Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
I felt we should start in earnest with something I’ve seen repeatedly in other threads on Lemmy - veganism. I’ve tried to have discussions on it elsewhere, but they tend to heavily downvote me when I describe the complex communication systems plants and fungi have.
I am not arguing that you should not be a vegan or vegitarian. I am arguing against poor and misapplied arguments and would like converts to channel their energy into more productive approaches.
PREFACE
There are many sources and studies claiming how plants communicate via root systems, pheromones, and other mechanisms (some we’re discovering continually). As someone who worked in forestry (and lived on a non-corporate farm that produced mostly alfalfa), it’s somewhat more apparent once you’re there and present in that world.
Some brief citations:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm
You can find many more if you look, however you can also find refutations based on what “pain” really means.
Regardless, we’ve known for quite a while that most plants have pain responses, and fungi are absolutely notorious for this. Speak to a botanist (or read the articles above) and they’ll tell you that plants respond to warnings from their peers about dangers, brace for pain, and signal pain to others. To be clear they don’t seem to feel pain (but keep in mind that they said this for years about crustaceans as well, but it was simply because we didn’t know how they functioned well enough) - not understanding the pain or “othering” the pain because it isn’t one you’d care to recognize does not mean there is no pain.
There are several things that I feel are inarguable: Life for some organisms means death for others. Period. You can not avoid it on a micro or macro scale, all you can do is change WHAT you kill and attempt to eliminate suffering. Not all death causes suffering, and not all suffering causes death.
Plants are cool as hell though I suppose that understanding the above means that it can fuck with the worldview of vegetarians, and nobody likes that.
THE CRUX
Now, if what I’m interpreting from vegans on other threads (and real life) is correct, their argument stems from a moralistic one. Moralistic arguments are not solid stances to argue from; similar to a hardcore Christian seeing abortions as vile and evil because of a personal moral stance, they feel their moral position is better, therefore they look down on opposition. However that is a personal opinion and those aren’t convincing - certainly not for sensitive topics.
So let’s approach the debate from a semi-scientific standpoint because I want to make sure they are not being misinterpreted.
Some reasons I have seen to be on the vegan side of things (and some responses to those) are:
-
If you want to be vegan because you enjoy it? Go for it. That is inarguable. It’s no more or less valid than someone liking the colour red.
-
If you want to be vegan because you feel it’s healthier? Rock on. Go you! You are probably correct if you monitor your diet. I would argue against it being healthier than a vegetarian diet however.
-
If you want to be vegan because it’s easier on the environment? Well, for individuals I would agree! You can make a good case that it would be better for the planet, but only because we’re overpopulated in respect to how we’ve been doing things and haven’t adjusted as a species to account for the extra population. At the moment (statistically), being vegan is unsustainable if the entire planet were to switch tomorrow. A smarter case to make would be for a reduction in humans as being vegan is an extremely minor step of harm reduction compared to fewer people. Also, most food fed to livestock is not human-consumable and is often byproducts that would otherwise go to waste. Creating more food from waste is more efficient than discarding it.
-
Factually and inarguably, humans are omnivores and are we are predisposed to eat meat. Nearly every other non-insect animal species eats meat to some extent either intentionally or not. Cows eat bugs in the grass they consume, deer will eat chicks when they can, many species will eat eggs if they find them, and the list continues. Heck, most of the food coming from other species who can’t eat mean is non-vegan in that it is a product from another animal (either as waste or otherwise). Being functionally able to be vegan is an extraordinarily privileged and unusual position to be in as far as humans go as there is a greater cost with some places on Earth completely unable to do so even if they wished to. Among animals in general I feel this is even moreso, and I consider humans just another animal. If anything, I see the vegan position as removing humans from the animal kingdom and positioning us above them. I find this supposition to be arrogant.
-
If you want to be vegan because you don’t like factory farms? Sure, I hate them too, however quitting animal products altogether is not a logical jump to make from that feeling. There are plenty of smaller suppliers you can procure from that do not have those issues; the more logical jump is to just not use bad providers no matter what the product. For example, I have raised bees and worked in a co-operative apiary. There was no abuse, and the likely alternative to us creating the hives was death for the entire bee community. I would heartily disagree that being vegan and refusing this particular honey is more of a positive act than essentially creating hives and colonies from scratch.
-
If you want to be vegan because it’s eliminating suffering (or death)? Again, kind of. This is simply making substitutions for death that you’re comfortable with, be it non-sentient (or sentient in a way you don’t recognize) life or otherwise. You can make an argument that it’s somehow lesser because an animal death is more comparable to human death, but it’s bad logic and therefore a bad argument. This is also applying your own morals (because again, this is a strictly moral standpoint) to other people, which is silly no matter who is doing it. From activists to religious extremists, your morals apply to you and only you and you must prove out that the choice you view as moral is the intelligent choice, and not a strictly emotional one. Do not try to enforce them on the outside world. You can argue for them, but getting mad at anyone with a differing view is silly and unproductive. As I said, you can lessen suffering or death, but you can not eliminate it. Your existence causes death. All existence does. Everything alive is only alive because it feeds off other living things who have their own way of existing, be it sentient (which is a differentiation humans created) or otherwise. A suffering or death being a style you choose to not recognize is not only not a valid defence, it makes you just as guilty as those you attack. Some anti-vegan opposition also feel that their being is higher than those they ingest and they also do not recognize the deaths of those they consider lesser, they simply drew their line elsewhere on the scale of life.
Let’s do a thought experiment!
If you could have a choice to either painlessly shoot a deer though the head, or (elsewhere and in accordance with nature) a lion would tear the animal apart over the course of an hour while slowly eating it alive, which is the more moral choice?
Would not eating the meat be wasteful?
Is the lion immoral?
Are you better or more moral than the lion?
AND ONE MORE THING
The way vegans are going about it in these threads on Lemmy isn’t helpful to their cause. Mindless emotion-driven downvoting and anger-posting does not change hearts or minds. Yelling at people making stupid “bacon = good” jokes doesn’t convert people, it only entrenches them.
A better outreach would be to use the Food subs and post legit great vegetarian food and entice people that way. I feel that doing it the way they are now will accomplish nothing of value. Well, unless they secretly work for a factory farm and want to piss people off so they eat more meat, in which case those psuedo-vegans are doing exactly what they should be in these threads which is mindlessly downvoting instead of engaging.
The animals we create are morally equivalent to our own children and are owed the same unconditional love and protection. The experiences of animals are real and matter. Their suffering is identical in nature to your own. It harms us when we take pleasure in cruelty and violence.
I do believe this was covered above though.
Do you have a logical reason that people should choose your moral code over another?
What moral code is that, that I am supposed to be promoting?
It is a philosophical argument, not a moral one, to argue that the animals we create are morally equivalent to the children we create. The animals we create have all the same moral qualities as the children we create. Any argument that applies to one then applies to the other. Your personal moral code can tell you what to do with that, but you don’t even need to have a moral code to recognize that the equivalence exists.
There are factual, not moral arguments that animals experience suffering the same way we do, using the same brain structures we use, and that they have experiences at all. There is no hint of morality in this argument.
It is a psychological and spiritual claim, not a moral claim, that engaging in violence and cruelty is harmful to us.
Do you have a logical argument that contradicts anything I said? Because that would have been a much better place to start. The suggestion by making this post that I am trying to “enforce” my personal moral system on others is rather rude.
I didn’t say you were promoting it, I simply asked why someone would choose to abide by your moral code. Please do not put words in peoples mouths. A moral standpoint has a specific definition and I am abiding by it when I use the phrase.
A moral standpoint is ephemeral. It is personal. It’s often not logical.
And the argument is philosophical, but the conclusion is moral (which is the conclusion you draw). An absurdist example of this is: “Is a man who would beat his wife still a good person if he never gets married and therefore never beat anyone?”
The answer is largely moral because it deals with the morals of the reader. There is no hard and fast solution because it hinges at tons of factors that lay with the reader.
Spiritualism is moral as well. Is a Christian better than a Buddhist? Is a Muslim better than an atheist? Do sheep go to hell? All moral or philosophical questions that all hinge of the belief of the reader, so it’s irrelevant to the problem.
I did not make the claim that animals don’t feel suffering like people do (although it may very likely be the case). Also, scientifically, you’re asking for someone to prove a negative. It’s like asking someone to disprove God exists - it is a complete logical fallacy. You may as well be asking someone to prove that invisible, intangible gnomes holding us down don’t cause gravity as we know it.
I believe animals absolutely experience pain, of course. There is evidence of this. I’ve stepped on the tail of a cat by accident and felt like shit. Human-level suffering however? Maybe a few can, but they are not ones I would eat (gorillas, dolphins, etc.). About every animal though? You have stated it as “factual” above which has a massive burden of proof. If it is “factual,” then it certainly has a litany of evidence. If you can find unbiased peer-reviewed studies that all animals can feel human-esque suffering and not just attachment, partiality, or pain, I would very much like to see it and would then concede the point to you.
But beyond that, you’d have to then state why it’s okay for other animals are okay to ignore the suffering of others but humanity would be bound to care about it. Well, unless you think you’re better than animals that is since they don’t seem to be bound by those moral stances.