It seems as though people have found a new target to focus their aggressions on: vegans and/or animal rights supporters. Not only that, but these individuals have begun writing anti-animal rights books. Their “reasons” to vilify our beliefs are proposterous and unwarranted. Apparently believing in the lives of animals makes us inconceiveably evil and elite. How dare we think of others! The irony of this is that true animal rights supporters will just become more vigilant in the face of these people and perhaps even change their opinion of the human species.
What on earth am I talking about? I’m talking about this article on the National Review Online (*ahem* screams right-wing) by an idiot by the name of Wesley J. Smith. It appears that Smith doesn’t like vegans and animal rights supporters. His main reason for writing this article seems to be various antics of PETA. Did you know that PETA was the one and only animal rights group? Did you also know that they represented all of our beliefs? No? Well good thing Smith came along to help us realize this!
The driving foundation of this article is the response of PETA regarding Jessica Simpson wearing a t-shirt declaring that upstanding females consume the flesh of others. PETA’s response, which was unnecessary considering who is taking dietary advice from the likes of Jessica Simpson, was the usual meat consumption causes death and anguish declaration. True indeed, but yet another move by PETA that allows twits like Wesley J. Smith to accost our belief system.
It appears that those in the vegan and animal rights community are “hold(ing) a weak intellectual hand” when it comes to debating the issue of “meat is murder”. Did you know this? Because this was all news to me. It appears that we are not actually vegans in the true sense, since mice, rabbits, birds, snakes and other small creatures are killed by the cultivation of the land. It is true that those poor little guys probably do get killed by farm equipment daily, and for that I am sorry. But how is this fact a reason to attack vegans? Since we consume only vegetables, grains, fruits etc., we are apparently responsible for each and every death that occurs on the farms. Or at the very least we cannot claim we are eating a murder-free diet. But is that really true?
I see it this way: those in opposition to us have so little in their favor in terms of evidence for maintaining their heart-clogging, global warming enhancing, death mongering lifestyle that they now need to vilify us to make themselves feel better. It is becoming ever-more alarming how similar war mongers are to meat mongers. What’s that? Yes, you’re right. Most vegans probably do come from the left-wingers side. Good catch! (Oh but this is a whole ‘nother story indeed!)
So let me just break down the article of this special consultant to the Center of Bioethics and Culture (that gave me a good laugh).
Nor can they argue that field animals experience less-agonizing deaths from plant agriculture than food animals do from food-animal slaughtering. Field animals may flee in panic as the great rumbling harvest combines approach, only to be shredded to bits within their merciless blades; they may be burned to death when field leavings are burned; they may be poisoned by pesticides; they may die from predation when their plant cover has been removed.
Really? Are “food-animals” allowed the option to flee? Are they allowed the option to live in this field or that one? Are they allowed the option to eat what they want instead of being force-fed antibiotics and remains of their former relatives? I think not. I am sure that many animals do die in the harvesting process of modern-day grain etc. farming. But, Smith seems to deliver us a terrible image of animal after animal being killed by farm equipment at every turn. First of all, has this guy ever seen a farm actually harvested? Farm equipment doesn’t exactly move 90 MPH. On the other hand, have you seen a rabbit run? I’m quite certain that most animals that enter the fields leave the fields alive (except if captured by predator species). This cannot be said for any farm animal grown for food (except for those lucky few that are rescued by farm sanctuaries!). Have you ever known a mouse to NOT be afraid of a human nonetheless a gigantic machine? Most of the animals listed on Smith’s article are either skiddish by nature or very quick. In no way am I saying NO animal ever dies from the likes of farm equipment, I just suspect it is much lower than individuals on Smith’s side contend. Also, do animals no longer have the capability to smell? Do they not realize to run when a huge fire ball is headed their way? Generally animals killed in fire deaths are surrounded by fire with no escape. This would not often be the case in controlled burns on farms. Poisoned by pesticides? People poison animals in their homes and call it “pest control”, when are those people going to be attacked? Plus, humans are be continually poisoned by pesticides daily…its just a much slower process that is supported by pesticide companies and non-organic farmers. Lastly, animals dying from predation is the least of any animals problems these days. At least predation is a natural norm and necessary for a healthy ecosystem. Did anyone care to consider all the animals and entire species being wiped out by global warming (which factory farming of animals is the #1 contributor to)? Also, does it even matter to such people as this that most grain, soybeans etc. are raised for livestock feed? Eh? I feel absurd for even validating these reasons of Smith’s by repeating them here, but I wanted everyone to see the stupidity!
Moreover, even if the relative number of animals killed were the morally decisive issue, veganism might not be the most ethical solution. In 2001, S. L. Davis of the Department of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University, Corvallis, wrote a paper claiming that the diet most likely to result in the deaths of the fewest animals would be beef, lamb, and dairy — not vegan. Davis found a study that measured mouse population density per hectare in grain fields both before and after harvest and estimated a harvest casualty rate of ten mice per hectare. Then, he multiplied that figure by 120 million hectares of farmland in the U.S.; meaning that 1.2 billion mice would die each year in food production if America became a wholly vegan country.
Oh the insanity continues! First of all, S.L. Davis is an ass. I am officially ashamed of Oregon State University. I am increasingly disturbed by these individuals in the academic community, frequently in the animal sciences/biology departments completely vilifying animal rights and animals in general. I was under the impression that academia was supposed to be better informed and wise. All this makes me wonder how my former professors stand on these issues. I may be horrified to know! But I digress! Davis’ paper is ridiculous, plain and simple. First off, he is assuming that dietary habits regarding beef, lamb and dairy would stay exactly the same if people in this country no longer ate chicken, turkey and pork. Really? No one would eat more beef or lamb or milk or cheese? Wow. What a omnivorian utopia. Consider the more likely scenario: no chicken, turkey or pork would raise the consumption of beef etc. drastically, thereby completely negating Davis’ thesis. Second, if we are all supposed to be omnivorian, based on this paper, wouldn’t the very idea of current vegans and vegetarians now eating beef, lamb and dairy cause an increase as well? Wonder why Davis’ chose to just make it a beef, lamb and dairy diet? Because chickens would have thrown a gigantic loop into his logic, since more chickens are killed than the concocted number of mice in his theory. Secondly, his estimations regarding population density are fairy invalid as well. He does not take into account that the field equipment may have scared away individuals, natural predation and general mouse lifespan. But don’t take my word for it, here are the ridiculous notions straight from Davis”:
Accurate numbers of mortality aren’t available, but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease was attributed to migration out of the field and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.
So just for the hell of it, lets assume half of the missing mice are dead from human activity–even though we have no actual mortality numbers available and no decent former studies to prove it. Yeah, good science Davis’, you should be up for an award. And with this blatant assumption game on Davis’ part, anti-vegans/animal rights individuals are finding ammunition. Oh, their reasonings are flawless!!
Also from Davis’:
According to the USDA numbers quoted {…}, of the 8.4 billion animals killed each year for food in the US, 8 billion of those are poultry and only 41 million are ruminants (cows, calves, sheep, lambs). Even if the numbers of ruminants killed for food each year doubled to replace the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that would need to be killed under this alternative would still be fewer than in the vegan alternative.
I suppose that answers my previous statement regarding increase of beef etc. consumption, but double? So this country will go from consuming 8 BILLION chickens and 41 MILLION ruminants, to ONLY consuming at most 82 MILLION ruminants? Really? What on earth will all those flesh craving individuals do with 7.96 BILLION less creatures to eat? Seriously? The idea of only doubling is proposterous!!!
Further brilliancy from Smith:
Contending that meat eating is somehow murder while veganism is morally pristine because it doesn’t result in intentional animal deaths is factually false and self-delusional. No matter your diet, animals surely died that you might live.
I cannot believe oxygen is being wasted on idiots like this. How are vegans simply “contending” that meat is murder? Are animals NOT in fact raised for the sole reason of being killed for consumption? Isn’t intentional killing in fact murder? Did I miss something during my time on earth?? If us vegans are not “morally pristine” I would like to know what strict omnivores or carnivores are then. Morally vacant perhaps? I know two people who are morally vacant *ahem*.
S Morgan said,
August 16, 2008 at 8:38 am
Continuing dairy would contribute to less deaths?
Let’s consider this:
A. When a dairy cow is “spent” meaning she can no longer produce milk because her poor body is totally broken down, she is slaughtered for hamburger. But, if we didn’t eat beef, she would still be murdered at around 4 years of age (normal life span is 25 years) for non production.
B. Since dairy cows have to be impregnated constantly in order to lactate, many of the calves born are males. Males are of no use to the dairy industry. They are either killed shortly after birth and taken away by “calf jockeys” to make leather and other “luxurious” products or sold to veal farms. Of course if we didn’t eat veal, the same number of male calves born to dairy cows would be the same anyway.
Dairy, IMO may possibly be the MOST cruel industry in animal agriculture, if it is actually possible to rate levels.
charmycarmy said,
August 16, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Hey thanks for your comment. I haven’t even begun blogging and yet there it is, my first comment when I logged in! Thanks for your support. I totally feel your frustration in the above post. Society slams us for liking anything other than humans…”My God, you dedicate your life to saving animals? What about the poor human babies?” So sick of this; loving the environment and animals only helps humans more because we’re more tuned into to life and non-violence and compassion and who’s to say we’re not sponsoring a child at the same time we’re volunteering at an anti-fur protest!?!? Nice blog!
Matt said,
August 16, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Wow, that was a great blog!! I can’t believe he left out all kinds of poultry in this supposed “study”. That was very convienient of him!! And to seriously compare the accidental and unfortunate death of field mice (I say just field mice because I’m not at all convinced that rabbits or snakes would ever get sucked into a thresher) to the intentional wholesale slaughter of farm animals for meat is simply preposterous!!! I can’t believe that someone actually allowed him to publish his very “scientific” study based on his assumption (with absolutely no empirical evidence) that some of the field mice were killed. Isn’t it much more likely that the mice went into their mouse holes (which is where they live!) when the thresher came around and then decided to leave the area when they noticed that all of the food was now gone? Couldn’t that be an explanation??
One more thing; I really don’t understand the last quote from Smith. First of all, eating meat is murder, there is no way around that. I really don’t care if he thinks that vegans think their ways are “morally pristine” while he thinks that his logic is ironclad. I think that he is somehow trying to convince people that intentions don’t matter. That would be the same as saying that premeditated homicide and accidental manslaughter are the same because they both result in the same thing; someone dying. According to the legal systems of at least the United States (and probable every country around the world) they are not the same. Granted, they are both bad, but one is morally much better than the other. Why, you might ask? Because of intention!! In this way I think he is trying to convice us that he is somehow morally better because his diet doen’t result in as many deaths, even though those animals were intentionally put to death so he could eat them.
veganverve said,
August 16, 2008 at 8:59 pm
S Morgan,
Thanks for pointing out further absurdities of that article I was writing about. I highly doubt any cow deaths were taken into account regarding dairy, whether they be from veal cows or cows considered useless to the dairy industry. I grew very angry by the idea of raising animals mearly to consume them as more animal-friendly than veganism. The whole thing is freakin absurd!
Charmycarmy,
No problem about posting…thanks for your comment as well. I understand your frustation….society has yet to connect that compassion for animals can easily cross over to human beings as well.
Matt,
Smith was definitely trying to avoid the idea of intention because otherwise he would have absolutely NO basis to his own theory. It makes me all the more frustrated that anti-vegan individuals are actually using Davis’ very unscientific paper to blast everything vegans believe in. And just like Smith left important aspects out, he leaves out poultry so his theory has a basis….’cause otherwise he has nada! Thanks for the compliment on the blog!
Ryan said,
August 16, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Just a little reality check moment:
I often get asked by nonvegans about the animals which are killed on farms, especially by grain harvesters. It is an unfortunate reality of large-scale grain farming that some animals get sucked into the machinery and killed.
There is a very simple answer to this: where does most of the grain grown around the world every year go? Directly into the mouths of ‘food’ animals. If veganism is about reducing suffering as much as possible, then it is more effective than most vegans realize. By indirectly reducing our grain consumption we are reducing the number of small animal deaths our food consumption causes.
Of course, if veganism were about absolute purity—which in my opinion it is not—then the only way to be vegan would pretty much be to grow all your own food, which is not an option for most people.
Therefore, within the context of an industrialized nation, where most people live in urban or suburban settings, veganism is the best you can do as far as removing suffering from your dinner plate is concerned. If you want to have an impact beyond that but still within the sphere of your direct actions, eliminating grains from your diet (they are not necessary!) and finding ways to grow as much of your own food as possible would go a long way toward achieving that.
cjcantrell said,
August 16, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I’ve heard people talking about this for some time now, and definitely find it humorous that it takes 16lbs of vegetation to produce 1lb of meat… how exactly is veganism is more deadly to animals? I guess no animals are killed by farm equipment when the crop is being harvested to feed livestock, right?
Reasoning with these people is pointless. I try to stick to the same policy as Mother Theresa when she said something to the effect “I will not attend an anti-war rally, but if you ever have a peace rally, count me in.”
While many of us hold strong convictions, and have opened our eyes to the destruction that is the meat and dairy industry, fighting something is putting energy into it. Really the only thing we can do as conscious human beings, is to ask ourselves “what do I want?” and begin to focus our attention and energy to educating with love, acceptance, and understanding.
There will be those who choose to turn a deaf ear, and that’s OK. That is their path and not for any of us to judge. Was there a time in your life that you didn’t live exactly as you do now? There was a time for me, not so long ago, that no one was going to tell me I couldn’t have my meat and dairy, or that it wasn’t healthy. Everyone else was doing it, after all. In fact, if someone came to me with any kind of irritation over how I was living my life, as far as I was concerned, I’d do it more just to get them worked up. I wasn’t always the person I am today. We are all learning and growing daily.
I changed the way I live my life when the idea of no longer eating meat was brought to me by someone I respected, who held no judgements, carried no labels and allowed me to make my own choice, regardless if it was the one he would want for me. Not because someone was yelling through a bullhorn on the street about how eating meat was murder.
In my experience, much of the reason many people are afraid of change is because they don’t want to become, or be seen by the public as one of those hateful, animal rights activist who spreads anger and rage. If we want people to see us as peaceful, we must, as a whole, stop fighting.
Again I’ll say, fighting something is putting energy into the very thing we are trying to prevent. If we want to facilitate real, lasting change, letting go of our own egos and need to put ourselves up on a pedestal by knocking others down is the first step. It’s time to show society that we are as peaceful as we claim to be by not forcing others to believe as we do, allowing them the space, and choice, to be curious, ask questions and warm up to the idea of being vegan. When they bring it up, and not us, they are much more likely to listen.
Remember too, that more people are willing to try new foods when the person preparing it is coming from a place of love, regardless of what it’s made from.
With Love and Light
C.J. Cantrell
P.S. Feel free to enjoy the many healthy and delicious vegan recipes I share in my blog at http://usetheadvantage.wordpress.com/
Alex said,
August 17, 2008 at 10:12 am
Quote:
“The argument made by animal-rights activists is that meat is murder, while veganism is supposedly cruelty-free.”
It is telling when those who are not vegan assume things about “veganism” that vegans do not proffer themselves. The assumption, then, that this author, who is not vegan, is making – “moral absolutes” (i.e., cruelty-free) thereby encompassing both intentional and unintentional actions – is purported to be a foundational premise of the philosophy of “animal rights.” The problem with this premise is clear and incontestable: if you fail the absolute “purity” test than your argument is flawed (or invalid). The author has purposefully defined our argument in a way that is easily countered. (Notice he doesn’t actually challenge Francione’s argument about “intent.”)
This “straw man” method of argumentation is fallacious; however, the casual reader who enters a conversation about veganism pre-prejudiced – selfishly desiring to continue eating meat, for example, therefore the prejudice underlies the justification – these “straw man’s” are convincing. Our efforts, therefore, must be aimed at uncovering these erroneous arguments and clearly and concisely asserting our premises and the conclusions that follow. As you have done quite well in this post.
Sara said,
August 18, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Man, it’s like everybody has clearly stated everything I would like to comment already – and as I already sent in a lengthy email to you personally Nik! Great post…great comments…
I find it appalling that we as humans find the need to justify our indecent and unjustifiable actions. I’ve not always been vegan, so I know that at a time I too made excuses for inexcusable behavior – i.e. eating meat. What I find the most appalling is the flaccidity of this ‘Wesley Smiths’ argument – does he not see the big neon-flashing flaw in his own argument of veganism contributing to the deaths of field mice? As others have commented already, the major mouth that is fed with agricultural crops IS the animals, not the humans! For someone to actually take on the animal rights arena, they need to actually come up with logical, of-sound-mind arguments and rationales. This has always been a failure among those coming up against the AR groups (of which PETA should not be considered IMO) to have a plausible, hard-evidenced argument…and again, I say …flaccid!
Tracy said,
August 18, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Smith’s blog is so anti-AR. He also works for a conservative “think tank” and likes David Martosko of the CCF.
Good Ol’ Veggie Burger ‘N Fries « Vegan Verve said,
August 19, 2008 at 4:56 am
[...] Burgers, vegan, Veggie Burgers Changing to a lighter note after the previous post regarding the Vilifying of Animal Rights, I give you a post about food! Which hopefully no little critters in farm fields had to die for [...]
veganverve said,
August 20, 2008 at 2:40 am
Tracy,
Thanks for alerting us to that info! All the more reason to hate the guy!
Sara,
Yes…Smith’s arguement is completely moronic and has no logical basis. Unfortunately there are many more like him out there.
Alex,
Of course he made it an arguement he could counter, by completely negating what actually matters…that was the only way he had ANYTHING….if you even consider what he “had” something! Thanks for commenting!
CJ,
Thanks for commenting…although I am not one to just “love and understand” so easily as you. I enjoy battle
and I think it is more effective.
Ryan,
Lets just say we’ll agree to disagree.
Well Spoken Animal Advocacy said,
August 20, 2008 at 6:42 am
[...] About Meat: “I see it this way: those in opposition to us have so little in their favor in terms of evidence for maintaining their heart-clogging, global warming enhancing, death mongering lifestyle that they now need to vilify us to make themselves feel better. It is becoming ever-more alarming how similar war mongers are to meat mongers.” wrote Nikki at Vegan Verve. [...]
soleen said,
August 20, 2008 at 11:25 am
people just trying to pass the ball. My mouth dropped when reading the other article, I really dont have anything to say, its crazy!