Is it true that being vegan actually saves animals?
- Thread starter Rory17
- Start date
A little bit for their carelessness because the pregnancy was not intentional and they were 18 & 17 at the time I was conceived. But I have confronted them each about it (they are divorced) and they have both apologized.
Regardless of whether or not I hold a grudge against them for conceiving me, they and all my other ancestors going back to the first organism are collectively responsible for that suffering I experience which is unavoidable by myself.
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
Most people who have gone to college know it's idiotic and intellectually dishonest to quote people out of context to attempt to discredit them. I'll address this point by point later.
Oh and the eggs thing - it's not about fat, it's a particular chemical component in eggs that helps metabolize alcohol. Do you ever research ANYTHING before you post? First you think DHA is a synthetic chemical made in a lab that can't be found in nature, now this. It's almost comical, except that you're a middle aged man.
I am a vegan. If you continue to call me a chegan or anything else I'll report you.
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
I was paraphrasing from memory from a long time ago but the Wikipedia article explaines his philosophy much better:
David Benatar - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I can agree that modern capitalist humans have done terrible harm for the earth, that it would be good to have less humans and that some people shouldn't reproduce (and that force breeding animals is wrong). However beyond that I find Benetar and his philosophy over simplistic, unrealistic in the depth of its pessimism, and actually offensive in its anti life goals.
I like the earth, I like sentient beings, and am vegan in part because of my sense of responsibility to preserve life.
I wonder if Benetar even believes his own hype. His men and boys book reeks of trolling (or lack of touch with human social reality). I mean also why isn't he dead yet if he thinks bad outweighs good and its better not to exist. It's almost like he means other people.
I will explain why he has not killed himself, and also why I have not. So this is why antinatalism does not necessarily lead to promortalism. Once you are born, you have an interest in continuing to live, and the interest, the will to continue to live, is extremely strong and instinctual. It is actually a curse. The instinct for self preservation is so strong that even people in deplorable conditions, such as prison inmates, cannot being themselves to suicide. Due to this interest, life is worth continuing for all sentient beings. This is why antinatalism is not about killing already existent people or animals. It is only about not bringing more into existence. The bad in life outweighs the good. Therefore, life is not worth starting, it is only worth continuing.
One of the reasons it is worth continuing for me personally, other than the interest in continuing to live, is that I have family members who would be sad if I committed suicide. So, it isn't as easy as just saying, well since it would have been better if I weren't born, now I should kill myself. Killing yourself and never existing in the first place are very different things
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2017
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Age
- 50
- Lifestyle
- Vegan
Please, go ahead. I think your posts in the aggregate speak for themselves. I only highlighted them to illustrate to noobs coming to this forum to check out people's post history before taking their advice. I'm sure your response will be full of entertaining half truths and strawmen as is typical.
As for you being vegan - well I'm sure that's true by your ever changing definition. Try avoiding those eggs and cheese for real for a while, then come back and preach about how you're better than everyone else. Anyone with half a brain can see through the bs.
Actually, I should have said it's worth continuing for most sentient beings, so that their interest in continuing to live is not thwarted. Sometimes though, a being's interest in ending its suffering is greater than its interest in continuing to live and in these cases euthanasia is the answer.
Also, you (FN) are against forced breeding of animals, but that doesn't mean you advocate killing already existent animals which were force bred, so it's the same for me when it comes to humans. An non-existent being has no interest in coming into the world, so no harm is done by not bringing it into existence. But an already existent being does have an interest in continuing to exist, at least until the suffering becomes unbearable.
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
Ok thank you for explaining your point of view. That makes sense. I just have concerns that a sense of pessimistic nihilism would prevent people from acting on climate change, or worse actively welcome it, when this would actually create decades, even centuries of intense suffering for many species.
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
The problem here is not my posts, but your alarming lack of objectivity. I can acknowledge the presence of cysteine in eggs without eating them. I can acknowledge many people won't be vegan for the animals without personal approval, and with willingness to accept alternative paths to plant based diets. It's called being a rational adult. You should try it sometime.
I have spent hours and days studying the history of veganism and animal studies and my upcoming grad school project is based around plant based living for the environment. That you would attempt to discredit me is absurd. As soon as I'm on a real computer and not a phone, I'll address this point by point. Not for you, but for the OP.
I am concerned about optimism having that effect:
This is not the mentality of isolated cults. It is the mentality of mainstream, conservative evangelical Christianity and the Religious Right, which is very optimistic: "Jesus will come back and fix everything so have a quiverfull, eat bacon, burn some coal and wait for the Second Coming".
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
In my scientific perspective you are incorrect on both counts. It is neither optimistic nor idealistic to take drastic steps in the next decade to mitigate climate change before it runs away. Climate change running away, proposing to "do nothing" will not create a big bang of sorts to kill everything at once (this is not like meteorites, dinosaurs, or a Christian idea of Rapture) but a long slow process involving war, mass immigration, murder, starvation, thirst and disease. This is what I actually have a degree in. Philosophy doesn't matter to me on this point in the slightest. If peer reviewed science says we have until approximately 2030 to act, that's not optimistic, it's actually stupid and destructive to do nothing.
As for optimism in relation to breeding or eating animals, I don't call that optimism. It's stupid, self absorbed, selfish, ignorant, and a whole host of things besides optimistic. Pseudo-environmentalism springs to mind.
As for mainstream Evangelicals, many actually don't know any better or legitimately believe climate change is a hoax. You overestimate these people. They are deprived of scientific education in public schools, and don't trust big government. Many are legitimately mislead.
Then there are others in the Evangelical Stewardship movement. Including an evangelical Christian climatologist who is both vegetarian and child free who is devoting her life to reaching other evangelicals with the truth of climate change. Look up Matthew Sleeth and Matthew Scully. While there's a singular woman leading the stewardship movement from the scientific end, there's oddly two Matthews - a protestant and a Catholic. It's turning into a disciple joke.
No the hasten Armageddon people know climate change is real and actually want to destroy the earth. I think it's a weird sick twisted offshoot of Calvinism or the Puritans.
I've been told the world would end by "fire" since I was in elementary school. I was raised by Southern evangelicals. I'm not quite as unlikely as Dr.Hayhoe since I abandoned evangelical Christians in the 8th grade. But I know that the Armageddon cults aren't the normal. They're mislead through problematic politics like pro life propaganda on the right.
Let me rephrase. I am concerned about optimism - as it pertains to the second coming of Jesus - having that effect. Not optimism about anything else. So I shouldn't be incorrect on "both counts" becauseci only had that one point.
Also, Christians who care about the environment or animals are in the extreme minority as far as I can tell. One of the reasons they probably think it's a hoax is that they don't think Jesus would let us mess things up that badly because like the song says "he's got the whole wide world in his hands" - optimism.
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
A lot of Catholics care about the environment and animals. So do some Jews. And a few Protestants.
Here's a quick description of Stewardship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewardship_(theology)
The Green Bible, edited by Matthew Sleeth: http://www.blessedearth.org/books/the-green-bible/ ( I own a copy of this, there's also a Vegan Bible in existence by someone else I eventually want to order).
I created a whole thread on here about this book, you should read it, even if you're an atheist, this man's critical philosophy of animal rights from the conservative view is SPECTACULAR: https://www.amazon.com/Dominion-Power-Suffering-Animals-Mercy/dp/0312319738
Dr. Hayhoe: https://www.pbs.org/video/secret-life-scientists-katharine-hayhoe-climate-change-evangelist/ (I learned of her from one of my professors when I was studying science as an undergrad).
I agree with you there's a BIG PROBLEM with people in the United States thinking that Jesus will save them even if they **** where they eat, but I call that "narcissism" and not "optimism." That's one of the reasons I'm not a fan of your Benetar. Blaming everything on "optimism" seems silly and over-simplistic to me.
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
Rory 17 is a TEENAGER who WANTS TO GO VEGAN FOR THE ANIMALS and has only stumbled into vegetarianism due to emotional overeating. They likely made this thread as a question to reassure them that going completely vegan for the animals is the right choice. In fact this person in other posts has said they have only eaten foods which contain trace ingredients of animal products, it's not like they're shamelessly eating eggs Benedict. I will ask you to refrain from questioning other people's sincerity in their eating habits.
I'm a Utilitarian ethical Vegan who is interested in real results which actually affect animals, who was trying to help someone who was upset that they are poor and family kept giving them non-vegan foods. I was trying to help them socially cope with the pressure to accept foods with trace ingredients of animal products in a state of poverty. Would you be happy if I told them to starve? It would do you well to remember not everyone shares your privilege as a middle-class white male in a Western country, and that going vegan isn't as "easy" for people living in poverty, food deserts, or who are dependent due to age or disability.
Veganism isn't a diet. I know that critical theory is something WAY beyond someone like yourself, but even high schoolers seem capable of grasping that ethical veganism isn't "a diet." It's a complete overhaul of your way of life and approach to the world.
Donald Watson went vegan for the animals. "He realised what purpose the pigs served when he saw one slaughtered, and his life was changed.[2] At the age of 14, he became a vegetarian as a New Year's resolution, and in the 1940s, after learning about milk production, he became a vegan."
There is no doubt in any sane person's mind that Donald Watson went vegan for the animals and not for weight loss or a health plan. You really need to move forward with this. Particularly since it's 2019 and ever since Peter Singer's foundational work Animal Liberation any attempts to separate veganism from the animal's rights have generally been in the interest in proving that a vegan diet was healthy and adequate for adults and children, later then some people started isolating it alone as a health diet which in most cases is referred to as "plant-based" by doctors, rather than veganism. Even T. Colin Campbell has the sense to talk about plant-based diets for health rather than veganism.
Some people have to take medication that was once tested on animals or that contains albumen or a similar substance, due to public ignorance. I am not going to tell any human being they should be sick or die so that they don't consume 1% of an animal product. I've read posts of anxious vegans in despair about their medication. Of course we should make every effort to force the pharmaceutical industry to go vegan, but I'm not going to ask that people literally kill themselves or become homeless schizophrenics muttering to themselves on the street so that they don't take a medicine that was tested on animals in 1977 or that contains a tiny bit of egg. No, you're right, I'm not. Because I'm not a ******* *******. Once again...Utilitarian....Realist....primarily interested in RESULTS for the sake of animals and the earth, rather than "personal purity."
I can, as a vegan with a science degree, acknowledge reality without morally approving of eggs. I would deserve to have my degree revoked if I could not make such a simple nod to reality.
Fat does absorb alcohol, which is why people eat fatty junk food or nuts in bars. And the chemical component in eggs that helps the body to metabolize alcohol is called L-cysteine, an amino acid. It is also present in lentils, but concentrated in egg yolks.
The fact that you would speculate that I have a poor diet or that I am actually a vegetarian pretending to be a vegan is non-sequitr. Especially the last part. That's fine if you think my diet is poor (it's not, I have never had a deficiency, and I eat a wide variety of foods and have a "back up" of vegan multi-vitamins, B-12, if I should need them....and chlorella and spirulina are an almost daily part of my diet.
In fact, accusing me of LYING about being vegan, rather than simply saying my definition of vegan is incorrect or questionable, is something that I could report you for. It's one thing to argue over whether someone is simply "plant-based" or philosophically, ethically "vegan" it's entirely another to accuse someone of lying.
Right. I've hated meat since I was a small child, and I never crave eggs. The only thing that ever tempted me as a vegan is cheese. Then I qualify the statement with my thoughts on dairy. So my being honest about my feelings on food is some grounds for your judgment on me? This doesn't even hold up to scrutiny. Get outta here.
Seeing the eradication of consciousness as a desirable end-state is something I can't disagree with more. It's literally the most interesting and valuable thing I can think of.
My brain might be biased on that though.
Well, I was blaming evangelical optimism i.e. faith in Jesus to handle any environmental catastrophes that may come up for what you were saying pessimism and nihilism would cause: inaction or people welcoming climate change. Touche about calling that narcissism.
In David Benatar's philosophy, optimism is one of the three things that cause people to inaccurately assess the quality of their lives, the other two things being adaptation to circumstances and comparison to others. Since people have a distorted perspective of their true condition, they are less likely to commit suicide and more likely to procreate.
I believe those three psychological phenomena can be said to be to blame for climate change. If it weren't for their evolution there would probably only be like 10,000 people on the planet today, and their fossil fuel and animal use would not have been enough to cause a problem.
Humans' unreliable assessment of life's qualityEdit
Benatar raises the issue of whether humans inaccurately estimate the true quality of their lives, and has cited three psychological phenomena which he believes are responsible for this:
- Tendency towards optimism: we have a positively distorted perspective of our lives in the past, present, and future.
- Adaptation: we adapt to our circumstances, and if they worsen, our sense of well-being is lowered in anticipation of those harmful circumstances, according to our expectations, which are usually divorced from the reality of our circumstances.
- Comparison: we judge our lives by comparing them to those of others, ignoring the negatives which affect everyone to focus on specific differences. And due to our optimism bias, we mostly compare ourselves to those worse off, to overestimate the value of our own well-being.
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
I know you think this guy is great but his thinking is problematic enough to be unhelpful and borderline ridiculous. Pointing out "flaws" in the human tendency to adapt in order to survive and human forward thinking or hope is just a waste of time. Humans are what we are and without these features we'd be extinct or less successful. We have to work in reality with what we have. Ironically Benetar doesn't seem a fan of working within reality, though he faults other people for their perception.
Also these evolutionary biological features are absolutely not what caused climate change. Corporate capitalism, propaganda, ignorance and greed did. Exxon Mobil intentionally lied to the public. The interests of certain cultures including the US were skewed stupidly towards power and profit rather than science and ecological balance.
The problem with philosophers like Benetar is that they make their assumptions about humans based entirely upon the dominant culture. It would have helped this tool to study indigenous cultures and cultures of less wealthy countries before he decided biological human optimism was the cause of all the ills in the world.
He's a perfect example of what happens when people default to taking white men too seriously just because they're white and male and know big words.
He talks about antinatalism in the hopes of getting people to stop reproducing. Antinatalism is of the utmost importance for the environment, animals and humans.
He doesn't talk about how optimism is to blame for everything. One of the things he discusses is how a tendency toward optimism, which is something common to all humans, Benatar included, leads to a misperception we all share that our lives as a whole past, present and future are/will be better than it actually is. So optimism is a part of his theory in that small way. I blamed optimism for other suff, but that's me saying that, not Benatar.
Benetar works in the real world by explaining in detail how bad life really is, describing the various frustrations and forms of suffering we endure and inflict on others in our daily lives, and the point of this is to get people to see the merits of antinatalism and stop bringing real babies into the real world.
For me (not quoting Benatar), intentionally having a baby is no different than having a a dog or cat bred for you by a breeder. In both cases, you are you bringing someone into the world when there was no need, because there are pets at shelters and children at orphanages. Benatar tries to get people to adopt children, who languish in real orphanages in the real world.
Every non-existent person Benatar saves from having existence inflicted on them is one less consuming resources and one less that needs to be veganized. That helps you, but you seem to be against antinatalism in general nevertheless (regardless of how you feel about Benatar).
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
Antinatalism is fine. If you and your friends adopt instead of having kids, more power to you.
But Benetar is essentially wrong, because other cultures of people in the past and present were vegetarian, had respect for animals, and lived in relative balance with nature. There were at least two vegetarian Native American tribes, and some in Coastal California weren't vegetarian but had largely vegetarian diets and only ate animals as needed, with a deep appreciation of the rights and importance of other animals. The term animal rights was used by Native Americans before Donald Watson or Peter Singer, as Natives didn't agriculturally farm animals, cage them, or drive them to extinction through mass over hunting or over fishing. Similarly, some Asian cultures are vegetarian or near vegan. Hindus and Taoists live with much greater regard for other species than most Western white people, although not as close to being vegans as Jains.
Benetars silly shallow analysis is based in capitalist or imperialist assumptions. No great surprise he is from South Africa, one of the most racist colonial locations on modern earth.
You've have been attributing everything I say to Benatar this whole thread.
Benatar cannot be wrong because he did not make the following statement, I did: every person he saves from existence is one you don't have to veganize and one that will not be polluting the environment. My answer to your response to my own statement is that he doesn't speak to aboriginal groups, especially not ones from the past. His audience is modern westerners whose children will most likely not be vegetarian or live in accordance with nature, if they are conceived.
But that doesn't matter because Benatar says that it always represents a harm and it is always immoral to intentionally bring a sentient being into existence. That is his main point. So that would include vegan children living in harmony with nature. Their existence still would be a harm to themselves and others in their tribe.
