“Humans shouldn’t be allowed to kill animals for food,” they say.
But, every form of life depends on the consumption of other life forms. Vegetables are alive. And even vegetables are meat eaters if you observe a carcass that’s left in a forest or pasture. This is one of the problems of the meatless diet mythology, reconciling our minds to this brutal precondition of all life – that life lives off other lives.
Jan Wellmann has written an essay considering six arguments from those who push the anti-meat agenda. These are reasons which are commonly used to justify their narrative and demonise meat forming part of the human diet. He debunks them all. The reasons he tackles are:
1. Ethical: The modern meat industry is evil – Part 2
2. Efficiency: Meat production is inefficient and can’t nourish the global population – Part
3. Health: Meat is bad for you and correlates with cancer, coronary disease, etc. – Part 3
4. CO2: Meat production drives climate change – Part 4
5. Better Alternatives: The new synthetic meat alternatives are healthier, more cost-
effective, and more eco-friendly – Part 5
6. Spiritual / Religious: Why should humans have the right to kill and eat other life forms?
– Part 5
We have broken his essay into five parts as indicated above and will publish the parts, one a day, over the coming days. On Sunday, we published Part 1 – the introduction of his essay, setting the scene so to speak, and the last time the powers that be took us for a ride with the forerunner to the anti-meat movement – The Grand Cholesterol Con.
The following is the final part, Part 5. You can read Wellmann’s full essay HERE.
Our dinner table will be void of high-density, natural, animal-sourced foods within a decade or two. A deeper look behind the agenda explains why it’s necessary to start planning for self-sustenance.
“New Synthetic Meat Alternatives are Better”
Processed, low-fat, plant-based foods began the obesity epidemic in the 1980s, yet we are expected to believe that the new Frankenstein ultra-processed foods (“UPFs”) are going to be great for us.
The fake meat industry is already taking leaps and bounds. According to Bloomberg, the plant-based meat market could reach $450 billion by 2040 and grow at least $70 billion over the next decade.43 44
UPFs present a formidable threat to global health. Paediatric endocrinologist Dr. Robert Lustig details in his book45 how UPFs have already helped to fuel non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and dementia. UPFs are also addictive, obesogenic – contributing to obesity – and tend to mess with the immune system, according to Dr. Joan Ifland.46
Most people who will likely confuse plant-based diets with healthy, vegan nutrition are in for a deadly ride with ultra-processed synthetic proteins, additives, preservatives, stabilisers, GMO concoctions, emulsifiers, seed oils, sugars, acidity regulators and thickeners regurgitated in a matrix of test tubes in a way that gets them hooked for a lifetime.
UPFs are not just going to replace natural meat products but also dairy, eggs, and grain.
We are what we eat.
One day, we may believe that delicious tasting and smelling silicon wafers are good for us with a side of tofu, while an artificial intelligence (“AI”) program decides where to haul our wheelchair next.
“Why Should Humans Be Allowed to Kill Animals?”
This ethical argument drives more vegan converts than any other argument for understandable reasons. It’s commendable to be shocked about the slaughterhouse conditions of suffering animals but blaming meat consumption for the evil is an engineered, simplified response to the problem – since we already know how easily the problem could be fixed with regenerative farming models.
There is also another aspect that the main narrative is burying in this context: the amount of suffering and killing of animals due to modern agriculture per se. Mono-crop agriculture is not possible without the wholesale slaughter of diversified lifeforms.
Few farmers consider the mathematics.
“For me to grow 214 acres of stone fruit and avocados on this farm requires me to kill at least thirty-five to forty thousand gophers a year, thousands of ground squirrels, thousands of bees, thousands of butterflies, thousands of hummingbirds, those last three things completely by accident, the other two are predators or pests that I would kill intentionally,” calculates Californian farmer John Chester.47
To grow 400 tonnes of peas on a single farm will kill 1,500 animals every year, from deer to ducks. A billion mice are killed in Australia to protect meat. Forty thousand ducks are killed to protect rice production. An average apple grower will kill 120 possums in a year to protect an orchard.
In 2013, rice farmers in New South Wales killed 200,000 native ducks. The US Department of Agriculture estimates 1.3 million native animal deaths per year to protect non-animal agriculture. In total, at least twenty-five times more sentient animals are getting killed per kilo of useable protein when compared to meat production.48
However, the maths is irrelevant here. There is a deeper argument that has to do with the nature of life that we should consider.
Every form of life depends on the consumption of other life forms. Even vegetables are meat eaters if you observe a carcass that’s left in the forest or pasture, as the cycle of life and energy grinds its inevitable destiny of forever transmuting from one form to another.
Lierre Keith recounts the story of an apple tree near the graves of Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island.
“The roots of the tree were found to have grown into the graves and assumed the shape of human skeletons while the graves were emptied of every particle of human dust. Not a trace of anything was left.”
The apple tree ate a human. Is the apple tree bad?
“Now, one of the main problems of mythology is reconciling the mind to this brutal precondition of all life, which lives by the killing and eating of lives. You don’t kid yourself by eating only vegetables, either, for they, too, are alive. So, the essence of life is this eating of itself! Life lives on lives, and the reconciliation of the human mind and sensibilities to that fundamental fact,” writes Joseph Campbell, the penultimate authority on ancient civilizations.
Even when we stick to the purest principles of nature, where we safeguard animals, the planet, and human interests with equal balance, we’ll still be eating each other.
Undoubtedly, we’ll have to do it while being nicer to each other.
Epilogue: Shortcutting the “Scientific Consensus”
As we’ve already learned, any claim leveraging “scientific consensus” should be considered investigation-worthy if used to justify the engineered agenda.
If a naysayer, such as a “climate denier,” gets demolished by the media or their professional circles, we should look deeper into their data models.
A few years ago, I was sold on sea-level rise, collapsing icebergs, and the sixth extinction. Today, I believe we should look at the “manmade” part of the “consensus.”49
If any story aligns with the envisioned future of nutrition, we should take our magnifying glasses out and dig in with hellish dedication.
The pursuit of truth is a critical determinant of the future shape of our species. There is nothing more important than preserving our health and energy. For that to happen, we need to once again integrate with nature, eat in a healthy, natural and balanced way, and get busy with things we are passionate about.
Jan Wellmann’s mission is to help people transform their health and energy with safe, natural and non-invasive methods. In the past, he’s built ventures in advertising, film production, hi-tech and health. As a producer, he has written-directed-produced films for both mainstream and indie channels. As a startup consultant, he packaged venture rounds and facilitated financing for high-tech, entertainment and health-related startups in the US and EU. You can follow Wellmann on Substack HERE or Twitter HERE