(2017-08-25, 09:34 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]I tend to agree that veganism should not be promoted as a panacea: that, to the random person on the street, is only going to provoke a skeptical response. Personally, I think that advocacy for veganism for health and environmental reasons is OK so long as it is clear that the ethical reasons for veganism are primary and that these are simply fortuitous ancillary reasons. But this interview isn't about me.
I will take this as a challenge: "I think I will respond to anything that I find relevant and interesting enough".
Emily from Bite-Sized Vegan once interviewed Gary Yourofsky, and one of the questions she asked him was: "What is the best argument against veganism?" His response? (paraphrased) "There is no such thing. None of the arguments against veganism have any legs at all".
I'd like to suggest that perhaps Gary was a little over-confident there, although, to be clear, I don't think that the argument I'm going to present makes any dent on the philosophical basis of veganism, only on the typical vegan diet.
Here's the argument: the cultivation and production of those foods on which veganism is based in our modern agricultural system entail animal deaths anyway, such that in pursuing that diet, vegans are not innocent of cruelty. Some of the ways in which plant agriculture kills animals are:
- "Pest" animals are poisoned to protect crops. This is particularly a problem in certain areas of Australia in which mice plagues occur on a semi-regular basis.
- Small animals, especially rodents, are killed in the course of harvesting certain crops, particularly grains.
- Pesticides are used to kill animals, especially insects.
- The manure of farmed animals is often used to fertilise crops.
What is your general (and specific, if you like) response to this argument?
Well, first of all, veganism is about the rejection of killing animals whenever we can
avoid it. We can't avoid killing some insects that happen to fly into our mouths, for instance. And even I kill the fleas on my pets' fur, because they are harmful parasites.
The physical world is not a perfect, ideal world, and this means we can't be perfect either. Ethical veganism is not about obsessive perfectionism (a few vegans may be obsessive, but not
because they're vegans), but about abolishing the exploitation of animals.
As long as there can be alternatives for pesticides that would not kill but only deter animals, we should use or develop them.
Also, we should try to chase the small animals away before we harvest crops.
Finally, in vegan(ic) agriculture, they would not use manure of farmed animals anymore. See:
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2...rming.html
So, there is room for improvement, even though this doesn't mean all accidental killing can be eliminated. It still remains this imperfect physical reality.
Anyway, this is not a serious argument against veganism, unless one wishes to abstain from eating food altogether
Not being a vegan would only involve more deaths and suffering of animals.
It's like arguing that precision 'bombing will often cause collateral damage so that we should simply bomb military targets and civilians indiscriminately. In certain situations, refraining from bombing altogether, is not a realistic option (obvious examples being WWII and ISIL/ISIS), and then we need to limit civilian casualties as much as we can. (The notion of an imperfect physical world for me also implies that strict pacificism is not a realistic option.)