What’s the difference between the co op selling ‘happy’ cheese, yogurt, milk, and meat, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, cooking and serving bacon ?
If we object to the latter, it’s more a matter of our own personal experience, not the actual suffering of the animal.
In that sense, it’s like the willful ignorance of some omnivores : the issue is not the suffering, per se, but our own individual discomfort.
As a vegan, some cooked animal products still smell good to me, and even make my mouth water. But there are ethical concerns that trump my own physiological stimulus-response.
Another example would be the uselessness of me, as a vegan, refusing to kill an animal (including a human) if there was certainty that the killing would be carried out by someone else, so long as I would not make the suffering worse for the individual being killed by being the one who does the killing.
There are examples of this in history. Some prisoners during the Holocaust talked their reluctant friends into killing them because they would rather die at their hands than at the hands of the Nazis, some of whom were sadistic.
Killing a friend or killing a pig or a cow probably would be unpleasant for me, but the key ethical issue is how I intend my behavior to affect the well-being of others, not my own level of psychological discomfort.
By that standard, the willfully ignorant omnivore (or lacto-ovo vegetarian ) who can’t stomach the reality of the suffering of farmed animals parallels the vegan who allows his or her energy to be drawn into matters that pertain not to the suffering of the animals, but rather to her or his psychological discomfort regarding the smell of cooked animal flesh.
I’ve wondered what I might do if I ever happen to work on an organic farm that is not vegan, (though I’d prefer to help build up a farm that is veganic)
Ok, but if someone interprets the unavoidability of causing harm as an excuse to “fall off the vegan wagon” they probably aren’t thinking things thru thoroughly, as you’d probably agree. And you’ve said that yourself in that they aren’t really ‘ex-vegans’ because they actually didn’t grasp the ethos to begin with.
That’s worth thinking about, but I’m not sure it applies to all former vegans. Maybe someone homesteading and raising chickens and pigs could argue that it’s less harmful than using veggies from industrial ag for their protein. Maybe, that is. There is still the issue of taking a pig’s or chicken’s life instead of letting it live out its days.
But the homesteader might counter that the pig and chicken had a pleasant life before being killed quickly and that they would never have existed in the first place had it not been for the intention to ‘use them’ or ‘raise them’ on the farm.
But, yeah, kind of speaking to what I venture you’d agree with, the vast majority of folk who are “falling off the wagon” aren’t homesteaders.
Plus the counter-vegan argument that our ‘lifestyle’ is based on the privilege of living in the relatively wealthy Global North has a flip side to it, that our detractors probably don’t intend : our privilege in the Global North means that most of us generally have no good reason for consuming animal products (and perhaps also no good reason for using animal-derived materials, assuming hemp and other plant materials can viably replace plastic.)
Well, anyway, regarding falling off the wagon, you’d probably agree that it’s goofy to think that we should stop being vegan just because we can never be perfect about it, and can never entirely refrain from causing harm.
But where we might disagree is regarding the idea that eco-reality is a bit more complex than what we might think if we limit ourselves to a sort of consumerist approach to veganism.
The vast majority of folk nowadays, whether we’re vegan or not, have no where near the knowledge of farming and farm-related animals as the old fashioned farmers did or do (what few are around.)
In my opinion, it’s arrogant and ignorant when some vegans who know nothing about farming dismiss those who do as ‘murderers.’
With a less self-righteous and less simplistic [simplistic is not the best word] approach, vegans can find common ground with the many people who are concerned about animal suffering, human suffering, and the damage being done to the ecosphere.
I realize you weren’t referring to me, but as for me and “falling off the wagon”, the issue of palm oil and rainforest-destroying soy, doesn’t mean I stop being vegan.
It means I’m even more aware of how the food industry can sometimes tend to market this or that packaged, processed and otherwise ecologically problematic food as ‘vegan.’
It’s similar to, but not quite as ridiculous as ‘diet coke.’ Sure it has zero calories, but also zero nutrients.
A lot of those processed, animal-product imitation foods are problematic for reasons other than palm oil or soy or carrageenan. Many are high in sodium.
This also calls attention to the problem of being a single-issue advocate. Veganism is part of the ecology movement. Our view is incomplete if we just focus on pigs or chickens, just as it’s incomplete if we just focus on humans.
All species are part of the ecosphere, without which none of us would exist. This is where some of the folk you call cherry pickers are coming from, though I would agree with you that the imperfections of ‘vegan’ food, is not cause for giving up.
Some of the critiques of veganism presented by deep ecologists and anarcho-primitivists are valid, in my opinion. But if we have a genuine eco-ethic, I can’t see how anyone would not support, for example, a transition away from factory farming, and also oppose the abuses that occur on sustainable and ‘humane’ dairy farms.
Further, I can’t see how such a transition would not lead the vast majority of people to consuming A LOT less animal products or none at all, given that we have more than 7 billion humans to feed, clothe, house, medicate, and otherwise care for.
I don’t share the abolitionist view that the organic and local food movements are insidious in that they lead people to believe it’s ok to keep consuming animal products.
In the short term and intermediate term at least, the organic and local food movement presents an alternative to factory farming and industrial ag in general.
Many people head in the direction of what we vegans call ‘happy meat’ because they genuinely care about lifekind. For some of them, ‘happy meat’ is a step in their journey to ecological integrity, if not veganism per se.
We shouldn’t vilify such ‘conscientious omnivores.’ If they care about ecology, as they learn more, many of them will see that an animal-product-based way of life is not doable, just as having big houses, 20 pairs of shoes, and driving 30,000 miles a year is not doable, (unless we want to make those things a ‘luxury’ enjoyed by a tiny wealthy minority elite.)
In fact, as we speak, the way of life you and I live is not doable, if it were to be adopted by all of the human population.
It’s in that vein that some of the well-intentioned critiques of veganism are to be found.
If I may, a final suggestion (that applies to me also of course) is that if we’re mindful of eco-reality, we won’t be self-righteous toward ‘welfarists’ or to ‘ex-vegans’ or to ‘non-vegans,’ or to anyone for that matter.
But conflict among fellow activists and among fellow common folk in general might be sometimes hard to avoid, given the magnitude of what we’re trying to bend our minds around.
It can be frustrating, fearful, and just plain heart-breaking when we think about what is happening to the web of life and to billions of nonhuman individuals that
This is where ecology connects with some of the better parts of Christianity—in terms of not judging. All of us are part of the problem. All of us are potentially part of the solution.
Leave a Reply