Unpopular Opinions Society

[mlp]

You're missing the concept that a significant aspect of "veganism" is the political statement that animals are not products to be used as food/research objects/etc. By eating them because the animal flesh/secretions would otherwise "go to waste," you are affirming that animals are in fact acceptable food. I think in the long run, affirming and demonstrating that it's not acceptable to kill animals for products by not using them/eating them (the same way you wouldn't eat a human body under such trivial circumstances) will go farther towards decreasing animal use than giving lip service to the idea that you prefer not to use animals as food...unless there happens to be extra that might not be eaten by other humans, or because a locally "produced" animal might be less impact on the environment than growing some grain, etc.

This I get and agree with. The concept is really no different than not eating human bodies, even though they *go to waste*.

What I had always assumed was that though veganism focuses on avoiding the use of animals and animal products, that prohibition was grounded in the wider concept of minimizing the suffering and death of nonhuman animals. But what I'm gathering from the discussion in this thread, veganism is limited to the former, amd minimization of pain and suffering, other than not using animals or animal products, has nothing to do with veganism.

IOW, I had thought that if I wanted/needed a product (let's call it "A"), and I had a choice between Item A1, the production and transportation of which caused the death of two animals through habitat destruction/being run over, or some other such *indirect* cause, and Item A2, the production and transportation of which caused the death of one animal rather than two, the vegan philosophy/lifestyle would cause me to choose Item A2.

But now I'm hearing that no, that choice/decision has nothing to do with veganism, that veganism would be completely neutral bewteen those two choices, since neither the animal nor any product of the animal is being used.

Am I summarizing that accurately?

 

[das_nut]

What I had always assumed was that though veganism focuses on avoiding the use of animals and animal products, that prohibition was grounded in the wider concept of minimizing the suffering and death of nonhuman animals. But what I'm gathering from the discussion in this thread, veganism is limited to the former, amd minimization of pain and suffering, other than not using animals or animal products, has nothing to do with veganism.

That's the gist I'm getting.

I'm not opposed to people avoiding non-vegan food that goes to waste, nor non-vegan clothing due to personal squeamishness or disgust. That's understandable.

But I always thought that veganism was open to the idea that some people may want to reduce and eliminate the suffering of non-human animals through encouraging reuse, recycling, and the avoidence of waste.

I'm beginning to think that on some level, veganism is incompatible with reducing animal suffering.

 

[kazyeeqen]

I'm beginning to think that on some level, veganism is incompatible with reducing animal suffering.

Wut?

 

[ledboots]

That's the gist I'm getting.

I'm not opposed to people avoiding non-vegan food that goes to waste, nor non-vegan clothing due to personal squeamishness or disgust. That's understandable.

But I always thought that veganism was open to the idea that some people may want to reduce and eliminate the suffering of non-human animals through encouraging reuse, recycling, and the avoidence of waste.

I'm beginning to think that on some level, veganism is incompatible with reducing animal suffering.

I read the whole thread, and I don't know what you are referring to. Of course veganism is "open to the idea that some people may want to reduce and eminate the suffering of non-human animals through encouraging reuse, recycling, and the avoidance of waste." Open to the idea. Yes.

 

[das_nut]

I read the whole thread, and I don't know what you are referring to. Of course veganism is "open to the idea that some people may want to reduce and eminate the suffering of non-human animals through encouraging reuse, recycling, and the avoidance of waste." Open to the idea. Yes.

But can it be called vegan if a person chooses to wear used leather instead of buying new non-leather items?

 

[Pickle Juice]

But now I'm hearing that no, that choice/decision has nothing to do with veganism, that veganism would be completely neutral bewteen those two choices, since neither the animal nor any product of the animal is being used.

Am I summarizing that accurately?

What I am describing is the bare minimum needed to define oneself as vegan. Avoiding exploitation is a huge umbrella under which death, cruelty, and suffering are included. Avoid all exploitation, and you will naturally avoid much of the cruelty suffered by other animals. Most vegans go further than this. But when they do they are adopting more of the principles of ahimsa than are necessary to define oneself as vegan.

So many people try to shoot down vegans because they too cannot avoid being the cause of death for other animals, and they need to understand that the primary focus of veganism is not to avoid being the cause of death to all other creatures, because this is basically impossible.

But I always thought that veganism was open to the idea that some people may want to reduce and eliminate the suffering of non-human animals through encouraging reuse, recycling, and the avoidence of waste.

Of course it is. What it is not open to is accepting the exploitation of animals because it is better for the environment.

I'm beginning to think that on some level, veganism is incompatible with reducing animal suffering.

That's just silly.

But can it be called vegan if a person chooses to wear used leather instead of buying new non-leather items?

If you already own it, wear it out if you must. If you are buying it second hand, no. Mostly for the reasons Ansciess stated, that veganism is also a statement against the idea that we need to use animals for anything.

 

[mlp]

What I am describing is the bare minimum needed to define oneself as vegan. Avoiding exploitation is a huge umbrella under which death, cruelty, and suffering are included. Avoid all exploitation, and you will naturally avoid much of the cruelty suffered by other animals. Most vegans go further than this. But when they do they are adopting more of the principles of ahimsa than are necessary to define oneself as vegan.

So many people try to shoot down vegans because they too cannot avoid being the cause of death for other animals, and they need to understand that the primary focus of veganism is not to avoid being the cause of death to all other creatures, because this is basically impossible.

Of course it's impossible.

What I'm trying to understand is the position, verbalized several times in this thread, that concern for the environmental impact of one's decisions is a matter completely separate from veganism. That I don't get, because environmental degradation and exploitation and habitat destruction first and foremost affect nonhuman animals. As I've said previously, I would suspect those affect just as many animal lives as factory farming does. If veganism entails a general caring for/respect for animals (which had been my assumption to date), then I don't see how the environmental impact of one's lifestyle decisions can be divorced from it.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Of course it's impossible.

What I'm trying to understand is the position, verbalized several times in this thread, that concern for the environmental impact of one's decisions is a matter completely separate from veganism. That I don't get, because environmental degradation and exploitation and habitat destruction first and foremost affect nonhuman animals. As I've said previously, I would suspect those affect just as many animal lives as factory farming does. If veganism entails a general caring for/respect for animals (which had been my assumption to date), then I don't see how the environmental impact of one's lifestyle decisions can be divorced from it.

I don't think I have ever interpreted veganism as based on caring or compassion. Many, probably most, vegans are full of caring and compassion. I have met a few who are not. They simply have no need for or interest in exploiting animals, and this is based more on veganism as a social justice movement, rather than an expression of care or compassion. Much in the same way that I feel very little caring for or respect of most human beings, but have no interest in trampling on their rights or taking unfair advantage of them.

So I don't see it as necessary to define oneself as vegan, to have caring or compassion. You just need to be committed to the idea that exploitation is always to be avoided whenever practical and possible, and you need to practice this idea as thoroughly as you can.

Environmentalism can certainly fall under the umbrella of vegan ideology, except where its proponents demand that a vegan obtain or consume an animal product, because it is a better choice for the environment that they do so, or tries to suggest that they are not even vegan if they refuse to obtain or consume said animal product, because the environment should be their most important concern. Veganism as it is defined by Donald Watson and the Vegan Society holds that the avoidance of exploitation is the primary ethic, so where environmentalism demands that a vegan make a non-vegan consumer decision for the sake of the environment, that's where the ideologies diverge.

 

[mlp]

I get that where an argument is attempted to be made that the consumption or use of animals/animal products in specific instances is more environmentally sound than nonconsumption, environmentalism diverges from veganism. That's not the argument I'm making (although das_nut is, with respect to certain limited circumstances).

And while I tend to phrase things in terms of caring or compassion (because ultimately that's the framework for my own personal approach), what I said before applies equally to a social justice movement. As it is unjust to exploit someone, it is equally unjust, and perhaps more so, to take away from them what they require to live.

If we were talking about a human social justice movement, I don't think we would hear someone try to make an argument that the movement opposes the killing and eating of such humans and the enslavement of those humans, but that the movement has no position with respect to destruction of the only areas in which such humans can live. And yet that is, as far as I can tell, what I'm hearing about veganism - that it's O.K. (and perhaps even admirable) for individual vegans to make environmentally sound decisions on an individual basis, but it's not necessary and not part of the movement's ethical position/is important to the movement/however you want to phrase it.

 

[Pickle Juice]

The definition of what makes a person vegan is pretty simple and narrow. The movement, however, is very varied and complex. While I think it is perfectly correct to say that all a person needs to do to be considered vegan is avoid exploiting animals, I do not think it is correct to assume that as a movement of vegan people, environmental issues are not important. Of course they are. They are simply not essential to the bare bones definition of what is vegan. The movement may have a position on many issues that are not called upon to define a vegan, but are nevertheless important to most vegans.

 

[ledboots]

It seems that using the word "vegan" about yourself always invites an awful lot of others to try to decide just how vegan you really are.

 

[das_nut]

If you already own it, wear it out if you must. If you are buying it second hand, no. Mostly for the reasons Ansciess stated, that veganism is also a statement against the idea that we need to use animals for anything.

So that's it. Veganism is a statement that we don't use animals for anything, but veganism doesn't seem concerned about human-caused animal suffering and death as collateral damage.

See, I was operating under a mistaken impression that veganism cared about all human-caused animal suffering and death. I appear to be wrong.

I don't see how continuing to wear non-vegan clothingthat you already own is vegan though. Why not throw it out and buy some new stuff? After all, it seems that habitat loss due to manufacture or disposal of goods isn't a vegan concern (remember, collateral suffering and death), so as a good vegan, run out and buy something non-vegan to replace it.

PS: I don't think I'm vegan by your definition.

 

[ledboots]

I don't think that buying a leather purse secondhand squares with my ethics. It does of course cause less harm than buying a new leather bag would, but some other shopper now can't buy the secondhand purse because I have it now. There would be less supply of used leather if I bought it. Plus it smells of death and death chemicals, so eww.

 

[beancounter]

Pehaps the current topic of discussion should be moved to it's own thread?

 

[kazyeeqen]

Or it's own forum...

 

[ledboots]

Bay leaves really do deter ants from coming inside.

 

[Pickle Juice]

So that's it. Veganism is a statement that we don't use animals for anything, but veganism doesn't seem concerned about human-caused animal suffering and death as collateral damage.

Veganism describes the commitment to, and practice of, the avoidance of animal exploitation. Veganism cannot be concerned about anything, because it is an ideology, not an entity. To imply that vegans do not care about suffering and cruelty, because the word "vegan" depends for its definition on the avoidance of exploitation rather than the avoidance of death, is specious at best.

See, I was operating under a mistaken impression that veganism cared about all human-caused animal suffering and death. I appear to be wrong.

I agree. You are wrong. Again, veganism doesn't care about anything. It is a concept, not an entity. You can continue to accuse vegans of not caring, just because veganism is not defined by the avoidance of all human caused animal suffering and death, but I think everyone can see through what you are trying to attempt.

I don't see how continuing to wear non-vegan clothingthat you already own is vegan though. Why not throw it out and buy some new stuff? After all, it seems that habitat loss due to manufacture or disposal of goods isn't a vegan concern (remember, collateral suffering and death), so as a good vegan, run out and buy something non-vegan to replace it.

How about this? Give your nice leather, wool, or fur things away to friends who have already admired them, and tell them you can no longer have them around because going vegan has changed the way you view them. Maybe you will plant a vegan seed in their heads, as well as avoiding tossing it into a landfill. (As if keeping it or tossing it into a landfill are the only available options.)

PS: I don't think I'm vegan by your definition.

That's no one's concern but yours.

 

[ledboots]

Is that an unpopular opinion?

I thought it might be BS. But I tried the bay leaves, and these annoyingly tiny and persistent ghost ants are staying outside. For now.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Oh good. My Mom always kept a bay leaf in her flour jar, to keep out the weevils, and it always worked.

 

[mlp]

It seems that using the word "vegan" about yourself always invites an awful lot of others to try to decide just how vegan you really are.

That wasn't my purpose in this discussion.

I had always thought that vegans who ignored environmental concerns in their decision making were just oblivious to how intrinsically environment is entwined with animal lives, but I now understand that it's simply not something with which veganism as a doctrine or philosophy concerns itself.

So that's been a helpful clarification - it has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge or understanding of the impact of environment on nonhuman animals.