|
Note: After writing all that, I've realized that I'm not talking very much about "rights" at all. Sorry to the folks who came expecting some rant on ethics. PM me if you want one.
So I've seen two "Earthling" blogs in the past week (possibly there were more that I haven't seen). Both linking to videos (possibly the same one). Both saying "this is what we're doing, we should stop."
And I'm here to do the same! Without the video. But hopefully more coherently.
Terminology note: "Vegan" can either be a noun, referring to a person who does not consume animal products, or an adjective, referring to anything that does not consume (or include in its material or manufacture... or development) any animal products.
Let's list some starting points, and grab more on the way as we need them. But I hope everyone will agree with these starting points.
#Humans consume (and create) products, including food, clothing, and cosmetics, which in their manufacture require the use of animals.
#Said use of animals is usually painful to said animal, and mostly results in its death.
Given just these two, it's hard to come to some sort of conclusion. We also have to answer such questions as:
How important are these products?
How important is the treatment of these animals?
Now, these PETA crazies will have you believe that the answer to the first is "not very," and the answer to the second is "more than Starcraft." Depending on your own value system, your own answers might vary wildly.
There are many ways to answer these questions, and as I have way too much time, I'll offer a few options. Keep in mind that this is not meant to be comprehensive, so don't complain that I left something out.
How important are animal products?
From a consumer's standpoint, animal products are not inherently different from vegan products, other than perhaps an emotional value attached to "the real thing" or "cruelty-free," depending on what one prefers. Other than that, the taste, texture, quality, price, whatever has, does, and will vary with the state of the market and current technology.
Historically speaking, the "real" stuff, the animal products, have generally been better. Real meat tastes better, real leather lasts longer, whatever. However, it's not so clear these days. Plastic leather and soy steaks and rice ice cream aren't quite indistinguishable from the real thing, but they're getting close and there's no reason to believe they won't get there.
There's no clear-cut answer. Animal products aren't necessarily better, but they're not necessarily worse.
On a health perspective, which is actually a subset of the above, there are some memes floating around that animal products are essential to human health. They're simply wrong. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in animal products that you can't find in vegan products in reasonable amounts. I'll concede that they're possibly not as convenient to obtain or tasty to eat. But I'm talking about the health memes here, like "you'll run out of Vitamin E and die in 4 years if you truly turn vegan." Or "you'll get osteoperosis if you don't drink milk."
On an economic perspective, going vegan will hurt the industries that produce animal products, because your money won't go to them any more. Just a drop in the ocean, of course, but what would happen to all the ranchers and butchers and burger flippers and hot dog stands if we all suddenly went vegan? This is seriously a non-issue, but is sometimes brought up as an argument against veganism. The answer? See what happened to the candlemakers and lampmakers when the electric light bulb came about.
On another economic perspective (which might have a bigger impact considering today's world economy), meat-growing is very inefficient. Most of the food eaten by animals turns into energy keeping the animal alive (in the end, heat). Something like 6% of the calories eaten by animals turns into edible food. Considering the rise of grain prices and food riots and all, meat seems at least slightly less attractive.
How important is the treatment of animals?
I believe this depends heavily on the individual's ethical code, which I won't argue with here (pm me if you want a discussion on that). It can range from "complete deal-breaker" to "hey, it's our right to do as we want with them." And we can't prove it one way or another unless we first agree on an ethical system we'll both adhere to, which I doubt will happen.
 
|
what do you have to say about the slaying of animal heroes in dota, mr. bdares?
|
In the context of dota, the importance of the slaying is quite high (the obvious 200+ gold and experience, as well as maybe a minute or two of lost time for my enemy), and the importance of treating the Scourge scum (or Sentinel scum if I happen to be scourge) well is.. well, negative.
|
yeah I figured as soon as you made that veal comment (which was incredibly stupid btw, and could have seriously derailed that thread), this blog would follow
|
As long as vegan products are inferior and/or more expensive to buy than animal products I, and most of humanity, will continue to shun them. We've made a collective decision that humankind's standard of living is more important than the harm to the animals. Rock on with trying to convince people otherwise, but I honestly believe that the effort would be better placed in trying to improve the products you're trying to get people to switch to and narrowing the gap between them so that billions will change their minds instead of a handful who will probably go back to meat after a few years anyway.
|
what do you mean 'inferior'? some of the most nutritional and healthy food is available to vegans (spinach, mushrooms, broccoli etc) If you mean that it tastes inferior, well im sure there are people that will disagree with you there (me)
|
It's true superiority in the case of food is subjective. If you believe the food is better tasting and more nutritional and better for animals there's a clear choice for you. Most people don't come to the same conclusion with regards to vegan food. The opposite conclusion, in fact.
EDIT: Also people who do eat meat are capable of eating vegetables, I'm not sure if you're aware of that fact.
|
Actually, it was someone's comment on the "earthling" blog (regarding the perceived extremist stance of that OP) that prompted this.
I contest Nova's statement that vegan products are inferior or more expensive than animal products. As I stated in the OP, they're currently comparable, and some vegan products (notably silk and leather alternatives) are arguably superior, in both cost and quality.
I'm not a materials scientist or a nutritionist, so I'm not qualified to "improve the products." I can, however, point out that they exist.
I don't think it's low to compare animal suffering to human suffering. As far as I know, the pain you'd feel at being cut open is the same as the pain a cow or dog feels. Is it really underhanded? Or is it the fact that I was using an emotional attack?
A more general thing, but I find it unfortunate that the irresponsible statements made by a few crazies are the ones that get most publicized, and sometimes paint over a whole group. Hopefully we can avoid that here.
|
I don't think it's low at all, and I'm not sure where you got the idea I think it is. Obviously I don't share the opinion that both animal and human suffering is equivalent, but I don't think it's at all underhanded to argue that it is.
|
i dont understand the relevance of your last point, you said vegan products are inferior to animal products. if you mean that food such as vegetables and fruit is inferior to meat and milk, i think thats wrong, in terms of nutrition. if im not understanding your point plz tell me, im a little confused here
edit: directed at nova's first post
|
Previous post was responding to fusionsdf, which was referring to a post I made regarding human murder.
|
On July 21 2008 16:54 JohnColtrane wrote:
i dont understand the relevance of your last point, you said vegan products are inferior to animal products. if you mean that food such as vegetables and fruit is inferior to meat and milk, i think thats wrong, in terms of nutrition. if im not understanding your point plz tell me, im a little confused here
edit: directed at nova's first post
I'm talking specifically about vegan food designed to replace traditional meat food the most glaringly obvious poor substitute being a "veggie burger". I have no problem with eating vegetables or buying products that are animal-friendly when they serve my purpose best at the lowest cost.
|
oh i understand now, sorry about the confusion before, you are referring to vegan specific food, not vegetables. my fault, apologies.
ill have to admit the reason i steer clear of alot of animal products is not because i care for the quality of life of animals but moreso because alot of animal products, particularly meat, is high in saturated fats and cholesterol. however, id rather not see animals suffer if it is unnecessary, but also i think its unlikely that this will change in the future because most people love the taste of animal products
|
I think the point Nova is making is thus:
Animal products are sometimes superior to vegan products. Then he buys animal products. Sometimes, vegan products are superior. Then he buys vegan products.
Fair enough. Then I'll presume that Nova has no moral objection to effect that the consumption of animal products has on animals. Or that this objection is weaker than the difference between the desirability of the animal product and the vegan product.
|
in my previous posts i was only talking about the food applications of an animal product, i wasnt factoring in anything like materials for furniture
are there any animal products you can name that are significantly superior to their respective synthetic or whatever counterpart?
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 21 2008 16:49 BottleAbuser wrote:
I don't think it's low to compare animal suffering to human suffering. As far as I know, the pain you'd feel at being cut open is the same as the pain a cow or dog feels. Is it really underhanded? Or is it the fact that I was using an emotional attack?
Again with the pain argument.
Meet my friend.
So eating cow seems ok.
The more questionable issue is regarding medical testing, and I assure you vegan medicine is largely useless compared to the real thing. In that case, what's more valuable- a human life or an animal life?
|
is that an oxygen tank hes carrying
|
I think although perhaps it is cruel to abuse animals, and if they are to be slaughtered for the meat industry, it should be humanely, it is our RIGHT to abuse them if we wish.
Natural order permits that the species at the top of the food chain (Human Beings) basically rule the other animals. No-one ever gives a Tiger shit for cruelly mauling its prey. Because it's "natural". However, mankind exists as a natural species, and follows natural laws although we try to surpress them. We mate obsessively, we fight for power, and we use the lesser species to do whatever we wish. We enslave them as companions, or kill them for food.
|
Helvetica, there is nothing that happens in this universe that is not natural. Using the term to justify something is silly. Since, as you say, man is a natural species, and I am a member of this natural species, I must be natural. Therefore, anything I do must also be natural. If I went around killing people, that's natural. That doesn't make it OK.
Well, most people agree with me on that point at least. Which is why people try to turn out some sort of an ethical system in which it's not OK to do things, even though you can. (What exactly do you mean by the words "right" and "should?") Which things, though, seems to be up to individual preference. For me, causing pain is one of the no-nos.
Jibba raises a good point. Animal testing is an integral part of medical development. So far, I haven't come across any good, solid arguments against such testing. I could downplay the role that animal testing has, though. Drug testing, which I think you'll agree comprises the majority of animal testing, is often performed to see the effects of overdose. Massive overdose. We're talking killing thousands of animals to confirm that yes, 5000 milligrams of cyanide actually will kill a rabbit. And probably a human, too.
The point is that the fact that some animal testing is very useful for medicinal research does not justify all animal testing. I think I'll leave it at that and tackle it again when meat consumption no longer is the dominant animal product.
|
Not really interested in the whole discussion, but:
a) Nobody would say a tiger has bad morals when it eats people either. Doesn't mean people get to eat other people. People are expected to behave, even if it isn't exactly natural and tigers don't.
b) Pain and suffering is not limited to the act of physically killing the animal (which is typically not all that bad). Something about not having room to move any part of our body, ever, does kind of sound unpleasant though. Eating wild animals is something I have very little problem with (aside from the fact that they are an extremely limited resource).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.cinemastrikesback.com/news/new%20dailies/noCountryForOldMen-1024.jpg)
