Post-consumerism

[kamakura]

After reading some posts about animal welfare, ecofriendly living, and the likes, it got me thinking about the general state of society. Regardless of what your stance is on veganism vs omnivorism, capitalism vs statism, democracy vs totalitarianism, and all the other ways to divide our beliefs in how society should be, I would like you to think

Comments

[titelyd]

Don't need to go to Taiwan to notice how much stuff is getting dumped. I'm not too sure if it's a recycling facility or a dumpster site but if you ride with your bike on the canal Lachine heading west, you get to see a place where a lot of crap is piled up (it looks it's some sort of factory but I'm not too sure). I can't tell you where exactly but humm just enjoy the ride (since it is a really fun bike ride) and sometimes, on the other side of the canal, you'll see what I mean (i've got a picture but it's still on my camera..)

The way I see it, is: consume less. Think before you buy something: do you really need this? If you do need to buy something, can you get it second-hand or from a thrift store? And if those options are not great for you and you really want it new because you can't find what you need from the used stuff, then get something of good quality that is meant to last: check the reviews on Internet, what people who had it thought of that products etc. It's indeed a lot of research and probably a lot of money too but if your toaster can last 10 years vs 4-5 years and you paid the double in the first place, well it comes out being the same but you're producing less trash.

As for veganism vs omninism, I think you have to be conscious of why eating meat is "bad" in a way and be able to cut down on your meat. I highly respect vegan people because they're able to nourish themselves solely on vegetable proteins but some people do feel the need to eat meat; maybe that's how they were raised or maybe they like the taste which is totally fine. It doesn't mean it can't be changed though. I like to consider myself 60% vegetarian meaning that more than half of the time I'll eat vegetarian stuff (tofu, lentils and beans, quinoa etc...) and the rest of the time I'll eat some meat. What people have to realize if that it's not black and white, and if you do work something out in which you eat less meat, it's already a little step in helping the earth.

[kamakura]

That was very well written. I agree with you whole heartedly. Post-consumerism is the approach I'm taking as well. Unfortunately, there are a lot of extremists out there that can't be reasoned with which tend to produce a bad image of a particular cause. I asked a friend a while back about why she chose veganism as a lifestyle, and she painted any alternative as the devil's spawn. While I admire people for sticking to their guns (so to speak), it's hard to respect people like that. She's just one person though, but it is unfortunate that people become so zealous with their choices, that they shut their minds to alternatives. I've since found that asking people why they made the choices they have to be very taboo, but I'm genuinely curious. Maybe they know something I don't.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of dumps in the world. I will take that bike ride, though not in the hopes of seeing it :P

[wendykh]

It may also be their health. As someone who was eating what should have been a perfect vegan diet and had ferritin levels of 3 (as opposed to the minimum of 20 it should be) it will be a cold day in hell before I give up red meat entirely.

We are animals, just as dogs are, as cows are, as sharks, as tigers. Why people think it's so bloody sinful for us to eat animals when other animals do is beyond me. Some say "well we're better than that." Really? I don't think so.

[blueheron]

Sure, absolutely. A lot of non-human animals will eat their young in times of stress, sleep with their litter mates and fight to the death with a rival (of course, there are humans that will do things like this as well, but interestingly, those behaviours are criminal....)

Honestly, looking to non-human animals for how to behave is silly. There are non-human animals out there that behave better than most of us, and there are those that don't. None of that changes how we should behave.

[mcfilmmakers]

For once I agree with her. She isnt suggesting we should emulate the animals, what she is saying is, we are no different and that it is a natural part of our being. To deny we can eat meat, murder, incest and so on is to deny being a part of this earth.

The different is, humans belong to a greater being" society and the survival of this society depends on our moral fabric, which in turn is why many of those things are crimincal. But guess what, eating meat isn't one of them.

[blueheron]

The question isn't "can we", but "should we". There is very little that we, as human being, can't do. If we can't do it with our normal body, we can use technology to help us (ie: fly, swim under the ocean, etc).

Our adaptability is probably our greatest survival tool.

As far as morality goes, there have been a lot of ethicists and philosophers over the past few hundred years that have made very good arguments against eating animals, because it is in our best interest a a society not to do so. Bentham is a good argument. His main argument was based on the fact that people who killed and butchered animals become violent and have higher incidences of spousal and child abuse than the rest of the population.

You also have people like Leo Tolstoy, who wrote the rather famous line "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields".

But, most interestingly, none of what you wrote here is actually a reason why we should or shouldn't use animals.

[mcfilmmakers]

"But, most interestingly, none of what you wrote here is actually a reason why we should or shouldn't use animals."

Just my point. We should when we can, because we can. We shouldn't when it isn't appropriate. The rules that define when we can and can't are entirely up to us as a society. It's all a big paradox.

"people who killed and butchered animals become violent and have higher incidences of spousal and child abuse than the rest of the population."

It may be statistically true but just because it is more likely, doesn't mean they will, which makes that argument baseless.

"As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields".

Find me a politician who runs a slaughterhouse himself and I'll believe it. Otherwise it is completely irrelevant.

[titelyd]

That's an interesting point that is being brought here.

I truly think there can be different reasons of why you'd become vegan. Some will mention animals' cruelty and other (like me) will mention environmental issues (ie reducing our carbon footprint).

I find it interesting though that you mention here that it is silly to take the non-humans animals' point of view when in your comment to my message, you mentionned the term specism. Specism refers to giving an animals a higher moral value. If you do not agree to that term, you shouldn't give a higher moral value to non-human animals' in the sense that we do need to consider their point of view, silly or not. And the fact is that some animals are "made" to eat meat, and other aren't. And some eat everything. As 'humans', we could make a conscious choice and not eat meat but I think it's just that some people are not made to not eat meat and it's not because they're fussy or anything: their body just can't take it.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the massive non-human animals production where those cows/beef/pigs/chicken are being treated in those factory as being human goods only. Eating less meat in my case is also a way to keep the industry down a bit and - hopefully - get them to have less non-human animals in their farms so that they can have better care. Is this gonna really happen? I don't know, I don't think so. The market of "goods" is meant to always go higher, not downsize... I suppose the best way, if we have to eat meat and if we want to make a responsible choice, is to buy organic, from an organic farm that you have visited where the animals are being well treated their entire life. But if you do so, and the demands get higher, isn't that gonna end up being a super-big-farm later on?

Lastly, before I hit the bright and sunny day, I came across this article on how human jaws are evolving and found a couple of interesting point regarding how eat-meating started (cause we all know that running after a herd of gazelles is much more tiring than picking fruits and plants).

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html

[kamakura]

I'm actually of the belief that every animal is speciest. It really is survival of the fittest out there. If the sharks, for example, became the dominant species, I have no doubt that they would do what they can to ensure the survival and dominance of their own species.

In an effort to be the devil's advocate here, we should not treat animals like we treat humans. We should treat humans like we treat animals. That way, it's a fair playing field for everyone involved.

[blueheron]

No one (lest of all me) is saying that we should "treat animals like we treat humans". What I am saying is:

How can we justify using them for our own ends when they are sentient and have their own desires?

Generally speaking, we do not need to eat animals to survive, we do not need to use them for entertainment, beasts of burden or anything else. We choose to continue doing so because that is what we have always done, and, most importantly, because we enjoy it.

[kamakura]

Thank you for that article. The concept of how our teeth are designed, so to speak, is quite interesting. Based on the jaw alone we're omnivores - we have sharp teeth for meat, and flat teeth for leaves, and a gradient of teeth in between. Based on the digestive system, we're not so well designed to process vegetation - even if a particular plant has a high amount of iron, we're not able to extract it, and thus end up having to eat more, or find alternatives.

[blueheron]

I don't have time right this second to read through and reply to the entire comment (hopefully tonight or tomorrow I will though), but you are misdefining speciesism, and I want to clear that up for other readers:

Speciesism isn't about "giving an animals a higher moral value". That is like saying that "feminism" is about "giving women a higher moral value". It isn't. It is about recognizing the fact that women are not less than men.

Speciesism can be defined as any other prejudice -- it is a bias based on irrelevant characteristics, such as gender (sexism), race (racism), sexual orientation (heterosexism), or species (speciesism).

Now, as far as "seeing things from their point of view", that is also silly, and for a very specific reason: which animals do we choose to "emulate", which is what this was bout? Ants, with their warring and classism based around a matriarchal monarchy? (yes, that is tongue in cheek) Or maybe gorillas with their patriarchal polygamous societies?

Yes, we are animals, but we are also our own species and we need to look inwards at what we can and can not do. We have to use the tools at our disposal to make us as good as we can be. That includes things like reasoning, logic and empathy, and not just mimicking, violence and hedonism.

[kamakura]

It's always interesting to hear from someone who's gone vegan to meat. May I ask why the transition? Was it soley because of ferritin? Did you consider getting suplements? How was the actual transition itself?

[blueheron]

What people have to realize if that it's not black and white, and if you do work something out in which you eat less meat, it's already a little step in helping the earth.

Just a note on this, because that sentiment comes up a lot (and it drives me crazy)-- It really isn't black an white from the non-human animal's perspective, and that is the moral imperative from which veganism stems.

If you take a similar statement, with a similarly violent outcome and replace it with a human as the subject, then you create outrage and anger. That fact that that statement does not illicit the same feelings when talking about non-human animals is because of the prejudice (aka: speciesism) I mentioned in my first comment.

[mcfilmmakers]

"If you take a similar statement, with a similarly violent outcome and replace it with a human as the subject, then you create outrage and anger. That fact that that statement does not illicit the same feelings when talking about non-human animals is because of the prejudice (aka: speciesism) I mentioned in my first comment."

If this were true, Wal-Mart would be out of business.

[quikchange]

What's wrong with Wal-mart? They're making great strides in being environmentally friendly. And the few cases of worker abuse were due to bad managers run amok, not corporate policy.