The Striking Similarities Between Carnists and Religious Fundamentalists

I’ve spent a lot of time dealing with religious fundamentalists. In part because of where I live, and because I’ve been involved in the secular movement since 2009; religious fundamentalism catches your attention more when you’re immersed in the world of protecting religious freedom. Now that I’m vegan, suddenly carnists want to tell me about all the biology they think they know. Here is a list of ways carnists are strikingly similar to religious fundamentalists. 

Traditionalist Values

It’s pretty clear how religious fundamentalism is based in tradition, and religious fundamentalists don’t necessarily deny this (as they tend to not see a problem with traditionalism)[1]. I despise traditionalism, however I’ll refrain from rambling about what a horrible value it is. The point here is the lack progressive defenses for either religious fundamentalism or carnism. Traditionalism is rooted in both philosophies and is used actively as a defense.

From Merriam Webster

It is easy for most to see how religious fundamentalism is tied to traditionalism. The connection for carnism might not be as obvious to some because western society looks down on criticisms of carnism (compared to, say, criticizing tobacco users). The reason, as I am told by many carnists, for exploiting animals is that “humans evolved eating animal proteins”. I find absolutely no value to that statement, other than traditionalism. It holds no significant difference from the religionist defending the harms of religion by claiming that “humans have followed religion since the beginning of time”.

So what? What does it matter that humans have done something for some period of time? That statement does absolutely nothing to defend a position, unless you find value in traditionalism.

While it’s clear to see the ties between carnism, religion, and traditionalism based solely on definitions, my personal experiences here are still worthy to note. In cases where the topic of animal exploitation comes up with a carnist, the most common first reaction is something along the lines of “humans evolved eating meat”. Good job carnists, you stated a fact about history. What does that have to do with choosing carnism today? Science has shown no evidence for benefits of animal proteins in a modern human’s diet [2, 3, 4]. We know that animal-based diets contribute significantly more to environmental problems than plant-based diets do [5, 6]. Science has also shown that animals have an interest to live that is not significantly different from ours, and are conscious [7,8, 9, 10]. We also know that sentient animals experience pain, and sometimes pleasure, just as humans do [11, 12, 13].

Traditionalism is not a defense for carrying on a practice that we know to cause harm. Religion has caused much harm throughout history and still today, and carnism is causing harm today.

Anti-progress & anti-science

This point is similar to the above, so it will be brief. To be progressive is to “make use of new ideas, findings, or opportunities” [14]. When scientific findings are in favor of animal rights, animal welfare, natural explanations for what is considered religious phenomenon, etc, a progressive individual will use those findings to inform their decisions and beliefs.

The blatant disregard for modern science by carnists and religionists is disturbing, and does not promote the progress of society. To continue holding the belief that carnism is reasonable, similar to the belief that supernatural phenomenon or any other religious belief is reasonable, is not progressive. I find progress to be a good value, and one for which society to should strive. However, even if you do not agree that progress is a good value, it is difficult to deny the relation to carnism and religious fundamentalism in this regard.

bacon
Meh, why not throw in a meme while we’re here?

Discriminatory 

Humans tend to dislike those who are different. It doesn’t matter how they’re different, we just look for in-group/out-group opportunities [15, 16, ]. A religious fundamentalist tends to discriminate based on race, religion, sexuality, species, and I’m sure there’s some I’m missing. A carnist discriminates mostly based on species. We have evidence that humans are not “the most evolved” species, as carnists  like to think (religionists would think this if they believed in evolution, being created “in god’s image” is a reasonable enough comparison) [17, 18].

So when there is evidence suggesting that non-human animals have an interest in living similar to humans, to continue to discriminate and treat them differently is not acceptable (if the goal is progress).

Defensive 

This one is less rooted in science and more about my experience. Simply being in a room with a carnists seems to make them feel uncomfortable. Even if the topic of animals is not brought up by me, they often act as though they are constantly being attacked. I think this speaks most strongly to a feeling of guilt. They often claim that vegans are “morally superior”. Well, first I missed the part where morals started being a bad thing. Second, I have never once claimed that I’m morally superior, so why does a carnist feel that way? Would they feel the same being around someone who has vowed never to steal?

Similarly, even if I do not initiate a conversation on religion, a religionist often acts as though my mere existence is an effort to say they’re wrong. There is likely a common psychological effect happening here, although I cannot say for sure since I don’t know what that effect would be. If you can shed light on that, I’d love feedback.

Bingo!

Screen Shot 2014-01-31 at 1.48.16 PMbingoOne last point for shits and giggles, because this post has taken so long. It’s fun to play bingo with both carnists and street preachers!

 

 

 

 

From "We Animals"
From “We Animals”

 

 

——

[1] One example of religious fundamentalists encouraging “traditional values”
[2] The China Study (linked to Wikipedia for general reading)
[3] Plant-based foods and prevention of cardiovascular disease: an overview
[4] Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study
[5] Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment
[6] Meat Atlas: facts and figures about the animals we eat (PDF)
[7] Scientists finally conclude nonhuman animals are conscious beings
[8] The Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness
[9] Criteria for consciousness in humans and other mammals (PDF)
[10] New evidence of animal consciousness (PDF)
[11] Pain, suffering, and anxiety in animals and humans
[12] Wikipedia link to encourage further reading and explore sources cited
[13] Rollin, Bernard. The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
[14] Merriam Webster
[15] In-groups, out-groups, and the psychology of crowds
[16] Intergroup Bias (PDF)
[17] Understanding evolution
[18] Trees, not ladders

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.