Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NeoliberalismKills wrote (edited )

So humanity needs to abandon every environment where it is impossible to forage or grow their own plants?

Edit: any opinion besides a downvote. Your making an absolutist moral statement with broad implications. As someone who is anti-civ hunting is going to be necessary for caloric intake in certain climates. We cannot house the human population in the zones where it's possible to live completely meat free. Put another way, veganism is a luxury of industrial agriculture and civilization. If you support these things, then fine. So say and say you support the forced relocation of the Inuit or that they accept your morality.

I for one am working towards veganism because I abhor the commodification of any living creature. But certain climates will require hunting to remain habitable. And considering climates where strictly foraging and permaculture alone could sustain populations will become largely uninhabitable due to wet bulb temps it isn't even feasible to relocate everyone if we were so inclined.

1

ruin wrote

So say and say you support the forced relocation of the Inuit or that they accept your morality.

Apparently some do. I had a user on this site say exactly this in response to a similar question.

I’m not sure when anarchists became ok with usurping the autonomy of indigenous people to further their personal ideological and dietary preferences but I guess that’s what it’s come to? Pretty sad.

5

yam wrote

Sounds sad but don't take it as a reason to discount veganism as such.

The good thing is that vegans usually don't do that, relocate indigenous people to veganize them. (Prove me wrong?)

3

ruin wrote

All good. I’m not discounting veganism at all.

I was merely expressing my dismay that some anarchists prioritize ideologies over the autonomy of individuals (even just theoretically) in such a sweeping moralistic manner.

4

yam wrote

prioritize ideologies over the autonomy of individuals

Ya, well, prioritizing ideologies that just so also happens to be about prioritizing the autonomy of individuals (who in this case also includes certain other class of individuals whose autonomy is often prioritized very low).

2

ruin wrote

Your decision to isolate seven words and twist the already well established context of this discussion would seem to reinforce my statement rather than than oppose it.

There’s a difference between ideas and ideologies. There is also difference in the reality of survival for people living in different circumstances.

I’m not trying to argue that you or anyone shouldn’t be a vegan, or promote veganism for that matter.

I only suggest that individuals (anarchists especially) should consider whether they should make choices for others that they haven’t the faintest knowledge of or engagement with in any aspect of their life.

2

Lulia wrote

I think you missed the point of the italicisation. The other classes of individuals who are prioritised lowly are the animals. The idea that animal bodily autonomy is ideology and that you're not making a choice for those animals by murdering them is some weird carnist logic.

2

ruin wrote

I can see that. I was reading it in the specific context of indigenous people, as that was the discussion at that point.

You could also say that the idea of autonomy doesn’t assume the complete removal of the risk of physical harm in anything but a utopian world view. If we’re to reject anthropocentrism and speciesism and that were the case, we’d paint predatory species as denying the autonomy of their prey.

I appreciate your point though. I’m interested in how and why individuals feel justified in making these value statements in addition to where they choose to draw the line for others.

2

yam wrote

I only suggest that individuals (anarchists especially) should consider whether they should make choices for others that they haven’t the faintest knowledge of or engagement with in any aspect of their life.

Exactly. The dilemma being either making a choice about what someone should eat or making a choice that someone else should be eaten. I'm not sure a "don't make choices for others" position exists.

2

ruin wrote

I agree. It may not exist.

My position is that making the choice based on abstractions reified as truths is lazy and dull in addition to being rather authoritarian.

It’s much easier to proselytize with some good/evil binary, but such a framework is near useless in life.

3

yam wrote

It’s much easier to proselytize with some good/evil binary, but such a framework is near useless in life.

Yup, 100% this.

I think this good/evil binary can confuse non-vegans about veganism, as in "Are you then not allowed to kill a mosquito?" and all that.

My friends got some rescue chickens in their garden. After a few weeks they grew their feathers back. They're very sociable. My friends eat the eggs that those chickens lay.

I don't eat those eggs myself (because I've come to dislike the idea of eating eggs myself) but am I going to say anything about them "not being vegans" for cooking those eggs? No way, because it looks to me like the chickens are having a good time. Their living standards are likely amongst the top 0.0000001% of chickens.

Where I think a somewhat firm binary is occasionally helpful is in resistance to "humane-washing", like "free range" or "welfare slaughtered".

(I think there are parallels to the discussion about authority / anarchism with, say, Chomsky being arguably less binary with this idea of justified authority.)

2

ruin wrote

I think this good/evil binary can confuse non-vegans about veganism, as in "Are you then not allowed to kill a mosquito?" and all that.

It confuses everyone.

Sounds like your friends and the chickens have a nice symbiotic relationship going on.

As far as the anarchism/authority balance, I’d tell Chomsky to fuck off. To refer to him an antiauthoritarian or anarchist would be analogous to marketing free range or humane slaughter corpses.

Thanks for adding to the discussion. It’s been enjoyable.

2

yam wrote

You'd at least agree that eating bought flesh is never okay then?

3

NeoliberalismKills wrote

If you can genuinely pursue (food deserts exist) a vegan diet and aren't working towards eliminating industrial, domesticed animal products from your diet then I agree you're willfully contributing to the oppression of animals.

3

yam wrote

Yea, exactly.

I've seen supermarkets in UK that don't sell any fresh veg at all - potatoes, onion, apples, nothing - although sometimes delicious accidentally vegan frozen snacks. I wonder if that could be considered borderline food desert?

I think I would say the pursuit is to do what's best under the circumstances, while also working to improve those circumstances.

I like the idea of ban on advertisements for meat (just like tobacco advert ban in many countries, notably except Germany). That would probably be seen as "reformist" on this forum, and that's arguably true, but I'd just love to see that as a start.

All-or-nothing thinking approach can be harmful, like that you'd have to go 100% no-honey no-bin-dived-donuts vegan all the time or you might as well go back to McDonalds and order caged egg bagel with fried skin. Or that if not everyone everywhere in the whole world aren't all able to go 100% vegan (because food deserts somewhere), that you might as well then be fine with pig trucks and that whole billion scale animal transports, decimating of the ocean floors.

4