Why Veganism? Why Bother?

Hey guys! Ever since I decided to try out veganism at the end of December, I’ve fed my voracious appetite with research on animal rights, factory farming, ethics, and much more philosophy than I care to stomach. I realize saying I’m “trying out” something like veganism might seem insulting to those who revere it as an inflexible and almost religious lifestyle. But, I’ll be honest – I’ve never been an extremist and veganism has seemed, at times, to require that I be one. It’s just always appeared — to me — that inherent in any extremism is a load of hypocrisy and double standards. I prefer, instead, to arm myself with knowledge and navigate my choices that way. So call me what you will – a skeptical vegan? A lax vegan?

That sort of “empowered choice,” however, puts this newbie vegan in quite a predicament. I can actually see an ethics in eating meat, see an environmental advantage to it as well, and yet still feel guilt for eating any animal product. Before you throw me off a cliff, allow me to share with you an article by (*swoon*) Michael Pollan. Sure, it appeared around 8 years ago, but it’s still truly relevant today. The article is titled, “An Animal’s Place” and it ran in The New York Timeson November 8, 2002. I’ve chosen some interesting facts and quotes below. Anything in quotes below belongs to Mr. Pollan.

Sure, there was a book called “Annabelle’s Wish” about a cow with my name. But there’s got to be more reason for caring about a bovine, right? Maybe? Meh?

A general question that animal rights activist ask their meat-eating compatriots is: how can you eat a cow, but take a family portrait with your dog? Granting moral consideration to some animals over others is called speciesism (this also includes our predominant sentiment that we humans are superior to animals). The practice of choosing to eat some animals — cows, pigs and chickens, but not cats and dogs, for example — is called carnism.

Pollan says: “To exclude the chimp from moral consideration simply because he’s not human is no different from excluding the slave simply because he’s not white. In the same way we’d call that exclusion racist, the animal rightist contends that it is speciesist to discriminate against the chimpanzee solely because he’s not human.”

I hear some of you screaming through your computer screens – “no way! A chimp is an ANIMAL! A person is a PERSON!” Yea. Ok. I hear ya. This is where we get into equality versus moral consideration. Pollan is clear to jolt you that we are NOT all equal. Some of us really are smarter, or more x,y,z depending on whatever social constructs we’re agreeing upon. But equal treatment is not what we’re going for here – we’re going for equal consideration of interests. Using theories from Peter Singer, Pollan writes, “Children have an interest in being educated; pigs, in rooting around in the dirt. But where their interests are the same, the principle of equality demands they receive the same consideration. And the one all-important interest that we share with pigs, as with all sentient creatures, is an interest in avoiding pain.” At first I cringed in thinking how we’d figure out the “interests” of the animals to consider—it just seemed so human-centered. But the interest of avoiding pain seems rather universal, and if you’ve ever heard Fido yelp after being stepped on the tail, you’ve probably felt that deep-gut feeling of commiseration and compassion that tells you that if you and Fido never had anything in common before, you at least now share that you don’t like being stepped on.

BUT I’M SMARTER THAN A CHIMP! SO THERE! Granted, YOU may be smarter than a chimp. But not all humans are. Using intelligence as a guage of superiority is tricky when you use the Argument From Marginal Cases – infants and the mentally disabled, for instance, wouldn’t necessarily be able to one-up a chimp. Sounds horrible, but it does throw a wrench in an overgeneralized human superiority complex.

So why is that we’re generally pretty okay with eating factory-farmed meat and eggs, but not okay with eating our pets?

Part of the reason, Pollan writes, is that we here in Urban America rarely share a gaze with our food (the idea of sharing “gaze”—or eye contact—with an animal comes from John Berger). How often do you look a pig in the eyes before you eat it? I haven’t seen a live pig since I was a little girl. And I’m sure if I were at a farm and someone said, “meet your dinner, it’s Babe!” I would pull a kidnapping stunt right after I donkey-kicked the farmer.

We probably don’t eat our dogs here in urban America because we’ve domesticated them as our pets. We’ve shared meaningful moments of our lives with them and projected human sentiments on them. If I eat a cow, a beautiful, peaceful creature, why wouldn’t I eat Cody – my beautiful, barking, spoiled-princess-of-a-dog? I shudder.

This is where things can get even more complicated! Sure, I personally don’t want a cow to suffer on my behalf, especially because I don’t NEED to eat meat to survive(and thrive!). But, what if the cow is raised in an ideal environment where he is allowed to exercise his “cowness” and all his grass-grazing glory?

Honestly, I don’t find anything repulsive about the idea of raising a cow on a farm with plentiful grass and allowing him to live that bucolic existence we see projected by the Dairy Farmers Association in their commercials. We know that that truly isn’t the existence of most cows, but what if it was for all of them? Could I then object if they lived their lives frolicking over green pastures until old age took their lives? I wouldn’t object. In fact, I’d ask if they offered human retirement plans there in the pastoral landscape.

But the fact is, farms like that (like Polyface Farms, mentioned by Pollan) hardly exist. Also, they’re hardly sustainable and the meat products are going to cost much more. What the F, man?

Why Bother? Don’t Animals Kill One Another All the Time?

Pollan argues that predation is a matter of “symbiosis” – not morality. In other words, while an individual animal might die at the paw of predation, his species will probably thrive from it. He writes, “Hard as the wolf may be on the deer he eats, the herd depends on him for its well-being; without predators to cull the herd, deer overrun their habitat and starve. In many places, human hunters have taken over the predator’s ecological role.”

So, why don’t we applaud ourselves, grill up a steak and call it a day? Well, animal rights activists would ask – Pollan writes — “do you really want to base your morality on the natural order? Murder and rape are natural, too. Besides, humans don’t need to kill other creatures in order to survive; animals do.” Oy. There we go again! Us damn humans with our damn self-consciousness and reason. Reason is quite a burden isn’t it?

Gah! But I have REAL Problems to Worry About!

You sure do. WE sure do, actually. Sometimes it seems the world is dissolving right before our very eyes (alarmist much?). That’s fine. Because all this animal rights stuff is asking you to do is stop eating meat and wearing animal body parts to make fashion statements. As Pollan says, “There’s no reason I can’t devote myself to solving humankind’s problems while being a vegetarian who wears synthetics.” But don’t worry, carnivores, where I might say give up meat and animal food completely, Pollan offers an alternative.

Fine! But What About Animal Testing?

Ah, there’s the rub. If we use animal suffering as our gauge for considering their interests, how would we view gouging rabbit eyes with painful eye make-up products?

Pollan writes, “… the most radical animal rightists are willing to balance the human benefit against the cost to the animals. That’s because the unique qualities of human consciousness carry weight in the utilitarian calculus: human pain counts for more than that of a mouse, since our pain is amplified by emotions like dread; similarly, our deaths are worse than an animal’s because we understand what death is in a way they don’t.” So it comes down, again, to an ethics of pain and necessity. Testing on animals for things like make-up doesn’t seem so necessary. Testing for a cure for AIDS, however, seems more acceptable under those limits. I feel a bit out of my element in this ethical dilemma since I do not know enough about animal testing. From what limited research I have done, it seems that sometimes animals with completely different systems than our own are tested which would mean they’re tested in vain. I’ve also heard that there are numerous alternatives outside of using animals that would be just as helpful; however, again, I do not have enough research to support these claims. If you do – please share!

The Falsity of A Vegetarian Utopia (& The Vegan’s Challenge)

Naturally, when I decided to try out veganism I wondered, immediately, what does the vegan opposition say?

Of course Pollan in his infinite glory had something to say about it and I didn’t have the heart or skill to sever it. It’s a good and long passage, so grab a snack (vegetarian please?) and read on!

“The farmer would point out that even vegans have a ‘serious clash of interests’ with other animals. The grain that the vegan eats is harvested with a combine that shreds field mice, while the farmer’s tractor crushes woodchucks in their burrows, and his pesticides drop songbirds from the sky. Steve Davis, an animal scientist at Oregon State University, has estimated that if America were to adopt a strictly vegetarian diet, the total number of animals killed every year would actually increase, as animal pasture gave way to row crops. Davis contends that if our goal is to kill as few animals as possible, then people should eat the largest possible animal that can live on the least intensively cultivated land: grass-fed beef for everybody. It would appear that killing animals is unavoidable no matter what we choose to eat.

The world is full of places where the best, if not the only, way to obtain food from the land is by grazing animals on it — especially ruminants, which alone can transform grass into protein and whose presence can actually improve the health of the land.

The vegetarian utopia would make us even more dependent than we already are on an industrialized national food chain. That food chain would in turn be even more dependent than it already is on fossil fuels and chemical fertilizer, since food would need to travel farther and manure would be in short supply. Indeed, it is doubtful that you can build a more sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients and support local food production. If our concern is for the health of nature — rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls — then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do.

Surely this is one of the odder paradoxes of animal rights doctrine. It asks us to recognize all that we share with animals and then demands that we act toward them in a most unanimalistic way. Whether or not this is a good idea, we should at least acknowledge that our desire to eat meat is not a trivial matter, no mere ‘gastronomic preference.’’ We might as well call sex — also now technically unnecessary — a mere ‘recreational preference.’ Whatever else it is, our meat eating is something very deep indeed.

These are important considerations, but they don’t alter my essential point: what’s wrong with animal agriculture — with eating animals – is the practice, not the principle.”

These passages kind of made me want to throw up my hands, cry a river and resolve to never read anything again so I could continue to just believe what feels more convenient to believe. As you can see, issues are never clear-cut and black and white. Usually, that’s a good thing. While I may not enjoy the point of view that veganism, theoretically, is not this Earth- and Animal-saving panacea, I can be happy with – and see the use in – a utilitarian perspective where compassion allows us to act mindfully and considerately and yet still consume animals. Mind you — I’m speaking, too, theoretically. I have yet to declare that I’m deviating from my own practice of eating a vegan diet.

The Problem’s in the Practice

We’ve lost that loving feeling, whoa that loving feeling. Ok, I’m lame, but the truth is that the way we kill animals now (and the amount of them we consume) is much different from the way it use to be. Pollan writes, “Apart from a few surviving religious practices, we no longer have any rituals governing the slaughter or eating of animals, which perhaps helps to explain why we find ourselves where we do, feeling that our only choice is to either look away or give up meat.”

Pollan’s Answer

Just say no to the industrialization and dehumanization of animal farming. I think the word “dehumanization” might be a bit ironic (though not intended to be).

Pollan: “For my own part, I’ve discovered that if you’re willing to make the effort, it’s entirely possible to limit the meat you eat to nonindustrial animals.”

“Were the walls of our meat industry to become transparent, literally or even figuratively, we would not long continue to do it this way. Tail-docking and sow crates and beak-clipping would disappear overnight, and the days of slaughtering 400 head of cattle an hour would come to an end. For who could stand the sight? Yes, meat would get more expensive. We’d probably eat less of it, too, but maybe when we did eat animals, we’d eat them with the consciousness, ceremony and respect they deserve.”

For me, the irony comes down to one thing: self-awareness. For all the superiority our self-consciousness has seemingly given us, it seems most of us are still in the dark or choosing to live blindly. I, for one, am still choosing to live blindly in many aspects of my life. I still buy hair products from manufacturers that test on animals. I’m sure if I were sick with cancer, I’d want you to research the hell out of a cure for me, even if it was at an animal’s expense. I crave cheese. I drank milk in my latte the other day. Perhaps I haven’t reached that zen of veganism yet. Perhaps those cultural remnants and practices from 25+ years of my life are still rearing their head in my daily life. Perhaps I’m just not human enough. Perhaps I’m too human. But you know what? I may be spending my time doing too much self-reflection while the world keeps turning — and maybe in a right (or moreright direction?). Since Pollan wrote his article, more countries have given rights to animals. Ghent, Belgium has implemented a “veggie day” (meat-free) per week. We’ve found a way to grow meat from a petri dish (whether that’s a good or bad thing is yet to be seen!)! So the answer may not be for all of us to immediately adopt a vegan lifestyle. Whether that’s truly environmentally beneficial is yet to be seen. For now, me being vegan is contributing to less unnecessary animal deaths. I think accepting that there’s still so much for us to learn and yet also taking personal responsibility in our actions is the key. And with that final Mr. Rodgers sentiment, I’m out!

Some of the key books mentioned in Pollan’s piece and others I’d recommend:

• J.M. Coetzee’s The Lives of Animals (The University Center for Human Values Series)
• Melanie Joy’s Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism
• Daniel Dennet’s Kinds Of Minds: Toward An Understanding Of Consciousness (Science Masters Series)
• Stephen Mulhall’s The Wounded Animal: J. M. Coetzee and the Difficulty of Reality in Literature and Philosophy
• Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights
• Matthew Scully’s Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy
• Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (P.S.)
• Peter Singer’s In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave

<3,

The Cranky One

Tags: animals rights, michael pollan, peter singer, veganism