In general, the byproducts serve another purpose. Cow's milk is produced in order to feed calves. Eggs are a reproductive mechanism. It's still taking something that doesn't belong to you, specifically because you *can't* ask the animal for permission. If a person was mute, they would still own their stuff. This philosophy only works, of course, if you grant animals the right to self-ownership.
Perhaps I should have said that my statement is the consensus among most of the vegans with which I associate?
I'm willing to keep an open mind about your statement, but it would be nice to have some examples. Specifically it is important to me not to be misinformed, and to not base my decisions on superstition.
I have to also wonder how different the world would be if all humans were vegan. Utopia or distopia? I'm thinking there are at least a few aspects of the latter -- a lot of the nature preserves in this country where hunting is allowed probably wouldn't exist. Nobody would have a reason to want to preserve them.
It would certainly be different. The change would be gradual, however, so I suspect that there would be enough time for us to adapt as societies. There's no way that meat would go out of demand overnight, right?
As to your first point, well, refrigeration works well enough for me (and most of the people reading this board). There are also other methods of preservation that don't rely on the cold. Besides... just because someone else can't practically be vegan is no reason for those that can to shun it.
It isn't very ethical to fly fruits and vegetables around the world so supply your diet with enough nutrients to make up for the lack of meat.
Aren't you concerned about global warming and the effect it has on polar bears and other critters?
But I guess being part of the richest demographic in the history of humanity lets you pick and choose which moral/ethical choices fit your lifestyle.
Not eating meat is not and has never been an option to a vast number of people, especially in colder regions where you can not live year round on the available vegetable matter.
To answer your first question, I think it is undesirable to eat things that have to travel a long way in order to get to you. However, this seems like a separate issue, and one that can be avoided by purchasing local produce. As far as I know, there isn't much that I eat that can only be grown halfway across the world.
While it may be true that for some of the world it's not a practical option, I suspect that it *is* a viable option for most of the people reading this board. And frankly, even if there are some people who can't practically be vegan, that's not a reason that the rest of us can't be.
By the way, buying plants to eat is often cheaper than buying animal products. It's the other way around if you're talking about heavily processed vegan food, because there's less demand for it. This is one of the reasons I cook.
I'm not quite sure why you made the assumption that I don't buy locally grown produce when I can. Do you?
I do understand this point of view. I absolutely hate it when people try to force their views on me... religious ones, for example. The difference, I feel, is that I can show measurable harm (ie. suffering of the animal) as a consequence of the thing I'm trying to prevent.
Anyway, that aside, I'd ask you to at least try to understand why someone else might be trying to treat it like it's *not* a personal choice. Consider the person who feels that an animal life is nearly, or exactly as valuable as a person's life. They feel that keeping livestock is like kidnapping... that butchering is as bad as human murder. If your neighbor was keeping human hostages, I suspect you wouldn't defend their actions as a "personal choice." Basically, just because you *can* do something, doesn't make it "right" to do it. If someone else tried to deny you your basic rights, you probably wouldn't feel it was just a "personal choice" that they were making.
Also consider that most vegans were not born vegan. In fact, I suspect that many vegans (myself, at the very least), were quite anti-vegan before we started down this path. It often takes very strong influences (emotional, scientific or otherwise) to change so fundamental a habit.
This said, I've been fairly convinced (by a very smart friend) that the way to get more people to go along with the better treatment of animals is to develop synthetic meat, milk and eggs. It's just a more practical solution than trying to get everyone to see my own views, which will probably never happen anyway. If it's not economically practical to raise real livestock compared to growing a steak in a lab, it seems like the problem will mostly solve itself.
I promise to try to answer this question in a way that's not preachy. However, I *am* vegan, so filter my post in whatever way suits you.
On that note, there's another couple things that's always bugged me. Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck or lamb, and I'm not talking about the dietary-consideration kind? And why do some (ie. vegans) go as far as to not eat animal products like eggs, milk and the like, including from "ethical" sources? Because I have never had a rational, coherent argument with a vegan. I'm pretty close to just dumping them in the "ewww intestines" category.
While I can't speak for all vegans, the general consensus is that we don't eat byproducts (milk, eggs, honey, etc) from humanely raised animals because it's not freely given. It's still unnecessary exploitation, in our opinion. This is why breastmilk is vegan (it is freely given), but cow's milk is not. I'm quite happy that you didn't come out with the "cows would be in pain if we didn't milk them" argument. I get that one a lot, from people who haven't done much research on biology (this wasn't a dig, I promise).
As for your other points, I'll touch on a couple of them, if you don't mind.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?
Er... no. Again, in my own personal opinion, it's about reducing exploitation. Would it be ethical to do this to people? Most people would claim that it is not. When one asks why it's okay to kill an animal but not a person, one often gets the answer that humans are smarter. Yet, when you ask if they would treat a mentally retarded person as an animal, it seems to be out of the question.
In general, my stance is that we should grant, to as many beings as *practical,* the "rights" of life and self-ownership. I don't want rabbits to be able to vote, because they're not capable (so far as we know) of agreeing to societal contracts. However, we generally afford those basic rights to anyone.
Frankly, the decision to grant the rights of life and self-ownership to humans only seems a bit arbitrary. At one point there was certainly a practical aspect to this, but I doubt many people (at least in the USA where I am, and many other parts of the world) would be able to claim much hardship if they gave up animal products.
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
Again, the objective is "as much as is practical." It's fairly easy to live without eating animals, or their byproducts. As far as I know, it's not at all practical to live without eating plants.
As for the ethics of killing plants: If you're really concerned about it, the best way you could reduce the killing of plants is to stop eating animals. The energy conversion rates are astoundingly bad. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
Citation needed. Last I heard you need a meticulous diet of a huge array of vegetables (something that no human could have done pre-civilisation) to maintain a healthy vegan life. We've been eating meat since the dawn of man, literally, and yet here we are living just as long as the average vegetarian. However, this is the only reason on the list I could accept as being non-retarded. If you honestly think you feel better on a vegetarian diet then hey, don't let me put you down.
Any diet needs a huge variety to be healthy. If you're interested in the health aspects of veganism, I'd suggest "The China Study." Make sure you look up the refutations as well, as I found some of them to be valid concerns. Even so, presented was a fairly large amount of evidence (in the form of correlation), that a vegetarian diet is generally healthier. It's hard to find sources that are "unbiased," since this is a charged issue and there seem to be few impartial researchers that I've found. The best I've been able to do is find sources that seem (to the best of my limited knowledge), logically consistent.
Besides, tradition is not really considered a great option to keep doing something, right? We'd still have slavery and human sacrifice, as well as a whole host of other problems if we let tradition dictate our lives. Please note that I'm not in favor of abandoning all traditional values; I just think that from time to time we need to reevaluate our reasons for doing things.
As a side-note, if you care, I've only been vegan for a few years. Even so, when I look back at the reasons I had for being a meat-eater, my reasons look a bit weak. I think it mostly boiled down to: "I wanted to eat meat." Frankly, most discussions I have with people on the subject eventually devolve into either this, or the "faith" argument. At that point, you can no longer rely on logic, and further discussion is pointless.
Right then. Sorry for being long-winded. I hope this answers some of your questions on why vegans (or, at least, this particular vegan) acts the way he does. Habit really does shape belief, right?
Frankly, I think it's a mistake to believe that the majority should decide everything. For example, no matter how many people vote "yes" on it, we should not be able to vote to kill all redheads. We should not be able to vote to keep interracial marriages from taking place (and frankly, a lot of the arguments I've seen against same-sex marriage are exactly the same as the ones against interracial marriage). Trust me, you do not want the majority dictating your personal life.
The problem is, some people are voting that way because they're worried that the government is going to come in and make their churches marry same-sex couples. Get that out of your head right now. We're talking about the government definition of marriage, and not about what goes on in the church. Until someone can give me some evidence of *measurable* harm that allowing same-sex marriage would cause, I will continue to think that the entire position is bogus.
Besides, who gets to define marriage? Do you want a marriage trademark or something? Which religion gets to define it?
Personally, I thought that the His Dark Materials series (Golden Compass, Subtle Knife, and Amber Spyglass) where a lot more preachy than Narnia was. By the time you get to Amber Spyglass the series is practicably hitting you in the face with the preaching.
(Not to get too off-topic, but...) I agree with you, but I was willing to put up with the preachiness because I found the world portrayed in those books to be thoroughly captivating. Narnia was neat, but I didn't really think the characters had real depth.
Oh, and just so I'm not *completely* off-topic, I actually liked the whole Ender Wiggin series.
As of next Thursday, UNIX will be flushed in favor of TOPS-10. Please update your programs.
