This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Are the western vegetarian and vegan movements food fetishes for the rich?
'LET THEM EAT CAKE'. These words, attributed to Marie Antoinette just prior to her execution, enraged the struggling masses during the French Revolution. To people who had few daily food choices, most subsisted on low grade bread and little else, these words seemed so callous, and so bereft of compassion.
Why do we, in today's wealthy western countries, place such a high degree of importance over our individual diet? Is it just selfishness and ego born out of having too many choices each day? Do we claim self esteem and identity this way? Are we detached from the real meaning of food and nutrition, of survival?
Tom Ford
Jose V Balaguer
I think veganism is a pseudo-culture or a trend.
peter lindsay 30+
Alexis Rodirugez
Terry Harman
Onto to vegetarian and vegan diets. While there are people that adopt those diets for health reasons and there are bound to be people that stop eating meat to follow some sort of fashion, the majority of people who adopt vegetarian/vegan diets do so for ethical reasons of one form or another. Seeing as you mentioned western society in particular, the origins of vegetarianism stretches back to ancient Greece, particularly Pythagorus. During classical antiquity the vegetarian diet was called 'abstinence from beings with a soul'. Make of that what you will. So clearly the roots of western vegetarianism are based on ethical deiscions rather than simply following of a fad.
Vegetarianism fell out of favour after the christianisation of Europe, maybe because it was seen as some unwholesome hangover from ancient Greek paganism, just like the banning of the original Olympic games. Though there is very little evidence about how widespread it actually was prior to the Christianisation of the late Roman Empire.
It resurfaced again in the renassiance, interestingly enough with the re-birth of interest in all things ancient. At that time it might be fair to say it was a fad or a fashion but in Victorian times it was popularised by Christian groups as a form of temperance. Moving on to the 20th century and after, it is more closely linked with animal welfare/rights issues and lately environmental concerns than fashion, especially with the explosion in meat availability due largely to factory farming.
inthegarden beyondthecave
So, even if you are not a pure vegatarian, every time you replace meat with beans or other high protien plant matter, you are reducing your part of our agricultural foot print on the planet, leaving room and nutrients for other sentient beings (animals and people) and for future generations.
Joanne Donovan 30+
The solutions lie somewhere else. The answer to me lies in establishing permaculture, holistic principles in farming and limiting the size of all food production, to move away from an industrial scale. There are other important factors to consider to do with the way food is transported globally and how we exploit our fellow man, who does not happen to reside beneath our own flag pole. Its a holistic approach.
inthegarden beyondthecave
As to whether small scale will get you permaculture when there are going to be 9 billion people on this planet, I doubt it. Small scale would work with small populations. Are you planning on famine, war, etc. to get us there? I hope we could find a sustainable agriculture solution that does not involve mass death and the end of civilization.
Joanne Donovan 30+
Are you really trying to be credible here? 'Small scale would work with small populations. Are you planning on famine, war, etc. to get us there? I hope we could find a sustainable agriculture solution that does not involve mass death and the end of civilization.' You seem to be saying that the possible way we can feed 9 billion (we are not currently feeding 7 billion, may I remind you) is through industrial scale farming AND vegetarianism? Is this really your standpoint or would you like to qualify this before I reply?
Peter Lindsay
inthegarden beyondthecave
peter lindsay 30+
inthegarden beyondthecave
You do not seem to be thinking about the ways that different elements of food production and consumption systems effect each other.
You cannot have small scale production unless you have small numbers of people consuming food. If you have large numbers of food consumers, you are going to have to have large scale production .
If you want us to move toward a permaculture that will feed large numbers of people, you have to accept that you cannot just do anything you want. You have to get rational. You have to do what is necessary to acheive your purpose.
Those who are vegetarians for ethical reasons understand that their purchasing decisions effect the way food is produced. If you want permaculture, vegetarians are your allies, not your enemy. The current level of consumption of meat is not sustainable.
Joanne Donovan 30+
The issue of population growth is a separate one.
Warren Bowen 30+
Do you mean "fad"? I've never heard of vegan diets as a fetish under any conventional definition. If you mean fetish, can you please elaborate? Sometimes the ways people talk about meat, the (sometimes sexual) way it's advertised, and the "special powers" you get from meat (you can only be strong and healthful eating meat) that individuals and industry profess, seem to fit the definition of a fetish. I've never seen plant food spoken of and represented this way.
If you're vegan because you don't want to give money to factory farmed meat, dairy, and egg suppliers (supermarkets, restaurants, etc.) because of the environmental destruction and animal torture they cause, it's a challenge to see how this is born out of selfishness and ego.
Joanne and I have already touched on this debate in Jonathan Foley's talk, but I couldn't help but respond to such an inflammatory conversation heading :)
Joanne Donovan 30+
You are preaching to the converted when it comes to the meat industry. Its often disgusting, usually rampantly exploitative and sometimes even tragic. This is not the subject I have put up for debate.
When you say this ' you don't want to give money to factory farmed meat, dairy, and egg suppliers (supermarkets, restaurants, etc.) because of the environmental destruction and animal torture they cause, it's a challenge to see how this is born out of selfishness and ego', I can see you wish to make the 'individual protest' point. I think this is a valid point of view and I applaud you for it. Who do you give your money to instead?
Thanks for your heartfelt contributions.
Alexis Rodirugez
Joanne Donovan 30+
Warren Bowen 30+
I agree that many vegans are so because of irrational reasons. However, your question wasn't "are some veggie movements fetishes but the rich?" but "are the veggie movements fetishes..." You've implied all are, when clearly this is untrue. And inflammatory because you are inaccurately generalizing an entire movement.
Glad to see you acknowledged that many nonvegan diets are actually fetishized, especially meat. Also, vegan and vegetarian diets are not fads; they've existed formally declared in western culture since the late 1800s, are recognized and advised by registered dieticians worldwide (which paleo, raw, Atkins, etc. diets are not), and have existed for thousands of years in other parts of the world.
"[Nonvegan industries are] often disgusting, usually rampantly exploitative and sometimes even tragic. This is not the subject I have put up for debate." It actually is the subject up for debate, because you've clearly implied in your question that veggie movements are irrational fetishes. What is the alternative to vegan? Nonvegan, meaning meat, eggs, and dairy. This is why I brought these industries up, this is why it is relevant to do so.
I give my money to growers of Canadian organic soy, organic dried beans, organic hemp, and nut butters for protein. Please tell me if there is something worrying about these industries so I can adjust my dollar voting. Who do you give your money to?
My diet is not a fetish because I have rational reasons for choosing it, many of which you are acknowledging, and it is not based in spirits, charms, sexual urges, or magical powers. Do you still think all vegan diets are fetishes? If so, please explain clearly.
peter lindsay 30+
Ken brown 30+
Each has their own personal reasons individually,not as a group.
Peter Lindsay
Joanne Donovan 30+
Orlando Hawkins 20+
While I agree with both of your concerns about the moral hierarchies of animals, I think there is something we have to keep in mind.
To understand that all the biotic communities are equally significant and to understand that the biosphere is essentially holistic as opposed to hierarchical I think takes a higher level of awareness.
The reason why this is the case is because, as humans, we have a natural tendency to be concerned about those organisms that have a higher range of suffering and pleasure; a higher range of experience and interest as opposed to those who don't:
I don't think its by accident that people would be concerned about the slaughter of a chicken as opposed to, as Peter puts it, "cut the reproductive organ from a whole field of corn plants? "..the reason for this is because we tend not to think that plants suffer and therefore we see nothing wrong with doing such a thing.
In spite of this, the question remains, is any of this justifiable? perhaps not being that we have the capacity to understand that every part of the biosphere serves a purpose in regards to the worlds eco-system..
nonetheless, I do have to agree that this line of thinking is what gives way to the whole issue of moral hierarchies.
which I am sure you, Peter and Natasha are well aware of
peter lindsay 30+
Warren Bowen 30+
I agree we don't know with 100% certainty if plants can feel pain. Or most invertebrates for that matter. But given what we know about experience, there is no reason to think it.
It is a terrible error in reason and judgment to argue that because we don't have complete certainty in "plant consciousness" that therefore we may kill or use any living thing we like. We don't have complete certainty in gravity or evolution—you don't even have complete certainty that humans other than you are conscious—yet all the evidence we currently have points to these explanations of the natural world. Any other way of thinking disregards the evidence we have of how the natural world functions. It is unreasonable.
It wasn't until the 80s that the governing body of US veterinarians declared that nonhuman animals could feel pain. Prior to that, they were engaging in nothing else but an assault on reason and evidence. There has been lots of evidence throughout human history that many nonhuman animals are conscious, sensitive beings. Not so with plants. There is no evidence for it, only convenient speculation when challenged to abstain from killing and hurting those sensitive nonhumans.
And if plants could feel? If all the evidence is wrong, and the lack of it sprung up? Eating meat, eggs, and dairy uses more plants that a strictly plant-based diet, anyway.
natasha nikulina 50+
In Meta-Reality there is no clear distinction between 'dust' and 'man'.
So what ?
Peter Lindsay
Warren Bowen 30+
This argument is so disingenuous. Reflect honestly for one moment, without thinking of "debating vegans" and ask yourself if you truly believe plants feel pain, if you have no preference for seeing a head of lettuce go into a blender or a mouse go into a blender.
There is zero evidence for plants feeling pain.
1) No brain.
2) No centrally organized nervous system.
3) No nociceptor cells.
4) No evolutionary function.
Can plants react to stimuli? Definitely. So can my thermostat. Reaction does not mean feeling or experiencing psychological, conscious phenomena like pain and pleasure. Human bodies in comas react to pathogens constantly. Do these people feel anything?
People call veganism irrational, and yet this kind of arrogant sophism gets a platform. Comparing the suffering of young calves confined in crates barely wide enough for their bodies, deprived of iron such that they lick rusted nails, separated from their mothers in a hostile environment where some have their heads caved in by the heels of brutalized workers... to corn in a field?
Is it any wonder people genuinely concern with animal suffering and environmental destruction get angry?
peter lindsay 30+
Joanne Donovan 30+
Only a generation ago people said farm animals felt no pain, or mourned or felt emotion. Most people today do not accept this. Whales where not considered to have a family life, or a language or even much intelligence until relatively recently. The point is, we do not know, and we are notoriously arrogant and anthropocentric.
Warren Bowen 30+
True. Those points do apply to most animals on earth, since most animals on earth are invertebrates. I have little to no reason to think most invertebrates (like arthropods and molluscs) experience pain or pleasure. Given this, I happen to think insect and oyster farming would be a great humane food source (with likely little environmental impact).
I don't think "vegan" should be "don't eat animals or their by-products", but rather "don't do things that hurt sensitive beings".
Also, respond to my comments of your comparison of veal and corn suffering. You don't get off that easy for making such callous, empty arguments.
peter lindsay 30+
Jeff Rust
I believe that a veg diet (vegetarian or vegan) is better for the planets health issues and for the peoples current health issues.
I agree that a veg diet in the US and even in China where I live now is becoming less realistic for poorer individuals "in cities".
If you add the complexity of saying Organic Veg then it changes the game completely.
If you add Rural farms it also changes.
From my perspective the reason the price of a veg diet is going up has to do with the privatization of agriculture/food over the last 50-70 years.
The simplest explanation is that capitalism creates inequity due the fact that economy is created by scarcity.
Is there economic growth in the industry of water if the government makes water public ?
No, the price is stable or goes down.
If everything is privatized then the price will go up due to scarcity.
If food, housing, clothing, education and other basic needs on Maslows hierarchy were all met by government then what would happen to private businesses?
Joanne Donovan 30+
Przemyslaw Janiuk
From the global perspective it may also ba a smart choice as a leading diet for the mankind. Meat production requires enormous amounts of water and energy (which in turns leads to higher carbon emissions) comparing to production of vegetables or dairy products. Meat storage and transport requires refrigeration - further energy intake.
Apparently, if most of population was vegetarian there would be no hunger on this planet.
Danny Davis
Orlando Hawkins 20+
I would have to say that the answer to your question is yes. I think it is fetishes for the rich.
I've noticed this when I go to the store. I realized that all the places that sell healthy, green food, such as a place like Fresh and Easy (I'm not sure if they have this store in N.Z), is very expensive, while places like Walmart sells stuff for really cheap (but not as healthy). I myself never really understood why the healthy food in the U.S. is twice as expensive and not as abundant, as the unhealthy food? Then again, this is the U.S. and this is capitalism so I shouldn't expect anything less.
Also Joanne, think about the health care system. Those at the higher levels of the social ladder, have better access to medical care than those who cannot afford it. I do not think its a coincidence that poor people have less opportunity for getting health insurance and having more access to Junk/unhealthy food.
If you ask me, the reason why there is a focus on diet is because people are aware of their food intake and realize the health risk (obesity, calories, diabetes, etc). Upon typing all this to you, a thought just stuck my mind:
Don't you think its a major issue that countries would talk about the health risk people should look out for but nonetheless is unwilling to do anything to change this....
If the government wants people to be healthy, shouldn't they think about investing in maximizing the well-being of as many people as they can and focus less on corporate interest?
In a nutshell:
lower class+little or no health insurance+bad health +debt= pharmaceuticals company making profits and Power Maintained by the few.
Joanne Donovan 30+
This is good too; 'lower class+little or no health insurance+bad health +debt= pharmaceuticals company making profits and Power Maintained by the few.'. . in fact, we can see obesity, depressive illness associateced with inertia and obesity, smoking related diseases, obesity related diseases are extremely profitable to the pharmeceutical companies hence the lack of impetus to facilitate access to health. Control over this un-wellness process is exerted in subtle but ever powerful ways. Access to good food at school, advertising, laws around food controls. Education factors into this, and so again introduces a politcal element into my question; people who are more educated are more likely to see through the advertising propaganda designed to lure them into a pattern of unhealthy food choices, and avoid it. Health for the elite once again.
Everything always boils down to one thing. Equality. With it everything works out fine, without it, the human bus ends up with big square lumpy wheels and we all get a rough ride.
Have you read The Turning Point by Fritzjop Capra? It has a great chapter on our modern medical system and how it facilitates un-wellness.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
I never thought about the educational aspect of food. I like the connection you made with that as well so I find it very interesting that you mentioned that. But your right, many children across the world are not getting good meals at school, which of course only contributes to the problem.
no I have never heard of that book or author so I'll have to go check that out. thanks for the reference.
natasha nikulina 50+
Everything always boils down to one thing. Equality.
I think ' equality 'has little to do with the choice in question. The 'ability to do without 'is not a virtue any more, and it is the core of the problem. The economy we've created pushes us to buy stuff. The direct or hidden massage of almost every commercial is -'you deserve it ! ' My God , I think I deserve much more and can be just fine without this stuff.
I am vegetarian and no 'isms' or even big conscious decisions on how to save the planet are involved. It has nothing to do with diet. Simply. I think it's a right thing to do.
Animals are cute loving creatures and my neighbours on this planet; they are not my food.
I can do without meat, and have plenty of affordable options. There are so many interesting things to do in this life to occupy our mind that much with what we eat :)
Joanne Donovan 30+
Do you recognise that the mere fact you are able to make such a noble choice, to be vegetrarian, is an extremely privileged position to be in? One not shared by the majority of people on the planet? Do you see that the fact that you are in a position to make such choices is the result of our highly industrialised societies with an exhaustive range of consumer choices. It is this affluence and the productive waste attached to it, that is the problem in the first place. In this context, where is the nobility of being vegetarian? Because animals are 'cuddly' and 'our friends'?
What about less cuddly animals that are on the endangered list because of soya production? What about insect biodiversty and loss of habitat? These things affect animal life too, perhaps more so than hunting, or some kinds of farming.
I am not trying to belittle your choices, only bring some perspective. When we do something because it allows us to think we are better than other people, its called 'religion'.
natasha nikulina 50+
I live in Ukraine, is it an extremely privileged place to be ? Maybe you are right, my government is in hard labour 24/7 to make me a philosopher, eventually it is not that bad:) My consumer choices : cabbage, potato...milk, cheese ..came into being long before the industrial age so I hope i don't contribute to much to the productive waste.
Do you really think that people who cut rain forests and plant soya there, care about vegetarians ? It's all about money. I agree with you, what they do with biodiversity and wild life is really awful, they cut the branch of the tree we are all sitting on. Let's skip the moral issue, what they do is not reasonable, again lack of common sense. As somebody aptly said : common sense is not that common.
But still it's only the surface... there are a lot of meaningful layers that can deepen this issue, but it's a long talk for the frame of the current conversation.
OK, Joanne, thank you for responding !
Have a nice day !
Joanne Donovan 30+
Your choices seem brave and thoughtful to me, and I agree with you, its still only on the surface. Thanks for contributing.
Ian Ker
As to whether vegetarian and vegan movements are food fetishes for the rich - does it really matter. If vegetarian/vegan diet places less stress on land, water and the environment, what does it matter whether those who choose them are rich or not? In fact, it might even be better that way - if these 'rich' people were carnivores, they might well be buying the 'best' meat (eg corn-fed rather than pasture-fed), which has the highest energy/land/water/greenhouse impacts.
R H 20+
Joanne Donovan 30+
Vegetarianims/veganism as a protest movement against the establishment, against the status quo? I guess it depends on the individual. If as Douglas points out, someone decides for such a diet, pats themselves on th eback for healing the planet and continues to overconsume then what is it other than an empty gesture?
R H 20+
Ken brown 30+
You're a brilliant written orator,i like reading your comments,they are free flowing and thoughtful,it takes me ages to tap out what i want to say but naturals like yourself and Joanne and millions worldwide should not worry about clashing,sometimes the clash can bring so much knowledge to the front and others can learn from it.
Joanne Donovan 30+
And yet....some of the evangelism around diet seems so purely narcissisitic and so out of touch with how food is produced and how comunities around the world gain nutrition, it often seems more like part of the problem for the solution.
I spent one year living in India, and during that time, ate no meat. I learned a lot about diet, and about the way food culture evolves from necessity and what the local land can produce. These are good and valuable lessons which I have carried with me.
Yet the modern city based vegetarian and especially vegan movements, sometimes seem to have a social identity complex as the driving force behind them. They seem to represent a 'trend' rather than a thoughtful response to overconsumption. I find this 'ego' element particularily offensive, given the importance and sensitivity of food issues world wide. It is the rich picking around their plate again. In my view. AND I am at times vegetarian myself.
Your thoughts?
R H 20+
Joanne Donovan 30+
Douglas Pocock
Isms. In general I try not to categorize anything under the guise of an ism due to the dangers of over generalization. This is one of many things that I acknowledge my hypocrisy. However, I think vegetarianism in general isnt as much as an "ism" as such things as liberalism/conservatism. I know that these are not what in specific you are talking about, but I think there are minor differences between the two sets.
I don't know what I am trying to say here, so I will end that point. :) Sorry..
I think that by someone, myself included, removing themself from the issue at hand by saying, "I don't do it, so I am not the problem" is very unhelpful. This is reminicent of the proverb, "evil thrives when good men do nothing". I may have misquoted that, but you know what I mean.
By being a vegetarian/vegan and not working towards reducing the general over consumption and waste, we are equally liable as those who do. Not equally I guess, but not absolved of blame. In general, I think the question posed is very important to get people talking and discussing their availavle influence on the subject.
For example, I believe that society is learning that being apart of an organization, lets say PETA or Green Peace, and not contributing anything other than membership is unhelpful. In fact, I believe that being an "ism" or a member without contributing to overall society causes a negative impact.
The vast majority of fellow ACLU members and *aspiring* vegetarians are not active in any community other than membership. I myself should be more active and am slowly returning to my activity.
My saying we are helping and actually not, especially in issues such as overconsumption, we are a detrimental force.
I feel like I am not saying what I want to express. I will return here tomorrow. :)
Joanne Donovan 30+
Ken brown 30+
There's just one hitch that a few see,not all land is growing land and conversion leads to fertilizers and insecticide use which is the short path but there is an older path that is longer but yields are considerably better though i don't know much on the subject it's potential is amazing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
Joanne Donovan 30+
joy faber 10+
Ken brown 30+
The cities,what to do about them?especially the the big pushed up mega-cities that the future will bring.How about greenhousing the tops of our apartment buildings or turning parts of central park NY into greenzones where food is grown via permaculture tech and sold throughout the city at extremely low prices?
Joy,in the place you live where can like minded people can use land that is city owned and not in use but is pollution free and close to you? Why not band together and start a neighborhood cabbage patch on the land and if the city says you can't, pull out the old protest signs and megaphones and start walking.
joy faber 10+
Ken brown 30+
Alot here will disagree with me but i put it down to teenage silliness,some say it's outgrowing a archaic idea that worked for a awhile,some don't even know god exists anymore, yet i still do because there are things that have been happening that are too similar in the broader sense that can't be explained away and those that are vehement in the books denial don't realize that their lifetime might not be the time it happens,all we can do is try to live as best as we can and keep reading the books.
Heck i don't even watch those church programs anymore,they feel false and rehearsed except for maybe a few.
Those poor farmers,they must be worried about the water?
Joanne Donovan 30+
christopher castle
Joanne Donovan 30+
Douglas Pocock
1) Vegetarianism/Veganism:
Morally and economically I believe that it is wrong to eat animals. (Not nessicarily milk/cheese, but I'll get into that later).
Morally, I feel that it is wrong to eat animals, but not their milk/cheese, mainly due to the connection I've had with my cat. I feel that I can communicate on a level with my cat, more than just tricked. Animals show emotion, and emotion is the language of the soul. For those who don't agree with animals having a soul, I don't have an argument for you other than the idea of non-violence. Non-violence teaches that causing violence is morally wrong, I agree with this.
Economically, we've all heard the arguments that it is more inexpensive to eat wheat and vegetables than beef and other meats. This says nothing of the vast amount of water resources spent to make beef.
This being said, I eat meat. I act against my own morals, but am slowly removing myself from meat. I have tried to just quit and felt sick right away. I decided that it would be best to wean myself off of it. I have been fialing to become a vegetarian for more than a year.
On diets in particular,
I have hypothyriod, a metabolism disease that greatly reduces its production of hormones, that commonly leads to weight gain. I eat very poorly, and at this time have a jar of Nutella beside me. I do not eat well all of the time, and I do not excercise often. However, I do not eat more than 2000 calories a day, and weigh 200 pounds. (6' male). I am slightly overweight, and I blame that on my own laziness.
There is no reason to diet for any physical reason.
I believe that diets are bad, but not meant to be. Wealthy nations, such as my native United States, use diets because it is fashionable rather than effective.
*I don't have an issue with milk/cheese because I don't see the harm in it.
Joanne Donovan 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Derek Young 30+
Joanne Donovan 30+
Joanne Donovan 30+
Gerald O'brian 50+
It's modern religion. Have a chat with a vegetarian, you'll see it all simmers up to belief in the supernatural.
Joanne Donovan 30+
Gerald O'brian 50+
nice to see you too
Warren Bowen 30+
I'm vegan and materialist. There's nothing supernatural about my reasons to not give my money to factory farms and other industries that abuse animals and our environment.
Gerald O'brian 50+
And what does that mean?
inthegarden beyondthecave
Gerald O'brian 50+
What is the idea? To have minimal impact on the environment? Why?
inthegarden beyondthecave
The "idea" is to leave the world better for our co-inhabitants of this planet, now and in the future.
The mere fact that most of us would not be alive except that Hitler started World War two does not make Hitler a good person who made the world a better place. Hitler's presence on this planet changed almost everyone's activities at the time and thus radically changed which sperm and eggs would get together. The fact that you and I would not exist except for his heinous behavior does not make him a hero. He's still the villian.
He is the villian because he caused more suffering than happiness.
That is how we measure good and evil.
Warren Bowen 30+
You and I can talk when you take the time to do 5 minutes of research.
Slaves wouldn't exist in some cases without their masters having raped their mothers; but at least they were born, right? So they can be treated as their father pleases.
And if I bring a child into being, I get to treat her as I see fit, because she would not exist were it not for me and my partner's allowing.
Animals, including humans, do not deserve abuse. Ever. Even if the abusers brought them into being.
Gerald O'brian 50+
I hate the desert. There's nothing there, really. Very few species. Everything there is nasty and poisonous, making life miserable for every other thing. But that's the way it is, in the desert.
Yet snakes like it there. And vultures too. They are the villains. They've destroyed rival species until they were the only ones around.
I would gladly get rid of the desert.
I'm just saying. We have no way to mesure what's right and what's wrong in the impact we have on this world. We may decide that certain species should be protected, for the beauty of it. Or for scientific research, or because that species is an important piece of our environment.
Species go extinct all the time, with or without our help.
This is the point of any animal's existence : destroying other animals. Welcome to the jungle.
inthegarden beyondthecave
Your hatred of the desert will be one of umpteen trillion factors that matter in determining what is best. It is not any more or any less important in the initial analysis than the cares and concerns of any other sentient being.
Your hatred of the desert is not entirely insignificant beause you count as much as anyone else. But, it is also not an overriding consideration because everyone else counts, too.
Value only exists because there are beings who have evolved that have cares and concerns. Value just is the relation of reality to our cares and concerns. It is the degree of conformity of reality to the preferences of our cares and concerns..
The objective truth about value is what you have when you take all cares and concerns that have ever existed and that will ever exist into the account.
The selfish "I" cannot objectively estimate value because it refuses to accept the fundamental gound of objectivity: that everyone matters, and therefore every perspective has to be incorporated into the determination of what is true.
Gerald O'brian 50+
This is another debate, but "what is true" has nothing to do with the incorporation of every perspective. And what does truth have to do with environmental ethics?
If industrial farms raised delicious and healthfull pigs, I don't understand why their suffering should be our concern. I suspect there is some kind of superstition behind all of this.
What is suffering? Neuronal activity + magic?
What's a pig? Atoms + soul?
Gerald O'brian 50+
This is not my point.
My point is that there is nothing else than superstition, so far, to tell us that it's not ok to cause the suffering of non-human animals. I'm not saying I'm comfortable torturing cute animals.
But I'm wondering whether there are valuable philosophical arguments in favor of what you're deffending.
Warren Bowen 30+
I can suffer. Other humans, other mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish do similar things that I do when I suffer, like moan, scream, writhe, run away, tend to a body part, cry, or otherwise become agitated. When I see this, I can empathize, because I don't like suffering, and I assume they are.
For your argument to get off the ground, you need to tell me why it's not "nothing else than superstition" that tells us it's unacceptable to cause the suffering of humans. Otherwise you are arbitrarily assigning worth to perceived human suffering and not nonhuman animal suffering when it is clear they can suffer like we do.
Empathy, and the reasonable extension of it to sensitive beings beyond our family, clan, tribe, village, nation, gender, race, and even species, is not superstitious.
And what wasn't your point, exactly? You implied it's acceptable to abuse animals because we are the direct cause of their existence, and I told you why that callous argument is false.
peter lindsay 30+
Gerald O'brian 50+
Causing the suffering of humans is wrong for very practical reasons. Humans are trying to build a global tribe and we need rules and tools for that.
But there is nothing wrong with torture outside of our institutions. There is no "right and wrong" in nature. There's just nature and NO ONE CARES.
i'll just make it clear that I believe in this global tribe project. I'm a good citizen, I love my neighbour and I believe human torture should be punished by law.... BECAUSE this is the system in which I want to raise my kids.