I am not vegan, and probably never will be, but I fully accept other people's choice. One thing that puzzles me though, is that if we all became vegan, where would the cows, sheep, pigs etc go, as they would not be needed .. This would also apply to pets, as of course it must be against vegan principles to keep animals purely for human use.
Will animals be missed?
- Thread starter Percyprod
- Start date
Lou
Forum Legend
Lots of vegans keep pets. IMHO, it's not particularly vegan-like to have a pet. But I understand the need or want. For many vegans, they see companion animals and even working animals as not exploited. they see them as partners. And the relationship is a partnership. both parties are getting stuff out of it. I also feel that the main virtue of veganism is compassion. And the act of rescuing an animal and then sharing your life, home and paying for all its food and medical needs is one of the most compassionate acts I can think of.
I think your concern for cows, pigs, chickens, and sheep is misplaced. I won't miss them. The only livestock I ever see is the beef cattle grazing. The pigs and chickens are all hidden indoors. in a vegan world, we won't need that rangeland anyway. So the cows can just stay there. You can stop and visit them if you want.
Oh, how about this:
California, 2050
aerial shot of a car driving thru a gate labeled Livestock Safari.
POV shifts to inside the car. Mom, Dad, Boy, and Girl.
Mom: Look! There are some chickens.
Girl: Ohhhhh, pretty.
Dad: When I was your age we used to eat them.
Boy: Ewwwww. Gross!
Anyway, you should re-think your opposition to veganism. Its better for the environment, its better for your health. And of course its better for the animals.
I think your concern for cows, pigs, chickens, and sheep is misplaced. I won't miss them. The only livestock I ever see is the beef cattle grazing. The pigs and chickens are all hidden indoors. in a vegan world, we won't need that rangeland anyway. So the cows can just stay there. You can stop and visit them if you want.
Oh, how about this:
California, 2050
aerial shot of a car driving thru a gate labeled Livestock Safari.
POV shifts to inside the car. Mom, Dad, Boy, and Girl.
Mom: Look! There are some chickens.
Girl: Ohhhhh, pretty.
Dad: When I was your age we used to eat them.
Boy: Ewwwww. Gross!
Anyway, you should re-think your opposition to veganism. Its better for the environment, its better for your health. And of course its better for the animals.
The cows will just stay there? Who pays to keep them? Vegans seem to have dual standards. You cannot keep any animal in an unnatural lifestyle and claim to not be exploiting them. So we end up like a third world country with cows roaming the streets and feral cats and dogs. Sad that you think the disappearance of cows, sheep etc doesn't matter.
Oh, how about this:
California, 2050
aerial shot of a car driving thru a gate labeled Livestock Safari.
POV shifts to inside the car. Mom, Dad, Boy, and Girl.
Mom: Look! There are some chickens.
Girl: Ohhhhh, pretty.
Dad: When I was your age we used to eat them. They were delicious!
Boy: Can we eat some, I would really like to try it.
So there will still be ' livestock safaris'? Really treating the animals well! If you don't like eating flesh, then that's fine, but for normal folk it is natural, and a way of finding a use for animals.
Oh, how about this:
California, 2050
aerial shot of a car driving thru a gate labeled Livestock Safari.
POV shifts to inside the car. Mom, Dad, Boy, and Girl.
Mom: Look! There are some chickens.
Girl: Ohhhhh, pretty.
Dad: When I was your age we used to eat them. They were delicious!
Boy: Can we eat some, I would really like to try it.
So there will still be ' livestock safaris'? Really treating the animals well! If you don't like eating flesh, then that's fine, but for normal folk it is natural, and a way of finding a use for animals.
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
Please, next time you get hungry and have a sudden burning desire to take a bite out of a cat or dog or horse, fur and all, right there in the street, I'll believe that it's normal and natural for humans to eat animal flesh.
Also people who have companion animals or work at animal sanctuaries can still be vegan. There's no "natural" or "humane" way to let domesticated animals roam the freeway. The anti pet position among vegans like Francionne is irrational. Other vegans hate him so much they call his followers Franci-bots.
Also people who have companion animals or work at animal sanctuaries can still be vegan. There's no "natural" or "humane" way to let domesticated animals roam the freeway. The anti pet position among vegans like Francionne is irrational. Other vegans hate him so much they call his followers Franci-bots.
Humans have always eaten flesh, we are after all also animals. Humans have evolved to become superior, and use other animals, be it as beasts of burden, pets or as a food source. It is perfectly right to do so. I would still like to know what will happen to the animals that will become redundant big we all become vegan.
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
So in sum, you regularly snack on the neighbors companion animals, and wander in to the forest and eat squirrels raw with your bare hands? Because that's what I hear you saying. If not your argument is laughably without concrete evidence. If you don't drool over the smell of a barnyard (no not a roast pot also full of spices and vegetables) then I'd have to say you're not really thinking this through.
There's no evidence that humans have always eaten meat, in fact studies have shown some ancient diets to be very similar to apes, mostly plant based foods and the occasional animal product more likely to be eggs stolen from a nest or a handful of bugs than a mammal or bird flesh. In fact there are vegetarian cultures in Asia and in rural parts of Africa and Asia some people eat about 98-99 percent plant based.
To say that humans were made to be superior is unscientific at best, I'm being tactful honestly by not bombarding you with the facts of evolution and our ecological interdependence with other species.
You have presented very poor arguments and to answer your question those animals will live in sanctuaries or in the wild. There will just be less of them because they won't be force bred.
Plus there will likely still be vegetarians for a while, being realistic.
Many or most vegans love animals and would care for them. The anti pet argument in my perception is a red herring used by vegans who don't like animals to make not liking animals seem ethical. Whatever. There's nothing ethical about allowing cows and house cats to starve or get hit by cars or die of exposure. The anti pet argument is only logical in a dream world.
There's no evidence that humans have always eaten meat, in fact studies have shown some ancient diets to be very similar to apes, mostly plant based foods and the occasional animal product more likely to be eggs stolen from a nest or a handful of bugs than a mammal or bird flesh. In fact there are vegetarian cultures in Asia and in rural parts of Africa and Asia some people eat about 98-99 percent plant based.
To say that humans were made to be superior is unscientific at best, I'm being tactful honestly by not bombarding you with the facts of evolution and our ecological interdependence with other species.
You have presented very poor arguments and to answer your question those animals will live in sanctuaries or in the wild. There will just be less of them because they won't be force bred.
Plus there will likely still be vegetarians for a while, being realistic.
Many or most vegans love animals and would care for them. The anti pet argument in my perception is a red herring used by vegans who don't like animals to make not liking animals seem ethical. Whatever. There's nothing ethical about allowing cows and house cats to starve or get hit by cars or die of exposure. The anti pet argument is only logical in a dream world.
Farm animals exist because they are proactively bred. As more and more people go vegan the industry will breed less and less animals, until nearly everyone is vegan and very few farm animals exist. This isn't going to happen overnight, and even if it did the crisis of dealing compassionately with the last generation of farm animals pales in comparison to the crisis of industrialized mass slaughter.
If you think humans evolved to be superior wander off naked into the African savannah and tell me what you learn about the food chain.
If you think humans evolved to be superior wander off naked into the African savannah and tell me what you learn about the food chain.
Managed to watch some bits of the videos, bit condescending really. "For all of you who don't know cattle are bred for this purpose". Of course they are. Honestly, I know animals are bred to be slaughtered and are used for milk, wool, leather, pets, riding, etc. I also think that is what they are for. I don't eat raw flesh, don't know where that came from. I like it skinned or plucked and then cooked. I also eat vegetables, not only meat. You are still taking animals out of their natural habitat if you keep them as pets, in zoos or animal parks. Dogs do not naturally live in houses, or sleep on owners beds (now that IS disgusting!) Just accept that some people like one type of food, others another. Some will change (Transition? You'll be telling me you believe people can change sex next!) others won't. Live with it.
Francione and his partner have 6 dogs adopted from animal shelters. If he had the last two dogs in existence he would not breed them but let the species die out due to the evil inherent in domestication. His position is that every one of us who is able should go to an animal shelter and adopt the animals least likely to be adopted. Every domesticated animal currently in existence should be given a loving home but no domesticated animal should ever be allowed to breed.
How is your position different from his?
https://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?s=Pets
Last edited:
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
My background is in environmental science and I am totally okay with rehabilitation animal centers, and I also understand the merit of breeding endangered species in captivity so that they do not go extinct. Of course these animals are not "pets" but I have seen the devastation humans have wrought upon the earth, understand certain species fundamental place in an ecosystem, and it is impossible to "fix" those things without rehabilitation and captive breeding for wildlife.
We actually didn't domesticate cats, there's no scientific evidence that we bred them initially in the same manner as dogs, like raccoons, it was more of a situation where they hang around us, wanted our food, and developed skills (like emulating a sound very similar to a baby cry) via evolution ...cats co-evolved with us. So as long as we aren't force breeding certain types for profit, I see no reason to "let them die out."
I also see no reason to let dogs die out. Dogs like people. My position is similar to Franccione's but it's not the same. Furthermore, there are individual vegans who are not GF who actually go around shaming other people for having pets or companion animals at all, or who say people who have cats are not vegan, or say vegans should only keep herbivores like rabbits. All of that is irrational nonsense.
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
Lou
Forum Legend
Well, I thought I was done with this thread.
but I have been thinking about this for a while and I guess this is a good time to inject it into the VF.
I have been reading Eating Animals by Foer, on page 26 he says:
When I first read this I thought he was just trying to be like Johnathan Swift and the Solution of the Irish Problem. But then on page 28, he has a recipe: Stewed Dog, Wedding Style.
On page 29 he says, " Eating animals has an invisible quality. Thinking about eating dogs, and their relationship to the animals we eat, is one way of looking askance and making something invisible visible."
So was my first impression right? he is just trying to make a point about eating animals. or is he serious?
but I have been thinking about this for a while and I guess this is a good time to inject it into the VF.
I have been reading Eating Animals by Foer, on page 26 he says:
But unlike all farmed meat, which requires the creation and maintenance of animals, dogs are practically begging to be eaten. Three to four million dogs and cats are euthanized annually. This amounts of millions of pounds of meat now being thrown away every year. The simple disposal fo these euthanized dogs is an enormous ecological and economic problem. It would be demented to yank pets form homes. But eating those strays, those runaways, those not-quite-cute-enough-to keep dogs would be killing a flock of birds with one and stone and eating it, too.
When I first read this I thought he was just trying to be like Johnathan Swift and the Solution of the Irish Problem. But then on page 28, he has a recipe: Stewed Dog, Wedding Style.
On page 29 he says, " Eating animals has an invisible quality. Thinking about eating dogs, and their relationship to the animals we eat, is one way of looking askance and making something invisible visible."
So was my first impression right? he is just trying to make a point about eating animals. or is he serious?
Jamie in Chile
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
- Reaction score
- 1,838
- Age
- 44
- Lifestyle
- Vegetarian
I read that book and I don't remember this part well enough but I think it's more to illustrate the point that since factory farming is worse than eating stray dogs, we should not eat products from factory farms. Rather than really proposing stray dogs as a serious solution. However, I don't recall for sure.
Lou
Forum Legend
My guess is that he makes such a good argument for eating stray dogs. but still, we would find that concept repugnant. but then why are we so OK with eating other animals.
but then he throws in that dog recipe.
but then he throws in that dog recipe.
Forest Nymph, the main reason to let animals that have co-evolved with us and like us die out, say dogs, cats and domestic rabbits, is their vulnerabilty. For example, did you know it is estimated that 10-30% of the leather sold in the US is from the black market dog and cat leather industry? In small pieces, dog or cat leather is indistinguishable from cow leather. The only way to know for sure is to do a DNA test on each piece coming into the country. The reason this dog or cat leather is produced is that it is so much cheaper to raise dogs and cats for slaughter compared to cows. Obviously the dogs and cats are treated horribly, crammed into cages together so tightly they can't move, and then are beaten or skinned alive, etc. They don't do things like that with wild animals, like the wolf or african wildcat, or even the dingo. They do it with easily tamed animals who have a long history with us, like dogs, cats, the domesticated fox, the domesticated mink, etc.
Same thing with rabbits. Right here in the US, there are rabbitries everywhere. People breeding rabbits for meat, leather and the pet industry. Even the ones who wind up pets have horrible fates because most will live in tiny cages by themselves their entire lives, but they need a lot more than that to be happy. It is the docile nature of domestic rabbits that makes them suitable for breeding by these people.
You say as long as people aren't breeding them for profit, it's OK to allow them to breed if it is a choice between that and letting the species die out. So let's say this happens: you allow the last two cats on earth to breed, perpetuating this easily tamed species. A hundred years after this decision, there are hundreds of people breeding cats, all kinds of torture breeds with flat faces and long hair. The cats' faces are so flat they can barely even breath, eat or drink and their noses are always running. And people are hoarding cats and all their cats have FIV, which is the feline version of HIV and they all have fleas, ticks and matted hair and are living in their own feces and have no clean water to drink...and other people are breeding them for meat and leather. The point is, you can't control what other people do, and other people are evil, deranged, mentally ill, etc.
One solution to the dillema of what to do with the last two dogs or cats may be to just banish them to somewhere in the wild they can survive to start a wild line that may evolve into another species, like the dingo arguably is.
Same thing with rabbits. Right here in the US, there are rabbitries everywhere. People breeding rabbits for meat, leather and the pet industry. Even the ones who wind up pets have horrible fates because most will live in tiny cages by themselves their entire lives, but they need a lot more than that to be happy. It is the docile nature of domestic rabbits that makes them suitable for breeding by these people.
You say as long as people aren't breeding them for profit, it's OK to allow them to breed if it is a choice between that and letting the species die out. So let's say this happens: you allow the last two cats on earth to breed, perpetuating this easily tamed species. A hundred years after this decision, there are hundreds of people breeding cats, all kinds of torture breeds with flat faces and long hair. The cats' faces are so flat they can barely even breath, eat or drink and their noses are always running. And people are hoarding cats and all their cats have FIV, which is the feline version of HIV and they all have fleas, ticks and matted hair and are living in their own feces and have no clean water to drink...and other people are breeding them for meat and leather. The point is, you can't control what other people do, and other people are evil, deranged, mentally ill, etc.
One solution to the dillema of what to do with the last two dogs or cats may be to just banish them to somewhere in the wild they can survive to start a wild line that may evolve into another species, like the dingo arguably is.
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
I think that the position is extremist. I do not agree with it. I do not agree with allowing any species to "die out" which is the antithesis to my chosen field of study and career path. Furthermore, I don't think vegans who don't want human exploitation have really thought through the implications of basically forcing a species to die out. You heard me right? Forcing the species to die out through mass spay/neuter. Of course I know we are far from that because of the unfortunate number of unwanted cats and dogs in the world at the moment, but there's a difference between spay/neuter as a balanced preventative measure, and taking spay/neuter to an extreme 50-100 years in the future where it actually causes the species to die out. That's insane. It's not vegan, it's not rational, and no I still don't like Francionne.
Are you are in favor of letting purebred dogs and cats die out, leaving only mixed breed dogs and cats extant, who were not selectively bred by humans in a controlled manner?
Last edited:
Forest Nymph
Forum Legend
Cats for the most part won't inbreed to that level given a choice for other mates. Allowing cats to naturally breed themselves say in a community of rescued animals would allow them that choice. The flat faces, all that is the result of forced inbreeding, obviously I don't agree with that.
And I do agree with spay/neuter, I have volunteered and worked part time with feral cats, and strays and rescues. I just don't agree with such long term tight control on spay and neuter that it endangers or even threatens the species. I think companion animals are fine. I think it's natural and human to live around animals. The idea of a vegan world where humans live entirely apart from animals sounds dystopian and will just increase speciesism, humanism and a disconnect from nature. All which leads to environmental devastation and animal cruelty. Quite the opposite, a recent study showed vegans were more likely to have been exposed to a wider variety of domestic animals as children, seeing them as part of the family so more likely to develop empathy.
