Hey guys -

Here is something to stir an intresting message board discussion...

I just read an interesting article that was sent to me by Will Tuttle, Ph. D. (musician, vegan activist, educator, & author of "World Peace Diet: Eating For Spiritual Health And Social Harmony") This article has an interesting perspective on a sensitive and often emotional topic of Veganism and Vegetarianism: http://www.evana.org/...

- Vadim

"Vegetarianism" or rather ovo-lacto-vegetarianism has little to no value, goal or rational explanation. If anything, this diet can harm more animals than one that is offset by animal flesh as it takes the lives of many more animals to create products from, than being products themselves. What needs to happen in vegan advocacy is to start using arguments that will bring the actual issue to light rather than dishonest ploys to skirt around the issue. One wouldn't advocate a path to freedom for an oppressed group by inferring not to their rights but to an action that gives an appearance of sympathy.

Veganism is more of a means to an end than the end itself. We are not "producing vegans", we are seeking fairness for our animal relatives. Veganism has been flawed this way for a long time and perhaps it was inherent from the very start. In this respect I think veganism serves little purpose and it's something I struggle with daily.

In any case if it were up to me "vegetarianism" would be abolished as it serves little purpose. While many may have come to veganism through vegetarianism in the past it is not a roadmap for the future. For more on this subject you can read my whole spiel here: Vegan Chicago's Refocused Mission

Oh and BTW I think Tuttle is another shining example of how newage is co-opting veganism into some form of twisted spiritual quest serving to forestall the inevitable recognition of non-human animal interests.

While I disagree that "Vegetarianism" or rather ovo-lacto-vegetarianism has little to no value, goal or rational explanation, - Thank you for sharing your perspective, Dave.

Anyone else has some thoughts to share? (Assuming that you had time to read the article first )

BTW, I only said Dr. Tuttle sent this article to me and I did not say if he agreed with the content. I would ask to refrain from any assumption about this genuine person (at least until talking/meeting him in person or reading his book).

I just realized that I should put the title of the thread discussion in quotes ("If you Want Vegans, Promote Vegetarianism") as I took it from the article I offered to discuss. Also, by no means I implied anything about "producing vegans". In case it came off this way, please except my apology.

While I disagree that "Vegetarianism" or rather ovo-lacto-vegetarianism has little to no value, goal or rational explanation, - Thank you for sharing your perspective, Dave.

Anyone else has some thoughts to share? (Assuming that you had time to read the article first )

BTW, I only said Dr. Tuttle sent this article to me and I did not say if he agreed with the content. I would ask to refrain from any assumption about this genuine person (at least until talking/meeting him in person or reading his book).

Well why do you disagree? What purpose does (lacto-ovo)vegetarianism serve?

I didn't assume Tuttle's opinion from this article. I've read Tuttle's book and I'm quite familar with his points of view on the subject actually. You're the one who brought Tuttle up so it's fair to bring him into this.

I just realized that I should put the title of the thread discussion in quotes ("If you Want Vegans, Promote Vegetarianism") as I took it from the article I offered to discuss. Also, by no means I implied anything about "producing vegans". In case it came off this way, please except my apology.

My response to your original posting was addressing the article in which you posted. The phrase "producing vegans" came from that article. So far you haven't contributed any opinion so there's not much to discuss here.

Well why do you disagree? What purpose does (lacto-ovo)vegetarianism serve?

I thought the article contains enough reasons... Of cause I have a few of my own. I just would like to hold expressing them and first to listen what other people have to say and if they are interested to discuss it at all...

Kaplan begins by framing the vegan question in Kantian terms: deontology vs consequentialism (Kaplan P2). Clearly she is a consequentialist, arguing that people promote vegetarianism (Kaplan P 15), despite the fact that she admits "[t]he commercial use of animals practically ALWAYS implies the ABUSE of animals, because today’s ubiquitous commercial-mindedness automatically leads to their exploitation." (Kaplan P 7). That, of course, means that she herself confirms the reality that animals used to make dairy, eggs, and honey (bees are indeed sophisticated animals with complex community building and communicative abilities) are, almost always, if not always being mistreated.

She advocates promoting vegetarianism, based on the assumption that doing so, in the long run, will promote veganism, especially in terms of the "morally motivated" vegetarians (Kaplan P 13). Further, she argues that more vegetarians, whether moral or not, "moves society towards veganism" (Kaplan P 14)

Yet, she herself believes that veganism is morally superior (Kaplan P 7) It seems to me that the question of whether to promote veganism or vegetarianism lies in the integrity of her argument that promoting vegetarianism, pragmatically speaking, is more likely to lead to to the destruction of the animal industry, as a whole. More specifically: If no one buys meat, will it be profitable to make dairy, eggs, and honey?

This is where her argument is fundamentally incomplete. In order to answer this, one needs to know all the costs involved in keeping animals. Site cites no sources, and examines no particular costs. Why wouldn't it be profitable to have animals merely for milk, egg, and honey production, if no one was eating meat? Worse, The fact that that it may be less profitable may cause those in this industry to treat animals even worse, in order to protect their profits. Further, there is the fact that animals are fed other animals. However, all my speculation here is equally incomplete as that of Kaplan. Even if one were to itemize these costs in our meat eating economy, this would not provide an accurate estimation of the profitability of producing products from animals, in a vegetarian world, due to the complex interrelatedness of food industries. For example, the reduction of the need for animal feed may deter large producers from making it, thus driving up the price. Other unforeseen effects may occur as well.

All commercial animals are, almost always, if not always mistreated. Kaplan's argument that making people vegetarians, will lead to a vegan society, by making producing dairy, eggs, and honey less profitable (Kaplan P 14), is unprovable.

Therefore, the only way to not support animal mistreatment, in what you eat, is to be vegan.

Mike The Vegan
Chicago Veg*n Nerds

I think that promoting vegetarianism would be counter productive. How does removing animal flesh from one's diet but continuing to eat dairy and eggs reduce animal suffering? Instead of being put out of their misery while they are young, dairy cows' and egg hens' lives are prolonged so they suffer much longer before ultimately being killed. To promote this diet would be to condone it.

At the same time, many vegans go through a vegetarian transitional period on the path towards veganism. Encouraging vegetarians to become vegan may be a worthwhile effort.

I don't think it would be counter productive necessarily. I mean, like you said, alot of people go through a transitional period in between eating meat and veganism. People have to WANT to do it. More people know what vegetarianism is than veganism, by promoting that, you're suggesting something a little more familiar to people who are afraid to change or do something "different." If they try vegetarianism and eventually bring themselves to learn all the facts, they will probably be more likely to embrace veganism.