Photo by Iain Farrell/FlickrCC
For some, not eating meat is a lifestyle; for others, it's a religion. I, like most vegetarians, am a member of the lifestyle camp. The religion camp is populated by primarily by vegans--people who choose to give up not just meat but all animal products: eggs, dairy, leather, and a wide range of seemingly innocuous foodstuffs (some kinds of sugar, for example, which use trace amounts of ground animal bone for whitening). The rationale, they'll be happy to tell you, is that animals suffer unduly in the process. It's true.
The logic behind veganism makes perfect sense to me; then again, so does the logic behind giving up all one's possessions for charity and living a life of ascetic minimalism. It's more moral, it's more ethical, and, like most people, it's more than I'm able to do.
I think of vegans the same way I think of Peace Corps volunteers: I'll gladly cheer them on as they make the world a better place, but I'm about as likely to give up dairy as I am to live without electricity in Guiana for a year. I like my air conditioning, I like my pizza. Unfortunately, many vegans don't seem content with this arrangement. Fair or unfair, they've gained quite a reputation as the angry vegetarians--the vegevangelists who have harsh words for meat eaters and, if you seem at all receptive, will give you some literature to read.
For a vegetarian, vegans are a blow to any confidence I feel in my chosen lifestyle. If I really cared about animal welfare, wouldn't I be vegan?Just before Mark Oppenheimer published his wonderful Slate article on life in a "mixed marriage" (his wife is vegetarian, he is not), he wrote on his personal blog, "Hard to say who will send me more angry mail ... the vegans or the beef lobby." I don't know what the response was, but if his experience was anything like mine, his inbox became Vegan Target Number One.
Vegans are statistically minuscule--about one quarter of one percent of Americans--and can seem most significant for the questions they raise about the rest of us. For a vegetarian like me, they are a blow to any confidence I feel in my chosen lifestyle. If I really cared about animal welfare, wouldn't I be vegan? If I don't have it in myself to live as a vegan, does that make the sacrifice of vegetarianism insignificant in comparison? Worse, does it make me a hypocrite?
The many vegans who emailed me and commented on my last column largely had the tact not to point this out, and they didn't need to. I know all too well about the cruelties of egg and dairy factory farms, cruelties to which, as I pat myself on the back for not eating meat, I continue to contribute every day.
Facing this basic contradiction of vegetarianism made me recognize a weight I'd been carrying ever since I gave up meat: I resent vegans. I resent that their mere, if rare, existence calls attention to the hypocrisy underlying the vegetarianism so central to my daily life.
This made me understand the surprising hostility of some omnivores towards vegetarians, belying an assumption that we think ourselves more moral than the rest. We don't, of course. But everyone's a little insecure about eating factory-farmed products, and, triggered, that insecurity can turn easily to hostility.
My mistake--and the mistake of anyone bothered by the diets of others--is placing an objective value judgment on what a person chooses to eat and not eat.
"I don't like to put a political label to my diet. I eat what I eat," Bryant Terry said recently on NPR. Terry is the author of a book on "vegan soul-food" (a clever, if unintentional, double-entendre). "When we box ourselves in, we can often have an unhealthy relationship with food."
Photo by (c) Sara Remington
To bury the hatchet, here are two recipes from Bryant Terry sure to please any dietary lifestyle:
Open-Faced BBQ Tempeh Sandwich with Carrot-Cayenne Coleslaw
Little Potato and Sweet Potato Pancakes
SHOP THE ATLANTIC FOOD MARKETPLACE
Subscribe to Atlantic Food
"...all choices are legitimate and all lives valid. Live and let live. Eat and let eat."
There's the rub, right? When it comes to food, vegans almost by definition can't be tolerant. If they could get the government to ban meat consumption tomorrow, they'd do it.
But these sort of movements seem to be happening more and more--a drive by a group to stamp out the habits or social mores of others, often through the power of the state. The question is, in such an environment, can we maintain a liberal, pluralistic democracy that remains tolerant of different worldviews, within a framework that protects individual liberty and democracy itself? As individuals, we're a pretty tolerant species. But most of our personal identities and ways of life are formed through the groups we associate with--our nations, religions, tribes, cultures, etc. And it's the nature of human groups to try to preserve themselves and their identities, often at the expense of other groups. Sometimes, groups even seek supremacy--to prove their power and the power of their ideas by imposing their ways upon others. Individual liberty and responsibility--which is the ideal that the Constitution was founded upon--is frail compared to that group imperative. And over the last thirty years, we've seem to become less and less tolerant of each other, and increasingly inclined to act through groupthink, either to attack the behavior and social mores of others or defend against those attacks. It reduces us as a nation, as a people, and endangers our republican experiment.
The fact is that these movements are not trying to make it harder to eat meat or whatever, they are trying to remove public policies that subsidize the consumption of meat and other animal products. If people payed the true cost for meats (health costs from high fat diets, environmental costs from deforestation and water usage, etc) they would be less inclined to eat it. The fact that people do not is a subsidy to that dietary choice.
Additionally, although I prefer the interpretation of individual liberty as the intention of the constitution, the idea that this was the founding principal is a very debated issue even today. Federalists believed very differently in the first decade of our country and were supported by people like Washington.
That's a horrible opener. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the definition of vegan (one who does not eat animals or animal products) that implies wanting to force others to do the same. I'm not vegan, though thinking of moving in that direction. And I'm thinking of it for largely moral reasons. But there are a lot of moral things that I don't think should be compulsory. I think more people should give to alleviate suffering in poor countries (myself included; currently I don't either) but I don't want to make anyone do so.
You're very right to play up pluralism, but then why do you then go on to unfairly bash a segment of the population for intolerance?
And, tolerance really can only go so far. I suspect the reason you get the impression that vegans "can't be tolerant" is that they tend to insist on animal rights, which, if enforced, would likely raise the price of meat considerably or make it entirely prohibitive. I'm certainly no absolutist on animal rights--I think humans are inherently more valuable than other animals and think there is some justification for killing animals (humanely) for hedonic reasons--but also think that the issue of animal suffering needs to be taken much more seriously than it currently is. In short, I suspect that much of our factory farm system is actually morally intolerable.
My husband and I have made a conscious choice to NOT be vegan or even full time vegetarians. This does not mean that we are not thoughtful about our choices, or don't care about animal welfare. We make a good faith effort to obtain our meat, eggs, etc. from small, local farmers who treat their animals with respect. So, it is a source of anger for me when we are judged by other people who know nothing about us or our decisions. That is why I don't tend to like vegans, at least the vocal kind.
"...it is a source of anger for me when we are judged by other people who know nothing about us or our decisions...That is why I don't tend to like vegans, at least the vocal kind." Does the attendant irony require comment?
the thing that you really don't get is that we don't see ANY kind of exploitation of animals as being kind. It's not that we JUDGE you, it's that we DISAGREE with this view of "happy meat" or whatever - our views are simply different. It's sad that people take differences in views as judgements. Usually people do this to silence us. If they can point at us and call us "preachy" every single time we put our opinions out there or input into something - than we're less likely to speak up and people can continue living in denial or avoid the ultimate question - which is whether or not animals should be imprisoned to cater to human wants. Vegans are ALWAYS being silenced and dismissed and the reality is that we don't really preach anymore than any meat eater... How many times have I had meat eaters intrude their beliefs on me that humans need meat?
The fact is - even on small dairy farms, male calves are slaughtered for veal. Male chicks are useless too. What becomes of them?
I mean - we aren't judging people but really just trying to challenge their way of thinking. Something I push myself to do every single day.
killing, by definition, is not treating anyone "well." My decision to criticize your decision is based on your belief that your desire to eat meat trumps the animal's desire to live. True enough I'm not one of these animals, and I'm going on guesswork here, but most of us who are born really prefer to live a natural life, rather than be used til we're sick then killed, or killed when we're very very young.
Also, the environmental consequences of meat eating aren't that much different for animals in CAFO's or on a small local farm - they poop the same amount, the emit the same amount of methane, they consume a similar amount of vegetables and grains, etc. The fact that you eat from a small, local farm means you're also able to afford this expense, and it still supports the factory farm industry. Without factory farms, the majority of land in this country would have to go to "free range" farms - animals require a certain amount of space, and with Americans' consumption of animal flesh and fluids, there is just not enough land, nor are there enough resources, to treat all animals "humanely" before killing them. "Free range" and local meat is the privilege of the privileged.
"...all choices are legitimate and all lives valid." You left out the key implication here: all HUMAN lives are valid. Animals, not so much.
Sure, all choices are legitimate, but that does not make them equally moral.
Max, I share your discomfort with vegans; as you state, their existence reveals the hypocrisy that exists in my own choices. But regardless of how obnoxious they might be in person, I think they are to be admired, not resented, for adhering to their principles more than I am able to.
Just because I occasionally consume factory-farmed meat or dairy products does not make that an ethical choice. I'm weighing my own convenience against animal suffering and environmental impact, and sometimes my convenience wins.
I love how vegans are always being coined "obnoxious" - if you really want to see how obnoxious people can be about ones' diet - try being vegan for a while. We are constantly being harassed and the only reason people don't "see" it - is because we are the minority here, the radicals. Our diets are CONSTANTLY being scrutinized and every once in a while, when we push back - we get the obnoxious, self-righteous, "holier than thou" etc titles. The reality is that many meat eaters are obnoxious when someone even SLIGHTLY questions their diet - yet most of us vegans are more than happy to explain, to converse about it, to engage in debate...
agreed; when a meat -eater tells us our food looks icky we're supposed to be quiet and take the criticism; when we say the same about a piece of meat, we're judgmental and preachy. The fact is that I know sometimes I know I come across this way, no matter how good my intent. But I'm just human too and I will make mistakes.
I think what many non-vegans fail to see, let alone take into account, is that when most vegans object to meat and dairy, etc. it isn't because we find the aesthetics displeasing, like wearing orange bellbottoms with a teal sweatshirt, but because on an emotional level it *hurts* - and we recognize that this hurt has to be so much more intense for the animal, and that we feel powerless to stop it because it happens on such a massive, enormous scale, and people that we love and admire also participate in this kind of ceaseless cruelty - to us it seems so obvious, and we become frustrated. Our goal is not to hurt anyone, and we want others to help end the suffering. And even worse is that it's so needless - needless and endless, because nobody needs to eat meat to be happy and healthy.
what about those of us who are vegans primarily for health purposes? natural whole foods are far better in many ways than meat and dairy. that's not to say that I personally don't have a few ethical "beefs" about certain meat industries or the burdens that producing some foods are on the planet (and thus part of being vegan is a practical decision about sustainability and a realistic diet for a growing populations), but there are vegans who are out to live responsibly and maybe encourage others to do so, but who aren't out to force any agenda on others.
there is nothing inherently intolerant about any of this.
also, there are dietary vegans--again, for health reasons--who aren't strict when it comes to other lifestyle factors like clothing, etc.
Claudius, that's a noble attempt to intellectualize the attack on the vegan community.
But the fact of the matter is, vegans are right (which I say as a guilty omnivore). And they aren't nearly as intolerant as they're portrayed. Some of them proselytize, but there are lobbyists for anything and everything. Everyone has opinions, and for every opinion there are people who, yes, would literally change the law to reflect that opinion. Vegans may be one of those groups, but they only want to stop cruelty to animals. Is that not more respectable than the desire to own assault weapons? Or the fight to raise taxes? Stop thinking about what's right and wrong, and just think about the intentions of their heart.
Vegans are just people who live admirably ascetic lives, spending a lot of time thinking about things that we take for granted. I wish I could say the same thing for myself.
"But the fact of the matter is, vegans are right (which I say as a guilty omnivore)."
I don't think that's at all clear. I am an animal, an omnivore, specifically. My teeth, my digestive tract, the cuisines of thousands of the world's human cultures, speak this truth. Why should it be any more immoral for me to eat meat than for a cat or a dog or a bear or a monkey to do so? If their hunting and eating of meat or honey is natural, why is mine cruelty? I am not seperate, apart from and above Nature, or my nature.
It's one thing to make a calculus that the life of a factory farm animal is composed of such immense suffering that you cannot in good conscience support it. It is another to argue that the use by humans of any animal or animal product is inherently immoral because animals have rights and to kill or injure them is as great a crime as killing or injuring a human ("Meat is murder"). Both the former and the latter arguments for veganism start with empathy, but one goes a helluva a lot further than the other, so far, in fact, that I would argue that the shift makes the second basis for veganism a wholly different kind of argument, with much vaster implications.
a cat HAS to eat meat (they don't produce taurain) and humans don't have to eat meat. We are OMNIVORES - which means we thrive on just about anything. Comparing us to cats is a little rediculous because they NEED taurine - humans don't NEED taurine because our bodies produce it.
Also - basing your morals on other animals' instincts (like that of a cat) is absurd. If we justify meat eating because cats and dogs do it - than we might as well justify people eating others' babies, or cannibalism in general. We might as well justify killing unhealthy babies etc.
It always amazes me how humans boast of their superior morals (from other animals) but then go ahead and justify some things they do by the conduct of other animals...
Beef. Its whats for dinner.
I'm not vegan to pass judgment on vegetarians and meat-eaters. It's not about them for me. I'm also not vegan because I like to self-flagellate. I have a hearty appetite and love eating. I'm vegan because it makes absolute moral and ethical sense to me and it's very easy for me to eat whole, plant-based foods. Ascetic? Not even close.
Truth is, it makes more sense to eat steak than it does to drink milk if you want to reduce animal suffering. Dairy cows suffer more and for far longer than do cattle. It's hard for me to understand an ethical vegetarian theory that makes any real sense. It's not a criticism. And it's not to say that you don't think you care about animals and that you're not an awesome person (most of my favorite people are lacto-ovo vegetarians and meat-eaters; hell, I used to be both!). It's just the truth that dairy cows and egg-laying hens suffer more than other factory farmed animals. That old hippie idea of being grossed out by flesh but feasting on cheese is useless when it comes to the actual experiences of the animals.
It's okay for everyone to make whatever informed choices work best for their lives. The keyword, however, is informed. And most people are woefully uninformed about the experience of animals we share this planet with.
http://mutualmenu.blogspot.com
http://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com
"living a life of ascetic minimalism... It's more moral, it's more ethical, and, like most people, it's more than I'm able to do."
this is a foolish statement. There is no reason why ascetic minimalism is morally or ethically superior to a life filled with pleasures. This is like saying it is morally superior to wear flip-flops instead of comfortable, well-fitting shoes because the flip-flops are more minimalistic.
Joselle makes a point about making informed choices. Once you know that free-range eggs are not only better for the chickens, but also far tastier, and for only a slightly higher price ($1.00 more in my town, folks. One little dollar. I can afford it.), you will probably choose to buy the free-range eggs.
Just like realizing that flip-flops feel (and look) like shit and it's probably better for you to spend a couple more bucks on a decent pair of shoes.
BTW, vegan food= ascetic minimalism? Have you never been to an Indian restaurant? Please.
Uh, living a minimalist lifestyle and giving your money to people living in third world, poverty-wracked countries is absolutely more moral and more ethical. Someone could easily write a post about how you paid for a computer and internet connection when you could have given that money to a child walking barefoot on a landfill looking for glass to sell for 5 cents an ounce (which is happening as we speak). That would clearly be more ethical and moral than spending it so you can surf the internet. That's the problem with purist ethics system, the world is so massive and so full of injustice that no one can ever do enough to be moral. Of course, it's always you or some other crusader who knows what "informed" means, as if we can somehow easily understand hideously complex problems of food production vs. human starvation, proper treatment of animals vs. higher prices that might not mean much to you, but could very easily make it harder to feed the poor, especially in other countries.
Lebecka, it's a misunderstanding of my previous comments to say I support the use of free-range eggs. "Free-range," and "humane," are meaningless and generally unenforced marketing terms. That's why I'm a vegan and not a lacto-ovo vegetarian.
For more on why, I suggest checking out this site
www.compassionatecooks.com and checking out the podcasts episodes on "free-range" eggs and "humane" milk and meat.
I have nothing against vegans and their evangelism bothers me not one bit. Instead, what really bothers me about vegans (or at least the American kind) is their inability to cook and eat tasty food. Tempeh and seitan are nasty. I've eaten at several vegan restaurants in Chicago, where I live, and the food is consistently disgusting, most especially when the dishes include meat substitute products, but surprisingly also when vegetables are the main attraction. I have never understood why vegans (or vegetarians for that matter) feel a need for such "foods" when there are plenty of truly delicious all natural (meaning minimally processed) grains and legumes that provide the necessary protein for healthy living. Lebecka gets it right when alludes to the fact that Indian vegetarian food is often vegan and can be fabulous. Same goes for many east-Asian dishes that feature tofu as the main protein. Tofu can be terrible when cooked improperly, which seems to happen too often at American vegetarian restaurants, but it is utterly delicious when prepared in Asian dishes like MaPo Tofu or Soondubu Chigae (both of which can be made vegan by using vegetable broth and omitting the mean). Incidentally, I bet that the vast majority of cooks preparing these dishes in Chinese and Korean restaurants are definitely NOT vegetarian, and they show more skill in preparing vegetarian dishes than anything I've experienced in so-called vegetarian or vegan restaurants.
I'm a vegetarian, and I hate most vegetarian restaurants. People seem to think that because the food is vegetarian, it doesn't need to taste very good. That's insane! I cook very tasty vegetarian food for myself and my (omnivorous) wife every day. I find that cooks at non-vegetarian restaurants regularly make better vegetarian food than I've found at most vegetarian and vegan restaurants.
(One notable exception: The chain of veggie restaurants run by the Sri Chinmoy "cult," such as http://www.jyotibihanga.com/ in San Diego. Everyone loves the neatloaf.)
Max,
First - you know very well that veganism does not have to be ascetic at all and that many vegans are better foodies and hedonists than some fat omnivores. You know that. Just go and read about vegan recipes anywhere on the web.
Second - veganism is not and never about doing good. Your Peace Corps and charity analogies could not be more wrong. When you walk down the street - does giving a beggar lots of money make up for having tortured another homeless previously.
Third - a religion? You kid here, right? It is the same religion that liberated blacks from slavery and jews from concentration camps. It's the religion of good being better than bad? Seriously - religion is about the "supernatural". The only thing supernatural here is the suffering of the animals. Unmatched in the history of the planet and the history of time.
Have you now read some Tolstoy, Gandhi or Isaac Bashevis Singer on that matter? Veganism is about not doing bad things to others. As a matter of fact - veganism is about not doing the worst things that a human can do. There is no worse suffering on the planet than factory farms - there never has been and there never will.
This is why Tolstoy and Gandhi call it - the first step. Before the hero in you starts doing good - make sure you stop the worst tortures the planet has seen.
That is why I personally advice those who care about animals but cannot (want to) make dietary changes over night to first drop all factory farmed products. It is easy to figure out - it is not about what vegans think of you - it is what an animal and yourself would think of you.
Imagine you are an animal - would you rather be a battery hen in a factory farm or a free range pig? When you stop taking everything personally but merely look at it from the perspective of the victims and not peer-pressure - veganism becomes rather simple. Before I give to charity, before I go to the peace corps, before I help the homeless and become a community organizer...
Veganism is not some ideal that you strive for and slowly reach. Quite the contrary. As Tolstoy puts it - it should be the first step, the minimum, and not the last.
Once you are vegan or omit concentration camp tortures - then you can move on to doing good, giving to charity etc. I personally am not a fan of doing good. I think the world would be great if we merely stopped needless tortures and killings for fun, taste and entertainment. A noble doctor might want to save thousands by experimenting on only one child against her will.... vegans are not into this kind of charity.
Once you see the world through the eye of an animal on a factory farm, once you see the world through the eyes of negative, individual rights and not group rights - veganism does not look like too much to do.
Eat and let eat? This is not an equation between a vegetarian, an omnivore and a vegan (angry or not). The live and let live equation is between you and the animal that cannot turn around, is being raped and has never seen daylight and yourself. Don't drag vegans into this (angry or not). They are just the mirror - not even the messenger.
I see a pattern forming with these articles. These tired worn out stereotypes of vegans and vegetarians are something I would expect from Parade magazine but not the Atlantic. Some tight pieces about all the different ways people have adopted a plant based diet might be nice. The vegetarian firehouse in Austin for example or Brendan Brazier the vegan triathlete, Unbuntu restaurant in Napa, the two vegan frozen treat shops in the east village NYC, on and on. Come on guys, step your game up!
The real issue for anyone making moral choices in their consumption habits is the opaque nature of the food (and virtually every other) business. If we could be assured that there was a reliable and easily accessible meat-handling system, or that there was an easily accessible sustainable agriculture system, or so on, then it would be easy to make those choices. But you can't even be assured of organic meat being available at a Whole Foods (the "best" most people are going to be able to do...)
I've been vegan since 1995, following a couple years as an ovo-lacto vegetarian. For me it was really the only choice I could make when I learned of the suffering behind animal products and knew that I could be healthy and have a perfectly good quality of life without participating in animal agriculture.
Do I wish everyone were vegan? Sure. But the closest I come to recruiting is answering questions when asked and making sure that people know from experience that vegan food doesn't taste bad just because it's vegan.
The thing is, while many people see veganism as the furthest extreme on one end of a continuum of diet and lifestyle choices, it's really a fairly arbitrary stopping point on a whole web of possible choices. Just because a food is vegan doesn't mean that it's free of ethical baggage. Think of human-rights abuses in banana farming; ecological damage that occurs in much of the world's coffee production; the carbon footprint involved in having fresh berries available year-round, pretty much anywhere; the oil dependence tied up in producing acre after acre of conventionally fertilized, monocultured soy...etc.
I think we all have an obligation to make some effort to inform ourselves how our choices--all of our choices--affect others and our environment. I think we also have an obligation to try to reduce the harm we ask others to endure as a result of our choices. But who am I to say that choosing to be vegan makes me more ethical than someone who follows an omnivorous, hundred-mile diet? Or who eats exclusively organic foods? Or who spends more time than I do volunteering for important causes?
For me, identifying with veganism is a shortcut to help me to remember to minimize the harm I cause others through my daily actions. Now that eating that way is second nature, it's easier for me to pursue other ways of achieving that goal while still enjoying my life.
For every one vegan waving "Dairy is Murder" pamphlets in your face, there are many more of us that are more shy and would never in a million years share with a stranger our personal choices. You would never know I was a vegan unless we had dinner together, and - with a lot of vegan choices on menus these days, especially at Asian restaurants, maybe not even then.
In fact, I just prefer to be left alone to live my life as I choose, and I think it's fine if you do, too. I would hope, though, that you do not just ALL of us based on the actions of what I am certain is the minority of vegans who are simply acting like jerks.
I didn't proofread enough! I meant: "Don't JUDGE all of us based on the actions..." etc.
Claudius,
Great post. I think you're spot on with your observations as to our basic human nature. However, I don't agree with your conclusion. On the whole, I think the evidence shows that our tribal identities are fading away at an unprecedented rate. Mass communication is integral in this evolution of the human tribe. At the same time, mass communication makes marginal tribal movements both more easily spread and more interesting to watch from afar from the comfort of your living room.
As a second issue, Veganism can only be justified by adopting a religious or near religious view of the world. Its pretty clear that creatures feeding on each other is the way life on this planet works. Its also pretty clear that natural human empathy becomes strained the further you start moving out of the human tribe. So sure animals feel pain, but the question becomes why do we care? Should we not poison termites that invade our homes? Step on ants? At the end of the day, the vegan argument is a religious abstraction that can't be justified without a belief in a fixed universal morality that exists beyond humans and is different than the religions we currently have.
You make it waaaaaaaaaaay to complicated. The reality is that I don't feel good about myself when Iknow I'm eating an animal cuz I think animals are awesome. I love watching them run around in the wild, I love watching the birds fly around - I think of their freedom. I think about how MY freedom is my most valued right... I can go where I want, when I want...
How can I support an industry that basically destroys this freedom for other life? Will my decision not to eat it change the reality? Probably not, but I can sleep well at night, knowing that my choices aren't demanding it.
It IS that simple. I don't need to justify it because it is a personal decision... but it isn't metaphysical like God or Christ as the Mesiah - my decision is based on what I see around me, based on knowing that these animals DO feel pain.... that they probably would value freedom if they had ever had it.
As someone who has been a vegan since I was 17 (I'm 30 now) I see nothing of myself *at all* in the vegan stereotype you write about.
I became a vegan, after four years of being a vegetarian, as a test of willpower. No one I knew in high school could keep to being a vegan for very long, but I didn't particularly enjoy dairy products any more, and I knew I could stay a vegan easily for a year. But I was surprised once I became a vegan how much healthier I felt, and how I learned to appreciate a wide range of vegetables I found unpalatable before. And I read up more on how alien dairy was to the Human diet (essentially unknown outside of the West, the Middle East, and parts of Africa) and decided to stick with it. I've kept reasonably strict - I've never knowingly eaten anything non-vegan, although when I go out to eat I generally don't ask questions and just use common sense (e.g., skip the bread when I eat Indian, but don't worry about if there's ghee in the chana masala). I've had philosophical crises from time to time, but I've never felt a desire to eat anything non-vegan.
And I've never, ever argued with anyone that they should change their diet. Maybe it's my non-confrontational nature. Maybe it's because I knew several crazy Christians as a teenager, and grew to have an instinctive dislike of proselytization. But I think a big part was reading a Vegetarian Times article which said that, statistically, virtually no one "converts" due to getting into an argument with someone - they do so because they someone they know who does it, and they decide on their own to give it a try (as it was with me and my older brother).
Ultimately, as convinced I am that I made the right choice, ethically and health wise, and as much as I think the world would be better if everyone did, part of living in a modern liberal society is respecting the choices of everyone, regardless of your disagreement, and taking into account you may be wrong. I feel the ideal is for no one to know I'm a vegan until they see me sit down and eat - or until they invite me over to a dinner party.
I still have hangups - I'm usually surprised, oddly, when someone isn't vegetarian or vegan (although I know I shouldn't be, statistically speaking). And I admit a personal animus to people who "fall off the wagon" that I don't have for regular omnivores (although I bite my tongue on that).
I honestly don't think I'm that unusual. I've probably known close to 20 vegans personally in my life, and only one was really holier than thou in any particular manner. She was a sort of ex of mine unfortunately - she endlessly gave me shit for having pet rats. Ironically, she's not a vegan anymore, and I still am. I'd have to go back to high school to think of anyone else preachy and annoying - all the vegans I know now are pretty well adjusted to living as they are in the omnivore's world.
But yes, both online and off, we unfortunately hear the most on any issue by the loudmouths with a chip on their shoulder.
Hugo,
With due respect, you're the problem with the vegan community, not the solution. The notion that you'd equate what happens to animals, important though they might be, with human suffering is absurd beyond words. That you would suggest that the horrors of Slavery and the Holocaust are somehow akin to what happens to animals is what it is about your position that so turns people off to even the notion.
To put that different, how does the world look from up there on your hugely high horse? Plenty of us contribute in and to the world while eating meat. You brush all of that aside because, horrors, some of us eat eggs, or meat, or drink glasses of milk? Why you can't merely sit there, letting others do as others will, while they afford you the same respect, is beyond me. If you're vegan, fine, but leave me alone about it, and I swear I'll never come to your house offering you the foods that I consider to be delicious. We can agree on that, surely.
Or, perhaps, we can't, because yours is the fundamentalist position, in which nobody but those holding precisely your own beliefs could even conceivably be right, either for themselves or more generally. Such absurdity for such a great big diverse place we live in.
Wew! In college - we were taught to compare and contrast things that were totally opposite sometimes!
Your argument glosses over the point - which is that there are similarities between slavery and how we "enslave" animals for human consumption. Are they the same? No. Do they have some HUGE differences? YES! but that doesn't mean they don't have similarities.
The reason many of us vegans turn to the comparison of slavery is because the basic right to freedom is taken from these animals. That basic right was taken from slaves. Of course - not all meat comes from a farm type situation. I am personally vegan because the one thing I value most in this world is MY FREEDOM. I don't feel good about myself taking the one thing from other living things that I value most - no matter how insignificant they seem.
The reality is that farm animals exist for the same reasons that slavery existed - patriarchy. We dominate over animals, just as whites dominated over slaves.
Of course there aren't any moral absolutes! that's why veganism is a personal decision. I certainly don't expect people to hold the same beliefs as me... One of the problems is that many meat eaters expect vegans to believe what they believe - which just isn't the case. I don't expect meat eaters to walk around saying "eating meat is immoral" and in many ways - that's what many meat eaters expect of us - to walk around saying eating meat is moral when in reality - it just isn't the way we think.
I have to chuckle at this false sense of superiority on the part of vegans. For one thing, you're still killing something. Just because it’s a plant doesn’t make it better than an animal. That’s how life on earth survives. Vegans survive by killing just like meat eaters do.
To claim some moral superiority on that basis just doesn’t follow for me.
Does the lion worry about how much pain the zebra feels? Does the crocodile strive to make sure she is compassionate when she kills her prey? I doubt it. Why should the standard be different for us humans?
yeah but lions will eat the cubs of other lions... Should we justify this behavior in human populations too? Might as well add cannibalism to that list (along with eating meat and rape).
The standard should be different for humans because humans have already set a higher standard. I mean - by your logic - might as well make murder of humans legal. Cannibalism should be legal, rape should be legal.
Oh wait - it's only good to speak about morals when human society finds them "normal"
How do you compare killing a plant to killing an animal who can feel pain and fear as much as a human can? Plants don't have a central nervous system or sensory organs like humans and animals do.
Also, often we eat plant parts, not whole plants themselves, so we’re not always even taking a life to benefit from plant food. As one example, it is in the best interest of a plant for its fruit to be eaten by an animal so that its seed can be spread and fertilized through excrement. It’s mutually beneficial to the plant and animal kingdom. However, I’ve never come across an animal who could produce parts that it actually offered up freely for you to eat. If you don’t kill a whole plant, they can also regenerate most parts as well. They are extremely adaptable as a food source. An animal? Cut off its leg and see if it will grow back to feed you again. And don’t forget all the blood and terror you have to deal with too.
I have to chuckle at this false sense of superiority on the part of vegans. For one thing, you're still killing something. Just because it’s a plant doesn’t make it better than an animal. That’s how life on earth survives. Vegans survive by killing just like meat eaters do.
To claim some moral superiority on that basis just doesn’t follow for me.
Does the lion worry about how much pain the zebra feels? Does the crocodile strive to make sure she is compassionate when she kills her prey? I doubt it. Why should the standard be different for us humans?
There was a time when it was commonly assumed innocently, that meat was an important part of a healthy diet.
But we now know humans do not require high protein, meat-based diets at all. In fact, evidence mounts that meat diets are demonstrably UNhealthy, raising risks of a host of damaging and deadly diseases, including heart disease and many cancers. Meat eating can thus shorten and make miserable both human and animal lives. The difference is the human chooses voluntarily to support slaughter and the eating of its victims, while victimized animals are not offered any choice in the matter.
Since the nutrition argument for meat-eating is long gone by now, about all that's left as possible justification is "but it tastes good".
To be causing misery and death to highly evolved, intelligent mammals, in the name of consuming unhealthy, disease-causing foods, so as to indulge taste-cravings, seems about as legit and moral as a rapist defending rape on the grounds of "...but it felt good"!
"Does the lion worry about how much pain the zebra feels? Does the crocodile strive to make sure she is compassionate when she kills her prey? I doubt it. Why should the standard be different for us humans?"
This is one of the arguments I hear most often and is indicative of the ignorance of many to the actual suffering animals endure. It's important that people are educated about the nature of factory farms and the absolutely horrific conditions intelligent and sentient beings are subjected to. The relationship between man and chicken, for instance, is so far removed from that of the lion and zebra in the wild, that it's not even comparable. Being vegan is not about superiority. Rather, it's about compassion and kindness.
Not to mention - when people justify human behavior, by the behavior of other animals I get really pissed. They might as well justify rape, cannibalism, murder and basically any of the most horrific things we've seen human beings do to each other! Because in the wild - a mom will kill her own cubs if she can't provide for them, many animals are raped in the process of breeding, many will kill others of the same species to further their genes etc.
The fundamental attitude of vegans is to 'live and let live'.
You can explore for yourself that good vegan food is tasty, nutritious and exciting - and can be very affordable and convenient too - with a free personal mentoring service: http://www.vegansociety.com/newsroom/index.php?/archives/31-Take-the-Vegan-Pledge.html
I'm sorry that you feel this way. I have been a vegan for 14 years and have called myself all sorts of titles to avoid being judged for the granulated sugar I add to my coffee or the fact that I eat bread at restaurants without asking whether it has an egg wash on it. Inspired by Vegan Outreach and, yes even PETA, I finally embraced the term vegan, because I now realize that there are other vegans who share my belief that the effects of our actions are far more important than being perfect.
Every day we wake up, we have a choice about who we are and how we spend our money and our time. I'm far from being an ascetic, but I choose every day to eat foods that cause as little suffering as possible. That's what I think being vegan is all about. But if the label bothers you, I say ditch it and focus instead on living a life that reflects who you are and what you value. Given your strong feelings about animals, I suspect you'll find yourself tending toward veganism. And when you do, I hope you'll find that there are ten people cheering you on for every one who's reading the labels in your cupboards.
Max and others, I'll not write out a long comment here because I responded (in great length, unfortunately) at Change.org, in two posts, the first of which is here (and the second of which is linked to from here): http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/the_real_fervor_of_the_vegan_a_response_to_the_atlantic_part_1
Max Fisher states: "all choices are legitimate and all lives valid."
I think he means all human lives are valid; to a vegan, *all* lives are valid. True, we drive cars and eat food that, during harvesting may have resulted in the deaths of animals. But we try very very hard to live by our principles.
These principles include non-harm for all, and to that end I find it interesting that of all the vegans and non-vegans I know, it is the vegans (you know, the people who "hate people") who not only take the time to learn about slave labor in the Ivory Coast or climate change or prisoners' rights or slave labor conditions in clothing factories, but who also take action on these issues. This is not to say that non-vegans don't care; it merely suggests that vegans see a link among oppressions and try our hardest to live life not harming anyone, human or non-human. But certainly this does not mean living like a monk. Mr. Fisher seems to think that there is no in-between: either you're a flagellant living on beans and water with one shabby gray outfit in a cell-like room without plumbing, or one is incapable of making the transition to veganism while still enjoying the fruits of western civilization.
In the end, for many vegans it doesn't matter who's suffering; it's all terrible to behold. And to a vegan ALL life means precisely that. Who is a human to decide, based simply on being the powerholder, who gets to live and who gets to die? Many peace activists feel the same way.
I guess in the end you could say that vegans are just peace activists for non-humans.
"I guess in the end you could say that vegans are just peace activists for non-humans."
Wendy, I love this way of putting it.
it's a familiar argument: we're superior to animals when it suits us, and we're animals, just like lions and other carnivores when it suits, even if those comparisons turn out to be contradictory, as in animal testing...
I’m vegan, I find it rewarding in itself because I live out my values in a way that is more meaningful than most religions or philosophies that propose a bunch of nice sounding ideals, but go ahead and ignore them anyway.
Really, I view meat-eaters as the religious ones. How is my not participating in something a religion? Look, I’m not exploiting an animal, now I’m not going to read the bible and not pray facing Mecca.
Listen to the many defenses of meat eaters, it comes down to tradition, uncritical assumptions, unsubstantiated beliefs on nutrition, and worse, the supernatural “honoring the animal” and gooey feelings being one with nature and other woo arguments that make up many popular “back to the land” food books. You know the ones I’m talking about, I won’t even name names, they all have some chapter where they slaughter an animal and have some transcendental experience. Then there’s the plain old, “God gave us animals to use!” Yeah, and I’m the religious one.
The burden of proof of reason to do something is on the practitioner, not the bystander. It’s not that I’m even so much of a let’s help animals type, it’s more that I’ve experienced and heard all the assumptions and rationalizations for exploiting animals and I’ve determined that they are lacking. You even agree yourself Mr. Fisher.
I’ve thought my decision through, most people don’t even think about why they eat animals and if it comes up as you have noted, they are offended or feel attacked similar to questioning a religious person on their faith. I have little cognitive dissonance concerning my eating habits; if you want to talk about how my food is produced while I’m eating go right ahead. Try this at the table with meat-eaters and it’s a taboo blasphemy. You and other people don’t resent vegans; I think Freud would tell you that it’s more likely that you resent yourself. I know I sound sharp to say that, but I get the feeling that you wouldn’t disagree.
What sacrifice are you making exactly by being vegetarian? If eating animals is so rewarding for you that you are punishing yourself, please, go back to eating them. There are no vegetarian purity prizes or bonus get-into-heaven karma points and it’s unlikely that you’ll ever have reason to see a farm animal suffer if you don’t want to. It’s not about animal suffering for me, that’s a question for meat-eaters’ and vegetarians regarding the various conditions that animals are kept in.
It’s about exploitation for me (and informed vegans), if I don’t use animals (or humans) as means to my ends, I don’t have to concern myself about how just or unjust I treat them in the process, or if my using them is a wrong in the first place. I don’t wring my hands addressing the question of cruelty (it’s already too far gone at that point) and I address the question of “Do I really need to do this at this cost?” If I have a religious belief it’s that I really do try to live and let live. Can the same honestly be said for meat-eaters?
Some vegan’s think it’s about giving up all possessions. I don’t. I think it’s possible to significantly reduce animal exploitation and still have nice stuff. There are good reasons to have nice stuff. Affluence, and education, since they go together, and so long as we’re not excessive about it, is important for humanity so that we can be better than we were. I see no reason why exploiting animals should to be part of the spreading affluence and education, the pursuit of happiness, or bettering humanity’s condition. Animal exploitation seems counterproductive to the endeavor in my opinion.
I wouldn’t ban meat, that’s silly. Like the prohibition on alcohol, it wouldn’t work. If you are receptive to the idea of not exploiting animals take an honest look at how your behaviors align with your values and make appropriate changes if need be. If you think veganism is stupid, or are haplessly confounded by what grade school biology says about the distinction between plants and animals, or think “meat is tasty” trumps all attempts at rational dialog, than just ignore me, I’m not talking to you, but realize I have a right to free speech.
Also realize that I pay for meat-eaters’ diet with my taxes through government subsidies and the high price for the environmental damage of raising livestock and fishery depletion. I don’t eat that stuff, and I don’t like to pay for things that I don’t believe in. You can stop pleading “personal choice” the moment vegans stop paying for your expensive diet of animal sacrifice; let’s have separation of religion and state.
“Oh vegans, please stop proselytizing, we don’t bother you!” Sorry again meat eaters, count the number of ads for animal foods on television, including the ones I pay for in tax dollars for subsidies to corporations that promote dairy, eggs and meat. Why do these industries get subsidies and then proceed to place million dollar ad spots on television?
The Incredible Edible Egg
Milk, It Does a Body Good.
Beef, It’s What’s for Dinner
Pork, the Other White Meat
Happy Cows Make Happy Cheese.
(Not even brands, just agribusiness conglomerations)
Then there are all the fast food franchises. Where is all this vegan propaganda? Some pamphlets? The joke that is PETA? Please, at least you get a laugh out of them. The interesting thing is that they do more to better the safety of animal food supply by seeking the bare minimum of reasonable operations and sanitary conditions than they do to improve the quality of my vegetables.
Look vegetarians and meat eaters, I’m not berating you. I once ate meat and did the vegetarian thing for a while. I wouldn’t call a vegetarian a hypocrite, but I would ask a casual vegetarian to consider reading some history and philosophy on what you think you are practicing. Bear in mind historical perspective but ignore grandiose health claims and wrongheaded voodoo that crops up, even in modern literature, people have a lot of ideas on what vegetarianism should be, but there are reasonable sources to get a gist of what it is.
I think what many casual vegetarians are missing is the comprehensive view of what leads someone to be vegan. It’s not a focus on diet, that’s a byproduct. For example, Bryant Terry dips into much, much more than just “eating plant food” and that’s why he’s hesitant to label himself vegan, since the diet is all that most people think it’s about. He runs the gamut on social issues because of his belief in justice and fairness. His diet is merely a reflection of his core beliefs, it’s not the belief system.
Veganism isn’t hard or punishing, well, socially, it can get in the way, but most of the time the daily diet part, eating breakfast, lunch and dinner, becomes routine and doesn’t require all this “careful planning” you always hear about; not more planning than any other diet that makes any attempt at eating well.
Honestly, I’m somewhat lazy; if I’m vegan, than probably anyone could be.