— from Gigi Carter —
That’s the punchline of a meme my friend posted on Facebook. It’s funny-not funny, and it poetically describes what some already know to be true—that we are all interconnected.
Food choices are complex in that they are rooted in tradition, culture, and what brings each person pleasure. However, our food choices are not personal choices. A personal choice is choosing to paint your living room hot pink instead of boring beige, choosing to go for a trail run instead of a mountain bike ride, or planting hydrangeas in your garden instead of lavender. These choices have virtually no consequence to anyone other than the person making the decision. But each individual’s food choices do have consequences for our global community.
Up until COVID-19, people adopted a plant-based diet for environmental, animal rights, and personal health reasons. All these reasons have a connection to someone other than the individual: to foster the health of the planet, to honor the right of animals to coexist with humans, or to avoid burdening loved ones with our preventable lifestyle-related illness. Now we may have a fourth reason to go plant-based—threat of a global pandemic that can result in hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of needless deaths and worldwide economic collapse.
History shows that infectious disease epidemics or pandemics, including HIV/AIDS, Avian (bird) flu, H1N1 (Swine flu), MERS, Ebola and now Coronavirus COVID-19 have been the result of zoonotic transmission of pathogens from animals to humans. Either it has been confirmed, or there is very strong evidence suggesting, that these diseases came from the eating or handling of bushmeat (e.g., monkeys) in Africa, chickens and pigs in North America and Eurasia, bats in Asia, and camels in the Middle East.
In a 2010 paper, The Origin and Prevention of Pandemics, the authors noted: “As we increase our interactions with animals through hunting, the trading of animal foods, animal husbandry practices, wet markets, and the domestication of animals/exotic pets, the probability of cross-species transmission dramatically increases.”
And yet ten years after that finding, here we are.
My hope is that this COVID-19 pandemic helps more people to come to the realization that we are all interconnected, and that our food choices are more than personal whims because they have consequences to others. Even though, relatively speaking, the number of epidemic and pandemic occurrences are low (compared to noncommunicable chronic diseases), the severity of such an occurrence can be catastrophic, as we’ve tragically learned too late.
Originally published: https://mytrueself.com/2020/04/01/a-guy-eats-a-bat-now-im-unemployed/
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
*FACT- there is no definitive proof this virus got started from “some guy eating a bat” and this just continues the tired racist trend of China bashing. The idea that Veganism would have prevented this outbreak is your own personal fantasy to legitimize your particular lifestyle choices.
There are legit reasons to choose a plant based diet, but by taking this line of discourse you kill any credibility you could have brought to the discussion.
BBC posted this on the coronavirus putting the spotlight on problems of the global wildlife trade…
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52125309
The butterfly effect — A hurricane in China may occur because a butterfly flapping its wings in New Mexico.
And no one ever got e-coli from lettuce?
No, Luther, it’s not racist. And you are outrageously overreacting.
The best evidence says that this virus originated in bats and that it probably did not come directly from a bat, but rather via a second animal of some kind. (https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1725399)
They don’t know what kind. The best evidence also says that COVID spread very early on in a market that trafficked in exotic animals. (https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25722)
It is not unreasonable to put those two things together, and then say, hey, the world is experiencing a very hard crash now and we should consider why that is? We MUST consider why, Luther. You know that.
Even if this outbreak wasn’t exactly caused by eating wildlife, surely you see how it could have been, or how the next one might be? I think you can follow that logic, because I can follow it and you are as smart as me.
Gigi offered substance. If you have an alternative theory or rebuttal, offer it. Please don’t pour acid into civil discourse.
Maybe I’m getting grumpy myself these days, but I thought some of the comments directed at this letter writer were a bit rude. It’s in our best interest to treat animals with compassion, especially those raised or harvested for food.
James, you might feel differently if you were a Chinese American who was recently attacked in the street due to the pervasive anti-Chinese sentiment spewed forth in the MS media….but that’s getting off topic.
The point is: when one uses tragedy to push a personal agenda, or worse, their own material gain, it eliminates any possibility of objectivity from the discussion, and In this case, adds undertones of salesmanship. Though obviously less extreme, it’s really not so different than when the gun nuts use the tragedy of a mass shooting to say “See! If everyone had been armed that wouldn’t have happened!”
Something to think about….or maybe not.
Another connection between the current pandemic and consumption of a diet focused on fresh produce: coronavirus disproportionately has hit Latino and black communities, where poverty often restricts food choices.
Part 1
My reply is primarily to Luther. First, your first post is quite problematic. It has a false premise. The author is not engaging in the “tired racist trend of China bashing.” You introduce the idea and concept. The author is drawing a connection to the wet market, eating meat, and the spread of germs and viruses. You may disagree with the link, but it is a scientifically valid one. Second, the vast majority of scientists do believe the coronavirus came from a bat; the debate is whether or not the spread was first or second hand. There is also a contingent of scientists that believe an infected person entered the wet with the disease. Third, it is not a fantasy to make the argument that closing wet markets and other environments that breed disease among animals would limit the spread of diseases to people. It is just a strategy that people have chosen not to implement.
Part 2,
Luther, the statement “when one uses tragedy to push a personal agenda, or worse, their own material gain, it eliminates any possibility of objectivity from the discussion, and in this case, adds undertones of salesmanship” seems misdirected at best, and insulting at its worst. A tragedy is a perfect time to reflect on why a tragedy was caused, and how to avoid it the next time. A gun shooting at a school is an ideal time to reflect on gun laws and the widespread purchase of military-grade weapons for personal use. A pandemic is a perfect time to reflect on what caused it, and how we prevent it in the future. A plant-based diet is a possible solution. I am not sure what the personal gain is to which you are alluding. The author is a vegan and believes in a plant-based diet; many people on Orcas Island are vegan and hold a similar belief. You may not agree with their opinion, but that is no reason to be insulting, condescending, and rude.
This is fine, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough.
Perhaps a glimpse at the quality and type of ‘job’ lost is in order. This would go a long ways towards explaining interdependence and the tenuous nature of our service economy.
As one wag recently observed, “The ‘economy’ that is propped up by the service economy is about to find out what happens when the service economy doesn’t show up.”
Kevin, Clearly I am grossly deficient in my ability to communicate my point…and after rereading, I have to agree I came off as abrupt and condescending, and for that, my sincere apologies to your (sister?). However, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to pretend that the title phrase “some guy eats a bat” doesn’t convey very specific racial/cultural connotations under the current situation.
Hi Luther,
Thank you for your reply. To me, the title does not convey racial connotations, but, I agree, it conveys a cultural judgment. Essentially, cultures that market and eat wild, game or any animals spread diseases and are problematic for society. Moreover, the title makes light of a very serious issue, whereas the post is quite scientific and rational. The title is an attention grabber; it is going to work with some folks, and not with others. I understand and appreciate your reaction to the title.
It would be helpful to have a follow-up post that details why certain cultures engage in this behavior and possibly identify suggestions on how there might be win-win solutions. Gigi’s post, and everyone’s replies, start a needed discussion about avoiding the current tragedy in the future.
Kevin
Wasn’t Adolph Hitler a vegetarian who was kind to his dog
as well as ally of both Prescott Bush and the Strump clan?
If we are to connect the dots so to prove inter relatedness lets’s comment all pf them.
Luther wrote “when one uses tragedy to push a personal agenda, or worse, their own material gain, it eliminates any possibility of objectivity from the discussion, and In this case, adds undertones of salesmanship.”
Luther, I don’t see how you can come to that opinion, objectively. I don’t understand why you think it’s okay for you– and only you– to use obviously subjective and loaded terms such as “push” and “personal agenda” and “salesmanship,” and then turn around a bemoan a lack of objectivity.
I do understand Gigi’s agenda. It is not merely personal, but also patriotic and humanistic. A more charitable word than “push” is “offer,” just as I assume you are offering your opinion, not “pushing” it on us. Instead of salesmanship, say “persuasion.”
All I ask, not only from you but everyone here, is that when you comment you engage on the substance of the topic, rather than merely impugn peoples’ motives or morality.