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]

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.