Veganishm

[Moll Flanders]

Obviously, eating or wearing animals is not vegan. The gray areas come in things like used cars with leather seats, or foods "made in a factory that processes milk", bone char sugar issues, or the creatures that are killed as a result of modern crop agriculture.

Individual vegans draw their lines depending upon which part of the world they live in, and what their resources and living situations are.

I just caught up with this thread. Yes, exactly.

It would be fairly impossible for every vegan to grow their own food, I don't even think there would be enough land so we have to rely on modern farming methods. If small animals are killed in the production of crops then that is unintentional killing. Meat-eaters and vegetarians also eat crops grown in this way. It would fall into the impossible and impractical area for me to try and avoid eating crops grown by farmers. I'm not going back to eating dead animals or their products because I'm unable to live a "perfect" harmless life.

 

[flyingsnail]

maybe a better question would be 'why is it vegan to eat plant crops, but not vegan to eat rodents directly killed in the harvesting of those crops?'

I don't think so as this wouldn't be a practical source of food. There is a point to the particular question I'm asking, namely, that it brings to light that veganism is not "cruelty-free" and that one has to address this fact with specific moralistic reasoning. That is, one needs to explain why eating an animal is some how worse than the modern wheat based on some sort of ethical theory. Of course you could, instead, rely on dogma but then one shouldn't expect others to care about veganism.

I don't think veganism is one thing either, it seems to be a strange patch work of ideas that differs from person to person and that is, I think, precisely the problem when if you're trying to promote animal welfare and rights.

 

[flyingsnail]

It would be fairly impossible for every vegan to grow their own food, I don't even think there would be enough land so we have to rely on modern farming methods. If small animals are killed in the production of crops then that is unintentional killing. Meat-eaters and vegetarians also eat crops grown in this way.

I don't think it would be impossible for western society to switch to a food system based more on small local production rather than mass corporate production, its just that such a system is at odds with the capital structure of our economies. But that wasn't my point, instead I was trying to get an answer to a specific question about why eating a modern crop which does harm animal life is preferable to eating an animal directly. The distinction between unintentional and intentional killing is tricky, for example, one could argue that killing a cow for beef is an unintentional consequence of getting food on the table and animals don't care whether they suffer and die from actions that explicitly kill them or ones that kill them more indirectly. So, I think, one has to explain why staple plant crops are preferable to the direct consumption of animals even though they also involve animal suffering. And the reason I'm trying to get a specific answer to this is to explore the consequences of the reasoning, namely, to see whether its consistent with a "vegan lifestyle".

It would fall into the impossible and impractical area for me to try and avoid eating crops grown by farmers. I'm not going back to eating dead animals or their products because I'm unable to live a "perfect" harmless life.

Perhaps it would, but until one can explain why eating the plant crops is preferable, on some measure, to the direct consumption of animals there is no reason for people to give up eating animals. It would just be an arbitrary choice between two options.

 

[Tom L.]

......But that wasn't my point, instead I was trying to get an answer to a specific question about why eating a modern crop which does harm animal life is preferable to eating an animal directly. .......... So, I think, one has to explain why staple plant crops are preferable to the direct consumption of animals even though they also involve animal suffering. And the reason I'm trying to get a specific answer to this is to explore the consequences of the reasoning, namely, to see whether its consistent with a "vegan lifestyle".


Perhaps it would, but until one can explain why eating the plant crops is preferable, on some measure, to the direct consumption of animals there is no reason for people to give up eating animals. It would just be an arbitrary choice between two options.

I haven't quoted all of your post- just most of it.

This issue has been around for some time. Roughly 10 years ago, a study was published showing the effects of mowing/harvesting alfalfa on a resident population of voles. There was high mortality to the voles, yes- but is this directly comparable to other crops? I know alfalfa is a favored food for rodents since so many prepared foods for small animals contain it as an ingredient (mind you, it's not a good food by itself with nothing else- but a wild animal has to take what they can get, and a thick, deep stand of alfalfa makes good cover when you're hiding from hawks, foxes, etc). And remember, alfalfa is primarily fed to animals- animals who are being raised for people to eat.

Ecology, the branch of biology dealing with population dynamics and the food web, teaches that there is a loss of food value from plants to the animals who eat those plants to animals that eat those animals, etc. That is, the food chain is inefficient- and if you eat animals, you are effectively also eating the plants that the animals ate. The higher up you are on the food chain, the more impact you have.

I'm not downplaying the fact that even a vegan diet causes animal deaths, however much I wish it weren't so. I'm just not seeing that this excuses raising or hunting animals to eat them- unless someone has an all-or-nothing approach that dictates if they can't be perfect, then they just won't bother trying to reduce their impact on animals at all.

 

[flyingsnail]

Ecology, the branch of biology dealing with population dynamics and the food web, teaches that there is a loss of food value from plants to the animals who eat those plants to animals that eat those animals, etc. That is, the food chain is inefficient- and if you eat animals, you are effectively also eating the plants that the animals ate. The higher up you are on the food chain, the more impact you have.

There is a loss of energy but some animals can eat foods we cannot derive energy from, for example, ruminants like cows and goats so in these cases the loss of energy is immaterial since we can't derive energy from the source plants. So in terms of ecology, a food system that is mostly plants with some animals is likely more efficient than one with just plants. Of course the minute you start feeding animals food we can derive energy from the dynamic changes, in this case animals reduce efficiency.

I'm not downplaying the fact that even a vegan diet causes animal deaths, however much I wish it weren't so. I'm just not seeing that this excuses raising or hunting animals to eat them- unless someone has an all-or-nothing approach that dictates if they can't be perfect, then they just won't bother trying to reduce their impact on animals at all.

I'm not suggesting it excuses eating animals, what I'm suggesting is that its an issue that needs to be addressed with a specific ethical theory and that such a theory is unlikely to be consistent with veganism. What I'm trying to get at here is that veganism is not rooted in any ethical theory, instead its a sort of dogma, and as such it isn't a good way to promote animal welfare/rights.

 

[Moll Flanders]

Ecology, the branch of biology dealing with population dynamics and the food web, teaches that there is a loss of food value from plants to the animals who eat those plants to animals that eat those animals, etc. That is, the food chain is inefficient- and if you eat animals, you are effectively also eating the plants that the animals ate. The higher up you are on the food chain, the more impact you have.

I'm not downplaying the fact that even a vegan diet causes animal deaths, however much I wish it weren't so. I'm just not seeing that this excuses raising or hunting animals to eat them- unless someone has an all-or-nothing approach that dictates if they can't be perfect, then they just won't bother trying to reduce their impact on animals at all.

Good points.

 

[Scorpius]

I'm not suggesting it excuses eating animals, what I'm suggesting is that its an issue that needs to be addressed with a specific ethical theory and that such a theory is unlikely to be consistent with veganism. What I'm trying to get at here is that veganism is not rooted in any ethical theory, instead its a sort of dogma, and as such it isn't a good way to promote animal welfare/rights.

Ask someone who is vegan why they chose that lifestyle and they can tell you the "specific ethical theory" behind their choice.

I'll start. I believe that animals should not be viewed or used by humans as commodities therefore I avoid - to the best of my human ability - using/eating/wearing anything that was produced through the use of an animal or its by products. The things I chose to avoid are not arbitrary in any way.


It must be hard for you arguing against vegetarian and veganism on a veg*n support forum. All those walls of text.

 

[prioritarian]

Obviously, eating or wearing animals is not vegan. The gray areas come in things like used cars with leather seats, or foods "made in a factory that processes milk", bone char sugar issues, or the creatures that are killed as a result of modern crop agriculture.

In my experience, few vegans are willing to exclude another vegan for keeping a leather item previously purchased as an omnivore. Moreover, there is also inconsistency when it comes to tolerance of animal product consumption among vegans (e.g. honey vs shellac). I think one way to reconcile this inconsistency is to welcome veganish or "veg" self-identification as an alternative to vegan self-identification.

I also don't think there is anything grey about our contribution to animal exploitation. Billions of wild animals die each year, in part, due to our (collective) consumption decisions. IMO, the suffering of wild animals matters as much, if not more, than the suffering of animals that die in animal agriculture. To be frank, calling this exploitation and cruelty a "grey area" reminds me of the kind of rationalizations omnivores use to justify animal agriculture (happy meat).

I reconcile imperfection when it comes to avoidance of exploitation/cruelty by viewing my "vegan/veganish" self-identity as a practice, rather than a dogmatic identity. I aspire to be more vegan but realize that it's impossible to be fully vegan.

 

[prioritarian]

While a more lax definition would suit me because I'm one of those oh-so-close, I would not like to see the definition watered down.

I disagree that being veganish means one is lax. MFA undercover activists are not "lax". In fact, I believe a utilitarian emphasis on minimizing exploitation/cruelty can be more fierce than a "food/clothing/toiletries rules" interpretation.

 

[Tom L.]

There is a loss of energy but some animals can eat foods we cannot derive energy from, for example, ruminants like cows and goats so in these cases the loss of energy is immaterial since we can't derive energy from the source plants. So in terms of ecology, a food system that is mostly plants with some animals is likely more efficient than one with just plants. Of course the minute you start feeding animals food we can derive energy from the dynamic changes, in this case animals reduce efficiency.

Okay. Raising animals on land which isn't arable anyway is a way to produce food on land which cannot readily be farmed, at least in terms of conventional agriculture. But what about planting such land with other plants which would not need annual planting, tilling, etc? It would probably be more labor-intensive to walk through a sort of planted forest or park and pick/gather nuts, fruit, etc, but maybe it would be doable. Perhaps this approach hasn't been investigated because most people were accustomed to just turning their herds out in such areas.

Anyway, meat from grass-fed, pasture-raised animals is evidently the exception rather than the rule. I'm not sure why.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Anyway, meat from grass-fed, pasture-raised animals is evidently the exception rather than the rule. I'm not sure why.

well there is hay. A lot of hay is produce with grain crops.

 

[flyingsnail]

Ask someone who is vegan why they chose that lifestyle and they can tell you the "specific ethical theory" behind their choice.

I have and isn't that what I'm doing here? Nobody has really answered my questions. I'm not questioning that individual vegans have a reason for what they're doing, instead I'm questioning whether the underlying ideas are consistent and lead to veganism.

I believe that animals should not be viewed or used by humans as commodities therefore I avoid - to the best of my human ability - using/eating/wearing anything that was produced through the use of an animal or its by products. The things I chose to avoid are not arbitrary in any way.

When you say "animals" I'm assuming you mean a member of the animal kingdom but I'm not so sure what you mean by using an animal as a commodity. For example, is pet ownership using pets as commodities? If not, then would eating the eggs or milk of your pet hen or goat be appropriate for you? Is killing animals with farm equipment using animals as commodities? If animals suffer and die in the cultivation of staple plant-crops, what makes them so different than the direct consumption of animals? How does one justify the elimination of one for the other? How does one motivate the elimination of some insect products, like honey, while consuming fruits and nuts that make use of bee colonies for their cultivation and eating crops that make use of pesticides (even organic use pesticides....and will also use insects as pesticides).

It must be hard for you arguing against vegetarian and veganism on a veg*n support forum.

I'm just arguing against veganism and I'd rather do it around vegans just in case there is something I'm missing. I'm not arguing for the consumption of meat.

 

[flyingsnail]

Okay. Raising animals on land which isn't arable anyway is a ways to produce food on land which cannot readily be farmed, at least interms of conventional agriculture. But what about planting such land with other plants which would not need annual planting, tilling, etc? It would probably be more labor-intensive to walk through a sort of planted forest or park and pick/gather nuts, fruit, etc, but maybe it would be doable.

I highly doubt this would increase efficiency otherwise it would be common in traditional societies, unlike today traditional societies were pretty much forced to make efficient use of resources or parish. But perhaps its not much different today....maybe time is running out fast and we may parish as other unsustainable societies have before ours.

In any case, the argument you gave works against most modern meat production but not all. But we don't necessarily have to maximize efficiency, a less efficient but sustainable food system will just mean the earth can support a bit less people. So assuming the practice is sustainable, the focus should really be on the ethics.

Anyway, meat from grass-fed, pasture-raised animals is evidently the exception rather than the rule. I'm not sure why.

More expensive, at least in the short term, and if it was sustainable it wouldn't support anywhere near the current demand. In the past, at least in agricultural societies, meat was more or less a byproduct of the overall food and production system. Most animals were used for their labor and secretions and when they were no longer useful for these things they would be consumed, only the aristocracy had the ability to eat meat on demand where as the masses were almost always semi-vegetarian. Today meat is in demand, in part due to its association with high status, and we are only able to meet demand by ignoring a number of negative externalities.

 

[ledboots]

~snip~
I'm just arguing against veganism and I'd rather do it around vegans just in case there is something I'm missing. I'm not arguing for the consumption of meat.

Why not argue with meat eaters instead of vegans? Or go leaflet somewhere?

The best way to help animals is to encourage people to stop eating them, or at least cut down consumption.

 

[prioritarian]

Why not argue with meat eaters instead of vegans? Or go leaflet somewhere?
The best way to help animals is to encourage people to stop eating them, or at least cut down consumption.

Some animal rights/welfare activists believe that dogmatism discourages people from wanting to stop eating them.

 

[prioritarian]

In any case, the argument you gave works against most modern meat production but not all. But we don't necessarily have to maximize efficiency, a less efficient but sustainable food system will just mean the earth can support a bit less people. So assuming the practice is sustainable, the focus should really be on the ethics.

There is tendency for some vegans to dismiss the environmental argument as illogical (e.g. why would an environmental vegan avoid free-range happy meat*). Not only is the idea that one needs to mathematically maximize efficiency a strawman (and an absurd one at that) but these arguments rarely take into account the desire to preserve wild habitat and endogenous ecosystems. And from this perspective, the grazing of large swathes of non-arable land to maximize efficiency is one of the worst things we could do from a sustainability perspective.

*The irony of making this argument is huge.

 

[prioritarian]

I'm just arguing against veganism and I'd rather do it around vegans just in case there is something I'm missing. I'm not arguing for the consumption of meat.

But you are arguing against a vegan strawman. Not all vegans are deontic. And not all vegans believe that dogma (or intuition) is more important than rational ethics.

 

[flyingsnail]

Why not argue with meat eaters instead of vegans? Or go leaflet somewhere?

Argue with "meat eaters" about the failings of veganism? I believe I answered that, namely, I'm hoping vegans can make sense of veganism for me. I don't think "meat eaters" would shed much light on the topic.

Leafleting would be a waste of my resources and I don't think its particularly effective.

 

[flyingsnail]

And from this perspective, the grazing of large swathes of non-arable land to maximize efficiency is one of the worst things we could do from a sustainability perspective.

First, as the other cases, I'm not sure what you're calling a strawman. But....why would this be the worst things we could do? Agricultural societies have been grazing animals on non-arable land for thousands of years.....unsustainable cultural practices don't last that long. From a purely environmental perspective I can't see what would motivate veganism.

But you are arguing against a vegan strawman. Not all vegans are deontic. And not all vegans believe that dogma (or intuition) is more important than rational ethics.

How am I arguing against a vegan strawman? I've mostly asked questions which have largely gone unanswered. But you seem to think I've said things which I haven't. I never suggested that all vegans are "deontic", nor have I said anything about what "all vegans" believe. I haven't been saying much about vegans at all, instead I'm discussing veganism. I have been asking questions about veganism and trying to understand what specific ethical or legal theories motivate it. The fact that you're now implying that vegans have a variety of justifications for their veganism implies that veganism, in itself, is simply a sort of dogmatic social movement that people come to for a variety of reasons to get together. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think its a good way to promote animal welfare and rights.

 

[FortyTwo]

The rodents could be solved with rad space farms, I think.