Vegan Adverb

A Vegan Critique of the Anti-Vegan Movement

2011-05-07T15:59:00.000-07:00

Following the world coalition to attack those who don't follow the mandate of using animals, yet another anti-vegan has been published. In this case, it comes from supposed "Marxists". Their "critique" attacks not only vegans, but also ecologists, feminists, and other movements. I'll just answer those of their sections intended to boycott the struggle to abolish speciesism.

Following the most McCarthyist traditions (hey, wait a minute... wasn't MCarthy against Marxists? Whatever...) they start by name-calling. They claim not using animals i.e. living vegan has something to do with "style" (a euphemism for 'fashion', perhaps?). They call our movement "lifestyle politics, or lifestylism, as it is sometimes called.". I guess they should add "sometimes called by us".

They claim not using animals is something famous people promote as for promoting their careers. "lately it’s more the kind of message usually delivered by some well-known spokesman (or spokeswoman) — a famous athlete or movie star." But veganism isn't about famous people. Indeed, only a few of the so-called 'famous vegans' are actually vegan i.e. they oppose speciesism. Veganism is a serious movement against nonhuman slavery (actually, any sentient being slavery). Perhaps the author(s) are missing one very important issue when they claim "or adopted a vegan diet": veganism isn't a "diet". Do they feel unconfortable if people call Marxism "it's wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt fashion"?

The author(s) continue on their "critique" of veganism saying "sneer or take offense at something that falls outside their narrow, single-issue worldview.". Is opposing slavery "single-issue"? Is claiming justice for all sentient beings "narrow"? According to the author(s) view, anything that opposes materialism/consumerism must be something "evil", I guess. Hey, wait a minute... wasn't Marxism against consumerism? I must confess I'm starting to feel confused about who is who in this post-1991 "The End of History" world.

When it comes to explaining why they consider some sentient beings as "persons" (I guess, just because they belong to the human race) and others as "things" (I guess, just because they don't belong to the human race), their explanation is... guess... more name-calling! "the arguments that follow revel in anthropomorphism, allowing for absurd casuistry and moral equivalencies". So, a movement for justice and for the end of discrimination between species is just "absurd" because "they say so"? Is this their best argument? Sad.

My conclusion is that this piece of "Marxist" propaganda writer has either informed themselves after some fashionable celebrity claimed "being vegan" or it's just part of the world "kick the vegans" 2011 wave (remember the "vegan parents' case" and similar stories). Needless to say, veganism isn't about "diet" as they claim "A vegetarian diet, a vegan diet, a raw food diet, gluten-free diet, a freegan diet — it’s too tough keeping up with the latest trend.". Veganism is a movement, and it's about not considering any sentient being merely as a means to our ends. But, of course, attacking veganism on that basis would be too revealing, too informative for their "critique"'s narrow objectives!

Going vegan goes beyond "following a diet". It's about justice, it's about being serious when opposing exploitation. If you're not vegan yet, go vegan! It's easy, it's the right thing to do, and you'll benefit from that as well!

Why we use animals?

2011-01-13T12:03:00.000-08:00

*NOTE: Translated using Google Chrome from the original Spanish essay available here

First, we start from the premise that there are at least two things that can not be denied:

Any product or service that involves ingredients, actions, parts, or whole individuals of animal origin implies the consideration of a sentient being (that is, like any animal, has central nervous system like humans and all other species) as a means to our ends. No matter whether it is direct use (eg hunting, fishing, experimentation, ride, buy a "pet", killing, milking, shearing, abuse of a child, a woman or an elder to or otherwise direct intervention of another person) or indirect (buy milk, eggs, meat, leather, gelatin, cochineal, fat, or attend a circus with animals, zoo, or rodeo, buy products tested on animals, or pay for goods or services involved use another sentient being, purchase products from children abuse or human slavery, etc.), generate demand for products that originate in the exploitation of others is involved and promote the idea that nonhuman animals, humans exploited or are means to our, or slavery, or the speciesism , institutionalized sexism, human slavery, child abuse, etc.
Using someone, either the kind that is, involves not consider that "someone" as an end in itself, implies not taking into account their inherent value, which every being with sentience (capacity to feel) is to have interests own (sorry, I perceive the worldthe then try to make my own life).

True, despite the institutional racism still exist (human slavery) ended many years with the abolition of human slavery. The same applies to institutionalized sexism, child labor, or other forms of human exploitation, despite the existence of discrimination today, there is a universal protection of the interests of individuals of the human species.

Why focused on nonhuman exploitation? This is a question that vegans (ie those who do not consider nonhuman animals as "things") usually get the "why do not care about humans first?" question. First, if we consider the interests of an individual by the simple fact that has sentience (CNS), there is no reason to rank species and say "this kind first, this one later." Secondly, nonhuman slavery (animals of any species other than humans) continues institutionalized, while human slavery does not. To protect the interests of humans who continue to be (illegally) discriminated against, there are plenty of organizations and institutions, because in principle, all humans are entitled not to be considered as a means to an end. And third, if it is a voluntary cause, everyone is free to act for the cause which most considered urgent.

We chose the case of nonhuman animals because we think it is the most urgent, and that nonhuman animals are not considered for their own interests, or are not considered by their inherent value. They have no right not to be considered as means to ends of others. It is generally recognized that if they have the capacity to feel (sentience), it is irrelevant since they are not of the Homo sapiens species, better known as "human species". Both recognized that nonhuman animals feel and are similar to humans (between 90 and 99% genetic similarity), they are used (unnecessarily, by tradition, because there are synthetic alternatives to all experiments on animals) to experiment on them products and services that they then use to humans.

Then why we use animals?

If we are to act on what we consider unjust, as it undoubtedly explained in points 1) and 2), how we act then? The use of animals there because some people use them directly, or by those who buy these goods or services (indirectly)? The offer exists because there is a demand. No one would undertake a business for which there is no demand. If demand does not exist, demand falls and there is lack of business. The investor hen has two options: 1) Change of business area, or 2) Make propaganda to raise the fallen demand ( intentional speciesism , "to which we devote our main page . Of course, there are cases of direct use of animals that escape the logic of supply and demand because it is the interest of the operator directly, such as fishing, hunting, equestrian activities, or any other form of direct exploitation for "personal use."

Obviously, the first option is most desirable, but this does not mean the disappearance of an operator, not replace another. While there is demand, any operator will offer goods or services based on the use of animals. As the market does not respond to ethical reasons (even to human ethics, such as the prohibition of the World Trade Organization , to restrict exports and exports to non-democratic regimes, with exceptions such as trade embargoes).

In broad strokes, the movement to defend the interests of nonhuman animals (actually can not speak of a single movement, as there are large currents are not necessarily unified) is divided into two main wings: 1) those that act on the demand educating human consumers of products or services derived from nonhuman animals on the alternatives to these products or services (basically, the Abolitionist Approach Animal Rights represented by this position), and 2) acting on the supply, disabling or sabotaging the infrastructure of the exploitation of nonhuman animals (basically, the call Total Liberation or Animal Liberation represents this position, which is hostile to the Abolitionist Approach, perhaps somehow excessivly considering its idenfitication with abolition ) .

To explain to those who are not familiar with the movement to defend the interests of nonhuman animals, one might say, very roughly, that each stream recognizes merit in some aspect or the other stream. For example, the Abolitionist Approach recognizes that animal rescues (be them "open" uncovered face and without destroying facilities or "traditional" ALF style, covered face and facilitiy sabotage) are undoubtedly beneficial for rescued animals, but that strategy and message direct action could be interpreted as "terrorism", "acting on impulse" by the general public. In short, a marginalization of the movement and that not every activist is willing to go underground and/or face civil or criminal consequences for actions punishable by present law. And from Total Liberation it is recognized that the abolition of the use of animals is the aim to follow, but they do not share creative, non-violent vegan education as a means to achieve it, because they consider it too slow and "a person a time." (despite "rescuing exploited animals one by one" could be considered somehow Utopian as well).

The point is, once again the question: "Why we use animals?"

Beyond the personal accusations, disbelief or rejection between the two schools of thought, the fundamental difference is in focus, on the one hand, the demand for goods and services operation, and secondly, in the offer.

According to Total Liberation, humans are not free, we are not aware of our actions and our will is subject to the economic system ( capitalism ). Since the capitalist system offers animal products, people can not choose what to buy. This could be explained by the aggressive advertising of certain products or services of animal origin. For example, and just to imagine a bizarre example: as advertising, McDonald's is more attractive than a hand-painted cardboard notice advertising the price of beans in the market, capitalism had dominated to that customer to buy the cow burger instead of pulses. Since the problem is the system and not those who support it, the action must be directed to attack the system and its infrastructure. To do this, it makes no sense to educate the population that sustains the system in place. Instead, animal rights (more accurately "animal liberation" according to this approach) advocates must make political alliances (we still have to see in what position would the no use of animals be within a political coalition that came to power) to grow in number and so make "real progress", while the action goes directly attacking specific exploitations.

According to the Abolitionist Approach, the one we follow, supply would not exist if demand did not. For that reason it focuses on educating people on alternatives to animal use. Without an audience aware of the implications of the use of animals, all or (in a hypothetical case) a part of the supply of animal products could very well disapear, but still the minds of every individual working under the idea that nonhuman animals "are inferior", "are things ", "do not think", "do no talk ", "are for our use", "were made to it", "are delicious", "is of vital need for us to use", etc., the consumers will find a way to buy or to get those "products", that's undeniable. And here we could use the example of hunting or fishing, or the direct use of horses, cows, goats, chickens, etc.. These cases can not be explained by the supply-side theory, because they are not offered to anyone if they are for "personal use." The demand is the very person who operates in each case. If the offer is dismantled, the person will try to generate its own supply, exploiting directly, because the traditional paradigm indicates that this is not just right ("for that they were made", "they are lower," "they do not think", etc. ) but also, "attractive" ("delicious", "pleasant", etc..) and "extremely necessary" ("where to get protein?", "where to get calcium?", "but, where to get iron? ","but how will I dress? ", etc).

My intention is not to develop these aspects here, as this would involve writing an essay or a much longer book (and why not?), We can group the reasons why use animals (who still use them, the idea is that this is not happen) in three broad categories: 1) a rational excuse, humans feeling they belong a "chosen species" that has "commodities" available, among which are nonhuman animals, and 2) irrational excuses: a) The addiction to the use of products and services of animal origin as being "tasty", "delicious," "irresistible", "funny", "elegant", "traditional", "easy", "popular", "flashy", "prestigious" "colorful", and so on.; b) The fear of abandoning the use of animals, considering it being "necessary", "essential", "safe," "irreplaceable", "unique", and so on.

Does this classification change anything? Not at all, it is simply an arrangement of ideas. What remains clear is that the argument of "rational" speciesism was been invalidated for some time now, being impossible to be logically defended. After the work of Prof. Gary L. Francione to propose the Abolitionist Approach, you can not defend the use of nonhuman animals as means to human ends.

Since speciesism is based on baseless, irrational, weak grounds, and heavily in need of constant and elaborate maintenance, where to focus our action then? Well, if what remains are the irrational bases speciesism both in need of care and maintenance, advising the public that is "addicted" to the use of animals and "terrified" to leave it! Let's explain that this addiction has consequences for nonhuman victims. Let's explain that "delicious" thing costs individual life that, like anyone else, has the capacity to feel and perceive, and therefore had their own interests. Let's explain that by choosing the product as "striking" and "tasty", and no matter that "he was already dead when we saw him in the spotlight at the supermarket, to generate demand for that product are causing it to be replaced by another in the future. Let's explain that there is no reason to be afraid to stop using animals. Let's explain that there are alternatives for all uses we thought "necessary" or "essential." Let's explain that you can live a perfect, healthy, fun and great life without using animals. Let's explain not to do anything complicated, just stop using, directly or indirectly, other beings!

Living without using animals is to live vegan. It's easy, and is the least we can do other sentient beings. Go vegan!

-
Posted by Blogger on Human Rights and nonhuman animals on 1/13/2011 5:48:00 PM

Divisiveness? Does such a thing exist?

2010-12-07T18:47:00.000-08:00

This is my comment on a great essay by Animal Rights UK:

Awesome reflection!

I'd dare say such 'divisiveness' doesn't exist, or at least such label is being used by people who are not willing to go vegan, and let me try to explain my point throw my own experience when I was in my way to veganism...

By then, my goal was to live as vegan as possible. I didn't like to label myself as an 'api-ovo-lacto-vegetarian'. Instead, I felt unconfortable still using animal products. Also, I understood any point made by vegans about my still using some animal product as a valuable --yet sometimes very harsh-- lesson. I saw those comments as things I had to learn if I were to avoid animal use instead of 'divisive' insights.

How could anyone wishing to avoid animal use feel discouraged by someone's honesty regarding aspects of animal use not yet understood? How could that honesty discourage someone in their way to a more ethical lifestyle?

Would going back to using animals, just because someone made a harsh remark, be a solution to anybody or anybody's conviction not to cause harm?

I don't think so!

If you're still not a vegan, please go vegan despite any comment from any vegan. And please, don't go or stop going vegan for vegans, but for nonhuman animals.

My conclussion: How can we divide something that was not really together in the first place? How can an educated remark such as "did you know those are made out of animals?" discourage someone from being vegan because they think "it's too complicated"? How can those things be "divisive" among those who take animal rights seriously?

IVU trying to define "veganism"?

2010-07-07T20:23:00.000-07:00

In the latest IVU news, the Vegetarian Society attempts to define "veganism"... and they are back today (July 07) with a second article on the issue (click here to read the essay 'Vegetarian Equals Vegan!' on 'Veg Source')

Can they do that? I mean, "vegetarianism" is about diet. It means not consuming any animal flesh allowing or not animal secretions like dairy products, eggs, honey, etc. At best, it mean not using animals at all, but regarding only the food aspect. That kind of vegetarianism that excludes all animal products from one's diet is known as "strict vegetarianism". Unfortunately, websites such as the Wikipedia (our default information source) doesn't help much when it comes to properly deambiguate "veganism" from "strict vegetarianism". I invite you to do your own research and reflections upon the issue.

Let's review "veganism". Veganism is a philosophy. It's about not considering sentient beings (any, human or nonhuman animals) merely as a means to our ends. It means questioning the dogmatism of speciesism that we are all breed into (and speciesism is a form of discrimination that means considering nonhuman animals as "commodities", "resources" i.e. means to our ends).

"Strict vegetarianism" is not the same as "veganism" simply because a diet cannot fit into an all-embracing philosophy. Veganism includes all aspects of animal use, not just diet. We all know diet means more than 90% of animal use, but that's not enough as to equate "strict vegetarianism" (diet) to "veganism" (philosophy).

You don't need to wear fur/leather, go to animal circuses and/or zoos, participate and/or consume products that are tested on animals (vivisection), ride horses and/or bulls, etc., hunt, shoot animals or be responsible for any other form of animal use if you become a "strict vegetarian", even if the definition of "strict vegetarian" doesn't mention any animal use other than food.

Become a vegan! It's easy. It's the right thing to do if you care about animals. Also, it's good for the environment, the planet, other people and your own economy!

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Original IVU text in the July 2010 issue: "The Ever Changing Definition of Vegetarianism" (click here for the original publication)

The Ever Changing Definition of ‘Vegetarian’

One of the most fascinating branches of linguistics (the study of language) is semantics, which looks at the ways that language expresses meaning. These meanings vary, in English and in every other living language, across time, across distances, as well as between age groups, occupations, ethnic groups, etc. Furthermore, different words can be used to mean the same, and new words, such as ‘flexitarian’ are coined.

Examples of variation in word meaning can be seen in the varying meaning of one of IVU’s favourite words: ‘vegetarian’. This word has had many different meanings attached to it, and other words such as ‘Pythagorean’, have been used to mean ‘vegetarian’.
For instance, IVU historian, John Davis, found variation in the meaning of vegetarian in documents from the 1840s: www.ivu.org/history/england19a/early_vegetarian.html In those documents, some writers advocated what today would be termed plant based or vegan diets, while others defined vegetarian as including animal based foods not derived from animal flesh.

Today, a change in the meaning of ‘vegetarian’ may be occurring, as more vegetarian organisations advocate diets than are in fact vegan. For example, the section of the IVU website devoted to recipes has, since it began 13 years ago, been composed completely of plant based recipes, and, for the last ten years, all IVU World Vegetarian Congresses have exclusively served plant food. Similar changes have taken place at many IVU member organisations. At the same time, IVU and many of its member organisation welcome lacto-ovo vegetarians as full participants, including leaders.

Language change reflects changes in society. What is at the root of this language change in the definition of ‘vegetarian’? Perhaps, in part, the change is due to the continuing spread of factory farming of meat, eggs and dairy, and the growing awareness of the damage that factory farming and increased consumption of animal based foods do to human health, the environment and the non-human animals trapped in the factory farming system.

Here are two examples of the kinds of news which are leading to growing awareness of the detrimental effects of the production of animal based foods. First, this video - www.mercyforanimals.org/hatchery - from a large egg hatchery, shows male chicks thrown, dropped, mutilated, and ground-up alive. Second, a 2010 FAO report attributes four percent of all global human greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to the dairy sector www.fao.org/news/story/pt/item/41348/icode/en

Who knows what the future holds for ‘vegetarian’ and related terms, but we can be sure that more changes are on the way.