It seems to me that the impact of producing certain goods on wildlife is not well understood, even in the vegan community. It is easy to assume that plant products are just made from plants or that animal products are just made from animals, but this does not reflect reality. Producing products of any type impacts the animals that inhabit our shared planet.
One way to quantify this is through the animal cost.
The animal cost is the number of lives that are taken to produce an amount of some product or while participating in some activity.
For example, suppose it costs the lives of 1.04 dairy cows for every 490 lbs of boneless trimmed beef (the .04 represents premature death loss due to predator or illness).
That is fairly straightforward to understand. Some amount of a final product requires the death of a number of animals. This is the same with plant products.
Suppose it costs the lives of
1 orangutan for every 5,000 lbs of palm oil sourced from region A during a period X
Perhaps the orangutans died from starvation due to displacement, or they were shot by a farmer to protect the harvest. Either way, they would not have died if not for the production of the palm oil.
Furthermore, suppose it costs the lives of
1 honey bee for every 20 almonds grown in California
10 fish for every 500 lbs of seaweed harvested
50 frogs for every 1000 lbs of acai produced in a region in Brazil
1 vaquita for every 10,000 lbs of shrimp caught in the Gulf of California
5 squirrels, 10 birds, and 20 lbs of insects for every 1,000 board feet of lumber harvested
100 butterflies for every gallon of neonicotinoids sprayed in a neighborhood
10 mammals (struck and killed) for every 100 miles traveled by car in the Australian outback
The examples above illustrate the basic idea that nearly all products and activities result in animal deaths. Given this fact, we have to rethink what it means for a product to be considered vegan. Just looking at whether a product is derived from the bodies of animals fails to take into account indirect exploitation. For example, a “vegan” chocolate bar whose cocoa beans were grown in west africa would have contributed to the deaths of critically endangered frogs due to deforestation.
The same is true with human activities. It would be a mistake to ignore indirect deaths. Hunting requires an animal to be killed; but other activities such as driving a car or boating regularly cause fatal collisions with animals. While the intent to harm is not there, there are still animal casualties.
Animal cost can include more than one species. For example, there could be incidental capture of non-target species, use of bait for fishing, use of fishmeal to feed carnivorous fish in aquaculture, or pest control to protect agricultural harvests.
In fisheries, the capture of non-target species is called bycatch. Shrimp trawling, which involves dragging a large net along the seafloor, has one of the highest rates of bycatch of any product. Hundreds of non-target species of fish, crustaceans, sea turtles, and other marine species are killed and discarded. In the Gulf of Mexico the ratio is 5.25 bycatch to 1 of shrimp—relatively low compared to other areas of the world.
Just like bycatch in fisheries, cultivation of plant products in agriculture can involve killing multiple species. To fully capture the extent of animal deaths we have to consider the entire process from before seeds are planted to getting the final product on retail shelves. This means taking into account deaths caused by pesticides, harvesters, pollination, pest management, transportation and more. In the honey bee almond example listed above, it would be more accurate to include additional pest species such as rats and squirrels that consume almonds and threaten harvests. Farms use fumigation, trapping, bait poisoning, and more to control their populations.
Another aspect of animal cost is that it tends to decrease over time. Take the conversion of an old growth forest into an agricultural field. In the beginning, the animal cost is at its highest as species are directly displaced and killed. Mobile animals are pushed into adjacent areas where they face higher competition for resources, which leads to mortality over an extended period. Animals that wander back into the fields may be killed by farmers in order to protect the harvest. Over the long run, the animal cost of producing the harvest decreases, as local populations of wild animals diminish or collapse.
In highly developed regions of the world, land has progressed to the later stage of lower animal cost. This differs to developing areas, especially biodiverse tropical regions, that are currently experiencing high animal cost due to rapid deforestation and development. According to the WWF’s 2020 Living Planet Report, vertebrate populations in Latin America and the Caribbeans have dropped 94% between 1970 and 2016. This is far greater than other regions such as North America and Europe in the same period.
This raises the question: how should we think about products that no longer have a high animal cost, but once did in the past? It could be interpreted as a positive thing from the perspective of reducing animal suffering, but it also means the loss of local wildlife populations.
With all this in mind, individuals who care about animal ethics should take a more informed approach on how they choose certain products or activities. It is not sufficient to label products as vegan or not simply based on the ingredients of the final product because many products indirectly cause animal deaths. Because we know this, individuals should aim to choose alternatives or options with the lowest animal costs available.
One way to apply the concept of animal cost in reducing animal exploitation in plant products is to create a science-based recommendation program, modeled like the Monterey Bay aquarium Seafood Watch, that assesses and estimates the animal cost of certain plant foods sourced from different regions of the world. Similar to the seafood watch, products can be placed into one of three categories: green would be “best choice”, yellow “good alternative”, and red “avoid”. This would enable consumers to choose products with lower animal costs.
Veganism and environmentalism at times seem to be two separate things. Most of the attention in veganism is focused on intensive factory farms and the direct exploitation of animals for consumption, but it should be just as important to acknowledge the impact that producing plant products has on wild animals.
As for non plant-based consumers, consider the cost of animal products on factory farmed and wild animals. Is a piece of meat worth the life of a sentient being that had to endure stress and suffering up until its last moments? Is a certain food worth the extinction of a species? If you have eaten shrimp in the US in the previous years, then there is a high chance that you contributed to the critical endangerment and likely extinction of the vaquita, the smallest living species of cetacean.
I’ve been thinking about the world’s problems and how they’re directly related to resource and externality limits and inequity because we live on a finite planet. Specifically, whether there are limits to the stuff we can take from nature or a limit to how much we can pollute. And if there are limits, how do we distribute them fairly?
If 100 gallons of water flow from a river per day, and each person needs 1 gallon a day to survive, there would be a problem if more than 100 people lived near the river. It would also be unfair if someone in a village of 100 consumed 5 gallons. On top of that, we cannot forget to add biodiversity into our example, like if there are fish that depend on water in the river or deer that also need water to drink—things we don’t usually take into account.
This concept of a sustainable resource limit applies to nearly everything in our physical world: land, wood, sand, minerals, metals, wildlife, pet trade species, fish stocks, plants, succulents, etc. The fundamental concept is simple. If we remove at a rate faster than what is regenerated, eventually the resource will run out. But sometimes it is not that simple; the limit may be indirect due to other resource limits. Take our river example from above. Let’s pretend a village depends on an aquatic vegetable that requires 50 gallons of water flow per day. Then the limit for water consumption is not 100 gallons per day, but 50.
Keep in mind that not all of these resources have limits that have been surpassed or will be reached until sometime in the future. It may also be impossible to determine a “hard” limit in many cases.
If there are limits to resource consumption, then it is only right that we stay underneath those limits. This brings up the issue: how do we distribute a resource within its limit? Not everyone wants the same products. But there are certain resources in which everyone needs in order to live a decent life. It would seem reasonable that at the very least, these resources should be allocated, within their limits, in a way that ensures a decent life for everyone.
Today, many communities and wildlife suffer from lack of water. Seven states, tribes, and parts of Mexico rely on the Colorado River, which has been significantly impacted by recent drought. Unfortunately, the states have been in disagreement on how to cut and divide the water fairly, which is resulting in further depletion of water resources.
Another example is the amount of land required to produce meat for certain diets. If the world were to adopt the diet of the average American, 138% of the world’s habitable land would need to be converted for agriculture. That is over 100%, which is obviously impossible. Compare that to the average Indian diet which would require 22% of the world’s habitable land.
Similarly, there are limits to negative externalities such as pollution—greenhouse gases, plastic, etc. In other words, there is a maximum amount of pollution that can be released into the environment before it begins to significantly impact an ecosystem from functioning the way it should.
Another category of negative externalities are human activities and the effect of anthropogenic objects in an environment. Examples include driving cars, rapid urbanization, and fences and walls, which have significant impacts on global biodiversity.
Let’s first focus on greenhouse gases. Suppose the total sustainable global greenhouse gas emissions is 5 billion tons a year instead of the current 40 billion tons that is emitted. Divide the 5 billion by the number of people on the planet (8 billion) to get 0.63 tons. Then, it would only be equally fair if everyone was allowed to emit 0.63 tons instead of the 16 tons that the average American emits (or several thousand tons for many top 0.1 percenters).
Globally, we produce about 80 billion lbs of beef at a cost of 220 billion lbs of methane per year. Suppose to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, we need to decrease emissions by 90% to 22 billion lbs of methane/year or 8 billion lbs of beef respectively. Divided equally between the global population of 8 billion, we get 1 lb of beef per person. Compare this to the average amount of beef eaten by an American in a year: 55 lbs. Animal ethics aside, we have to ask: is this fair? Let’s look at this the other way around. If everyone in the world were to eat the same amount of beef as the average American, then the total amount of methane emitted from cattle per year would be 1.2 trillion lbs of methane. That is over 5 times what is emitted from cows today.
If everyone in the world flew a distance from New York to San Francisco in a year (roughly a third of a ton), that would produce 3 billion tons of co2 or almost three times as much as what global aviation produces currently.
The most publicized pollution limit issue that we are facing today is climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions. But aside from carbon emissions, there are many other types of pollution which have their own limits that we don’t really address like plastic pollution, PFAS compounds (forever chemicals), water, light, sound, aircraft contrails, space debris, and many more. Many of these we barely understand, such as the effects of microplastic accumulating on the ocean floor or electromagnetic radiation on certain species.
In regards to pollution, there are two important equity issues. First is how much each person should be allowed to pollute within a sustainable limit. Similar to resources, if there is a limit to the amount of pollution we can emit globally, then it is only right if we, as a total population, emit an amount that is equal or under that level. Does this mean it would be unfair for someone to emit more than their equal share? And second, how do we address inequity in regards to the existing (and future) people, plants, or animals that suffer disproportionately from the negative effects of exceeding pollution limits?
These are ideas we should be discussing today because they are a direct cause of the majority of the world’s most pressing problems from the ecological (climate change, habitat degradation, biodiversity loss) to the social (wealth inequality, social unrest, conflicts). Here are some questions we should be asking:
How do we determine what externalities need to be controlled or limited? For example, global climate change, but what about sensory pollution (light and sound)?
What is the sustainable limit? Specifically, what is an acceptable amount taken from nature? Or an acceptable amount of pollution released into the environment? The ideal level may not be at its limit.
How do we fairly distribute a resource or externality within its limit? What level of inequality is acceptable?
What rights do plants, fungi, and animals have within the context of these issues?
How can we rebuild society to better manage these sustainable limit issues over the long run? For instance, prevent global climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions in the first place? What policies or systems do we need to implement?
Our global economy is structured on the unlimited pursuit of producing goods and services for our own pleasure. But that is a dangerously misguided way of reality. We live in a finite world in which resources are limited, and each of our activities has consequences of their own. This is not saying that we need to eliminate all our belongings and return to a primitive state of living, but rather that we need to reexamine and transition our society within the context of finite resources and limits if we want to preserve life on this planet.
The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) is a United Nations organization that provides scientific information on climate change for governments and the public. It does not conduct original research. Over a thousand scientists and experts review existing scientific literature and compile key information into “Assessment Reports” and additional “Special Reports”. These reports are internationally accepted and widely agreed upon by leading scientists; however, they tend to be conservative due to the IPCC’s approval process.
In simpler words, the IPCC is a bunch of top scientists who compile the latest climate science into reliable and publicly accessible documents that governments refer to when creating their climate policies.
The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6)
It takes around six to seven years to prepare and release each assessment report. The most recent report, the “Sixth Assessment Report” was released in three parts:
The Physical Science Basis (WGI)
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (WGII)
Mitigation of Climate Change (WGIII)
WG refers to Working Group, the group of scientists and organizers focusing on each part.
The full report is too long to read—thousands of pages long—so we just refer to the shortened summary reports and slightly longer technical reports.
Current Status of the Climate
Here is the current status of the climate relating to greenhouse gas emissions.
The global surface temperature is currently 1.1°C higher than the average between 1850 to 1900.
In addition, every major group of greenhouse gases has continued to increase in the past three decades, as you can see in the figure below.
In order to group all greenhouse gases together, non-CO2 gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, which have stronger warming effects, are converted to the equivalent of CO2 using a value called the global warming potential.
The IPCC report breaks down future emissions into five scenarios called SSPs (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways):
These scenarios show us how the world could evolve depending on the level of climate change mitigation.
The big questions become: which scenario are we headed towards, and what are its projected impacts?
In order to model the scenario the world is headed towards, researchers use the projected future total greenhouse gas emissions. This estimate is derived from Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are climate action plans that include specific targets for reducing emissions. Each country in the Paris Agreement is required to establish an NDC and update it every five years. They are non-binding.
For example, here is the United States’ most recent NDC from the official document submitted to the UN:
Combining all the countries’ NDCs, climate scientists can model the extent of future warming. The results are shown below in the UNEP’s (UN Environment Programme) Emissions Gap Report 2021.
The UN Emissions Gap Report 2021 states:
“Global warming at the end of the century is estimated at 2.7°C if all unconditional 2030 pledges are fully implemented and 2.6°C if all conditional pledges are also implemented. If the net-zero emissions pledges are additionally fully implemented, this estimate is lowered to around 2.2°C.”
This 2.7°C equates to SSP2-4.5, the middle-of-the-road scenario. This is far above the 1.5°C goal countries agreed to in the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Outcome of SSP2-4.5
What is the outcome of SSP2-4.5 according to the AR6?
Here are some of the figures provided in the report. I highlighted the impacts at the SSP2-4.5 level in yellow.
This is by no means a comprehensive look at the report. Refer to the summary and technical reports for further details, including topics not covered here such as adaptation and mitigation.
The projected scenario, and consequent outcome, hinges on the extent of greenhouse gas reduction achieved by individual countries, which we can estimate from NDCs. However, there is no guarantee countries will meet their NDC goals as they are non-binding. To further improve our assessment, we must take a closer look at each individual country’s progress toward meeting their NDCs—a task that is more difficult due to the lack of detailed reporting.
Looking back at the US’ NDC, a 50% reduction over the next eight years is about 6.25% per year. However, one has to ask: what policies do we have in place that will guarantee a decline of 6.25% in GHG emissions per year, or roughly a COVID-19 pandemic sized reduction, for this coming year, let alone the next seven years?
While the charts and figures provide a systematic assessment of the potential impacts, it is easy to overlook the true real world impact of what the data represents. For example, in panel (d) of the risks of global warming, the figure shows a transition from high to very high risk/impact at around 1.5°C for warm water corals. This seemingly inconspicuous detail represents the near complete loss of coral reefs that is likely to occur as the global temperature surpasses 1.5°C within the next few decades.
Early in the pandemic shutdown, my family and I visited a local beach in Southern California on a spring night, lured by the possibility of witnessing a widely reported phenomenon known as bioluminescence. The phenomenon occurs when a particular light-emitting algae blooms. We drove to the closest beach and walked along a bluff overlooking the ocean. The water displayed a mystifying glow; blue streaks of light pulsed within the crashing waves along the entire beach.
About a year later, I encountered an article online describing the proliferation of “sea snot” in the coastal waters of Turkey. An image showed a layer of brown sludge around the docks and boats. This “sea snot” was an outbreak of marine microorganisms, mainly phytoplankton, that was growing into a dense layer of mucus-like slime. Scientists were afraid that the marine life underneath was in danger of being choked out. The government called it a “national crisis”.
Around this time, I read another article reporting on a disturbing record number of manatee deaths in Florida primarily from starvation due to a loss of seagrass, their food source. The article explained that this loss of seagrass was due to algal blooms blocking out sunlight in the water column.
Dots started to connect. Perhaps these events were manifestations of the same underlying cause—signs of an unhealthy ecosystem.
In ecology, there is a process known as eutrophication. The word is from the Greek “eutrophos” meaning “well-nourished”. Eutrophication is the process in which bodies of water get enriched by excess nutrients over time. Anthropogenic activities have caused this otherwise naturally slow-occurring process to rapidly increase in many areas.
In coasts around the world, water pollution from constant agricultural and urban runoff causes eutrophication. Plant nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus from human activities drain through river systems into the ocean. Combined with warmer sea temperatures due to anthropogenic climate change, the influx of nutrients creates an environment that promotes excessive algae growth. These coastal algal blooms cause harmful effects such as algae-produced toxins, hypoxia, fish kills, ocean acidification, and decreased water transparency.
When algal blooms degrade, oxygen levels can fall below what most marine life can tolerate, forming areas of low biological activity called “dead zones”. According to the IPBES, a UN organization that reports on the state of global biodiversity, there are more than 400 “dead zones” around the world, totalling more than 245,000 square kilometers—an area bigger than the UK. These “dead zones” commonly occur at the mouths of major river systems. One of the largest dead zones in the world lies in the northern Gulf of Mexico, where the bulk of the US’s agricultural runoff in the midwest drains through the Mississippi river system.
In the 1850s, large-scale livestock farming and grain production took off in California as farmers adopted new intensive technologies. Cattle ranching expanded to cover millions of acres, and the state soon became one of the largest wheat producers. As a consequence of this rapid intensification of agriculture, the soil degraded due to poor soil management. Years of intensive farming practices and overgrazing led to perfect conditions for soil erosion in California’s semi-arid climate. Massive amounts of soil washed into the ocean.
As a result of the sedimentation, California’s continental shelf biodiversity shifted. Once a rocky seafloor covered in filter feeders such as brachiopods and scallops, the shelf transformed into a mudscape. Detritivores (decomposers) and mobile predators, such as worms and crustaceans, moved in to replace the stationary filter feeders that were once abundant. Without the filter-feeders, the ecosystem’s ability to filter algae from the seawater was dramatically reduced. Today, small patches of California’s earlier shelf ecosystem survives around the offshore islands.
Around a hundred years after California’s loss of seawater filtering capacity, the world underwent another agricultural transformation: the green revolution of the mid 1900s. Key to this revolution was the increased mass production of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium—three macronutrients in synthetic fertilizers. In 1914, German chemist Fritz Haber developed a new high pressure method of extracting nitrogen from the air. This method, called the Haber-Bosch process, enabled the industry to rapidly scale up production of nitrate fertilizers. In 2020, the process produced around 176 million tons of nitrogen-based ammonia globally, most of which was used to fertilize crops. Phosphorus and potassium, which are found in sedimentary mineral deposits, increased in production as well. The revolution in producing these synthetic fertilizers increased crop yields many times over; however, vast amounts of excess fertilizer made its way into coastal ecosystems.
As agriculture boomed, industrialization and growth pushed humans into cities and urban areas. All around the world, cities grew at unprecedented rates. As a result, mass urbanization began to compete with agriculture in its role in eutrophication. Landscaping fertilization, wastewater runoff, industrial discharge, and infrastructure development created new sources of pollutants and sedimentation that entered adjacent coastal marine habitats.
At the same time, the global sea surface temperature began rising due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Between 1971 and 2010, the temperature increased around 0.11°C per decade. In addition, marine heatwaves increased in duration and intensity. The heat fueled larger and faster growing algal blooms.
Over the past two centuries, human activities have produced conditions ripe for rampant eutrophication along the world’s coasts. Early livestock ranching caused soil erosion and sedimentation that extirpated delicate filter feeder ecosystems on coastal shelves. Then, the flow of synthetic fertilizers and urban runoff, coupled with anthropogenic sea surface warming, enabled algal blooms to proliferate.
In the ocean, phytoplankton form the foundation of the ocean’s food web and of life on the planet. Drifting along in the tides and currents, these marine plant organisms produce 50 to 80% of the planet’s oxygen, provide food for marine life ranging from mollusks to whales, and may even regulate the planet’s climate by contributing to the formation of clouds. Across the world’s oceans, natural phytoplankton blooms support areas of high productivity. There are over 4000 species of phytoplankton across the entire planet, and a single liter of seawater may contain over a million individual phytoplankton and 100 to 150 different species.
In Southern California, Lingulodinium polyedra, a dinoflagellate phytoplankton that emits light using a chemical reaction, is responsible for the bioluminescent waves. In Turkey, various microbes and phytoplankton species exude sticky substances made up of polysaccharides. In Florida, numerous species rapidly grow from the nutrient runoff, reducing sunlight in the water column. These unique species represent just a few of the wide diversity of phytoplankton around the world.
We have only begun to discover how complex life on this planet is. Every ecosystem, from the expansive Amazon rainforest to the obscure armadillo gut microbiome, is composed of innumerable species, each performing unique behaviors in complex relationships. Despite the chaos and disorder of millions of individual organisms, these diverse ecosystems achieve a state of equilibrium, or homeostasis, over time. When a sudden alteration in the environment causes one element to get thrown off, the resulting population shifts impact many organisms and may even decrease total biodiversity.
For example, in the human gut, gut dysbiosis (disruptions to microbial homeostasis) is associated with numerous diseases including inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, and colorectal cancer. In coastal marine ecosystems, the unexpected influx of pollutants from land causes detrimental effects that reverberate through the food chain from seagrass to manatees, and ultimately, humans.
As we are increasingly becoming aware of, eutrophication is just one of innumerable changes occurring to coastal regions around the world and to the biosphere at large. All across the planet’s surface, there is a major upheaval of biological life.
Many scientists today believe we are living in a new geological epoch called the anthropocene, which is marked by significant human impacts on Earth’s geology, biodiversity, and natural systems.
The average global population of vertebrates such as mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish has declined 68% between 1970 and 2016. A quarter of all plant and animal species that have been studied in detail are now threatened with extinction. International shipping, the wildlife trade, landscaping, and other activities are breaking down the barriers that led to speciation and diversity. Introduced species of animals, plants, fungi, and pathogens now affect practically every ecosystem on Earth.
Humans have significantly reshaped the geomorphology of Earth’s surface through the building of roads, dams, and other human infrastructure. According to the IPBES, 75% of Earth’s land surface and 66% of the oceans have been significantly altered by human activities. In addition, human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide ppm has risen to 409 ppm, a third higher than in 1960—and significantly higher than at any point in the past hundreds of thousands of years. Methane concentrations have more than doubled since the industrial revolution. The implications of these higher concentrations of greenhouse gases are becoming apparent. These statistics describe just a handful of the innumerable changes that define the anthropocene.
What does all of this mean for life on this planet? And for future generations?
Without a major change in the way we do things, the natural world, which we depend on, will continue to degrade from the cumulative effects of all our activities. Today, about half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture. With rising incomes and a global population projected to grow almost 50% from 7 billion to 10 billion humans by mid-century, agricultural land will have to expand by 3.3 billion hectares if there are no productivity gains. This would mean the complete elimination of the world’s forests and savannas. The effects of anthropogenic eutrophication would be even more severe. Unless humanity undergoes great change, there will be few reasons to believe eutrophication and dead zones will diminish anytime soon.
Determined to get one last dive before an incoming storm turned the local waters into a toilet bowl, I ventured out to a nearby beach just as the initial drizzles of rain began. Alone, I dove into the water and past the waves. The visibility was muddled in the choppy waves. Swimming over the seafloor, I looked for signs of marine life. A large majestic bat ray glided along, disappearing through the cloudy water. At some point upon ascending to the surface to take a breath, I noticed an enormous silhouette of a sea creature rising from the depths of the water. Immediately, I felt a rush of fear as this sea animal, far larger than me, rose up underneath. The creature came into view: a giant sea bass, at least five hundred pounds and five feet long. It must have wandered over curiously. And just as it appeared, it was gone. My heart was pounding, and I could hardly believe I just encountered this giant sea dweller for the first time.
As a regular ocean diver, I have the opportunity to witness the beauty of life in the ocean. However, it depends on the conditions of the water: most importantly, the water visibility. Unfortunately, for large portions of the year, the visibility is under five feet due to eutrophication, sedimentation, and other factors—either an algal bloom occupying the top layers of the sea, loose sediment kicked up by the surge, sewage runoff after a rain, or a combination of these causes. Sometimes it is so low I am unable to see my outstretched arm. Days with excellent visibility are the exception.
In addition to diving, I forage and collect seafood. In the fall and winter, I hunt for spiny lobsters, clawless crustaceans that hide during the day and wander out after dusk. Recreational divers can catch them, using only their hands. Throughout the year, various seaweeds such as nori, kombu, and wakame can be collected from rocky intertidal zones. In colder months, in which the chances of algal blooms is lower, I can target mollusks such as giant pismo clams, rock scallops, and California mussels. However, as many foragers come to learn, the risk of dangerous toxins, that can accumulate from toxic red tides and algal blooms, persists.
One of these is called Paralytic Shellfish Poison or PSP, a marine biotoxin produced by some species of algae. When shellfish filter the algae, they can accumulate high amounts of the toxin which affects the human nervous system and can paralyze muscles, hence the name “paralytic”. Normally, populations of the algae are too low to cause problems, but blooms can increase the populations to dangerous levels. Another well known toxin, domoic acid, affects numerous species including dungeness crab, a major target species for fisheries in California. A severe domoic acid algal bloom that lasted for several months in the summer of 2015 affected the entire West Coast. As a result, the opening date of the dungeness crab fishery was postponed and area closures were implemented.
In the past few centuries, we’ve managed to change the physical world at an unprecedented scale to the benefit of some. We’ve revolutionized agriculture to support a population of billions, but neglected the harms it entailed on coastal ecosystems. We’ve experienced a transformation in scientific understanding of the natural world, but only begun to discover the extent that our old-fashioned processes clash with complex biological systems. Today, we face the greatest predicament threatening the survival of over a million species, including us.
We have seen that the story of human existence has been too often a story of domination and exploitation, of pursuing power and wealth, knowingly or unknowingly at the expense of others: the natural world, animals, and other fellow human beings. And yet it is only us, who are able to change our ways. For if we do not, we will establish ourselves as the greatest failed species in the history of life on this planet. But if we do, we will be the catalyst for the next great transformation of life.
In my previous post on animal agriculture, I argued that we should reduce or eliminate consumption of factory farmed animal products on the idea that animals are enduring unacceptable levels of abuse and suffering. In this second post, I want to share some additional reflections I have had on this topic. Two personal stories come to mind.
The first story features a lobster, and my father. Many years ago, I caught a lobster from the local beach and decided to cook it for dinner with my family. I decided I wanted to dispatch the lobster with a knife before placing it into the steamer pot to minimize suffering. My father objected, perhaps turned off from the thought of the violent act. But I thought it would be better for the lobster. After attempting to kill the lobster, I remember seeing my father exhibit a look of guilt and sorrow.
The second story involves a rat, and a close friend and neighbor. A friend’s mother asked me to dispose of a living rat that was snared by a trap in their backyard. Undaunted by the situation, I went over to help them out. I placed the rat into a bucket, concluding that the least violent method to kill it would be to drown it. As I executed the plan, my friend’s mother was clearly distressed by the experience, and my friend, even more so. He retreated indoors, unable to witness the act. I will never forget the look on his face after I returned inside: a look of horror and trauma, as if he had just witnessed a murder.
Why did my father and my friend react in the same distressed manner to the death of these creatures, but have no problem consuming factory-farmed meat on a daily basis? I think their reactions show that they are not necessarily hypocrites, but rather individuals reacting consistently with a society unexposed to the truth of what happens in a factory farm. The situation exposes the gap between the reality of intensive animal agriculture and what little knowledge we have as consumers. I believe society possesses an inherent empathy that is not expressed to its full capacity. We do care for the welfare and treatment of animals, even the insignificant ones considered food or pest. It is just that powerful forces of society, industry, and instinctive behavior are preventing us from expressing our more empathetic nature.
I think the best reason for not eating intensively farmed animal products is the simple, honest one.
The ethical reason why I do not consume factory-farmed animals is because the extent of suffering and cruelty is unacceptable to me. I want others to do the same because I believe the extent of suffering and cruelty would also be unacceptable to most other people if they knew the things I know now.
Know this simple explanation and you will understand why many plant-based advocates behave the way they do.
While I largely agree with mainstream ideologies, I believe there can be an additional ideology that accepts the existence of suffering to a certain extent—that can include the consumption of some animals without causing unreasonable cruelty or exploitation, and always with complete understanding of the life that was taken and the context in which the animal was killed. Rather than “everyone avoid all animal products solely based on one philosophical statement with zero exceptions”, it is “use or non-use of specific products are determined each by its own reasons”. This approach accepts that there can be some level of suffering, though significantly less than there is currently.
For example, people should avoid farmed animal products simply because they entail unacceptable levels of cruelty and suffering, while oysters and mussels can be acceptable from an ethical standpoint if the farming and/or harvesting process is done sustainably. Under veganism, as it is practiced today, palm oil use is debatable, while under this new framework, palm oil should be avoided due to its environmental impacts. This approach is both broader and more restrictive in a sense that some use of animal products can be acceptable, but can restrict the use of plant products depending on specific reasons.
More likely than not, you, the one reading this, have not pondered these questions on meat consumption. And after reading this, you will dismiss these ideas and go on with your day without making any changes to your life. But I implore you that this is a topic worth a deeper look because it is directly related to our choices. Take five minutes to look up a video on how a cow is bled to death, or how a pig is rendered unconscious when it gets lowered into a pit of carbon dioxide. Or spend more time and watch Dominion, which I linked in my previous animal agriculture post. Yes, these videos are not pleasant to watch, but learning about this process is important, no matter how painful it is. If you eat animal products, then you should be a witness to what you paid to happen.
All animals should have certain rights. For example, a duck should have the right to swim in a pond and fly, as opposed to living its entire life in a dark warehouse without ever seeing a pond. A pig should have the right to roam freely and scavenge for food, as opposed to living its entire life in a dark warehouse between steel bars. Regardless of whether an animal is wild or domesticated, they should have the right to live naturally, free from human caused abuse.
As we look back in history, society is dominated by a majority opinion that is not always good or right. Intensive animal agriculture is one of those topics that warrants serious discussion today. While it is our natural behavior to conform with the majority, it is the collective few who deviate and improve the world. As individuals, we need to be critical and willing to listen to different perspectives. At the end of the day, many of us continue our ways because we fear change. We are afraid of what friends, family members, society will think of us, what we imagine our lives to be like with the absence of meat, how our identity will change. Combined with habit and social acceptance, we remain stubborn in our current ways.
Not everyone will agree with my ideas, but I hope that this post will get people to think. Any individual change towards a more empathetic world will be deemed a success, not for me, but for the living whole that is all of us.
The amount of misinformation online regarding GMOs and organic food is alarming. In this post, I will attempt to address those misconceptions.
Before we begin, why should we care about GMOs and organic farming? The increasing concern on GMOs, evident by all the recent media coverage, tells us that this is a topic worth discussing. Perhaps they are harmful, perhaps they aren’t. The answer is never that simple. It is our job to continuously strive for knowledge, always willing to listen to the opposing side and never assuming we have the absolute truth.
To start, let’s gain some insight into the general situation. Why do GMOs and organic farming exist in the first place? The answer lies in the process of human development. Since the transition from gathering and hunting to farming, the human species has relied on a system of growing produce and raising animals. Their entire existence now depends on agriculture, a practice founded on technological change. Farming gradually advanced as humans constantly applied new techniques and processes to improve yield and quality. They used selective breeding to create the fruit and vegetables we know today; and designed better irrigation, growing methods, and tools—while always using natural fertilizers. This system improved steadily for much of human history. It was not until recently in the past few decades, that a boom in technology also accompanied a large transformation in this system.
Conventional agriculture is an unnatural system of farming far removed from what our ancestors relied upon. Demand to produce cheaper crops for processed foods and the advent of genetic engineering has led to the widespread adoption of GMOs, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and more. The question now becomes: are these new features of conventional agriculture bad? And if so, then does that mean we should return to a type of farming more similar to what it was before—otherwise known as organic farming?
Let’s focus on three components of conventional agriculture: GMOs, pesticides, and organic farming. Hopefully we will be able to gain a better understanding of the modern agricultural system, so that we may make more informed decisions about our food, and how that relates to health, society and the environment.
To start, what is a GMO? A GMO or genetically modified organism is an organism that has had its genetic material altered in a laboratory setting using genetic engineering. This is not the same as organisms altered solely through selective breeding, which we can all agree, is a low-harm and acceptable activity. In our case, we will only interested in GM crops. That leads us to ask the next questions: what genetically engineered crops are there? And how many of them are produced?
Genetically engineered crops have been modified in order to produce certain desirable traits. We can organize these different traits by their direct intended end users: consumers or producers. Consumer enhanced traits are traits that benefit only the consumer. Producer enhanced traits are traits that are designed to increase the marketability of the crop supply or change the farming process. Let’s discuss each category.
Consumer Enhanced GM Crop
The only crop intentionally modified for the benefit of the consumer is Golden Rice, a rice altered to produce beta carotene. It was created to address vitamin A deficiency in areas of Africa and Asia. However, we should ask ourselves: since when did our fruit and veggies become so lacking in nutrition that we need to genetically modify them to be healthier? I suggest that we reassess the root cause of the problem—hint, it’s not that our produce is lacking in nutrition.
We should also note that there are no genetically modified traits that specifically increase the yield of the crop, unlike what GMO proponents often state.
Producer Enhanced GM Crops
The second category, on producer enhanced traits, can be broken into two types. The first consists of crops modified in order to increase marketability. These modifications include increasing or decreasing specific crop qualities. An example of this is the Flavr Savr Tomato, a tomato with delayed softening that failed in the market. Two new additions are non-browning apples and non-bruising potatoes, both of which have been approved recently, but not yet produced. A handful of crops have been modified to have higher production of specific organic compounds for industry use such as increased lysine in maize and oleic acid in soybeans.
The second type, which consists of the vast majority of GMOs, change farming practices. It explains why genetically modified crops have largely come into existence, and that is due to one main purpose: suppression of weeds and pests. These two groups give us the dominant GMO traits: herbicide resistance for weeds and insect resistance for pests. Herbicide resistant GMOs include Roundup Ready and LibertyLink crops. Insect resistant GMOs include BT toxin modified crops. Also in this type are a couple environmental stress and disease resistant crops.
How many GMOs are there?
Contrary to popular belief, while there are around 120 varieties of 30 approved GMO crops, only 10 crops are produced for consumption in the US: corn, soybean, cotton, potato, papaya, squash, canola, alfalfa, apple, and sugar beet—only those 10. Each crop can consist of at least one variety. For example, corn has over 30 approved varieties while sugar beet has one. I suggest that everyone look up the list of approved GMOs worldwide; there aren’t that many. However, let’s not jump to the conclusion that the low number of GMOs translates to low harm or effect.
Now that we have answered, what are GMOs and how many are there?, let’s find out the extent of these GMOs in the fields and in our food. Here are some statistics:
In 2015, genetically modified crops were grown in 28 countries on around 180 million hectares, equivalent to 10% of the world’s arable land
92% of corn, 94% of soybean, and 94% of cotton in the US is genetically modified
Up to 75% of processed foods in US grocery stores have GM ingredients
So how are these GM crops used or eaten? It depends on the crop and the country. We do know that the majority of GM corn and soybean goes into animal feed and that a lot of GM crops get turned into hundreds of different ingredients used in processed foods.
Of course, we cannot forget the Non-GMO Verified Seal created by the Non-GMO Project, a non-profit org. The only thing the seal ensures is that there are no GM crop ingredients in a product. It does not mean no pesticides. We also know that only 10 GM crops are produced in the US. So, do not rely on the seal.
Now we can begin to talk about the toxicity or harm they may cause. Are GMOs dangerous? How can they be harmful? Let’s simplify this issue by identifying possible things implicated with GMOs that could be causing harm to people or the ecosystem.
Lateral gene transfer
While genetic modification is a legitimate concern, there is not enough evidence as of now to conclude that the addition of the new gene in crops affects the human body. The insertion of genes that would otherwise not naturally occur in an organism could be having an insidious effect on the ecosystem though; we don’t really know yet.
The second concern is lateral gene transfer, which is the transfer of genetic material between organisms, sometimes across species barriers. In fact, this is the primary way antibiotic resistance spreads in bacteria. Again, we don’t know whether lateral gene transfer is occurring and what its effect would be if it is.
It is the pesticides we spray on the crops that we are most concerned about which leads us to the next section on pesticides.
What are pesticides?
Pesticides are substances used to kill or limit undesired organisms such as weeds, insects, microbes and fungi that might interfere with the growth of the desired crop. The intention is to kill only its target organism. However, as we may have learned, that is very rarely accomplished given the complexity of ecological systems. Non-target organisms are often harmed as well. Are modern synthetic pesticides affecting more than their intended targets, specifically humans? Let’s dig deeper.
Here are some charts to help us understand modern pesticide use:
Mass use of synthetic pesticides in the US increased sharply from around the 1950s to the 80s, and leveled off since then. Globally, especially in China, pesticide use has been increasing.
Corn and soybeans are the most sprayed crops in the US. Notice how some of the crops are not genetically modified.
Here we have a list of the most used active ingredients in pesticides. Glyphosate is clearly on top at 38%.
According to the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program, 47 pesticide residues can be found on apples, 53 on blueberries and 1 on avocados. There are too many pesticides to count, nonetheless cover them all, so we will only focus on the most heavily sprayed pesticide, glyphosate, along with two other interesting herbicides and toxins worth talking about.
Glyphosate or glycine methyl phosphonate is the most widely sprayed herbicide around the world. How does it work? At its most basic function, glyphosate is a demineralizer. It binds and removes minerals, specifically metals such as copper, calcium, magnesium, manganese and many more. It is very powerful at demineralizing. In fact, that was how it was first used and patented—to clean pipes and boilers.
So how does that have to do with killing weeds? All organisms need metals to form specific metalloproteins, also known as enzymes, in order to function. Glyphosate, a powerful demineralizer, interferes with that process by binding to the metals required in those proteins, thereby inhibiting protein production. Consequently, for all organisms, glyphosate affects numerous metabolic pathways that require metals; it is especially effective in the shikimate pathway, an essential pathway used by microbes, fungi and plants to produce the amino acids, phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan. Plants that are sprayed with this compound quickly succumb to death within a few days.
With this new purpose, glyphosate was patented as an herbicide, and used as the active ingredient in Roundup. Farmers began using it to kill weeds with extremely high success. Eventually, that led to the creation of Roundup Ready crops, genetically engineered plants designed to be glyphosate tolerant— we briefly introduced it earlier. This allowed further convenience for farmers by enabling direct spraying of crops to kill unwanted weeds. Additionally, because it kills plants so quickly, glyphosate is used for a second purpose; that is, as a crop desiccant. In this case, glyphosate is sprayed on non-GMO crops, especially grains such as oats and wheat, right before harvest to synchronize and speed up the drying process. These crops have the highest amount of glyphosate residues.
An important thing to note is that new evidence is showing that glyphosate can linger in the soil for over a year. It is a water soluble compound, meaning it can travel through the hydrologic cycle throughout the entire ecosystem. It can be found in small amounts in rainwater. This has profound consequences on all life if it is toxic.
Let’s take a step aside before returning to glyphosate. In the ecosystem of life, all animals are simply larger organisms in a sea of microbes: bacteria, fungi, viruses, parasites. These microbes are ubiquitous; they live on and inside the bodies of all animals. In fact, the interaction between animals and microbes is immensely complex. We’ve only begun to realize this fact. Microbes play an essential role in the health and function of all living creatures, as science is only beginning to discover.
In humans, there are more microbes than human cells. The weight of all these microbes can be higher than the weight of the human brain. We call this collection of microbes in the human body, the human microbiome. In the gut where most of them live, they perform a multitude of important functions—not only digestion, but also the production of neurotransmitters used by the brain, immune system function, and many more. Not surprisingly, they are also linked to all chronic diseases.
Returning to the discussion on glyphosate, what did we learn about it’s special ability? It kills microbes, plants, and fungi. When glyphosate enters the human gut, it damages the system that our bodies rely upon. Glyphosate kills beneficial microbes, destroys the intricate communication between bacteria that regulate the immune system, and injures the protein structures, known as tight junctions, that control the permeability of the gut membrane. This allows toxins and chemicals to leak through causing numerous consequences including autoimmune reactions and leaky blood-brain barriers.
The recent increase in autoimmune diseases, autism, alzheimer’s/dementia and many more diseases are possibly linked to the widespread use of this pesticide. To illustrate, we have these charts:
As you can see, the correlation coefficient is .99, which means there is near perfect correlation between glyphosate use and autism. Similarly, a chart showing correlation between glyphosate use and dementia with R-value .99:
As you may have heard, the WHO declared glyphosate a “probable carcinogen”. That led California to investigate and also come to the same conclusion. Here are two of many charts plotting glyphosate use and certain cancers.
As the author of one of the studies, Nancy Swanson, says,
“Although correlation does not necessarily mean causation, when correlation coefficients of over 0.95 with p-value significance levels less than 0.0001) are calculated for a list of diseases that can be directly linked to glyphosate, via its known biological effects, it would be imprudent to not to consider causation as a plausible explanation.”
If indeed glyphosate is partly contributing to or causing these cancers as well as a host of other diseases, what could be the reason? Besides the effect of glyphosate in the human gut microbiome, a compelling hypothesis raised by Dr. Stephanie Seneff is that glyphosate may be mistaken as the coding amino acid, glycine, in protein synthesis. Here we can see the similarity in structures; glyphosate is essentially a glycine with extra stuff.
If glyphosate is mistakenly substituted in place of glycine, then that could render many proteins useless. However, we still need more research before confirming anything. As more studies come out, we will learn more.
Now that we have discussed glyphosate’s specific effect on human health, what is its effect on other animal species? Glyphosate disrupts the base of the food chain by killing the smallest living creatures, leading to consequences for animals that rely on the soil ecosystem—that’s everyone. Besides the ability to damage the microbiomes of all organisms, evidence is showing that it is highly toxic to different species, especially amphibians. We also have the controversial Seralini study that showed mice growing tumors, which you can read and judge yourself, as well as numerous mice studies showing other toxic effects. There has not been a lot of research on other wild species, however. But it would not be unreasonable to argue that the rising use of pesticides could be a contributor to the rapid loss of biodiversity recorded in the past few decades.
As we know, glyphosate, an antimicrobial agent, kills soil species such as microbes and fungi. That releases the carbon and nitrogen used by these species in the form of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide, a gas believed to be significantly more potent than carbon dioxide. Given that so much of the world’s land area is used for growing genetically modified crops sprayed with pesticides, glyphosate can and does contribute to greenhouse gas emissions on top of all the other harmful effects it causes.
Glyphosate is just one of hundreds of pesticides used today, and while it is true that it is the most highly sprayed herbicide today, that may not be the case in the future. The next generation of herbicides is already here, and not many people know. That herbicide is Liberty, and it comes with its own herbicide tolerant GMOs, LibertyLink crops.
Glufosinate is the active ingredient in the Liberty herbicide, which was created to combat the increase in glyphosate resistant weeds—I would love to go into more detail on how the weeds gain resistance, but it is too much info for this post. An intention for this new herbicide is to allow rotation between glyphosate and this new chemical, in the hopes of delaying the current rise of glyphosate tolerance in weeds. It can also take the place of glyphosate, in case it gets banned. Glufosinate’s mode of action is similar to glyphosate; it blocks the ability to create amino acids. In this case, it is the amino acid, glutamine, which has numerous important functions, including human fertility. Few studies have been conducted on this compound, so will have to wait.
BT Toxin is a natural insecticide produced by the bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis, that targets specific herbivorous insects. It’s mechanism of action is to produce a protein that disrupts the digestive system of the insect. Because it is produced naturally, it is allowed in both organic and conventional farming practices. In organic farming, BT toxin is sprayed selectively in small amounts. On the other hand, BT toxin engineered crops produce higher amounts of BT toxin throughout the entire plant constantly. We should also note that BT toxin crops are also beginning to suffer from increasing insect resistance.
In regards to toxicity to humans, BT toxin is accepted to be relatively benign. However, in regards to the environment, excessive accumulation of the BT toxin in soil and gene transfer to non-target species are both concerns that need further research.
Organic farming is a way of farming more similar to what our ancestors used to practice; it is a holistic system designed to be sustainable and harmonious with the environment. There are no GMOs, no synthetic pesticides, and no synthetic fertilizers.
Here are the principles from the Canadian Organic Standards that do a good job describing the goal of organic farming:
Protect the environment, minimize soil degradation and erosion, decrease pollution, optimize biological productivity, and promote a sound state of health.
Maintain long-term soil fertility by optimizing biological activity within the soil.
Maintain biological diversity within the system.
Recycle materials and resources to the greatest extent possible within the enterprise.
Provide attentive care that promotes the health and meets the behavioural needs of livestock.
Prepare organic products, emphasizing careful processing and handling methods, in order to maintain the organic integrity and vital qualities of the products at all stages of production.
Rely on renewable resources in locally organized agricultural systems.
In the US, organic certification is managed by the USDA which requires all organic farms to meet strict standards. In addition to the things I described above, organic regulations ban additives such as certain processing aids, fortifying agents, preservatives and many more. The list of approved substances is determined by the USDA program. This table helps explain the label:
Since taste, quality, and nutrition are often brought up in the organic food discussion, let’s go over them briefly.
Generally no difference for majority of produce.
Depends. For example, more likely to find bugs in organic produce, but can have a higher chance of being picked at peak ripeness in contrast to non-organic produce.
Organic food can be slightly more nutritious in certain compounds, but generally is not significantly more nutritious than conventionally grown food.
These commonly discussed criteria are insufficient by themselves to judge the value of organic farming. We should use more important criteria such as the pesticide use to determine our decisions.
Before we end this section, let’s return back to the discussion on non-GMO. Perhaps now you can see why the non-GMO project verified seal is almost useless in comparison to organic certification. Here is an infographic:
This post is quite dense, so here are the main points to remember:
There are only 10 GMOs being produced in the US currently
The vast majority of GM crops are designed to be herbicide or insect resistant
Glyphosate, the most widely sprayed herbicide, damages the human microbiome
Don’t rely on non-GMO
Buy organic to minimize consumption of pesticides
We should try to solve problems without genetic engineering first due to unintended consequences of the highly disruptive technology. Earth wants to provide for us, we just need to listen.
A hypothesis on DMT’s role in near-death experiences and death.
Having an interest in how psychedelics work and a fascination—and also fear—of the process of dying, I came about an interesting revelation that could change the way we think about death. We live in a society in which death is moved offstage and psychedelics misjudged as forbidden drugs. However, maybe it’s in these two neglected subjects that arise important truths about life.
What is DMT?
In a brief introduction to the substance, DMT or dimethyltryptamine is a naturally occurring psychedelic compound found in many plants and animals including humans. It happens to be one of the most intense psychedelics that exist. DMT is a main constituent of ayahuasca, an entheogenic brew used ritually by many Amazonian tribes and also used as a recreational drug. The effects can be briefly summarized as extremely intense with high visual hallucination and a sense of bodily dissociation— known as ego death. Users often describe feelings of euphoria, calmness, or fear and anxiety.
What makes DMT especially significant is that it has been detected in multiple parts of the human body, and also in the pineal gland of rats. It is very difficult to measure DMT in the human brain, but many hypothesize that it is also produced there. This raises a dilemma because DMT is categorized as a class I drug.
DMT trips can vary greatly, but in general they have a basic structure as well as similar elements. In breakthrough amounts, DMT causes ego-death and high amounts of geometric patterns. Right after exhaling the smoke, the user is blasted through a highly geometric space to enter what is commonly described as the DMT hyperspace, a place where random events happen. Occasionally, the user meets entities or beings in this hyperspace. After a few minutes, the user returns back to reality.
Here is a description of a typical DMT trip described by a reddit user.
“And as I finally exhaled I felt my body slowly rise and shoot straight forward at the speed of light. While colors of indescribable neon brightness shot past, complex geometric shapes began to form and I felt my body slowing in space but still moving forward. A landscape began to form, much like our own but with every color in the spectrum intensified, shapes were more jagged like mountains in the distance, and yet everything was connected by a fractal pattern. As I look up I can see a figure towering behind the mountains. It was a calming presence made of circles and sharp lines. I also saw a bright circle in the sky that began to warp everything around it until the sharp geometric lines turned into more organic blobby goop while maintaining it’s neon color and brightness. I felt my consciousness being pulled in. As I moved through the goop, two separate visions of my two nieces appear. One on the left one on the right. The images seemed to move by fast, but I was able to feel each memory individually as if I were reliving them. After that the most I remember is feeling like reality slowly came back to view. Except the fractal pattern from before remained, connecting everything in my view. The experience left me with an overwhelming feeling of connectivity to my family and the world.”
What is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)?
On the other hand, a near-death experience is an occurrence in which someone comes very close to dying, or dies and is brought back to life. The experience is variable but is often associated with an out-of-body feeling, a tunnel, a feeling of acceptance, a life review, spiritual beings or the presence of a bright light.
Here are two examples of near-death experiences taken from reddit. The experience can vary from these two descriptions.
“I was pretty dead after a car accident ( back when you could ride in the back of pickup trucks we were T-boned in an intersection) and I went into the tunnel of light. Chose to come back because I was given a choice. I missed my family, friends and my cats so I came back. I remember the tunnel being a white gold color, very warm friendly and inviting. When I woke up in the street I was bloody, cold and in shock but I knew what had happened a moment before.”
“I remember passing out and having the sensation like I was leaving a dark room and moving outside into the sun. I stopped panicking and this feeling of pure contentment settled over me. I was floating over a garden where all of the plants were giving off light, and I could see a huge amorphous shape above me that was made up of every colour in existence including colours I have never seen before and couldn’t possibly describe. The shape seemed familiar like I was a part of it, and it was beckoning to me and filling me with pure ecstasy and understanding as I looked at it. Then a man who looked an awful lot like Dream from the Sandman comics (which I was obsessed with at the time) walked over to me through the garden and told me that I couldn’t go home yet, that it wasn’t time. I started weeping but I was filled with a feeling of understanding, like I knew that I had to go back despite not wanting to, the man had tears streaming down his face and he took my hand and led me back to my body which was in an ambulance”
Near-death experiences are variable, but there seems to be recurring elements as I mentioned above. A common phenomenon is an out-of-body experience in which the individual leaves his or her body and enters a place of peace often associated with a bright light.
Comparing the two, we see some unmistakable similarities. Both commonly include an out-of-body experience or ego-death, and involve traveling through a space in order to reach a destination. Occasionally, there is an interaction with beings, spiritual or mystical. The long-term effects are also similar. Many participants in DMT trips and people who have experienced an NDE describe greater appreciation and positive outlooks on life. This is a unique experience exclusive to this psychedelic that also happens to be shared with many NDEs.
It is a common belief that DMT may have something to do with near-death experiences. Some believe it is a death hormone. And even a life substance that is released when we’re born and when we die. However, that relationship between DMT and NDEs is still unclear. My hypothesis is that DMT is a compound that is naturally released along with other neurotransmitters during near-death experiences in order to protect the mind during moments of extreme stress. Its purpose is to enable the surviving individual’s mind to function without the painful memory associated with the traumatic event. For humans, the release of DMT in a near-death experience would decrease the amount of trauma or PTSD experienced later on by the survivor. And for many animals, prey animals in particular, this protects their ability to function at their optimal level, given that they face imminent danger and death more frequently.
The out-of-body experience of an NDE functions as a pain separator, so the individual does not directly endure the pain and psychological trauma associated with bodily injury or harm. If it is indeed true that DMT is involved in the NDE, it would help explain why ego-death is so prevalent in DMT trips.
When you take DMT, it is inducing the same state that an NDE would produce. Except smoked DMT is released in high amounts chaotically through the blood-brain barrier to the entire brain, whereas endogenous DMT is released possibly by the pineal gland in smaller amounts to specific areas of the brain. This might explain the difference between smoked DMT trips and NDEs.
Death is beautiful. DMT is a substance shared by many living beings: plants, animals and even humans. DMT likely eases the psyche during moments of trauma or even death. When the mind knows it might not survive, it releases this substance so that we may enter a state of peace. It is not a death hormone, but it happens to be an important element of the dying experience. It is a beautiful thing that even in those crucial moments in which we may not survive, there is life that cares and protects.
As many of us have begun to recognize, we are destroying the biosphere in which we depend on. While greenhouse gas emissions are getting all the attention, other major ecological issues are being unaddressed. The reality may be that the problem we are facing is far broader than what mainstream media and the general public has come to believe. If this is true, the solution requires much more than just moving toward carbon-neutrality to achieve sustainability on this planet.
When it comes to sustainability, people generally think of the heating effect of greenhouse gases on the climate and how things such as electric automobiles, solar and wind power, coral reefs, and rainforest fires relate to it. Yes, carbon emissions are a large part of the problem, but many other things are arguably just as impactful. Extracting and mining resources hurts the planet. Reducing wildlife populations leads to complex ecosystem changes. Replacing natural habitats with cities and crop fields causes numerous ecological issues. If we choose to formulate a problem solely based on one aspect of a multifaceted problem, we may miss out on crucial issues.
So what should society focus on? Is it to transition to renewable energy, to adopt plant-based diets, to eliminate waste, to limit population growth, to create a circular economy, to reform mass consumerism, to change the way we view our relationship to nature? The path to sustainability may require all of these and more. We need to reformulate how we look at the problem and consider all possibilities in order to achieve real progress. Most importantly, let’s listen to each other with respect and remember that the objective is not only in the end result, but in the journey. I will now discuss several overlooked or controversial topics on sustainability.
Dogs and Cats
Dog and cat ownership can be considered a cherished and essential part of culture around the world. They provide a valuable sense of purpose and connection to many. However, they are significant contributors to the ecological crisis. It is important that we consider all factors related to sustainability, no matter how much we value them. Here are some alarming statistics on pet ownership:
Dogs and cats generate about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, which is about the same as a year’s worth of driving for 13.6 million cars
Dogs and cats are responsible for around 25-30% of the total environmental impact of meat consumption in the US
If America’s dogs and cats comprised their own separate country, their nation would rank 5th in global meat consumption
Domestic cats kill between 1.3-4 billion birds and 6.3-22.3 billion mammals annually
Global pet ownership is dramatically increasing, especially in asian countries.
We live in a finite resource ecosystem. If we increase the number of carnivores higher up in the food chain, there must be an increase in lower level prey. That process of producing more prey, otherwise known as animal agriculture, is a very environmentally taxing activity that also has consequences on the no so lucky prey animals. It is a direct cause of major global problems such as methane emissions, deforestation and the water crisis, not to mention a violator of animal welfare. Not many people realize that for every dog or cat that someone chooses to own, several cows, pigs, and chickens must be sacrificed as feed. When we choose to own dogs or cats, other animals and people around the world have to suffer as a result.
Unfortunately, domestic cats are some of the worst invasive predator species on this planet. They decimate local wildlife and have contributed to the extinction of many species around the world. The impact of cat ownership on the environment should not be ignored.
The solution is simple, but can be difficult to acknowledge for some: simply opt out of dog or cat ownership. However, for those who absolutely need to own one, choose a dog over a cat. Since dogs are omnivores, their diet can be covered by mostly plants; cats, on the other hand, are obligate carnivores. You can also limit the number of pets to one and choose a smaller pet over a larger one. An alternative is to get a herbivorous pet such as a rabbit or hamster.
Roadkill is another important, but neglected issue that greatly affects biodiversity and wildlife population levels globally. The term was coined in the late 1950s in the US, when the interstate highway system was beginning construction. It’s talked about so little, there isn’t even an action verb for the word.
It is estimated that around 1/2 of the American city is dedicated to the car: streets, roads, driveways, parking lots, service stations, automobile businesses, etc
Roadkill is one of the largest if not the largest anthropological cause of death for wildlife globally
In the US, around 1 million animals, not including bugs are stuck every day
According to a study done in Brazil, 1.3 million animals are struck every day or around 1 every 15 seconds. The team documented 165 different species over the duration of the study not including bugs.
Roadkill is a persisting issue that has a profound effect on wildlife. In dense cities, most of the large animals have been struck down already or pushed out. In more rural cities, animals are struck on a daily basis. Individual cases may not seem that impactful, but the accumulation of roadkill over long periods of time has a defined, negative effect on global biodiversity. We have to renew our attention to the unaddressed consequences of our most basic daily actions, such as driving. For society, this means encouraging alternative modes of transportation that cause lower animal mortality and building animal friendly infrastructure in our cities. As individuals, we should drive slower and more carefully, especially around wilderness areas, so we avoid running over our animal friends.
It is a bad idea to quickly dismiss this topic or to criticize those who bring it up, when population size is directly implicated in humanity’s collective footprint.
The truth is, the world is consuming more and more resources, and one of the reasons for this increase in consumption is that there are simply more people. While the total global population is starting to level off, even decreasing in a few places, the planet is struggling to sustain seven billion people under our current global consumeristic system. Simply put, population matters. A smaller population level will help reduce our environmental load on the planet, help us reach our sustainability goals faster, and perhaps benefit humanity as well.
Unknown to most, the most effective individual action in reducing emissions is to have fewer children. According to one study, “a US family who chooses to have one fewer child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to adopt comprehensive recycling for the rest of their lives”. That same study estimated that having one less child reduces an average of almost 60 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year in developed countries. Compare that to a typical passenger car which emits roughly 6 tons per year. It makes sense though. More people means higher demand for resources—at a level earth cannot maintain.
This is not to say we shouldn’t have children. We just need to be more aware of the environmental effects of having children. I am not arguing for strict population control measures, but instead, encouraging education and voluntary choice in a time of great adversity. Families—especially those in high-consumption countries—should consider having fewer children in order to greatly reduce our ecological and carbon footprints.
Burials are one of the least environmentally friendly features of modern society. In many developed countries, death and dying are being taken offstage, but perhaps it is time to renew discussion on this topic. Here are some statistics according to the Green Burial Council.
In the US, burials use:
4.3 million gallons of embalming fluids, almost a quarter of that consisting of formaldehyde, methanol, and benzene (toxic chemicals)
20 million board feet of hardwoods
1.6 million tons of concrete
17,000 tons of copper and bronze
64,500 tons of steel
Various metals and chemicals that leach into the environment
Uses 3,250 cubic feet of natural gas to maintain a temperature of 1900° F for 2 hours
Releases 139 lbs of co2 into the atmosphere (about a 500 mile car trip)
Also releases .8 to 5.9 grams of mercury and other byproducts such as nitrogen oxide and dioxins
As you can see, burials are not so environmentally friendly. And this is not even taking into account the enormous environmental cost of cemeteries. We need to rethink the process of burials by replacing traditional burials with green alternatives. Green burials may involve woven basket coffins or simply wrapping the body in a cotton shroud. I encourage everyone to do their own research and consider having a green burial, because if you wait too long, it might be too late.
I talked about four overlooked or neglected topics related to sustainability, but there are numerous other topics. It is up to us individually to continue to educate ourselves and refine our solution to the greatest problem humanity has faced.
It’s time more people face the truth. Intensive factory farming is unethical and unsustainable.
If you eat meat on a regular basis, please watch Dominion to learn how meat is produced.
As an average meat eater in the US, in your lifetime you will pay someone to kill at least:
Here are some global statistics on three familiar animals:
1 billion worldwide
300 million slaughtered annually
around 6 billion cows slaughtered in past 20 years
1 billion worldwide
over 1.5 billion killed annually (the average age of a pig when slaughtered is less than 1 year old)
around 25 billion pigs slaughtered in past 20 years (Compared to 6 million Jews in the Holocaust)
19 billion worldwide
over 50 billion killed annually
around 1 trillion chickens slaughtered in past 20 years
In most western countries, every animal is slaughtered in this two-step procedure:
Step 1: Rendering Unconscious
Carbon dioxide gas chamber
Other- sledgehammer, rifle
Step 2: Killing
Throat slit and bled out upside down
In many countries, they skip step 1.
Under mass factory farming, every life—cow, pig and chicken—is cut short by disease or slaughter. Their lives are treated with contempt and their dead bodies regarded as nothing more than commodities. Instead of living healthy, long lives, they live miserable, short lives—never reaching past childhood. Once natural species with unique roles in the diversity of life, now trapped as mere commodities in a global production system. Dairy cows are forcibly impregnated every ten months to produce milk, and separated from their newborn calves right after birth. They are used for three to four cycles of milk production on average before being slaughtered at less than five years of age. Pigs are forcibly impregnated multiple times a year to produce around twenty piglets per year. They spend their entire lives in small, confined spaces—often too narrow to even turn around. Chickens have the tips of their beaks cut off and are kept in densely crowded sheds or wire cages where disease proliferates and undiscovered corpses putrefy. Animal agriculture is a never-ending cycle of suffering. There is no happiness at any point of the process.
Is eating meat unethical? This is a difficult question to answer, however, a question that every meat eater should ponder given that modern meat comes from lives that endure unimaginable pain and suffering, from their first breaths to their last. Any reasonable human being, if they are willing to look, can see that the amount of suffering and cruelty is appalling. The problem is that society is structured so that there is a lack of appreciation of the lives of animals and understanding of the suffering gone into producing a piece of meat. Most of us have not contemplated the issue of meat production. Companies shield the truth and the majority of us have not bothered to seek it. We have to question the culture that brought us up by educating ourselves on the truth, the one hidden from our view.
Not only is animal agriculture an abuse of the beautiful animals that share our planet, but it is also a leading cause of chronic disease, and a plethora of global problems including climate change and biodiversity loss. Several issues arise from this system:
Land Use Change– Deforestation, habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, species extinction, land degradation
Livestock Feed– GMOs and pesticides, monoculture, water crisis, water pollution, soil degradation, ocean dead zones, greenhouse gas emissions
As you can see, animal agriculture has a wide range of detrimental effects. From production to consumption, meat is at the core of many alarming global issues that will only get worse due to increasing demand. The consequences of eating meat far outweigh the benefits to ourselves, the animals, and the environment.
At the end of the day, many people will continue to eat meat for some time to come, but for those of us who are willing to acknowledge and change, we should consider drastically reducing or eliminating our consumption of animal products, especially factory-farmed animal products, and be willing to spread the information.
In an egoistic society grounded on individualism, empathy and love especially towards people or animals considered inferior is a form of weakness. We see this develop repeatedly through history. However, we also have the ability to change. Every human is capable of both unspeakable evil and unconditional love. Let us choose to be more loving to each other and to all animals.
A scientific approach to identifying the healthiest diet. Updated September 28, 2021.
Before we begin I’d like to present this question: if right now, you could only choose one diet that will stay with you for the rest of your life, would it be the one you’re on right now?
Why is this important now?
Human health is in a crisis. Many disease rates are at all time highs, and continuing to rise while the US is spending more of its GDP on health care every year. The statistics are alarming.
1:2 Cardiovascular Disease
1:5 Mental Illness
1:10 Attention Deficit
While it seems like poor health is a natural part of life, especially for Americans, human health does not have to be so plagued by disease as it is now. We can live healthier lives without all the unnecessary suffering.
The purpose of this presentation is to help me and others gain some insight from the confusing mess of information surrounding health and diet. By no means is the information in this blog post accurate, but I can assure you that it is my best effort at this point in time. At the end of the day, whatever you conclude, hopefully you will learn at least a thing or two. With that said, have an open mind and let us try to uncover the relation between human health and diet.
So to begin, how do we start to tackle such a difficult problem? We can begin by identifying the question we should ask, which would be asking the broadest question possible; this is no easy task. I think we can all agree that the big question is (or at least should be)…
How do we be healthy?
That’s it. It may seem rather straightforward, but surprisingly you may realize that your big question is really how do I lose weight, how do I build muscle, how do I get rid of <insert disease>, or even how do I prove him/her wrong? Anyways, now that we have identified the big question we can break it down by specifically asking the question:
What diet is the most healthy?
Although the key to health is more than just diet, diet is arguably the single most important factor. We will tackle this one question.
Before we continue, let us define the terms healthy and diet. We will define healthy as maximum lifespan with as few diseases as possible and diet as the food we eat everyday.
Now that we have identified the question, we can begin by asking how? How do we figure out what the best diet is that will enable us to be healthy?
Let us list some methods as to how we can approach this question:
1. Conduct studies comparing the diets
2. Conduct studies on specific types of food
3. Assume that people at some point in the past were healthier, then identify their diets
4. Observe who the healthiest people are currently and identify their diets
The list goes on, but most methods follow one of these listed.
Now just for fun we can make a list of bad methods:
1. Assume something without good evidence
2. Follow trends
3. Listen to someone whose bottomline is not your health
4. Continue something out of habit
5. Continue something because you like it
Defaulting to a bad method is easy, while using a good method requires effort.
Hierarchy of Evidence
Before we get into each specific method, we should first understand some basic concepts about evidence. Not all evidence can be weighed equally. Some forms of research are higher quality and less prone to error than others. For example, animal studies and case reports are weaker than cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT). In addition, sample size, duration, study design, and other factors all contribute to the strength of a study.
In order to arrive at an evidence-based conclusion, we must do a thorough review of the literature and prioritize higher quality research. Now let’s delve into each method.
Method: Conduct studies comparing the major diets such as vegan, vegetarian, paleo, keto, low-carb, mediterranean, etc
Thoughts: A large randomized controlled trial comparing the diets over a long duration would give us a definitive answer to the question. However, this is nearly impossible to conduct. Therefore, most studies using this method are observational and prospective.
Conclusion: Meat consumption is associated with higher mortality, while plant consumption is associated with lower mortality. Also, there may be an association with organic food consumption with lower cancer risk. However, it is important to include studies on the other types of food such as fat, sugar, eggs, and oil in determining the healthiest diet.
Method: Assume that people at some point in the past were healthier, then try to identify what their diets were
Thoughts: This is not an evidence-based method because we cannot obtain data. I included it as one of the main methods because of its wide prevalence. How do we identify the thousands of different foods they ate, and measure the quantities of each food? How do we get reliable data on their diseases and lifespans?
Conclusion: While there is some value to its principles such as eating no processed foods, this method is inferior to other methods. It relies on speculation rather than science.
Method: Observe who the healthiest people are currently, then find out what their diets are
Thoughts: Similar to method 3, this method assumes that there are healthier people. But unlike method 3, we are able to get data because the populations exist.
Conclusion: The oldest living populations eat primarily plant based diets.
In this presentation we briefly examined four different methods to approach the question: what diet is the healthiest? We asked this question to better answer the larger question: how do we be healthy? We also listed a few examples and stated a conclusion.
If our methods are backed with well-conducted studies, then each should hint at the same diet—the healthiest diet. In addition, we should include as many methods and examples as possible in our decision to reduce the possibility that the diet is inaccurate.
Based on the methods and the examples in this post, we can conclude that the healthiest diet is…
A whole food, organic, plant-based diet, with low sugar and fat
Whole food: The less processed the better (not to be misinterpreted with a raw diet), unrefined carbohydrates
Organic: Reduce pesticides and other artificial chemicals
Plant-based: Minimize animal products
Low sugar: Minimize simple sugars
Low fat: Avoid excessive oil and fat
Whatever stage of life or circumstance you are in, remember that we should strive for the healthiest diet. Our duty should be to do what is best for our bodies even if it means change. Hold this belief in your mind, and you will realize that change is possible, perhaps even fulfilling.
Let this be our goal so that we may enjoy life to a ripe old age with our friends, our family, our partners, our parents, and everyone around us— no heart disease, no cancer, no chronic disease.