Veganishm

[ledboots]

The rodents could be solved with rad space farms, I think.

I think the rodents would find a way to get into even space farms!

 

[Blobbenstein]

rattus jetpackitus

 

[Tom L.]

The rodents could be solved with rad space farms, I think.

I think the rodents would find a way to get into even space farms!

rattus jetpackitus

I've done some fantasizing about hollow colonies in space (some are called called "Barnell Spheres", I think)... Artificial gravity is supplied by the colony slowly rotating, with the colonists walking around the inside surface. Light is either artificial, or sunlight coming in through transparent areas of the colony wall. The colonists would either have to hand-pollinate plants which would normally be pollinated by insects, or have a colony of bees, butterflies, etc living with them. I think I'd go with hand-pollination.

... From a purely environmental perspective I can't see what would motivate veganism.

I haven't been saying much about vegans at all, instead I'm discussing veganism. I have been asking questions about veganism and trying to understand what specific ethical or legal theories motivate it. The fact that you're now implying that vegans have a variety of justifications for their veganism implies that veganism, in itself, is simply a sort of dogmatic social movement that people come to for a variety of reasons to get together. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think its a good way to promote animal welfare and rights.

Veganism, as a philosophy or ethic, is opposed to exploiting (that is, harming) animals. I'm sure one could consider that "dogmatic" if they did not accept the idea that an animal's life might have intrinsic value to the animal themselves living it and saw every other species on the planet as something to be used and nothing more than that. But then, such a person would probably be unreachable with ANY argument. People still abuse cats or dogs sometimes, kill individual animals of a protected species, etc, even though this is illegal.

I think sometimes people think veganism goes too far in that they think it's possible for a human to "use" an animal and for that animal to have a very happy life. But the fact is, when most people consider animals, they find it very difficult to view them without focusing on what that animal is "good for". Exceptions most often fall into two categories: either they're very rare and in danger of going extinct, like some species of insect, snail, small fish, etc, or they're a "pet" with whom they have a one-to-one bond. If you doubt this, compare legal codes for treatment of "pets" or "endangered species" with the ones governing the treatment of wildlife, laboratory animals, farm animals, etc. BIG difference.

Even though I think it's theoretically possible to "use" an animal and still genuinely care about them, I honestly understand why this view might have no place in pure vegan philosophy.

 

[Mischief]

I think the rodents would find a way to get into even space farms!

I am quite sure they would. They are smart, and incredibly persistent.

 

[flyingsnail]

Veganism, as a philosophy or ethic, is opposed to exploiting (that is, harming) animals. I'm sure one could consider that "dogmatic" if they did not accept the idea that an animal's life might have intrinsic value to the animal themselves living it and saw every other species on the planet as something to be used and nothing more than that.

What is dogmatic about veganism is the long list of products that must be avoided to be vegan, the question I always have with this long list is what principle is the list derived from? You mention a principle, but its difficult to see how it works since we cannot subsist without exploiting and harming animals. First one would have to define what it means to "exploit" an animal. So, for example, why is exploiting bees to pollinate almond orchards okay while exploiting them to produce honey not okay? Why is spraying a crop to kill millions of pest insects okay but using insects to produce silk not okay? So there has to be more nuance if the principle is going to be actionable.

With veganism, the list of products to avoid seems to come first. For example, the avoidance of honey really makes little sense given that bees and other insects are exploited in similar ways throughout the agricultural industry......yet to this day vegan groups exclude honey. When groups resist change like this its hard to not consider them dogmatic.

 

[Tom L.]

What is dogmatic about veganism is the long list of products that must be avoided to be vegan, the question I always have with this long list is what principle is the list derived from? You mention a principle, but its difficult to see how it works since we cannot subsist without exploiting and harming animals. First one would have to define what it means to "exploit" an animal. So, for example, why is exploiting bees to pollinate almond orchards okay while exploiting them to produce honey not okay? Why is spraying a crop to kill millions of pest insects okay but using insects to produce silk not okay? So there has to be more nuance if the principle is going to be actionable.

With veganism, the list of products to avoid seems to come first. For example, the avoidance of honey really makes little sense given that bees and other insects are exploited in similar ways throughout the agricultural industry......yet to this day vegan groups exclude honey. When groups resist change like this its hard to not consider them dogmatic.

(bold emphasis mine) I'm not fully vegan, so I don't know if what I'm posting next is correct: I think the difference is that we have to eat to survive, but we don't need silk. Silk production does kill the silkworms producing it; the larvae within the coccoons are killed because if they were allowed to mature and come out of the coccoons naturally, they would damage the thread and it would be unuseable.

I'm not sure about using bees to pollinate crops. Native wild bees and other insects visit flowers without humans being involved, so I don't know why some farms must bring in commercial hives for pollination. I have heard that some of the bees are killed when the man-made hive is opened, as it's impossible to avoid crushing some of them. As for taking some of the honey... merely one teaspoon of honey requires the lifetime excess production of several workers (I got that info from a beekeeper's website). I do not know if bees naturally produce more than the hive could use anyway. If this is so, then taking only the excess for human consumption, in return for humans providing them with a hive and a reliable source of food (our crops) might be a perfectly benign arrangement for the bees. (Except for when they get squashed).

 

[Blobbenstein]

bee's are mainly farmed for their wax, I read....wax for polishes etc.

 

[flyingsnail]

I think the difference is that we have to eat to survive, but we don't need silk. Silk production does kill the silkworms producing it; the larvae within the coccoons are killed because if they were allowed to mature and come out of the coccoons naturally, they would damage the thread and it would be unuseable.

We need cloths to survive as well and growing cotton, for example, requires the same sort of pesticides as food crops. So then, just as with my other questions, why is it okay to kill insects to protect cotton crops but not kill insects to produce silk? Also I mentioned honey which is obviously a food product and there are other insect derived food products vegans avoid as well.

I'm not sure about using bees to pollinate crops. Native wild bees and other insects visit flowers without humans being involved, so I don't know why some farms must bring in commercial hives for pollination.

Wild bees and insects do visit flowers without humans.....but the yields from many fruit and nuts crops would be dramatically lower and would not be economically viable in most cases. California Almond farms require over 1 million bee colonies to be trucked into the state:

California Almonds Keep Down Pollination Fees – Beesource Beekeeping

That's 100's of millions of bees to pollinate almonds in California....and these bees are by no means treated any better than honey bees.

So why are almonds (and apples, pears, berries, etc) vegan but honey not? I don't think honey production is a benign arrangement.....but straying pesticides on crops isn't a benign arrangement nor is harvesting bees and trucking them around the country to pollinate. Ironically honey may be one of the more benign use of bees yet its one of the only ones actively avoided by vegans. So if one is going to take the interests of insects seriously, which vegans at least pretend to do, then what would explain the exclusion of honey but the inclusion of crops that exploit and kill insects to an even greater degree? There doesn't appear to be any explanation other than at some point someone decided to avoid honey and today it has become a dogma that is resistant to the, well, the realities in agricultural.

 

[prioritarian]

First, as the other cases, I'm not sure what you're calling a strawman. But....why would this be the worst things we could do? Agricultural societies have been grazing animals on non-arable land for thousands of years.....unsustainable cultural practices don't last that long.

A thousand years ago there were not ~7.8 billion people on this planet. Moreover, grazing animals produces far fewer food calories per square mile of habitat than conventional agriculture (and I am hardly an advocate for conventional agriculture).

From a purely environmental perspective I can't see what would motivate veganism.

A desire to cause less harm to our shared ecosystem. For example, animal agriculture is not only immensely destructive on a local level but is a significant contributor to GHGs.

The fact that you're now implying that vegans have a variety of justifications for their veganism implies that veganism, in itself, is simply a sort of dogmatic social movement that people come to for a variety of reasons to get together.

I agree with your critiques of dogmatic veganism but I don't agree that veganism is necessarily dogmatic. And as I stated earlier in this thread I think terms like "veganish" or "veg" have become popular out of a desire to make the practice of veganism more rational. In fact, I often call myself veganish even though I live a relatively strict vegan lifestyle.

Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think its a good way to promote animal welfare and rights.

I disagree. Many of the most active campaigns for animal rights/welfare are rooted in utilitarian vegan ethics. For example, some MFA and COK activists eat flesh and kill/euthanize animals while documenting the savagery of our industrial animal industry. It's hard to imagine a more utilitarian approach than killing animals to save animals.

 

[prioritarian]

So why are almonds (and apples, pears, berries, etc) vegan but honey not? I don't think honey production is a benign arrangement.....but straying pesticides on crops isn't a benign arrangement nor is harvesting bees and trucking them around the country to pollinate. Ironically honey may be one of the more benign use of bees yet its one of the only ones actively avoided by vegans. So if one is going to take the interests of insects seriously, which vegans at least pretend to do, then what would explain the exclusion of honey but the inclusion of crops that exploit and kill insects to an even greater degree? There doesn't appear to be any explanation other than at some point someone decided to avoid honey and today it has become a dogma that is resistant to the, well, the realities in agricultural.

Let me quote the vegan.org FAQ:

Is honey vegan?

Again, it depends on one’s definition of vegan. Insects are animals, and so insect products, such as honey and silk, are not traditionally considered vegan. Many vegans, however, are not opposed to using insect products, because they do not believe insects are conscious of pain. Moreover, even if insects were conscious of pain, it’s not clear that the production of honey involves any more pain for insects than the production of most vegetables, since the harvesting and transportation of all vegetables involves many ‘collateral’ insect deaths. 

The question remains a matter of scientific debate and personal choice. However, when cooking or labeling food for vegans —particularly vegans you don’t know— it’s best to be on the safe side and not include honey.​

I am one of those "many vegans" that view insect suffering as a trivial issue.

 

[flyingsnail]

I am one of those "many vegans" that view insect suffering as a trivial issue.

Regardless of what one thinks about the ability of insects to suffer, the standard vegan position against honey, silk, etc is inconsistent yet its still heavily promoted by the vegan community. That is, I think, strong evidence that veganism is richly rooted in dogma rather than philosophic/legal theory. I realize there are some vegans that don't think honey should be a defining issue....yet I find that few of these people openly consume honey. Why? Fear excommunication...it seems.

 

[FortyTwo]

It always amuses me that it's up for debate whether crops are vegan because their harvesting might have killed some mice, and yet people still insist that honey might be vegan.

(I don't think anyone here is actually saying honey is vegan - just bringing this up preemptively because we always end up walking that road.)

 

[flyingsnail]

A thousand years ago there were not ~7.8 billion people on this planet. Moreover, grazing animals produces far fewer food calories per square mile of habitat than conventional agriculture (and I am hardly an advocate for conventional agriculture).

You didn't answer my question, why would it be the worst thing you can do? The amount of food you can derive per square mile is, obviously, not the critical issue.....the system has to be sustainable and you need to account for any externalities. My argument here is that traditional practices that have lasted thousands of years are a reasonably proxy for determining that a practice is sustainable. Of course, you may be able to improve upon traditional practices but you're claiming that something that has lasted thousands of years is "the worst thing you can do".

A desire to cause less harm to our shared ecosystem. For example, animal agriculture is not only immensely destructive on a local level but is a significant contributor to GHGs.

How does that motivate veganism? You can cause less harm to our shared ecosystem without being vegan and you still haven't shown how animal agriculture is always "immensely destructive". For environmental concerns to motivate veganism it would have to be the case that all systems that involve animal agriculture are destructive in some way......I think that is a really hard argument to make even if you ignore insects. But, so long as vegans preach the avoidance of insect products, we'd have to include insects and its hard to see, for example, why using insects to convert unused biomass into food energy (or other products) would have negative, instead of positive, environmental impact.

I disagree. Many of the most active campaigns for animal rights/welfare are rooted in utilitarian vegan ethics. For example, some MFA and COK activists eat flesh and kill/euthanize animals while documenting the savagery of our industrial animal industry. It's hard to imagine a more utilitarian approach than killing animals to save animals.

You are, once again, conflating what motivates some vegans with the basis of veganism. I've suggested that veganism is a dogmatic doctrine, not that all people that call themselves "vegan" are dogmatic. I don't see how you can derive veganism from utilitarianism, even Peter Singer fails to do so and instead comes to a sort of semi-vegetarian position. But I have no idea how many MFA and COK activist are vegan.

 

[flyingsnail]

(I don't think anyone here is actually saying honey is vegan - just bringing this up preemptively because we always end up walking that road.)

I think its pretty clear that honey is vegan if you understand veganism to be a lifestyle that minimizes animal exploitation and suffering while it isn't vegan if veganism is a dogma defined by the vegan society.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think its pretty clear that honey is vegan if you understand veganism to be a lifestyle that minimizes animal exploitation and suffering while it isn't vegan if veganism is a dogma defined by the vegan society.

that could apply to any use of any animal product.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you.

I suppose what causes 'least harm' is difficult to be sure of....in some context eating bacon, could be the least harmful decision.....so I guess veganism is based to some extent on dogma, or just be a club for people who simply don't want to use animals, directly.

 

[prioritarian]

Regardless of what one thinks about the ability of insects to suffer, the standard vegan position against honey, silk, etc is inconsistent yet its still heavily promoted by the vegan community. That is, I think, strong evidence that veganism is richly rooted in dogma rather than philosophic/legal theory. I realize there are some vegans that don't think honey should be a defining issue....yet I find that few of these people openly consume honey. Why? Fear excommunication...it seems.

I've eaten honey as a "vegan" on multiple occasions. I don't eat it at home or purchase it because I don't particularly enjoy the taste.

 

[prioritarian]

(I don't think anyone here is actually saying honey is vegan - just bringing this up preemptively because we always end up walking that road.)

Did you read the vegan action/vegan.org FAQ I linked to?

As a utilitarian vegan, locally-produced honey is simply not on my list of things I am ethically concerned about. But please...let's not turn this into a honey thread.

 

[prioritarian]

You didn't answer my question, why would it be the worst thing you can do? The amount of food you can derive per square mile is, obviously, not the critical issue.....the system has to be sustainable and you need to account for any externalities. My argument here is that traditional practices that have lasted thousands of years are a reasonably proxy for determining that a practice is sustainable. Of course, you may be able to improve upon traditional practices but you're claiming that something that has lasted thousands of years is "the worst thing you can do".

Traditional practices have destroyed natural habitat over large swathes of the planet's land area. If one of my goals is to preserve natural ecosystems (because I believe ecosystems have intrinsic value) then animal agriculture is one of the least efficient ways to generate calories per square km of habitat. I currently believe that the most "green vegan" way to generate calories is via technology-driven high-density agriculture and microbial fermentation.

How does that motivate veganism? You can cause less harm to our shared ecosystem without being vegan and you still haven't shown how animal agriculture is always "immensely destructive".

*GHG production.
*Habitat destruction.
*An inefficient way to generate large amounts of protein calories per unit of labor and land (e.g. by definition less sustainable in aggregate).

I've suggested that veganism is a dogmatic doctrine, not that all people that call themselves "vegan" are dogmatic. I don't see how you can derive veganism from utilitarianism,

I've always viewed veganism as a consequentialist ethical movement and I'm not the only one! And as a consequentialist I'm not particularly hung up on labels or dogma. You can even call me veganish if it makes you feel better about categorizing/stereotyping vegans.

even Peter Singer fails to do so and instead comes to a sort of semi-vegetarian position.

Can you provide some specifics because I have never seen Singer argue for a semi-vegetarian position. I should note that the insertion of the "possible and practical" clause in the UK vegan society definition was a direct consequence of Singer's work. Moreover, I and many other vegans interpret "possible and practical" as a fundamentally utilitarian qualification.

But I have no idea how many MFA and COK activist are vegan.

Many live a vegan lifestyle when not engaging in activism. Some vegans would call them omnivores. I vehemently disagree.

 

[prioritarian]

I suppose what causes 'least harm' is difficult to be sure of....

So because it's difficult we should just give up and become members of "a club for people who simply don't want to use animals, directly".

Is this really what you believe, Blobbenstein?

 

[Blobbenstein]

So because it's difficult we should just give up and become members of "a club for people who simply don't want to use animals, directly".

Is this really what you believe, Blobbenstein?

well, obviously consuming some products is causing harm, but things like honey are less obvious.

Consuming palm oil maybe causes more harm than consuming honey.