I'm in a really cool class here at my college called Animals and Philosophy. We have been reading some really cool stuff. Anyway I've been thinking more about all these issues. There was one article (Kathryn Paxton George, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental ethics, 1994, 7(1), pg19-28, Discrimination and Bias in the Vegan Ideal) we read that argued that some poor people live in neighborhoods without grocery stores and they only can get food at convenience stores and it would be practically impossible for them to get adequate nutrition on a vegan diet (probably not even on an omni diet either, but I hope you get the point) so, through no fault of their own they cannot be vegan. Philosophers like Tom Regan and Peter Singer make a case that one makes a immoral choice when not eating vegan. It doesn’t make those who can't access vegan food un-virtuous but it makes virtue only available to the privileged and that is discriminatory. The article argues that the vegan diet is best suited to middle class white men living in industrialized societies. in that it is more appropriate for their dietary needs, physiology, genetic food allergies, cultural practices and the like. Anyway, although this is contentious and lots of vegan dietary literature disputes it, it really got me thinking. Although this article focused on the vegan diet, there is more to veganism than just diet. I don't think that living without the use of animal products is really possible. Tires are the best example of this, tires use animal fat in their production, of course they can be made without animal fat synthetically, but the animal by-products are easier or cheaper to use. I don't know of any vegan tires available, please correct me if I'm worng. So, even if you don't drive a car or ride a bike you would still pay for tires in the transportation cost of pretty much anything you buy in the supermarket or elsewhere. Its really unavoidable. I just thought this was an interesting thing to think about. The vegan condom thread really got me thinking about issues like this. Animal products are just too widespread in industrial society to completely avoid. Personally I don't care too much about these industrial production problems, like bone char filters in sugar (I buy the stuff without, but when I'm on the road or at someone else's house I don't really care about it) or the caisen in condoms or the fat in the tires because it is more about methods of industrial production. I don't see that it would reduce animal suffering by abstaining from these goods, the animals would still be slaughtered and their by-products would simply be used for something else. It's not like more animals are farmed to supply these goods, but I do respect those who take their veganism to the max. Sorry for the long post, Peace!
I would have to disagree, atleast in part, that a vegan diet is unrealistic for the poor. A vegan diet would be ideal for the poor because they can grow their own food at a low cost. This is even better for the poor in rural areas that have more room to grow a lot of different vegetables and possibly have different fruit and nut trees. It can be more difficult for those in urban areas but one can still grow a lot in a yard or even containers. This would be even more important if the only other source of food is a convenience stores. Regardless of what one eats, I highly doubt that anyone could get close to proper nutrition from a convenience store. You do make a good point about industrial products. Animal products are used in production because they are cheap. If there were cheaper alternatives they would be used. If the population shifted its diet to vegetarian or vegan, reducing the supply of animal by-products then those by-products would probably not be so cheap any more and the alternatives would be used in manufacturing. Abstaining from these products may not be as helpful as abstaining from eating meat, but if there are products that don't use animal products buying them would send a message and show that there is demand for products that avoid using animals in their manufacturing.
I think you are over simplifying the poverty issue. Do you have any idea how much land, expertise and most importantly hours of work it would take to grow enough food to live on? Also, many poor people rent or live in long term hotel situations. They may not be able to garden. The issue is it would simply take too many hours of work to hold down a minimum wage job and grow your own food. I agree though, there are many problems with this argument, like not being able to get proper nutrition form a convenience store anyway, and that it is really an issue of systemic poverty and not having access to healthy food in inner city areas. But my real question came in the second paragraph, this argument just got me thinking that its almost impossible to completely live up to the vegan ideal. I agree; I'm right there with ya buddy. I know that the demand would go down for the products if people didn't use them, but that doesn’t really matter that much to me. I believe these animal by-products would still be used somewhere, or worse, not used and simply thrown away. I'm really only interested in reducing animal suffering, not some spiritual purity trip of not using products with these by-products. I don't see the use of these by-products as really contributing to animal suffering in any significant way.
I think we are both right in part. If one were to grow all of their food to feed themselves and any family it would take a bit of land. But if one just has a window that gets decent sun, anyone can grow a few plants and possibly all year round. This would be a big boost to their diet. If they should be lucky enough to rent a place that has even a small yard and a landlord who does not care they can grow a decent amount of food. The more food they can grow the less money they have to spend on food and the more nutrition they get. This is only possible on a vegan diet, as it would require a lot of room to grow one's own meat and dairy. I am just curious how many situations like this exsist where people have no grocery store? Is it that common? To be honest with this, you would need to do research to find out where the animal by-products in these items actually come from to ensure that such products aren't the main cause of suffering. It is a complex issue. Is it worth the effort? Would it make a difference? I guess that is for each person to decide for themself.
We live in the poorest neighborhood in our city. The house price range in our neighborhood is $14,000-$30,000. We rent, and have a VERY small backyard. It is packed with veggies, almost year round, and our daughters get very into helping with the planting, cleaning, and especially, the harvest. We don't make enough to supply ourselves with ALL the veggies we need, as the girls and I (not handsome hubby) are vegan. We could, however (if we put more work into it, and put up more veggies for out-of-season) come extraordinarily close. The others around us *could* do the same, but opt not to. They enjoy meat. I firmly believe that they aren't not veggy because they can't afford it.
Ok, but do you still drive a car with tires on it, or ride a bike with tires on it, or use public transportation with tires on it, or anything else that envolves tires? I think we need to face facts, its hard to get anything in this society without buying something that was tested on animals or uses animal products in their processing. I'm sure there are even some industrial uses of animal products we don't even know about yet. To push this argument to the point of absurdity (yes i recognize when its getting there) if you live in an area with power supplied with hydro power, the electricty you get kills tons of fish every year. Even wind kills some birds. This is absurd, but I hope when this argument is pressed to the further extent you can see my point. If you believe it is immoral to kill animals for any purpose then you can't participate in these actions. Pressing the point to the most extreme, would you take anti-venom if you were bit by a venomus snake?
Veganism is not about perfection. Veganism is about doing whatever you can to REDUCE animal suffering. No, you cannot be "perfectly" Vegan. By eliminating the primary source of animal product from your life (food products), you are reducing the demand to slaughter and exploit animals. Supporting Vegan alternatives to non-food products (cosmetics, detergents, etc.) whenever possible increases the demand for those products, which in turn drives down the cost of those products, making it more likely that non-Vegans will purchase the products. As far as whether poor people can be Vegan, of course they CAN be Vegan. It probably requires a great deal more effort than a middle-class Vegan would have to make. But when this type of argument is made, the sub-text is usually about how if EVERYONE can't easily be Vegan, than NO ONE should try. And that's total crap. This is a situation where the middle and upper class can make a positive impact. Because, let's face it, the corporate West does not care about the needs and desires of the poor. They market to the people in the Middle and Upper classes. If the people in the Middle and Upper classes purchase enough Vegan-friendly products, the prices on those products will go down, and it will be more likely that those products will be available in convenience stores, which in turn would make it easier for the poor to be Vegan.
The closer I get to a vegan diet/lifestyle, the more convinced I am that while not impossible, it is perhaps only achievable by someone with a bit more cash at their disposal than me. Or perhaps it's just that veganism &/or the whole "green movement" hasn't quite taken off this far north yet. But things like shoes that are both vegan AND green (has to be green or I'd rather not) just don't exist here. I can find them online, but between the higher prices and having to pay shipping... I just can't afford them. That's why I try for the "do as much as I can" approach - to my diet, to my lifestyle, and to my larger purchases - like cars. Sure, I couldn't afford the hybrids when we bought a car 3 years ago. But we bought the most efficient one we COULD afford. There's good & better choices, and then there's the best. Unfortunately though, the "best" tends to be more than most people can afford. It's sad, but it's true. love, mom
