Is the toothy maw going to eat the arcane sandwich? :wink:

To answer a serious question—I'm not convinced that veganism is the answer. In order to feed our huge populations vast tracts of land have been converted to monoculture farming. This destroys habitat, and many plants and animals, and the chemical fertilizers needed to sustain such a scale of farming destroys the soil biome.

To answer a serious question—I'm not convinced that veganism is the answer. In order to feed our huge populations vast tracts of land have been converted to monoculture farming. This destroys habitat, and many plants and animals, and the chemical fertilizers needed to sustain such a scale of farming destroys the soil biome. — Janus

In your opinion, what would be the answer then, if not veganism?

I don't know. Say veganism is not the answer. it doesn't necessarily follow that there is an answer. The probability is that we will just keep muddling along, pretending that something is actually being done, until something out of our control happens to drastically reduce the human population.

You know, I think most people walk around thinking that there is no way that they, as individuals, could be ethically obligated to change their lifestyles drastically merely because the necessity of a change hasn't presented itself in their lives. However, I like to think that most people, if they were just in the right state of mind, and were aware of the facts, would value reducing non-human suffering enough to be vegan without it needing to interfere with their lives in some way.

It reminds me of people who think they can fight without training. This belief is entirely irrational and does not present as being irrational until one gets into a fight or actually pursues training, at which point they should realize just how fragile the bridges of their noses are or how easily someone significantly smaller than them could choke them out. At that point, one has been educated, so to speak, on some of their deficiencies.

And if one's delusions of being able to fight survive being folded in half by a purple belt or clubbed by someone who knows how to throw a good leg kick, then maybe nothing can be done for them.

Of course, veganism is different because one has been eating meat their whole life (presumably) and it is socially acceptable, so there is quite a bit of inertia there.

I don't know. Say veganism is not the answer. it doesn't necessarily follow that there is an answer. The probability is that we will just keep muddling along, pretending that something is actually being done, until something out of our control happens to drastically reduce the human population. — Janus

Sure, perhaps there is no answer at all to the world's problems. The vegan response to that claim, however, is that the ethical thing to do is to reduce the suffering of both human beings and non-human animals, as much as we reasonably and possibly can. What would you say to that, in return?

You know, I think most people walk around thinking that there is no way that they, as individuals, could be ethically obligated to change their lifestyles drastically merely because the necessity of a change hasn't presented itself in their lives. However, I like to think that most people, if they were just in the right state of mind, and were aware of the facts, would value reducing non-human suffering enough to be vegan without it needing to interfere with their lives in some way.

It reminds me of people who think they can fight without training. This belief is entirely irrational and does not present as being irrational until one gets into a fight or actually pursues training, at which point they should realize just how fragile the bridges of their noses are or how easily someone significantly smaller than them could choke them out. At that point, one has been educated, so to speak, on some of their deficiencies.

And if one's delusions of being able to fight survive being folded in half by a purple belt or clubbed by someone who knows how to throw a good leg kick, then maybe nothing can be done for them.

Of course, veganism is different because one has been eating meat their whole life (presumably) and it is socially acceptable, so there is quite a bit of inertia there. — ToothyMaw

Just yesterday we had some visitors at our BJJ academy, a black belt and one of his purple belts. I'm a blue belt myself. I gave the purple belt a really tough time, I passed his guard a few times, and he wasn't able to submit me. Of course, I wasn't able to submit him either, but I managed to hang in there with him. When I rolled with the black belt, I was completely helpless, lol. I tried MMA in the past but it's just not my thing. There's no risk of brain damage in BJJ, I would argue, so that's gotta count for something (I would hope).

I'm with you, @@ToothyMaw, I think veganism is more ethical than non-veganism. But I just don't see how other people are under the obligation to convert to veganism if they're under no obligation to convert to anything in general. I mean, given that there are several different Ethics out there, how are we to decide which one is the best? Honest question.

I'm with you, @ToothyMaw, I think veganism is more ethical than non-veganism. But I just don't see how other people are under the obligation to convert to veganism if they're under no obligation to convert to anything in general. I mean, given that there are several different Ethics out there, how are we to decide which one is the best? Honest question. — Arcane Sandwich

I think it is unreasonable to expect me to be able to resolve the is/ought problem when I argue for veganism, because if we truly didn't already bypass that problem in some ways, no one would be vegan or straight edge or would take up any difficult to maintain moral stances on anything. The fact of the matter is that if one cares about suffering, one should care about animal suffering, and if one doesn't care about animal suffering but cares about human suffering, there is a good chance one is selectively applying the reasoning that unnecessary suffering is wrong according to categories in an arbitrary way. Or one could be a cowardly, sadistic supporter of killing animals whose last refuge is to be found in hiding behind unresolvable philosophical problems (not referring to you, sandwich). But that is almost certainly an edge case and not representative of non-vegans in general.

So, I can only rigorously appeal to other vegans to fight for a world in which animal suffering is minimized by emphasizing what I wrote earlier: a world in which we are all vegan is probably ideal if we want to follow vegan reasoning to its logical conclusion.

None of that is to say that veganism can't be wrong, but it looks like it isn't from where I'm standing.

I think it is unreasonable to expect me to be able to resolve the is/ought problem when I argue for veganism, because if we truly didn't already bypass that problem in some ways, no one would be vegan or straight edge or would take up any difficult to maintain moral stances on anything. — ToothyMaw

I agree, 100%.

The fact of the matter is that if one cares about suffering, one should care about animal suffering, and if one doesn't care about animal suffering but cares about human suffering, there is a good chance one is selectively applying the reasoning that unnecessary suffering is wrong according to categories in an arbitrary way. — ToothyMaw

In other words, if one cares about human suffering, but not animal suffering, then one isn't thinking in a rational way. Such a person wouldn't be "connecting the dots" in their mind, so to speak. Is that what you're saying here?

Or one could be a cowardly, sadistic supporter of killing animals whose last refuge is to be found in hiding behind unresolvable philosophical problems (not referring to you, sandwich). But that is almost certainly an edge case and not representative of non-vegans in general. — ToothyMaw

True, I think most non-vegans are somehow irrational, and they seem to be either unaware of that irrational part of their mind, or they simply accept it like it's no big deal. Because to them, it isn't really a big deal, until one carefully points out why it would be a big deal, and why it actually is a big deal. Otherwise, non-vegans just happen to have other things on their mind. They care about other issues, and genuinely so. I can't say that I fault them, because I actually don't.

So, I can only rigorously appeal to other vegans to fight for a world in which animal suffering is minimized by emphasizing what I wrote earlier: a world in which we are all vegan is probably ideal if we want to follow vegan reasoning to its logical conclusion. — ToothyMaw

Indeed. But veganism cannot be forced upon people, is what I would say. It would be unethical and immoral to use force to make everyone vegan. There is no justification for such a thing, as far as I can see. However, that does not mean that I'm opposed to the destruction of private property, such as burning down a meth lab, or freeing captive animals from the cages that they're kept in. And I am indeed entirely willing to discuss such things in a philosophical sense, and in non-philosophical senses as well.

None of that is to say that veganism can't be wrong, but it looks like it isn't from where I'm standing. — ToothyMaw

Same.

More food for thought: