Why Veganism?

[barts]

Tim Gier writes,

If a person knowingly and willingly participates in a system built on and only sustainable through the objectification, harm and killing of other conscious beings, then that person is contributing in a real and material way to the ongoing objectification, harm and killing of other conscious beings. When one decides to “opt out” of a such a system, one signals to oneself and one’s community that that system is not a good one and that others ought to also “opt out”. Whether, as a matter of personal practice, veganism saves a single life or not, living vegan is a social and political practice of rebellion to and revulsion at a system that must be reviled and rebelled against.

How could anyone not agree with this view? Surely, other than by appeal to the worst specie of self-serving nihilism, there are no ethically valid arguments about the "good" that can be mustered that put pale to Mr. Gier's assertion.

[seyorni]

If the motivation is to reduce suffering, veganism's the obvious reaction.

[crimethinker]

If the motivation is to reduce suffering, veganism's the obvious reaction.

Not if you treat the animals humanely. Besides which, if everyone were vegan, the animals would not exist. I know that being bred for slaughter is a poor existence, but at least it's an existence, and preferably a humane and comfortable one. I'm fine with such regulations.

[ruksak]

"When one decides to “opt out” of a such a system, one signals to oneself and one’s community that that system is not a good one and that others ought to also “opt out”. "

It is statements like these that make my blood boil. If "you" don't want to participate in a system that prepares animals for food, than by all means, do not participate. It's this ideology of righteousness that just makes me puke.

Humans hunt and gather. When there are billions of us to feed we require a system of mass gathering i.e. the meat processing industry. It is no different in practice than what humans have done for thousands upon thousands of years. It was not only the practice of agriculture but the practice of livestocking that led humans to evolve from wanderers to settling down and building functioning societies.

Before we fenced them in and lobbed off their heads, we chased them about through the seasonal migrations and hurled spear upon spear into their bodies, their increased heart rate from the chase pumping them empty of blood all the quicker.

Imagine, if you will, a 14th century vegan standing in town square calling out to his neighbors about the evils of slaughtering their chickens.

We stock, slaughter, process and consume animals because that's what humans do. It makes us strong. To deny this would make us weak.

Perhaps the technology now exists to create a high protein slurm that we could consume in order to alleviate our guilt over killing animals that other animals would gladly wrap their jaws around, but I see no logical reason to cease this practice.

[RobotBeeps]

"When one decides to “opt out” of a such a system, one signals to oneself and one’s community that that system is not a good one and that others ought to also “opt out”. "

It is statements like these that make my blood boil. If "you" don't want to participate in a system that prepares animals for food, than by all means, do not participate. It's this ideology of righteousness that just makes me puke.

Humans hunt and gather. When there are billions of us to feed we require a system of mass gathering i.e. the meat processing industry. It is no different in practice than what humans have done for thousands upon thousands of years. It was not only the practice of agriculture but the practice of livestocking that led humans to evolve from wanderers to settling down and building functioning societies.

Before we fenced them in and lobbed off their heads, we chased them about through the seasonal migrations and hurled spear upon spear into their bodies, their increased heart rate from the chase pumping them empty of blood all the quicker.

Imagine, if you will, a 14th century vegan standing in town square calling out to his neighbors about the evils of slaughtering their chickens.

We stock, slaughter, process and consume animals because that's what humans do. It makes us strong. To deny this would make us weak.

Perhaps the technology now exists to create a high protein slurm that we could consume in order to alleviate our guilt over killing animals that other animals would gladly wrap their jaws around, but I see no logical reason to cease this practice.

Of course people are free to consume animals but just because humans behaved a certain way in the past doesn't mean it should continue. You could justify any practice you wanted to if you used examples from past human behaviors. The point is to evolve. To look at our behavior and see if there is anywhere we could be improving. The ramifications of animal agriculture are real and it's not just an simple issue of being seen as 'weak'.

Because there are billions of us to feed, shouldn't we be willing to examine the best, most efficient and productive ways to do so? Are you implying that eating animals is the best way to feed our population?

There are surely righteous vegans as certainly as there are righteous people in any group. The point is to look beyond those people at the real issue. Is eating animals serving us as a population (increasing by the second) anymore? Is it sustainable? Is it the best we can do? And yes, does it contribute to the pain, suffering and death of those involved?

[barts]

Not if you treat the animals humanely. Besides which, if everyone were vegan, the animals would not exist. I know that being bred for slaughter is a poor existence, but at least it's an existence, and preferably a humane and comfortable one. I'm fine with such regulations.

If domestic food animals did not exist, the equivalent impact on the environment would be reducing the world's human population by about 2 billion people. The population of marine animals would recover. And, the amount of land able to sustain wild animals would increase probably by a factor of, at least, 10.

If we did not consume any animals at all, except in the rarest of instances, the populations of ecologically beneficial terrestrial and marine wild animals would increase, I suggest.

It seems to me a weak argument that we should raise domestic food animals because a short existence is better than no existence at all. By growing feed for domestic animals we displace habitat for wild animals.

[crimethinker]

If domestic food animals did not exist, the equivalent impact on the environment would be reducing the world's human population by about 2 billion people. The population of marine animals would recover. And, the amount of land able to sustain wild animals would increase probably by a factor of, at least, 10.

If we did not consume any animals at all, except in the rarest of instances, the populations of ecologically beneficial terrestrial and marine wild animals would increase, I suggest.

It seems to me a weak argument that we should raise domestic food animals because a short existence is better than no existence at all. By growing feed for domestic animals we displace habitat for wild animals.

Persuasive. I guess I have no argument other than selfishness.

[barts]

Persuasive. I guess I have no argument other than selfishness.

I think the point you're making is critical, actually. Because of evolution, the human animal is effectively incapable of other than selfish thought. Consequently, the majority of people will happily adopt behaviors that gratify their personal, extremely short-term wants but give no thought to the longer term consequences even if those consequence are understood intellectually to have dire consequences. For short term satisfaction--a fix--most people will smoke, eat, and drink themselves to death. The notion that demonstratively destructive behavior on a societal, national, or global level can be changed I think may be pure wishful thinking. It's something we're likely not biologically capable of despite our intellectual presumptions.

While I agree with the quote in the OP from an ethical viewpoint, I think our problem isn't so much ethics as our innate evolved biology. And, I doubt we as a species have the capacity to overcome it. At least, so far there is little in all of human history to suggest we can.

[Angry Citizen]

If a person knowingly and willingly participates in a system built on and only sustainable through the objectification, harm and killing of other conscious beings,

If a person knowingly and willingly participates in a system built on and only sustainable through the elevation of human-like qualities to sacrosanctity, then that person is engaging in a hypocritical act. The only "moral" diet is fruitarianism. Everything else involves the wanton destruction of other living creatures. To ascribe special status only to those entities which most share our traits is hardly any better than ascribing special status only to those entities which exactly share our traits, i.e. ourselves. In short, ye murderer of corn and wheat, you are no better than I.

[Medensis]

Humans hunt and gather. When there are billions of us to feed we require a system of mass gathering i.e. the meat processing industry. It is no different in practice than what humans have done for thousands upon thousands of years. It was not only the practice of agriculture but the practice of livestocking that led humans to evolve from wanderers to settling down and building functioning societies.

Though humans used to hunt and gather, most of us no longer do either. We've evolved to be indoor desk robots so high protein diets are virtually unnecessary. The reason why the first human groups didn't solely lean on agriculture was because they weren't able to adequate produce enough to compensate for the amount of work that went into growing crops. There were also times of the year where crops didn't grow and they had to rely on hunting.

Now that we aren't as physically exhausting and we have farmers with technology to grow mass amounts of vegetables and fruits, there's really no reason not to support veganism.

Save, the fact that most humans just can't assume absolute control of their diet.

[RobotBeeps]

If a person knowingly and willingly participates in a system built on and only sustainable through the elevation of human-like qualities to sacrosanctity, then that person is engaging in a hypocritical act. The only "moral" diet is fruitarianism. Everything else involves the wanton destruction of other living creatures. To ascribe special status only to those entities which most share our traits is hardly any better than ascribing special status only to those entities which exactly share our traits, i.e. ourselves. In short, ye murderer of corn and wheat, you are no better than I.

Corn and wheat have not been proven to feel pain. There is a difference between a cow, pig, chicken, etc., which all feel pain...and corn. No ascribing of special status necessary.

[Angry Citizen]

Corn and wheat have not been proven to feel pain.

Who cares? Who said pain is intrinsically bad? Who said it's even a factor? Personally, I'd rather feel pain than death, so your murder of corn and wheat is still an atrocity on the grandest of scales.