I think this is a grab bag of ideas based on some kind of marxist view of the world. We see these type of people pop up in the green christian arenas. The idea that you can equate animal husbandry practices with abortion is silly.
He is correct in that liberalism does lead to freeing of restraints. His arguments are again proof that any .ism is going to be flawed as it tries to stuff the whole of human existence into a narrow world view.
No and yes.
Very true. If the OP is praising the linked article as a good example of well-crafted and sympathetic emotional propaganda for anti-abortion and humane-farming positions, I’d have to concur.
If we’re analyzing it in terms of rationally consistent arguments, though, I think we all seem to agree that it doesn’t hold up very well.
I doubt this article has been very popular with vegans.
*"Plants are not static or silly,” said Monika Hilker of the Institute of Biology at the Free University of Berlin. “They respond to tactile cues, they recognize different wavelengths of light, they listen to chemical signals, they can even talk” through chemical signals. Touch, sight, hearing, speech. “These are sensory modalities and abilities we normally think of as only being in animals,” Dr. Hilker said…
Just because we humans can’t hear them doesn’t mean plants don’t howl. Some of the compounds that plants generate in response to insect mastication — their feedback, you might say — are volatile chemicals that serve as cries for help. Such airborne alarm calls have been shown to attract both large predatory insects like dragon flies, which delight in caterpillar meat, and tiny parasitic insects, which can infect a caterpillar and destroy it from within…
“Even if you have quite a bit of knowledge about plants,” Dr. De Moraes said, “it’s still surprising to see how sophisticated they can be.”
It’s a small daily tragedy that we animals must kill to stay alive. Plants are the ethical autotrophs here, the ones that wrest their meals from the sun. Don’t expect them to boast: they’re too busy fighting to survive."*
Vegans are taking life and causing distress in the plant world that we are only beginning to understand. There are no “clean consciences” to be had in this debate. And that’s even before some vegans make the incorrect assumption that anti-abortion activities give them additional moral superiority.
I plan to become a mineralist if I can find a way to digest coal.
I agree with Kimsu too.
I also didn’t realize the extent of cruelty in pork farming. I had to give up veal on learning what it involved. I guess I’ll have to find a supply of free-range piggies to eat.
None of which has anything to do with my stand on abortion.
Meh. Even if the fact that plants have signal chemicals somehow means they experience pain, vegans are doing far less damage than nonvegans. That’s inarguable; it takes a lot of plants to make a pound of meat.
Given that the following is true:
Then your opposition to veganism must stem from misunderstanding. Veganism is not about being in some perfect state. It is about doing the least harm practicable. Currently it’s not practicable to not eat. If that changes we can revisit the argument over eating plants.
Why is it less harmful to kill and eat a plant than to kill and eat an animal?
Arguable, it is more harmful because you may have to kill and eat many plants to take in equivlent amount of nutrition as one single animal.
It is also arguable that killing animals is less harmful because many of them are essentially plant parasites. You could protect more plant life by killing animals that eat plant life.
The third reason I can think of is environmental. Killing plants is arguably more harmful to the environment because they take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and return oxygen.
The point was that you kill more plants by feeding and then butchering an animal than you do by just eating the plants.
Veganism does kill animals, of course, as pest control is a major part of agriculture. Probably more than one small mammal is killed for each cow’s worth of calories that is harvested in some forms of agricultural products. So anyone that sat down and tried to do a utilitarian moral calculation would have some tremendously complex inputs.
Great just what we need more greenhouse gases!
Until they can attack me with a shovel they can just suck up the pain.
“I’m less of a killer than you are!” isn’t an especially inspiring rally cry, nor is it one I hear much from vegans.
I don’t get your point. Is it just “I want to say something negative about veganism, and I’m willing to scrounge?”
These complications are why, while I support anyone making whatever choices work for them personally, I can’t get behind advocating a “moralistic” vegetarian/vegan lifestyle on a larger scale. It applies arbitrary judgments about what kind of life is ok to kill and what kind of life is irrelevant. Then, it tends to focus narrowly on making absolute statements about what we should and should not eat, and maybe about what we should and should not wear, and then beyond that the human impact on living things due to development, population, and industry becomes academic, and most vegetarians/vegans don’t hold a hard and fast line (or, for some, any line) about their non-dietary impact on living things.
Again, if one is vegetarian or vegan for moral reasons, that’s great! I applaud your efforts to impact the world in a positive way. However, the logic behind it leaves much to be desired, so if you don’t want to address the giant holes and gaps in your reasoning, please don’t try to convince me to follow the same path you are on.
Actually, I don’t mind vegetarianism/veganism being promoted as healthier than diets including meat (true in some respects, although calorie control has a lot do do with it). It’s the air of unquestionable moral superiority that accompanies vegeproselytizing that I find obnoxious and/or laughable, and I suspect I’m not alone.