Mafism: A Reasonable, Rational Alternative To Vegetarianism 5q4x3h

Mafism: A Reasonable, Rational Alternative to Vegetarianism Llowell Williams

Over the past decade vegetarianism and veganism have become rather popular dietary options throughout the United States, bringing many new adherents into the fold every year. Whether out of health or moral motivations, people's adoption of these dietary philosophies have undeniably changed supermarkets and restaurants by increasing the availability of non-meat options. Still, many of us (myself included) have had a hard time embracing full on vegetarianism or veganism whether through lack of will or put off by the all-or-nothing nature of the diets. Fortunately, I've discovered a middleground solution that makes sense to me and might make sense to you too: Mafism. What is “mafism”? Well, simply put, mafism is a diet devoid of mammal meat (this also tends to include the majority of what is known as “red meat”). This means birds/poultry and fish are a-okay. Generally, this is not a very difficult diet to follow as there are usually chicken or vegetarian alternatives in most eating situations, even at McDonald's. So, now that I've sold you on how easy it is to be a mafist, let me explain what lead me to adopt a non-mammalian diet and why I think mafism is the superior dietary choice. Why I chose mafism and why you should too The thought processes that would lead me to adopting mafism began a couple years ago when I had the good fortune of taking a couple undergraduate courses in Evolutionary Anthropology and Primate Physiology, which, as you guessed, dealt with human evolution and the origins of mammals and all that in good depth. During these courses what became increasingly undeniable to me was the fact that, in many ways, humans had many significant hereditary and ancestral overlaps, not just with other primates, but with all mammals. According to evolutionary theory, there was, at one point, a singular common ancestor from which all modern-day species of mammals, including humans, descend. I follow this line of logic and I believe it's not a major stretch to say that primates and even mammals are, to an extent, our relatives (“distant cousins” if you will) and I argue that the eating of mammals is potentially a form of cannibalism. It is already strongly taboo in our culture and others to consume

primates (presumably from acknowledgment of our common ancestry), so why not extend that to our other mammal brethren, like pigs and cows, who also share a common ancestry? Granted, this prior argument relies on some moral assumptions, and could be labeled as the “comion based” argument. Certainly, this is not enough to make my case for everyone and certainly was not my only motivation. If you fall into this camp, then please consider the following points: Ranching is the leading producer of dangerous greenhouse emissions Yes, you read that right. Modern ranching practices, specifically regarding cattle and pork, have been found by a variety of studies to actually be the global current top producer of greenhouse gases (methane and CO2), suring even cars. Not only does livestock ranching produce unwanted greenhouse emissions, but studies have also found that ranching often results in long term land degradation as well as water and air pollution (curiously these studies tend to refer exclusively to ranches that raise mammal stocks). Take this with the fact that ranching practices for mammal stocks require new land after an area is exhausted and polluted, which is frequently acquired through mass destruction of forest and habitat areas, and you've got a rolling ecological disaster. And while yes, it's funny to talk about cow farts, in actuality this is a very serious issue which needs addressing, because there are things individual consumers like you and I can do. In Economics 101 it's taught that the consuming of products like beef creates a demand, which in turn, the producers (ranchers) attempt to meet with equal supply. If consumers' demand for a product declines, so too will its supply. So instead of buying that Prius, it could be argued, simply making the switch to a mafist diet will make the greater impact on global warming in the long term. Eating mammals is unhealthy for you I don't think I need to go into great depth on this here, as “red meat” (mammal meat) has gotten quite a bit of publicity in the last few decades from many, many studies which strongly the conclusion (though the details differ) that eating red meat is or can be detrimental to one's health. This arguing point is pretty straight-forward and there are plenty of other authors who've done an excellent job exploring this point so I do encourage those interested to explore further, however don't misunderstand

me – excluding mammal meats from your diet, while will likely be healthier, will be meaningless if not practiced as part of a thoroughly balanced diet where meat in general makes up a small portion. But let me make just one more point here. So why not just be vegetarian/vegan? I believe completely abstaining from eating any meat at all is extreme and fundamentally unnatural (and potentially unhealthy). It is undeniable that humans have been eating meat for millennia and have even evolved to consume it; there are many strong forms of evidence ing this, including archaeological evidence of humans scavenging and hunting animals and anatomical items like our teeth and intestines. There is also an undeniable instinctual craving for meat (hence why it tastes “good”) and this is because it is a highly beneficial food source – compared to other foods, meat is highly concentrated in vitamins and minerals which our nutrient-hungry brains need to function optimally. Many non-meet eaters try to side step this conundrum with soy, which can be and has been formed into a substitute for virtually any meat product. But a number of studies over the last decade have discovered that eating soy in any quantity (and especially regularly, as many non-meat eaters do) can be responsible for a variety of serious health problems, from thyroid dysfunction to malnutrition to cancer and heart disease. The difference between our fore-bearers and humans today is that we now have the luxury of choice; the only real reason to choose, for example, pork meet over chicken meet is taste preference. And when it comes down to it, taste preference is an embarrassingly selfish criteria, especially in the face of the arguments and facts I've discussed here. As with many things, extremes are not the best answers – our modern, normalized pattern of eating enormous portions of meat, often mammal, versus eating no meat at all – the best solution is in between. A mafist diet still allows for the natural and healthy eating of meat, though in a way that is acceptably moral but also practical. I welcome any and all thoughts or comments!