I have a good friend who has been veggie for several years now, but has recently announced that she is going vegan. I am a confirmed carnivore and my gut reaction (ha ha ha) is that she is crackers. On the other hand I know she is sincere and that veganism is a logical step for her from a moral standpoint.
What concerns me is how far a vegan is expected to go. I know that animal derived products are out and we have been investigating alternatives for footweare etc. but what about photography? It is my hobby and she used to like getting involved. What about books? Most printing still uses a photographic step. Digital will presumably take over in time but how to tell what process was used.
I am tempted to not tell her and hope that she does not find out herself (I don’t think she is aware of the photo-animal link yet) but would feel a little guilty about it if I am leading her into activities other vegans would frown at.
Well, I, for one, am glad you posted it in here by mistake. I hardly ever get to GQ (MPSIMS occupies much of my SDMB TIME). If you’d posted it there, I’d never have known if this topic and would’ve missed out.
Now I’m curious.
I could never survive as a vegan. I don’t like enough vegetables.
I am with you on that one Baloo. Combining mine and Katy-the-veg’s diet and you might come out with something approaching normal. This might account for why we are no more than ‘just good friends’
i have a few friends who are vegan, and they live pretty healthy lives. i can’t do it myself, i crave meat too much. but they seem to deal with it as far as only the eating of non animal/fish/fowl/bug type of thing, and wearing clothes that are either synthetic, or without being made at the expense of an animals life. They stick to it, and i suppose as long as they keep up a steady and consistent diet they can remain healthy. They never preach about it, nor have any issues with the fact that i like leather and my burgers made of cow. so i suppose thats as far as i’m willing to let them go, if they preached, or had issues with me that interfered with our being friends, i would not allow it, or rather, would sever ties with them immediately.
but if it comes down to it, Antarctica is pretty far off and expensive to send them, try NJ instead.
While I am not yet a vegan, I have been an ovo-lacto vegetarian for approaching 9 years now and aspire to be one some day. I still do eat some dairy, eggs and honey, but do not eat any animals nor do I use most animal-derived products such as leather, fur, or wool (to the best of my ability).
Like all things in life that involve a belief system of sorts you will find vegetarians/vegans at every point on the scale (from haphazard to militant) in their commitment. Of the veg’ans (shorthand for vegetarians and vegans as a combined group) ones I know most try to avoid any products that harm or result from the harming of animals. Photography, more specifically, the gelatin-film connection is a touchy issue for many, if not most, of them.
At present there are two alternatives both of which can be on the pricey side. As you mentioned, one is digital photography. A high-quality digital camera (one capable of lending a truly artistic slant to images) is likely to cost a pretty penny and will also likely require a high-end printer (another expense), which just may not be an option for most veg’ans. The other option is instant or Polaroid® film, where again, quality can be a serious issue and at $10-15/pkg for 10 exposures, it can be a costly proposition.
So, getting back to the idea of “trying to avoid any products,” trying is the important word to hear. Most of the people I know will do whatever they can to find and use alternative products; when and if there simply are no alternatives, they will minimize or reduce the use of those products as much as possible. (I suspect even PETA—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a most strongly vegan animal rights group—must succumb to using animal-derived film from time to time in preparing their campaigns.)
As to “how far a vegan is expected to go,” this is entirely up to your vegan-friend—it’s a personal choice. While there may be some rather affirmative, outspoken members of the vegan (animal) cause and community that can intimidate people, there are no vegan-police waiting to pounce on those who are trying to live in a compassionate manner and fall short in some way.
As far as leading her astray (so to speak), all I can say is that decisions regarding the activities in which she participates should really be hers-—based on ALL the facts/information. Personally, if I learned that a friend were purposefully misleading me or not providing me with all the information they had regarding an activity which he/she knew would pose an ethical (or moral or religious, etc.) dilemma for me, it would hurt me deeply. And it would probably cause more harm to our relationship than my ceasing to participate in that particular activity with that friend. In my opinion, by giving her the information and allowing her to make an informed decision, you are being a better friend to her.
My final suggestion is this: put yourself in her non-leather shoes {:D}for a moment and ask yourself whether you would want your friend to share this information. The best way I can think of for meat-eaters to empathize with vegetarians/vegans is to imagine the animal product you’re discussing as a human animal product. That is, imagine learning that human bone marrow was used in film production and ask yourself how you would feel…to a lot of ethical vegetarians, who feel that all sentient beings deserve the same level of respect as humans, that is the equation they are doing.
I’m a long time vegetarian, and pretty much vegan, although I do eat eggs and dairy occasionally. Usually it’s when I eat out, because there’s very little available in most places. For me, it’s better to be flexible than be rigid and starve. I also don’t like to make a big deal of it and get everyone all worked up in a social situation. I’m grateful for any food I get.
I have also been a photographer for most of my life. I didn’t realize that film and paper were made with animal products until well into my usage of them. It bothers me, but I still use them. Digital imaging is beyond my budget now, and even if it weren’t, the technology isn’t up to par with my forte; black and white archival prints, and color work using transparencies. I’ll be glad for the day when I don’t have to use them. For that matter, I’d be glad not to ever have to cause suffering to any creature in order to live, but, you do the best you can. Nothing is perfect.
I would tell your friend about the composition of photographic products and let her make her own decision on using them. If she has the means, she might find that digital images suit her needs. It hadn’t occurred to me until now, but you can even extend it to watching films! Oh well, like I said, you do the best you can with what you’re aware of, and try to make the best choices. It’s not like some trap door is going to open and send you down to Hell for trying. But when you can make a difference, it’s worth trying.
Oh, no, now I’m going ot be the one to bear the stigma of turning this into a Great Debate…
You want to spare an animal suffering? Then drink your milk. It’s actually painful for a dairy cow to not be milked. And if it weren’t for their value as porkchops, I’ll bet there’d be a lot less pigs in the world. The fact is, from a point of view of the species as a whole, it can actually be a good thing to be eaten.
Oh, and those non-leather shoes that you’re wearing? Are you aware that extensive animal labor went into the production of them? Yup, that’s right, we’re animals, too.
elelle, if you eat eggs and dairy once in a while, your’e not pretty much vegan at all. dairy, eggs, honey… that all comes from the innards of other creatures.
as for not wanting to harm animals, i don’t think all vegans are vegans for that reason, i believe it’s a health issue with them. Milk, for example, is not as healthy as the government or your mom would have you believe. of course, i only know one true vegan that is vegan for health reasons, so it’s not a widespread thing.
but i gotta agree with Chronos on one thing:
We don’t eat them, they begin to overpopulate, not enough food for them and us, they die needlesly as a result, or we hunt for sport more than anything becuase of the surplus of animals roaming the planet. We eat them, there develops a balance to the ecosystem in which they can continuously reproduce and we continuously live healthy lives without worrying about killing them for just sport.
(Wondering to self) Dare I share or am I setting myself up? I’m still such a newbie, but here I go…
I’m fairly new around here and don’t know you. Whenever that is the case I assume the person I am addressing—the one posing the questions or challenge for debate—is doing so out of genuine interest in the subject and making an effort to learn, not merely trying to provoke a heated argument for titillation’s sake (not that there’s anything wrong with that! :)). In my case I do not consider “debate” and “argument” synonyms based on the form, content and intent of the participants (though I do realize they are technically synonyms).
And so I shall assume yours (Chronos) is not a malicious or mischievous challenge to defenders of veg’anism, rather that the fallacies of your points are based on a lacking of the facts and years of indoctrination by the meat and dairy industries through their “generous contributions” to public schools (assuming, of course, you are a subject of the U.S. where that kind of lobbying is permissible and tolerated) to believing what you do. Therefore, I will respond to your inquiry-comments in order to promote education and further this discussion, not to preach a message of vegetarianism to the masses. You may assume that I am referring primarily to ethical vegetarian/veganism when I refer to beliefs, but the facts are facts when stated as such.
Gee, that’s odd—my breasts don’t hurt from not being milked.
All mammals are milk producers; it’s one of the defining criteria for “mammals.” For some reason it seems our society (and specifically the U.S. since other countries do not limit their milk production/consumption to bovine so much as we do) is convinced that cows walk around 24/7/365 brimming with milk—just aching to give it away to humans. The fact is that like all mammals, cows produce milk when they produce young based on hormonal signals in their bodies. (Their young, which I point out as a side note, seldom ever actually suckle from their mother’s teat in the modern farm environment.) To keep milk production high, dairymen must keep cows pregnant and on hormones. In nature calves would nurse and gradual wean themselves, then the cow’s milk production would gradually reduce (just as with human animals who opt to breast feed their children) until it stopped all together.
To expand upon this line of logic, milking machines and an unnatural, overproduction of milk in cows due to artificially introduced hormones and increased pregnancies, cows’ utters can become overly large causing them pain.
Quality of Life?
You may be right—if not for the breeding of animals for food by humans there would not be nearly so many animals bred…but what is your point? If we were not killing them for food, there wouldn’t be a need to breed so many and those that naturally procreate wouldn’t be in nearly so much danger from their current greatest predator.
Besides, if a pig were never born (into a captive environment for food production), would that animal know it did not exist? And, if that pig could somehow know it should exist but did not because it was not bred by a farmer into a factory farm, would it miss the short miserable life it was avoiding by not coming into existence? I think not.
And with the serious quantity and quality of life issues involved in today’s modern farming practices and treatment of animals in meat production facilities, what would be the benefit to any animal population be of propagation for that end?
You are quick to assume that “extensive animal labor” goes into the non-leather shoes worn by ethical veg’ans. First, this labor is not necessarily detrimental or harmful to the producers just because it is “extensive.”
Second, if you are referring to shoes produced by laborers in less fortunate countries or by workers mistreated and paid “slave wages,” I must ask why you assume that people who are opting for a lifestyle which promotes compassion and kindness to ALL animals would exclude their own species from that circle of compassion? Wouldn’t they be (and in fact many I know are) even more likely to strive to buy products which do not hurt, abuse or take advantage of human animals as well?
Third, many of the veg’ans I know go to great lengths not only to avoid harming animals (human and non-human) but also take into consideration the effect their purchases have on the environment and natural resources. I know at least a couple of people who will only purchase clothes, shoes, etc. from second-hand stores because of a belief that they are prolonging the useful life of those items and NOT draining any natural resources to meet their needs.
While I don’t totally disagree with the ideology that as a part of the ecosystem we, humans, likewise have a place in keeping it balanced and that can involve the killing and eating of other species for survival. Unfortunately, mankind has done far more to unbalance the ecosystem through his mass hunting and land clearing (deforesting) efforts. In fact, it is the desire to consume and mass-produce meat from selected animals rather than merely taking from a natural surplus, which continues the cycle of even greater unbalance and displacing more and more wildlife.
Also, the assumption of surplus animals (overpopulation) presupposes (in my opinion anyway) that animals would continue to breed naturally at the same rate at which farmers breed them, which is not necessarily so. Also, what may appear as a “surplus of animals roaming the land” may be a result of less land for them to roam as mankind continues to develop, build and expand into previously wild areas.
Conversely, to extrapolate this line of logic to its natural end, we should begin (in the U.S. anyway) to begin eating cats and dogs since there is a feral population explosion of these animals in our country. Again, we have unbalanced nature through irresponsible management and caused a surplus of animals rather than preventing their overpopulation, but since we consider these animals companions and not nourishment, most people I know are repulsed at even the thought or suggestion. [But I digress.]
One final note, if you read back to my original message, you will find my reference to “trying.” Vegetarians and vegans try to prevent and avoid harming other animals (all animals), no one is perfect in succeeding all the time in all ways—we all just do what we can and what we feel ethically compelled to do.
Peta Tzunami speaks!
in regards to what i said, it has nothing to do with the rest of what mankind has done to ruin the ecosystem, that’s topic for another thread. This, neighbor, has to do with Veganism.
I welcome you as a newbie but i’ll let you in on something that might help. Stay on topic.
this way we avoid it actually becoming a GD thread.
and, we can focus on the issue.
Veganism is not something bad as i pointed out earlier, but if one does practice it, they should realize the correct reasons for it. Health, Morals and Values are good reasons. If someone decides that that is what they want to do, then so be it. In a good way, to each ones own. If someone wants to stretch Veganism to a point where it destroys anything from their own health to relationships and/or the enviornment, that’s bad. Attachments are bad. Be vegan for yourself, for your own reasons, not because someone else said to, or in spite.
The OP was “to what lenghths should the person go in being a vegan”, this entails avoiding the eating of anything which in any shape or form harms an animal/fish/fowl/insect… or comes from the innards of one. Dairy, Honey… etc.
my ultimate suggestion is go ahead, become a vegan if you can, it’s very hard in todays world, just don’t go eco-terrorist on us, 'cause that solves nothing, and does more harm than good. (though i have dreamed of being Hayduke from “The Monkey Wrench Gang”)
Thank you for the welcome and the advice, I do appreciate it and endeavor to follow it. {Though I have few posts to my name, I’ve lurked sufficiently to note that y’all seldom stay EXACTLY on topic.}
One minor comment though, I only incorporated the ecosystem comments into my reply AFTER I noted your mention of it following Chronos’ post. Since life does not exist in a vacuum, IMHO you cannot comment (in a vegan thread) about balancing the ecosystem through the eating of “surplus animals” without also considering in at least a peripheral manner, what effect that will have on the system or what has caused that implied imbalance.
True, and probably my own fault and to my detriment that I grabbed onto Chronos’ query and comments which was veering the discussion off-topic.
One other small point of order, the OP was actually pertaining to how far a moral (ethical) vegan will go in her beliefs and whether or not Ticker, who’s friend is becoming a vegan, should tell her that photography involves animal-derived products.
I shared my opinion, as Ticker requested, on that subject. It was in response to Chronos’ message that I elaborated on the topic of veganism and ethics (more specifically the subject of milk and animal populations), and now I’m done.
Apologies, Peta, I did mean to just raise some points in a non-confrontational manner, but I think that maybe I did come on too strong. As far as cows go, however, they are specifically bred to produce more milk than their young can consume, so a feral cow that was feeding only its own young would indeed feel pain from it. You can make the argument that breeding cows that way in the first place is inhumane exploitation, but now that we’ve got them, we’ve got to do something with them. A reasonable suggestion might be to slowly taper off dairy production.
As to milk not being as healthy as is commonly thought, lactose is the most common allergy in th world. Most experts agree that over half of the population is lactose intolerant to some degree. I’ve never heard of any evidence that milk was unhealthy to those without the allergy, though.
i’ll definitely be back with links on the reports of dairy and it’s links to some diseases, mostly this is because of all the junk they feed the animals these days, good reason to go organic… but as far as morality goes, i quote myself:
what i’m trying to point to is that one can’t make ultimate decisions for another in moral issues, so the one with the moral issues, should in fact probably go about their business and hope that if anything, others will “see the light” and perhaps go about finding ways to change. Otherwise, in today’s world, ticker, it’s hard to condemn someone for doing something they love becuase it has negative effects or in your case, uses animal by products…, when it is also an everyday thing. It’s become so common in our society. Is there an alternative that doesn’t include the photo-animal link? if not, i would think your friend must accept it and leave it. Perhaps your friendship means more to your friend anyway, and she will understand. You know her better then we.
Ok, sorry 'bout the posting twice in a row. Not sure how reliable anything on the net can truly be, but this can’t be too far off, but take this with a grain of salt. Still, it’s informative.All about milk and the NOTMILK site.
The main thing here is that everybody is right and everybody is wrong. Both sides have good arugements and both sides can get fanatical. I think the important thing is to look at the human body. We are omnivores we are built to eat both plants and animals. I don’t know about you guys but my teeth are made for both tearing flesh and grinding plant matter. I do beleive that animals are being exploited and I with we never started the domestication of some species but the fact of the matter is you need to adapt to survive. As humans we have few natural defences. We don’t have fur to keep us warm , we don’t have claws, strong jaws and teeth or any number of more exotic ways to defend your selfs and our offspring. For the human race to survive we needed to adapt Mother Nature to us. We used animals for food and clothing we cut down trees to make houses, We harness nature in the science and technology to make our life more comfortable and to advance human life. Maybe we did take some wrong turns and some things are screwed up but right now we have over 6 Billion on this earth to feed and to me at least the human race comes first. I really doubt the a beaver looks into a tree to see if anybody is living up ther before he chews it down, and I really cares if his dam drowns a couple of animals. I truely and honestly wish that animals did not have to be hurt and manipulated for sake of mankind but that is the way life is.
