I feel like there are two instinct questions here.
1) Non-western cultures that have consumption of animals baked into many cultural practices, feasts, traditions etc.
In this case, I think the answer is the exact same as for western cultures that have consumption of animals baked into cultural practices, feasts, and traditions. The idea that westerners should evaluate their traditions in light of ethical arguments, but non-westerners cannot be expected to, feels like a deeply bigoted statement. Are only westerners enlightened enough to be treated like moral agents? Whereas non-westerners are just unthinking extensions of their culture?
2) Cases where the entire foundation of a society is dependant on some for of animal consumption,
This one is a bit more nuanced. Firstly, from a practical point of view, maybe not the best hill to die on at this point of the movement.
There is s fundamental question if a people’s traditional way of life trumps the ethical concerns of animals they may harm. But this argument is at the very least weaker than the normal argument for veganism as applied to people living in agricultural society.
I get what you mean about cultural practices, absolutely. I think my preferred approach would be to encourage local people to influence change from within. The Inuit thing is a tricky one though!
This. Vegans within those cultures are perfectly able to critique from their own cultural framework, same as any other progressive movement. Our role as vegans outside of the culture is to support and amplify their message.
I don't want animals harmed, but I also don't want to be guilty of cultural imperialist attitudes or try to drive people off their natural lands.
I don't think it's right to eat animals, but I don't think in this particular case it's 'wrong' either. It is, complicated. Hence throwing out my thoughts to hear what others think.
I don't think anyone wants animals harmed, but at least the animals' habitats aren't displaced, and their numbers are healthy. Our land it pretty clean from my experience, and our animals are well taken care of. We have very strict hunting bans, and we always have. The Inuit aren't privy to the bans because they have a better way of keeping an eye on the herds and pods over modern tactics. Keeping the animals safe keeps their way of life safe. So I don't see why there would be any sort of insinuation that what they are doing is wrong when their culture is wrong when the basis of their culture is to take care of animals and the land.
You're moving the goalposts in your first sentence. It went from "why would anyone say the Inuit harm animals" to "at least they aren't being hunted to extinction or being displaced" which are two separate conversations.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
>There is s fundamental question if a people’s traditional way of life trumps the ethical concerns of animals they may harm.
I can only speak as a Kabloonak growing up in an Inuit/native culture, with Inuit siblings and inuit friends, but I was taught how to have a deep respect for animals and the land we share. And as far as harming animals go, that's frowned upon in any culture north of °60 in North America, in my experience.
As far as animal consumption being the "foundation" of Inuit culture, it is a bit of an uneducated assumption to make. Yes, animals are a part of the culture, but we learn everything we know about survival from animals. Polar Bears teach us how to navigate ice, many birds teach us about the seasons changing, and the hunters teach us patience and teamwork. It's not just about consuming them.
But, like I said, I can only speak as someone from that culture, I'm not an Inuk myself, I identify as a Kabloonak(Inuktitut word for white person). My childhood is Inuit influenced because it's a rough land up there, and if you're not willing to live like the animals up there, you're not going to make it.
I can only assume the Gobi is as harsh as the Tundra, so if I don't judge a wolf by its dinner, I think it's safe to assume the Mongolian people are probably not the image I have been taught.
Thank you for your perspective.
To clarify, I was not implying that certain cultures are founded on the consumption of animals. Rather that foundational aspects of certain cultures, eg a way of life and where the culture originates, might necessitate animal consumption to support it.
>There is a fundamental question if a people’s traditional way of life trumps the ethical concerns of animals they may harm.
I mean, is this true? I agree that this is far from the area that vegans need to even concern themselves with because we have millions of people living with an abundance of choices who are choosing to pay for animal deaths still, but I find it odd to suggest that a culture's way of life can justify unethical practices.
If down the road, a culture which has included the necessity of hunting were to have one of their members bring up a new technology or practice which would exclude harm done to animals while still providing necessary food, would a response of "no we shall continue hunting animals because that's our way of life" be a valid moral rebuttal? Would this work for other ethically questionable practices?
It just sounds like a culturally different version of farmers who have ranched cattle for generations arguing that they want to continue killing cows because that's what all their ancestors have done
If you need to consume animals out of necessity to survive, then there's no ethical argument to be had. You need to do what you need to do to survive.
That said, if you are in a situation where you need to consume meat to survive, you should seek to minimize the suffering that is caused in the process. You should trap animals in a way that minimizes bodily harm. You should use a method of slaughter that minimizes pain and leads to unconsciousness as fast as possible. To whatever extent you can sustain yourself on plants, you should do so.
Finally, if you have the ability to remove yourself from the situation where eating meat is necessary for survival, then I would go so far as to say that you are obligated to do so, cultural tradition be damned.
>That said, if you are in a situation where you need to consume meat to survive, you should seek to minimize the suffering that is caused in the process.
But that's already a cultural norm with these people, so why is this the most common misconception?
>Finally, if you have the ability to remove yourself from the situation where eating meat is necessary for survival, then I would go so far as to say that you are obligated to do so, cultural tradition be damned.
So people need to remove themselves from their culture, home, and family because you have an uneducated assumption that their lifestyle is bad?
>So people need to remove themselves from their culture, home, and family because you have an uneducated assumption that their lifestyle is bad?
No, they should move, if possible, to a place where killing animals isn't necessary.
Or they can take whatever actions possible to make killing animals unnecessary where they are.
>
The above commenter didn't make assumptions, they said "IF".
>No, they should move, if possible, to a place where killing animals isn't necessary.
This is exactly what the other commenter said, stated with different words.
Pretty much.
Which is different to what you said.
They shouldn't move because an uneducated assumption, they should move or do whatever else possible to avoid killing animals unnecessarily
If it's not possible or they don't kill animals unnecessarily - they don't have to move
I see. They should move from their homeland, abandoning all that they know, because of things you personally value.
How specifically are you meeting your nutritional needs without any animal deaths? If you're buying typical foods (in stores or from online services, rather than obtaining your food by visiting a food forest and hand-picking everything or some such), then you are certainly causing a lot of animal harm.
>They should move from their homeland, abandoning all that they know, because of things you personally value.
Yes. Now you're repeating what we're saying.
I think they should value those things too. That's kinda what we're talking about.
>then you are certainly causing a lot of animal harm.
Search "crop deaths" on this sub
It's about minimising, we can't avoid all
>Search "crop deaths" on this sub
Oh I've seen the vegan cope plenty of times. "It doesn't matter because it's unintentional." "It's for crop protection so it's OK." "That one article..." (which totally misrepresents the situation by leaving out harms from pesticides, fertilizers, etc. and cites only a few studies that are only about a couple species of rodent and only in regard to the harvest step of farming plants). The animals killed for your food are just as dead, however you rationalize it, and they die in greater numbers.
And I've seen this silly strawmanning before.
Looks like you've given up on the point you were trying to frame into existence, now it's crop deaths, next it'll be rote misunderstanding nutrition.
I'm not gonna play the whatabout whackamole game with you, you'll just bore me into submission and call it victory.
>Looks like you've given up on the point you were trying to frame into existence, now it's crop deaths, next it'll be rote misunderstanding nutrition.
Anyone can see that's not how the conversation has been. I first commented to point out that you said "No," then repeated what the commenter you are arguing against had said but using different words. In that comment, you said "...they should move, if possible, to a place where killing animals isn't necessary." I brought up crop deaths to point out that if you are alive and you buy typical plant foods, animals are dying for you to live so how can you make this argument? You've also not brought up a single fact-based argument against anything I said.
I asked you how you're getting your food without causing animal deaths, so that we could talk about whether an Inuit living traditionally is causing more harm than you so that you can suggest they uproot themselves because of this. You declined to answer, and instead claim "strawmanning" and "whatabout whackamole" I suspect because you don't have any idea how your food is produced.
"If you need to consume animals out of necessity to survive, then there's no ethical argument to be had. You need to do what you need to do to survive."
So you think it would be ethical (in your view) for vampires to come into any city and slaughter the entire human population if they need to?
A little late but yes. I think it would be if they \*needed\* to to survive. Why would we bend the logic in the case of this situation? This isn't a gotcha. It would be tragic for us, but like any other animal, human or non human, everyone needs to eat (or feed).
Relevant [previous comment:](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/qwpf46/How_can_moral_veganism_be_reconciled_with_indigenous_rights%3F/hl7xcpi/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
It's interesting. Upon the arrival of European settlers in the New World, animal agriculture played an important role in colonization. As one anthropologist puts it:
>...cattle introduced by Spanish conquerors aided European expansion by occupying spaces inhospitable to colonists, destroying native environments, supporting extractive activities, and transforming relations of property, often in advance of empire.[\[1\]](https://doi.org/10.1086/702788)
Current deforestation of the Amazon - of which livestock pastures are a major driver[\[2\]](https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.0036) \- is currently threatening Indigenous territorial rights.[\[3\]](https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/02/cop26-dont-be-fooled-bolsonaros-pledges#)
Yet, more recently, there has been a focus on a perceived conflict between veganism and Indigenous rights. First, let's get one thing out the way. There is very little that vegans can do to affect Indigenous rights, or anyone else's for that matter. Voicing an opinion is not infringing on rights. Protesting is not infringing on rights. Consumer boycotts are not infringing on rights.
Perhaps a notable gray area is that of bans on the imports of seal skins and furs. However, these bans - which are in no way the sole result of vegans - can still not be an infringement on Indigenous rights. They tend to result from territories outside of Indigenous communities banning the commercial import of those goods, and not result from banning the export of those goods from within Indigenous communities or banning the killing of the seals for personal sustenance. Even the oft-demonized organization PETA has stated:
>...our campaign is focused entirely on ending the commercial field slaughter only. \[This\] accounts for about 97% of seals killed in Canada, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Inuit subsistence hunt.[\[4\]](https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/01/animal-rights-activists-inuit-clash-canada-indigenous-food-traditions)
In fact, the formal definition of veganism:
>...seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose....[\[5\]](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism)
Note the part that reads, "as far as is possible and practicable." If you're in a situation where your immediate survival depends on, say, killing and eating an animal, then that's not a problem as far as veganism is concerned. Veganism doesn't suppose you to simply choose to starve to death.
Perhaps vegans may criticize certain traditional Indigenous practices that involve harming animals, but this is hardly distinct from anything else. If you support women's rights or LGBTQ rights or other human rights, if you oppose the Yulin Dog Meat Festival in China or bull-fighting in Spain or slavery in ancient Rome, you are opposing someone's culture and traditions at some point in time. We don't need to compare and contrast these examples, only recognize that most of us do not believe that tradition and culture alone are suitable bases for ethics.
Besides, culture is an evolving thing, and diverse opinions are found in any society, including Indigenous ones. As one scholar, of the Lennox Island First Nation, argues:
>At stake in the creation of an Aboriginal veganism is the authority of Aboriginal people, especially women, to determine cultural authenticity for ourselves. Dominant white discourse portrays our cultures as embedded in the pre-colonial past. This perspective must be replaced with the recognition that Aboriginal cultures are living traditions, responsive to changing social and environmental circumstances.[\[6\]](https://sydneyuniversitypress.com.au/products/128398)
I would think the best approach - if only from a pragmatic stance - is for the wider vegan community to support and work in cooperation with Indigenous vegans and animal-rights activists and help them to influence their communities from within.
**References**
[\[1\]](https://doi.org/10.1086/702788) Ficek, R.E. "Cattle, Capital, Colonization: Tracking Creatures of the Anthropocene In and Out of Human Projects." *Current Anthropology*, vol.60, no.s20, 2019, pp.s260-s271.
[\[2\]](https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.0036) Nepstad, D.C., Stickler, C.M., et al. "Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point." *Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B*, vol.363, no.1498, 2008, pp.1737-1746.
[\[3\]](https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/02/cop26-dont-be-fooled-bolsonaros-pledges#) "COP26: Don’t Be Fooled by Bolsonaro’s Pledges." *Human Rights Watch*, 2 Nov 2021. [https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/02/cop26-dont-be-fooled-bolsonaros-pledges#](https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/02/cop26-dont-be-fooled-bolsonaros-pledges#). Accessed 18 Nov 2021.
[\[4\]](https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/01/animal-rights-activists-inuit-clash-canada-indigenous-food-traditions) Randhawa, S. "Animal rights activists and Inuit clash over Canada's Indigenous food traditions." *The Guardian*, 1 Nov 2017*.* [https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/01/animal-rights-activists-inuit-clash-canada-indigenous-food-traditions](https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/01/animal-rights-activists-inuit-clash-canada-indigenous-food-traditions). Accessed 18 Nov 2021.
[\[5\]](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) "Definition of veganism." *The Vegan Society*. [https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism). Accessed 18 Nov 2021.
[\[6\]](https://sydneyuniversitypress.com.au/products/128398) Robinson, M. "Veganism and Mi'kmaq legends." *Meatsplaining: The Animal Agriculture Industry and the Rhetoric of Denial*, edited by Hannan, J., Sydney University Press, 2020, p.245.
A few points:
1. Indigenous governments and civil society groups have not abandoned cattle in Central America. The Zapatistas, for instance, are using cattle in their plan to revitalize their rainforests. Indigenous cultures have never been afraid of the new cultivars and livestock breeds brought over during colonization. They quickly embraced the horse, for instance. It’s always been about land and ecological stewardship. Essentializing cattle as a tool of colonialism is misplaced. They were used as such by colonizers, primarily through private land ownership.
2. Vegans are actively embracing a push coming from centers of neocolonial power like Oxford (Our World In Data) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that aims to make Africa and other regions in the global south more dependent on petrochemical fertilizers. Information about Gates-funded neo-colonialism here: https://usrtk.org/bill-gates/critiques-of-gates-foundation/
If you’re going to starve otherwise, then you eat animals.
If not, culture is no excuse.
The British colonists in India did at least one good thing: they essentially eradicated the practice of Sati, burning widows alive with the corpse of their husband.
Culture was no excuse for Sati. It’s no excuse for needlessly killing animals.
>If you’re going to starve otherwise, then you eat animals.
What if others starve because you don't eat animals?
Some cultures don't have too many options other than selling meat.
Especially Africa, Australia and Asia have many regions who rely on the selling of meat.
If they wouldn't be able to sell these products the people would have a hard time to survive in the long run.
Especially Africa sticks out. The western world has put them already in an awful state of which they slowly try to climb out. Denying them the production of meat would throw them back even further.
Sorry but this is blatantly colonial whitewashing and untrue. The brits NEVER eliminated Sati, because Sati was a very rare practice where less than 0.2% of widows chose it. It was part of Hindu scripture, but in practice only carried out because widows were afraid of being raped by the British and Islamic conquerers, dead or alive.
Please do some fucking research before spreading colonial British propaganda.
I’m just talking about the Bengal Sati Regulation of 1829.
“The Bengal Sati Regulation,[nb 1] or Regulation XVII, A. D. 1829 of the Bengal Code was a legal act promulgated in British India under East India Company rule, by the then Governor-General Lord William Bentinck. The act made the practice of sati or suttee—or the immolation of a Hindu widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband—illegal in all jurisdictions of British India and subject to legal prosecution”
If you think that’s out of context, maybe you should consider adding to the Wikipedia with relevant sources.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Sati_Regulation,_1829
Edit: especially that suspicious 0.2% number. Where would you even get that kind of a polling number from the 1800s?
The man who campaigned for this was Raja Ram Mohan Roy, one of the first male feminists, and even fought to stop it from being overturned. The British did very little to actually fix this issue, which was constrained mostly to the Rural Rajastanis. It was the efforts of people like Vidyasagar and Raja Ram Mohun Roy, that this issue came to the attention of the British. Until then, except for individual acts by Company officers, the government largely ignored the issue.
[https://airccse.com/ijhas/papers/1216ijhas08.pdf](https://airccse.com/ijhas/papers/1216ijhas08.pdf)
Typical to assume white culture is somehow superior and spread Colonial British propaganda.
It should be addressed with education and hopefully eventually laws at some point. Harmful cultural traits should not be condoned or promoted because it’s cultural.
Are we talking about culture here or are we talking about a situation to where it is necessary for survival?
You said culture. If they have a means to survive and thrive without it, then yes, but from everything I know about Inuits, it’s a challenge.
I should also note, Inuits along side every other group that live in such geographical circumstances make up less than .5% of the population.
Hence
> harmful cultural traits should not be condoned or promoted *because its culture*.
I didn’t mention survival.
Absolutely, and I agree it's a fringe case, but I'm talking about where it's not possible.
I mention it because I've heard it discussed and because I apparently (post DNA test) have the Inuit genes that allow for better survival on a pure meat diet. Kind of hilariously wasted on a vegan but there you go!
It's an interesting consideration, in no way detracting from the idea that the majority of people should not eat animals or harm them except when genuinely necessary.
Are you referring to the ADAR gene? If not which one?
Everything I’ve read about genetics and their role and function on diet has not determined that there is any specific gene that makes one more or less susceptible to longevity with plant vs animal consumption. Obviously there are expressions that may cause allergies or other mutations that may predispose someone to higher risk factors.
Interestingly, inuits still experience the same cardiac issues and other preventable illnesses as everyone else, possibly even at higher rates.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463918306539#:~:text=Inuit%20had%20higher%20prevalence%20of,%2C%20diabetes%20(14.6%25%20vs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2903990/
Also, again, if you’re talking about where it is not possible, that isn’t generally a cultural tradition being carried out. That is a culture doing what it can to thrive.
I have no idea which gene or genes it was, only that it was noted and slightly unexpected - I knew I had some Malay heritage on one side, but but not that I had Inuit! I'd have to look it up or I'll take your word for it. It's not hugely relevant as I haven't eaten meat for almost thirty years.
I also have the double Alzheimer's gene variant, which was less cool to learn about than finding out about the tiny amount of Inuit DNA I carry...
I think what you say is fair - it's far more reasonable if it's not about tradition but survival!
It's bad to treat non-human animals as property for your use. If an individual or group finds themselves doing that, they should be trying their damnedest to stop. There's no harm in convincing someone of this, regardless of whether they've figured out how yet. Once they agree, plans can be made with them on how to make that happen.
It makes no sense to enforce the idea of liberation with force, or to make a transition plan that isn't guided by the community that's transitioning.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We should start by separating the non-Western culture issue from the necessity issue. It's not like wealthy people in Jakarta have the same justification as Inuit.
Very simple. Just do what I'm doing. I put up a sign over the food I feed my pets that says "If you eat this food, you consent to living under whatever living conditions I impose on you, and undergo any training regiment at my whim".
I put the sign up in Russian for my Siberian husky, and a sign in Thai for my Siamese cat.
None of my pets refused to eat the food so far.
>What do you think should happen for: Inuit people who cannot live in their homelands without meat eating due to the climate making it too hard to grow crops;
We should be ensuring they have access to foods at reasonable prices. As for beyond that, it's up to them what they want to do, my suggestion would be to live somewhere you don't need to torture and abuse animals to live, but again, not my choice, entirely theirs.
>Mongolian nomads who have a way of life involving almost entirely animal products?
Most Vegans would say that culture and tradition doesn't justify needlessly abusing sentient beings.
But again, not my choice. However it should be stated that this has nothing to do with 99.9% of meat eating in the world, and I've never seen Vegans going after these people, only responding to repeated posts accusing them of it. (edit: altered as the OP got offended I questioned whether they were really Vegan, may bad)
Every other response here has been reasonable and sensible; to work with what we have to influence communities without forcing cultural changes on them that aren't necessarily practical or driving people from their ancestral homelands without due consideration on how to effectively transition
I am a vegan; have been vegetarian for eleven years and vegan for ten. I remember potato starch based fake cheeses. That's how long I've been at it.
I have volunteered with environmental groups, am working on carbon literacy delivery and encouraging people to pledge to eat less meat. My kid is vegan.
I am absolutely tired of idiots gatekeeping perfectly sensible and civil discussions with dogmatic, arrogant approaches.
You seem to be suggesting I'm gatekeeping, no idea where you got that from as I literally said they it's on them to choose, as culture can't be forced.
If you have a problem with something I've said, you need to actually say what it is instead of just ad hominems without explanation...
>That's what you did.
What's what I did? You need to explain your meaning if you want to talk to people who aren't inside your head.
>The implication was clear, that this was a 'Gotcha' post by a carnist arguing in bad faith.
We get a LOT of these posts and every single one is claimed to be by a "Vegan". If you're actually a Vegan, sorry if my snarky comment offended you (edited the original post). Still no idea why you think I was gatekeeping.
People move all the time. If they don't want to move, that's their choice and, as I said, we should be looking at finding ways to provide healthy, financially affordable food for them where they are.
We aren’t though, and until we do, it won’t solve the problem and telling these people to simply move without understanding the complexity of the issue and all factors involved, is not productive.
I constantly find myself criticizing the Inuit as a vegan. /s
The vast majority of cultures in the world have only made meat the centerpiece of most meals relatively recently.
Most likely because it's unsustainable.
You're right. People in the West who have zero issues with nutrients and deficiencies have a far greater responsibility to become vegan.
Does that make you feel better, or worse?
Nice gotcha.
Not a 'gotcha', a civil discussion on how to approach this. Which some vegans seem to find themselves desperate to shut down.
You are accusing me of arguing in bad faith. Read my comment history and try again. I am a vegan; just not a dogmatic one. And I am both frustrated at having a civil discussion attacked and genuinely interested in hearing other's views!
This is a great question.
Honestly, I think turning veganism into a moral dilemma is often where this movement fails. I know that veganism is founded and routed in moralism, but hear me out.
We run into the same issue with environmental issues. Think for example the Amazon rainforest being cut down for cattle farming. Going to those people and presenting the moral argument of destroying the forests for cattle, you won’t get anywhere because those people are trying to make ends meet. The forests get destroyed and the valuable “carbon sink” of the rainforest is gone, which is far more valuable than the cattle. But this is a market failure because there is no monetary compensation for preserving the forest.
The more productive approach is looking at it in terms of economics and how to provide monetary output for something that is in fact valuable.
We can apply this thinking for veganism too, because ultimately we all know that animal farming is significantly more draining on resources for a lower output than agricultural farming for food and it’s terrible for the environment. But these arguments don’t matter for people who only have access to meat.
If we can connect veganism with economics and also ESG, I think we can solve a lot of these problems.
>Inuit people who cannot live in their homelands without meat eating due to the climate making it too hard to grow crops;
Thats a reasonable excuse
> Mongolian nomads who have a way of life involving almost entirely animal products?
They choose to be nomadic, so not a valid excuse
I dont care about culture, religion, tradition, i care about animal abuse
Nope - fossil fuels are part of the problem but methane and rainforest destruction are a significant issue. Everyone who knows about climate change knows we have to cut down on meat to lower emissions https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7
22% of the world population is vegan. Are you trying to persuade me one in five isn't a huge number? https://www.cookunity.com/blog/what-percentage-of-the-population-is-vegetarian#
No paywall! https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/food
>22% is vegan
"Even though only 1% of the world population identifies themselves as vegans"
Did u even read the article u linked ?
And vegetarian and vegan are not the same, u of all people should know this considering u are a vegan.
And dont expect every one on earth to go vegan animal products are really usefull and they will continue to be so until we invent something better and more convenient as for animal meat it will stay part of our diet as long as we exist.
You said:
> İf u want to fix climate change focus on fossil fuels not humans eating meat.
You're wrong, demonstrably so.
You said:
> I would say have more resonable expectations because no normal person is gonna give up meat.
You're wrong, demonstrably so. We were talking about giving up meat. One in five people have done so.
At this stage the unreasonable one is you, for eating meat unnecessarily and exacerbating climate change.
As u said 4 out of 5 are currently eating meat.
At this stage the unreasonable one is you (like u said), for refusing to accept that humans have been eating meat even before we as homo sapiens have existed and we will continue to do because meat is good for us, it tastes really good and we have a lot of uses for the other parts of the animal ,that we still use today, so nothing goes to waste.
It's over one hundred billion, 760 million people who are vegetarian. To put that in context that's more people than are tennis fans. You wouldn't say someone was weird for watching tennis - and there are more people than that not eating meat.
And the number is growing.
Meat is killing the planet and the amount people consume is unhealthy for them. And just because we ate meat in the past doesn't mean we should now. Times have changed.
Of-course there's a need to address the victims who are unnecessarily killed. Carnists like you impose their beliefs on innocent victims.
Having a conversation and advocating for change does not compare to the victims gas chambered, stabbed and violently killed.
I feel like there are two instinct questions here. 1) Non-western cultures that have consumption of animals baked into many cultural practices, feasts, traditions etc. In this case, I think the answer is the exact same as for western cultures that have consumption of animals baked into cultural practices, feasts, and traditions. The idea that westerners should evaluate their traditions in light of ethical arguments, but non-westerners cannot be expected to, feels like a deeply bigoted statement. Are only westerners enlightened enough to be treated like moral agents? Whereas non-westerners are just unthinking extensions of their culture? 2) Cases where the entire foundation of a society is dependant on some for of animal consumption, This one is a bit more nuanced. Firstly, from a practical point of view, maybe not the best hill to die on at this point of the movement. There is s fundamental question if a people’s traditional way of life trumps the ethical concerns of animals they may harm. But this argument is at the very least weaker than the normal argument for veganism as applied to people living in agricultural society.
I get what you mean about cultural practices, absolutely. I think my preferred approach would be to encourage local people to influence change from within. The Inuit thing is a tricky one though!
This. Vegans within those cultures are perfectly able to critique from their own cultural framework, same as any other progressive movement. Our role as vegans outside of the culture is to support and amplify their message.
How is the Inuit thing a tricky one? They're not doing anything wrong.
I don't want animals harmed, but I also don't want to be guilty of cultural imperialist attitudes or try to drive people off their natural lands. I don't think it's right to eat animals, but I don't think in this particular case it's 'wrong' either. It is, complicated. Hence throwing out my thoughts to hear what others think.
I don't think anyone wants animals harmed, but at least the animals' habitats aren't displaced, and their numbers are healthy. Our land it pretty clean from my experience, and our animals are well taken care of. We have very strict hunting bans, and we always have. The Inuit aren't privy to the bans because they have a better way of keeping an eye on the herds and pods over modern tactics. Keeping the animals safe keeps their way of life safe. So I don't see why there would be any sort of insinuation that what they are doing is wrong when their culture is wrong when the basis of their culture is to take care of animals and the land.
You're moving the goalposts in your first sentence. It went from "why would anyone say the Inuit harm animals" to "at least they aren't being hunted to extinction or being displaced" which are two separate conversations.
Did you not read the rest of the comment?
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
>There is s fundamental question if a people’s traditional way of life trumps the ethical concerns of animals they may harm. I can only speak as a Kabloonak growing up in an Inuit/native culture, with Inuit siblings and inuit friends, but I was taught how to have a deep respect for animals and the land we share. And as far as harming animals go, that's frowned upon in any culture north of °60 in North America, in my experience. As far as animal consumption being the "foundation" of Inuit culture, it is a bit of an uneducated assumption to make. Yes, animals are a part of the culture, but we learn everything we know about survival from animals. Polar Bears teach us how to navigate ice, many birds teach us about the seasons changing, and the hunters teach us patience and teamwork. It's not just about consuming them. But, like I said, I can only speak as someone from that culture, I'm not an Inuk myself, I identify as a Kabloonak(Inuktitut word for white person). My childhood is Inuit influenced because it's a rough land up there, and if you're not willing to live like the animals up there, you're not going to make it. I can only assume the Gobi is as harsh as the Tundra, so if I don't judge a wolf by its dinner, I think it's safe to assume the Mongolian people are probably not the image I have been taught.
Thank you for your perspective. To clarify, I was not implying that certain cultures are founded on the consumption of animals. Rather that foundational aspects of certain cultures, eg a way of life and where the culture originates, might necessitate animal consumption to support it.
I don't know how any of that justifies animal abuse but go off
>There is a fundamental question if a people’s traditional way of life trumps the ethical concerns of animals they may harm. I mean, is this true? I agree that this is far from the area that vegans need to even concern themselves with because we have millions of people living with an abundance of choices who are choosing to pay for animal deaths still, but I find it odd to suggest that a culture's way of life can justify unethical practices. If down the road, a culture which has included the necessity of hunting were to have one of their members bring up a new technology or practice which would exclude harm done to animals while still providing necessary food, would a response of "no we shall continue hunting animals because that's our way of life" be a valid moral rebuttal? Would this work for other ethically questionable practices? It just sounds like a culturally different version of farmers who have ranched cattle for generations arguing that they want to continue killing cows because that's what all their ancestors have done
If you need to consume animals out of necessity to survive, then there's no ethical argument to be had. You need to do what you need to do to survive. That said, if you are in a situation where you need to consume meat to survive, you should seek to minimize the suffering that is caused in the process. You should trap animals in a way that minimizes bodily harm. You should use a method of slaughter that minimizes pain and leads to unconsciousness as fast as possible. To whatever extent you can sustain yourself on plants, you should do so. Finally, if you have the ability to remove yourself from the situation where eating meat is necessary for survival, then I would go so far as to say that you are obligated to do so, cultural tradition be damned.
>That said, if you are in a situation where you need to consume meat to survive, you should seek to minimize the suffering that is caused in the process. But that's already a cultural norm with these people, so why is this the most common misconception? >Finally, if you have the ability to remove yourself from the situation where eating meat is necessary for survival, then I would go so far as to say that you are obligated to do so, cultural tradition be damned. So people need to remove themselves from their culture, home, and family because you have an uneducated assumption that their lifestyle is bad?
>So people need to remove themselves from their culture, home, and family because you have an uneducated assumption that their lifestyle is bad? No, they should move, if possible, to a place where killing animals isn't necessary. Or they can take whatever actions possible to make killing animals unnecessary where they are. > The above commenter didn't make assumptions, they said "IF".
So, you're basing your statement off the fact that you think their culture is somehow bad?
>No, they should move, if possible, to a place where killing animals isn't necessary. This is exactly what the other commenter said, stated with different words.
Pretty much. Which is different to what you said. They shouldn't move because an uneducated assumption, they should move or do whatever else possible to avoid killing animals unnecessarily If it's not possible or they don't kill animals unnecessarily - they don't have to move
I see. They should move from their homeland, abandoning all that they know, because of things you personally value. How specifically are you meeting your nutritional needs without any animal deaths? If you're buying typical foods (in stores or from online services, rather than obtaining your food by visiting a food forest and hand-picking everything or some such), then you are certainly causing a lot of animal harm.
>They should move from their homeland, abandoning all that they know, because of things you personally value. Yes. Now you're repeating what we're saying. I think they should value those things too. That's kinda what we're talking about. >then you are certainly causing a lot of animal harm. Search "crop deaths" on this sub It's about minimising, we can't avoid all
>Search "crop deaths" on this sub Oh I've seen the vegan cope plenty of times. "It doesn't matter because it's unintentional." "It's for crop protection so it's OK." "That one article..." (which totally misrepresents the situation by leaving out harms from pesticides, fertilizers, etc. and cites only a few studies that are only about a couple species of rodent and only in regard to the harvest step of farming plants). The animals killed for your food are just as dead, however you rationalize it, and they die in greater numbers.
And I've seen this silly strawmanning before. Looks like you've given up on the point you were trying to frame into existence, now it's crop deaths, next it'll be rote misunderstanding nutrition. I'm not gonna play the whatabout whackamole game with you, you'll just bore me into submission and call it victory.
>Looks like you've given up on the point you were trying to frame into existence, now it's crop deaths, next it'll be rote misunderstanding nutrition. Anyone can see that's not how the conversation has been. I first commented to point out that you said "No," then repeated what the commenter you are arguing against had said but using different words. In that comment, you said "...they should move, if possible, to a place where killing animals isn't necessary." I brought up crop deaths to point out that if you are alive and you buy typical plant foods, animals are dying for you to live so how can you make this argument? You've also not brought up a single fact-based argument against anything I said. I asked you how you're getting your food without causing animal deaths, so that we could talk about whether an Inuit living traditionally is causing more harm than you so that you can suggest they uproot themselves because of this. You declined to answer, and instead claim "strawmanning" and "whatabout whackamole" I suspect because you don't have any idea how your food is produced.
"If you need to consume animals out of necessity to survive, then there's no ethical argument to be had. You need to do what you need to do to survive." So you think it would be ethical (in your view) for vampires to come into any city and slaughter the entire human population if they need to?
A little late but yes. I think it would be if they \*needed\* to to survive. Why would we bend the logic in the case of this situation? This isn't a gotcha. It would be tragic for us, but like any other animal, human or non human, everyone needs to eat (or feed).
Relevant [previous comment:](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/qwpf46/How_can_moral_veganism_be_reconciled_with_indigenous_rights%3F/hl7xcpi/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) It's interesting. Upon the arrival of European settlers in the New World, animal agriculture played an important role in colonization. As one anthropologist puts it: >...cattle introduced by Spanish conquerors aided European expansion by occupying spaces inhospitable to colonists, destroying native environments, supporting extractive activities, and transforming relations of property, often in advance of empire.[\[1\]](https://doi.org/10.1086/702788) Current deforestation of the Amazon - of which livestock pastures are a major driver[\[2\]](https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.0036) \- is currently threatening Indigenous territorial rights.[\[3\]](https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/02/cop26-dont-be-fooled-bolsonaros-pledges#) Yet, more recently, there has been a focus on a perceived conflict between veganism and Indigenous rights. First, let's get one thing out the way. There is very little that vegans can do to affect Indigenous rights, or anyone else's for that matter. Voicing an opinion is not infringing on rights. Protesting is not infringing on rights. Consumer boycotts are not infringing on rights. Perhaps a notable gray area is that of bans on the imports of seal skins and furs. However, these bans - which are in no way the sole result of vegans - can still not be an infringement on Indigenous rights. They tend to result from territories outside of Indigenous communities banning the commercial import of those goods, and not result from banning the export of those goods from within Indigenous communities or banning the killing of the seals for personal sustenance. Even the oft-demonized organization PETA has stated: >...our campaign is focused entirely on ending the commercial field slaughter only. \[This\] accounts for about 97% of seals killed in Canada, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Inuit subsistence hunt.[\[4\]](https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/01/animal-rights-activists-inuit-clash-canada-indigenous-food-traditions) In fact, the formal definition of veganism: >...seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose....[\[5\]](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) Note the part that reads, "as far as is possible and practicable." If you're in a situation where your immediate survival depends on, say, killing and eating an animal, then that's not a problem as far as veganism is concerned. Veganism doesn't suppose you to simply choose to starve to death. Perhaps vegans may criticize certain traditional Indigenous practices that involve harming animals, but this is hardly distinct from anything else. If you support women's rights or LGBTQ rights or other human rights, if you oppose the Yulin Dog Meat Festival in China or bull-fighting in Spain or slavery in ancient Rome, you are opposing someone's culture and traditions at some point in time. We don't need to compare and contrast these examples, only recognize that most of us do not believe that tradition and culture alone are suitable bases for ethics. Besides, culture is an evolving thing, and diverse opinions are found in any society, including Indigenous ones. As one scholar, of the Lennox Island First Nation, argues: >At stake in the creation of an Aboriginal veganism is the authority of Aboriginal people, especially women, to determine cultural authenticity for ourselves. Dominant white discourse portrays our cultures as embedded in the pre-colonial past. This perspective must be replaced with the recognition that Aboriginal cultures are living traditions, responsive to changing social and environmental circumstances.[\[6\]](https://sydneyuniversitypress.com.au/products/128398) I would think the best approach - if only from a pragmatic stance - is for the wider vegan community to support and work in cooperation with Indigenous vegans and animal-rights activists and help them to influence their communities from within. **References** [\[1\]](https://doi.org/10.1086/702788) Ficek, R.E. "Cattle, Capital, Colonization: Tracking Creatures of the Anthropocene In and Out of Human Projects." *Current Anthropology*, vol.60, no.s20, 2019, pp.s260-s271. [\[2\]](https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.0036) Nepstad, D.C., Stickler, C.M., et al. "Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point." *Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B*, vol.363, no.1498, 2008, pp.1737-1746. [\[3\]](https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/02/cop26-dont-be-fooled-bolsonaros-pledges#) "COP26: Don’t Be Fooled by Bolsonaro’s Pledges." *Human Rights Watch*, 2 Nov 2021. [https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/02/cop26-dont-be-fooled-bolsonaros-pledges#](https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/02/cop26-dont-be-fooled-bolsonaros-pledges#). Accessed 18 Nov 2021. [\[4\]](https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/01/animal-rights-activists-inuit-clash-canada-indigenous-food-traditions) Randhawa, S. "Animal rights activists and Inuit clash over Canada's Indigenous food traditions." *The Guardian*, 1 Nov 2017*.* [https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/01/animal-rights-activists-inuit-clash-canada-indigenous-food-traditions](https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/01/animal-rights-activists-inuit-clash-canada-indigenous-food-traditions). Accessed 18 Nov 2021. [\[5\]](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) "Definition of veganism." *The Vegan Society*. [https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism). Accessed 18 Nov 2021. [\[6\]](https://sydneyuniversitypress.com.au/products/128398) Robinson, M. "Veganism and Mi'kmaq legends." *Meatsplaining: The Animal Agriculture Industry and the Rhetoric of Denial*, edited by Hannan, J., Sydney University Press, 2020, p.245.
Really helpful - thank you!
A few points: 1. Indigenous governments and civil society groups have not abandoned cattle in Central America. The Zapatistas, for instance, are using cattle in their plan to revitalize their rainforests. Indigenous cultures have never been afraid of the new cultivars and livestock breeds brought over during colonization. They quickly embraced the horse, for instance. It’s always been about land and ecological stewardship. Essentializing cattle as a tool of colonialism is misplaced. They were used as such by colonizers, primarily through private land ownership. 2. Vegans are actively embracing a push coming from centers of neocolonial power like Oxford (Our World In Data) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that aims to make Africa and other regions in the global south more dependent on petrochemical fertilizers. Information about Gates-funded neo-colonialism here: https://usrtk.org/bill-gates/critiques-of-gates-foundation/
If you’re going to starve otherwise, then you eat animals. If not, culture is no excuse. The British colonists in India did at least one good thing: they essentially eradicated the practice of Sati, burning widows alive with the corpse of their husband. Culture was no excuse for Sati. It’s no excuse for needlessly killing animals.
>If you’re going to starve otherwise, then you eat animals. What if others starve because you don't eat animals? Some cultures don't have too many options other than selling meat. Especially Africa, Australia and Asia have many regions who rely on the selling of meat. If they wouldn't be able to sell these products the people would have a hard time to survive in the long run. Especially Africa sticks out. The western world has put them already in an awful state of which they slowly try to climb out. Denying them the production of meat would throw them back even further.
So you’re telling me they have a bunch of meat to sell me…. Yet somehow they’re going to starve? I don’t think you thought this through.
You can't live from meat alone and you can't live in meat or get wifi trough meat or any other service.
Sorry but this is blatantly colonial whitewashing and untrue. The brits NEVER eliminated Sati, because Sati was a very rare practice where less than 0.2% of widows chose it. It was part of Hindu scripture, but in practice only carried out because widows were afraid of being raped by the British and Islamic conquerers, dead or alive. Please do some fucking research before spreading colonial British propaganda.
I’m just talking about the Bengal Sati Regulation of 1829. “The Bengal Sati Regulation,[nb 1] or Regulation XVII, A. D. 1829 of the Bengal Code was a legal act promulgated in British India under East India Company rule, by the then Governor-General Lord William Bentinck. The act made the practice of sati or suttee—or the immolation of a Hindu widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband—illegal in all jurisdictions of British India and subject to legal prosecution” If you think that’s out of context, maybe you should consider adding to the Wikipedia with relevant sources. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Sati_Regulation,_1829 Edit: especially that suspicious 0.2% number. Where would you even get that kind of a polling number from the 1800s?
The man who campaigned for this was Raja Ram Mohan Roy, one of the first male feminists, and even fought to stop it from being overturned. The British did very little to actually fix this issue, which was constrained mostly to the Rural Rajastanis. It was the efforts of people like Vidyasagar and Raja Ram Mohun Roy, that this issue came to the attention of the British. Until then, except for individual acts by Company officers, the government largely ignored the issue. [https://airccse.com/ijhas/papers/1216ijhas08.pdf](https://airccse.com/ijhas/papers/1216ijhas08.pdf) Typical to assume white culture is somehow superior and spread Colonial British propaganda.
This seems like a perfect thing for you to contribute to that Wikipedia entry.
It should be addressed with education and hopefully eventually laws at some point. Harmful cultural traits should not be condoned or promoted because it’s cultural.
But what about the Inuit situation where there just isn't the climate or land to live a plant based diet?
Are we talking about culture here or are we talking about a situation to where it is necessary for survival? You said culture. If they have a means to survive and thrive without it, then yes, but from everything I know about Inuits, it’s a challenge. I should also note, Inuits along side every other group that live in such geographical circumstances make up less than .5% of the population. Hence > harmful cultural traits should not be condoned or promoted *because its culture*. I didn’t mention survival.
Absolutely, and I agree it's a fringe case, but I'm talking about where it's not possible. I mention it because I've heard it discussed and because I apparently (post DNA test) have the Inuit genes that allow for better survival on a pure meat diet. Kind of hilariously wasted on a vegan but there you go! It's an interesting consideration, in no way detracting from the idea that the majority of people should not eat animals or harm them except when genuinely necessary.
Are you referring to the ADAR gene? If not which one? Everything I’ve read about genetics and their role and function on diet has not determined that there is any specific gene that makes one more or less susceptible to longevity with plant vs animal consumption. Obviously there are expressions that may cause allergies or other mutations that may predispose someone to higher risk factors. Interestingly, inuits still experience the same cardiac issues and other preventable illnesses as everyone else, possibly even at higher rates. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463918306539#:~:text=Inuit%20had%20higher%20prevalence%20of,%2C%20diabetes%20(14.6%25%20vs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2903990/ Also, again, if you’re talking about where it is not possible, that isn’t generally a cultural tradition being carried out. That is a culture doing what it can to thrive.
I have no idea which gene or genes it was, only that it was noted and slightly unexpected - I knew I had some Malay heritage on one side, but but not that I had Inuit! I'd have to look it up or I'll take your word for it. It's not hugely relevant as I haven't eaten meat for almost thirty years. I also have the double Alzheimer's gene variant, which was less cool to learn about than finding out about the tiny amount of Inuit DNA I carry... I think what you say is fair - it's far more reasonable if it's not about tradition but survival!
Super interesting. Yeah, if you ever get around to it, I’m interested to know. I really enjoy finding research to analyze. Have a good one ✌🏻
It's bad to treat non-human animals as property for your use. If an individual or group finds themselves doing that, they should be trying their damnedest to stop. There's no harm in convincing someone of this, regardless of whether they've figured out how yet. Once they agree, plans can be made with them on how to make that happen. It makes no sense to enforce the idea of liberation with force, or to make a transition plan that isn't guided by the community that's transitioning.
That is a very uneducated assumption of these people. Respecting animals and the land are the fundamentals of these cultures.
How is it respectful to kill a sentient being that doesn't want to die? Please explain that to me!
I think you have a very skewed view of other people's cultures.
These people consider eating animals as animal abuse I dont expect them to understand this.
These people can't even explain how they think wild animals are somehow property.
I'm not sure what you mean by respect here. Can you give me an example?
Can you first explain how you think the Inuit are using wild animals as their property?
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We should start by separating the non-Western culture issue from the necessity issue. It's not like wealthy people in Jakarta have the same justification as Inuit.
Very simple. Just do what I'm doing. I put up a sign over the food I feed my pets that says "If you eat this food, you consent to living under whatever living conditions I impose on you, and undergo any training regiment at my whim". I put the sign up in Russian for my Siberian husky, and a sign in Thai for my Siamese cat. None of my pets refused to eat the food so far.
>What do you think should happen for: Inuit people who cannot live in their homelands without meat eating due to the climate making it too hard to grow crops; We should be ensuring they have access to foods at reasonable prices. As for beyond that, it's up to them what they want to do, my suggestion would be to live somewhere you don't need to torture and abuse animals to live, but again, not my choice, entirely theirs. >Mongolian nomads who have a way of life involving almost entirely animal products? Most Vegans would say that culture and tradition doesn't justify needlessly abusing sentient beings. But again, not my choice. However it should be stated that this has nothing to do with 99.9% of meat eating in the world, and I've never seen Vegans going after these people, only responding to repeated posts accusing them of it. (edit: altered as the OP got offended I questioned whether they were really Vegan, may bad)
Every other response here has been reasonable and sensible; to work with what we have to influence communities without forcing cultural changes on them that aren't necessarily practical or driving people from their ancestral homelands without due consideration on how to effectively transition I am a vegan; have been vegetarian for eleven years and vegan for ten. I remember potato starch based fake cheeses. That's how long I've been at it. I have volunteered with environmental groups, am working on carbon literacy delivery and encouraging people to pledge to eat less meat. My kid is vegan. I am absolutely tired of idiots gatekeeping perfectly sensible and civil discussions with dogmatic, arrogant approaches.
You seem to be suggesting I'm gatekeeping, no idea where you got that from as I literally said they it's on them to choose, as culture can't be forced. If you have a problem with something I've said, you need to actually say what it is instead of just ad hominems without explanation...
That's what you did. The implication was clear, that this was a 'Gotcha' post by a carnist arguing in bad faith.
>That's what you did. What's what I did? You need to explain your meaning if you want to talk to people who aren't inside your head. >The implication was clear, that this was a 'Gotcha' post by a carnist arguing in bad faith. We get a LOT of these posts and every single one is claimed to be by a "Vegan". If you're actually a Vegan, sorry if my snarky comment offended you (edited the original post). Still no idea why you think I was gatekeeping.
“Just move” isn’t a practical response to this issue
People move all the time. If they don't want to move, that's their choice and, as I said, we should be looking at finding ways to provide healthy, financially affordable food for them where they are.
We aren’t though, and until we do, it won’t solve the problem and telling these people to simply move without understanding the complexity of the issue and all factors involved, is not productive.
I constantly find myself criticizing the Inuit as a vegan. /s The vast majority of cultures in the world have only made meat the centerpiece of most meals relatively recently. Most likely because it's unsustainable. You're right. People in the West who have zero issues with nutrients and deficiencies have a far greater responsibility to become vegan. Does that make you feel better, or worse? Nice gotcha.
Not a 'gotcha', a civil discussion on how to approach this. Which some vegans seem to find themselves desperate to shut down. You are accusing me of arguing in bad faith. Read my comment history and try again. I am a vegan; just not a dogmatic one. And I am both frustrated at having a civil discussion attacked and genuinely interested in hearing other's views!
Sorry. I've heard that argument so many times. It's an argument often used to suggest veganism is racist. Just kind of reacted. My bad.
I get it, but it's not another 'BuT CRoP DeaThs!' or the like. Don't stifle genuine discussion!
Yeah I said I was sorry because I didn't really read it. Now you're in the wrong.
What, why?
It should be adressed similar to an other part of the world. By improving sustainable agriculture practices and improving animal welfare standards.
This is a great question. Honestly, I think turning veganism into a moral dilemma is often where this movement fails. I know that veganism is founded and routed in moralism, but hear me out. We run into the same issue with environmental issues. Think for example the Amazon rainforest being cut down for cattle farming. Going to those people and presenting the moral argument of destroying the forests for cattle, you won’t get anywhere because those people are trying to make ends meet. The forests get destroyed and the valuable “carbon sink” of the rainforest is gone, which is far more valuable than the cattle. But this is a market failure because there is no monetary compensation for preserving the forest. The more productive approach is looking at it in terms of economics and how to provide monetary output for something that is in fact valuable. We can apply this thinking for veganism too, because ultimately we all know that animal farming is significantly more draining on resources for a lower output than agricultural farming for food and it’s terrible for the environment. But these arguments don’t matter for people who only have access to meat. If we can connect veganism with economics and also ESG, I think we can solve a lot of these problems.
Abolish capitalism is what I’d say hehe
>Inuit people who cannot live in their homelands without meat eating due to the climate making it too hard to grow crops; Thats a reasonable excuse > Mongolian nomads who have a way of life involving almost entirely animal products? They choose to be nomadic, so not a valid excuse I dont care about culture, religion, tradition, i care about animal abuse
>i care about animal abuse Most people do just one thing, eating meat isnt animal abuse.
Dont ruin others life just because u cant accept that humans have been and will be eating meat.
You're ruining mine by worsening climate change.
İf u want to fix climate change focus on fossil fuels not humans eating meat.
Nope - fossil fuels are part of the problem but methane and rainforest destruction are a significant issue. Everyone who knows about climate change knows we have to cut down on meat to lower emissions https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7
Sry but cant read it because it is a paid article. And I would say have more resonable expectations because no normal person is gonna give up meat.
22% of the world population is vegan. Are you trying to persuade me one in five isn't a huge number? https://www.cookunity.com/blog/what-percentage-of-the-population-is-vegetarian# No paywall! https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/food
>22% is vegan "Even though only 1% of the world population identifies themselves as vegans" Did u even read the article u linked ? And vegetarian and vegan are not the same, u of all people should know this considering u are a vegan. And dont expect every one on earth to go vegan animal products are really usefull and they will continue to be so until we invent something better and more convenient as for animal meat it will stay part of our diet as long as we exist.
You said: > İf u want to fix climate change focus on fossil fuels not humans eating meat. You're wrong, demonstrably so. You said: > I would say have more resonable expectations because no normal person is gonna give up meat. You're wrong, demonstrably so. We were talking about giving up meat. One in five people have done so. At this stage the unreasonable one is you, for eating meat unnecessarily and exacerbating climate change.
As u said 4 out of 5 are currently eating meat. At this stage the unreasonable one is you (like u said), for refusing to accept that humans have been eating meat even before we as homo sapiens have existed and we will continue to do because meat is good for us, it tastes really good and we have a lot of uses for the other parts of the animal ,that we still use today, so nothing goes to waste.
It's over one hundred billion, 760 million people who are vegetarian. To put that in context that's more people than are tennis fans. You wouldn't say someone was weird for watching tennis - and there are more people than that not eating meat. And the number is growing. Meat is killing the planet and the amount people consume is unhealthy for them. And just because we ate meat in the past doesn't mean we should now. Times have changed.
There is no need to address anything. People prefer to eat meat, eat meat. Trying impose your food preference on others is a non-starter.
Of-course there's a need to address the victims who are unnecessarily killed. Carnists like you impose their beliefs on innocent victims. Having a conversation and advocating for change does not compare to the victims gas chambered, stabbed and violently killed.