Hello,

I received a few email responses from the last email update regarding our reiteration of our mission and stance. One email argued on behalf of environmental and health issues of veganism and asked that this issue be brought out on the message board allowing for a public discourse. I thought that was fair enough and a good time for it so here we are.

While veganism has been associated with the "three pillars (ethics, environment, & health sometimes spiritual)" I contend there is only one and that is the ethical argument.

Now, personally I strive for good health and responsible stewardship of our environment but these actions and beliefs are separate from veganism. I also believe in human rights regardless of their type of body or location but I wouldn't apply this to veganism any more than any other of my beliefs. Focus is needed to progress forward.

So, to refocus we could look back to how veganism was originally defined but that's only a starting point and does not necessarily mean we should abide by that 100% as ideas and language evolves. I wouldn't even give Watson (the person who coined "vegan") so much credit as he more or less stumbled upon veganism when he applied consistent logic to his own lacto-ovo-vegetarian cause.

This is how he defined it:

A way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals.

This is a good start. In its simplest form it's eschewing animal products and in its more formalized version it is the recognition of non-human animal interests. Some would call this "animal rights" but that has become so loaded and burdened it has lost practical meaning in dialog.

Over the years I suspect the abstract idea of veganism wasn't as sexy as some had hoped so they co-opted environmental and health arguments to make veganism more attractive to the general population. Later spiritual gurus and pseudoscientific charlatans enter the mix and we start to bring the focus back upon ourselves for better health and "enlightenment" while the animals are forgotten or at the very best paid lip service. Misinformation abounds and rational critical thinking is abandoned while credulity is fostered to keep this new age beast fat.

This brings us to Vegan Chicago's methodology and that is the quest for truth using critical thinking while keeping our focus on the plight of the ones who cannot speak for themselves. Rational righteous justice not ill-informed self-righteousness. There is so much focus on "vegan" as a type of person when rather I would like to include all people and use vegan as an adjective. Like I've always said: "We should bring veganism to the community, not community to veganism."

To build a strong movement we need one based on empirical and rational arguments. Emotion can inspire veganism but our arguments must stay within a reasonable realm of upmost truth to maintain integrity and strength in our cause. Furthermore it is my (albeit optimistic) belief that as critical thinking skills are advocated, taught and learned, society in general will benefit and the consistent application of ethics will include non-humans.

Some may argue that the general population will never accept ethical arguments for veganism and that we should appeal to more tangible and possible side benefits but I find several things wrong with this approach (which has become de-facto amongst vegan advocates):

If the vegan advocates themselves don't believe their own ethical argument, advocating a position of abstaining instead of fixing requires too great of a logical leap for most to take seriously. When confronted by a non-ethical issue the obvious answer would be to fix that issue and not necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water.

If vegan advocates believe in the ethical issue of using animals they would be intellectually dishonest in advocating another position.

Right off the bat vegan advocates start from a position where they do not give credit to their audience by withholding or spinning truth.

When advocating veganism they’ll have a greater chance of MISSING the people most open to the ethical argument.

The ethical argument does not grow and makes the movement slide backwards.

Smart people will see the fallacies and turn away from veganism. We need more smart people!

Likewise we grow a credulous community and the cycle continues.

There may very well be environmental and health benefits related to veganism but these are issues that can be helped or remedied by either decreasing usage or inventing better processes. Plant agriculture are also a horrible strain on the environment. Many vegans recognize this and strive to buy organic or local, or grow their own etc but why not then seek similar solutions for farming animals? Because one cannot literally kill an animal a little. It is a question of the rights (whoops) of another animal whose only crime is being born in the wrong species.

The same goes for health. Putting all the snake oil quackery that exists within the 'pure health enlightenment' movements aside the evidence is specious and massively complex (so is the environmental for the most part as well). One could theoretically eat animals and maintain a fine health. It is mostly the way we eat animals and other lifestyle factors that affect our health. I know many healthy non-vegans who are thin, energetic, never sick and are vibrant and happy. Some vegans might not even believe this could be possibly true. While anecdotal evidence isn't...really evidence our history makes a compelling case to wonder how inherently awful eating animals really is for humans.

So I know this may be a bitter pill to swallow for many after all the koolaid BigVegan spoon-feeds us but it's important to hash out to make a real difference for all the other species who happen not to be fancy monkeys.

If you made it this far I must congratulate you, I certainly did not intend for this post to get so long! I welcome all thoughts that can maintain civil discourse on this matter so please feel free to share!

thanks,
-dave

I'm with you.

Nice post Dave!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Nice job.

Well stated, Dave. That is a very good definition and the exact focus of veganism if you ask me.

Is it still allowed to include negative comments (private and public) about animal agriculture's wasting exploitation of the environment based on the greed-driven misinformation about the need to eat animals to get needed proteins and other needed nutrition? And is it allowed to include destruction of wilderness as exploitation damage caused by animal agriculture, since this destruction necessarily limits the healthy lifespan of any animal living there and is often based on the same greed-driven misinformation?

To me this is a legitimate part of the ethical argument since destroying wild habitat for animal agriculture ends up killing the animals that live in that habitat, since at the very least they lose their natural food supply, become homeless, and end up dying.

My logic is simple. So much plant agriculture nowadays is intended to support animal factory farms with their air pollution and water pollution of nearby rivers, lakes, and streams. Polluted water kills the fish and shellfish and becomes non-drinkable for everything else, including any wildlife.
And it is well known that one acre of rich, clean land can produce much more plant protein for people and more cheaply and use less water, than can that one acre when it is used for raising farm animals to be killed and eaten.

To me the ethical argument is almost, if not entirely, all inclusive when it comes to the killing and exploitation of animals. I believe my facts to all be correct. I admit to taking a leap from the animal to the habitat it lives in even though they are not identical.

I also think I have only expanded some on what you have said, but I might be wrong. Maybe it depends on how "ethical" is defined?

Well stated, Dave. That is a very good definition and the exact focus of veganism if you ask me.

Is it still allowed to include negative comments (private and public) about animal agriculture's wasting exploitation of the environment based on the greed-driven misinformation about the need to eat animals to get needed proteins and other needed nutrition? And is it allowed to include destruction of wilderness as exploitation damage caused by animal agriculture, since this destruction necessarily limits the healthy lifespan of any animal living there and is often based on the same greed-driven misinformation?

Thanks Bruce.

I'm not sure what you are asking here. You don't need my permission for anything and I'm not telling anybody how they should advocate. I'm just making a case to explain our mission so that our members understand our take on veganism. "Vegan" is practically meaningless these days so I don't want to surprise any of our members if they come out to an event and find we aren't worshipping crystals or some other vegan variant.

To me this is a legitimate part of the ethical argument since destroying wild habitat for animal agriculture ends up killing the animals that live in that habitat, since at the very least they lose their natural food supply, become homeless, and end up dying.

My logic is simple. So much plant agriculture nowadays is intended to support animal factory farms with their air pollution and water pollution of nearby rivers, lakes, and streams. Polluted water kills the fish and shellfish and becomes non-drinkable for everything else, including any wildlife.
And it is well known that one acre of rich, clean land can produce much more plant protein for people and more cheaply and use less water, than can that one acre when it is used for raising farm animals to be killed and eaten.

To me the ethical argument is almost, if not entirely, all inclusive when it comes to the killing and exploitation of animals. I believe my facts to all be correct. I admit to taking a leap from the animal to the habitat it lives in even though they are not identical.

I also think I have only expanded some on what you have said, but I might be wrong. Maybe it depends on how "ethical" is defined?

I understand that animal agriculture may be wasteful especially when it often takes plant agriculture to facilitate it but it's still a muddy argument if you ask me. To be honest and effective the best way I know how I've decided to take up the ethical cause many vegans have abandoned.

By the way I believe Polyface Farms method of animal agriculture might have solved your ethical dilemmas concerning the environment and wildlife it affects. In fact their claim is that it heals the land. So you see that is one solution to the environmental and 'secondary ethical' concerns you have. I'm sure new solutions for animal agriculture will be developed the more vegans advocate for them.

Currently vegans make moral decisions to not use animals. I believe to be ethically consistent we cannot justify using non-humans. This is how I define "ethical". It should be a part of our ethics which is why I don't see veganism as a "personal choice".

I completely agree that, health-wise, it is highly unlikely that eating meat is bad for us. Generally, an animal's nature-intended diet is healthy for it. Simple mechanisms; red for poisonous animals, etc. It is the sick and diseased and chemically-pumped animals humans eat that make them unhealthy. Also the amount of eating in general, where we are capable of experiencing boredom as well as emotions and therefore eat for reasons other then survival.

Looks like the folks in Oakland, CA had similar thoughts. A New Look at Veganism

Hey guys,

I'm a vegetarian who does not wear leather or use products derived from sources that require the death of an animal. I am well aware of the practices involved in the production of certain animal products (wool, for example), that can make a potentially kind and symbiotic relationship one of cruelty and exploitation, and I try to choose accordingly.

I don't believe that every relationship we have with an animal is necessarily detrimental or exploitative. There are people who raise sheep and goats for wool and not for slaughter. They provide food, shelter, veterinary care, and in most cases, love. The wool they shear is not, in my mind, an exploited product.

I worked at a shelter that cared for ducks, geese, chickens, etc. The fowl would regularly lay eggs, and staff workers would collect the eggs and bring them home to eat. I don't consider this kind of relationship harmful. I have friends who keep bees, and who provide them with protection from disease and parasites, and ensure that they are fed over winter.

I guess my point is that I WANT a life where we live with animals and where we have a symbiosis that allows us to benefit from the beautiful things that animals have to offer, and where we can give back in return. I know that many people will disagree, and that's fine; I'm just adding to the conversation.

I completely agree that, health-wise, it is highly unlikely that eating meat is bad for us. Generally, an animal's nature-intended diet is healthy for it. Simple mechanisms; red for poisonous animals, etc. It is the sick and diseased and chemically-pumped animals humans eat that make them unhealthy. Also the amount of eating in general, where we are capable of experiencing boredom as well as emotions and therefore eat for reasons other then survival.

Raven, you are not the only one who believes eating animals as not necessarily unhealthy. Some choices of meat cannot be made healthful for people no matter how large or small the portion, and it will never matter how healthy or happy the animal was or wasn't. One case in point is MacDonald's grilled chicken and the carcinogens contained in that; ditto the open-pit BBQed beef or lamb or pork or fish; the charred beef, the charred hot dogs, and all other meats.

This animal meat protein causes cancer in people, including any home-raised ,or wild, turkeys, rabbits, deer, etc.

True, the cooking method contributes to the cancer. So, be very careful how it is cooked; and remember there is no vitamin C in roast beef, nor any plant phyto-chemicals that help prevent cancer.