Veganism - No, Not To My Taste.

I never forget watching Clint Eastwood play the part of the Good in the Big Screen movie Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo, with such beautiful music accompanying the film, the music composed by Ennio Morricone. The title theme is most likely the better-known piece, however, The Ecstasy of Gold, from the same movie, is to my mind, one of the best tunes the music industry has ever offered. Whenever played from YouTube or from one of our CD albums, I can't help but associate this musical track with my hiking trips down into the Grand Canyon during the years 1978 and 1995 alike, walking, fully laden, down that dusty trail into the desert environment until reaching the Colorado River and beyond.

Colorado River, Grand Canyon, taken September 1995.

Although the story is set just after the American Civil War of the 1860s, the location conveys the idea of the Utah/Arizona area of western United States - hence my association with the Grand Canyon hiking experience. In fact, the movie was shot in Spain, at a landscape very similar to that of the western USA.

But I'm drifting off from my point here. Please excuse me for that. Anything to do with Travel and I can get so easily carried away. The point here is that one of the better-known actors who took part in the movie was Clint Eastwood.

Although I know of Eastwood, he doesn't know me and I guess he never will - unless he has faith in Christ as Saviour. Then we'll get to know each other in Heaven.

Celebrity is a subject I have touched on before. On one of my earlier blogs, Three Little Boys, at present standing at #3 on the most popular personal blogging list, I have gone quite deeply into the celebrity culture, specifying that my birthday was very close to those of Patrick Swayze and Christopher Reeve. Swayze was a month older than me while Reeve was a couple of weeks younger. Location of all three newborns was the only preventative from all three of us lying side by side in our cots, with me in the middle. Of us three newborns, not only was I the only one who had never made it to celebrity status but I'm also the only one of the three still alive, having outlived the other two by quite some years.

However, thanks to the internet, it's actually possible to send a private message to a famous person if that person has an active account on social sites such as Twitter or Facebook. But without doubt, the star has to shift through hundreds, if not thousands of messages each day or each week - my own message would be close to irrelevance. Or quite likely, my message may go unread for weeks, months or forever. For him (or her), I'm just another faceless one in the crowd.

As celebrities go, there is quite a number who is gathering fame on YouTube. Videos posted recently can gather a viewing rate of several tens of thousands in just a few weeks - a rate which compares more favourably than blogging, since I believe that watching a mini-movie is more illustrative than reading words. Could this be the reason why so many great films shown on the Big Screen and TV alike are adaptions of novels?

However, I doubt very much that YouTube celebrities will ever reach the status of an actor, pop artist or even a sportsman, such as a professional footballer. Actors such as Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve, Patrick Swayze, Michael J. Fox, and many others became famous by appearing on the cinema screens. In turn, singers such as John Lennon, Harry Secombe, Mick Jagger, Cilla Black and Sandie Shaw became famous through their sale of records. On the football field, Sir Alf Ramsey received a knighthood for managing the England team to victory at the 1966 World Cup final against Germany, with Geoff Hurst scoring three of the four goals in a hat trick which made 1966 the only year in international football history ever to lift the Cup.

Those are true celebrities, whose talent in their particular fields have made them pass through an otherwise impossibly narrow gate to stardom. However, it does look as though YouTube stars will never make it to the level of the names mentioned above, but many of these vloggers (I think I got that right) have a wide-enough audience to actually sustain their living. One of them, university graduate Gabriel Morris, better known by his screen name as Gabriel Traveler, makes his living by videoing his travels around the world and posting them on YouTube - and getting paid for his contributions from Google. And as such, there are many vloggers on YouTube who can be classified as "minor celebrities". 

But one vlogger, in particular, I would like to bring to the forefront here. His real name is Alexander J. O'Connor, known under a screen name of Cosmic Skeptic. Barely out of his teens, this Oxford undergraduate already has close to 300 subscribers and at present 24,040,703 views since joining the website on February 2nd, 2013. Being a student at Oxford is a huge advantage, as being an academic will add authenticity to his presentations. Like the long-haired and bearded Gabriel Traveler, O'Connor is always dressed in a crew-neck tee-shirt whilst in his own studio, and he wears an open-neck shirt when speaking to a live audience. The absence of a tie does not seem to affect his viewing statistics, nor his popularity.

Alexander J. O'Connor, aka Cosmic Skeptic.

O'Connor grew up as a Roman Catholic and he devoted his childhood to the faith, I believe, as an altar-boy. But as his disillusion with his faith began to grow, along with his faith in Evolution, he became a staunch atheist. And that is the main theme with all his presentations, with the words moral and morality, which, according to him, can be attained equally well in an evolutionary setting without the need for religion.

But one video he recently made was a talk delivered to a live audience at an auditorium in Tel Aviv. The subject was about why he has turned to be a vegan. In a half-hour presentation, he explains about the cruelty of animals and their slaughter in the abattoirs - just to delight our taste buds.

I do believe there's a difference between veganism and vegetarianism. The latter excludes meat and fish from the diet, but I think, milk and eggs, along with their products, are allowed to be consumed. But veganism excludes everything which comes from animals. Not only meat and fish but milk and eggs too. This would include all cheese, yoghurt, and all other dairy and egg-based products. Furthermore, according to O'Connor, veganism also excludes all clothing made from animal fibre, an issue which would make both winter clothing and footwear choice difficult matters. For example, this atheist speaks against wearing woollen jumpers, despite that the sheep which supplies the wool is not killed, but shorn alive - a procedure which actually enhances the health of the sheep.

To impose a self-made restriction on what I can and cannot eat or wear or even what I can have as a utility (eg, a leather wallet or briefcase) would make my life a misery. After all, I love chocolate, and here in the UK, confection such as Cadbury's Dairy Milk is as enjoyable as it could ever be, and Easter would be a nightmare for any vegan parents teaching their children what to enjoy and what not to eat, especially when the kids are escorted by Mum through the superstore displays. The same with Christmas, when confection is also high on the family's treats. More so at tea-time when parents make sure to buy biscuits without any chocolate toppings or chips.

But this is the very thing which upsets O'Connor. Why must cows endure forced pregnancy to supply milk for us humans? Then if the calf is female, it will be raised for her to produce milk in the future. If the calf is male, it too will be raised to face the abattoir for beef and veal production. But what really strikes O'Connor as particularly upsetting is the forced separation of the calf from its mother, causing her to suffer over the loss of offspring. If such sentimentality is promoted to make us feel guilty, then to some this might have an effect of converting to veganism.

And that is the central theme of O'Connor's preaching. To convert. And not because eating all animal-sourced products is bad for us. Rather, to convert to veganism from an omnivorous lifestyle is all to do with personal morals rather than nutritional benefits.

Therefore it's my moral responsibility not to touch turkey for Christmas, not to have roast chicken thighs each Sunday, not to accept a succulent roast lamb or stewed beef fillet whilst guests at a friend's home, never to have milk with my morning cereal, just soya instead which doesn't taste so good. And I'll miss eggs too, especially the omelette which my beloved knows how to blend with Red Leicester cheese to give such a tangy taste. And buy dark chocolate only, some, let's face it, taste awful! And if I want biscuits (or cookies), then I have to make sure that they are free from any milk chocolate chips or coating.

Indeed, living to vegan normality would not only be crushingly dull but on the verge of insanity! And I believe that this morality is based on two factors: the elimination of animal suffering, and a move to combat climate change.

Animal suffering in human hands of course! Because in this fallen world, carnivores have no empathy whatsoever for the feelings of their prey. Suffering is the very soul of this fallen world. A cheetah will chase a reindeer or gazelle until the latter is exhausted and then the big cat will bring it down. The meercat is on constant watch, out of fear and anxiety, for the approach of the hyena or leopard. In the ocean, a large school of salmon will hunch into a ball which is targeted by carnivores - whales, sharks, dolphins - and from the air, birds swoop down. Even the fossil record shows the constant suffering and violent death of prehistoric life, a very sobering story which contradicts any molecules-to-man evolutionary theories.

It was not always like this. At the beginning of Creation, all the animals fed on vegetation and all humans fed on the fruit of the trees, according to Genesis 1:29-30. It was the result of the Fall, the entry of sin into the world and death following sin, which brought a massive change within Creation, according to Genesis 3:17-19. Since that awful day, the whole of creation has been subjected to pain, suffering, sorrow and death. No amount of veganism will change anything. There will always be carnivores and there will always be prey, fear, pain and suffering within the animal kingdom along within humanity itself.

And the great Amazon rainforest of Brazil - it decimation is not so much for the breeding and grazing of cattle, as O'Connor would like to think it is. Rather, vast areas of forest are being cleared out to make way for farming, the sowing and harvesting of palm oil. After a while, the area is abandoned and becomes a wasteland. As rainforest provides a high percentage of global oxygen supply, I think it's of far more important for the health of our planet than veganism.