ON VEGANISM

A briefintroduction to veganism and the vegan movement as an ethical, environmental, philosophical, historical and contemporary practical ideology

A.L.R. Garlow

Contents
Broad and Specific Definitions, with Historical Context

1. Introduction 2. What is Veganism? 3. Animal Rights 4. Environmentalism 5. Philosophy 6. Politics:

ofthe Animal Industry

Omnivores, Frugivores, and Biological Determinism A Movement Beyond Ideology

7. The Human Diet: 8. Activism:

Introduction
Be scrupulously truthful, even ifthe truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.

- Bertrand Russell

This e-book is written in an attempt to capture an image of veganism as a practical, contemporary, and ever-growing movement. It is for those wishing to learn more about the minds of their vegan acquaintances, for curious individuals wishing to challenge their previously held beliefs on animal exploitation, for students of philosophy and ethics who want to extend their practice of moral issues beyond the books, for social activists and long-term vegans who desire to strengthen their own advocacy. While my point as an advocate is to convey the necessity of choosing to become vegan, I also desire to simply illuminate anyone interested in the topic, and so intend to include more than just arguments for this cause, but historical, scientific, and social points of interest in relation to veganism as a whole.

This can by no means be considered a complete guide to the thoughts of every vegan or veganism throughout time. There is no set of vegan commandments or Vegan Bible. Though I have been actively supporting animal rights and environmentalism for at least a third of my lifespan now, I do not claim to have the definitive answer on vegan ethics, nor the only perspective of this movement and ideology. Ultimately, I can only focus on the topics that I believe deserve a higher clarity to the opponents of such lifestyle, as well as focusing on my take of veganism from the perspective of an avid philosophy student, particularly in chapter 5. It is certainly a notable and perhaps impossible task to cover everything important about this issue and still consider the text a short introduction. Additionally, the reader may notice that the text is lacking an account of the spiritual motivations for veganism, despite it being a prominent and reoccurring theme within religions of Indian origin (Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism). While I could certainly try to cover that perspective briefly within a chapter, I do feel as if it would be lacking substance - I am both an atheist and a professed nonexpert on the subject of the complexity involved in certain religious concepts. However, this does not mean I do not find a great deal of interest in such subjects or wish to devalue its legitimacy in a discussion on veganism. Those wishing to learn more about the spiritual affiliations of vegan ethics should take time to look into ahimsa" or the ideal of non-violence as captured within dharmic religions.

Veganism continues to be a controversial topic within modern society, despite the common public having a general misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about what veganism is or why it exists. I have met many people who will outright say veganism is not for them or flat-out wrong/silly/unnecessary, then continue to make erroneous assumptions about what a vegan can and cannot do (So, do you eat cheese? Or fish?). It is interesting that someone should disapprove of veganism before they even know what it means to be vegan. And while there are these examples of social discomforts present in the life of many vegan advocates, the movement continues to grow exponentially despite such setbacks. Being fairly young myself, I did not experience what it was like to be vegan in the 1980s or 1990s, but I have been lucky enough to meet older activists, the likes of which have witnessed from their own perspective the radical adaptation of their society that has become more and more accepting to the vegan lifestyle. For example: these older vegans would not have had such luxuries as going to the store and being able to pick up a number of different brands and products of soy, rice, almond, hemp, or flax milk (vegan dairy alternatives) as I can, nor would they have had vegan food options readily labeled in cafes, restaurants, and grocery stores as I experience in my own city. This week as I picked up soy milk from my local corner store, the cashier asked me if I was vegetarian or vegan - something that my preceding counterparts may have rarely if ever experienced. As such, being vegan is becoming a more accessible choice for the average consumer, and as I will discuss

in chapter 6, is not wholly defined by limits of class status. Our advanced understanding of human nutrition has also accelerated the acceptance of veganism in modern culture, as will be mentioned in chapter 7 along with some problems facing the discussion of human dietary habits. In the last chapter of this e-book, the reader will be able to see my full intent of framing veganism as an imperative social movement rather than what it is commonly considered by its dissidents, a personal choice. I hope to highlight throughout this text the exact reasons as to why veganism cannot be considered a choice that only affects the self, instead that it is something with a profound environmental, ethical, and economic impact. While I am fully aware that not every reader of this text will become vegan the moment they put it down, I am fairly confident in its ability to spark interest and motivation into the minds of many, and that spark is justification enough for this text to exist. Finally, I must say that my interest in completing this project was driven by my recent enjoyment of Oxford University Press Very Short Introduction series. These well-written texts have provided me with a great deal of curiosity and new insight on topics anywhere from Continental Philosophy to Particle Physics. While reading these books, I have also picked up on helpful hints in formatting a short introduction to a large and often debated topic, and take heavy inspiration from the various authors means of organizing what can seem to be entirely difficult to analyze.

What is Veganism? Broad and Specific Definitions, with Historical Context

Depending on ones view of the importance of textbook definitions, veganism can either be said to have one clear definition or many oscillating perspectives. I hold the position that there is a strong enough consensus (among ethical vegans) to value the following as the central and authoritative definition ofveganism:
The practice ofreducing exploitation ofother sentient beings as much as possible, primarily by abstaining from the use ofanimal products.

The key concepts I should elaborate on concerning the above definition are reducing exploitation, other sentient beings, and as much as possible. Veganism is widely regarded solely as an animal rights movement, and despite it having many aspects which solely affect humans rather than non-human animals (the ways in which animal consumption negatively affects global food security or its role

in environmental destruction, as I will discuss in later chapters), animal rights continue to be a driving factor in making the switch to this compassionate lifestyle. As such, the exploitation, abuse, and slaughter of other animals is highlighted in almost any given definition of the movement, particularly because the active part of veganism involves choosing to forego meat, dairy, eggs and other animal-based foods in favour of plant based foods, as well as foregoing animal-based clothing (leather, wool, fur) in favour of synthetic or plant-based alternative fibres. Though the food (and clothing) choices that go into a vegan lifestyle are important, they are by no means the only choices - vegans also attempt to boycott most forms of animal captivity, such as zoos, circuses, rodeos. It is also within a strong consensus of ethical vegan advocates to adopt an animal companion or pet rather than to buy one from a breeder, and to spay/neuter these pets when possible. Though some dispute the sentience of non-human animals (despite strong logical and scientific evidence in recent decades which display the contrary, which will be referenced in chapter 2), I believe that framing the definition of veganism not only on the exploitation ofanimals but ofsentient beings clarifies that it is a position which intends to display consideration of both human and animal rights. Some opponents of veganism like to claim that caring for animal rights means that a vegan does not care enough about humans, or, why fight for animal rights when there are starving children in

Africa? as if caring was some mutually exclusive condition, or as if it was impossible for a human to concern themselves with more than one cause. The definition of veganism may have been first coined by Donald Watson of the British Vegan Society in 1944 to mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals, but our conception of what it means to be animal has expanded to the point where many humans are beginning to recognize their own status as Homo Sapiens - a species within the taxonomic kingdom Animalia. The word animal is beginning to cause some reason for confusion, since humans are animals, and typically when one says animal they are not referring to both humans and non-humans but non-humans alone. Returning to focus on The British Vegan Society, the earliest well-known vegan-oriented organization, we see that both vegetarianism and veganism as its own ethical movement (as opposed to being, say, a tenet of a certain religion) has been around for more than 70 to 100 years. Veganism is certainly not an extremely new concept, and one would be deliberately ignoring the history of veganism and the animal rights movement to claim that it is a new fad to be brushed off or that it is a concept that has existed solely within the Western world. One thing standing in the way of a public understanding of veganism is the fact that it has often been mistaken to mean

someone who abstains from eating animal products. Though this is, again, a part of the movement, it categorizes the lifestyle as only a dietary choice, neglecting the many different forms of animal exploitation that exist outside ones diet. It is becoming more common for individuals seeking weight loss or a healthier lifestyle to say that they are going vegan when they mean to say that they are going to be consuming a wholly plant-based diet for non-ethical reasons. I believe that for clarity there should be a simple way to differentiate the ethical movement from dietary choices, religious choices, and other personal choices. Veganism is an -ism, after all, a multifaceted ideology and was not coined or created to mean a weight-loss regimen that reduces cholesterol and reduces the risk of various cancers (though the eating habits of a vegan often provide these benefits). Just like someone will point out that a person who eats chicken or fish isnt really vegetarian, someone who goes to the circus, wears makeup tested on animals, and eats honey might have a great diet, they might ride a fixed gear bike and recycle, and they may buy fair trade coffee, but they have no particular intention of supporting animal rights, environmentalism, or human rights through the choice of veganism. This distinction is not to be exclusive, but to be clear: many a movement has easily fallen under the weight of uncertainty, confusion, or misinformation. Even as such, I believe that a good movement is not just clear in its requirements and intents, but active, practical, and extending beyond simple tenets ofdo this, dont do that. This is why there is ultimately no one code of vegan living

or guide to veganism: as the world changes, our discussions about what constitutes positive action change with it, even though the core (of abstaining as much as possible from animal exploitation) remains the same.

Animal Rights
Iam in favor ofanimal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.

- Abraham Lincoln

Animal rights is defined by the belief that nonhuman animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and that their most basic interests such as an interest in not suffering should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. This concept for the respect of animal life and livelihood has existed much longer than the roots of the term vegan, dating as far back as Pythagoras, Theophrastus, and other ancient Greek philosopher-mathematicians. Texts referenced for the debate on animal rights and moral duties towards animals can be even more dated than these thinkers, such as the use of biblical references particularly entertaining the idea of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of

Eden. There have even been attempts to promote a biblically based diet on the idea, such as the Hallelujah diet created by Reverend George Malkmus and his interpretation of Genesis 1:29. Another sign that veganism, at least in the case of animal rights and moral consideration, is not just a symptom ofthe times. The core idea behind animal rights assumes that non-human animals are capable of some sort of possession, namely the possession of rights, and also that animals are capable of having personal interests, and the ability to experience suffering. Despite widely accredited scientific evidence that gives validity to these claims, there are still many who deny one or all of these assertions. Even those who own pets or animal companions have been known to doubt the sentience, intelligence, or emotional capability of their cat, dog, or hamster. I find it hard to provide one or two resources which display the scientific support of animal sentience, since there are many (for more information on the following, consult the reference list at the end of this text) but to begin: Harvey Blacks article in Scientific American relays a study that implies fish consciously experience discomfort Elwood, Barr, and Patterson from Queens University School of Biological Sciences identify animals who have central nervous systems, sensory receptors, opioid receptors and cognitive ability, and even animals more likely to be considered free ofpain (crustaceans) may experience similar suffering

 Gavin R. Hunt, department of Ecology at Massey University, collects a number ofsources which verify that toolwielding behaviour (something considered typically Homo Sapien as a sign of intelligence/superiority) has been observed regularly in birds A 1997 study led by the Sub-Department of Animal Behaviour at the University of Cambridge showed that when deer were hunted by a pack of hounds, they had high levels of stress hormones in their bodies at the time of death and their muscles presented signs ofstress damage Scientific research on the subject of animal cognition is plenty, and while not every study follows with a conclusion that the pain that animals experience is noteworthy, they do not have the evidence, nor the ignorance, to deny it. Above what we know of basic human biology, logical arguments can be easily made to assert the conclusion of animal awareness and suffering: 1. Humans are animals, 2. Humans evolved from nonhuman animals (assuming the reader agrees with the strong evidence for evolution), 3. Humans feel pain, and have emotions, 4. Humans are not the only animals with brains or hearts, and finally 5. Therefore, it is more likely that other animals, like the human animal, have feelings and can experience pain.

There seems little reason to claim that other beings with central nervous systems and extremely similar biological and behavioural responses to pain would be so different from humans in that they could not feel or think at all. This belief, then, is derived from convenience, to ignore the ethical dilemma of consuming or exploiting a being that no more appreciates its slaughter than you might in the same situation. However, this selective bias is slowly becoming less apparent over some forms of animal suffering - people easily agree that using chimpanzees or other primates to conduct experimental research is unethical or at least morally questionable, as it is not too absurd to assert that Hominidae (humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas) would have similar cognition, even if it does vary in degrees. Our kinship to the great apes allows us to see the possibility of protecting and upholding their basic rights - not, as some anti-animal rights individuals mock, a right to vote in our society or the right to run for office (for animals are no more likely to ask for a role in our society than we are of theirs) but the right to life without unnecessary pain or coercion. As far as the broader spectrum of rights activism goes, animal rights activists are not asking for much, simply a live and let live for all sentient creatures. Animal rights is not inherently the claim that one must see a non-human animals life as valuable as the life of, say, a beloved family member, spouse, or dear friend. However, the absence of seeing a cow or dogs life of equal to a

human does not necessarily entail that harm is permissible towards those individual creatures (the idea of entailment, moral duties, and the baseline of moral obligations towards animals can be further explored in chapter 5 on philosophy). After one accepts that the suffering of an animal holds some moral significance, how do they arrive at the position of animal rights and veganism? This is a question that needs be posed for the existence of alternative animal welfare positions, such as vegetarianism or humane meat eating. Animal welfare, as opposed to animal rights, presents the option of being able to utilize animals for means of food, clothing, experimentation, and entertainment so long as certain guidelines are met. Animal welfarists reject certain practices within the animal industry, and their protest of animal agriculture tends to center around giving animals bigger cages/pens/warehouses, more access to food, water, and some access to light or fresh air. However, not only do many welfare laws concerning animal well-being fall short of what the general public believes is happening (like labeling a product free range when hens are only allowed out of a crowded, overheated barn for an hour a day) but it is nearly impossible to claim that those who desire some product of exploit from an animal have the animals whole welfare in mind as opposed to someone who wants absolutely nothing from that individual. If we leave the definition of humane up to those who maim and slaughter non-human animals for a living, you can be nearly certain that they will have a different

definition, more pragmatic for their practice, than someone whose livelihood does not rely on the deaths of others. Two general definitions ofhumane are: 1. Having or showing compassion or benevolence. 2. Inflicting the minimum ofpain. By these standards alone, all forms of animal exploitation or use, especially those which involve the necessitation of killing, are inhumane. Since it is completely possible to inflict no direct pain upon animals (living vegan), this is the minimum of possible pain. Anything above zero in this scenario inflicts more pain than is necessary to survive and even thrive as human beings, except in the case of self defense. When welfarists claim that their preferred methods of animal husbandry inflict the least amount of pain possible, what they are saying is we have minimized the amount of pain required to inflict pain upon animals. The idea of humane slaughter itselfis, then, an oxymoron. Using animals for food, clothing, entertainment, or other means does not stand strong against the first definition of humane either. To show compassion to a human, for instance, is not to treat them kindly until your kindness towards them is no longer useful to you. Benevolence among humankind is not defined by a disposition to use others, but a disposition to do good for the sake of others. Any

creature we keep in our company only to deny them the best possible livelihood is not being shown real compassion or benevolence, but a farce thereof. Unless we are to now change our definition of compassion or benevolence to reflect someone who harms others only when their desire overcomes their reasonable ability to do good, neither of the above understandings of humane fit the model of animal exploitation.

END OF PREVIEW
If you would like to see the full version of this e-book:

Follow for updates at soycrates.tumblr.com Donate Leave suggestions, comments, or critique via tumblr or at aeri_sardonic@live.com

A citation, with link included, is necessary ifyou intend to reproduce any part ofthe prior text. Feel free to share!