This is emphatically untrue. If you eat a few hundred fewer animals over the course of your life, that's a few hundred animals saved (even if supply and demand aren't perfectly elastic, the expected utility is 1-to-1). The fact that billions will still die is irrelevant.

Would you refuse to save a child from poverty on the grounds that billions will continue living in poverty?

[–] littlecolt@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, it's not my responsibility to save that child from poverty. I would also be terrible at it. I would much rather financially support organizations than will assist in saving children from poverty in a more meaningful way, as well as supporting politicians that align with my values as far as lifting not just children, but everyone, out of poverty.

[–] dinkusmann@feddit.rocks 7 points 4 months ago (97 children)

You can, and should, give money to animal charities and support politicians in favor of better animal welfare (if you can find one) and I will commend you for that. But that does not negate the harm you do by paying for animals to be killed. Just as giving to a women's shelter does not then mean that it becomes excusable for you to beat your wife.

And I apologize for that analogy, I don't think you're a bad person. But I do think it's an appropriate analogy and I think we live in a culture that normalizes and encourages normal people to participate in terrible atrocities. The reality is that you have nothing to lose from going vegan and, after a little research and preparation, it doesn't take any extra effort, time, or money.

[–] OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That analogy goes so far above what's happening, at least for the average person.

Do you buy jeans or any clothing produced outside of the US? BAM, you're as bad as the people in the factories abusing local communities and child labor.

Should one attempt to find clothing that is ethical where possible? Then absolutely, and buying a pair of Levi's doesn't make you complicit in enabling child endangerment.

Same with most things, I try my best to already only buy from brands that don't: support genocide through funding or messaging, discriminate based on sex/race/gender, engage in union busting or union restrictive activities, employ under the table for children or for tax/benefit reductions. So many people try to argue from a place of Absolute Moral Supremacy, and the world is just too grey for that.

Reduce the meat you eat, yes, that's a good plan and it's good for the budget and it's good for the planet. But humans HAVE been eating animals for longer than we've walked upright, so going entirely non-consumption just isn't going to happen.

You can make stances as to why it's a good thing, why it might assist you in the long run, but to conflate it with enabling violence towards spouses? That's the kind of rhetoric that gets vegans shouted down and laughed at anytime the name is brought up. If you want to make long lasting change, changing hearts and minds will do that, and your tone/style won't win hearts and minds.

[–] dinkusmann@feddit.rocks 2 points 4 months ago (10 children)

First off, I have a tendency to be an asshole in online discussions so I want you to call me out if I'm being unproductive. I also really struggle with tone so please try to interpret what I say generously. This is why I generally only discuss veganism irl. This is a throwaway account I created just because I saw some anti vegan rhetoric and my emotions got the better of me. I'm going to abandon it as soon as we're done talking. Here it goes:

As for you last point, I want you to consider things a vegan's perspective for a second. You're often forced to either package your ideas so meekly and inoffensively that they're easily ignored or express them forcefully and then be called an extremist and mocked.

We slit the throats of 90 billion land animals each year. That's billions of chickens who get theirs beaks cut off without anesthetic and get ammonia burns from living in their own shit. Billions of bulls that are branded, ear tagged, and have their testicles ripped off without anesthetic. Trillions of fish that suffocate to death or freeze to death in ice water.

And the absurdity of it all is that it's easy, cheap, and healthy to simply eat plants. Most people can wash their hands of this entirely any time they want. The idea that none of this is ethical or necessary is an idea that deserves to be presented forcefully. The idea that animals are not property to be owned and exploited is no different from the idea that human beings cannot be property of their masters or their husbands and deserves to be expressed with the same vigor. So is it really that people hate us because we're presenting our message wrong, or do people just hate us because our message is hard to hear?

I agree with most of your other points. Capitalism does force us all to be complicit in terrible things to a degree and I'm sure I absolutely could and should do more to avoid exploitative products. In fact, if you have a list of products that you avoid or a source you consult, I'd like know what it is. And if you're willing to do research on the least explorative brand of jeans, then you really should go vegan. This is an easy win and I guarantee you it's cheaper.

As for the "humans have eaten meat forever" argument. Humans have had slaves forever yet you are clearly against slavery. If you go vegan and prevent a dozen cows from being raised and killed for meat, that's worthwhile regardless of what everyone else does.

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments (96 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)