Phantastica
Rising Star
PART 2/3
There are are too many unknowns here and therefore, I'd focus on my personal choices and their consequences for now.
Before we can intervene to create happy lives for animals, we must first take responsibility to lessen the suffering that is resulting from our own actions and their consequences in the here and now.
1) To end the suffering of animals
2) To end the killing of animals
3) To cultivate empathy, because I believe "peace begins on our plate." If I and others can be empathic towards animals, then we can learn to become empathic towards each other and stop the conflicts, wars, greed, and other major issues that we're facing
4) To create a positive impact on environment
5) Personal health and wellness
I never claimed to be an arbitrator of those decisions. I only started a discussion and asked for people's own views. If I want to better understand someone's perspective or get to the root of the argument, then I pose questions - and I expect that people will either back up their views or change in light of new information. That is the kind of conversation that results in mutual growth, and it is with that in mind that I asked you the questions.
Here are my sources for the above-stated claim:
Scarborough, Peter, et al. "Dietary greenhouse-gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK". Climactic Change. July 2014. Volume 125. Issue 2. pp. 179-192
Pimentel, David & Pimental, Marcia. "Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. September 2003. vol 78. no 3 660S-663S
"The carbon foodprint of five diets compared". Shrink That Footprint
"Facts on Animal Farming and the Environment". One Green Planet.
"Our Future Our Food. Making a Difference With Every Bite: The Power of the Fork!". Earth Save International
Ranganathan, Janet & Waite, Richard. "Sustainable Diets: What You Need to Know in 12 Charts". World Resources Institute. April 2016
Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009
Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009
Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015.
Please read this paper written in response to this very research you have cited - you will find it insightful and see that the title is only for sensational marketing. In fact, the study you cited doesn't contradict my statement at all, because the purpose of the study was not to find out the total carbon footprint of a vegan vs. non-vegan diet.
I quote from the source I cited above:
Hope that puts it into perspective.
Beckett, J. L, Oltjen, J. W "Estimation of the Water Requirement for Beef Production in the United States". Journal of Animal Science. 1993. 71:818-826
Pimentel, David, et al. "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues". BioScience (2004) 54 (10): 909-918.
"Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison". Water Footprint Network.
I quote from the source I linked above:
Here are some sources that support my above-stated claim that meat and dairy industries use 1/3 of Earth's fresh water:
Mekonnen, Mesfin M. & Hoekstra, Arjen Y. "A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products". Ecosystems (2012) 15: 401-415
Gerbens-Leenes, P.W. et al. "The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparitive study in different countries and production systems". Water Resources and Industry. Vol. 1-2, March-June 2013, Pages 25-36
Herrero, Mario, et al. "Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. vol. 110 no. 52
I quote from this study:
Here are 2 more sources that are very well-cited:
1, 2.
I see every minor step of progression towards veganism as a good thing. In fact I encourage it and fully support such a continuum of progress and development. Simultaneously however, I cannot compromise the clear end goal, which is a complete end to all animal exploitation.
Many vegan organizations at the moment are promoting a "reducetarian" approach. In this reducetarian approach, reducing the amount meat and dairy consumption is the end goal. I myself don't promote such reducetarian approach because to promote it would be to say that some animal exploitation is in fact okay. This in turn would still keep the notion of speciesism alive and thus be counter-productive.
This is why campaigns like "Meatless Mondays" are ineffective. Think of it like this - if someone is physically abusing his partner in a relationship, would we promote "Abuseless Mondays"? Or would we call for a clear end goal of complete abolition to all physical violence?
That is an interesting scenario to ponder upon! As it stands at the moment, I would let the lion kill the zebra, because separating them would kill the lion (due to lack of food). I'm not sure about lab-grown meat and so on in the lion example, because lions also have inherent carnivorous instincts to hunt and prey. Would the suppression of this inherent hunting instinct lead to suffering for lions? Is lab-grown meat healthy for lions? Would this upset the balance of ecosystem such that the ecosystem collapses, in turn leading to a greater degree of casualties?endlessness said:Also, what is your take on nature's suffering and intervening? Lets say for example you see a lion killing a zebra.. Would you think we should separate them? Would it be better ethically, according to you, to avoid that killing by separating them two? Lets say for example I could create a huge fenced area where I'd separate lions from zebras, and I'd feed the lion only with roadkill or lab-grown meat.. now you dont have killing anymore, and the fenced area is large enough that they dont even notice they are closed in.. Is that better than what nature already provides, with the suffering included? Or does nature somehow get a free pass on suffering, and if so, what is the reasoning? If not, to what extent should we intervene to create a happy life for all animals, if we had the resources should we go into the jungle and separate all predators from preys, make rounded corners and remove thorns from plants to diminish suffering even more, etc etc ?
There are are too many unknowns here and therefore, I'd focus on my personal choices and their consequences for now.
Before we can intervene to create happy lives for animals, we must first take responsibility to lessen the suffering that is resulting from our own actions and their consequences in the here and now.
Yes that is true. I agree that some suffering is a natural part of life. I like your food for thoughts - they're funendlessness said:(all food for thought here, as mentioned before, I dont think things are black and white and sometimes answers are hard to find. Some suffering is a natural part of life, and to what extent we have to change that in each context is very complex to define.)
Yes, my main reasons (in order of significance) are:endlessness said:Lastly, I'm not sure if I missed your answer, Phantastica, but what are your main reasons for being a vegan, in order of most important if that's possible?
1) To end the suffering of animals
2) To end the killing of animals
3) To cultivate empathy, because I believe "peace begins on our plate." If I and others can be empathic towards animals, then we can learn to become empathic towards each other and stop the conflicts, wars, greed, and other major issues that we're facing
4) To create a positive impact on environment
5) Personal health and wellness
I see - thanks for sharing that Dreamer. Could I ask what exactly was the discrepancy in the old and new information? What was the misinformation and how is that different from reality as you now perceive it?dreamer042 said:1)Naivety, paired with propaganda/misinformation and peer pressure. I thought I was making the right choice on three of those counts, turns out the realities of all three situations are infinitely more complex than switching to veggie burgers.Phantastica said:1) I'm interested in knowing what made you go vegan in the first place (in the past)? Was it mainly because of animals, health or environment?
2) Exactly what new information did you discover that made you stop being vegan? For example, you mentioned a "good grasp on nutrition." What do you mean by this? Did you find that vegan food is not healthy?
What nutrients do you think are difficult to acquire? I'm interested because my experience and that of many others I know has been very different. I feel amazing in my body and I know I'm getting adequate nutrients with little to no effort. I have more energy, higher stamina, quick muscle recovery (from working out), I don't get constipated and I don't get sick. This experience is also backed by science.dreamer042 said:2) If I may quote, I think dfz nailed it:
Maintaining optimal nutrition while adhering to a completely plant based diet is significantly more difficult and requires immensely more reliance on imported sources of nutrition than including a few ethically sourced local or homegrown animal products in one's diet.downwardsfromzero said:It made me realize I had been being dogmatic unto myself and that this form of neurosis had caused my health to suffer.
How is it derailing the topic? And what makes it a "loaded question"? I see strong parallels here. If you don't see the parallels, then please explain why not.dreamer042 said:Since you decided to repeat yourself, I'll address this by simply noting that I politely decline to engage with your attempts to derail the topic with strawmen and loaded questions.Phantastica said:Let's consider other issues of social justice for a moment - slavery, rape, racism, feminism, sexism, heterosexism - In these cases, is a middle path better or complete abolition?
The difference between necessary killing and unnecessary killing is a simple one. In my view, killing is necessary (and can be justified) if one needs to kill for survival or self-defense. It is unnecessary otherwise.dreamer042 said:More loaded questions. Please do expound upon difference between necessary and unnecessary killing and your qualifications for being the arbitrator of those decisions.Phantastica said:Would you agree that unnecessary killing of animals is unethical?
I never claimed to be an arbitrator of those decisions. I only started a discussion and asked for people's own views. If I want to better understand someone's perspective or get to the root of the argument, then I pose questions - and I expect that people will either back up their views or change in light of new information. That is the kind of conversation that results in mutual growth, and it is with that in mind that I asked you the questions.
Why do you point me to this page? My apologies if I've offended you. It wasn't my intention.dreamer042 said:I'm going to start by reminding you of this section of the forum attitude, then I'm going to ask you to provide a legitimate and reliable source (ie. not a cherry picked quote from a biased documentary) for that information.Phantastica said:an average vegan person has more than 50% lower carbon footprint than an average meat-eater.
Here are my sources for the above-stated claim:
Scarborough, Peter, et al. "Dietary greenhouse-gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK". Climactic Change. July 2014. Volume 125. Issue 2. pp. 179-192
Pimentel, David & Pimental, Marcia. "Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. September 2003. vol 78. no 3 660S-663S
"The carbon foodprint of five diets compared". Shrink That Footprint
"Facts on Animal Farming and the Environment". One Green Planet.
"Our Future Our Food. Making a Difference With Every Bite: The Power of the Fork!". Earth Save International
Ranganathan, Janet & Waite, Richard. "Sustainable Diets: What You Need to Know in 12 Charts". World Resources Institute. April 2016
I've cited sources above in response to Jagube.dreamer042 said:See previous paragraph.Phantastica said:eggs are unhealthy due to high amounts of cholesterol
I agree morality is relative. I also agree that one shouldn't push their own sense of morality onto others. That's something that people should have complete freedom to decide. It's just important to know our actions and their consequences so that we can make decisions that are more in alignment with our core values (even if those core values are subjective and relative).dreamer042 said:Kinda goes back to that old thought experiment, would you let an entire building full of strangers perish to save one member of your family? There isn't a right answer on this one, and it's a good demonstration that morality is relative and something we each have to grapple with on an individual level. One of the biggest lessons I learned in my time experimenting with veganism is that attempting to push one's personal morality on others is as futile as it is foolhardy.Phantastica said:I would personally prioritize the life of a living being over the pollution caused by transportation of the avocado.
And that is okay - I see that you're still choosing the option that is in your view causing the least harm. I respect that mindset.dreamer042 said:No I would not. This is an example of that black and white thinking I noted previously and relates back to the morality discussion of the last paragraph. Maybe in my eyes it's more compassionate to kill that old laying hen who's had a long and happy life and is now experiencing the decline of old age than it is contribute to the adverse effects Glyphosate is having on my local waterways, and insect populations, and livestock, and my fellow humans by eating processed soy foods.Phantastica said:Would you agree that killing an animal for food (if local plant-based alternatives exist) would be unethical?
The question was geared towards a pet dog that one owns, rather than a dog that is a stranger.dreamer042 said:So many loaded questions. I'll address this one though because, shortly before I went vegan, I actually ate dog at a rainbow gathering. Yeah I'm clearly a monster, how I could I? So on and so forth. Goes to show once again that your morality is not my morality.Phantastica said:Would you eat your own pet dog (especially when you have plant-based alternatives)?
I ask this, because I want to know if it is possible to love an animal and eat it at the same time (especially when alternatives exist)..?
I've read the source you have cited. Here's a quote from your source:dreamer042 said:Phantastica said:91% of Amazon Rainforest destruction happens because of animal agriculture. Also consider these additional important stats:
1) 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions comes from livestock and their byproducts (whereas only 13% comes from all forms of transportation combined - worldwide)
2) A plant-based diet cuts down your carbon footprint by more than 50%
3) It takes 660 gallons of water to produce one single hamburger (equivalent of 2 months of showering)
4) 1/3 of land is desertified due to animal agriculture
5) Meat and dairy industries use 1/3 of Earth's fresh water.
1) That's funny, the EPA website only shows 24% of greenhouse emissions come from the entire agriculture, forestry, and land use sector including both livestock and crop cultivation.
The above information is cited on the EPA website based on this research. And according to this research (I quote directly from the main source of information):Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (24% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.
Your own source is in favor of my claim. And here are some more different sources pointing to the same data:For the period 2001-2010, the largest emission source was agriculture (50%)
Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009
Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009
Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015.
The study you have cited (in the two links) doesn't compare a vegan diet to a non-vegan diet and therefore is not relevant to our discussion. Instead, it only assess the level of caloric intake (in the 3 different scenarios of diets) as per USDA recommendations.dreamer042 said:2) At least one recent study would contradict that claim. The clickbait title of the article in Scientific American regarding this study really drives that point home.
Please read this paper written in response to this very research you have cited - you will find it insightful and see that the title is only for sensational marketing. In fact, the study you cited doesn't contradict my statement at all, because the purpose of the study was not to find out the total carbon footprint of a vegan vs. non-vegan diet.
I quote from the source I cited above:
We must remember that the comparisons shown in these figures are of energy use, water use, and emissions per calorie. Yes, lettuce contributes more greenhouse gas emissions than meat per calorie, but I don't think anyone would recommend constructing a diet where we get the majority of our calories from lettuce. In fact, these results highlight the fact that the USDA has perhaps swung too far in the direction of fruits and vegetables to compensate for the obesity epidemic, suggesting an 85% increase in fruit consumption while suggesting only a small increase in grains or nuts. The latter two food groups are excellent sources of calories and protein that have much lower resource use per calorie and should be a staple in any balanced diet.
Second, emissions per calorie from meat are extremely high, so these results do not suggest that meat consumption is actually better than alternatives, but rather that other food can also have negative environmental impacts. This is a signal to intentionally develop policy that promotes smart meat alternatives. Also, emissions from meat are due to methane emissions from fertilizer production as well as all the energy required to produce feed. It's difficult to get around these sources of energy use and emissions. In contrast, environmental impacts of fruit and vegetables are largely location-dependent and due to inefficient farming practices that can be improved.
Finally, other studies in Europe and Croatia have demonstrated that healthy diet recommendations that reduce meat consumption would indeed lead to reductions in energy use, water use, and GHG emissions.5-6 This contradiction with the present study is mainly due to the difference between USDA guidelines and those used in other countries. In Germany and Europe, guidelines recommend reduced meat consumption, but do not replace it with increased dairy and fruit to the same degree as the USDA. Instead, they recommend greater amounts of oils, fats, and grains, which all use significantly reduced resources per Calorie and can still be part of a healthy diet. Again, the issue at stake is the improvement of US dietary policy to take into account sustainability.
Hope that puts it into perspective.
You've provided a link that only mentions general guidelines about water use in regards to animal agriculture, but I'll go ahead provide actual research studies that prove my above-stated claim:dreamer042 said:3) I suppose it's possible this is the case in commercial confined feeding operation, but even in that situation, I'm skeptical of that number. University of Georgia suggests 1-2 gallons of water per 100 lbs of body weight and notes "Cattle grazing lush growth that contains 75 percent water need much less additional water than cattle fed dry feeds or hay containing only 10 percent water." Say you have 1000 lb cow that takes 2 years to grow to full size. 2 g/100 lb * 1000 lb = 20 gallons of water per day * 2 years to raise to maturity = 14,600 gallons over the cows lifetime. Assume 50% of the carcass as harvested meat. 14600/500 = 29.2 gallons water per lb of beef. Quite a lot less than 660 gallons, and this is assuming maximum amount of water and dry feed, not cattle grazing on pasture near natural water sources.
Beckett, J. L, Oltjen, J. W "Estimation of the Water Requirement for Beef Production in the United States". Journal of Animal Science. 1993. 71:818-826
Pimentel, David, et al. "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues". BioScience (2004) 54 (10): 909-918.
"Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison". Water Footprint Network.
The article that you've cited from Scientific American is based on a TED talk by Allan Savory. Please read this source to see why it is completely wrong. It is a very well-cited article.dreamer042 said:4) This is more hyperbole. As always, the causes of desertification are multiple and varied and poor crop cultivation practices, fuel and resource gathering, and weather/climate change are contributing just as much as overgrazing. I'll throw in another clickbait Scientific American article here as well.
I quote from the source I linked above:
The most systematic research trial supporting Savory’s claims, the Charter Grazing Trials, was undertaken in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe today) between 1969 and 1975. ...there were problems during the Charter Grazing Trials, ones not mentioned in Savory’s dramatic talk. Cattle that grazed according to Savory’s method needed expensive supplemental feed, became stressed and fatigued, and lost enough weight to compromise the profitability of their meat. And even though Savory’s Grazing Trials took place during a period of freakishly high rainfall, with rates exceeding the average by 24 percent overall, the authors contend that Savory’s method “failed to produce the marked improvement in grass cover claimed from its application.” The authors of the overview concluded exactly what mainstream ecologists have been concluding for 40 years: “No grazing system has yet shown the capacity to overcome the long-term effects of overstocking and/or drought on vegetation productivity.”
The extension of Savory’s grazing techniques to other regions of Africa and North America has produced even less encouraging results. Summarizing other African research on holistically managed grazing, the same report that evaluated the Charter Grazing Trials found “no clear cut advantage for any particular form of management,” holistic or otherwise. It noted that “more often than not” intensive systems marked by the constant rotation of densely packed herds of cattle led to a decline in animal productivity while doing nothing to notably improve botanical growth.
A 2000 evaluation of Savory’s methods in North America (mostly on prairie rangelands in Wyoming, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico) contradicted Savory’s conclusions as well...
But irrigation is part of animal agriculture. The source you've provided here mentions only "Livestock," not "Animal Agriculture." This article does not even define what is meant by livestock. Based on the other research into this subject, I'd conclude that by "livestock," this article only takes into consideration the amount of water directly drank by animals. I'd say that it fails to account for the water that is used for growing feed for livestock (such as irrigation).dreamer042 said:5) According to the United States Geological Survey total use of water in irrigation is a whopping 57.5 times that used for livestock.
Here are some sources that support my above-stated claim that meat and dairy industries use 1/3 of Earth's fresh water:
Mekonnen, Mesfin M. & Hoekstra, Arjen Y. "A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products". Ecosystems (2012) 15: 401-415
Gerbens-Leenes, P.W. et al. "The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparitive study in different countries and production systems". Water Resources and Industry. Vol. 1-2, March-June 2013, Pages 25-36
Herrero, Mario, et al. "Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. vol. 110 no. 52
Yes I agree that majority of crops are processed and fed to livestock. I don't think that the idea of the entire world going vegan is delusional. It may or may not happen, but I think it is important to "be the change we want to see in the world." Change of this kind will happen at a grassroots level.dreamer042 said:As the cited statistics show, our current industrial monoculture system of raising crops is the largest contributor to environmental devastation. The majority of those crops are processed and fed to livestock (even vegans can't eat Monsanto corn till it's processed) under the current industrial system of commercial confined feeding operations. This needs to change, but the idea of the entire world suddenly deciding to go vegan is a delusion. The idea of switching those giant corn fields back to well managed pasture land and raising smaller amounts of higher quality meat is actually economically and culturally viable. Granted there is strong resistance and it's not likely, it is a solution rooted in the reality of the situation.Phantastica said:So which do you think is turning lands into monocultures more - animal agriculture or vegan alternatives? Again, veganism is not about perfectionism, but about minimizing our impact and harm.
I've addressed every source that you have cited thus far. Based on the quality and quantity of research I have provided, the original statement I made still stands - unless you see a problem in any of my cited sources, in which case, please address them.dreamer042 said:See above for cited sources refuting uncited propaganda.Phantastica said:I'd like to ask on what grounds do you think the statistic is propaganda? The statistic makes it clear that we're talking about the amount of land it takes to grow food for an average meat-eater and vegan. That's not propaganda, but rather a statistical fact, unless you have sources that show otherwise.
That's an interesting point Dreamer, and you got me questioning my original statement. It led me to research this subject further and I came across this study on the production and costs of grass-fed beef vs. grain-fed beef.dreamer042 said:You don't see the fallacy in these numbers? A cow raised on pasture eats pasture grasses, the amount of feed input = 0. The cow raised on pasture drops it's fertilizer on the pasture where it breaks down and builds healthy soil, the amount of waste output = 0. See above where the fact that a cow eating pasture grasses at 75% water content requires much less water than a cow fed on dry food. Land use, well yeah providing 2 acres of pasture land per cow for 2 years just isn't ever going to compete with raising 1000's of head of cattle in a giant warehouse on just a few acres of land in a little over a year.Phantastica said:From a sustainability viewpoint, free-range farms are worse than factory farms. Here's why (source: Cowspiracy documentary):
It takes 23 months for a grass-fed cow to grow to the size and age when it is ready for slaughter. Whereas a grain-fed cow takes 15 months. That’s an additional 8 months of water use, land use, feed, waste. In terms of carbon footprint, it’s a huge difference.
I quote from this study:
Higher prices offered for grass-fed and organic grassfed beef appear attractive, but production costs, in many cases, are also higher than for conventional beef.
Here are 2 more sources that are very well-cited:
1, 2.
Dreamer, I agree with you that the NY Times article doesn't provide a reference for the specific fact that grass-grazing cows emit more methane than grain-fed cows. And it was a poor choice on my behalf to cite that article. Having that said, your own source that you linked from National Trust backs up my claim. I quote your cited source:dreamer042 said:This peer reviewed study by the National Trust in the UK suggests the opposite. That NY Times article provides no references or citations to support the authors claims and like the documentaries, doesn't really satisfy the quality of information stipulation required for academic debate.Phantastica said:Also, grass-grazing cows emit considerably more methane than grain-fed cows. (Source)
because of the high levels of methane produced by livestock as part of the process of digesting grass, it has been suggested that intensive production methods, where cattle are fed largely on cereals and produce less methane, should be preferred over more traditional grass-fed livestock farming in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It's eye-opening to see where our food comes from and how it was produced. I want to say that even though we're debating here, I know you are a mindful individual, eating mostly plant-based and locally grown food and I respect that.dreamer042 said:Not only am I healthier overall, I go easier on myself and get a lot more enjoyment out of life in not having to limit myself and in being able to try new things. I know exactly where my food comes from and how it was produced and have good direct relationships with the people (and animals) that produce it. My food dollars stay local and benefits my community and we've collectively established a resilient food web that will sustain in the event of political or environmental disasters that may interrupt resource distribution. It may not meet the vegan ideal, but I feel like it's enough to help offset my disgraceful carbon dense imported banana and mango addiction. :twisted:
That is very true. Amen to that brother :ddreamer042 said:Since this whole thing is supposed to be about compassion, let's drop the labels and start with ourselves and one another. We can only strive to do our very best to adhere to our own understandings and principals and we can recognize that others are doing the same in their own way, offering up encouragement and kudos along the journey, rather than condemnation and disdain will help us all progress much more harmoniously.
Hi Chan, I think your continuum model has validity and indeed many people I know have progressed in steps - not overnight.Chan said:What I am trying to show, is how diet can exist on a continuum. Each step on the ladder is preferable (for a host of reasons, not just about you) to the one before it. If you can, and want to, see how far you can progress... You can go stepwise, and it will still be a big improvement all round. Your cooking skills will improve too. And, if you slip back one (drunken) night or whatever, just remember it's no biggy, people slip up all the time. Just resume when you are ready...
I can understand why you think that my approach deviates from your continuum scale. In a way it does and in a way it doesn't. Allow me to explain.Chan said:The problem I have with the OP of the current thread, is his approach comes perilously close to deriving almost a kind of caste-system from my arbitrary scale, which is unlikely to be helpful or productive in the long term, among the wider population. To stick with my 'scale' I contend that if everybody can move up even just one level, perhaps only a couple of times in their entire life, the overall situation will improve dramatically. There is infinitely more benefit to the animal population, in just one person going from Level 1 to Level 2, say, than there is for a bunch of people going from Level 6 to Level 7...and that's just maths. No moral interpolation required.
I see every minor step of progression towards veganism as a good thing. In fact I encourage it and fully support such a continuum of progress and development. Simultaneously however, I cannot compromise the clear end goal, which is a complete end to all animal exploitation.
Many vegan organizations at the moment are promoting a "reducetarian" approach. In this reducetarian approach, reducing the amount meat and dairy consumption is the end goal. I myself don't promote such reducetarian approach because to promote it would be to say that some animal exploitation is in fact okay. This in turn would still keep the notion of speciesism alive and thus be counter-productive.
This is why campaigns like "Meatless Mondays" are ineffective. Think of it like this - if someone is physically abusing his partner in a relationship, would we promote "Abuseless Mondays"? Or would we call for a clear end goal of complete abolition to all physical violence?
Yes this is true Jagube, but only in the short-term. I've been reading literature on clinical psychology and behavioral change therapy (in regards to domestic violence, alcoholism and drug abuse) and research shows that for long-term behavioral change, a reducetarian approach (that I mentioned above) doesn't work. However, it's productive to progress in baby steps as long as a clear end goal is established.Jagube said:Good points about slow transition and eating less meat as opposed to quitting it completely.
It's probably easier to get 100 people to eat less meat than it is to get one person to go vegan, so it's a more realistic goal and a more beneficial route from the point of view of the suffering of animals and the environment.