onsdag 31 juli 2013

Vegan eller vegetarian. En lakto-ovo-vegetarisk livsstil skadar djur.

Vegan eller vegetarian??
För om man konsumerar mjölk och ägg, så bidrar man i lika utsträckning till att djur skadas och blir dödade helt i onödan. Både kor som används i mjölkindustrin och hönor i äggindustrin blir dödade när producenterna inte gör tillräckligt mycket profit.
Att konsumera mjölk och ägg är etiskt fel av samma anledning som att konsumera kött är fel -- att man utsätter djur för onödigt lidande och död utan någon legitim anledning eftersom vi inte behöver djurprodukter för optimal hälsa.
Jag rekommenderar: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/fraga-fran-vegetarian-varfr-dricker.html

Veganskt svar på: "Oavsett om folk väljer bort kött, så dödas lika många djur ändå"

Det är fel. Köttproduktion styrs av efterfrågan. Om folk slutar att konsumera djurprodukter, inklusive mjölk och ägg, så är det färre kor som föds upp för mjölkproduktion och för att sedan bli kött, kor som föds upp för köttproduktion, kycklingar som föds upp för äggproduktion för att sedan bli kött, etc., som dödas.

Du kan enkelt se att nu när köttkonsumtionen ökar i världen, så ökar också antalet djur som blir dödade.
Det är fel att utsätta djur för onödigt lidande och död, således är det fel att konsumera kött, mjölk, ägg och andra djurprodukter. Jag rekommenderar: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-alskar-vi-hundar-men-dodar-och.html

Dairy industry in Australia, bobby calves, etc, Solution: veganism

Dairy industry in Australia:
Many of us don't give a second thought to where the milk in our latte or the cheese in our sandwich comes from.

But as the saying goes, there's a little bit of meat in every drop of milk. Behind the dairy industry lies a brutal secret: the 700,000 or so "bobby calves" slaughtered each year in this country at as young as five days of age.

Dairy cows are impregnated yearly in order to produce milk for human consumption. But their male calves are "surplus to needs".

Most will be destined for the slaughterhouse within days of birth. Bobby calf meat is considered to be of low value and is predominantly exported as ground beef and offal to Japan and the US.
Others will be killed several months later, after they have been fattened up for veal.

Female calves are retained to follow in the footsteps of their mothers or, if not viable as dairy cows, will also be swiftly consigned to the abattoir.
Bobby calves endure long stretches of transport to regional abattoirs. This is a major stressor for any food animal, and even more so for calves, who are physiologically immature, with limited fat reserves, poorly developed ability to maintain body temperature and a lack of responsiveness to external stimuli.

Trucks can be overloaded, without bedding or room to lie down.

Calves are lifted and dragged by their tails or legs, or in some instances electrically prodded to get them moving. Many remain overnight, without sustenance, in the abattoir before they are slaughtered.
It is well established that cows, like humans, are sentient beings. They feel pain, distress, fear, vulnerability, loneliness, grief, hunger and thirst.
Mother cows form a strong maternal bond with their babies from as little as five minutes of contact after birth. Early separation of mother cows from their young causes stress, which is often manifested by distressed calling. Calves are traumatised after being taken from their mothers shortly after birth.
It is a forlorn picture. These newborn animals are utterly defenceless, and totally beholden to us. To serve our desire for cow's milk we bring them into being, with all their capacity to feel and their complex subjectivity, and then kill them pitilessly, as if they were the insensible by-product of an industrial machine.

The bobby calf trade exemplifies all that is ethically perverse in animal agribusiness.
Now, to make matters worse, the Australian government is proposing an amendment to livestock standards that will legalise the starvation of bobby calves for 30 hours before their slaughter.

Currently the unenforceable Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Land Transport of Cattle provides that calves should be fed within six hours of transportation and must not be left without appropriate liquid food for more than 10 hours.

The arguments being used to support the amendment are just as wrong-headed as the trade itself.
In the end, they boil down to reducing costs for the industry, and, as is so often the case, the government is onside with agribusiness.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/brutal-secret-behind-the-dairy-industry-20110128-1a7tb.html#ixzz2ac73Jve5
They advocate regulating the industry. I advocate abolishing the industry totally. There is a Complete difference between these approaches.
There is no "humane" breeding and murder of cows. You can't kill a sentient being "humanely", since the sentient being doesn't want to be killed by humans. I believe in this approach to Animal rights: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

Note, the solution is not regulating the animal exploitation-industry, the solution is to totally abolish it. There are no "humane" transports to slaughter, there are no "humane" slaughter houses, there are no "humane" confinement of cows, and no "humane" separation and destroying of families.


Separation of mother cows with their calves:

Quote from the Australian dairy industry's website:
Calf welfare is improved by removing it from the cow within 12 hours of birth and applying the 3-step calf rearing plan to reduce the risk of infection

“Research suggests that separating cow and calf as early as possible reduces the stress on both as there will be minimal bonding between them.
It is also easier to teach the calf to drink milk from a bucket or artificial teat. This ensures it receives enough high quality milk (including colostrum) to keep it healthy.
Calves should be removed from the cow within 12 hours of birth to:
• reduce the risk of getting diseases from adult cattle, and
• lower the stress for the cow and calf “

Quote: http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Animals-feed-and-environment/Animal-welfare/Calf-welfare/Managing-calf-welfare.aspx
That is totally bias that any sentient being would benefit of becoming forcefully separated to her mother.
They are only separating the cows and their calves to increase the profit.

There is a reason why they don't want anyone to film inside of the building, and don't allow this to take place.
Slaughterhouses are cruel per definition. It is always a cruel action to take the life of a healthy sentient being, who doesn't want to be killed by us.

IgE mediated allergies and dairy vs. a vegan diet?

Here is a post relating to IgE mediated allergies written by Jeff Novick, RD:

"However, in regard to the situation you described above, you do not have to go through the process of doing a full elimination diet (or allergy testing) as your main concern is one food, which we already know is highly reactive and implicated in this situation. As you may know, there are many health professionals, myself included, that beleive dairy is the single worst food humans could be consuming and the one food we would all eliminate from the food supply if we could.

A full elimination diet does take time and effort because it is a slow process. However, in regard to eczema, there is enough evidence to just encourage any parent to just begin by eliminating dairy.

Yimyaem P. Gastrointestinal manifestations of cow's milk protein allergy during the first year of life. J Med Assoc Thai. 2003 Feb;86(2):116-23.

Tikkanen S. Status of children with cow's milk allergy in infancy by 10 years of age. Acta Paediatr. 2000 Oct;89(10):1174-80.


Oranje AP, Wolkerstorfer A, et al Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002 Dec;89(6 Suppl 1):52-5. Natural course of cow's milk allergy in childhood atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome."

If your nutritionist or immunologist doesn't now that dairy is bad for your health, I think you shouldn't trust their competence.
Please do your research instead of relying on people who lack knowledge.
There are many nutritionist that know dairy is bad for your health. Some claim that it is good. Obviously, many of the nutritionists are very wrong.

Dairy is foods for cows and its composition is good for calves when they are growing up. It has never been an ideal food for humans, and it is detrimental for human health. I have shared plenty of resources to you, and if you are interested of your health, and to stop exploiting animals, you should be willing to study this. Please do.

You can learn more here: http://www.drmcdougall.com/ and here: www.adelicatebalance.com.au/

Health, calcium and a vegan diet? No milk is needed for optimal health!

I don't have time to write a long reply now, but I will answer about calcium.

Milk doesen't give you stronger bones.
A recent metaanalysis published in the October 2006 issue of the British Medical Journal found, “The small effect of calcium supplementation on bone mineral density in the upper limb is unlikely to reduce the risk of fracture, either in childhood or later life, to a degree of major public health importance.”12 The authors state, “Our results do not support the premise that any type of supplementation is more effective than another.” Their findings mean dairy products are of no real-life bone-strengthening benefits. Even studies that used intakes of 1400 mg per day of calcium showed no benefit.

An editorial accompanying this metaanalysis pointed out, “Populations that consume the most cow's milk and other dairy products have among the highest rates of osteoporosis and hip fracture in later life.” 13 So does this mean consuming dairy products will hurt your bones?

Please read all of this article: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/feb/whenfriendsask.htm

In fact it is the western diet with all animal foods that causes oesteoporis.
Please read through these articles and references: http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_osteoporosis.html

tisdag 30 juli 2013

How Ethiopia can become self-sustained on a vegan diet, and end starvation and poverty

Here is another example that I did just right now calculating how many that could be fed in Ethiopia if everyone ate a vegan diet and there wasn’t any animal agriculture.

Arable land (hectars): 13606000.0
Population: 86,613,986

“Only 400-480 pounds of meat can be produced by one acre of land [Of an animal that has the right to live, and shouldn’t be killed for someone’s taste], compared to 20,000 pounds of plant foods that could be grown on the same slot.” [1]

More specific of the current agriculture methods in Ethiopia:

“Ethiopia's potato area had grown to 160,000 hectares, with average yields around eight tons per hectare.” [2]

The average adult person would need about 1 ton of potatoes per year. Some of this would be replaced by vegetables and fruits in order to get all nutrition needed. Of course one can also grow other starches other than potatoes, this is just an example.

Plant foods that can be grown on the arable land:
13606000.0 * 8000 kgs of potatoes per year

People that could be fed = 13606000.0 hectars * 8000 kilograms per hectar / 1000 kilograms per person = 108 848 000 adults

Everyone could be fed on a vegan diet. Today because of that they also have domesticate, breed and kill animals for food, they don’t grow enough foods to sustain all the population.

Starvation in Ethiopia:“The U.N. World Food Program estimates that 2.7 million Ethiopians will need emergency food aid because of late rains — nearly double the number who needed help last year. An additional 5 million of Ethiopia's 80 million people receive aid each year because they never have enough food, whether harvests are good or not.”

“Samuel Akale, a nutritionist with the government's disaster prevention agency, said the hunger will get worse. "The number of severely malnourished will increase, and then they'll die."”

“Ethiopia is a country with a history of hunger. It's food problems drew international attention in 1984 when a famine compounded by communist policies killed some 1 million people. Pictures of stick-thin children like Bizunesh were broadcast onto television sets around the world.”
Quotes from: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24731042/ns/world_news-africa/t/once-again-children-are-starving-ethiopia/

Do you know how much of Ethiopias arable land that is used for animal agriculture?

"Of Ethiopia's total land area of 1,221,480 square kilometers, the government estimated in the late 1980s that 15 percent was under cultivation and 51 percent was pasture. It was also estimated that over 60 percent of the cultivated area was cropland. Forestland, most of it in the southwestern part of the country, accounted for 4 percent of the total land area, according to the government. These figures varied from those provided by the World Bank, which estimated that cropland, pasture, and forestland accounted for 13%, 41%, and 25%, respectively, of the total land area in 1987.[4]"

4.Wubne, Mulatu. "Agriculture" (and subsections). A Country Study: Ethiopia (Thomas P. Ofcansky and LaVerle Berry, eds.) Library of Congress Federal Research Division (1991). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.[2].
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Ethiopia


I am advocating a vegan diet. All production of animal foods involves or indirectly causes unnecessary harm and death: http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/tavs-initiatives/tavs-articles/how-to-go-vegan/should-i-go-vegan-by-adopting-a-vegetarian-diet-first/


What about droughts???
2.With a plant-only agriculture they will be able to feed all the population and also save some of the harvest, which can be used when there are droughts, etc.

In any instance, a plant-only-agriculture is much more efficient compared to an animal agriculture - both in terms of plant protein required, water required (especially important in Ethiopia!!!), etc.:
According to Cornell University Professors David Pimental and Marcia Pimental, it takes 13 kilograms (2.2 pounds) of grain and 30 kilograms of forage to produce one kilogram of beef; 21 kilograms of grain and 30 kilograms of forage to produce kilogram of lamb; 5.9 kilograms of grain to produce a kilogram of pork; 3.8 kilograms of grain to produce a kilogram of turkey; 2.3 kilograms of grain to produce a kilogram of chicken, and 11 kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of eggs. Livestock in the United States consume 7 times as much grain as is consumed by the entire U.S. human population and that the grains fed to livestock could feed 840 million humans who had a plant-based diet. One kilogram of animal protein requires about 100 times more water than does 1 kilogram of grain protein. It takes between 20 and 100 gallons of water to produce most vegetables or fruit. The Pimental study says it takes more than 2000,000 liters of water to produce one kilogram of pasture-raised beef. The estimates of water required for a pound of beef go from 2,000 to 12,000 gallons; it takes about 110 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat. Most estimates vary between 1000 to 2000 gallons of water to produce a gallon of milk.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations states that animal agriculture contributes more greenhouse gases, which are linked directly to global warming, to the atmosphere than does burning fossil fuel for transportation. According to Worldwatch Institute, animal agriculture produces an estimated 51% of the worldwide total of greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. Moreover, a significant amount of fossil energy is required to yield an animal-based product. The average fossil energy input for all animal protein sources is 25 kcal of fossil energy input to 1 kcal of animal protein produced, which is more than 11 times greater than for grain
protein production.
Quote: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/posts/596843230335435

How does a vegan diet and permaculture help cease poverty and starvation?

Regarding poverty and starvation I recommend you to study:

I made a simple calculation here how Bangladesh could become self-sustained, and everyone in Bangladesh could be fed on the arable land that is available today, if everyone ate a vegan diet: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/cause-of-injustices-in-bangladesh-eg-in.html

It is very clear that we would be able to feed everyone on this planet if everyone ate a vegan diet.
We can also revive desert land, and make them arable, by permaculture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CxP0Thljr4

As for when humans not any more use domesticated animals: We will stop all domestication and breeding of animals. That means in a vegan world we won’t breed, feed and kill about 58 billion domesticated animals per year.
I think it is very easy:
1. It is wrong to inflict suffering and death on sentient beings (human or nonhuman) without any necessity.

2. Whatever necessity includes, it must, if it is to be meaningful, exclude the imposition of suffering and death for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

3. Apart from life boat/desert island scenarios, there is no need to eat animal foods to be healthy.

4. Therefore, eating animal foods outside of extreme situations serves only pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

5. Therefore, it is morally wrong to inflict suffering and death on animals for food.

Quotes and subsequent discussion here: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/posts/630709030282188

Vegan reply to: "I eat meat, because if I don't eat and kill animals, they will have a worse life in the wild."

You wrote: "I have been inside a few abattoirs in Australia and I have no problem in the way that they operate,"
You don't have a problem, but it is not about you, it is about the animals.
Do you really believe that they want to be killed by humans? Do you believe it is morally justified to inflict unnecessary harm and unnecessary death on sentient beings for pleasure/convenience/habit or tradition.

You wrote: "The fact is that these animals would be having a far less peaceful life and death of they were out in the wild which is exactly where they would be if they were not grown for food."
This is an assumption. And you are assuming the animals rather be confined and domesticated, that cows and calves prefer being separated from each other within a week of the birth of the calf, and then finally murdered by humans.
And then you try to defend this by saying that some other animals would inflict even worse suffering and death upon these harmless sentient beings. Lets assume it was true.

Lets apply your reasoning to a human context.
A person knows that another person will be tortured and murdered by another human. In order to prevent this he/she goes to the person that she knows is a victim of a planned murder, and kills him/her in a less painless way.
Then he/she try to morally justify the murder by saying that he/she prevented more cruelty and harm.

Do you think that this is morally justified?
I find it incredible how many non-vegans believe in nonsensical "justifications" to inflict unnecessary harm and unnecessary death on sentient beings for "palate pleasure"/convenience/habit or tradition.

The need to come up with such excuses shows that they on a deep level don't believe it is morally justified to consume animal foods.
I opted out from animal exploitaiton last autumn and went vegan. You can do the same. It only requires that you care about the animals.

Food allergies, diseases and vegan diet? What to eat?

Even if you are allergic to many plant foods, there are still many plant foods that you can eat, and you can get all the nutrition that you need from plant foods. I recommend you to study this page: http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_allergic.html
You can also contact a vegan nutritionist.

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)

I will start with some comments about health:
Milk consumption inhibits the absorption of iron:
“Secondary factors also influence the absorption of iron from ingested foods. Absorption depends upon the acidity of the stomach, the amount of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) in the foods, the kinds of amino acids present, the amount of fiber in the diet, and the form in which the iron is presented (whether heme or non-heme). Ascorbic acid is one of the main enhancers of iron absorption, and fruits and vegetables provide plentiful amounts of this vitamin. All red meats, poultry, and fish are deficient in ascorbic acid. Dairy products are not only deficient in ascorbic acid, they are also very low in iron content, and actually inhibit the absorption of iron present in other foods (for example, calcium and phosphates in milk form insoluble complexes with iron).”
Quote: http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_anemia.html

Plant Foods Have a Complete Amino Acid Composition:
“According to Dr. John A. McDougall, "any single one or combination of these plant foods provides amino acid intakes in excess of the recommended requirements...it is impossible to design an amino acid–deficient diet based on the amounts of unprocessed starches and vegetables sufficient to meet the calorie needs of humans. Furthermore, mixing foods to make a complementary amino acid composition is unnecessary.”

Why do you believe that you destroy any amino acids by cooking plant foods?
You can certainly get all the nutrition you need from plant foods. Thus, animals are harmed and killed despite that there is no need, and this is wrong. You can ask e.g. here if you want to live a life that doesn’t harm and kill animals needlessly: http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=22&sid=9d758ce1a0cdba79b47cf001c5e354c0

Why do people get allergies?:
“However, considerable evidence indicates that introducing certain foods (including cow's milk) too soon into an infant's diet, at the time when its intestinal tract and immune systems are still immature, may provoke responses in its tissues that will lead to symptoms of allergy later in life. Similarly, respiratory allergies andskin problems may be started at that tender age, when the infant's immune responses are unable to cope properly with the alien allergens.”

Some people claim we need meat if we have certain diseases, etc.

Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption.
We have many adaptations to plant consumption.
Vitamin C is found in plants. We can’t make it ourselves such as carnivores.
Or digestive tract is longer than carnivores, so that our food can stay in the body longer so we can digest plant matter. We need more surface area and we need more microbes.
Quote from Dr. Christina Warinner has excavated around the world, from the Maya jungles of Belize to the Himalayan mountains of Nepal, and she is pioneering the biomolecular investigation of archaeological dental calculus (tartar) to study long-term trends in human health and diet. She is a 2012 TED Fellow, and her work has been featured in Wired UK, the Observer, CNN.com, Der Freitag, and Sveriges TV. She obtained her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2010, specializing in ancient DNA analysis and paleodietary reconstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BMOjVYgYaG8
So it is fallacious to assume that we would need meat for an optimal diet, or need meat if we have some certain allergies or diseases.

 It wasn't the meat, that caused us to evolve: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0PF5R0ywp4
More information gathered here: http://bloganders.blogspot.se/2013/06/humans-are-herbivores-not-omnivoresmeat.html

And even if we could consume animal foods without getting health problems, so what??? Even if we had developed an "instinct for meat", so what??
The capability of having a body that can eat meat without getting a disease, does not make killing morally justified.

We can live and thrive on a vegan diet, so killing and harming animals for food in our society is completely unnecessary. The only "justification" is that it tastes good/convenience -- and pleasure is no moral justification for hurting and killing an animal. I recommend you to study this article :

Att vara vegan är inte extremt.

Nej, etisk veganism är inte extrem

Det finns ingenting som är extremt med etisk veganism.

Det som är extremt är att äta ruttnande kött och sekretioner från djur.

Det som är extremt är att betrakta visa djur som familjemedlemmar, emedan vi på samma gång sticker gafflarna i andra djurs likdelar.

Det som är extremt är att tro att det är moraliskt acceptabelt att helt i onödan skada och döda medvetna djur endast för att vi tycker om smaken av djurprodukter eller för att vi gillar hur kläder från djur ser ut.

Det som är extremt är att säga att vi vidkänner att det inte är etiskt riktigt att utsätta djur för ”onödigt” lidande och död, och sedan fortsätter med att dagligen delta i fullständigt onödigt utnyttjande av djur.

Det som är extremt är att låtsas om att omfamna fred emedan vi gör våld, lidande, tortyr och död till en daglig del av vårt liv.

Det som är extremt är att vi fördömer människor som Michael Vick (som njöt av att delta i hundkamper), Mary Bale (som slängde sitt djur i en soptunna) och Sarah Palin (som jagade och dödade djur för nöjes skull) som elaka människor, emedan vi fortsätter att äta, använda och konsumera djurprodukter.

Det som är extremt är att vi säger att vi bryr oss om djur och att vi tror att de är medlemmar i den moraliska gemenskapen, men att vi sponsrar, stödjer, uppmuntrar och marknadsför märkningssystem för ”lyckligt” kött/mjölk (se not 1, 2, 3).

Det som är extremt är att vi konsumerar en diet som orsakar diabetes och miljökatastrofer.

Det som är extremt är att vi uppmuntrar våra barn till att älska djur samtidigt som vi undervisar dem att man kan skada dem som man älskar. Vi undervisar barn att kärlek är förenligt med kommodifiering. Det är sannerligen extremt – och väldigt sorgligt.
Det som är extremt är fantasin att vi någonsin kommer att finna vår moraliska kompass i förhållande till djuren så länge som de är på våra tallrikar och bord, våra ryggar och våra fötter.

Nej, etisk veganism är inte extrem. Men det finns många andra saker som vi inte ens uppmärksammar som är extrema.

Om du inte är vegan, bli vegan. Det är enkelt; det är bättre för din hälsa och för planeten. Men, det viktigaste av allt, det är det moraliskt rätta att göra.

Ursprungsartikel: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/no-ethical-veganism-is-not-extreme/

Översättning https://www.facebook.com/DjurensRattigheterAvskaffaDjurslaveriet

Mer resurser om att bli vegan finns här: http://www.vegankit.com/

Not 1: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-absurdity-of-competing-humane-labels-hsus-v-perdue/ ; 2. http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/partners-in-exploitation/#.Upid2uJyx20 ; 3. http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/links/p4176/support.pdf

There is no "humane" way of killing an animal/no "humane" slaughter

My reply to Lauren McGrath-Esler,
Even if you are allergic to many plant foods, there are still many plant foods that you can eat, and you can get all the nutrition that you need from plant foods. I recommend you to study this page: http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_allergic.html

You can also contact a vegan nutritionist.
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)

You think that you can kill an animal “humanely”. You can’t. You can’t kill a healty animal "humanely", since the animal has a desire and interest to live her/his life and an interest of not being killed by humans. This is why painlessly killing a healthy animal is morally wrong: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/07/why-painlessly-killing-animal-for-food.html

The slaughterhouses in Australia don’t kill the animals painlessly. There is no such slaughterhouse. Visit them and you will see. But even if there was, killing an healthy animal for the "pleasure"/convenience of animal foods would not be morally justified.
This is why it is morally wrong to kill animals for food:
1. It is wrong to inflict suffering and death on sentient beings (human or nonhuman) without any necessity.
2. Whatever necessity includes, it must, if it is to be meaningful, exclude the imposition of suffering and death for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience.
3. Apart from life boat/desert island scenarios, there is no need to eat animal foods to be healthy.
4. Therefore, eating animal foods outside of extreme situations serves only pleasure, amusement, or convenience.
5. Therefore, it is morally wrong to inflict suffering and death on animals for food.

What do you say?

Eating dead animals being "natural", does not make it right

1. It is wrong to inflict suffering and death on sentient beings (human or nonhuman) without any necessity.

2. Whatever necessity includes, it must, if it is to be meaningful, exclude the imposition of suffering and death for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

3. Apart from life boat/desert island scenarios, there is no need to eat animal foods to be healthy.

4. Therefore, eating animal foods outside of extreme situations serves only pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

5. Therefore, it is morally wrong to inflict suffering and death on animals for food.

It's really very simple. There are other premises and intermediate arguments and if I were doing a formal analysis, it would be more detailed, but this is fine for this purpose. As you can see, I am not assuming the truth of the conclusion. I am demonstrating it using a general moral principle that almost everyone I have ever met agrees with.

-------Quotes and discussion from: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/posts/630709030282188

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Christopher Paul Watts: The "food chain" is an artificial construction to begin with. Saying that it is artificial to remove ourselves from it assumes to the contrary. Indeed, all of the pro-eating-animals arguments I have seen in this thread are circular. They assume the truth of that which they seek to prove.

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Christopher Paul Watts: Your 3:15 question: "Do you think that this vegan lifestyle is fostered more in large urban centers where unquestionably it is easier to feel disconnected from the food chain and the natural environment ?" What does this mean? I have explained above that "food chain" and "natural" are normative notions that beg the question. In any event, if you are asking me whether people who live in the country and make a living from exploiting animals are more comfortable with exploiting animals, the answer is clearly "yes." But so what?

NZ Vegan ^That's interesting because actually by purchasing any animal products you are participating directly in the killing of animals for 'enjoyment', given there is no need whatsoever to eat them, drink their babies' milk, use their skin and fur, etc etc etc. And you are right, it *is* horrifying. The response to the horror is to go vegan.

  • NZ Vegan Since becoming vegan it has struck me forcibly how the fact that there are no consequences for participating in the torture and slaughter of other animals, for the reasons of pleasure, amusement and/or convenience is chillingly reflected in how people can without license and seemingly unconcerned, blithely 'defend' their participation in it by saying "I am firmly convinced it's not a problem to do this to other animals" or "well I like eating them so that's that" etc (I used to think those things too).

    Being an abolitionist vegan in the current paradigm is exactly like it must have been for the abolitionists against race based slavery in the US and elsewhere, living in societies where the socially accepted norm was to enslave people based on their skin colour, and to be surrounded by defenders of such, and to know that what they were doing was not only perfectly legal, not only vociferously defended, but the social norm. Oh well, sanity prevailed there too in the end
  • NZ Vegan In fact Gary Francione was the one who brought that home to me when I first ever interviewed him on my podcast (the bit about how there are no consequences whatsoever for continuing to participate in the exploitation and slaughter of animals). I wish I could remember exactly what he said, i will have to go and find it. I have never forgotten it.

  • NZ Vegan "Well no, a normal diet is normal, having slaves is not."

    Oh that's very convincing. Not. It is totally arbitrary statement. You and I have very different ideas of what is "normal" and "oh that's 'normal' just doesn't cut it. It's 'normal' for many civilisations to rape girl children and sell them as sex slaves. If they said to you 'it's normal" in answer to your protestations of the immorality of that, I am sure you will not accept that (or maybe you would, I don't know. *I* certainly don't).

    The only relevant thing that has been established is that human beings *thrive* on vegan diets. That is a fact. The other thing that has been established is that veganism is not a diet and involves all animal use. That is another fact.

    I have read your comments and am beginning to err on the side that you simply don't care, or don't care enough (I may be wrong). As there are plenty of other people who do care, I will use my energy on them. I hope you think about this some more, but that is up to you. Ciao.
  • NZ Vegan In other words, I hope I am wrong but in the time when it was indeed "normal" to have slaves (it's not normal NOW -that's my point) I am sad to think you would have been one of the people vociferously defending it as "normal". I am only inferring that from your comments here and could be completely incorrect about you of course

    söndag 28 juli 2013

    Reply to non-vegan: I transition only to veganism if there are delicious meat-alternatives

    My reply:
    Dr. Neal Barnard's Book for Reversing Diabetes: “You will find that your taste buds have a memory of about 3 weeks.”

    There are plenty of delicious recipes here:

    I noticed this anecdotally myself when starting to eat a vegan diet last autumn, and I have many others saying the same.

    Please consider this:
    "On one hand, we claim to regard animals as members of the moral community. We claim to embrace a moral and legal obligation not to inflict “unnecessary” suffering or death on animals. We can, of course, debate the meaning of “necessity,” but whatever it means, it must rule out suffering and death imposed for reasons of human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. If it does not do so, then the exception would completely swallow the moral rule.
    The problem is that 99.99% of our animal use cannot be justified by anything but human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, we kill more than 12 billion land animals every year in the United States alone for food. No one maintains that it is necessary to eat animals to lead an optimally healthy lifestyle and an increasing number of mainstream health care professionals tell us that animal foods are detrimental to our health. Animal agriculture is a disaster for the environment because it involves a most inefficient use of natural resources and creates water pollution, soil erosion, and greenhouse gasses. The only justification that we have for the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on these billions of animals is that we enjoy eating animal foods, or that it is convenient to do so, or that it is just plain habit."

    Veganism is our moral obligation. I also recommend http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach
    Even if a vegan diet was boring, which isn't the case, this wouldn't suffice as a moral justification for harming and killing animals. There is no moral justification for harming and killing animals for pleasure/convenience.

    Är det rätt/moraliskt att skada/döda djur för mat?

    Är det rätt att skada och döda djur för mat???

    Vi kan leva minst lika hälsosamma liv på en vegansk diet utan djurprodukter (kött, mjölk, ägg, osv):
    Vi har inget som helst näringsmässigt behov av att äta kött, mjölk, ägg och andra djurprodukter. Världens största hälso- och nutritionist-organisation, American Dietetic Association, vidkänner att en diet utan djurprodukter är hälsosamma och innehåller all näring, och även kan förse med hälsofördelar i att förebygga och behandla vissa sjukdomar [1].
    Djurprodukter är skadliga för oss: Se bl.a. forskningen bakom www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ och http://www.thechinastudy.com/the-china-study/about/

    Det finns det ingen som helst nödvändighet att vi skadar och dödar djur. Vi kan med enkelhet leva och vara optimalt hälsosamma på en vegansk diet och således behöver vi inte skada och döda djur för att få den näring som vi behöver. Den enda anledningen till att äta djurprodukter är att vi gillar det/bekvämlighet, vilket inte är en god anledning till att skada och döda djur. Om vi säger att det är moraliskt acceptabelt att döda djur för njutningen av djurprodukter, så måste vi också acceptera att det är moraliskt acceptabelt att döda djur för andra sorters njutning, inklusive de som njuter av djurplågeri. Vi anser att djurplågeri är moraliskt förkastligt just för att det skadar och dödar djur utan någon god anledning.
    Jag rekommenderar dig även att läsa igenom: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-alskar-vi-hundar-men-dodar-och.html och http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

    269life, djurens rättigheter, människors rättigheter, misantropi, vegan

    269life är misantropiska.(innebär att man känner hat eller starkt ogillande mot mänskliga släktet)
    Bl.a. skriver de: “The other part of the speciesist activists in our movement are the activists who also take part in human rights actions.”
    Gary Francione bemötder detta bra:
    From a portion of an email received this morning from the U.S.:
    "Isn't it speciesism to work for human rights when so many animals suffer more than humans and because humans who get more rights will exploit more animals?"

    My reply:
    "The short version of my reply: absolutely not!

    I have received a number of emails and private messages over the past few months asking versions of this question. I am puzzled as to the source of this recent interest, but I want to be clear that I find this way of thinking to be misanthropic (in addition to otherwise involving a lack of rational thought) and

    I reject it entirely and unequivocally. The abolitionist approach is about recognizing that *all* forms of discrimination involve violence and violence is morally unjustifiable.
    If someone works for the civil rights of people of color, is s/he racist because there are more white people numerically and, therefore, whites, many of whom suffer, present a situation of "more" suffering? Of course not. If someone works for LGBT rights, is s/he sexist because one might argue that as there are more women numerically and sexism is a serious problem, women suffer "more"? No, of course not.

    I don't believe in ranking evils. Indeed, I find it an absolutely absurd exercise. If someone asks me: "Is the slaughter of animals worse than the Holocaust?," I always reply: "Was Hitler's killing of Jews worse than his killing of non-Jewish Poles or Romanies?" If someone asks me: "Is racism worse than speciesism?," I always reply: "Is racism worse than sexism?" Anyway, I won't play the "ranking evils" game. I reject *all* forms of hatred, discrimination, and violence whether involving humans or nonhumans. Period.

    I applaud the efforts of all those who devote themselves to the struggle for social justice and the rights of minorities, women, children, disabled people, the elderly, the poor, etc. The world is full of suffering and injustice. I support the efforts of anyone who seeks justice and who promotes peace and nonviolence.

    I just ask them all to be vegans as they fight for justice in whatever context they do so. If, for example, you are working for children's rights, you still have to eat and wear clothes. So be vegan and consume non-animal foods and don't wear animal products. Encourage others to be vegan and practice nonviolence with respect to animals. You can do that whatever other rights movement you are involved in. I have made this point in my writing. For example, see:

    The idea that we should not promote human rights because humans will exploit more animals if they have more rights is beyond bizarre. On what empirical basis can we say that if X is the victim of racism, and we eliminate racism, X will exploit more animals? We can't. And even if there were an empirical basis to make this claim, which there isn't, to say that we shouldn't oppose racism because it will lead to more animal exploitation does not mean we shouldn't oppose racism. It just means that we should always make any fight for justice one that is squarely based on a philosophy of nonviolence that rejects all discrimination.
    Thank you for writing."

    Citat och se också kommentarerna i denna artikel: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=156275557725540&story_fbid=186054218185518 [Där det bl.a. finns en referens till 269lifes misantropi]

    En annan artikel: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/do-abolitionists-have-a-position-on-human-rights-you-bet-we-do

    Det här är mina tankar om 'open rescue'-aktioner: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/are-vegans-justified-to-use-violence-to.html


    Om man ska följa uttalandet från 269life så är det etiskt fel att kämpa emot rasism, sexism, etcetera. Jag menar motsatsen, det är vår etiska skyldighet att bekämpa all sorts våld och diskrimering. Jag tror de flesta också förstår att det är en bra sak att kämpa mot prostitution, kämpa för homosexuellas rättigheter, kvinnors rättigheter, osv, och att det är vår moraliska skyldighet att gripa in om t.ex. någon försöker våldta en kvinna av sexistiska motiv eller mörda en mörkhyad person av rasistiska anledningar, osv.

    Jag håller med om denna princip:
    ”Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.”

    Alltså, de har helt fel när de säger:
    'speciesist activists in our movement are the activists who also take part in human rights actions.”'
    och de skadar människor och även andra djur genom detta uttalande.
    Misantropi, och hatiska inlägg från veganer, är ytterligare en "ursäkt" för människor att inte bli veganer.

    Injustices anywhere, hurts everyone, everywhere.


    Här är citatet i sin helhet som jag diskuterar:

    The other part of the speciesist activists in our movement are the activists who also take part in human rights actions. This is a problematic and very crucial
    issue that I don’t want to get into too much because it is another whole interview, but I have to mention it. It’s unacceptable for anyone who consider themselves a non-speciesist vegan person to promote human rights. Can anyone imagine a partisan who fights at noon to liberate Jews from concentration camps held by Nazis, and at night to make conditions for the Nazis better? It’s a contradiction. We, as people who are committed to justice, cannot ignore that contradiction. We need to understand that theoretically, animals deserve rights just as humans deserve rights. Theoretically we are all equal in the moral status, but in reality, human rights come at the expense of animal rights. It’s a fact. As the socio-economic situation of people improves, more animals are abused and murdered. As more countries become free and developed, the more we’ll see industrialized animal agriculture. [...] Helping humans won’t make them be more compassionate for animals, so let’s save the time and help directly to animals, that way we cannot lose. If this logic was true, all the rich people would be vegans, as they have very good socio-economic status” ~ 269life.
    Och feltänket i detta resonemang adresseras här: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=156275557725540&story_fbid=186054218185518

    När jag kämpar mot ideologin rasism och ideologin sexism, så deltar jag i ”human right actions”, och är enligt 269life en speciecist, och jag gör något som är etiskt fel.

    Mitt resonemang ovan är:
    Om vi förstår att det är rätt att ingripa när någon blir våldtagen av sexistiska skäl, måste vi också förstå att det är etiskt rätt att arbeta mot ideologin av sexism, och att vi också har en skyldighet att upplysa sexistiska människor om dessa tankegångar t.ex. kommer upp i en diskussion.
    Allt våld och diskriminering är självklart fel oavsett anledning.