George Dvorsky makes some pretty good arguments for giving up meat-eating, most of which would be hard to disagree with -- although #4 is a fairly obnoxious straw man argument. Unfortunately, that word "obnoxious" more or less sums up George's entire approach. I have very little use for sanctimonious self-righteousness applied to any other area of life, so it's not surprising that it leaves me cold when applied even to an issue with which I tend to agree.

Please note: this is no personal attack on George. We at The Speculist are big Dvorsky fans. We cite his work all the time. The terms "obnoxious," "sanctimonious," and "self-righteous" are applied strictly to Geroge's arguments. On a personal level, he's a swell (and very smart) guy. Unfortunately, when he calls all us meat-eaters "bad people," I'm not sure such a distinction can be made on our collective behalf. (However, I have no problem with being called "bitch." In the context presented, it seems more colloquial and affectionate than anything else. Kind of like being called "Dawg" or "Home Slice," only more emphatic.)

I've written more than once on my belief that the world will one day be a meatless -- although not necessarily vegetarian -- place. I agree that it's wrong to cause animals undue pain. I agree that our current industrialized livestock management practices are abhorrent. And, from a purely practical standpoint, I think we'll have a much stronger moral footing with our AI descendants if they see us treating weaker / arguably inferior life forms with as much kindness as possible. In short, I think I'm just about ready to be persuaded that I should give up eating dead animals altogether.

Unfortunately, George's piece has pushed me no closer to the brink. He divides his time between preening over the superiority of his position vis a vis his listeners and slamming them for not being as enlightened as he is. For crying out loud, the flushed, sweaty Bible-thumpers who blustered their way through the endless revival meetings I endured as kid in western Kentucky knew better than to take that approach.

Next week, the Boulder Futures Salon will be discussing the future of persuasion. I think I'll bring a copy of George's blog entry as an example of how little progress has been made in rhetorical technique. Here we have a world-class futurist taking an "I'm good; you're bad: be like ME" approach that even the most backward fundamentalists dropped decades ago. You see a lot of this kind of thing among "progressive" thinkers when dealing with the great unwashed who haven't yet achieved their level of enlightenment. (An example -- for whatever reason, atheists seem particularly prone to these excesses when arguing against belief in God. This could be a reverse application of the old adage that "converts are the worst." Which would also apply to George, I suppose, what with his five-year tenure as a morally superior being.)

Anyhow, here's hoping that George finds a means of making his case worthy of his subject. It deserves it.

UPDATE: Dvorsky follows up:

Now, in regards to the accusation that I'm a 'bigot' or intolerant of meat eaters, that's an interesting point. Bigotry, I suppose, is relative. Let's imagine for a moment that I had written an article titled 'Racists are bad people,' or 'Homophobes are bad people.' Do you think I would have received the same kind of negative response? Hardly. Aside from a few anachronistic and unenlightened perspectives I'd get a slew of comments saying, 'right on, brother.'

But the fact that I didn't get these sorts of supportive comments, aside from a small minority, indicates to me that our transition to a mostly meat-free society is a process still in its infancy.

This is interesting. I accused George of making obnoxious arguments, not being a bigot. But I doubt I would have much problem with obnoxious behavior towards racists or other bigots. It's important to be aware of where we are in the transition, and I tend to agree that we're in the very early stages.

A century and a half ago, a proto-Dvorsky might have written a self-righteous and obnoxious essay entitled "Why People Opposed to Racially Mixed Marriages are Bad." From where I sit, that argument could have been made as sanctimoniously as the essayist desired, and I've got no problem. But a mixed-marriage fence-sitter (or even a supporter of mixed marriages) from that era might have reasonably argued that it's early days, and proto-Dvorsky is doing little to help the cause.

Still, if he changed even a few minds, and more importantly, if he got people talking about the issue...

Cross-posted to The Speculist.