What's up with all of the vegan hating?

Today I, once again, made the mistake of reading a post on the Freakonomics blog and then reading engaging in the comment section.  This post was kind of about biking and veganism and their relative environmental merits, though in many ways it wasn't really much of a post or all that much about either of these topics.

Despite the fact that there really wasn't all that much meat in the post itself, quite a number of commenters latched on to the vegan thing and ran with it.  And with their cause in hand they ran right to the land of criticism.

While reading the comments I learned,

It’s a moral choice because Vegan foods are almost always [sic] awful than foods that actually cater to human biology and evolutionary preferences.

and that 

Biking is fun. Eating vegan not so much. 

Maybe these aren't the most anti-vegan comments that are out there, but, at least as far as I am concerned, they pretty obviously incorrect.  I would guess that most foods people eat on a daily basis are already animal product free.  Maybe more importantly, I would guess that most people quite like many of the vegan foods they enjoy on a daily basis.  Furthermore, many vegan foods are pretty straight forward to make/acquire and are pretty tasty.

The other part of the equation that I don't quite understand is the apparent indignation that many people exhibit when they hear about the idea of a vegan diet.  Does it really make sense to be upset that someone else has decided not to eat any animal products?  Especially in the US context where 'freedom' is a cause célèbre, why should it matter if some one has decided not to eat meat for for whatever reason?

A related issue that I find similarly frustrating is the suggestion that humans have evolved to eat meat and therefore should eat meat.  Unfortunately, for better or worse, despite that the fact that most humans share many traits, it is not the case that all humans react the same way to all foods.  It's pretty clear that quite a large portion of the population doesn't respond well to dairy products, and there are other portions of the population that don't respond well to other foods - some people even have a hard time with meat.  So in those cases when the consumption of particular animal products may cause illness or discomfort it seems reasonable that they should be avoided.

But this also demonstrates that a uniform human diet isn't feasible or desirable.  Promoting the misconception that all humans need to consume meat and/or dairy is likely to lead to adverse effects in some portion of the population.  By denying the fact that humans are different and that they may respond to foods differently we risk discouraging individuals from becoming aware of the fact that the consumption of certain foods may be having negative impacts on their health.

Conflicting Portrayals

A few months ago I read the second Freakonomics book, SuperFreakonomics, and struck by a section of the book dealing the activities of a company called Intellectual Ventures. Much of the discussion focused on the suggestions that the company has for dealing with tropical storm suppression and and reducing global warming. On the whole, the book provided a very positive portrayal of the company.

In a subsequent two-part episode episode of the Freakonomics podcast this company, and its founder Nathan Myhrvold made another appearance in the Freakonomics canon, this time in relation to the recently published cookbook Modernist Cuisine: The Art and Science of Cooking. Again, the portrayal was very positive and the focus was on the invention and research side of the company's operations. Actually, if memory serves me correctly, these are the only aspects of the company that are even mentioned.

As a result of these portrayals of the company I just assumed that it was primarily a R & D firm, maybe even verging on a philanthropic venture.

As of last night I have been given some reason to question my original assessment.

A recent This American Life examination of some of the company's patent related activities suggests a slightly different image of the company. From this vantage point the company is portrayed predominately as an owner and licenser of thousands and thousands of patents. They note that the company, or that related third parties, frequently use legal action to secure settlements from companies that are deemed to be infringing on their patents. At times, though I am not sure if the two individuals reporting the story say it directly, the company is compared to a protection racket.

I always love it when I am left with opposing senses of things due to conflicting media reports. It is all the more impressive that these conflicting portrayals are both from New York based public radio shows.

Cases like this always remind me that I need to be a little more critical when consuming media. Of course the problem is that it takes time and energy to be so critical, and I quite frequently don't have the time or energy to invest in these issues. Maybe it's sufficient that I am at least aware of some of the problems with current forms of mass media?