Does this look like lunch? (Photo: Getty Images / Design: Archi Banal)
Does this look like lunch? (Photo: Getty Images / Design: Archi Banal)

OPINIONSocietyOctober 6, 2022

I have 80 billion reasons to not eat meat – health and the planet aren’t among them

Does this look like lunch? (Photo: Getty Images / Design: Archi Banal)
Does this look like lunch? (Photo: Getty Images / Design: Archi Banal)

One-time carnivore Richard Meadows on why he no longer lets meat cross his lips. 

A butchered pig swings from the washing line, while I play with a bucket of still-warm intestines. I am four or five years old.

Later I’m tasked with trapping and shooting feral cats and possums. My mum keeps a tally of her own kills taped to the fridge. Animals come and go. I am under no illusions as to the origins of the cling-filmed pieces of flesh neatly displayed behind the supermarket counter.

I love meat as much as the next true-blue Kiwi; maybe even more so. On trips overseas, I munch my way through my own personal Noah’s ark, sampling everything from barbecued rats to dog ribs dipped in chilli sauce.

Then, six years ago, everything changes. I stop eating meat almost overnight, and it’s hardly passed my lips ever since.

My health was not the motivating factor. Netflix “documentaries” notwithstanding, there is no evidence that vegetarian diets are better for us, once you adjust the data for other lifestyle factors. You can be a vegetarian and subsist solely on white bread and hot chips. You can be an omnivore and live to a ripe old age.

Not all vegan diets are healthy diets.

I wasn’t trying to save the environment either. Even if you buy the argument that we’re each responsible for our own carbon footprint, it’s trivially easy to purchase offsets.

Instead, my conversion came about in the nerdiest possible way: by reading moral philosophy.

Jeremy Bentham laid out a coherent moral system in which we can judge our actions by the net pleasure and suffering they cause. Peter Singer convinced me to expand my circle of concern to non-humans. And Hannah Arendt demonstrated that moral progress is far from inevitable.

Throughout history, people who consider themselves “good” blindly go along with the social consensus, no matter what horrors it leads to: if you and I happened to be born in Nazi Germany, we’d be goose-stepping along with the best of them. One of the most important questions we can ask ourselves is “what will future generations find barbaric about our own time?”

My answer is the way we treat animals, and specifically, factory farming.

It’s not just the 80 billion animals that are slaughtered each year – too big a number for our brains to really make any sense of. Much worse is the fact that many of these lives are not worth living. They are confined in tiny cages or crates. Their body parts are amputated. Their infants are taken from them. They die without ever seeing the sun or touching grass.

Most of us already have the right moral instincts here. We correctly think it’s sick to beat a dog for fun, or to relieve stress after a long day. All we have to do is be consistent with our preferences: there is no fundamental moral difference between a dog and a pig, except that we are willing to torture the latter for our (gustatory) pleasure.

The passion for animals in our culture is seldom reflected in our dietary choices.

New Zealand was the first country in the world to legally recognise the sentience of animals. We know that some species can plan for the future, grieve, experience joy, and feel pain. I’m not saying they’re just as important as humans. There are probably “bigger” and “smaller” consciousnesses, deserving of more or less moral consideration. But even if we only assign the tiniest scrap of importance to a pig or chicken’s wellbeing, the sheer scale of suffering is so vast that it quite possibly becomes the greatest moral tragedy in all of history.

Unless moral philosophy suddenly gets a whole lot cooler, careful arguments are not going to solve this problem. Personally, I don’t actively try to convert others to my cause (I was asked to write this article!). I think the big shift will only happen by changing incentive structures, and making it easier to do the right thing.

The good news is that this is already happening. It’s never been easier to not eat meat! We have a bounty of plant-based meat alternatives, with new products popping up every time you visit the supermarket. We have better cookbooks and general cultural competency. There are more vegan and vegetarian-friendly restaurants and fast food chains. Animal welfare laws are improving. And we’re on the cusp of some major technological breakthroughs.

As soon as we can get ethical meat cultured from stem cells – say, marbled Wagyu ribeye, or a blend of alligator and giant panda – I’ll be pulling my steak knives out of storage. I hope it happens in my lifetime, but if not, that’s OK too. For me, not eating meat is no great sacrifice. For the animals that didn’t have to suffer on my behalf, it makes all the difference in the world.

Keep going!
‘The radical loser operates out of an obsession with a comparison that never works in his favour’.(Photo: Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images / Design: Archi Banal)
‘The radical loser operates out of an obsession with a comparison that never works in his favour’.(Photo: Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images / Design: Archi Banal)

OPINIONSocietyOctober 6, 2022

All the angry young men: The rise and rise of the radical loser

‘The radical loser operates out of an obsession with a comparison that never works in his favour’.(Photo: Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images / Design: Archi Banal)
‘The radical loser operates out of an obsession with a comparison that never works in his favour’.(Photo: Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images / Design: Archi Banal)

When you feel like your life has no meaning it’s tempting to turn inwards, blame others, and see violence as a means of communication, writes sociologist Mike Grimshaw.

The “radical loser” is a concept I first came across in 2005 in a long essay by Hans Magnus Enzensberger explaining what he meant by the term and thinking through its implications.

I was teaching a course on religion and terrorism at the time, and found the radical loser an interesting way to get students thinking about what was happening in society and politics. As many of them started to note, the radical loser – or at the least the potential radical loser – seemed to be increasingly expressing themselves all over the internet.

Enzensberger argued that the basic fact of our existence is that we are in the end all losers – that is, we die. The question is, what we do in the face of this fact? While we all have the existential experience of being a loser, the radical loser lives out an aggressive response to his loserdom in the political and social realm.

The radical loser isn’t the same as the loser who accepts his fate and resigns himself to it. He isn’t the victim who demands satisfaction nor the defeated who plans for the next round of conflict. Rather, the radical loser adopts as his self-identity the judgement of those who consider themselves winners. We could say radical losers see society not as something they experience, but as something that is done to them by those with power. In response, as Enzensberger puts it, “the radical loser isolates himself, becomes invisible, guards his delusion, saves his energy, and waits for his hour to come.”

What does this mean? The radical loser operates out of an obsession “with a comparison that never works in his favour”, always blaming “omnipotent, nameless aggressors” who are “the guilty ones who are responsible for his plight”. He usually has a list of  “threatening powers” out to get him; Enzensberger’s list from 2005 has very telling commonalities with today’s alt-right message boards and manifestos. “The threatening powers that are out to get him are not hard to locate. The usual suspects are foreigners, secret services, Communists, Americans, big corporations, politicians, unbelievers. And, almost always, the Jews.”

The radical loser, feeling he lacks control and meaning over his existence, works himself toward a point of explosion in a spectacle in which his sense of powerlessness is expressed in a “fatal sense of destruction”, aligned with the propaganda of the deed – a term for a direct political act, usually violent, that is meant to inspire others to action.

In other words, what radical losers do and say is an act of nihilistic communication seeking to diminish and destroy others to make themselves exist in a meaningful way.

We can see the connection here with shitposting – deliberately posting ugly, provocative or off-topic comments on social media or internet forums. A shitposter doesn’t start out as a radical loser, rather they can become one by being drawn into the message boards and dark web of what Ezensberger would call the “loser collective” where they find a “loser-home”.

We know YouTube is a very important pipeline to such extremism because of the way its analytics operate, feeding users more and more extreme material in an effort to keep them on the platform. Social media can quickly become what I term anti-social media, where such loser collectives become increasingly focused on (Ezensberger again) “radicalising and eternalising their own status as losers”.

It seems radical losers are almost always young men and this is something that society needs to take more notice of. What is it about modern society that can make young men so lost and nihilistic that they slip into radical loserdom?

Having meaning in your life enables you to live with – and not against – others. A lack of meaning is what the pioneering French social scientist Émile Durkheim called anomie; the theorist Peter Berger called it the loss of the nomos. Both sociologists saw this loss as central to the experience of modernity. We all need a structuring nomos that provides us with stability, predictability, a frame of reference in which to live. The alternative is the chaos and terror of anomie.

We need to ask: why do so many young men feel they live lives without meaning?

It is here the radical loser concept collides with the experience of diversity, and helps illustrate why the shift in focus from society to community over the past 40 years has been so problematic. Unlike societies, communities tend to be inward looking, composed of those who are like you. That is why Community of Strangers, a NZ project that uses neuroscience, psychology and sociology to study radicalisation and hate, is  such an important and challenging starting point.

Community of Strangers proceeds from the fact that all of us begins as strangers to each other. We need to be open to the strangeness, to revel in it, and use it to discuss and explore what we might have in common. If anything is going to defeat the radical loser, it’s diversity – whatever form it takes.