Who You Callin' Vegangelical?
Recently I've heard some perplexing criticisms of veganism. They go something like this: vegans are extremists, vegans are so preachy, veganism is like some fanatical religion, veganism is a cult.. There obviously is some misunderstanding going on and I'd like to try and stamp out this issue once and for all. I realize I can't possibly speak for all vegans, but this is how I see it:
First of all, veganism is clearly not some religion or cult. There is no Church of Vegan. Veganism is a philosophy. Donald Watson first coined the term "vegan" in 1944. This was how he defined it:
The word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude -- as far as is possible and practical -- all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Sounds pretty simple right? Well, nowadays people become vegan for all different reasons. They might go vegan because of health reasons, or perhaps they've read that animal agriculture is the number one cause of global warming. But, if someone is an ethical vegan, that means they've chosen to open their mind and heart to the suffering of animals. They want to alleviate unnecessary suffering where they can. (There are actually some people who feel that unless you go vegan for ethical reasons that you're not really "vegan", but that's a whole other story.)
Here's where things get interesting. While many of us may feel a certain attachment to the food we eat (cheese, anyone?), there is actually no human dietary requirement for animal foods. It's true. You don't need to eat meat, dairy or eggs to live.
In fact, Dr. Colin Campbell, who conducted the foremost study on human nutrition for over 40 years, detailed in his book The China Study how a vegan diet is actually better suited for optimal human health. This means that people eat animals not because they have to, but because they want to. Now, of course I'm not talking about people who live in countries where food is scarce and they'll die unless they eat animal foods. I'm talking about you and me. People who shop at the supermarket where tofu, beans, rice, grains, fruits and vegetables are mere feet from meat, dairy and eggs. We have a choice.
In case you're not up to speed, over 98% of all meat, dairy, and eggs produced in the US comes from factory farms. The conditions in these places are truly horrendous. Animals are crammed in spaces so tight they can't turn around. They literally go insane, lying around all day and night in their own feces. They never see sunlight, have their beaks, horns and genitals cut off (without anesthetic) and are horribly abused by stressed and desensitized farm workers. We kill 10 billion animals for "food" a year in this country, that's over 27 million animals a day. Most of those animals are birds, and all poultry (chickens, turkeys, ducks, and rabbits... yes, rabbits are considered poultry under the law) are excluded from the barely enforced Humane Slaughter Act.
Now, before you start at me with some "humane meat" "happy meat" bullshit please take note that all animals, whether they are raised in the nastiest of factory farms or grass-fed, free-range, blah blah blah, are all sent to the same slaughterhouses. That's right, your organic steer is being sent to the same hell as a downer cow and will meet the same ghastly end. If you are a "humane meat" consumer, please take a moment and meditate on the whole concept of humane killing... bloody, fearful, struggling, screaming, despairing humane killing. It's never pretty and it certainly isn't "humane."
There is a video making rounds on YouTube that shows a lone cow shaking in terror as she contemplates walking down the kill chute. She walks forward, then back. Animals can hear and smell the violence and death that awaits them. Their last moments are ones of abject horror and suffering. If you wouldn't condemn your dog or cat to such a fate, how can you pay for others do it to these poor animals?
So. When a vegan is talking to a meat-eater about these issues, he or she is not "preaching", "trying to convert", or any such thing. We're not telling you what to eat. We're telling you what you're eating.
Since animals can't speak a language humans can understand (though I think the screams and terrified moans that fill slaughterhouses should be pretty much universal -- all living beings want to live) it's up to us to tell their stories and inform people of the suffering that goes on conveniently out of the public eye.
If, as a meat-eater, being exposed to this reality bothers you, it is not the fault of the vegan. Lashing out or making up endless excuses doesn't change the stark scientific fact that animals are suffering because of our taste buds. Your neatly packaged chicken breast, all wrapped in pristine plastic, was once part of an animal that felt fear and pain. It's called responsibility and culpability, and we're all to blame.
Now, you may try to argue that eating animals is a matter of personal opinion or choice, but again I'd have to disagree -- this is not about your opinion versus my opinion, this is about animal suffering. You can't discuss your "personal choice" of eating animals while leaving animals completely out of the conversation.
Think of it this way, if you were walking down the street and saw someone beating their dog, would you try to do something to stop it? The same principle applies here. Since eating animal foods is a question of want and like versus need, killing a sentient being, when there is absolutely no need -- except for someone's pleasure -- becomes simply unnecessary and merciless.
And if we say we care about cruelty to animals then it's time we start caring about all animals. Yes, dogs and cats are companion animals but in terms of suffering our canine and feline friends feel the same as a pig, cow, chicken, lamb, or turkey. To pick and choose species in terms of whose pain we care about is incredibly hypocritical and inconsistent. Sorry, but if you're eating veal parmigiana or turkey sandwiches, you don't really care about animals. You may care about dogs and cats but you certainly don't care about birds and baby cows.
So, who's the real extremist? The person who tries to stop unnecessary suffering by cutting out animal products, or the person who says, "I like the way that tastes, so a sentient being needs suffer and die?"
Who's the real fundamentalist? The person who simply speaks the truth about where food comes from, or the person who knowingly chooses to ignore it, listening only to the falsehoods of the meat and dairy clergy? Isn't the latter more akin to choosing to believe the earth is 5,000 years old despite clear evidence to the contrary?
The reality is that veganism couldn't be more different from religion. While religion is based on faith, veganism is based on facts. Animal suffering is not some ethereal concept, it's very real.
All animals deserve to be free from unnecessary pain, fear, and suffering at the hands of humans. How can anything less claim to be humane? Do I want more people to go vegan, is that why I talk and write about it? Of course, but it has nothing to do with me or some group that I belong to. It has to do with the animals who suffer everyday so that we can eat them, wear them, and do whatever we want to them simply because we can.
Veganism is the practical response to a social injustice. Instead of vegangelical, the word should be veganlogical.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you Ari, for articulating perfectly what many of us find trouble saying. 100% agreement.
This article is moving. I'm 15, and went vegetarian in Grade 6, now a strict vegan for 7 months. Exceptionally written.
Go vegan for peace, for all land and sea dwelling beings and for climate change
Visit this site to find out more about veganism http://www.youtube.com/user/LiveVegan
and check out these sites human nonhuman relations
http://www.human-nonhuman.blogspot.com
by Roger Yates, lecturer in sociology at Dublin University (Ireland)
Animal Rights: Abolitionist approach http://www.abolitionistapproach.com
by Professor Gary L Francione
To find out about abolitionist veganism http://www.veganpamphlet.com
This is a well-written article, and I think it's correct, but correctness is irrelevant in activism.
Our goal as animal rights activists should always be to help animals. That means we need to focus on results, not correct logic. We are *perceived* as being "too evangelical", and that is an impediment to achieving the results we want. I think that perception is unfair, but I don't know that the line of argument expressed in this piece will change that perception.
I think that perception comes because we are telling people a very difficult to hear truth. We need to keep telling that truth, but we can find different ways to tell it that make it easier to hear. Note that I'm not advocating softening the message. We should still be clear that inflicting pain and suffering on animals for personal pleasure is 100% unacceptable, but I think there are many ways to say it, and some will get heard, and some won't.
This is one of those ways. Fortunately, there as many vegan personalities as there are vegans. Everyone has his or her own way of communicating that she's better at than other ways. It was similar logic to this that got me to go vegan in May 2008. And it wasn't like I'd never heard of a slaughterhouse before. One day, something just clicks. Different types of messages will help it click for different people.
By the way, correctness is not irrelevant in activism. Rethink that please.
Thank you, Ari.
As a 5+year vegetarian and a 1+year (mostly) vegan I appreciate you stating what I feel so articulately. I have "converted" a few friends, but more by example and by simply sharing my truth; not by preaching or acting superior (because I am not). You never convince friends that way. Most people in my life, however, are completely unfazed and unchanged, although usually reasonably respectful of my choice. It is hard to understand the lack of compassion, when it is so fundamental to the very essence of my own life. I think denial (of MANY things) is huge in our society; we'd just rather not think about anything nasty. But it is not my job to change their minds, per se; I still believe that living and speaking one's truth is all that one can do. Ultimately each person must decide for themselves what is true.
Dear allcreaturesareone:
It is not YOUR truth. Ask that terrified cow whose truth it is. It's just THE truth.
Heather, the TRUTH is that cows are incapable of reasoning and therefore, do not feel "terrified." Your fringe-talk is the main reason that veganism has such a negative image to many.
What an awesome article.
And for those of you who say we are supposed to eat meat...why is it many millions now, and in the past, are living fine without it? And why is it we are dying from meat related diseases?
I myself have not had ANY meat for over two decades...and I am fine.
It's a CHOICE. Plain and simple.
JCont--
Yes, insects are animals, but I think we can all agree that insects, having a much simpler nervous system, are not capable of suffering the way you, me, dogs, pigs, chickens, fish can. Surely, there are unintended consequences to insects and animals in the process of harvesting crops, and it's important to be aware of them. But can that compare to the calculated, inhumane raising and slaughtering of millions of sentient beings every day?
Like everything, it's not black & white, and it's impossible to reduce all unnecessary suffering. But how about we do the best we can? All I wish to do is reduce suffering in the world as much as possible. To me, being vegan (or reducing consumption of animal products) is a relatively straightforward way of doing that. I try to be aware of other things I can change in my daily life to reduce suffering... including social justice issues, eg. avoiding companies that exploit migrant workers.
I know your points focus on the logic vs. ethics of what Solomon says. I personally don't find that particularly interesting or relevant to argue. I think the gist is what "Cathy Russell" (below) implied... Isn't it logical to be ethical?
"All animals deserve to be free from unnecessary pain, fear, and suffering at the hands of humans."
Ok, perhaps that's technically an ethical, not logical statement. Since we can agree the statement is of value, let's do something about it. Go vegan! (If not just for the environment!)
It's not that the poster is trying to attack meat-eaters. At least, that's not how I see it. But if eating meat is unnecessary, then it equates to killing for pleasure. There really isn't a NICE way to state this.
BUT...that doesn't amount to attacking all meateaters. I does attack the CHOICE to eat meat and offer a viable alernative.
Veganism isn't about vegans being better than nonvegans. But veganism, the choice itself, is a better choice. Isn't it better to choose to not kill or hurt someone else when it's not necessary? I think most people would agree with the basic premise that harming another unnecessarily is wrong.
As far as the logical vs. religious and moral views... I think the logic was that morality should be applied to other animals besides the ones we happen to be close to. We should strive to apply our personal ethics in all our choices, including the foods we eat. :)
Have a nice day. :)
Ari,
Two posts that spoke fully to my heart. I wonder if such logic can only be taken defensively by those who act in ways inconsistent with your message. My actions often do great destruction to the environment. However, I think I own up to this and endeavor for my efforts to become more mindful of how I can live differently. My hope is that non-vegans will have a similar approach and reaction to your article.
This is not to critique veganism as inherently flawed, and heaven forbid that someone think I'm defending careless or thoughtless eating. Local food, ethically produced food, organic food, food where you personally know the farmer, and yes, vegetarianism and veganism all help address numerous problems in our food system, that threaten our ecosystems and ourselves. But come on--addressing many of these issues is a moral choice, verging on a choice of "faith" in how the world should be run and for whom.
"...if we say we care about cruelty to animals then it's time we start caring about all animals. Yes, dogs and cats are companion animals but in terms of suffering our canine and feline friends feel the same as a pig, cow, chicken, lamb, or turkey. To pick and choose species in terms of whose pain we care about is incredibly hypocritical and inconsistent."
I think the article writer undermines himself here; he clearly has feelings about veganism that go beyond the rational or "logical." There is nothing inherently wrong about this, but from a rational/logical perspective, I find this sentiment ill-phrased:
"All animals deserve to be free from unnecessary pain, fear, and suffering at the hands of humans."
It may be morally hard to disagree with that, but it *is* a statement on morality, a value statement, not a logical proposition. I wouldn't argue that working to help fellow humans or, say, broad secular humanism are purely "logical" systems. For example, I myself choose to work in an area pertinent to social justice because of my relevant beliefs, not because it is in some unassailable way "logical." And of course, one cannot actually practice what Solomon is talking about literally, because the growing of vegetable crops takes an undoubtedly huge toll on animals as well, from their production (i.e. pest elimination, exploitation of pollinating bees) to their harvest (i.e. threshers killing field animals; tractors crushing soil fauna), their processing (even vegan and vegetarian processed foods tend to be made in plants, where there again will be pest control and likely "maximum allowable" animal parts from processing plant mishaps with resident rodents, say), and their transport (I'm sure we could cut down the number of insect deaths and roadkill if we demanded all food transport took place at low speeds, i.e. not interstate highway speeds.)
And yet, "one" can do what "one" can, can't "one"?
The point is, try to stop doing harm. If you don't feel like it, then admit you don't feel like it, but don't attack the messenger for bringing you facts. That's what the article was basically about. The facts are there, they have been proven.
Man, what a well written clarification to the conventional wisdom. Thanks for keeping the coals burning. goveg.com
One of the best articles I've read in a long time.
Well said! Reading misguided meat eaters angry rationalization means we're getting close to making big changes! I'm passing this on to all my friends who are still a bit out of touch with their consciouses!
Tally22 and dmzf --
You both seem to live by the adage that what you choose to eat is up to you, and that's the end of it. But surely you both recognize that not all choices are victimless.
If you eat meat you are paying for a system of exploitation, suffering, and killing that is destroying not just animals, but human health, and our planet. Those are not opinions, but empirical, incontrovertible facts.
If you don't give a damn, then just admit that... but don't pretend that food choices are just inconsequential "personal matters." People can choose to do harm. They can also choose to stop. But knowing what goes on and ignoring it because you like the taste of meat... good luck explaining that attitude to your grandchildren living on a poisoned, dead planet.
Did you know that all fisheries are predicted to collapse totally by 2048? Tuna is on the verge of extinction now. Many scientists believe that a tipping point has already been passed in the accelerating death rate of coral reefs. We should be treating these things as an emergency, yet people like you don't seem to want to be bothered with the facts. Why? You also have to live with the consequences of your choices.
We should all remember Jared Diamond's poignant warning in his book Collapse, about the death of past civilizations that blindly over-consumed their resources: being in power only buys you the privilege of dying last.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
