Comment by bb01100100 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bb01100100 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

In your last sentence, were you meaning to minimize animal explotation (or just exploitation in general)?

I ask because I think veganism is often confused with lots of other good things..

I like to refer to the original (AFAICT) definition: https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

(I posted that link yesterday too, but have no affiliation with the site)

It seeks to exclude, where possible, where practicable. It doesn't rail against industrialisation or the global economy. It's not directly concerned with the environment or being kind or being healthy or improving human conditions. Those are all Good Things, but separate things.

When I get asked those questions (and the 'where do you get your protein', 'what about if you were on a desert island?', 'where do you get your protein?', 'what about happy cows?', 'where do you get your protein?', 'what about grass fed cows|chikens|whateva?', etc) I say that I'm vegan because I don't believe there is any need for the society I live in to use animals for any purpose. I'm okay with contradictions and inconsistencies - I evaluate and make the best choice I can, day by day. Those choices add up over time.

If I get pressed, then I posit two questions: 1) Do you know of any animals that proactively seek out death? 2) At the end of an animal farming process, does the animal die?

So if animals are killed at the end of a farming process, and no animals want proactively to die; the only reason I'd support that regime is for my own selfish preferences.

Given there are viable alternatives, I have the option of choosing not to support the systematic death of hundreds of millions of animals every day. Sounds rational and good to me.

That logic still dumbfounds my family - literally speechless, even in 2019. Sigh.

> If I get pressed, then I posit two questions: 1) Do you know of any animals that proactively seek out death? 2) At the end of an animal farming process, does the animal die?

Are you serious?

Disease, starvation, predation, accidents -- you are aware that animals do in fact die outside of farms, yes?

You are aware of the classification 'carnivore' yes?

What about agriculture? It destroys the environment, destroys animal habitats causing them sometimes to go extinct.

What about the worms in the soil getting chopped up by farm equipment? What about necessary pesticides that kill insect life?

Maybe we should blow up the entire planet to end all of the suffering once and for all.

It dumbfounds your family probably because they're more capable of critical thought than you are. Like a lot of 'activists' I seriously doubt you do anything in your life that actually improves life on this plant for people or any living thing.

Veganism is about people searching for identity. It's a marginally difficult diet to follow and it gives you something to constantly complain about, thereby drawing attention to yourself.

If you want to actually change the world for the better go do it. It's hard. You probably don't have what it takes. Stop pretending your soy latte makes one modicum of difference and stop whining about what others choose to eat.

Your critical thinking mind doesn't see a difference between "Disease, starvation, predation, accidents" and farming? Same goes for "getting chopped up by farm equipment"?

I'm sure you are slaughtering yourself due to necessity or true accident. If not, you might think less condescending about those lazy vegans which are actually making a tiny effort in their lives to choose things with less animal suffering involved then you are when there are alternatives.

Apart from that choice (mostly in the supermarket or shop) I don't see any reason to think you are better than "them" in any point of life. There might be even some which are more productive in the way you think matters most.

This doesn't make sense. That parent commenter said they avoid killing animals, and your reply is they shouldn't bother because animals still die.

It's like if I said, "I don't hunt people for sport" and someone replied,

"Disease, starvation, accidents -- you are aware that humans do in fact die outside of being hunted, yes?"

Sure, they die. What does that have to do with the morality of killing them?

> Disease, starvation, predation, accidents -- you are aware that animals do in fact die outside of farms, yes?

> You are aware of the classification 'carnivore' yes?

Perhaps my first question wasn't clear enough - I'm talking about animals that proactively seek out their own death; not carnivores that kill over things - sorry for the confusion. The context was that for me, it's not okay to go killing animals because we fed them well / gave them some free space before we killed them. One of the reasons that it's not okay is that it's unnecessary because we have alternatives.

> What about agriculture? It destroys the environment, destroys animal habitats causing them sometimes to go extinct.

Yes, agriculture destroys land, trees, ecosystems. Are you suggesting that animal production is in some way less destructive? If I recall correctly something like a 1/3 of global crop production goes into animal feed.

> What about the worms in the soil getting chopped up by farm equipment? What about necessary pesticides that kill insect life?

Worms and pesticides are straw-man arguments, so I'll pass on getting bogged down on that tangent.

> It dumbfounds your family probably because they're more capable of critical thought than you are.

That's interesting - I never said I was an activist. I shared some points of view. My family are very critical. They get all the benefits of sitting in a microcosm and ignoring the rest of the world. Ignorance truly is bliss for them.

> Like a lot of 'activists' I seriously doubt you do anything in your life that actually improves life on this plant for people or any living thing.

Nah, that's not true. I'm not overly keen to share specifics because I prefer some semblance of privacy here. I make choices in the small that, IMO, add up over time: No leather for the last 20 years (belts, shoes, car seats, jackets, etc). No silk. No meat, dairy, eggs, fish, insects etc. No international flights. Found the second-smallest small car that would fit a family of three. Commute to work on public transport. Buy local organic food that is freakishly expensive but IMO better for the environment. Provided a safe home for two rescue dogs (took them two years to feel safe and confident after their experiences).

> Veganism is about people searching for identity. It's a marginally difficult diet to follow and it gives you something to constantly complain about, thereby drawing attention to yourself.

Yes, it does seem to be that for many people I've met. It often seems to draw the type of person who likes to be on the outside, throwing stones. Now that it becoming more mainstream, this is thankfully less so. Some awesome people here on HN, too. Hi!

> If you want to actually change the world for the better go do it. It's hard. You probably don't have what it takes.

Here I am, talking to you, right?

> Stop pretending your soy latte makes one modicum of difference and stop whining about what others choose to eat.

Nah, it's too important to not discuss.

Question for you - you said it's hard changing that world? How do you know?

I feel you on the constant side-track 'what if?' questions for sure!

For my part, I don't cleave to the Vegan Society's definition of 'vegan,' or anybody else's but mine, for that matter. I use the word only as a generally-comprehensible shorthand for the choice schema I dig. In particular, my notion of'veganism' has a lot to do with environmental impact considerations and also discards the notion that humans and nonhuman animals are to be considered separately.

So, in answer to your initial question : yes minimize animal exploitation, yes that includes humans, and yes to also minimizing other types of exploitation.

One good, if jarring and sometimes a little eurocentric, book that shaped a lot of my ethical views along these lines is "Plant-Thinking" by Michael Marder

p.s. edit -- to clarify re : 'industrial society' comment : generally the thrust of folks' questions to me on that topic is along the lines of "Well, the exploitation of animals is so woven into the fabric of our society that for a person to credibly claim an honest effort in distancing themselves from it, they'd have to go be some kind of Edenic hermit out in the papaya-laden jungle. Hell, even the glue that holds your shoes together is probably animal-hide-derived. Your violin is probably finished with an insect-based varnish! Etc etc etc etc" Just like the "what ifs," a litany of difficulties, real or invented, that folks think might stand in the way of a logically consistent 'vegan' choice. [p.s. why people desire logical consistency in other folks' consumer choices in the first place is well beyond me]

Yes, the litany of difficulties that provide a scaffold upon which people can give themselves permission to do... nothing. I wonder if sometimes a clearly vocalized moral view strikes people as judgemental, so there is a reactive need to identify inconsistencies?

Interesting point of view regarding definition of vegan.. Not trying to annoy you, but surely the society that coined the term should be the reference for describing what that term means?

Thanks for the book link - it looks quite densely written and I'm embarrassed to say I struggled to follow the 'introduction' preview on Amazon. If you did find it of value, then I'll take that as a recommendation and make an attempt at it.

I think you're on to something there in re: clearly vocalized morals --> strikes people as judgmental and therefore provokes attempts to dismantle.

Re : definition : the funny thing is that, if I recall correctly, the Vegan Society's original raison d'etre was that they objected to the increasing liberality of people calling themselves "vegetarian" [eating cheese and such, whereas the V.S. felt that a 'vegetarian' ought to abstain from all animal products like Bronson Alcott, etc]. I guess I just don't place sufficient value in the label itself to give credence to any particular definition thereof -- it's just a shorthand to me, not a -- I dunno, uh, organized moral affiliation?

p.s. I used to say "strict vegetarian," but not only did people take that as being more strident than "vegan," but then when they found out I [for example] also didn't wear silk, they'd be like "oh you're veeegan!" and I be like "OK, as you wish!"

re : the Marder book : no need for embarrassment -- Marder is kind of a space cadet and roughly half the book is dedicated to ruminations on dead European philosophers -- it's kind of a chore to machete one's way through. BUT! The other half of it is actually some pretty arresting insights [or, at least, questions!] concerning ethics + morality + exploitation + hierarchy + organisms. I started it thinking Marder was a fool and finished it thinking he was the sharpest axe in the shed.

I often get “side channel” attacks - the classic “will you still only eat plants once it’s proven they feel pain, too” or “what’s next? Give animals rights and a say into government?” I excuse myself from the “conversation”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com