There is a general consensus that insects are not considered equal in terms of animal cruelty like mammals, as they have much smaller and simpler nerve systems.
In regards to ecological imprint insects have a much better feed to food ratio and you can feed them much more things than to grazing animals.
In vegan communities insects are very much extended the same moral considerations as other animals. What you’re advocating is a form of speciesism, which is something better avoided as much as possible.
Anti-specieism is an argument often brought by vegan fascists, arguing that killing humans is no worse than killing mosquitos.
Also the concept of avoiding specieism fails the moment you look into nature. Is the cat that eats a mouse a speciest? Should you let mosquitos bite you and transmit diseases because killing them would be speciest? Are the farmers in Southern Africa that are plagued by locusts speciest for trying to protect their harvest?
Probably you would consider these examples as legitimate. But what about the building of the house you reside in? The production of your electronics, your energy usage…
It is impossible to make a consistent value frame of what is acceptable killing of animals and what isn’t, if you deem an individual fly as equally protectworthy as a sheep or a human.
Vegan fascists? The people who are trying to put an end to the forced captivity, continuous torture, rape, exploitation, commodification, and perpetual holocaust-levels of slaughter of virtually every species of animal that is not human, are fascists?
Here’s the most commonly accepted definition of veganism:
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which 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; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”"
Emphasis added. The vast majority of vegans do not believe that killing a mosquito is exactly equivalent to killing a human, and even of the people who do, it’s intended to imply that all species lives are important, that the mosquito’s life is seen as equally valuable to the human’s. The only reason such a proposition seems abhorrent to you is because you’re looking at the mosquito through the lens of your carnist supremacist mindset, which is to see the mosquito as something worthless and thus conclude that a human’s life is considered by vegans to be equally worthless.
But again, like everyone else vegans take anti-speciesism only as far as is practical. We just do it better. The mosquito bite is easy. If you know mosquitos are around, it’s wise to wear repellent, and take other appropriate precautions depending on your circumstances. Maybe modify your environment if possible to be less of a breeding ground for them, if it’s bad enough. If you’re dealing with a particular mosquito, odds are they have already bitten you, so how is the lethal carnist reaction any more protective against a disease that may have already been transmitted, than simply blowing on the mosquito to get them to fly away?
Locust infestations happen because of shitty agricultural practices. If you’ve got a plot of land that’s full of nothing but copies of one tantalizing crop, then of course it’s going to be an obvious buffet for a vast amount of insects. Are veganic farming or veganic permaculture methods extreme? Or is it more extreme that our most common monocultural methods of farming are causing so much pollution that it’s bringing so many vital pollinators to the brink of extinction?
You make the same erroneous argument that many other carnists make, which is the idea that because vegan values can’t always be practiced perfectly, that somehow automatically means the entire ethical framework is without merit. But that’s obviously nonsensical. To the individual mosquito or mouse, it makes all the difference in their entire little lives, whether they incidentally pestered a vegan or carnist. It’s been estimated that a single vegan living their values results in about 200 fewer livestock animals being slaughtered every year. Is it extreme to live in a way that would end factory farms forever if we all embraced it, or what about the lifestyle that created them in the first place?
Nearly every half-baked gotcha that carnists try to catch vegans in has a common-sense practical answer. The example of predation in wild areas is a point of contention in vegan communities, whether we should intervene or not and ultimately make rather significant changes to the natural world, but presently it doesn’t really matter, because there are so many other obvious abuses that need to end.
Veganism only looks extreme from the deluded perspective of carnism. But in reality going vegan is like becoming sober, and recognizing how disturbing it was to live the way that so many continue to.
So are you meaning to imply that it’s racist to be vegan? Certainly like any other movement, veganism has a need for more intersectionality. And that outright nazi vegans exist is shitty. But to imply that the anomalous existence of a fringe nazi vegan community means that antispeciesism is in itself racist is completely false, and even misses the point of that very article you posted:
“White nationalist veganism can sound somewhat absurd, but it also shows how complex and deeply rooted this ideology is, and how it can appeal to a variety of different audiences. To combat these racist movements, we must understand them, including how they can incorporate beliefs we usually associate with liberal or leftist politics. The diversity of this movement should not be underestimated.”
Emphasis added. It is important not to allow bigots to hijack otherwise important movements for justice. If that’s something that matters to you, then you have even more reason to go vegan, because animal consumption is not only intrinsically racist, but it is demonstrably materially supporting the fascist institutions who are the largest threats to democracy.
No, what are you talking about? I never said vegans are racist or fascist by default. I have nothing against veganism, so stop preaching to me.
All i said is that the concept of specieism is problematic, because it provides a link and entry point for connecting fascist ideology with veganism and there is examples of that. By eqauting the value of all animal life without any differnetiation, which is the ethical foundation of the “specieism-anti-speciiesm” ideology, you inadvertly open yourself to fascist dehumanising ideology. The framework is bound to fail by design, which is why it shouldnt be used. There is enough reasons to support veganism, without claiming dogs and man are equal.
Veganism without some kind of conceptual framework of speciesism is not veganism. Your assessment is backwards, not only is the concept of anti-speciesism not fascist; speciesism is foundational to racism, sexism, and ableism.
"When you are laying down the groundwork for what it means to be human, that is what it means to actually create human as a political identity because scientifically what we actually know is that human is just one of many species of animal on this planet, but we don’t actually think of ourselves as animals. I’ve talked to countless people who actually balk at the idea, who actually say to me well, I’ve never heard of that; of course humans are not animals. I’m like wow, you definitely did not pass seventh-grade biology. It’s like, you know, but this is just — this just illustrates to me how deeply entrenched these ideologies are. Because of course humans are animals but when we create human as a political identity, what we simultaneously do is create animal as a political identity and not just a species classification.
When we set up this binary, everyone who does not fall into the neat little perfect box of what’s considered human, they exist on the spectrum as an animal. You see the animalization of black people. You see the animalization of any marginalized group or any group that we desire to marginalize and that’s occurred several times throughout history. Yeah, you know, that’s one of the driving things that I want people to take away from these conversations or what I want people to understand. Human was actually never something that was meant to include — in particular — us as black people. Human was just a distinction that was meant to be — that was meant to include primarily people who were white, male, straight, land-owning, heterosexual, and had all of their abilities.
That’s really what we are — that’s really what we’re talking about and if you don’t meet these qualifications, if you don’t meet these criteria, then you are somehow considered to be less-than. That’s when the animalization starts to creep in. Yeah, this sort of aspirational humanity is something that I see people working toward over and over again in black liberation movements. We’re always talking about I am a human being. You know what? I deserve these rights as a human without ever critically interrogating what it means to be human or why human was considered someone — a person who is deserving of rights and not all of these other citizens that we share the planet with. That is one of our fundamental problems. Until we actually include other persons in our frame of reference of who is a marginalized community, I think that is going to continue to keep us back. Instead of actually embracing solidarity with other marginalized species, we instead continue to perpetuate the perceived exceptionalism of human and why that’s so good."
I disagree. While biologically humans are not qualitatively different from animals in biological terms there should be qualitatively different in ethical terms. Even if it is just on the basis of being of the same species, a pattern often found in social animal species too. The binary human-non human is necessary, as it creates a clear framework. The moment you elevate any animal to the same ethical value, by denying the concept of evaluating the value of life differently based on species, you inadvertly devalue human life.
Also it is a concept that i have only found in white western countries. Most people in the world cannot afford to think in such terms, as for them using animal products is a matter of survival. By saying it is unethical to consider human life more valueable by default, you open another attack angle, claiming those people would be “barbaric”, opening up discrimination. Incidently these people actually appreciate animal life and have a deep respect for animals, treating their livestock much better than most western societies do.
From Buddhists (e.g. normal buddhist people, not Monks for whom eating meat is forbidden), over Muslims, to indigenous people in South America. Animal cruelty is fundamentely prohibited in the religious and cultural frameworks, while acknowledging the necessity to kill and eat them. When hunting or slaughtering animals it is mandated to praise the animal and remind yourself of the preciousness of it, and acknowledge the gratefulness that it deserves for nourishing you. Attacking those people as “unethical” for not thinking in terms of anti-sepcieism would get you rejected and rightfully so.
The framework of anti-specieism can only exist as a reaction to the commodification of animal life in capitalist societies. And like the greed in capitalism it is over the top and counter productive. By elevating the necessary reaction to the missdevelopment in our societies to a fundamental ethical principle that fails in the life reality outside of our societies, anti-sepcieism is not only denying those life realities, it is also supremacist in itself and an insult to the many people that are much more cultured than capitalist societies, where this supposed principle is coming from.
And just to be clear, i’m strictly against cruelty animal cruelty and cruelty in general. But this should be a given and in the aforementioned cultured societies it is, without having to equate the value of animal life to human life. (Or other animal life in biological terms) But this is quite simple to integrate in a larger cultural framework without fetishized greed like in capitalism. If you only take what you truly need and feel respect and gratitude towards what nourishes you, it becomes obvious that animal cruelty is wrong, just as destroying nature for mining, or slash burning for tobacco, palm oil and other cash crops is wrong.
I agree that insects are generally less ethically significant than mammals, but as far as using English food category words I don’t see how it’s useful to draw a hard distinction between the category of “meat” and the category of “insects who’s bodies can be cooked and eaten”.
The reason I asked the question is that I noticed they made multiple comments about eating insects and I was curious as to the motivations behind their position.
There is a general consensus that insects are not considered equal in terms of animal cruelty like mammals, as they have much smaller and simpler nerve systems.
In regards to ecological imprint insects have a much better feed to food ratio and you can feed them much more things than to grazing animals.
In vegan communities insects are very much extended the same moral considerations as other animals. What you’re advocating is a form of speciesism, which is something better avoided as much as possible.
Anti-specieism is an argument often brought by vegan fascists, arguing that killing humans is no worse than killing mosquitos.
Also the concept of avoiding specieism fails the moment you look into nature. Is the cat that eats a mouse a speciest? Should you let mosquitos bite you and transmit diseases because killing them would be speciest? Are the farmers in Southern Africa that are plagued by locusts speciest for trying to protect their harvest?
Probably you would consider these examples as legitimate. But what about the building of the house you reside in? The production of your electronics, your energy usage…
It is impossible to make a consistent value frame of what is acceptable killing of animals and what isn’t, if you deem an individual fly as equally protectworthy as a sheep or a human.
Vegan fascists? The people who are trying to put an end to the forced captivity, continuous torture, rape, exploitation, commodification, and perpetual holocaust-levels of slaughter of virtually every species of animal that is not human, are fascists?
Here’s the most commonly accepted definition of veganism:
Emphasis added. The vast majority of vegans do not believe that killing a mosquito is exactly equivalent to killing a human, and even of the people who do, it’s intended to imply that all species lives are important, that the mosquito’s life is seen as equally valuable to the human’s. The only reason such a proposition seems abhorrent to you is because you’re looking at the mosquito through the lens of your carnist supremacist mindset, which is to see the mosquito as something worthless and thus conclude that a human’s life is considered by vegans to be equally worthless.
But again, like everyone else vegans take anti-speciesism only as far as is practical. We just do it better. The mosquito bite is easy. If you know mosquitos are around, it’s wise to wear repellent, and take other appropriate precautions depending on your circumstances. Maybe modify your environment if possible to be less of a breeding ground for them, if it’s bad enough. If you’re dealing with a particular mosquito, odds are they have already bitten you, so how is the lethal carnist reaction any more protective against a disease that may have already been transmitted, than simply blowing on the mosquito to get them to fly away?
Locust infestations happen because of shitty agricultural practices. If you’ve got a plot of land that’s full of nothing but copies of one tantalizing crop, then of course it’s going to be an obvious buffet for a vast amount of insects. Are veganic farming or veganic permaculture methods extreme? Or is it more extreme that our most common monocultural methods of farming are causing so much pollution that it’s bringing so many vital pollinators to the brink of extinction?
You make the same erroneous argument that many other carnists make, which is the idea that because vegan values can’t always be practiced perfectly, that somehow automatically means the entire ethical framework is without merit. But that’s obviously nonsensical. To the individual mosquito or mouse, it makes all the difference in their entire little lives, whether they incidentally pestered a vegan or carnist. It’s been estimated that a single vegan living their values results in about 200 fewer livestock animals being slaughtered every year. Is it extreme to live in a way that would end factory farms forever if we all embraced it, or what about the lifestyle that created them in the first place?
Nearly every half-baked gotcha that carnists try to catch vegans in has a common-sense practical answer. The example of predation in wild areas is a point of contention in vegan communities, whether we should intervene or not and ultimately make rather significant changes to the natural world, but presently it doesn’t really matter, because there are so many other obvious abuses that need to end.
Veganism only looks extreme from the deluded perspective of carnism. But in reality going vegan is like becoming sober, and recognizing how disturbing it was to live the way that so many continue to.
Those guys:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/evb4zw/why-so-many-white-supremacists-are-into-veganism
And those guys (German Article):
https://www.belltower.news/vegane-nazis-wie-rechstextreme-mit-ihre-ernaehrung-ideologisieren-91901/
So are you meaning to imply that it’s racist to be vegan? Certainly like any other movement, veganism has a need for more intersectionality. And that outright nazi vegans exist is shitty. But to imply that the anomalous existence of a fringe nazi vegan community means that antispeciesism is in itself racist is completely false, and even misses the point of that very article you posted:
Emphasis added. It is important not to allow bigots to hijack otherwise important movements for justice. If that’s something that matters to you, then you have even more reason to go vegan, because animal consumption is not only intrinsically racist, but it is demonstrably materially supporting the fascist institutions who are the largest threats to democracy.
https://www.christophersebastian.info/post/2018/10/20/if-veganism-is-racist-and-classist-bad-news-for-nonveganism
https://www.christophersebastian.info/post/they-want-to-take-away-your-hamburgers-animal-exploitation-and-white-nationalism
https://www.christophersebastian.info/post/2018/07/29/sorry-conservative-vegans-animal-rights-is-political-e2-80-a6and-it-leans-left
No, what are you talking about? I never said vegans are racist or fascist by default. I have nothing against veganism, so stop preaching to me.
All i said is that the concept of specieism is problematic, because it provides a link and entry point for connecting fascist ideology with veganism and there is examples of that. By eqauting the value of all animal life without any differnetiation, which is the ethical foundation of the “specieism-anti-speciiesm” ideology, you inadvertly open yourself to fascist dehumanising ideology. The framework is bound to fail by design, which is why it shouldnt be used. There is enough reasons to support veganism, without claiming dogs and man are equal.
Veganism without some kind of conceptual framework of speciesism is not veganism. Your assessment is backwards, not only is the concept of anti-speciesism not fascist; speciesism is foundational to racism, sexism, and ableism.
I disagree. While biologically humans are not qualitatively different from animals in biological terms there should be qualitatively different in ethical terms. Even if it is just on the basis of being of the same species, a pattern often found in social animal species too. The binary human-non human is necessary, as it creates a clear framework. The moment you elevate any animal to the same ethical value, by denying the concept of evaluating the value of life differently based on species, you inadvertly devalue human life.
Also it is a concept that i have only found in white western countries. Most people in the world cannot afford to think in such terms, as for them using animal products is a matter of survival. By saying it is unethical to consider human life more valueable by default, you open another attack angle, claiming those people would be “barbaric”, opening up discrimination. Incidently these people actually appreciate animal life and have a deep respect for animals, treating their livestock much better than most western societies do.
From Buddhists (e.g. normal buddhist people, not Monks for whom eating meat is forbidden), over Muslims, to indigenous people in South America. Animal cruelty is fundamentely prohibited in the religious and cultural frameworks, while acknowledging the necessity to kill and eat them. When hunting or slaughtering animals it is mandated to praise the animal and remind yourself of the preciousness of it, and acknowledge the gratefulness that it deserves for nourishing you. Attacking those people as “unethical” for not thinking in terms of anti-sepcieism would get you rejected and rightfully so.
The framework of anti-specieism can only exist as a reaction to the commodification of animal life in capitalist societies. And like the greed in capitalism it is over the top and counter productive. By elevating the necessary reaction to the missdevelopment in our societies to a fundamental ethical principle that fails in the life reality outside of our societies, anti-sepcieism is not only denying those life realities, it is also supremacist in itself and an insult to the many people that are much more cultured than capitalist societies, where this supposed principle is coming from.
And just to be clear, i’m strictly against cruelty animal cruelty and cruelty in general. But this should be a given and in the aforementioned cultured societies it is, without having to equate the value of animal life to human life. (Or other animal life in biological terms) But this is quite simple to integrate in a larger cultural framework without fetishized greed like in capitalism. If you only take what you truly need and feel respect and gratitude towards what nourishes you, it becomes obvious that animal cruelty is wrong, just as destroying nature for mining, or slash burning for tobacco, palm oil and other cash crops is wrong.
I agree that insects are generally less ethically significant than mammals, but as far as using English food category words I don’t see how it’s useful to draw a hard distinction between the category of “meat” and the category of “insects who’s bodies can be cooked and eaten”.
The reason I asked the question is that I noticed they made multiple comments about eating insects and I was curious as to the motivations behind their position.