Discussion at Exeter Socialists on 7 September 2004
introduced by PH, write-up by CM

PH's talk

Preamble

It has taken me a while to get around to writing up this talk, not because it was low priority in my development of this site, but because it was thought-provoking, particularly in relation to the ‘First Stage’ of bringing together red and deep-green activism.

When one gets into discussion with people on the need for radical change, an area of criticism that often comes up is around ‘walking one’s talk’. The green activist who flies on a plane to an international gathering on saving the planet, the red activist who owns a business or earns a high salary while advocating the end of capitalism; both are subject to accusations of hypocrisy. But it is not sensitivity to such accusations that leads many people involved in these areas of struggle to adopt a lifestyle that reflects in some respects their concerns, it is inner compulsion, they have to try not to be part of the problem. So one meets deep ecologists who adopt ‘voluntary simplicity’ and socialists who would rather ‘sign on’ than be wage slaves. And one meets people who have ‘dropped out’ of conventional life out of an inner drive towards ‘right livelihood’, who do not engage in political struggle, believing that only by changing oneself can one change the world.

There is something of a sliding scale between living by one’s convictions and campaigning for a better world. Both reds and greens have such a scale, but with differences. I would say that greens are more drawn to living by their convictions now, reds to campaigning for change and not ‘drawing up a blueprint’ for a future socialist society. This manifests in a tendency for greens to be reformists rather than radicals and reds to be shallow green environmentalists advocating sustainability for people’s sake rather than respecting the intrinsic value of all forms of life and living processes. Red and green radicals then are not easily brought together. So then it is somewhat surprising to encounter a vegan: a radical green position, in a group of hard line lefties.

PH’s talk

[my thoughts noted at the time in square brackets]

PH is interested in the relationship of veganism to socialism. He said it was something of an accident that he had joined a local socialist group rather than talking to the Green Party. In arguing for veganism one can quote statistics about too much land being used to produce food from animals, and appear knowledgeable. One can find figures for almost any argument. More importantly, he rejects the exploitation of fellow creatures. In socialism the creatures who count are humankind; why stop there?

PH is not advocating a return to nature; that is not possible. He feels that factory production of food is OK and necessary. [Can we not go back to some extent, as advocated by the ‘slow food movement’.] Also technological tools are necessary: without the internet, how would we have got two million people protesting the Iraq war on the streets of London in February? Huge factories are needed to make computers. [They could be made more durable, and in kit form so they can be fixed and upgraded with less waste.] We’re all on a path. Paul drove here, he caused the death of insects squashed on the windscreen, the diesel fuel harmed the ecosystem.

But we can question the effects of how our needs are met. For Paul meat eating is equivalent to exploitation by capitalism. Vegetarianism doesn’t go far enough because dairy products are part of the same picture as meat, as are leather and wool: 30% of wool comes from slaughtered animals. Even honey involves the enslavement of bees.

To return to the statistics: ten times the amount of vegetable protein is needed to produce a unit of meat protein. This is gross conversion inefficiency. [The production of vegetable foods causes ecological destruction, for example the Cerrado in Brazil for soya, not just for animal feed, the ‘cake’ being a waste product from production of oil and margarine.]

Meat production is driven by profit. The packing density of animals in sheds leads to disease which is suppressed by chemicals. There are undesirable side-effects, for example antibiotics are used to maximise meat production and can cause resistance to the drugs in humans. BSE resulted from the unnatural practice of feeding dead animals to live ones. [This is not new; recycled dried slaughterhouse waste: blood and bone, has been a protein supplement for decades. Organophosphates possible cause.]

The whole world cannot be fed like the western world: meat three time a day. However, we can’t expect Eskimos to be vegan, we cannot convert the whole world to veganism. Meat eating can be humane, for example the Polynesians care for their pigs when they’re alive. On a desert island with a large rabbit population, Paul can envisage himself being driven to eat the rabbits, but in Exeter we have choice. We can all seek to minimise the suffering of animals.

This is a journey. Much land in the UK is unproductive, useful only for sheep. If we were all vegan, we’d only need a quarter of farmland. Perhaps if we convert to organic we would need more. [Organic does not mean poorer yield, certainly not in production per unit area. Conventional production is wasteful of fossil fuel energy and only productive in terms of manpower.]

There should be enough land for a vegan diet in this country.

The foot and mouth slaughter was driven by political expediency. [These animals were going to be killed anyway.]

In Paul’s ideal world, domesticated animals would die out, and this would not concern him because the varieties we have bred involve suffering. Animals have been bred for qualities we want against their wellbeing, for example sheep which get heat stroke from their huge coats and then exposure when they’ve been shorn; cows with grossly enlarged udders and suffering mastitis. We should value animals for what they are, not because we think they look nice in a field.

There was a lively discussion following PH’s introduction, and I did not take notes. Much of it focused on various aspects of land use. We were told how landless farmers in Brazil have been settled in land ‘owned’ by indigenous people because the state cannot touch the underutilised land belonging to large landowners. These settlers use slash and burn to grow soya for a while until the soil is degraded. Organic agriculture was discussed: it is known to be more labour intensive, but shifting to dependence on compulsory work in the fields would be ‘social engineering’ and wrong. I talked of research into permaculture indicating that yields could be increased 10-12 fold compared with conventional monoculture. So this country could, in principle, be self-reliant in food, whereas at present the ecological footprint of London alone is a land area equivalent to all the productive land in Britain.