I’ve posted about this lovely pair of crocodile shoes that I want to buy (Just Cavalli- $219 from Gilt.com). And this is the debate that followed. Although I’m really happy to have a debate (in fact, it’s been a while, and I’m kinda loving it), I didn’t want to do it on Facebook. So here’s the entire back and forth, and I’ll post my response at the end.
The link you posted is right: humans aren’t carnivores. We’re omnivores, and therefore exhibit characteristics that aren’t well defined by a basic comparison btwn “eating meat” and “not eating meat.” I think it’s fair to say we’re not only evolved to eat meat.
Judgment is good, when it helps you make decisions, but it can also be used as a weapon of the elite and intellectual as a way to look down on the ignorant. I think it really depends on the context.
Let’s get on the same page in terms of the criteria. We haven’t actually established the level of veganism that should be appropriate. Let’s talk about environmental impact, does this mean no bread b/c it has whey? No beer or alcohol b/c it has yeast? How far are we going here? What artificial fertilizers and pesticides in plants? What are the impact of those? Are we defining veganism as no animal life of any kind and only organic, local, and seasonal crops? What about eating corn? If we’re talking about happiness, ethics, and impact on the earth, how do eating meat, eating rare/exotic meat, vegetarianism, and veganism all compare?
The link I posted, in addition to noting features of carnivores, also makes notes features that only herbivores have and which humans share. In any case, you haven’t disputed the point that “what we’ve evolved to do” is a fallacious rationale for anything that is also unnecessary for survival. As that post pointed out: It would be like saying: “I have a phallus; therefore I am morally entitled to fuck you (irrespective of anything else).” Or: “I have fingernails; therefore I am morally entitled to scratch your eyes out (irrespective of anything else).” I have no doubt that, understood more broadly, we are in perfect agreement on this point, but it really wouldn’t matter if we agreed; a fallacy is a fallacy.
You say “judgment” can be used as a weapon of the elite. So what? It can also be used as a means to alleviate suffering and promote great well-being, and that is how I’m using it.
Veganism as a lifestyle entails avoidance of all animal products — whey-laced bread wouldn’t be acceptable, but products made with yeast would be acceptable. You may ask, “Why should micro-organisms be excluded?” To do so is to misunderstand veganism in terms of what it seeks to accomplish. It is not meant to reduce all consumption, all loss, all destruction, all suffering. It is meant to reduce consumption that causes excessive, unnecessary amounts of these things.
Naturally, you and I as animals have a right to consume what we need to in order to survive and live qualitatively satisfying lives, and veganism as a lifestyle doesn’t deny this at all. What ethical vegans deny is that animal products don’t achieve that standard of necessity and satisfaction, and this is readily supported by reality. Some examples: I have been vegan for nearly 6 years. Carl Lewis won gold medals in successive Olympic Games as a vegan. The American Dietetic Association has declared that balanced vegan diets are perfectly healthy. Studies have shown that vegans have fewer heart problems as well as decreased rates of obesity and cancer. The point is, we don’t need animal products to be alive and well.
Meanwhile, plant-based diets are the single best way to reduce suffering and destruction in the world. Globally, 50 billion sensitive animals, after being needlessly tortured for their entire lives, are needlessly killed for human consumption — every *year*.
Environmentally, there is no more destructive agent than animal agriculture. A plant-based diet improves the energy efficiency of one’s diet by between 4x and 54x (depending on the animal product). Because animals we eat must first eat plants, an animal-inclusive diet must always require significantly more intensive and destructive inputs than a plant-based one. And, not surprisingly, animal agriculture is the #1 source of pollution that causes climate change. According to the UN’s landmark climate change report in 2006, animal ag is responsible for 18% of global emissions. Many of us suspected that figure was conservative, and in 2009, the World Bank — certainly no leftist organization — puts that figure at 51%. Animal agriculture is also known to be a primary force behind the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystems and water supplies around the world, even in developed countries like ours that have some protections in place. (A well-cited Wikipedia article goes deeper on all these topics, if you’re interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_meat_production )
Well, I think all of that addresses your points. Glad we could continue this discussion
“What ethical vegans deny is that animal products don’t achieve that standard of necessity and satisfaction, and this is readily supported by reality.”
should instead read
“What ethical vegans ASSERT is that animal products don’t achieve that standard of necessity and satisfaction, and this is readily supported by reality.”
Sorry!