This is a critical review of a news article posted in a business magazine, which is primarily an uneducated, misinformed and a misleading article on veganism and animal rights, with least concern for animal rights, and moral consideration for animals in general. In this post, I'll be breaking down the arguments presented in that
article, one paragraph at a time, to reveal that the author did not understand veganism at all, and had little moral consideration for animals.
The paragraph(s) in the article being deconstructed will be italicized and the critique will be given below in bold. Here we go:
Being vegan means you think that animals are not killed in the production of what you eat.
Being vegan means actively rejecting the commodity status of animals by rejecting the products obtained from their use, as far as practical and practicable, all the while being aware that living vegan is not cruelty-free or harm-free.
However Matthew Evans, a former food critic who now calls himself a gourmet farmer and restauranteur, says that notion is simply untrue.
True that.
In his new book, On Eating Meat: The Truth About Its Production And The Ethics Of Eating It, Evans writes the uncomfortable truth that animals die regardless of whether we choose to eat meat or not.
“It’s quite possible that eating less meat might mean less suffering. But don’t be fooled into thinking that being vegan hurts no animal,” Evans writes.
Animals die whether we choose to eat meat or not, they die regardless of what we do. And we will be responsible for their death, as long as we continue to live, even though we do not use them for food, clothing, entertainment, amusement, experimentation, or any other purpose, though most of the time unintentionally and accidentally. But that is not a justification to continue eating and using non-human animals for various purposes, all of them being unnecessary.
“When you eat, you’re never truly vegan. When humans grow and process food, any food, other things die.”
The understanding here is that veganism claims that no animals are harmed or killed if you eat a vegan plant based diet. This understanding can be proven wrong just by looking up the definition of veganism.
Being vegan means actively rejecting the commodity status of animals by rejecting the products obtained from their use, as far as practical and practicable, all the while being aware that living vegan is not cruelty-free or harm-free.
However Matthew Evans, a former food critic who now calls himself a gourmet farmer and restauranteur, says that notion is simply untrue.
True that.
In his new book, On Eating Meat: The Truth About Its Production And The Ethics Of Eating It, Evans writes the uncomfortable truth that animals die regardless of whether we choose to eat meat or not.
“It’s quite possible that eating less meat might mean less suffering. But don’t be fooled into thinking that being vegan hurts no animal,” Evans writes.
Animals die whether we choose to eat meat or not, they die regardless of what we do. And we will be responsible for their death, as long as we continue to live, even though we do not use them for food, clothing, entertainment, amusement, experimentation, or any other purpose, though most of the time unintentionally and accidentally. But that is not a justification to continue eating and using non-human animals for various purposes, all of them being unnecessary.
“When you eat, you’re never truly vegan. When humans grow and process food, any food, other things die.”
The understanding here is that veganism claims that no animals are harmed or killed if you eat a vegan plant based diet. This understanding can be proven wrong just by looking up the definition of veganism.
"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."
This statement is made without properly understanding veganism. It's naive to think that veganism claims to be a zero-harm lifestyle, and then trying to prove it is not. Veganism is NOT a zero-harm lifestyle, none of the practical lifestyles are.
 |
| Drawing by wwwegan |
He says about 40,000 ducks are killed each year to protect rice production in Australia; that a billion mice are poisoned every year to protect wheat in Western Australia alone, and apple growers can kill up to 120 possums a year to protect their orchards.
It's very saddening that more than one billion innocent non-human individuals are being killed every year in Australia, to protect rice, wheat, and apples for us. But, is that a reason to directly breed and kill more than 50 billion land animals and trillions of fishes* every year?
If someone truly cares about animals, they would try to reduce the number of non-human animal deaths caused by them, by taking various measures APART from being a vegan, instead of counting the number of unavoidable animal deaths in protecting rice and wheat and apples, and using that as a justification to directly kill and eat animals, along with that rice and wheat and apples.
“So a duck dying to protect a rice paddy for me is not much different to a cow dying to produce a steak,” Evans told ABC News.
Here's the difference - the duck was killed to protect the rice which was meant to feed humans, both vegans and non-vegans, by a non-vegan farmer. If the duck didn't come to the paddy field then he/she would not have been killed. The duck was not killed with the intent of killing someone to take something from them. The duck was killed to save something from being harmed, in defense. If the farmer was a vegan, he/she would try to find ways to protect the rice field without harming any ducks.
The cow was killed not to protect anything but for the sole purpose of satisfying one's addiction/greed/interest of eating that cow. The cow was most likely bred into existence, for the sole purpose of stealing her milk and then to eat her (if the cow was a female, only to eat him if he was a male). The cow would not be left alone if he/she didn't come near the butcher. He/she was most likely dragged by his/her legs, or his/her head, into a slaughter house to slit his/her throat and then cut him/her up into pieces. The cow was killed purely out of the intent to kill someone and to take something from them (actually everything), The cow was killed in a cold blooded offense, not in defense. If there are only vegans in the entire supply chain of a product, the number of animals killed in defense of the product would be significantly lower.
Evans writes about a pea farm in Tasmania that produces 400 tonnes of peas and kills thousands of animals in the process. For every 75 hectares of peas, 1,500 animals die each year, including possums, wallabies, ducks and deer, not to mention rodents.
Same point again, while the non-human animal deaths are saddening, they are unavoidable considering that the pea farmers are non-vegan, and more non-vegans being present in the supply chain. The deaths of possums, wallabies, ducks and deers* is not a justification to kill cows, goats, chickens, turkeys, pigs and fishes*. Focus should be on finding ways to reduce those deaths as much as possible instead of using those as another excuse to kill more unrelated animals.
“The owners assure me it wouldn’t be financially viable for them to grow peas without killing animals. Which means that every time we eat peas, farmers have controlled the “pest” species on our behalf, and animals have died in our name,” Evans writes.
Of course the owners would say that because they would be more concerned about making profits than they would be about animals considered as "pests". Read about veganic farming. and you'll be surprised to see how vegans are finding innovative ways to farm with least possible harm.
This process is replicated at farm after farm all around the country.
“They are both animal deaths that happen in the name of us being able to eat,” he said.
A blanked statement like this would not answer anything. There is clear exploitation and use of animals in one side, and unavoidable, unintentional, accidental deaths on the other side. People who do not give moral consideration to animals, who are addicted to eating animals, would probably like to give such blanket statements instead of exploring into their moral inconsistencies.
“So there is nothing that we can do that doesn’t have an impact on animals.”
Apart from killing ourselves, which most of us would not be willing to do, there is nothing that we can do to live a zero-harm life, if there was, vegans would be the first people to follow it and advocate it.
Evans estimates he kills close to 5,000 moths, slugs and snails each year in order to grow vegetables at Fat Pig Farm his property in Tasmania.
For someone who actively engages in eating animals and animal secretions, it would not cause any qualms to kill them on their farms.
A scientific analysis from the University of NSW used by Evans concludes that “25 times more sentient beings die to produce a kilo of protein from wheat than a kilo of protein from beef”.
The author also seems to have ignored the fact that it takes a lot more grain to produce a kilogram of meat (around 7-12kg for 1kg beef) which would feed a lot more people than a kilogram of meat would. And the person eating beef would be responsible for the death of the cow, as well as for 7-12 times the deaths of all those animals who were killed to protect 1kg grain, which is required to produce 1kg of beef, as well as for all the deaths of all those animals who were killed to protect some more grain because that person surely wouldn't be living only on animal flesh.
Evans stressed he was making the point so that vegans are aware of the impact of their choices.
Educated vegans are aware of this. It's time for Evans to go vegan and stop writing misleading stuff that sidelines animal rights.
“If you want truly vegan agriculture, you’re going to have more fossil fuel emissions and in the process end up with more expensive food, poorer pollination and reduced variety thanks to the removal of domesticated bees,” Evans writes.
The earth already produces more than enough plant food to feed the human race and a significant proportion of which is used to feed animals bred for food. When the number of vegans increases, and the number of animals bred reduces, more food will be available for human consumption, and since global pollution also reduced due to reduction in animal agriculture, vegan agriculture wouldn't be much of a problem even if they consume more energy (fossil fuels are not the only source of energy) but that is a problem for another day.
Vegan Australia spokesman Andy Faulkner told ABC News that he “fully concedes that” animals die in the production of crops.
He said it was all about scale: rearing animals requires all the impact of growing crops to feed them, with the added impact of then killing the animal for meat as well.
“We have a situation where it’s either minimising harm … or the next option is maximising harm,” he said.
“Vegans are aware of this. It’s about minimising impact.”
See? Vegans are aware of this.
It's very saddening that more than one billion innocent non-human individuals are being killed every year in Australia, to protect rice, wheat, and apples for us. But, is that a reason to directly breed and kill more than 50 billion land animals and trillions of fishes* every year?
If someone truly cares about animals, they would try to reduce the number of non-human animal deaths caused by them, by taking various measures APART from being a vegan, instead of counting the number of unavoidable animal deaths in protecting rice and wheat and apples, and using that as a justification to directly kill and eat animals, along with that rice and wheat and apples.
“So a duck dying to protect a rice paddy for me is not much different to a cow dying to produce a steak,” Evans told ABC News.
Here's the difference - the duck was killed to protect the rice which was meant to feed humans, both vegans and non-vegans, by a non-vegan farmer. If the duck didn't come to the paddy field then he/she would not have been killed. The duck was not killed with the intent of killing someone to take something from them. The duck was killed to save something from being harmed, in defense. If the farmer was a vegan, he/she would try to find ways to protect the rice field without harming any ducks.
The cow was killed not to protect anything but for the sole purpose of satisfying one's addiction/greed/interest of eating that cow. The cow was most likely bred into existence, for the sole purpose of stealing her milk and then to eat her (if the cow was a female, only to eat him if he was a male). The cow would not be left alone if he/she didn't come near the butcher. He/she was most likely dragged by his/her legs, or his/her head, into a slaughter house to slit his/her throat and then cut him/her up into pieces. The cow was killed purely out of the intent to kill someone and to take something from them (actually everything), The cow was killed in a cold blooded offense, not in defense. If there are only vegans in the entire supply chain of a product, the number of animals killed in defense of the product would be significantly lower.
Evans writes about a pea farm in Tasmania that produces 400 tonnes of peas and kills thousands of animals in the process. For every 75 hectares of peas, 1,500 animals die each year, including possums, wallabies, ducks and deer, not to mention rodents.
Same point again, while the non-human animal deaths are saddening, they are unavoidable considering that the pea farmers are non-vegan, and more non-vegans being present in the supply chain. The deaths of possums, wallabies, ducks and deers* is not a justification to kill cows, goats, chickens, turkeys, pigs and fishes*. Focus should be on finding ways to reduce those deaths as much as possible instead of using those as another excuse to kill more unrelated animals.
“The owners assure me it wouldn’t be financially viable for them to grow peas without killing animals. Which means that every time we eat peas, farmers have controlled the “pest” species on our behalf, and animals have died in our name,” Evans writes.
Of course the owners would say that because they would be more concerned about making profits than they would be about animals considered as "pests". Read about veganic farming. and you'll be surprised to see how vegans are finding innovative ways to farm with least possible harm.
This process is replicated at farm after farm all around the country.
“They are both animal deaths that happen in the name of us being able to eat,” he said.
A blanked statement like this would not answer anything. There is clear exploitation and use of animals in one side, and unavoidable, unintentional, accidental deaths on the other side. People who do not give moral consideration to animals, who are addicted to eating animals, would probably like to give such blanket statements instead of exploring into their moral inconsistencies.
“So there is nothing that we can do that doesn’t have an impact on animals.”
Apart from killing ourselves, which most of us would not be willing to do, there is nothing that we can do to live a zero-harm life, if there was, vegans would be the first people to follow it and advocate it.
Evans estimates he kills close to 5,000 moths, slugs and snails each year in order to grow vegetables at Fat Pig Farm his property in Tasmania.
For someone who actively engages in eating animals and animal secretions, it would not cause any qualms to kill them on their farms.
A scientific analysis from the University of NSW used by Evans concludes that “25 times more sentient beings die to produce a kilo of protein from wheat than a kilo of protein from beef”.
The author also seems to have ignored the fact that it takes a lot more grain to produce a kilogram of meat (around 7-12kg for 1kg beef) which would feed a lot more people than a kilogram of meat would. And the person eating beef would be responsible for the death of the cow, as well as for 7-12 times the deaths of all those animals who were killed to protect 1kg grain, which is required to produce 1kg of beef, as well as for all the deaths of all those animals who were killed to protect some more grain because that person surely wouldn't be living only on animal flesh.
Evans stressed he was making the point so that vegans are aware of the impact of their choices.
Educated vegans are aware of this. It's time for Evans to go vegan and stop writing misleading stuff that sidelines animal rights.
“If you want truly vegan agriculture, you’re going to have more fossil fuel emissions and in the process end up with more expensive food, poorer pollination and reduced variety thanks to the removal of domesticated bees,” Evans writes.
The earth already produces more than enough plant food to feed the human race and a significant proportion of which is used to feed animals bred for food. When the number of vegans increases, and the number of animals bred reduces, more food will be available for human consumption, and since global pollution also reduced due to reduction in animal agriculture, vegan agriculture wouldn't be much of a problem even if they consume more energy (fossil fuels are not the only source of energy) but that is a problem for another day.
Vegan Australia spokesman Andy Faulkner told ABC News that he “fully concedes that” animals die in the production of crops.
He said it was all about scale: rearing animals requires all the impact of growing crops to feed them, with the added impact of then killing the animal for meat as well.
“We have a situation where it’s either minimising harm … or the next option is maximising harm,” he said.
“Vegans are aware of this. It’s about minimising impact.”
See? Vegans are aware of this.
* The usage of the terms 'fishes', 'deers' is intentional. Using 'fish' and 'deer' while referring to more than one individual animals is speciesist.
https://www.facebook.com/AnimalRightsAllegiance/photos/a.349418605657853/435518553714524/
Join https://www.facebook.com/groups/553752208470902/ to unlearn speciesist language
https://www.facebook.com/AnimalRightsAllegiance/photos/a.349418605657853/435518553714524/
Join https://www.facebook.com/groups/553752208470902/ to unlearn speciesist language
Comments
Post a Comment