"There has never been a completely vegan culture (that we know of) anywhere"?

[made of sequins]

What do you say when people point out that there has never been a completely vegan culture (that we know of) anywhere in the world at any point in history?

I hate being left without a comeback, but more importantly, this one kind of causes me to doubt myself sometimes. Not that I would ever give up being vegan personally, but the argument made to me was that veganism is only a nutritionally adequate possibility now that we have the means to ship various forms of produce, etc. from around the world. And that there has never been a vegan culture because it's not sustainable long-term.

What can I say to this?

[Maître]

Well for a start, what makes you think that veganism isn't sustainable long term? It's far less wasteful than using animals as intermediaries. Also there's no need for exotic imported goods, many people for example simply receive a local 'veg box' of seasonal produce.

There are plenty of explanations why there's never really been a majority vegan culture, aside from people as a group being incredibly stupid, close minded and short sighted people often relied on the added nutrition provided by animals grazing on grass (and other inedible substances) in order to survive. This is no where near the same as feeding animals food that could be eaten by humans, which is a fairly recent thing.

[Ladygold]

I’m sure you will have responses by others with evidence that humans at least ate a lot less meat and animal products then they do now and that is documented (even by onmi’s) but here is what I say when I get this statement.

I do not care or So what?

The whole stance that because we have not done something before as proof that we are doing something wrong now is so illogical it makes my head hurt a bit.

The environment is a great thing to bring up with this argument because the world is a mess but it’s ok because we have always been polluting it?

I have had this excuse for bad behavior thrown my way for being vegan a few times and if I’m in an open and compassionate mood I’ll try to give the benefit of the doubt and try to educate.

But to be honest this is such a non winner argument I LOVE when it’s said by someone who is just trying to be a knob. We have had years of horrible things done by humans for “tradition”:

to name a few…..
Slavery
Women as property
Child Labor

And these are considered bad now but this question was brought up then too.

What’s important to me is we can live healthy vegan full lives now!!!

That’s what I tell them.

LG

[harpy]

First, how can they be sure there's never been a vegan culture? (I suppose it depends what a bit what we mean by "culture", as well as what we mean by "vegan", but I've seen it argued for example that some of the vegetarian communities in the 19th century were actually vegans.)

Second, if it's true, there are other possible reasons than lack of sustainability. For example, it may be that until recently that people have not had sufficient nutritional knowledge to design an adequate vegan diet.

Thirdly, if it wasn't sustainable in the past, that doesn't mean it's not sustainable now. There are plants that Europeans probably could not have grown in the past that they now can: rice and soya beans might be examples, and no doubt there will be more in future.

[leedsveg]

Moving stuff "from around the world" ? Doesn't sound like a good solution to the world's problems to me. No wonder the world propelled, by omnivorism, is in terminal decline. Roll on the age of veganism.

Leedsveg

[Ladygold]

but the argument made to me was that veganism is only a nutritionally adequate possibility now that we have the means to ship various forms of produce, etc. from around the world. And that there has never been a vegan culture because it's not sustainable long-term.

I know many vegans who only eat local produce and even on this forum there are vegans for 10, 20, 30 yrs and even since they were born and are thriving so for me thats long term.

I'd mention that too :)

LG

[Mymblesdaughter]

How about Jainism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism I don't know what you mean by a complete culture but Jains have been around a long time and are vegan.

[harpy]

Mind you, I think Jains like Hindus have tended to eat dairy produce, although more are going vegan now?

[Mymblesdaughter]

I've only met one family of Jains and they didn't eat any meat or dairy and didn't eat things like carrots where you kill the whole plant. This is part of their religion so I presumed all of them kept to it but don't really know much about it except what I've read on wiki.

[Risker]

There has been a completely vegan culture, since 1944. We, as vegans, are a culture.

[harpy]

Good point Risker.

Mymblesdaughter, the Wikipedia article on "Jain vegetarianism" goes into more detail. As I understand it they all avoid roots but not all avoid dairy, unfortunately.

[Korn]

What do you say when people point out that there has never been a completely vegan culture (that we know of) anywhere in the world at any point in history?

Hi!

I would ask them why they think so, and why they think it is relevant. Are they trying to live on a so called 'stone age diet', and/or think that we shouldn't include or exclude something which pre- or early humans didn't include or exlude?

Would these people - if you would tell them that your ideal was a human society free from violence, murder and rape - say that there hasn't been any completely non-violent culture that we know of, and therefore that you should drop the idea about trying to strive for a more peaceful world? I don't think so.

The fact that our ancestors didn't wear T-shirts has never been used as an argument against using T-shirts...

There's a lot we don't know yet about the many hominids and what they ate. What we do know is that early humans had no domesticated animals, so they didn't use any dairy products. Eggs aren't very useful for humans - we don't need them for the protein, and B12 from eggs is difficult to absorb. There's nothing in honey we need either - which we can't get from plants. Some known cultures have used honey, others have not.

So, if we talk about food, that leaves us with meat. If you take a look at our subforum called Human Evolution, you'll find some references to articles about what our ancestors may have eaten - or not. The 'truth' about what they ate changes every year. New findings sggest that many of the early weapons our ancestors used were used to defend themselves and their kids against predators, and that some humans actually started to eat meat as scavengers, not as hunters; that we were the hunted - not th ehunters.

And - after long periods with a very cold climate (ice age periods), or massive areas covered by ash from volcanos, or periods with drought, humans probably ate whatever they came across - and stuck with their new habits.

There are many theories about what we shold eat. Some say, for instance, that we shoud eat at least 5% animal products, because that's what chimps do, and "they are our nearest relatives". But why should we eat what our nearest relatives eat? I never call my cousins and aks them what they eat before I make dinner... :)


the argument made to me was that veganism is only a nutritionally adequate possibility now that we have the means to ship various forms of produce
In many ways the opposite is true: since all food was organic back then, and usually fresh, and didn't contain all the chemicals it does today (the same goes for water), it was probably easier to get the nutrients one needed back then; particularly B12. We also spent a lot of time outdoors = a lot of vitamin D from the sun.

There's nothing we need to import from remote areas to survive in terms of nutrition, unless, of course, we live in so cold climates that edible plants are available only for really short periods of the year. In such cases, we'd have problems 10,000 years ago as well (and or a very boring diet!).


And that there has never been a vegan culture because it's not sustainable long-term.
But - why wouldn't a vegan culture be sustainable long-term?

In the periods which often are used as references (by a few people) as to what we should eat today, our ancestors rarely became more than 30-40 years old. That'a nothing we want to strive for. And while it actually was possible to kill local animals for food, say, 50,000 years ago, the ratio between humans and wild animals today means that we can't survive on hunting anyway. After a couple of weeks there wouldn't be more animals left. And - if 'old, known cultures' should have been a reference, these cultures didn't have massive factory farms with major environmental impact of the kind nobody wants.

Unless these people avoid normal houses and clothes etc., and eat larvae and earthworms, I don't think thy really mean that we should copy what our ancestors did thousands of years ago. But again - take a look in the Human Evolution subforum, there's a lot of interesting links there re. what our ancestors actually ate, about whether humans are naturally equipped to hunt and thrive on a diet including meat and dairy etc - and other stuff, like eg. this (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4013-5000-year-old-tribe-still-on-a-vegan-diet) thread.

Our world, as it is today, would have been very different if our ancestors should have used similar references - but luckily - they weren't interested. No early food innovators eaters decided to stop eating hommous, guacamole or hazelnut butter because our ancestors didn't eat hoummus, guacamole or hazelnut butter. So - IMHO - this is a....non-topic. :-)

But I still wonder why they think it is relevant!:)

[made of sequins]

thanks for taking the time to reply; I really appreciate all your ideas and perspectives. :)