heart attack at 40

an open letter to matt dillahunty, by themembers of theveganatheist forum. this 3 part video attempts to address mr. dillahunty'sarguments and fallacies as presented on the atheist experience tv show. in this the firstpart, we start by addressing his rejection of the scientific consensus. dear matt,

heart attack at 40, you have expressed in the past your relativeindifference to the issue of the treatment of non-human animals, and we understand thisapathy. for you humans come first, and that's very understandable. if you don't care aboutsomething, we can't make you care. we neither expect you to 'go vegan', nor intend thisletter to have that effect.

this letter is not about animals, nor is itabout veganism; this is about your bad arguments made in defense of your eating meat. bad argumentsthat are hypocritical in light of your claims to respecting science and intellectual honesty-- which is something you should certainly care about. in this letter we hope to helpyou in recognizing the flaws in your reasoning. we would encourage you to, at least, takea look at dawkins' words on this subject in the future. although he is not a vegan oreven a vegetarian, he recognizes that speciesism is wrong and he has no moral justificationfor eating meat. richard dawkins in conversation with petersinger wrote: i think that you [peter singer] have a very,very strong point when you say that anybody

who eats meat has a very, very strong obligationto think seriously about it—and i don't find any very good defense. i find myselfin exactly the same position as [i would have been] 200 years ago […] talking about slavery,where somebody like thomas jefferson—a man of very sound ethical princi0ples—kept slaves.it's just what one did; it was kind of the societal norm. […] the historical presidentof slavery i think is actually rather a good one, because there was a time where it wassimply the norm. everybody did it, and some did it with gusto and relish—other peoplelike jefferson did it reluctantly. i would have probably done it reluctantly. i wouldhave just gone along with what society does, but i think it […] was hard to defend then,yet everybody did it—and that's the sort

of position i find myself in now. and i thinkwhat i really like to see is people like you having a far greater effect upon what i wouldcall consciousness-raising, and try to swing it around so that it becomes the societalnorm not to eat meat. source: source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyyny2okvwu&t=29m31s this letter is primarily in response to yourarguments on a not terribly recent episode of the atheist experience, #583 from december2008 (here's a link for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mclv6s3bk60). we fully recognize that this may, by now,be a straw matt, and your positions may have evolved, but due to your reluctance to commenton or discuss the issue it's hard to find

an updated record of your view on this, sowe're going by what we have. point 1: overtly rejecting scientific consensusbased on personal ignorance of science. caller wrote:it is unhealthy. i mean if youlook on the american heart association's website they have numerous instances where they listthat diets that contain meat are more unhealthy than plant based dietsmatt dillahunty wrote: i simply don't believe it remotely and it's eh. i can answer withone word -- evolution -- we evolved as an omnivorous species. matt, it doesn't matter what you believe,it matters what the actual evidence shows; you should know this better that almost anybody.you are neither an expert on nutrition, nor

even evolution, and you do much better whenyou admit, in humility, your lack of scientific background. it's not an appeal to authorityto trust expert consensus on scientific matters. expert opinions are important, because novicesdo not have the training, experience, or time to understand all of the data. if you chooseto ignore the scientific consensus, then you're going to have to come up with some very strongevidence from peer-reviewed research and literature. is this not what you ask creationists to dowhenever they choose to reject the scientific consensus on the age of the earth, or evolution? speaking of creationists, let's look at thecase of evolution versus creationism. there are droves of theists who think they understandevolution, and physics, well enough to offer

the one word checkmate of "2lot" (second lawof thermodynamics). as if nobody had ever thought about it before them. as it turnsout, that mistaken perception of a contradiction between the two is based on a profound ignoranceof both subjects. your claims here are no less ignorant, and we'll explain why at theend of this section, but the most pressing matter is that you attempted to make themat all, considering your own criticism of creationists for pulling the same kind ofintellectually dishonest nonsense. this is a very unfortunate hypocrisy. both are cases of people attempting to debunkone science (evolution/nutrition) that they personally dislike by appealing ignorantlyto some other science (thermodynamics/evolutionary

biology) with only passing familiarity, bypointing out a perceived contradiction (a contradiction which doesn't actually exist-- and if it did, you would have to admit the other option is that evolution is false;are you really ready to make that assertion?), to discount the expert opinion of every majorbody of scientists on the subject in the world along with irrefutable evidence which theyconveniently ignore in favor of their own preconceptions. there is no difference here. except, thereis a good explanation for creationists showing this behavior; their indoctrination preventsthem from accepting scientific consensus. you have supposedly found your way out ofthe religious dogma and embraced science,

however counterintuitive it might be sometimes.however, when it comes to the consumption of meat you dismiss scientific consensus inan awfully trivial manner. what justification do you appeal to that makes scientific consensusimportant for the theory of evolution, the big bang, or even heliocentrism, but casuallydismissable in favor of your own preferences when it comes to whether or not meat is goodfor you? to come back to the actual point in question.it's not just the american heart association that agrees the consumption of meat is a majorfactor in the development of heart disease. for the others, here's a short list with citationsand links: world health organizationthe american dietetic association

the american institute for cancer researchthe world heart federation the british national health service nih wrote:it has been established beyond areasonable doubt that lowering definitely elevated blood cholesterol levels (specifically,blood levels of low-density lipoprotein (ldl) cholesterol) will reduce the risk of heartattacks caused by coronary heart disease. this has been the consensus for 30 years,and continues to be today. it's non-controversial among experts. the only people challengingthis are conspiracy theorists, like "the international network of cholesterol skeptics", which isa group primarily composed of various lobbyists for the meat industry. they're essentiallythe dietary version of climate change "skeptics".

they offer no alternative to the lipid hypothesis,and their "contributions" are regularly debunked by actual experts. they are, however, very popular among themeat eating public (particularly with the current paleo-fad dieters) who want to bereassured that there's nothing wrong with their saturated fat rich diets (just as creationistswelcome any reassurance that evolution goes against science, no matter how dishonest).this is an instance where you have to recognize your biases, and realize that when you'rehearing something you really want to hear, however true it may ring for you, that doesn'tmake it so. follow the actual evidence, and you'll arrive at the correct conclusion (whichis likely the scientific consensus- because

that's what the scientists do). we shouldn't even have to address your argumentabout "evolution", because the science should speak for itself. when there is an apparentconflict between two proven facts, that usually only indicates some degree of ignorance inthe person observing that conflict, and not an actual contradiction -- this should havebeen your assumption, and rather than make these claims you should have tried to figureout why these two sciences seem to contradict each other. to anthropomorphize evolutionin effort to explain, "evolution" doesn't care if you have a heart attack at 40, becauseby that time it's done with you. here's how dawkins explains it:

richard dawkins wrote:obviously lethal geneswill tend to be removed from the gene pool. but equally obviously a late-acting lethalwill be more stable in the gene pool than an early-acting lethal. a gene that is lethalin an older body may still be successful in the gene pool, provided its lethal effectdoes not show itself until after the body has had time to do at least some reproducing.for instance, a gene that made old bodies develop cancer could be passed on to numerousoffspring because the individuals would reproduce before they got cancer. on the other hand,a gene that made young adult bodies develop cancer would not be passed on to very manyoffspring, and a gene that made young children develop fatal cancer would not be passed onto any offspring at all.

source: dawkins (1989), the selfish gene.pp. 46. if meat caused cancer, diabetes, cardiovasculardisease, alzheimer's or erectile dysfunction before reproduction, surely we would eitherevolve to stop the development of these diseases so early or to not eat meat. as we have evolvedto be able to eat meat, either meat rarely caused these diseases before the age of reproductionor we evolved to delay the effects, however this does not matter. the facts of the matteris that a) these diseases occur after the age of reproduction, therefore have no effecton evolution and b) these diseases are caused by meat consumption (although not exclusively,primarily so). a diet of animal products will see you throughreproduction, and that's all it had to promise

to our ancestors; and that's clearly all itdoes for us. if you plan on living longer than that, you might want to actually lookat the evidence in a modern context. meat is also healthier than starving to death,and it's healthier than malnutrition and for people hundreds of years ago or in the thirdworld the situation is different. but you are not in the third world, and you live ina time in which one can be quite healthy on a vegan diet (no longer concerns about b-12,for example). you should realize that health and ethical matters are highly situational.if the environment requires it, humans even eat each other, and it's both healthy andethically permissible compared to starving where self-preservation is at issue.

you would do well to go on a mostly vegandiet, for your own health, just as anybody could be advised to stop smoking or drinkingin excess. we don't really want to see you follow christopher hitchens (peace and blessingsof darwin be upon him) in digging yourself and early grave. a diet high in fiber andlow in saturated fat (plant-based) can reduce the prevalence of cancer admirably, and thesame diet can help with diabetes, an illness we are sad to hear you suffer from. for moreinf ormation, you could check the numerous studies published by harvard university orthisarticle. that said, is it immoral to cause yourselfharm? maybe not, but there is an important ethical bottom line, and that is where theevaporation of your 'health' excuse is very

relevant: from a utilitarian perspective, it may bepermissible to cause some harm to others if that harm results in a greater good. suchas, possibly, harming animals to benefit humans (medical testing is a great example). thisseems ultimately to be the argument you're appealing to, with a health-benefit approach.even vegans generally accept legitimate health reasons for using animal products (medications,etc.) that are accepted by science as necessary and useful to promoting or preserving health(although views on medical testing vary, that's another issue). this is a reasonable argument,provided there is a real benefit. there are issues of which is greater- the harm or thebenefit- but these are admittedly hard to

weigh. that makes it more of a moral greyarea when there is both harm and benefit involved. but when, as happens to be the case with meat(in our privileged first world context where we do have other superior options) we're dealingwith a lose-lose scenario, both harmful to animals and our own health, this is no longera grey area, and it is no longer rational to advocate the practice. if you manage tofind some victimless way to harm yourself, there's some argument to be made that you'renot doing anything wrong by it. but meat production today, in your reality, is not victimless. you aren't eating roadkill, you're not freegan(widely considered morally equivalent to veganism), you aren't eating lab grown meat, and we havenot developed farming and slaughtering practices

that are ethical. the fact of possible orhypothetical exceptions doesn't excuse the reality. until one or more of those thingschanges, your action of eating meat is personally indefensible. not for people in the thirdworld or hundreds of years ago, but you, today. not people in the 31st century eating meatgrown in a glass jar, but you, today. not the fictional characters in the hitchhiker'sguide eating that pig that was genetically engineered to want to be eaten, but you, today. we're not saying don't eat meat, we can'ttell you what to do. we're just saying it's wrong. wrong for everybody, throughout theuniverse and all space and time? no. wrong for you, today, in your privileged first worldcountry, in an age of scientific enlightenment

where we have the know-how to produce better,healthier food and the methodology to prove it. you're engaging in an irrational lose-losebehavior that is not even close to being a moral grey area. but worse yet, you're beingintellectually dishonest when you defend it. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ don't forget to check out parts 2 and 3 ofthis open letter to matt. the letter in its entirety can be found on theveganatheist.com.if you would like to see a response from mr. dillahunty, please consider sharing this videowith others on facebook, twitter and google plus and perhaps it can be brought to hisattention. the more exposure these videos receive, the more likely matt will noticethem and feel compelled to respond.

looking for a great place to communicate withvegans, atheists, theists and non-vegans from across the globe, consider joining theveganatheistforum. our growing community is always looking for new members with whom we can share ourexperiences, debate issues, discuss and learn from each other. this letter is the firstforum collaboration, so if you would like to be a part of future projects, find us attheveganatheist.com/forum