BIRTHING
Page 2“Whereas the Permaculture article mentions a basic application of three important ethics; Earth Care, People Care, and Fair Shares, as MCL readers know a fourth can be readily added. This is Animal Care – in the broadest sense animal care applies to all sentient beings.
The application of Vegaculture is essentially the same as for Permaculture except for the addition of an ethic directly associated with the Care of Animals.
Your article states: ‘Earth Care encompasses the need to care for what still remains of natural eco-systems, to regenerate areas destroyed by humankind and to create havens for species, both animal and plant, which are in danger of extinction from our actions.’ (Danger of extinction, rather than timely action, seems to be becoming more accepted now as the catalyst for action).
Also: ‘The need to co-operate with nature is stressed, and to provide for all life systems, which should be seen as having intrinsic value, regardless of whether they are ‘useful to humankind’ or not. Anthropocentrism may be discouraged, and human beings seen as part of the web of life’.
Permaculture may be one of our best friends, but the ‘Earth Care’ statement can be seen to project:
- the need to utilize systems which are useful to humankind (no distinction being made with respect to rights), and
- if systems are part of the ‘web of life’, then they also have a possible part to play in human utilization.
These issues have always concerned me, as I believe they may well concern many others; and that is because adequate protection for sentient beings has NOT really been advocated in traditional cultures, which underlie the ethical basis and means of sustainability implicit in permanent agriculture.
Permaculture notes that the wealth of countries and individuals has been synonymous with animal ownership and access. It also documents the successes of ‘sustainable living’ traditionally in a rural context, usually with the integration of animals, for food and work in that setting.
The unfortunate fact is that the history of ‘Earth Care’ HAS often placed anthropocentrism at the basis of agriculture. The history of human endeavour rides on the back of animals, by design. A return to lower population scales, and rural settings, would undoubtedly redress the present trends. In fact one of the four ‘future scenarios,’ which David Holmgren purports, as a result of the combined effects of peak oil and climate change, suggests this event (Ref.9).
The predominance of farm animals is the largest contributor to imbalances in animal exploitation and cruelty, with its unsustainable agriculture, land and water resource use, leading to loss of habitat, species and eco-diversity. In the present global condition, the level of welfare protection, let alone rights, is not guaranteed. There is a continuing debate between policy makers and their adherents, and the Animal Rights and Welfare groups in many developed communities who adopt a more particular view.
The scale of animal food chain contribution to problems of Earth Care is well known. Here in Australia, over the next twenty years, it has been suggested (Ref.10) methane production from animals alone may actually outweigh the total pollution from all of our coal-fired power stations.
Non-exploitative farming methods, (often called stock-free), stand out as a sensible and obvious alternative; perhaps as one of the solutions permaculture is looking for, not one of the problems. Organic food production is often heavily reliant on animals and generally not stock-free. Vegan gardeners are moving from organic to ‘organic stock-free’ thereby protecting the animals.
Animal farming has to be viewed as a system, a very important part of the ‘web of life’ for many people. However, with UN estimates at 48.5 billion farm animals, and consequent deaths each year, this could equally be described as a ‘web of death’ (Ref.11).
The principal point I am seeking to make in the current context and debate surrounding the seeking of a permanent or sustainable culture, is that a balanced view needs to recognize animal rights, and is essential, considering the past habits of animal uses (for both human and web of life reasons), and the situation of animal abuse so prevalent today.
Both the concerned observer, and the pragmatist, can see the influential positions of interest groups, the many and varied cultural lifestyles and diets, and a myriad of other issues, which impact on a movement towards compassionate living. However, the potential for change is enormous. What I have seen evolve is globalisation, while a younger generation sees ‘one world.’
When seeking to redress entrenched ‘traditional’ cultural positions, especially given the nature of the integration of animal and human behaviour, both in and outside agricultural participation, we need a powerful and integrated model; a philosophy and practice, for something other than past habits. This is where Vegaculture evolves and diverges from Permaculture.
I would like to see Vegaculture growing from Permaculture in the same way that Veganism differentiated itself from Vegetarianism all those years ago; to further refine the design principles necessary in an approach toward a sustainable world. Then Vegaculture will express not just veganism per se, but the broad spectrum of cultural inputs, a basis in non-exploitative agriculture and horticulture, the movement for compassionate living, animal liberation and rights, essential and embedded infrastructures, and recognise the validity of the paths to transition from one to another.
Other attributes such as natural energy systems; slow food, localisation and numerous sensible living methods may well become attracted to Vegaculture as they have to Permaculture. What we need is a view to a ‘sustainable present’, not just a sustainable future.
By all means enroll in a Permaculture course this is a wonderful education. But ensure that vegan food is integrated into the program and question the dominant paradigm, which draws its experience from cultivation of animals as part of the food chain in traditional cultures, as well as being members of the web of life.”
Path from Society
Vegaculture can be simply defined as a self-reflective system of social design principles promoting compassion in daily life through conscious living—Social Statement
My initial limited experience in Australia, of the historic place of vegetarian and vegan groups and individuals, and their integration into communities is that they have sometimes existed at the fringes of the social order; a common response has been a lack of certainty about what the terms mean, with vague notions of a strange personal food persuasion (variously considered both healthy and unhealthy), which may be linked directly to, or profess a form of allegiance to, or have membership of a particular faith.
A fully or part animal free dietary and belief system is prevalent in Eastern cultures, elsewhere, vegan exponents have formed pockets of influence similar to diasporas with a couple of longer term focused groups such as members of the 7th Day Adventist Fellowship, various philosophical and health oriented groups and more recently small specific interest groups like the raw food proponents in modern times. Many countries have a small number of adherents, and numerous people seeking weight loss, personal growth and healing still dabble with a vegan diet, much more frequently than with the fullest vegan lifestyle.
Generally the decision to ‘go vegan’ is becoming an integrated activity in the younger generation in the search for personal identity, while a plethora of health recovery methods incorporate the vegan diet in their recommendations. A brief scan of historical records shows minimal results for the relationship of a political active agenda with ‘vegetarian or vegan movements’ as such, however a few social connections are presented.
In the last few centuries, the vegetarian view has been readily expressed, and various adherents to compassionate food preferences have fought the fight on behalf of animal welfare and rights, but the identification of a “Social Movement” per se is generally limited to the 19th century adherents, where in England and America several influential people in the arts, health and business circles, strongly supported the provision of a vegetarian diet (Ref.12). It seems sociologists may have deferred to nutrition and health advocates given the limited documentation on the history of the vegetarian-vegan preference.
A summary of the vegetarian way taken from a ‘History of Veganism’ (Ref.13) is given here and plots the course to the modern era, commencing in 7000 BCE with Mehragh and the Old Testament, and Hindu scriptures make reference to humans and animals living in harmony; the wolf and lamb together with Isaiah in the C8th BCE. Ethical examples include Pythagoras recognising all animals have souls around the C6th BCE, a healthy Greco-Roman dietary was geared to a vegetarian way, while first Plato, then Plutarch and Porphyry as vegetarians, recommended abstinence from flesh.
In the Middle-Ages, Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) is well known as a vegetarian and animal rights advocate; the early Christians and Chinese Buddhists and Taoists were purported to be vegetarian, with St. Anthony a vegan. Ritual slaughter was gradually being phased out and the Renaissance from around 1500-1700CE saw resurgence in recognition of animal rights and ethical vegetarianism, which philosophically and culturally has led to the modern era.
It is a fact that Mahatma Gandhi was a vegetarian, and successfully used non-violent protest and compassion as major tenets in the political arena leading to the rise of self-government in India and eventual ousting of the British (a magnificent accomplishment); written history though, does not necessarily place these actions in the context of shared ideals and the strength of a vegetarian-vegan movement, but almost solely in the realm of ‘non-violent protest.’
Traditional religious and cultural family ties have demonstrated a significant influence in the continued maintenance of the dietary and lifestyle preferences, however, in the modern era, in India for example, an exposure to multiple lifestyles leads to multiple choices, which has no doubt caused some consternation in traditional vegetarian households and although around 30% of the population are believed to be vegetarian, only a tiny number amongst the Buddhists, Sikh, Jain and Hindu cohorts are likely to be vegan.
I can envisage a wider audience in all communities gradually adopting an openness as a result of the spread of vegan awareness and recognition of the outcomes from vegan activism, which does represents itself strongly in social media; and a more informed public is willing to align with animal rights issues that are drawing a lot of media attention, such as greyhound racing and the live animal export trade in Australia. Thus, social influence will not only be limited to specific actions, rather a re-assessment of greater significance is underway, the education of large sections of the population.
What I perceive in this whole subject of the dominant presentation of social history is that we have avoided the baby elephant in the room so consistently, that remarkably little research is available to support the notion of the ‘Vegetarian and Vegan way’ having been coalesced into a strategic identifiable social context.
In 2017, the growth and acceptance of the vegan path is becoming synonymous with a ritual of youth passage, especially in the urban environment; a cultural recombination process is in motion. The ‘Urban Vegan’ experience is a major driving force in the expansion and adoption of vegaculture, and I am proposing that the time has arrived to revisit the social history books and reframe the story and influences in terms of Vegaculture.
Yes, when one does inspect the landscape of history, and identifies the on- going presence of a weedy hillock of compassion, a mound of purported dignity, at the fringes of society, in the gutters of the tanneries, in the fortressed vessels of greed and ignorance, in the hedgerows of philosophy, in the statements from great humanists, scientists, spiritual giants; even dare one suggest through a cursory self reflection, the resonance deep in the bowels of ones own search for truth; maybe we have been a trifle lenient in letting this one get off the hook!