337
When somebody asks why you're a vegan
(lemmy.sdf.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
337 points (71.0% liked)
Vegan
2952 readers
1 users here now
An online space for the vegans of Lemmy.
Rules and miscellaneous:
- We take for granted that if you engage in this community, you understand that veganism is about the animals. You either are vegan for the animals, or you are not (this is not to say that discussions about climate/environment/health are not allowed, of course)
- No omni/carnist apologists. This is not a place where to ask to be hand-holded into veganims. Omnis coddling/backpatting is not tolerated, nor are /r/DebateAVegan-like threads
- Use content warnings and NSFW tags for triggering content
- Circlejerking belongs to /c/vegancirclejerk
- All posts should abide by Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
A vegan view requires no amount of anthropomorphizing. It's the traits that humans share with non human animals that makes what we do to them unjust. The traits that make us different are not required, and neither do they justify our treatment of animals.
Emotionally resonating with animals also does not require anthropomorphization. Empathy and sympathy between humans and non human animals is default in most people because of our shared experiences. A lack of is a sign of, at the very least, selective sociopathy, like the kind soldiers might be trained to have in regards to enemy combatants.
Veganism also is not a diet, I think that's important to say. And veganism doesn't create health disasters out of thin air. There's a plethora of nutritional studies backing up how eating with vegan restrictions can be more than adequate.
All true, but shock value anti-carnism of course plays on anthropomorphism, which is heavily baked into our culture with kids TV overwhelmingly featuring anthropomorphised animal characters and pet ownership being widespread.
I mean it's fine to point out that apparent hypocrisy, as the billboard campaign (where do you draw the line) in my country recently did. But it's not particularly persuasive from a logical perspective, just a useful cultural lever.
I disagree.
An example; Vegans won’t eat honey. There are various reasons why not, but one I have heard is that they disagree with the ‘exploitation’ of the bees.
Exploitation is, as far as we know, a human concept that bees have no comprehension of. How can you argue an insect is being exploited without anthropomorphising it?
Are you honestly arguing the bee is aware of its exploitation? Or are you extending your own feelings to that bee as if you were in the bee’s position?
Exploitation doesn't require the comprehension of the exploited. In fact, it's usually the case the exploited is unaware of it. If I tricked my brother into doing my chores for me, that's exploitation. If I take an animal's food away (thus requiring it to gather more than usual), that's exploitation.
It's an insect, jack. Do I exploit my bicycle when I ride it? Do you exploit your gut biome when you digest something? What about the bacteria in water treatment plants? Yeast? How small does an animal have to be to not count as exploitation, if bees can be exploited despite having a central nervous system so small it can't meaningfully feel emotions?
IDK, I don't have a boat in this race, but refusing to eat honey leaves the realm of personal ethics/activism and enters the realm of dogma IMO.
Yes, you exploit your bicycle when you ride it. The same way you exploit your knowledge of your city to navigate it. That is what the word means. There is no negative connotation because you are not exploiting an unconsenting sentient creature.
Just like how you assume for the protection of children that children are not capable of consenting to exploitation, vegans make the same assumption about animals. And since they cannot consent, we do not exploit them.
Bacteria and yeast aren't animals. They aren't sentient, they have no perception of the world around them, they don't have feelings. That's the difference. Nearly every animal (yes, even insects) is sentient. We may not understand exactly what it feels like to be a bee (what kinds of emotions they can experience), but it's better to err on the side of not hurting an animal than assume they are mindless little robots.
Given, this is usually not the primary focus of vegan activism. Taking some food from some bees versus raising cows in the pure hellscape that is factory farming... There's a very obvious greater evil happening. Let's not let the minutia of veganism derail from the greater picture.
I suppose I just disagree with the premise... Insects ARE mindless little robots. They can react to stimuli, and have some basic behavior, but to say they experience emotions is a huge stretch. Bees have less than a million neurons, 10,000x less than a human.
If we were to follow that logic, we should keep brain-dead people "alive" on the basis that the peripheral nervous system has neurons and can independently react to basic stimuli. Thankfully doctors aren't quite so radical.
I mean, this has been researched. It's not just my opinion, researchers agree that bees are sentient and have feelings.
I would be VERY interested in seeing the paper on that. Because all I've read about it is that bees are sentient because they react to painful stimuli, but that's about the extent of it. To say they have feelings in any meaningful way is an entirely different conversation.
I'm no scientist, I've just read the tl;drs. It seems clear they're more than just automatas.
Obviously people can draw the line wherever they want, but the more you nitpick about what qualities make a being okay to eat or use, the blurrier the line gets. Veganism seeks to exclude all potential suffering to err on the side of caution. I mean, honey is NOT a vital ingredient to our lives whatsoever. It's not like it takes much effort to avoid.