Animal products are the result of intentional torture and killing on a mass scale. Over 40 billion land animals (don’t know the numbers on the fish) are killed each year in the US alone. I don’t think that there is anything hypocritical about avoiding products of intentional torture, imprisonment, and slaughter and trying to persuade others to eliminate this from their lives in order to dismantle an utterly barbaric system, while not being able to eliminate all unintentional products of animal suffering, such as deaths of animals in farm fields or habitat destruction by the construction and operation of factories that pollute. I don’t know any vegans who feel they are perfect. In fact, most think that being vegan is the very least they can do for animals.

Being vegan is avoiding animal exploitation wherever it is unnecessary (key word being unnecessary). Unless you are truly starving and in a remote location with no alternatives, then it is always unnecessary to eat animal products. It is always unnecessary to use them for clothing. One person I encountered claimed that using any modern technology or anything plastic harms animals even more than eating animal products does. I’m not sure how using a computer harms animals, but it is something of a necessity in today’s world (I use it for my job in order to make money to feed myself, and food is kind of a necessity), and unfortunately there are no certified vegan computers…yet. Maybe there will be one day. Same can be said of a car if one is needed to drive to work. It is a necessary evil right now, but technology is moving toward developing cars and other forms of transportation that harm the environment less. Should human rights advocates stop using computers and iPhones for advocacy work because human slave labor may have been used to produce them, or should they stop advocating for human rights on the Internet entirely because otherwise they would be, in this fallacious view, hypocrites? Vegans avoid products where animal exploitation is direct and obvious and may then make it their life’s quest to continue eliminating products and practices of exploitation that are not as obvious. After becoming vegan, almost every vegan becomes very aware of his or her environmental impact, and many start making steps toward avoiding plastic or whatever other environmental disaster as much as possible, while also reducing their general consumption of unnecessary things (superfluous clothing, household items, random junk, etc.). Unfortunately in this very nonvegan world, it is impossible to avoid animal use in some way unless one goes and lives in the wild. But if more of the world does become vegan, one day it may be possible to use things that are nearly 100% free of any harms to animals, as the practices of most corporations or whatever entities provide us with resources to live will most likely be more conscientious than they are now, which is close to zero. Becoming vegan usually makes one more conscientious than ever. Veganism is a start to ridding the world of animal exploitation and not the end all, be all. It was never about intervening and ending the harm of every animal on the planet right now, so if one thinks that, then I can see why he/she would think vegans are hypocrites, but hopefully if you explain to him/her what veganism actually is, he/she will stop calling vegans hypocrites unless he/she sees a vegan engaging in obviously unnecessary animal use like eating dairy cheese (making that person not vegan anyway).

If you believe that animals have the right to not be used as commodities, then you must be vegan. Vegans never make the claim that being vegan will make you perfect and that you will avoid every single harm to animal, human or not. Being vegan is a start to eradicating violence in the world, and vegan activists are trying to get others to the starting line as well, and most are not in any way saying that this is the end of the world’s problems or problems for wild animals just because a small percentage of the population is vegan right now.

No one can know the implications of a world of people becoming more conscientious and at the same time vastly reducing resource use by worldwide adoption of veganism. Get rid of the wasteful, damaging abuses to the environment by the animal agriculture industries, and you’re going to have a world where it is much easier to always be kinder and gentler to all animals everywhere and reduce unintentional harm to them as well. To get there, we first all have to say no to all intentional, avoidable animal use.

Vitamin B12 is made by bacteria and fungi; it’s not something special made by animals that our body needs. Since there are tons of microbes in the soil, it used to be present there, but the soil has been very worn out by modern agriculture – how intense it is and all the chemicals used. So it is likely that back in the day some used to get absorbed by plants. B12 wasn’t discovered until the 1950s, and modern agriculture with heavy pesticides started right after WWII, when all the chemical warfare companies needed to find something to do with their chemicals. Also, from all the heavy usage of the soil, it’s become more and more demineralized; if there is little cobalt in the soil, then only a little B12 can be made, even if the microbes are there. (B12 is a cobalamin.) So we’ll just never know for sure if plants used to contain B12! I did, however, see a fairly recent study that showed if there is B12 in the soil, then plants can absorb some of it, which offers a possible explanation for why some vegans who do not supplement do not develop deficiencies. Animal agriculture, on the scale that we practice it, does no favors for our farmland. It takes roughly 5-10 times the crops to make animal food than it does to make farm plant food to feed directly to people. So really, this soil depletion may have something to do with the fact that many nonvegans are B12 deficient too; our food supply just is not as in tune with nature as it used to be. One of the ways cows get B12 is by eating lots of soil with grass, and as for the way other farm animals who aren’t grass fed get it – I wouldn’t be surprised if B12 was added as a supplement to their factory produced feed, since I’ve heard that dairy cows are supplemented with calcium (How ironic is that?! We subject cows to horrible living conditions so that we can feed a calcium supplement to them so they can lactate the calcium out for their baby, whom we steal from her and then cruelly confine and slaughter, and so we can take her milk instead and then drink it, all in the name of calcium. We might as well get our calcium from where cows get it naturally when they’re in the wild – plants! Or just cut out the middle man already and take a supplement ourselves.) Today’s lower quality soil could also help to explain why a significant number of nonvegans who eat plenty of animal products are B12 deficient as well. Eating animal products will not insure you against B12 deficiency. Upon learning this fact, B12 ceases to be just the vegan’s issue, but a general health issue for everyone.

Another thing is that our society has become very sanitary about our food. Some soil would stick to vegetables, like carrots and potatoes, and people probably didn’t really bother to scrub their vegetables clean like we do now, and don’t forget that the soil was much healthier and richer then (so don’t think you can get away with meeting your B12 by not washing your produce). There wasn’t such a fear of dirt then either. Also, before massive water purification systems, people would have drunk water contaminated with microbes who make B12; this is why B12 deficiency might not be such a problem in third world countries because they don’t have water where almost all the microorganisms have been killed.

And WAY back in the day, we were probably eating a lot more like the primates we are, a diet of mostly fruit and greens with some insects, dirt, and feces mixed in, all of which are sources of B12. B12 is made by bacteria in your intestines, so yes, you can get B12 from eating your feces; there was actually a study published in the British Journal of Haemotology where B12 was extracted from B12 deficient vegans’ feces and fed back to them, and there was enough B12 in it to get their B12 levels back up to normal. I hope no one would want to do that! But at least it makes a little more sense when you see some animals, like rabbits and other non-ruminant herbivores who can’t make absorb B12 from their digestive tract, eating their own feces. Unfortunately, B12 is made a bit past where it gets absorbed by your body, so you can’t rely on your intestinal flora as a source that you can re-absorb. However, there was a study of Iranian villagers published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, and they ate a very small amount of animal products, like a serving of dairy a week and a serving of meat a month, but they had great B12 levels, even though having one serving of animal products everyday, not just once a week/month, would not even provide the B12 RDA. The researchers speculated that their low protein diet allowed the B12 producing bacteria to travel farther up the intestine (probably due to variances in intestinal pH more friendly to the B12 producing bacteria) where it could be absorbed.

Another interesting thing is that we have a very small requirement for B12, I think the smallest of all the vitamins. It’s like 2 micrograms a day. Our bodies hoard it like crazy; your stores can last for years with no intake. It’s almost as if our body knows it’s not a super plentiful vitamin in nature, and we’re only going to come across it infrequently. I think some of it can be recycled in your body too. This is a lot different from how your body treats plentiful vitamins, like C, by just excreting the extra in the urine.

As you can see, this is a very complex issue; it’s not a black and white one that some would like to believe, where we can say we need something that we find pretty much only in the animal products in our food supply now, so that means we must/should eat animal products. Even though at first glance, the B12 question makes people think we must be carnivores, the truth is we’re much closer in physical traits to animals who are mostly herbivorous/frugivorous. To see that, we just need to look to comparative anatomy/physiology. It is so basic, but you probably never learned much about it in school, unfortunately. Please have a look at this chart – (link) And this is a pretty good write-up – (link).

The thing that is really compelling to me that shows we’re not really designed to eat much meat is our basic anatomy. If we were in the wild, naked, could we take down an animal with nothing but our bare hands, blunt teeth, and soft nails? Could we rip apart the animal and eat it? Could we make a clean kill right to the throat like a carnivore does? Could we even catch the animal and hold it in place long enough to hack away at it with our teeth and nails in the first place?! Most animals can outrun humans, obviously, and they can usually squirm away from them once they’re caught too. And would we even have the desire to work that hard to get it? Surely the taste of plain, raw meat isn’t that alluring to make us perform these feats. So a lot of people would say, well we’re meant to kill animals because we have the ability to make tools!…Really? Our rational thinking and intelligence can take us anywhere, make us do anything! Just because we can do it, doesn’t mean that it is right, natural, or healthy for us. Anything our brain can dream will most likely far outpace the human body’s ability to evolve. Fast food, cigarettes, synthetic recreational drugs, processed food, the modern conveniences that allow for sendentariness: all are products of various technologies the human brain dreamed, calculated, and created, and there is no way our body is going to evolve quickly enough to thrive on, let alone safely handle those things in large quantities. Tools used for killing animals are just a much more basic technology we created, and our body has not quite caught up with what it has provided us with. And don’t forget about atomic bombs, torture devices, and chemical/biological warfare; technology does not always take us down the enlightened and peaceful path, and I certainly don’t think that the cavemen technology of spears and rocks is the brightest and best idea so much so that we should perpetuate it with the updated technology of slaughterhouse machinery. I won’t deny that there were times in our history when it was necessary for humans to eat meat to survive, but just because we can eat and digest something (processed food, McDonald’s, cockroaches, dog and cat meat, cardboard, etc.) doesn’t mean it is optimal for us. Our species evolved in the tropics and then eventually migrated from there; we no longer had our optimal food available in the cold climates we moved to, so we had to make do with what was available in each location. If we would have stayed in the tropics, we probably never would have taken up meat eating with the abundant, appealing fruit available to us there.

Take a look at instinct vs. choice when it comes to food. Right now we eat almost exclusively by choice. If we strip away all cultural and habitual conditioning that direct our food desires and just take two things in their raw, natural state: a live rabbit and a ripe apple. Going only on our instinct and not informing our choice from what we have been taught to eat, which one would almost all people choose 100% of the time? Would the rabbit smell appetizing to us? (He would to dogs and cats, since they have such a strong sense of smell; they can probably smell the meat of the rabbit under his fur.) Would the apple smell appealing to us? Of course. What about the taste of each – do we have taste buds for plain, raw meat with no salt or seasoning added to it? Or do we have taste buds for fruit? Babies are born with a desire for sweetness. There have been experiments where babies are calmed with sugar water; I doubt anyone would try to pacify a baby with a hunk of raw meat. Also, the sight of the apple would appeal to us. Bright color attracts our attention (which is why fruit doesn’t turn a vibrant color until it is ripe and ready to be eaten); some (all?) carnivores are color blind; it’s not important for them to see bright colors and to know when fruit is ripe. So not only is our body hard-wired to tell us to eat the apple, but what would most (normal) people’s instinct make them want to do to the rabbit? Cuddle, hug, and protect him, right? So like I said, now with our food environment vastly different than what would be available in the wild, we eat by choice and not instinct. The crazy thing is even though we don’t eat by instinct anymore, we don’t even truly make much of a choice in the matter, since what we eat is really determined by the culture we were raised in, what was put in front of us as a kid, what is served at social functions, and what is available to us in grocery stores and restaurants. Eating a vegan diet is deciding to take back your choice in the matter a bit more and to maybe eat a little closer to what our instincts would have led us to hundreds of thousands of years ago.

I think it makes sense to look at our most similar genetic relative, the chimp, to see what they eat. We are more closely related to a chimp than a horse is to a donkey, and the latter are so close that they can actually mate with each other. Chimps survive mostly on fruit and greens. I’m betting they get their B12 from insects, worms, and soil on the vegetation they eat. I much rather just take a supplement than eat insects and worms :) Sometimes our technology can help us to improve on nature. I’ve also heard that since humans don’t possess any of the traits of a natural predator, we may be more like opportunistic scavengers instead, sometimes feeding on animals that have already died or ones that predators killed. Again, I much rather stick with the supplement than eat roadkill!

This MD has summed up the B12 thing in the best way I’ve ever seen – “I realize some people think there is something ‘unnatural’ and bad about taking supplements, but it is the price we must pay for eating less dirt, feces and insects than our primate ancestors.” http://veganmd.blogspot.com/2007/12/vegan-must-knows-on-vitamin-b12-d.html

Or you can take a different approach to this question entirely: just brush it off. I read part of the chapter on B12 in vegan dietitians Ginny Messina’s and Jack Norris’s new book, Vegan for Life: Everything You Need to Know to Be Healthy and Fit on a Plant-Based Diet, today, and they say, just forget about trying to argue that humans weren’t meant to eat meat and that it’s not natural. Veganism is about changing the future. It’s not about looking to the past and figuring out how to eat and act from there. It’s about showing people it’s time for our society to evolve. The point is that the evidence shows we can be completely healthy on a vegan diet supplemented with B12. If it’s not the most natural way, who cares?! Who’s eating a 100% natural diet from the wild in this day and age anyway? We live in an unnatural society that is very difficult to break away from. I will happily and proudly take my “unnatural” B12 supplement if it means sparing the life of an animal, thank you very much. It’s a win-win situation. I live; an animal lives.

Now since I’ve mentioned Ginny and Jack, I don’t feel right to end this post without reminding everyone…if you are vegan, TAKE A B12 SUPPLEMENT EVERYDAY. (And do it too, if you’re not a vegan.)

In reply to this comment:

Whatever diet you choose to eat,it should provide all the nutrients you need from plants and/or animals that occur naturally. A vegan diet is deficient in B-12. It is necessary to take an artificially produced supplement­. This to me indicates that a vegan diet is not one naturally suited to humans.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

First of all, there’s absolutely no way to know that animals don’t think. Just because they don’t communicate in any verbal human languages does not mean they don’t think. For all we know, cows are smarter than Einstein, but they choose to never talk and to instead eat grass all day. Anyhow, there is actually plenty of scientific evidence that animals do think. Pigs can play video games for a food reward. Rats can solve mazes. Gorillas can communicate with humans using sign language. And even if we could prove that animals couldn’t think, the important thing is that they certainly do feel. Babies and mentally handicapped people don’t think anything like human adults can. Should we kill and eat them too? The ability to think like a human should not be the grounds for moral consideration. What shapes most moral codes? Usually, they are tied in with feelings. They often have an ultimate goal of maximizing happiness and/or minimizing pain and suffering – both which deal with emotional or physical feelings. Let’s say there is someone who can only think and not feel at all (kind of like an android or complex computer) – no pain, no emotions, no desires – murdering this “person” wouldn’t be so bad (as long as they had no family who could feel emotions and grieve) precisely because there could be no fear, disappointment, or pain, but switch that hypothetical situation around – if someone could not think at the level of a human being but could feel 100%, death would still be a terrifying, painful experience. And that is why we base morals on feelings.
It is obvious that animals feel pain and emotions. This requires far less proof than the claim that animals can think. Anyone who has ever lived with a cat or dog knows that animals have emotions and can feel pain. Animals also have families and care for their offspring, just like humans do. They also show great distress when they or their offspring are in danger, just like humans do. There is even an account of a cat who kept returning into a burning building to carry each of her kittens to safety, even though she was already badly burned.
The thing is we don’t need meat to live. The only reason we kill is for taste. Is it truly worth putting a sentient being through hell (and I do mean hell – http://www.watchearthlings.com) just to have a few minutes of pleasure?

Here is an excellent post that elaborates on the issue of the value of human vs. nonhuman life – http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/peter-singer-and-the-welfarist-position-on-the-lesser-value-of-nonhuman-life/

sooo… i don’t understand the “exploited animal” thing.

is a dog that serves as a seeing eye animal, a dog that is well feed/cared for/loved, and then put to sleep at the end of his/her life exploited?

what is the role of an animal? are pets okay? are they not supposed to play a role in our society at all? we domesticated animals to serve a purpose in our society, was that wrong?

i guess what i don’t understand about vegans is what they think animals are for. i mean, i think everyone earns its keep. like on a farm. horses work, chickens give eggs, dogs herd and protect.

Here is my response. I may want to elaborate more on this in the future, but I think I already hit one of the most important points that I would have wanted to make in that post.

Vegans are concerned because animals are exploited for unnecessary commercial products. The fact is that we can live healthfully and abundantly without consuming any animal products.

You can’t compare seeing-eye dogs and dogs as pets to animals exploited for food or clothing products. Dogs in these cases are usually seen as more than property – a beloved member of a family, like a child. Do you consider it “exploiting” your children because you force them to live under your care until they’re adults? Vegans are divided on the issue of seeing-eye dogs, but at least the dog is performing a very noble service that GREATLY helps a person and GREATLY enriches his or her quality of life for many years. Farm animals are usually treated terribly, kept in awful conditions, and killed in pain and dread just so someone can have a momentary gustatory pleasure that’s not even healthy – like a burger or a sausage.

As to your question – “why are animals here?” Let me ask you why are you here? Why am I here? Why is anyone here? There is no objective answer to this question. Wouldn’t it be best if we all let each other (including our fellow earthlings) decide the peaceful course of his or her own life?

Also, chickens don’t “give” eggs as much as you don’t “give” eggs to anyone when you ovulate. They are your eggs, not anyone else’s. Eggs are just part of a chicken’s menstrual cycle, and the nutrients found in eggs are there for the baby chick to eat as he or she grows. Not all dogs herd and protect. What about chihuahuas? Should we find them another purpose – kill them for meat perhaps? Most horses only work because we’ve forced them to and “broken” their spirits into being terrified to do anything but what we tell them. It’s almost as if you’re saying if something doesn’t have a clear purpose for human benefit, then we need to give them one no matter how much it infringes on their right to live life as they want. What would you say about a severely mentally handicapped human who can’t do much of anything and has no living family? What is that person here for? They can’t work a job and contribute to society. They don’t have a family to make happy. In fact, they’re probably a drain on society because tax dollars have to support them. But why do we allow them to live in society and still support them? Because life is valued by many as sacred. And vegans extend that reverence for life that most humans have for other human life to include animals as well. Believe it or not, some people used to say, what good are black people for anything other than to pick cotton as slaves? It’s the view that we can define another sentient, emotional being’s life that gets us into trouble.

If you could have a pet cow that you could milk yourself (painlessly) to get butter, cheese, milk – would you eat dairy products?

That’s a really great question. And I’ve often thought that I’d be OK with it as long as the cow had a great, natural life and lived to a natural death. I never imagined ever getting ambitious enough to own a cow though. Now, after being vegan for over a year, I’ve had time to continue to think about many things as well as fully experience a nondairy life, and I realized I wouldn’t even do this. I don’t think animal products should ever be used unless there is no other alternative, and you are starving. The thing with backyard cows is you’d most likely have to buy one from someone who breeds cows. Who knows about the ethics of that breeder, and even if they are “humane,” they are probably still killing male cows for food. I wouldn’t want to support murder in any way, even indirectly. The other thing is that you would have to every couple of years (at least) impregnate her in order for her to begin lactation; cows are like any other mammals, they do no give milk unless they have young to feed. In the dairy industry, they employ an object called the rape rack which forcibly holds the cow still while they stick their arm all the way inside her to inseminate her. I don’t know how this would be accomplished in a backyard exactly. You’d have to either buy the semen and do it yourself (no thanks) or hire someone to do this part for you. Or I guess you could rent a bull for the old-fashioned way. Again, your source for any of these animals/products/services would probably be a farmer who kills (at least) male cows, which would mean you’d be financially supporting their activities that ultimately lead to suffering and murder. Then what to do with the baby cows after each pregnancy? Especially the males? I guess you could let them go and live free somewhere. I definitely wouldn’t want to sell them back to a farmer – even if the farmer was strictly a dairy farmer. When they can no longer give good milk, dairy cows always end up going to the same slaughterhouse as any other animal raised for meat. The meat and dairy industry are inextricably linked.

All of the aforementioned aside, let’s pretend that this is more of a perfect world, and everyone is at least lacto-ovo vegetarian, with the result that we never had to kill animals for food, I still wouldn’t really care about consuming dairy. Nonvegans think vegans are living a life of lack and would go back to consuming animal products if conditions for animals were perfect with no chance for things to slip back to the way things were. That may be the case for some vegans, but for many, veganism recognizes that animals and their products should never be sold as commodities and that their property status is the root cause of the terrible injustices animals suffer, but that is an entirely different issue, which I will not elaborate on right now. To me, dairy-free food is superior. We’re the only species that continues to drink milk past a young age AND to drink it from another species on a regular basis. As if those common sense points weren’t enough, our body’s biochemistry tells us we don’t need milk much past the age of 3. The genes that code for the enzyme lactase no longer express in most people. The job of lactase is to break down lactose into simpler sugars that we can digest. Many people are lactose intolerant and don’t even know it. Plus, milk is just nasty when you think about it. It’s mammary gland secretions. And there’s pus that comes out with it sometimes. Granted, that’s mostly when the cow is cruelly and relentlessly milked by machines in the industry today, and she develops infections, but as of right now there is a legally allowable amount of pus in all dairy products. This amount is highest in the U.S.

Cow’s milk is a substance that is designed for a baby cow who is to grow at a much faster rate than even human babies. We are not babies. We are adults, and we are still consuming loads of dairy everyday! We don’t need to consume anything that promotes fast growth. We’re done growing. What we can grow, instead of longer limbs like children do, are cancer cells. Cancer is an out of control growing mass of cells that started from normal body cells. Knowing that we consume a product that highly promotes growth even beyond the realm of the growth rate of a human baby and then looking at rates of cancer in the world – you would think we would make the connection by now. Also, the protein in milk is designed for an animal with 4 stomachs. It’s complex and hard to digest. I don’t think our one stomach can do that great of a job with it.  Hmm, I wonder why dairy is associated with indigestion and constipation? Also, casein, one of the proteins in milk, promotes mucus formation in our bodies and is used to make really strong glue. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want something that is an integral part of glue to be coating my nasal passages. If that weren’t enough, we cannot even digest casein. It requires the enzyme rennin (found in calves’ stomachs, not humans’) to break be broken down into its constituent amino acids. And by the way, some cheese cannot even qualify as vegetarian because it is curdled with rennin from a slaughtered calf’s stomach. Of course the calf has rennin in his stomach because cow’s milk is the appropriate drink for a calf, not a human.

Really think about it, does it truly make sense to consume dairy? This image gets me every time -

I’m not going to take the time to go into the health issues associated with dairy because there are volumes written on the topic already. Just know it’s tied to cancer and osteoporosis (no, you don’t need milk for strong bones – that’s propaganda by the animal agriculture industry who puts more money into influencing the government than the entire pharmaceutical industry!) to name a couple. Diet for a New America, Breaking the Food Seduction, and The China Study are all great books that address both the health and the propaganda issues. I highly recommend these life-changing books. Diet for a New America is written by the son of Robbins of the Baskin-Robbins ice cream empire – he declined to take over the multi-million dollar business since the products it served were against his compassionate values and were counters to his desire for great health. The China Study is written by a Ph.D. who used to wholeheartedly support animal agriculture. He is not an animal rights activist, nor a vegan since he occasionally consumes fish, but he otherwise never consumes animal products because of his major research findings. Breaking the Food Seduction is by Neal Barnard, M.D. who grew up in a very conservative, vegan unfriendly North Dakota while consuming all kinds of animal products. He is now a vegan because of compassion and his findings on the addictive and unhealthy nature of animal-based foods.

So it all comes down to taste really. Some people don’t care about any of these issues and would still like to consume dairy. That’s where tons of awesome, nearly-identical-to-the-animal-product-laden-version vegan recipes come into play. The ONLY thing that is not perfected yet is vegan cheese. But it’s a work in progress. Many vegan companies are experimenting with microorganisms and which plant foods have the most similar protein/fat ratio to dairy. Even if someone gets the taste, texture, and melt down exactly, I don’t think it will ever be quite as addictive as the animal product since dairy products naturally contain opiates, including morphine. People are literally addicted to dairy.

There’s so much wrong with dairy, I just wouldn’t want to mess with it again especially when I’ve even conquered the tasty food issue by exceeding my expectations time after time with vegan recipes.

Ok, I lied, it also comes down to convenience in the end, for many people. Dairy is present in so many pre-packaged foods at a typical grocery store. However, things are looking up because non-dairy foods are becoming more and more in demand. So to this I say, if you truly cannot become a vegan with where you are in life right now (laziness and unmotivation don’t count), then please always choose a vegan product when you do have the option. As an example, you could choose soy/rice/hemp/oat/almond/coconut milk instead of dairy milk. Soy, rice, and almond milks are usually easy to find now. One day there will be vegan options everywhere, so please help that day get here faster by voting with your money and showing that you want nondairy alternatives.

This post was just to answer why vegans would not elect to keep and milk a cow even if done as nicely as possible.  I hardly touched on the horrendous things that typical dairy cows face. If you are still consuming dairy from any source, please view this link. It is a site published by an organization based in the UK, but the conditions for cows in the US and other parts of the world are even worse. And if you think organic dairy means happy cows, please view this link. The true answer is just to release animals from our bonds of exploitation for their products and replace our beloved, traditional foods with equally satisfying vegan versions.

Stay tuned for the next FAQ – to be posted when I get around to it :)

Leafy recently posted a debate between animals-as-property abolitionist Gary Francione and libertarian philosopher Jan Narveson. I was appalled at Narveson’s stance that if it is in humans’ interests (even in the trivial interests of entertainment or fashion), it is entirely morally acceptable to torture an animal in any conceivable way. To him, it’s “weird,” but we shouldn’t ever stop anyone from doing it. I presume his reasoning is that he wouldn’t want to interfere with a person’s “freedom” to torture another feeling being.

For context, this was originally posted on a private forum with about twenty (non-veg*n) members.

The longer I remain vegan and think about my motivations for being so, I’ve realized that they stem from larger societal issues. This is the point where this post might start offending people, and I truly do not mean it to. Any examples I provide or situations I describe are not directly pointed at anyone, least of all anyone here. I don’t know anyone here very well (or even decently well), so this is just a statement of how I feel. (More direct disclaimer: Every thing said in this post is directly from my point of view. The topics herein contained are stated as facts. Their factness may remain debatable to some, but from my point of view, they are fact. I believe wholeheartedly that there is no such thing as objective/absolute truth so read what I say with that lens. )

I don’t much like labels, but one of the most fitting labels for me is Libertarian. While I will not completely identify myself with that political party, I agree with basically all of their tenets. To me, it all means one thing – freedom. You should be free to do whatever you want to do, however you want to do it, for as long as you want to do it so long as you don’t infringe on another’s right to do the same. Any restriction on this is an outside party/force trying to control behavior for his/her/its/their own purposes. Manipulation of a population is a heinous crime and is the antithesis of freedom. That being said, if humans are guaranteed this (and I know they aren’t but ultimately, that is what I hope for), why are animals not?

The answer to that question boils down to one simple belief. Humans are superior to animals. If one believes this, I counter with a simple, “why?” If it is because we possess greater mental capacity, I might remind you (generic you, not the reader) that the one (and practically only) advanced ability that humans have over animals is the ability to recognize “complex” patterns. Yet, I find it disheartening that this ability receives very little reward in our society. The people who make the most money are not the ones who have mastered this defining characteristic of our species, but are the ones who have mastered their physical bodies to play games. We are “superior” to animals yet our largest forms of entertainment of at the same level of the entertainment of animals. If we are that similar to animals, then perhaps a higher authority has deemed humans as a “superior” species. Regardless of one’s belief in said higher power, I personally must go back to what I said in the last paragraph – manipulation of a population is a heinous crime and is the antithesis of freedom. If this “higher power” has decreed that we are “superior” that that power is manipulating us by infusing an alien belief structure into us. While it is generally easier to remain ignorant of this lack of self-definition, I do not feel that I can accept that.

So, all of that being said, I feel that animals are neither superior nor inferior to humans. Humans are animals. In that light, the meat industry is akin to slavery in that a group of people are restricting the life of other individuals to make a significant gain from the life of that individual whereas on the other side of the coin, the individual is not allowed to live a natural life. This is a grave injustice. It is sickening to me the more I think about it. I cannot support something which betrays my most base moral code…the prevalence of justice (what can I say, I’m a Libra).

I sincerely hope that this post was not taken as a sermon. I have no right to tell you that what you feel/believe is wrong. In fact, I am a moral relativist, but that does not quell the fire of my own beliefs. There are about a billion other related topics about which I have an unyielding blaze of criticism/commentary, and I hope that I can one day discuss these things rationally with rational people such as are here. I welcome any critiques of my post/thoughts and would love to start a dia/tria/more-alogue about the subjects and any related (or non-related) ones.

Friend

Let me start by assuring you that I never come to conclusions on an issue–never toe a moral line–without an almost excessive amount of deliberation, and even then, my mind is never fully made up. That is why I love discourse like this between two people who can civilly debate in the hope that both will come out better than they started.

It is for this reason that I’ve decided against my original idea of posting a contiguous essay (the first draft of which clocked in–unfinished–at over 11 pages), because I do not simply want to be seen as trying to bury the issue in words. I’d much rather argue fairly brief, focused points that I hope will garner response, which, in turn, can be responded to.

I also have to say that, though we disagree, I have incredible respect for your position. It really is nothing short of courageous to be empathetic beyond the realm of your species. I consider myself an extremely open-minded person and have always found it easy to empathize with those of other genders, races, cultures and religions, but the extra-species gap is one I haven’t bridged.

I do want to state that my perspective of our species is not grounded in any sort of us-and-them morality. I very much understand your closing point–that we as humans are animals. But at the same time, we both know that we as humans are far removed from anything else in the animal kingdom. Which is how I’d like to begin.

I. The Division

“Animals are people too!”
–PETA bumper sticker (that spins Wittgenstein in his grave)

All rational people can agree that humans are animals. But does it suffice to say that all that it is to be human is defined by that fact?

I believe we are agreed that it does not. In fact it seems that the crux of the most ambitious argument put forth by those who believe that humans and animals should be equal, actually depends on our differences.

To understand it’s implications, it is important to examine the definition of “equality” in this context, which seems to be: “humans should treat animals the way that humans treat humans, and furthermore, this is necessary because we as humans are ourselves animals,” or, “equal treatment for equal beings.”

To try to reduce this to a simple, logical statement yields something like: “because humans are animals we should treat animals as humans.”

Phrasing it this way perhaps does not make it sound less noble, but it does illustrate the main problem hidden in the simple and optimistic perspective that animals should be regarded as equal to humans: it is inherently illogical.

Now, one could argue that simply because the statement is illogical does not mean it dose not propose a good idea. Conversely, if we only concern ourselves with only making a logical statement, we could conclude: “because humans are animals we should treat humans as animals,” yet one would be hard pressed to say this is a good proposal.

Why is this?

Of course, the reason is because humans have invented a system of ethics that roughly outlines the expected way that humans should treat other humans. This is one of the innumerable assets of humans’ highly evolved cognitive abilities that sets us apart from the rest of the life on earth. To fully illustrate the degree of this separation, of course, would involve discussion of the whole of our culture, civilization, art, language, literacy, invention, and many, many other areas that fall under the far insufficient label of “reason.”

Animals do not reason, and therefore do not have a system of ethics. I do not make this obvious statement as evidence that they should not have rights, but because of the consequences: animals, ungoverned by conscience, are speciesist. Because animals are hardwired by natural design to preserve their own species, those that are carnivorous or omnivorous, in the majority of cases, do not subsist on members of their own species. They mate within their species to propagate it, and eat outside of it (we can surmise) to preserve it. Completely without a highly-cognitive ethics system, lions treat lions the way ethical humans treat humans. Lions do not, under normal circumstances, kill other lions for food, but instead go a step down in the food chain. So really, our fancy ethics are innately serve the same purpose as much simpler instincts that are exemplified all throughout nature.

To argue this simple truth, I expect, would be frustrating to a supporter of equal-rights for animals. After all, lions could not be expected to consider the ethical ramifications involved in killing similar but unrelated species for food, but it could be argued that humans can and should recognize them. To restate this in a more specific way, it could be said that because human beings are highly evolved and have developed an ethics system to preserve our own species, it is our obligation to defy our innate speciesist tendencies and extend our ethics system to include other species. Whether they should or shouldn’t will be debated later, but we’ve arrived at the point I wanted to make: the argument that animals should be treated as equals to humans depends on acknowledging the extreme extent to which this is demonstrably not the case, and is, therefore, self-defeating.

And so, I reject the idea that because humans are animals, it is necessary to treat animals as humans and instead posit: “because humans are animals, humans should treat animals the way animals treat animals: with more regard for the lives of the members of their own species than the lives of other species.”

Now, it may be counter-argued that this rationale declares “reason” to be the defining characteristic of what/whom can be considered a human being, and therefore humans who cannot reason cannot be defined as human. However that is not the case.

Because we, the other members of the species can reason, we can identify a member of our species even if that member cannot identify himself in that way.

Whether this is done empirically (that being was born of two human parents, and is therefore human) or by scientifically interpreting biological data (his DNA is consistent with the characteristics of human DNA) is irrelevant, reasonable members of the species would identify the non-reasoning member as their own.

So really, the claim that animals deserve to be respected as humans, if based on the fact that we are all animals would have to be phrased: “humans are dissimilar with all other animals, and therefore should treat other species in a dissimilar way than other animals treat other animals” (in other words, “don’t act like animals”). However, that just moves the debate to a new point, should the dissimilarity in treatment be that we treat animals like our own species, or to use them to benefit our species in a unique ways?

Me

Well, I don’t have a very detailed counterargument, but I wanted to make sure to respond, since you have put so much thought into this.

First I would like to thank you for respecting my position, and I certainly respect yours since you have so deeply thought about this. I really appreciate that, since so many people won’t even take ten seconds out of their day to think about any issue. You really put forth an interesting argument. I sooo appreciate your use of logic into coming to your opinion instead of just basing it on some blind acceptance of religious principles or adherence to cultural norms like so many people do. Thank you for putting thought into the issue, and I hope you will continue to.

Let’s set aside the whole issue of legal animal rights for all animals everywhere.

The issue to me, moreso, is that we are routinely treating animals in horrific ways. I would like to extend your comparison of the actions of humans and animals. Taking the speciesist lion as an example again, predatory species kill animals only of other species, yes, but they instinctually do so in ways that quickly kill the animal. The way we kill our animals is actually much LESS humane than the way predatory animals do, and much worse, we imprison billions of animals for their whole lives, unlike the predator-prey relationship in the wild where the animals are free to roam for their entire lives. So in that light, humans could be considered as LESS than animal. I know that an animal is not making a moral decision about the way it kills and doesn’t imprision/torture its prey; it’s just its instinct, but I think this is still an interesting comparison.

Reason can be used for great good or great bad, and I don’t see why we shouldn’t use our ethical senses to continue to expand our compassion for any being who can feel and suffer instead of just using it to justify brutal actions. If nothing else, we should at least give protections to those animals that we have domesticated over the ages. These animals often cannot act in a speciesist way because they’ve been assimilated into the human world. We AT LEAST owe some kind of protections to them, since WE made the decision to remove any speciesist leanings these animals have, such as the tendencies to more aggressively defend themselves against us. To tie in what I stated in my other note, we have essentially created innocent, harmless beings who can feel and love just like very young human children and babies, but we give little or no legal protection to these beings. I apologize for using some subjective terms here, but I care less about the logic and more about just trying to inspire compassion in humans for animals. I feel that if reason and logic is one step above our less evolved origins than growing our compassion and following our highest conscience is the next step of evolution for the human race.

I must also point out that what you state about members of a species regarding the lives of their own as more important than those of other species cannot be a hard and fast rule. As a quick example, a family dog will fight off another dog who might be about to attack a member of its human family. In this case, the dog holds the human life higher than one of its own species.
So if this flimsy rule is one’s sole justification for the continued participation in the exploitation of animals in numerous excruciatingly painful ways, maybe it would be time to find a more solid one?

November 6, 2008 -

My friend, whom I have known since I was about 3 or 4 years old, sparked quite a bit of conversation this morning with his status….

Friend

And don’t get me started on how, in California, animal rights apparently outweigh human civil rights.via Twitter

Lindsey

I wouldn’t call what those animals got in return for the passing of that proposition “rights.” Just a BIT less horror and discomfort in their short, tortured lives for the overfed gluttons of this country. Even if you do endorse the exploitation of animals, don’t you believe that they somehow deserve at least a little less inhumane treatment?
Perhaps you aren’t implying you are against what Prop 2 did, but I don’t think you can compare the two propositions – since Prop 2 really didn’t give those animals any rights. They are still innocent, emotional, sentient beings who remain prisoners and cannot live their lives as they will.
But I do think that’s crazy that the human civil right to which you refer got overturned.
I guess as we treat our animals, so we treat our people we feel are sub-humans.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not for more animal rights and less human rights. I am for more human AND animal rights equally.

[personal comments removed]

Friend

[personal comments removed]

Let me first clarify my position and say that I was hopeful that both prop 8 and prop 2 would pass. [I think he actually meant to say he was hopeful Prop 8 WOULDN'T pass, as in he's pro gay marriage.]

It seems, though, regarding the animal rights issue, that we disagree on two fundamental issues. First, what are the rights, exactly, to which animals are entitled, and secondly, is ensuring these rights to animals AS IMPORTANT as ensuring human rights?

To the first question, I will have to assume based on your above comment and what I know of you personally that your position is that animals deserve the same, or nearly the same, rights as humans. Therefore, in regards to the second question, you likely believe it is self-evident that ensuring animals’ rights and human rights are of essentially the same importance–in fact, are nearly the same issue.

I know this is a brief synopsis of a stance on a nuanced issue, but do I understand your opinions and position well enough for the purpose of argument?

Lindsey

You are correct about my position on the issue of animal rights. I believe they deserve nearly the same rights as humans. Of course, I don’t believe they should have the right to vote or the right to own property and silly stuff like that, but I believe they should be treated just like human children should be treated – with respect and love. Children don’t have full rights like adults, but they are granted protection from harm and death by the law. And luckily we do at least have legislation against harming pets, but it is not nearly enough. People who purposefully harm an innocent being, child or non-human animal, need to be punished equally. Pigs have been shown to be as intelligent as 3 year old children and more intelligent than dogs. How can we just say – “because you can’t talk, and because you don’t look like me, I am going to imprison you in the most deplorable conditions and kill you for food”? Who has the authority to place a value on what life is more valuable than another? Animals have feelings and families just like us. The only difference between humans and animals is a rational mind, and some people may say that humans are superior because of that. However, many mentally challenged people do not have the ability to rationalize either, and a lot of people would find it deplorable to say that they are inferior beings because of their mental state.
It is not anti-human to be pro-animal. The more we can increase our consideration we have for animals, think of how MUCH more consideration we will have for humans. Sometimes animal rights activists appear as though they are anti-human, but they feel that animals are SO neglected by society that they have to ignore all else and put their LIFE into doing all they can do to further those rights. To them, we have a worldwide slave trade going on. Animals are legally regarded as property and nothing more so. Pets can be taken away just like children can be taken away for maltreatment, but farm animals have nearly no legal protection. They can be treated like garbage, and half of the baby chicks in the egg industry ARE garbage. They throw them alive into grinders or let them suffocate in the trash. How sad is that? How is that different from doing that to a baby? A human baby is an innocent, harmless being, and so is a baby animal. There is just not time for animal activists to be worried about higher rights – such as civil rights. At least any people lacking higher rights aren’t being exploited and tortured right now. As soon as animals’ basic physical comfort rights are taken care of, we (pro-animal people) can then move more of our efforts toward advancing higher human civil rights.
So you see, both of those types of rights in question right now are nowhere near on the same level. If we ever do get humans and animals to the same level, then so-called animal rights activists will be the first ones to push for human civil rights just as much. By the way, many animal activists are largely in support of human freedoms. (I receive emails on human rights issues, e.g.) They are just so passionate about the animal side and consumed by the urgency of the situation that it appears that they don’t care.
Even if people do admit to animals needing more rights than they have (or don’t have) right now, then there is the whole circle of life argument where people say death is a part of life. That is true, but why should we have the right to decide who lives and who dies – human or animal? Also, I can understand people who say that hunting animals for food is natural, and I agree – that it is when you are living in the wilderness (although, I wouldn’t do it or endorse it), but factory farms (where 99% of animal products are produced in this country) are despicable and anything but natural. PLUS, we have an amazingly abundant, variety-filled food supply which makes it easy to find alternatives to torturing one or more animals just for one’s dinner. I’ve been animal product-free for almost a year now, and I hardly notice the difference between my diet now and before, and it is sad that so many people are under the illusion of needing their meat, dairy, or eggs, and even sadder if they are not under that illusion and need it just because they like the taste.
Anyhow, that was kind of going off on a tangent, but it’s somewhat relevant since food is one of the major reasons for animal exploitation.
So I think you can see that I believe that humans and animal rights are equally important because humans ARE animals – sentient beings with the desire to live…

Edit: So it’s really ironic that I just happened to get a proposed Animal Bill of Rights from the Animal Legal Defense Fund in the mail today.
Here are the rights they are pushing for.

• The right of animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse
• The right of farmed animals to an environment that satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs [although I don't believe that animals should be farmed, but at least this would be a step in the right direction]
• The right of companion animals to a healthy diet, protective shelter and adequate medical care.
• The right of wildlife to a natural habitat, ecologically sufficient to a normal existence and a self-sustaining species population.
• The right of animals to be freed from cruel and unnecessary experimentation and testing.
• The right of animals to have their interests represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land.

Those aren’t too outrageous, right? I think people run at the mention of animal rights because they are very fearful that we are trying to make animals more important than people. No – just trying to give them equal consideration in terms of the right to a free and natural life. Now, show me somewhere that humans are kept in the conditions that animals are kept in, and I will say let’s take care of that and give that just as much importance as changing the conditions for animals. The thing is we have already guaranteed these very basic things to humans, so why shouldn’t we extend it to animals?
ALSO, people run because animal activists have been given a bad name by a just a few crazies that get all the press. Not all of us, in fact, most of us are normal, non-militant people who see an egregious social injustice occurring.

[end Facebook note]

Stay tuned for part 2 of 2 when Friend comes back with an interesting argument.