Killing to Eat Flesh, You Call Yourself Human?

Questioner: We have always been eating meat and drinking milk; it has been there since ancient times. So, my question to you is, is animal liberation or the vegan movement consistent with the ancient times of our land?

Acharya Prashant: There are a few myths that need to be dispelled. Yes, man has had the inclination and the capacity to eat meat for a very, very long time. But even when man was in the jungle, he was primarily an herbivore. And this is born out by scientific analysis of the fossils being dug out and many other kinds of equally rigorous scientific evidence. It is obvious that for the inhabitant of the jungle, the hunter-gatherer, it is far easier to pluck a fruit than to chase and catch an animal, and then kill it, and then eat it.

So, it is a myth that our ancient-ancient forefathers were all carnivores. They did have meat when it was probably available, and that is likely to have been quite sporadic. A man comes actually from a primarily vegetarian-herbivore background. The argument that man has always been a meat-eater needs to be studied and refuted. The current splurge in meat-eating is not more than two hundred years old. It came along with industrialization and the popularization of the thought that it is meat alone that can provide protein, calcium, or many other important nutrients to the body. It was obviously a highly unscientific belief, but it got popularized.

Now, since the last thirty, forty, fifty years, as we are progressing, there is tons of scientific data to conclusively prove that not only are we, not historically prolific meat-eaters, but also that meat-eating, or milk consumption, has a highly deleterious effect on the human body. But then, this data is now fighting against a huge mountain of habit and vested financial interests. You know of the size of the global meat industry; you know of the size of animal agriculture. They are one of the biggest industries on the face of this planet.

So, now, even as it becomes known that probably mankind took a wrong dietary turn quite recently, just around two hundred years back, in opting for a primarily meat-based diet, the momentum of the last two centuries is making it difficult for most people to correct their mistakes. And, of course, added to that is the heft of the meat industry, the financial power, the political power they possess, the kind of control over media that they have, and all the levers that they can pull. So, that is there.

Questioner: I do understand that there are mountains of evidence to support the claim. At the same time, there have been lobbies and groups, or even contradictory scientific research, which now and then make headlines with statements like, we have been carnivores, we have evolved as a carnivore—it was recently in the Times of India—and another thing is that meat is not as unhealthy as we think it is.

So, over the past forty-fifty years, there have been mountains of evidence, but now and then there is some evidence that is contradictory. That makes people believe that there is a kind of confusion within the scientific community. What do you have to say about that?

Acharya Prashant: Forties, fifties, right into the sixties in the last century, it was still being upheld that cigarette smoking keeps you vital and active. And it was a popular belief that cigarette smoking, specifically among men, is a driver of masculinity as well. When it started becoming evident that cigarette smoking has a whole range of very, very harmful effects, when cancer cases started piling up, then the tobacco industry started sponsoring a lot of so-called scientific reports that would say that there is nothing wrong with tobacco and that cigarettes are not at all harmful for human beings. And they kept up the propaganda for another ten, twenty years, almost till the end of the seventies. They kept trying it till it became ridiculously impossible for them to keep pressing on with their claims.

So, why will they not do it? Their money is at stake! Greed can make man do anything; greed can make man present any kind of pseudo-scientific evidence—which is nothing but blatant cheating and lying. Most of the reports that still try to defend meat consumption are sponsored by groups having vested interests.

Take the case of climate change as well. Climate change is happening and there is a clear scientific basis for it. It was evident not only today but even four decades back. But then, the fossil fuel industry kept sponsoring report after report that said, firstly, that there is no climate change; then they said, “Oh, there probably is climate change, but it does not have to do with human activity!” Global warming, they said, is not anthropogenic. Even today they come up with something or the other that would confuse the population. That’s their objective: to not let it become certain, absolutely certain, conclusively, and finally certain, that climate change is happening and man is responsible for it.

If you can instill some doubt in the mind of the compulsive cigarette smoker regarding whether or not cigarettes are harmful, you have given him a lease of fresh hope. He will say, “You know, it is not yet quite proven that cigarettes are harmful, so I feel licensed and entitled to continue with my cigarettes till a final proof is established.” That’s the little ray of hope that the addicted and the greedy mind needs, you know?

The issue has to be closed, sealed, and stamped. It is final that meat-eating is stupid for all kinds of reasons. And they will not let that final conclusion arrive soon. It will arrive, just as it arrived in the case of cigarette smoking; just as it finally had to be accepted by the tobacco industry that cigarette smoking is highly injurious.

Today, you see, on cigarette packs, not only is there a warning, but there is a gruesome warning. There is that terrible face, cancer-struck. It was unimaginable that the tobacco industry would agree to it four decades back. Today they have had to agree because now there is a popular scientific consensus. But they agreed only after claiming millions of lives by spreading misinformation. Same with climate change. Now everybody is coming around to agree that yes, there is climate change, and climate change is due to human activity. But they are trying to delay the inevitable; they are trying to delay that there would be ultimately a consensus.

That is also what the meat industry is trying now. Fifty years back it was the tobacco industry. Two decades back still it is the fossil fuel industry. And we have the meat industry, which will definitely continue with its propaganda and lies right till the end of the next decade maybe. They will evidently have to agree and submit. But then, by that time they would have caused just too much and probably irreversible damage. The thing is to speed up the process. The thing is to bring it more swiftly and more deeply into the popular consciousness, of what meat-eating really is.

Questioner: Moving on to the next question. So, what do you feel is the best approach to raise awareness regarding the cruelties of the dairy industry, given that most Indians are heavily reliant and unaware of the realities that go on there?

Acharya Prashant: Social media. Simple answer. If social media can be used to spread all kinds of mischief—elections are being won and lost on social media, right? You know of the E-commerce volumes now; so much is happening on the internet. Then, social media is the best means to demonstrate the horrors of the meat industry to the world, right?

Today you have trends and trolls. Anything can go viral overnight. You need dedicated people who can bring these things out. You need videos—and gruesome videos. You need to promote them. You need to pin them. You need to frequently circulate and broadcast them. And more and more people need to do that, because the meat-eater is a self-deluder. You cannot eat meat without first lying to yourself.

He will not want to know what the reality of meat consumption is. He will not want to know how animals are kept and how they are slaughtered. He will not know what the conditions of milch cattle are. He’ll just want to happily and blissfully, in complete ignorance, consume packaged meat or packaged milk or milk products. It has to be shown to him what it is that he’s really putting in his mouth, from where it is coming, what the process is. It is not a factory product. It is not coming from a conveyor belt. It is life. You must see what that life has to go through and how that life ends just to satisfy your taste buds.

So, I think a lot of change can happen if just the reality of the animal farms can be brought to people. Obviously, that will not have an effect on everyone, because there are people who have reached stages of neurosis where they love to see blood flowing, where they actually want their meat slaughtered right in front of their own eyes. And there are perverts who love to actually slaughter with their own hands.

So, we are not talking of extreme cases of perversion here, but the normal folk. The so-called genteels, kids, kinder folks, and women, who live by some emotion, some pity, who still have not become dead, hardened, and fossilized—they will be impacted, surely, when these photos and videos reach them. And if you can create that kind of a wave, a constituency on social media, then even the mainstream media will be forced to take it up. Mainstream media, you know, is totally commercial. They will go where the numbers are. They will go where the viewers are. And if the viewers are in the vegan zone or the vegetarian zone, then the mainstream media will have to tilt towards that, cover that, and use that for its own ends.

And you need to go to school. They are the consumers of the future, and they are the ones who are not yet fully conditioned. They are the ones you can talk to. I think any vegan movement must make the eight-plus age group a key priority. It could even be six plus. They are the ones who must be converted. They are the ones who must be told that it is very important to know what really is there on your plate.

Questioner: Next question with respect to dairy. I recently met a doctor because of my fever. When I spoke to her about being a vegan, she immediately came to me and said, “What about your protein?” I had to take my time to explain that milk is not even close to the best source of protein, or that milk doesn’t even have an abundance of protein.

So, with this kind of a lesser nutritional knowledge with the doctors—and the majority of the people tend to believe what doctors say. So, how should we approach this problem?

Acharya Prashant: You need to, then, educate the doctors, you know. Simple. You might be an MBBS or an MD or a DM, but you could still be quite illiterate; you might still not have basic knowledge regarding the nutritional value of various food products. You could have a quack graduating even from the best medical college.

And you are right. So many doctors just do not know that milk or meat are, as you said, nowhere close to being the best sources of protein or vitamins or iron or calcium—anything. In fact, there is a lot of misinformation even on vitamin B12. So, just as everybody else needs to be educated, doctors, too, need to be educated, because the public believes the doctors. So, go to the doctors and tell them.

Otherwise, yes, it is very, very common that you go to a doctor, and if you are a vegetarian, he kind of scoffs at you. It’s a very disdainful glance that he throws at you: “Vegetarian?” And that too, you see, is a relic of the fifties, sixties, and seventies. It has gotten into the popular culture that to be big and strong you have to have meat, whereas this is so foolish. Have you never looked at an elephant? When you say that to be big and strong you need to have meat, then surely you have never seen what an elephant looks like. Neither have you seen a horse. Not a rhinoceros, not a gorilla or a chimpanzee, if you believe that meat-eaters are all… Ridiculous!

There are two categories of professionals who are adept at turning even the staunchest non-meat-eater into a meat-eater. One: the ill-read doctors. Two: the totally illiterate fitness instructors. Young people like to have some mass on their body, or they might just want to keep basic fitness. The moment they show up at a gym, and if they go to a trainer and seek advice, the first thing the trainer would ask is, “What is it that you eat? You’re not having chicken? How will you build mass without chicken?”—which is such a fallacy. Such a fallacy! And it is not coming so much out of ill intention, but out of the fact that the fellow is ill-read. He simply does not know the facts. So, he needs to be educated.

So, target that constituency as well. Tell them that there is no need to turn the entire gym into a club of carnivores. There’s no need.

Questioner: From the recent past till today, there has been a huge popularity in A2 milk, which is milk that lacks beta-casein and protein; or, in other words, it can be the milk of a pure cow, a cow without any genetic modifications. In more Indian terms, it is the milk of a ‘desi cow’. There have been a lot of forefront spiritual leaders who have been promoting this kind of milk.

So, I just wanted to know your take on what A2 milk is all about and why it is just the same as any other milk.

Acharya Prashant: You’re asking me about the milk of the desi cow, the desi gaay , that is being promoted a lot in the religious circles, and even in the downtown cultural circles—you’re talking specifically about India?

Questioner: Yes.

Acharya Prashant: About India, okay. It’s quite funny actually. You see, we worship the cow, and we torture it to no end. And people talk about desi gaay ka doodh, desi gaay ka ghee (milk of home boon cow, ghee of home boon cow). They do not even know what they are doing to the creature they call a mother. Is this the kind of behavior you mete out to your mother? Milk her? Put a noose around her neck? Leash her to a pole or something, or to a nail? And then keep milking her? Artificially inseminate her? And then leave her to her fate once she becomes old and infertile and dry? I mean…

In the name of worshipping the cow, we have done great injustice to the cow. Again, you know, people need to be presented with facts and figures. People need to know that the dairy industry and the meat industry are inseparable. People think—and there are millions of such people in India—people think of meat-eating as some kind of a lowly activity, it is even a taboo to many, but they think of milk, drinking milk, as something holy. So, the fellow will say, “I don’t even touch eggs. I survive only on milk!” As if milk is any less cruel a product than eggs or meat.

The direct and symbiotic relationship between the milk industry, the milk products industry, and the meat industry is not at all clear to people. Not at all. There will be people who will be prepared to lay down their lives if they’re asked to eat meat. They will say, “We are prepared to get killed, but we will not take meat.” I respect that sentiment. But these are the very same people, who have no scruples, no quirms about gulping down liters after liters of milk and lassi and kheer and ghee and paneer and cheese. I’m not blaming them. I’m just saying they are not informed; they do not know where all the meat comes from. They do not even know that India is a big exporter, close to being the largest exporter of meat. Where is that meat coming from? People do not bother to know what happens to the cow once it stops yielding milk.

And I do not mean to say that the only injustice meted out to the cow is the one after it becomes old. Even when the cow is young, people need to go and check out what her life cycle is like, and for the sake of somebody who can’t survive without cattle milk…

It’s quite stupid, you know. There is no animal in the entire universe that needs to have the milk of any creature other than its own mother. Man is the only one who wants to drink cow milk, buffalo milk, goat milk, yak milk, and camel milk. Camel milk is for the camel offspring, is it not? Buffalo’s milk is for the calf. So, what kind of ingredients is the buffalo milk likely to have? The ones that are suitable only to the buffalo calf. Remember, those ingredients are suitable only for the calf, the little calf. What will those ingredients do? They will quickly turn the little calf into a full-grown bull. Is that what you want to become? A bull? With a huge body and very little brains? That’s what milk will do to you.

Milk has nothing for you. The milk that a human being needs is adequately provided only by his or her mother. And once the mother stops breastfeeding, that’s it. Now the human child needs no more milk.

But it’s such an obsession. And if you think deeply about it, it’s a very perverse obsession—trying to have the milk of a female of another species. There is nothing holy at all about selectively using only the milk of the desi cow. Nothing at all. It is as bad as going for any other kind of milk, and going for any kind of milk is as bad as meat consumption. It has to be squarely understood. I know what I’m saying would shock many, even offend many, but it’s alright. Facts need to be demonstrated. Somebody needs to speak things out.

Questioner: Many religious people do not see religion and compassion towards animals going together. When we meet them during the outreaches, they say—irrespective of the religion actually—that God has put animals here for us to eat. So, a few people say that it has been written all over our holy books, our lord used to consume milk himself, and such things.

So, these kinds of questions are quite common among the religious crowd. I feel that this kind of rhetoric is irrelevant at this particular time of things, but still, it is well-written and well-established as per their understanding and their respective religious books. What is your take on this, and why should we not quote everything from such religious books in this particular era?

Acharya Prashant: You know, all this is not because of man’s respect for religion. People who make such claims are inherently full of great disrespect for religion. They use religion just to pursue their own limited, petty, ugly self-interest, and they are vile enough to mask their self-interest with the holy name of religion.

When you say that your prophets or avatars have been shown as consuming milk, then why do you selectively talk only of their milk consumption? The prophets, the gurus, and the avatars have also been shown to be doing a lot of other things. Why don’t you emulate them in totality, then? Shri Krishna would lift the Govardhan Parvat on his little finger. Why don’t you emulate that as well? But when it would come to that, then you would not talk.

Shri Krishna was the one from whom the holy Bhagavad Gita comes. Do you have any relationship with the Bhagavad Gita? No, about the Bhagavad Gita, you would be silent. About milk consumption, you are very loud, very vociferous. You say, “No, I want to drink milk!” Those were things of his times. He was born in the clan of milkmen. So, just as he was not wearing shirts and pants at that time, similarly he was consuming milk.

There is nothing timeless, there is nothing eternal about milk consumption. It was a thing of that particular era, that particular age. Why don’t you wear the same dress that Shri Krishna used to wear? Why don’t you ride the same vehicles that Shri Krishna used to ride? Why don’t you say that all cars should be abolished because Shri Krishna was not riding cars?

You have to understand that the message of the holy Gita is eternal: applicable yesterday, applicable today, and will always be useful in the future. But not everything is timeless.

Similarly, people talk of Jesus or Prophet Muhammad, and they have been depicted as having meat. A few things, I repeat, belong to times and conditions of the particular centuries and the particular places where the holy men operated. They would obviously speak the language of their times, eat the food of their times, wear the dresses of their times, and use the transportation of their times. These are not significant things. What is significant is their central message of understanding, realization, love, and compassion.

Instead of focusing on their central message of realization and compassion, we, for our own ugly self-interests, start using even the holiest of men to just give pleasure to ourselves. People will say, “Oh, but Jesus was a meat-eater!” Anything else that you remember about Jesus? But you remember this much, “He used to have meat, so that entitles me as well to have meat.” And nothing else do you remember from his life, right? Don’t you see that it is not out of respect for Jesus, but out of your unending greed lack of self-control, and total lack of love and compassion that you do what you do? And you’re unnecessarily taking the name of the great and holy men.

Questioner: But why do most of the spiritual and religious leaders shy away from spreading this message?

Acharya Prashant: If somebody doesn’t want to speak the Truth, then you know who that person is. Because if you are in the business of pandering to the masses, pleasing people, then you cannot afford to displease them, let alone offend them. A shopkeeper is surely not in the business of telling the truth. The shopkeeper’s business is to sell his goods. And that’s what most gurus of today are; they have to sell their goods. Many of them have online stores as well actually—literally!

So, when that is what you want to do, how can you afford to antagonize a big chunk of the population? And you would never, never do that if you are especially looking to target the Western audience as a guru, because the Western world is all meat-eating world—meat-eating but full of dollars. Meat dollars. Meaty dollars! Very meaty dollars. And gurus love to fly abroad and collect those dollars. How will you tell the meaty dollar that meat is bad? So, they will either keep mum on it, or they would even indirectly support it. Someone would say, “You know, meat-eating is not alright, but you can have, you know, some chicken you can have, some fish you can have.” What kind of lowly advice is this? Shameful!

So many of them actually use milk in their religious practices. And not a little bit of milk but a very, very vulgar demonstration of the consumption of thousands of liters of milk. So, they will take the milk and put it in a pond and say, “This pond is full of milk.” Or they’ll encourage even their followers to bring lakhs of liters of milk on some holy day and pour it over a deity, and they’ll say, “You know, this is a great pious thing happening in front of your eyes. See, so much milk is being poured over the deity.”

These are not gurus at all. So, the question itself is misplaced. When you say, why are gurus not talking about the meat industry, etc.—they cannot. Just as a politician cannot talk against the people. A politician can talk against another politician, correct? But then, can a politician talk against the electorate? He cannot do that. All politicians abuse each other. But does any of them ever raise a finger at the public? They cannot do that. Their entire business is based on pleasing people. So, the same with the gurus.

Questioner: A lot of social justice movements in the past—take the example of our freedom struggle—a lot of them involved non-violent civil disobedience, in our case, satyagraha . Should vegan movements be following the footsteps of a more non-violent form of civil disobedience?

Acharya Prashant: What exactly do you mean by that?

Questioner: I want to know your personal take on what civil disobedience…

Acharya Prashant: What do you mean by ‘civil disobedience’? What do you visualize?

Questioner: Civil disobedience is breaking a certain part of the law. For example, a very simple example could be trespassing on private property and exposing an animal being cruelly killed, or exposing the industry.

Acharya Prashant: I think it’s your moral and spiritual responsibility to do that. And in the age of sting operations, I don’t know how you can even call it illegal. And if it is illegal, have the resources and an entire battery of lawyers to defend you. Fine.

Questioner: My next question is about climate change. We all know that we are on the terrible precipice of climate change, where we have been witnessing, for example, mass extinctions, high temperatures, and floods, all of which have been very frequent. The animal agriculture industry is one of the main sources of all this. But the population, which is dependent on this particular industry, is of a poor rural background. So, if we have to convince them to switch to a more green side, so to speak, how would we, as a movement, be able to execute it?

Acharya Prashant: You’re talking of the supply side. You’re saying you want to convince the supply side to stop supplying when there still is a massive demand. You will not succeed. Action has to be taken firstly on the demand side and only then on the supply side.

You see, a few things need to be understood. Why did this entire huge spike—and spike after spike—in meat consumption come first, after all? Because it became fashionable. And there was a lot of propaganda around it, correct? People just followed. You, too, will need to propagate. You, too, will need to publicize. When I say ‘you’, I do not mean you as separate from me; I’m with you. There have to be cultural steps, there have to be legal steps, there has to be action in the financial domain, and there has to be information. The meat-eater must not be able to hold a place of pride in popular culture. You need to have celebrities coming out and endorsing veganism, at least vegetarianism. You need to show the good guy in popular media, in the movies, as a vegan guy. It is very important. I’m talking of practical steps. You need to have songs. You need to penetrate the mind of the audience through popular culture.

And on the harder side, you have to realize that every meat-eater is actually being subsidized, greatly subsidized, by every non-meat-eater. This is injustice. This is direct stealing of money, pinching of money, from the pocket of the vegetarian or the vegan to subsidize the meat-eater. When you eat meat, when you eat chicken, you’re actually not paying for the environmental damage that your plate of meat has caused. You’re not paying for the climate change. You’re not paying for the biodiversity depletion. You’re not paying for the loss of tropical jungles, green cover, nothing. None of that has been factored into the price of your tandoori chicken. But the cost is enormous, so somebody is bearing that cost. Who is bearing that cost?

Questioner: Whole population.

Acharya Prashant: Whole population, meaning: just to help you have your chicken, everybody else is paying the price. So, if you are paying rupees two hundred or three hundred for your plate of chicken, its actual price should be maybe eight hundred or thousand. And it is a gross injustice that the thing is being offered to you as a subsidy. So, there has to be taxation. There has to be clear, commensurate, just taxation.

Two things I talked of: culture and fiscal measures. Then there has to be education. People have to know. People have to know what milk is. People have to know what meat is. People have to know the entire cycle. People talk so much about the right to information and everybody is so curious these days. People want to gossip, people want to say, “No, we want to know everything.” First of all, don’t you want to know what is going into your body? So, that has to be made known.

Thirdly, it has to be made known that agriculture as such is not the absolutely holy profession it is made out to be. Very, very few people know that probably around two-thirds of all agriculture, rather than three-fourths of all agriculture, is just to support meat-eating. Now, you’ll wonder what I am saying, right? People think of farmers as some kind of pursuers of a most noble profession. You say, “You know, you should be a farmer.” Especially in India, everybody is talking about poor farmers and this and that, and everybody is talking about upholding farming. And I support that. Any person who is in need needs to be supported. But the field of farming, the entire industry of farming, the entire sector of agriculture, has to be seen in perspective.

We must know the facts. Truth has to be exposed. Out of every four kilograms of grain that comes out from the farmer's field, three kilograms go towards feeding animals so that they can be slaughtered and the meat-eaters can have their meat. That’s the reality of agriculture.

On the one hand, we talk so much about preserving the forests. And if forests go, then the habitat of so many species just disappears. You need not physically eliminate those species; you just need to cut the forests down and those species are gone. Now, why are the forests disappearing at such a huge rate? Do you know, even as we are talking, how many acres of forest have been cleared off in the last hour itself? Can you even imagine? Now, go find out. You’ll be startled. Even as we are discussing this, at an unimaginable pace trees are being felled. Unimaginable pace.

Why are those trees being felled? So that there can be more agriculture. That agriculture goes towards feeding the ever-increasing population because we cannot live without kids. Further, we cannot live without our chicken wings, chicken burgers, mutton, and beef. We do not even know that to get one kilogram of chicken, mutton, or beef, you require probably twenty, thirty, or forty kilograms of grains. So, most of the grain that is being raised in the farmers’ fields is for the purposes of meat. That is something people must know. You cannot just blindly keep on talking of agriculture as something so holy pious and natural.

Then, the kids. The kids, the kids! Reach out to them. There has to be a holy war. You have to, pardon me my language, invade schools. It’s a battle for the mind. The kid must grow up knowing fully well that it’s monstrous to kill an animal, to eat it. And that would require a change in the entire value system of the kid. Veganism cannot succeed if you just keep talking about animals. You keep saying, “Oh! It is bad to look at animals as a commodity, it is bad to exploit animals!” If man is exploiting man, why will man refrain from exploiting animals?

So, veganism has to be holistic, and comprehensive. You may not like to hear it this way, but veganism has to be basically a spiritual movement. Veganism has to be a movement of compassion. And when compassion comes, you will not be compassionate towards merely the animals; when compassion arises in you, then you will be compassionate towards everything, everybody, and yourself. First of all, you will cease to be cruel towards yourself, which most people are.

So, veganism needs to broaden its scope. You say, “Oh, it’s bad to treat animals that way, this way, one should not use leather.” But what if somebody has been conditioned to draw pleasure from tormenting the other? And there are many such people. There are cuisines around the world where animals are eaten alive. You like to have an octopus, a living octopus, on your plate, and then you take the octopus and you take it in.

You have to address the entire value system. You have to ask the man: Who are you? What is it that you want and how will you get it? By slaughtering somebody else? And what if it’s proven that that which you really want is being hindered, impeded, obstructed, by your food habits? And your food habits are not merely your food habits. Your food habit is your life habit. The way you eat is the way you live. If you are horrible with your food, then surely your life, too, is horrible. This has to be drawn home.

So, a lot of work needs to be done. For veganism to succeed you would actually require a new man. It’s a big battle and it’s worth fighting. It’s worth fighting.

Questioner: We are organizing an animal rights march on the coming weekend, on the 10th of November. So, I just wanted to ask you, why should the masses, whether vegan or not, why should they join this movement? Do you have any words for them?

Acharya Prashant: We have already spoken enough on that. I mean, if you are not joining the vegan movement, I don’t know how you are eligible to call yourself educated. I don’t know how you are eligible to call yourself even human.

Street activism is wonderful. My advice is: do not forget that you have to be an educators first. It is a battle for man’s mind—not to capture it but to cleanse it. It is not just about the future of the planet; the future of entire mankind depends on the success of this vegan movement. If veganism fails, man is gone.

But unfortunately, man will be the last to go. Before man goes, he would have put everything else in the graveyard or reduced everything else to ashes. Having presided over the entire demolition, and having cremated everybody else, he will be the last to depart—and probably pretty soon so.

So, let’s work.

show_less