Were humans originally vegetarian?

The prooftext of original human vegetarianism is Gen 1:29. And it's possible that the traditional interpretation is correct. However:

i) The language is permissive rather than contrastive. It doesn't say they were granted vegetation as opposed to meat. Although the verse allowed for that distinction, it's not a logical implication of the verse. The verse isn't worded in terms of two antithetical sources of food, where one is verboten. 

ii) Explicitly stating that vegetation is generally permissible to eat might be theologically relevant insofar as it foreshadows the significance of two particular trees in Gen 2, one of which is forbidden. 

iii) Gen 1:24-26 includes a category of livestock. Normally, certain kinds of livestock are consumed. Indeed, that's one reason to domesticate them. It's easier than hunting. 

But even if we don't press that issue, some livestock are also used as a food supplement for milk and eggs. But even on that "vegetarian" interpretation, the intended scope of Gen 1:29 can't be confined to an exclusively plant-based diet (fruits, nuts, roots). Rather, it presumptively includes supplementary food provided by farm animals, even if, for the sake of argument, we don't insist that they were butchered for meat. But that means the licit original diet of man was already wider than Gen 1:29. 

The only alternative is to suppose the livestock were used as beasts of burden, rather than a food source of any kind. But that's highly artificial, and unlikely that the original audience would draw that dichotomy. 

iv) In addition, the tree of life wasn't give for food, but it was permissible to eat. So a food stuff isn't the only function of plants, in the creation account. 

v) Humans often prefer herbivores to carnivores for meat. (That depends in part on what's available for consumption.) So there's an indirect link between a meat diet for humans and a vegetarian diet for livestock and game animals. A vegetarian diet is foundational to a meat diet. 

vi) Another way of putting this is that Gen 1:29 is permissive rather than prohibitive. Although the wording is consistent with a ban on meat-eating, that's not entailed by the wording.

Moreover, given repeated references to livestock in the same account, it's implausible that a human diet consisting only of vegetation was originally allowed. The narrator couldn't reasonably expect the original audience to have such a restrictive view of what livestock is for. 

Even if, for the sake of argument, we think Gen 1:29 excludes the consumption of livestock, how could it also be understood to exclude the consumption of milk and eggs from livestock? 

What's the point of livestock? Other than a source of food, the only other function is beasts of burden, but God created Eden with an orchard, It already had fruit trees. So there was no pressing need farm the land with oxen. 

Of course, humans domesticated wolves for guarding and hunting, but that's not terribly consonant with the vegetarian interpretation. 

Mind you, the reference to livestock might seem anachronistic in a creation account. Did God directly create livestock? Are they not, by definition, domesticated wild animals?

So the reference might be proleptic. But even so, livestock are represented as part of the original goodness of creation, and not a natural evil due to the fall. 

Sacred cows

Here's Joaquin Phoenix's acceptance speech for his Academy Award for Best Actor:

We have to continue to use our voice for the voiceless. I've been thinking a lot about some of the distressing issues that we are facing collectively. I think at times we feel, or were made to feel, that we champion different causes, but for me, I see commonality. I think, whether we're talking about gender inequality or racism or queer rights or indigenous rights or animal rights, we're talking about the fight against injustice. We're talking about the fight against the belief that one nation, one people, one race, one gender, or one species has the right to dominate, control, and use and exploit another with impunity.

I think that we've become very disconnected from the natural world, and many of us, what we're guilty of is an egocentric worldview — the belief that we're the center of the universe. We go into the natural world, and we plunder it for its resources. We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow, and when she gives birth, we steal her baby, even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable. Then, we take her milk, that's intended for her calf, and we put it in our coffee and our cereal, and I think we fear the idea of personal change because we think that we have to sacrifice something to give something up. But human beings, at our best, are so inventive and creative and ingenious, and I think that when we use love and compassion as our guiding principles, we can create, develop and implement systems of change that are beneficial to all sentient beings and to the environment.

Now, I have been a scoundrel in my life. I've been selfish. I've been cruel at times, hard to work with and ungrateful, but so many of you in this room have given me a second chance. And I think that's when we're at our best, when we support each other, not when we cancel each other out for past mistakes, but when we help each other to grow, when we educate each other, when we guide each other toward redemption. That is the best of community.

When he was 17, my brother wrote this lyric. It said: "Run to the rescue with love, and peace will follow."

1. For the purposes of this post, I'm going to assume - am I being naive? - that Phoenix is no longer in character as the Joker.

2. So a rich Hollywood celeb argues for speciesism and for veganism. I use "argues" very loosely. Frankly it's more like assuming and asserting rather than arguing. For starters, I didn't see an argument for why it's wrong to eat beef. Or an argument for why it's wrong to drink cow milk.

3. At best, I gather he's supposing "sentience" is somehow the reason not to eat meat. We shouldn't kill and consume cows because they're "sentient" and to kill sentient creatures would be immoral. However, he doesn't define "sentience", nor does he explain how cows are sentient, nor does he argue how a cow's moral status is derived from or relevantly connected to its sentience.

Is sentience indexed to self-consciousness? So would comatose humans be non-sentient? Would humans come in and out of sentience when they're asleep and awake? Is sentience indexed to intelligence? So that less intelligent people are less sentient than more intelligent people? Is sentience indexed to moral decision-making? Can animals like cows reason about morality? Is sentience indexed to the ability to feel emotions like pain? What about humans who have congenital insensitivity to pain? Are they less sentient than normal humans? And so on.

4. In addition, even if we accept Phoenix's argument (such as it is), it could prove too much, for it could apply to some plants as well. After all, there are scholars who argue some plants are sentient. So will Phoenix refuse to eat plants too? If he's not going to eat animals, plants, or their products, what's left? I guess non-sentient creatures like insects? But from what I've seen, there are some who argue insects might be sentient!

5. I notice Phoenix uses emotionally manipulative language like "steal[ing] her baby". In addition to anthropomorphizing animals (e.g. "even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable"). What makes Phoenix think animals feel pain like we do?

6. Of course, I'm not suggesting we should treat animals with cruelty. I'm all for treating animals well. Indeed, Christianity has a theology of creation care. However, why should we treat animals well according to Phoenix's worldview? Which, evidently, is the following:

I don't believe in God. I don't believe in an afterlife. I don't believe in a soul. I don't believe in anything. I think it's totally right for people to have their own beliefs if it makes them happy, but to me it's a pretty preposterous idea.

Nature is red in tooth and claw. Is it immoral for lions to hunt down and eat gazelles? Given Phoenix's speciesism, should lions turn to veganism too? Why only humans?

7. I don't have a problem with inventing novel food sources if necessary. But what does Phoenix have in mind? Vegan burgers like Monty's burgers in Koreatown? Sure, that's fine, and some vegan burgers taste alright, and I've eaten CPK cauliflower pizza crust that tastes like bread, but it's not like the average person has the time and resources to live a vegan lifestyle like Phoenix does. Besides, how far does Phoenix want to go? Does he want people to be able create artificial cows? There are limits even to human ingenuity.

8. As an aside, some might be interested in an earlier post I did on the same topic.

Veggie tales

1. I'm not against vegetarianism or veganism per se, but I'm not against meat-eating either. However, humans are omnivorous. Ideally we should have a varied diet (e.g. lean meats, green leafy vegetables, Butterfinger cookie dough cheesecake bars fried in a vat of lard).

2. That said, some strict vegetarians and vegans act like they're morally superior to people who eat meat. They turn their personal choice into a moral crusade against people who aren't vegetarian or vegan. They become zealots for vegetarianism or veganism.

On that front, Tim Hsiao has defended eating meat. Speaking of Tim Hsiao, I just want to note it's hard not to appreciate his artful photos taken at fine dining institutions across the nation such as (to pick a random example or two) steakhouses and burger joints.

3. What's more, some strict vegetarians and vegans act like the medical science is on their side. That vegetarianism and/or veganism represent the side of the intellectual sophisticates. I've even heard some argue humans evolved to eat plants. That we're fundamentally herbivores. That sort of thing. It's usually at this point when I roll my eyes and order a hamburger: In-N-Out, give me your double-double please. On second thought, let's make it a 5x5. Thanks!

4. As far as the medical science goes, strict vegetarians and vegans can often suffer from nutritional deficiencies. For example, take vitamin B12 deficiency. That's one of the most common deficiencies in strict vegetarians and vegans.

a. Plants don't make B12. At best, some plants can absorb B12 like Venom absorbing Spider-Man, but that alone wouldn't be sufficient enough B12 for a strict vegetarian or vegan diet. Not unless we're talking about chowing down forests! (Save the animals or save the rainforests - a moral dilemma for vegheads?) The primary reason is because plants don't have the necessary enzymes for B12 synthesis.

b. B12 comes from animals and animal products. Meat, eggs, cheese, dairy, and the like.

c. If humans are fundamentally herbivores, then (to take one issue) why do humans lack the gastrointestinal fermentation processes which support the growth of B12 synthesizing microorganisms (e.g. bacteria, algae) when these are present in herbivores? Also, where's my extra stomach? (Ruminates the illusive ruminant.)

d. B12 is needed for the body to make DNA, red blood cells, nerves, among other things.

e. B12 deficiency can be pernicious. Strict vegetarians and vegans often don't realize they have B12 deficiency until it sneaks up on them after it already caused some damage (e.g. anemia, tingling or numbness in hands or feet, memory loss, losing the ability to keep veganism to yourself).

f. Hence strict vegetarians and vegans need to supplement their diet with B12 (among other things). Typically that comes in the form of higher doses of multi-vitamins with B12, foods fortified with B12, and/or weekly B12 injections. However, after age 50, give or take, it becomes more difficult for the body to absorb B12 through fortified foods.

5. Obtaining B12 (among other necessary nutrients) without eating meat or animal products is typically something a Westerner living in the comparatively affluent West can afford to do. You don't see too many people in developing nations who are vegans. And the ones who are vegans typically happen to be the ones who are likewise comparatively well-to-do in their own nations.

6. In fairness, some people overeat meat. (So says the guy who orders 5x5s at In-N-Out.) However, that's a separate issue.