Veganishm

[Second Summer]

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.

I'm curious: How is honey consumption going to minimize animal exploitation? Is it because bees are somehow not animals?

 

[prioritarian]

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.

So...it sounds to me like you don't believe we should resign ourselves to being mere "vegan club members".

Palm oil is definitely one of the issues I care deeply about. I try to limit my consumption to palm oil from producers that are part of the palm oil innovation group:

Cleaning up deforestation from palm oil needs more than greenwash | Guardian Sustainable Business | The Guardian

For the first time, independently verified standards are being trialled by producers in the Palm Oil Innovation Group (POIG) – a collection of NGOs, including Greenpeace, and progressive producers (New Britain Palm Oil, Agropalma and Daabon) that aim to provide independently verified, responsibly produced palm oil. These standards use the RSPO as a basis, but establish additional requirements on palm oil producers including to assess and protect peatland and forested areas in their concessions.

Through their additional commitments, GAR, Wilmar and members of the POIG have set the benchmark for identifying forests for protection using the High Carbon Stock (HCS) approach, a process to determine what land can and canno​

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/photos/forests/2013/Indonesia Forests/POIG Charter 13 November 2013.pdf
Palm oil producers, NGOs launch responsible palm oil initiative at RSPO AGM | Rainforest Action Network
New Palm Oil Innovation Group set to give the RSPO a run for their money

 

[flyingsnail]

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

How so? Insect products differ from other animal products in that we are forced to actively kill and exploit insects to produce are food and therefore picking a few cases of insect exploitation and avoiding them makes little sense. The picture is much different with mammals.

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.

I would agree, it is difficult to determine which is why insisting on veganism is, to me, a bad idea. Nobody has shown, as far as I can tell, that veganism leads to the "least harm" and I reckon there are a number of different lifestyles that result, as far as we can determine, to more or less equal amounts of harm.

If someone wants to be vegan, that doesn't bother me at all, I just think it distracts from serious animal rights and welfare issues.

 

[flyingsnail]

I'm curious: How is honey consumption going to minimize animal exploitation? Is it because bees are somehow not animals?

Our entire plant-based food system depends on the exploitation and killing of insects, as such avoiding honey doesn't do anything to minimize the amount you contribute to animal exploitation. If you're not eating honey, you're going to be eating something else and that something else similarly depends on the exploitation and killing of insects.

I'm not sure who thought to exclude insect products from veganism....but I don't think they thought about it too deeply.

 

[flyingsnail]

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.

My comment wasn't about you in particular, rather pointing out that even the vegans groups (and the people that run them) that are more loose towards honey still don't openly promote it or consume it.....and I think the reason is pretty obvious. They worry about excommunication from the vegan community.

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.

Some traditional practices have been destructive.....which is why I mentioned the duration of the practice in my comment. Traditional practices that have lasted thousands of years tend to be sustainable ones, but as I said, I'm using this as a proxy and not the gold standard. But you're changing the topic, I was discussing sustainability and you're now talking about habitat destruction. Human population growth is going to result in habitat destruction regardless of what we do and I'm not sure why the minimization of habitat destruction should be an important measure.

*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).

You're not making an argument, you're making a list. How do you motivate veganism on environmental grounds? To say it again, you'd have to show that all modes of animal agriculture have a negative impact. I'd love to see that argument, in particular in the case of insects, but also the case of more traditional animal agriculture (e.g., a rural family with some hens or dairy goats).

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.]

Its not "possible and practical", its "possible and practicable"......big difference. While Peter Singer doesn't explicitly argue for semi-vegetarianism, he was only able to argue for a sort of semi-vegetarian lifestyle is derivable from his ethical considerations. In the chapter "Becoming a vegetarian" he says:

"Drawing precise lines is always difficult. I shall make some suggestions, but the reader might well find what I say here less convincing than what I have said before about the more clear cut cases. You must decide for yourself where you are going to draw the line, and your decision may not coincide exactly with mine..."

 

[FortyTwo]

Sorry for nudging this thing into honey thread territory.

I should make myself a shame badge or something.

Anyway, I'm out of here, because I have walked this path far too many times for my tender young age and I fear that walking it again may break me.

 

[ledboots]

"
~snip~

I would agree, it is difficult to determine which is why insisting on veganism is, to me, a bad idea. Nobody has shown, as far as I can tell, that veganism leads to the "least harm" and I reckon there are a number of different lifestyles that result, as far as we can determine, to more or less equal amounts of harm.

Such as?

 

[prioritarian]

"Drawing precise lines is always difficult. I shall make some suggestions, but the reader might well find what I say here less convincing than what I have said before about the more clear cut cases. You must decide for yourself where you are going to draw the line, and your decision may not coincide exactly with mine..."

Thanks for the correction...that was a typo as is clear from other comments.

Environmentalism may not argue for "vegan perfection" (e.g. absolute exclusion of all animal products) but I don't believe veganism requires perfection. Decisions about how to avoid exploitation or cruelty are not always easy or obvious so the possible "possible and practicable" applies (and can apply in different ways depending on the motivation of particular vegans). I'll probably start another thread that explains my "green vegan" arguments since this part of the debate is off topic.

I also don't think the Singer quote supports your claim. I see it as Singer urging others to adopt a more vegetarian lifestyle in much the same utilitarian manner that peta, farm, cok and mfa also urge a more veg*n lifestyle.

In fact, Singer argues in the same text for something very much like the type of utilitarian veganism advocated for by vegan outreach and vegan action:

How far down the evolutionary scale shall we go? Shall we eat fish? What about shrimps? Oysters? To answer these questions we must bear in mind the central principle on which our concern for other beings is based...the only legitimate boundary to our concern for the interests of other beings is the point at which it is no longer accurate to say that the other being has interests.
​

I should also note that Singer practices flexible veganism or something very much like the topic of this thread. I personally believe this is simply another word for veganism and this position is echoed by some mainstream vegan organizations. Obviously this is controversial but interpretational differences are often controversial. And getting back to the original topic I think using "veganish" to denote utilitarian vegans and "vegan" to denote deontic vegans might be a good way to bridge this difference.

 

[FortyTwo]

Isn't "strict vegetarian" good for that though? It implies you're selective about it, without coming up with a bunch of new terminology or sounding elitist.

I suppose you could argue that strict vegetarian is already pretty defined on its own though.

 

[prioritarian]

Isn't "strict vegetarian" good for that though? It implies you're selective about it, without coming up with a bunch of new terminology or sounding elitist.

Strict vegetarian is a neutral term and not necessarily ethics-based while veganish implies an ethics-based motivation (e.g. veganism). I also don't think it's elitist because one of the motivations for it is to promote inclusiveness.

 

[flyingsnail]

Environmentalism may not argue for "vegan perfection" (e.g. absolute exclusion of all animal products) but I don't believe veganism requires perfection. Decisions about how to avoid exploitation or cruelty are not always easy or obvious so the possible "possible and practicable" applies (and can apply in different ways depending on the motivation of particular vegans).

Its not just trace animal products that are at issue here, but environmentalism doesn't argue for larger parts of veganism either and you've largely ignored my questions and comments on this matter. I would agree that, with the exception of insects, environmentalism may promote something pretty close to veganism for those living in urban communities....but the argument is considerably weaker for those living in more rural communities.

I also don't think the Singer quote supports your claim. I see it as Singer urging others to adopt a more vegetarian lifestyle in much the same utilitarian manner that peta, farm, cok and mfa also urge a more veg*n lifestyle.

"A more vegetarian lifestyle" is, I think, just another way of saying semi-vegetarian. Singer makes a case for vegetarianism but admits that his argument gets weaker, and more subjective, as you move away from the clear-cut (e.g., factory farming) cases. So, as I said, Singer is only able to make a strong case for a sort of semi-vegetarianism and Singer never suggests that full-blown veganism is derivable from his considerations.

I don't know of any vegan groups that promote "flexible veganism" and its not even clear what that phrase means. For example, just how often can you consume animal products and still be a flexible vegan?

 

[flyingsnail]

~snip~

I would agree, it is difficult to determine which is why insisting on veganism is, to me, a bad idea. Nobody has shown, as far as I can tell, that veganism leads to the "least harm" and I reckon there are a number of different lifestyles that result, as far as we can determine, to more or less equal amounts of harm.

Such as?

I think you can list alternatives all day and there is the issue that there are a number of actions that cause harm that aren't on the vegan radar so one could always off-set their non-vegan acts by being good on some of these issues. But, for example, someone that is vegan except that they directly use and consume insect products would not result in any more harm than a vegan that avoids direct use of them. Someone that is vegan except for the use of some eggs from their pet hens would result in no more harm. Someone that eats some local dairy here and there but avoids palm oil and a good deal of imported foods would likely result in more or less the same amount of harm. And so on.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Isn't "strict vegetarian" good for that though? It implies you're selective about it, without coming up with a bunch of new terminology or sounding elitist.

I suppose you could argue that strict vegetarian is already pretty defined on its own though.

most people think a strict vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat fish, or someone who really never eats meat, or some such thing.

I used to think it was a vegetarian who didn't eat rennet; I think I even called myself that.

 

[Calliegirl]

I always thought of a strict vegetarian as someone who follows a vegan diet but not the lifestyle; still wears leather, wool, uses products with animal derivatives, etc.

 

[Tom L.]

I think you can list alternatives all day and there is the issue that there are a number of actions that cause harm that aren't on the vegan radar so one could always off-set their non-vegan acts by being good on some of these issues. But, for example, someone that is vegan except that they directly use and consume insect products would not result in any more harm than a vegan that avoids direct use of them. Someone that is vegan except for the use of some eggs from their pet hens would result in no more harm. Someone that eats some local dairy here and there but avoids palm oil and a good deal of imported foods would likely result in more or less the same amount of harm. And so on.

(bold emphasis mine) Do you know of quantitative data to back this up? I'm not denying that growing vegan crops, even if they're all organic, involves the destruction of many insects and the exploitation of others (such as bees), but wouldn't the direct use of insects (such as honey, if the problem of crushing bees when the keeper is removing supers to get the honey cannot be solved) add to this and result in even more harm?

 

[prioritarian]

...and Singer never suggests that full-blown veganism is derivable from his considerations...
For example, just how often can you consume animal products and still be a flexible vegan?

1. i believe full-blown veganism is impossible.
2. i and many other vegans have never viewed veganism as a dogma that simply proscribes consumption of certain things.
3. the Singer clause was inserted into the UK vegan society definition precisely to accommodate non-inflexible vegans like me.

 

[Andy_T]

I am a member of a so-called "vegan and vegetarian meetup group" here in Kuala Lumpur, and the group does have a questionnnaire that asks people how many meals per week (out of 21) they consume meat or fish.

Yes, of course there are many who answer that with "0" and add that they also do not consume other animal products, but it never ceases to amaze me how many people who answer "10" to this question (i.e., every other meal they eat contains meat or fish) do consider themselves "vegetarians", as they claim not to eat meat for every single meal.

 

[prioritarian]

Someone that is vegan except for the use of some eggs from their pet hens would result in no more harm. Someone that eats some local dairy here and there but avoids palm oil and a good deal of imported foods would likely result in more or less the same amount of harm. And so on.

I personally have no problem calling someone like Carole Morton vegan. I also personally do not consider non-CSPO/POIG palm oil to be vegan. Local dairy, on the other hand. is something that is easily avoided and almost always cruel.

And it's not as if I'm the only vegan who thinks this way:

​

Defining 'Vegan' -- Vegan Outreach

I think it is important that vegans make the meaning of the word "vegan" to focus on avoiding the products that obviously/reasonably lead to animal suffering so that people will understand that it is not about personal purity but rather reducing suffering.
-Jack Norris
​

Defining 'Vegan' -- Vegan Outreach

This may sound odd coming from a co-founder of Vegan Outreach, but it doesn't matter what label anyone places on me, or what label anyone places on themselves. For example, if Peter Singer (author of Animal Liberation) were to eat a dish that contains hidden dairy when at a colleague's house, or if Carole Morton (who runs Green Acres Farm Sanctuary and is a humane agent in a rural PA county) were to eat the eggs laid by the hens she has rescued ... do I want to cut them off, shun them from our vegan club?

Being vegan, for me, is about lessening suffering and working for animal liberation as efficiently as possible. It has nothing to do with personal purity or my ego. If, by some bizarre twist, eating a burger (or, better yet, a triple-cheese Uno's pizza ) were to advance animal liberation significantly, then I would do it.

I understand that different people have different views of things. That is fine. I understand that the world is a pretty crappy place in many respects, and that is not OK, but allowing this to make me depressed, angry, or judgemental accomplishes nothing, or even less than nothing.
-Matt Ball

​

 

[flyingsnail]

(bold emphasis mine) Do you know of quantitative data to back this up? I'm not denying that growing vegan crops, even if they're all organic, involves the destruction of many insects and the exploitation of others (such as bees), but wouldn't the direct use of insects (such as honey, if the problem of crushing bees when the keeper is removing supers to get the honey cannot be solved) add to this and result in even more harm?

I'm not sure what sort of "quantitative data" you're looking for......but I doubt anybody has rigorously calculated the number of insects that die when pesticides, etc are used on crops. Also I think the burden of proof is on vegans, that is, vegans need to show that more harm is inflicted when producing honey, silk, etc than when growing crops if they want people to take their position seriously. But in the case of honey, I think its pretty clear that less harm is inflicted in most plant crops. Why? Because, for example, not only are bees used to pollinate fruit and nut crops trucked around for long distances (which kills a decent percent of them) but the entire colonies will often be killed after the growing seasoning. The article I posted earlier discusses this practice. Also using bees to pollinate is a direct use of insects and I'm not sure how killing a massive amount of insects with a pesticide is some how more friendly to insects than using bees to produce honey.

 

[flyingsnail]

1. i believe full-blown veganism is impossible.
2. i and many other vegans have never viewed veganism as a dogma that simply proscribes consumption of certain things.
3. the Singer clause was inserted into the UK vegan society definition precisely to accommodate non-inflexible vegans like me.

Full-blown veganism.....as opposed to what? I've asked this a number of times, but if someone can deviate from veganism and still be vegan how exactly does that work? Is everyone vegan in that cases or is there some limit to the amount you can deviate? What is the limit and how do you measure it? The "Singer clause" was never inserted into the UK Vegan society's definition, "possible and practicable" has little to do with Singer.