills more animals than meat eating. What! - you shriek. Though field and row cropping doesn't kill animals for food it destroys vast amounts of habitat and kills everything that is not the holy food crop. A maize or wheat field is barren in comparison to a pasture where meat animals are grown. This killing is casual, discounted as unintended, as if the greater amount of death and destruction was excusable as collateral damage. Out of sight, out of mind, but it's Gaiacide on a grand scale that in the end may even be destroying the whole planet by altering albedo and filling the atmosphere with carbon gasses emmitted when soil is exposed to atmosphere rather than being covered with a turf hide. First the land is stripped - ripping the breasts of mother earth with steel fingers, sucking rivers dry, spewing toxic chemicals - and then the dried prune of a planet is roasted. That doesn't happen in pastoral cultures.

- "In Europe, at least, religious considerations and the debate over whether or not animals have souls play a smaller part in that decision than they used to; health concerns, on the other hand, have been forced to the fore by modern intensive farming methods and our reluctance to partake at second hand of the cocktail of chemicals "antibiotics, growth hormones, etc" that goes into meat production."

I think it is religion, just as the article claimed - "Just as this evidence of an early and exotic provenance lent credibility to Greek philosophy, so the existence of a culture that had survived 'even thrived' for so long on a meat-free diet has inspired the vegetarian movement ever since." It was Greek religion as well as Greek philosophy. The mathematical religion of Pythagoras might be considered to be some sort of kooky cult, but it isn't so very different from astrology which is openly believed by a very large number of Europeans, many of them the same ones who are vegetarians. The influence of these views and sympathy for them sucks in an even larger proportion of society. There are lots of lurkers who are undecided as yet, or indecisive as a rule, just as with every other religion.

Modern intensive farming methods use more chemicals, and more dangerous chemicals, for field and row cropping than for meat production. The animals would be sparkling clean by comparison except that they sometimes are fed the same sorts of junk food that vegetarians consume.

- "The most potent arguments, however, and this is where Stuart is at his most compelling, are ecological and economic. It has long been known that a vegetable diet sustains many more people per acre than meat, yet great swathes of irreplaceable rainforest are being destroyed every year to make way for grazing and for the cultivation of soya beans, "the bulk of which are used to feed animals which end up on the plates of the affluent West and, increasingly, China". Even the most resolute of meat-eaters must surely agree that something has to change."

It is cropping that harms the environment and degrades ecosystems. It isn't necessary to grow crops to feed livestock. That certainly isn't their natural diet. It isn't even a natural diet for humans. The something that has to change is the practice of cropping. We should at long last take a clear-eyed look at what cropping does to the environment and do less of it. Let animals forage on perennial polycultures of grasses and forbs rather than stuffing them with soya and maize - the animal equivalent of the "twinky diet". The claim that rainforests are destroyed to "make way for grazing" is false. Grasslands where the grazers foraged are being converted to cropland. Both the grasslands and the rainforests are being destroyed by cropping. Grazers may sojourn on newly destroyed forest land for a time, but that's just a preliminary of the true driving cause of destruction: cropping.

It is cropping that is economic suicide. The claim that "a vegetable diet sustains many more people per acre than meat" depends on the practice of feeding crops to livestock, otherwise it is totally false. It not only isn't necessary for the health and well being of the animal, it's foolish and wasteful. Meat animals don't naturally compete with humans. They eat different foods that humans can't even digest. Go live with a cow in a pasture and eat what she does if you doubt this. Compare the vibrancy and ecological soundness of her pasture to your moonscape of a grain field which is utterly barren much of the time, and supports only a monoculture at others. Even the most resolute of vegetarians must surely agree that something has to change.

And yet we must eat something. Like all other living things, animal and vegetable, it is the death of others that sustains us. We are so interdependent that even the death of others is a requirement for continuing life. This is a hard truth for those with absolutist and totalitarian tendencies. There are no innocent behaviors, and so no way to support food fetishes except by selective use of data which ignores the stark realities of life.

What can change? It seems possible that in some future we will learn to make food from space rocks and air without needing to consume other living things or destroy their habitat. We might technically be called vegetarians in that case, but it would be irrelevant, would fail to satisfy the desires of those who are vegetarians now. They would find other ways to be holier than the rest of us.

In the meantime we can look at all of the data and make better decisions. We can reduce our impact on other life forms though not eliminate it or even reduce it to some negligible level. We will continue to wreak havoc on other living things no matter what we eat, but we can be mindful, and grateful, and not cause unnecessary damage.

For example, we can raise meat animals on their natural diets of grasses, forbs, bugs, roots and such. We can do it in more natural settings. This greatly reduces the environmental impact of food production. We can be frugal and make sure than organic matter produced for human consumption but rejected for flaws, or trimmed away as indigestible (think of things like almond shells that we can't eat though we can eat the nut meat), are made available to livestock as forage supplements. Waste not, want less. We can eliminate truly wasteful and destructive behaviors such as the production of biofuels. There's really quite a long list of ways we can do better once we look at the facts and seek to do honest problem solving.

There is some potential for technologies that reduce the negative consequences of cropping. For example, there are efforts in progress to develop perennial grain crops that can be grown in polyculture, thus removing the two greatest defects of cropping - annual tillage and monoculture. This is a non-trivial objective and little progress has been made so far but it might happen. Nano-assembly of foods from space rocks almost seems easier and might arrive sooner, but it's good to pursue multiple objectives.

To reason usefully on this subject it is necessary to be intellectually honest, to reason from evidence to conclusions rather than select incomplete bits of evidence that support predetermined conclusions. This is unreasoning faith - like creationist "science" - that only considers and accepts the science that can be interpreted as support for faith while ignoring contrary information. This isn't a challenge to those faiths, believe as you will, it is only an objection to the junk science, anti-science abuses. It is simply false that vegetarianism is gentler, less harmful to the environment, more economically viable or less bloody. It does its killing casually, indirectly, secretly - and does a far more complete job of it. That's the choice: kill purposefully for food or kill negligently while looking away. The argument that the one who kills purposefully, mindfully and gratefully - acknowledging a debt and the wholeness of creation - is the more truly compassionate, is often made. The present state of the animal food industry is far from that, an industrial process as devoid of mindfulness as field and row cropping, but there are exceptions that could become the norm. The happy bit is that combined with cropping in a multi-use general farm such mindful practices can help reduce the harm of cropping, and result in the least harmful of food systems we have. Until we learn that trick with space rocks this will do.

Update:

More Unreasoning Faith

Although it’s rarely stated so bluntly, many critics of the animal rights movement, and animal rights in general, view it as a form of wishy-washy sentimentalism; after all, with all the problems in the world – war, poverty, AIDS – doesn’t caring about pigs and cows and furry little creatures seem somewhat trivial? . . .

Animal rights begins with the basic premise that sentience and a sense of identity are the key factors which determine a being’s right to be free from pain and suffering. It is because humans have (an overall) greater capacity for these attributes that harming a human is worse than harming a spider; it is not simply because humans are better or somehow morally superior. . .

There is no question that if one had to choose between ending the suffering for the people of Darfur, Sudan or saving the lives of an equivalent number of cows, the humans would win hands down. The same can be said for many similar comparisons. The problem with this logic is that it only looks at the benefits side, and not the costs. . .

The conflict in Sudan is genocide and stopping it should be a top priority. But how can individuals influence policy regarding Sudan? We can call our Congressman, write letters, and donate to human rights groups, but the chance of any individual influencing government policy regarding Sudan is miniscule. . .

Regarding animal suffering, however, the required actions (costs) are minor and have profound direct effects; the benefits-to-costs ratio is large and automatic. If people stop eating animal products, and stop buying leather clothes or fur, many animals will be saved from immense suffering and cruelty. In fact, there are no easier acts one can do that have as great an immediate impact on the level of suffering in the world. (In addition to fewer animals being mistreated and killed, the production of animals and fish for food is probably the single most environmentally damaging and ecologically wasteful activity in the world).

This is nonsense in the form of reasoned argument, like creationism and ID. The "facts" are false and the reasoning is loopy.

There may be many critics of the animal rights movement that view it as a form of wishy-washy sentimentalism but that isn't the most pointed critique. That it is nonsensical and emotional is true and relevant, but more importantly the analyses and prescriptions are bunk.

The premise that some capacity for feeling pain bestows rights isn't an admirable premise. Sorting life forms into some sort of hierarchy based on similarity to humans and rewarding them with greater rights as they are judged to be more human-like is the same sort of warped thinking that once regarded African slaves as partial humans. These ancient gradations from instrumentum mutum through instrumentum semi-vocale" [animals] to "instrumentum vocale" [slaves] were and are an impoverished expression of an ignorant world view.

Bacteria are more "important" to life on this planet. It is more reasonable to argue for bacterial rights than animal rights. Photosynthetic plants are pretty important too. Animals of all sorts are almost afterthoughts, though bacteria and plants have evolved to use them for their purposes. But the point here isn't that the animal rights schema is mistaken and that the bacterial rights schema is superior, it is that the whole way of thinking is absurd, a category error.

But even accepting the loopy premises the reasoning is flawed. It does not, as recommended, look at the costs as well as the benefits. It looks at some of the costs and some of the benefits, carefully picking and choosing those that support the loopy premises. To reduce animal suffering it is necessary to do far more than refusing to eat meat or wear hides - it is necessary also to stop growing crops, building structures, zipping about on the ground, on the seas and in the air in vehicles, etc. etc. Refusing to eat meat reduces the suffering of some animals while increasing it for many more other animals. The are no net benefits, just increased costs.

It's not nicer to mindlessly inflict harms than to do so mindfully. It's easier, but not nicer. To fully face who and what you are, to admit that your continued existence is a source of constant suffering to other beings and that this is as true for those beings as for you, can be depressing. The food cycle of everything and everyone being both predator and prey absolutely dispels absolutist philosophies. To many living things - plant, animal and other - you are food on the hoof and they will eat you alive or dead with no regrets or even any thoughts. You, however, can and arguably should think about those you eat, and meditate on the circularity of life. This isn't just a virtuous practice, it is informative and can help you make better decisions about any number of things. It's one of the universe's basic principles and has some general applications.

It would, for example, help you avoid embarrassingly unreasonable statements such as "the production of animals and fish for food is probably the single most environmentally damaging and ecologically wasteful activity in the world". Instead you would easily grasp the circularity and that the production of animals and fish for food can in fact heal damages caused by cropping. Looking at the whole system which evolved by trial and error over deep time and understanding its logic can lead to agricultural systems that employ the mental tools revealed by that study, to in a sense be like natural systems, but more so.