Veganism

sungod

Thick Mike wrote:

Apparently Michelin tyres are vegan...

http://thriftyveganliving.blogspot.co.u ... tyres.html

can't see where michelin guaranteed that no animal was killed, had its habitat destroyed, or was otherwise abused in the production of the plants

also, tyres contain things like...

natural rubber - rubber plantations
synthetic rubber - petrochemicals
steel wires - ore open cast mining

all three industries can be pretty grim for the local, and sometimes not so local, wildlife

Pross

I think you're taking things into the realms of ridiculousness now. Vegans committ to doing everything reasonable to avoid what they see as exploitation of animals, I think the above goes beyond that. No doubt if suitable alternatives were available they'd use them.

sungod

what's ridiculous?

it's a smug self-satifsied blog about how some are tyres are more 'vegan' than others, paying no heed to the real world

people like that make me want to vomit, in their faces, twice

what's the problem with pointing out this blogger's wilful ignorance? is it 'vegan' as long as the carcasses of the animals killed when their habitat was destroyed aren't mixed with the rubber?

i've got no issue if people want to choose what they eat, but when they post holier than though blogs claiming x is better than y based upon self-righteous bulls​hit, i'll happily grind their smug hypocritical faces in the reality they ignore

ballysmate

Will that vomit contain meat?

joenobody

drlodge wrote:

It doesn't cause a problem. My point being that its better for the animals to have a net positive life experience with death at the end (humanely done) than to have no life at all.

It's better to deliberately breed an animal and then cut short its life to eat it, as long as it gets well looked after the short time it's alive? Surely better to let them live out their full lives without being killed, or not breed them in to existence in the first place?

Jez mon

JoeNobody wrote:

drlodge wrote:

It doesn't cause a problem. My point being that its better for the animals to have a net positive life experience with death at the end (humanely done) than to have no life at all.

It's better to deliberately breed an animal and then cut short its life to eat it, as long as it gets well looked after the short time it's alive? Surely better to let them live out their full lives without being killed, or not breed them in to existence in the first place?

Would you rather never have been born than die prematurely?

Ben6899

Jez mon wrote:

JoeNobody wrote:

drlodge wrote:

It doesn't cause a problem. My point being that its better for the animals to have a net positive life experience with death at the end (humanely done) than to have no life at all.

It's better to deliberately breed an animal and then cut short its life to eat it, as long as it gets well looked after the short time it's alive? Surely better to let them live out their full lives without being killed, or not breed them in to existence in the first place?

Would you rather never have been born than die prematurely?

Ben6899 wrote:

We're blurring into existentialism, now.

joenobody

Jez mon wrote:

Would you rather never have been born than die prematurely?

Probably the former, not that it's relevant.

Jez mon

JoeNobody wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Would you rather never have been born than die prematurely?

Probably the former, not that it's relevant.

Seems pretty relevant.

With pretty much animal a human eats, the only reason the animal was ever bought into the world was to be consumed. So it's literally a choice between killing the animal prematurely, or the animal not existing at all.

I mean honestly, can't help but feel that on balance, my life has been pretty OK. Seems better to die prematurely than to never have had anything. Probably...

briantrumpet

Jez mon wrote:

JoeNobody wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Would you rather never have been born than die prematurely?

Probably the former, not that it's relevant.

Seems pretty relevant.

With pretty much animal a human eats, the only reason the animal was ever bought into the world was to be consumed. So it's literally a choice between killing the animal prematurely, or the animal not existing at all.

I mean honestly, can't help but feel that on balance, my life has been pretty OK. Seems better to die prematurely than to never have had anything. Probably...

There's the interesting conundrum too that from the genes' POV, farming ensures their continued existence and development: as long as the breeding continues, though the individual animals cop it prematurely, their genes survive and thrive.

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

We're blurring into existentialism, now.

[/quote]

Food is pretty existential anyway, in a very practical way.

Denying yourself bits of food that others regularly eat in order to exist is always gonna be existentialist. Especially when the reasons are to do with the lives and deaths of other beasts.

joenobody

Jez mon wrote:

Seems pretty relevant.

I'm still not convinced that my view on that has any bearing on the discussion around veganism.

With pretty much animal a human eats, the only reason the animal was ever bought into the world was to be consumed. So it's literally a choice between killing the animal prematurely, or the animal not existing at all.

True. My opinion on which I'd prefer has no bearing on that

I mean honestly, can't help but feel that on balance, my life has been pretty OK. Seems better to die prematurely than to never have had anything. Probably...

I did consider that angle but, without knowing how old you are, I'm assuming you've live a relatively larger proportion of your life than the average food animal has done when it goes to slaughter. Same applies to me, at probably half, or a little less than half, of my expected lifespan. No animals live that much of their lives:

haydenm

I know this probably isn't your point but I would say that I'm probably not a baby eater on account of the fact that I haven't eaten any babies. Humans have babies, animals have calves and the like.

Stevo_666

Going vegetarian would have the same effect.

chris_bass

HaydenM wrote:

I know this probably isn't your point but I would say that I'm probably not a baby eater on account of the fact that I haven't eaten any babies. Humans have babies, animals have calves and the like.

actually humans have infants, baby is not the proper term

sungod

JoeNobody wrote:

I did consider that angle but, without knowing how old you are, I'm assuming you've live a relatively larger proportion of your life than the average food animal has done when it goes to slaughter. Same applies to me, at probably half, or a little less than half, of my expected lifespan. No animals live that much of their lives:

that's ill-conceived propaganda, produced by cynics to deceive the gullible

fact: if these animals were not raised to be eaten, their lifespans would be zero

as it's clearly proposing that longer lifespan is better, the propaganda therefore supports raising animals for food, as that means net total lifetime is greater than if we were all vegan

cut the emotional nonsense, whether to eat animals or not is a matter of personal choice, not an ethical absolute

make that choice by all means, but don't try using such nonsense as that cynical chart to justify it

the ethical choices are whether we treat animals well during their lives, avoid needless distress when we kill them, and have the decency to avoid waste

joenobody

HaydenM wrote:

I know this probably isn't your point but I would say that I'm probably not a baby eater on account of the fact that I haven't eaten any babies. Humans have babies, animals have calves and the like.

Indeed. The "headline" is rather extreme, and it's not an angle I would use. Doesn't change the lifespan of these animals used in these industries.

joenobody

Stevo 666 wrote:

Going vegetarian would have the same effect.

Can you clarify? It's not clear to me what you're referring to.

joenobody

sungod wrote:

that's ill-conceived propaganda, produced by cynics to deceive the gullible

fact: if these animals were not raised to be eaten, their lifespans would be zero

as it's clearly proposing that longer lifespan is better, the propaganda therefore supports raising animals for food, as that means net total lifetime is greater than if we were all vegan

cut the emotional nonsense, whether to eat animals or not is a matter of personal choice, not an ethical absolute

make that choice by all means, but don't try using such nonsense as that cynical chart to justify it

the ethical choices are whether we treat animals well during their lives, avoid needless distress when we kill them, and have the decency to avoid waste

I disagree, but it seems that you're missing my point, deliberately or otherwise. A vegan will take the position that it's better not to breed these animals in to existence to then cut their lives short for our benefit. Yes it means they wouldn't live otherwise (these specific animals at least), but so what? Unfortunately no-one is really prepared to stop the breeding and let the animals proser, or not, on their own. And letting them loose "in the wild" would be tricky as we encroach ever further in the countryside.

Nice to see the "ethics are subjective" (paraphrased) argument thrown in there. The fact is that more and more people are starting to see that eating animals, or using their bodies for our benefit is not ethical. Without getting in to the whole anthropomorphism discussion again, it's akin to slavery, which was once thought acceptable but now isn't.

No-one seems willing to tackle the question I keep asking - if we don't need to do it, why do we persist with it? "Personal choice" seems to me to be a cop out. It's like saying "I recongise the moral aspect, but choose to ignore it". In fact, it's not uncommon to see/hear meat eaters use that line when engaging with vegans.

drlodge

JoeNobody wrote:

A vegan will take the position that it's better not to breed these animals in to existence to then cut their lives short for our benefit. Yes it means they wouldn't live otherwise (these specific animals at least), but so what?

By asking "so what" you're missing the argument. Quality of life is better than no quality of life...without life there is no quality. By raising animals and cutting their life short to some extent, we're give these animals some quality of life, which is better than not giving them life at all.

By how much do you think these animals life can be cut short in order to maintain your argument they should not have been raised in the first place? 30%? 50%? 80%?

haydenm

JoeNobody wrote:

Without getting in to the whole anthropomorphism discussion again, it's akin to slavery, which was once thought acceptable but now isn't.

It would not surprise me if in 100 years people look back and say what evil monsters we are for farming animals as we do but that isn't necessarily a reason to change immediately. While I respect their potential views it is a fundimental fallacy to think that the future means progress and ethics is a straight line towards enlightenment. Applying current ethical thinking to past events is largely pointless in a lot of cases. Anyway, we will be eating lab grown meat/protein by then anyway for sustainability reasons

TheBigBean

What's the vegan position on carnivore animals? Perhaps they should be humanely neutered?

Stevo_666

JoeNobody wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Going vegetarian would have the same effect.

Can you clarify? It's not clear to me what you're referring to.

Pretty obvious really.

The ad says go vegan and save animals lives - as they wouldn't need to be killed so that we can eat them. If people go vegetarian, they wouldn't need to killed either.

bompington

Stevo 666 wrote:

If people go vegetarian, they wouldn't need to killed either.

Does that mean that people who don't go vegetarian, will need to be killed? :shock:

twist83

People are free to eat, not eat. Do whatever and whomever they wish. We are all different.

However I prefer not to have it rammed down my throat and I may be making a sweeping statement but in my exposure with Vegan's. Most usually bang on about it more than is necessary. It does get tiring after a while.

straas

I always hear about vegans or vegetarians constantly telling everyone about their dietary choices - but in my experience this simply hasn't been true.

It's generally quite the opposite, when someone determines that someone else is a vegetarian or vegan they seem to want to challenge them: "what, not even bacon?"

I don't think anyone's under the illusion that current farming practises are compatible with a rising population, beef is likely to increase in cost in the short to medium term - it's already heavily subsidised in the UK and generally uses up agreeable arable land. Sheep, deer etc are more sustainable as they can graze in areas that are difficult or pointless to farm. Chickens are ubiquitous - I hope we don't have to go down the american route if we have to take on TTIP.

In terms of land use - who decided it was a good idea to put solar farms on previously arable land? surely those huge warehouses being built along most motorway corridors could have a few panels slapped on the roof instead?

joenobody

drlodge wrote:

By asking "so what" you're missing the argument. Quality of life is better than no quality of life...without life there is no quality. By raising animals and cutting their life short to some extent, we're give these animals some quality of life, which is better than not giving them life at all.

I understand the argument. I just don't agree with it. Let's take a dairy cow as an hypothetical example. Let's say it lives in the lap of luxury, endless green pastures, heated sheds, etc, etc. We would still artificially inseminate it to keep it producing babies, which are then taken away shortly after birth so that machines can drain it of milk on a regular basis. Once it's passed it's calf bearing/milk delivering prime it's sent off for slaughter. What kind of life is that really? Not much of one in my view. Looking again at the infographic, the only exception might be chickens, as long as you don't kill them off when they stop laying - unlikely though as no farmer wants the financial burden of looking after unproductive animals.

By how much do you think these animals life can be cut short in order to maintain your argument they should not have been raised in the first place? 30%? 50%? 80%?

0%, unless you're talking about a planned full life cut short due to ill health (euthanasia, rather than dying early of natural causes).

joenobody

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pretty obvious really.

Or not, otherwise I wouldn't have asked

The ad says go vegan and save animals lives - as they wouldn't need to be killed so that we can eat them. If people go vegetarian, they wouldn't need to killed either.

Vegetarians still, mostly, eat eggs and dairy, so some animals still die to feed them. Often they'll also still wear leather/wool. It's a step in the right direction, although it seems strange to me that someone would go veggie for ethical reasons, instead of vegan.

bompington

JoeNobody wrote:

Standing in a field eating grass. What kind of life is that really? Not much of one in my view

FTFY

You actual post neatly illustrates the anthropomorphism behind most animal rights stuff. You literally cannot put yourself in an animal's hooves and imagine how they must feel.

joenobody

twist83 wrote:

However I prefer not to have it rammed down my throat and I may be making a sweeping statement but in my exposure with Vegan's. Most usually bang on about it more than is necessary. It does get tiring after a while.

Sorry to hear that. Sounds like you've been unlucky to have met only militant vegans. The majority of us aren't like that. A bit like cyclists really - some are idiots who flout the law and ride dangerously, but most are't.

What I've noticed since I went vegan is just how often people talk about food. Conscious of the stereotype I tend not to talk about it unless it comes up explicitly (veganism, not food in general). However, when conversation turns to food it's often difficult to avoid mentioning it. What I find particularly accurate is the stereotype of meat eaters, who are happy to shove any old crap down their throats, but will suddenly be worried about the quality of your diet when they find out you're vegan.