You are right. Who is demanding the supply?
Animals are used in vivisection to find cure for diseases, etc. Most people think that it is justified to use animals for vivisection in our society. The demand is created by 99% of our population that believe this. Everyone on this thread agrees with that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary harm on animals.
Did you know that we have no nutritional need for animal foods. The production of meat, milk, dairy products, honey, leather, eggs all involves exploitation. The animals used for eggs and dairy products are killed when their production declines. Cows, chickens and other animals regularly get their families destroyed. Cow mothers get their babies ripped away from them within the first week of them being born. I went vegan when I realized all of this, since I didn’t want to be a part of paying for animal exploitation.
There will be vivisection of monkeys as long as our society justifies the exploitation of animals for completely frivolous reasons, such as exploiting them for the palate pleasure or convenience of animal foods, despite that we have no nutritional need for animal foods.
Animals are exploited for vivisection, because they are property under law and they are property and resources in our society. If you don't want this to happen - go vegan.
Visar inlägg med etikett nonvegan. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett nonvegan. Visa alla inlägg
måndag 5 maj 2014
fredag 2 maj 2014
Why and how I went vegan
I went vegan in October 2012 when I understood that it was wrong to consume animal foods. For most of my life I have been wanting to live an ethical life, I have just been very confused about what this entails... I was religious for a long while and in the autumn of 2012 I encountered some vegans in a religious group that I was invited to discussing veganism.. The arguments resonated in me. I didn't want to be a part of exploiting animals, so I went vegan. First I ditched meat and fish. Then I understood that there was exploitation involved in dairy and eggs, so I stopped consuming them. Then I understood that there was exploitation involved in honey, so I stopped with that. I also understood why it is wrong to kill animals for leather, etc.. And within some weeks I had stopped with all animal use.
About that time I also bought a dog.. Then I came in contact with Abolitionist veganism shortly after and understood that also breeding animals is exploiting animals..
About that time I also bought a dog.. Then I came in contact with Abolitionist veganism shortly after and understood that also breeding animals is exploiting animals..
How First world-choices and consumerism effect the exploitation of humans and animals, poverty, starvation
We live in an insane world where:
-"Aesthetics" is more important than the welfare and health of homeless people. E.g. some States in US have laws that prohibit homeless people from having their belonging on “public property”. See article in note 1.
-Consumerism and buying more stuff than what we need for our survival – more clothes than we need, entertainment, things, etc. – is more important than helping 40 000 people that daily die by starvation and 800 million people in the world are malnourished.
- “Tastebuds”/convenience/social acceptance is more important than to respect and not exploiting nonhuman animals. If we respect animals and want to stop exploit animals we go vegan.
-People choose to consume chocolate despite that it pays for both the exploitation of humans in slave factories and cows being exploited for milk [See The Dark Side of Chocolate].
-Our consumption of cheap garments is causing the exploitation and death of factory workers in Bangladesh, China and other countries: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/cause-of-injustices-in-bangladesh-eg-in.html
-Our use of many electronic devices is paying for the exploitation of people in Congo: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/03/slavery-involved-in-producing.html
I wish and work for a world where we don’t exacerbate the poverty, starvation, injustices, environmental destruction involved in/exacerbated by the production and consumption of animal foods, which involves breeding up, using, unnecessarily harming and killing animals for food; and giving them feed that could have been used to feed starving people; while taking their land, driving them out of their homes and growing feed and raising “cattle” on land that could have been used to feed the indigenous population [2]. The feed that feeds the animals only in USA could be used to feed 800 million people. At the same time several million people die of starvation and 870 million suffering from chronic undernourishment [4]. And we have no nutritional need for this (see below).
Learn more here (including notes 2/ and 4/): http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/12/happy-new-vegan-year-free-of-violence.html
I wish and work for a world where we all can live in nonviolent self-sustained vegan permaculture-community promoting veganism and human rights: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vision-for-nonviolent-vegan.html
I understand that we in this damaged and violent world can’t escape to make choices that will harm someone else; but we shouldn’t directly exploit anyone and we should minimize the destructive impact we have to others, at the same time we maximize the positive impact we have by helping other human and nonhumans – both through stopping others from exploiting others and through helping others to become self-sustained and come out of poverty and other misery.
Do your best to be a part of the solution and not to perpetuate the problem. Go vegan. Oppose all discrimination. Live a minimalistic, non-consumerist, nonviolent lifestyle. Do your best to become self-sustained and not to be a part of the destructive monoculture-system that provides most of the food in the stores. Do your best to make this planet to a planet where justice, nonviolence and peace prevails!
Thanks for reading! Please share if you think this message is important!
Note 1. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/21/3428899/fort-lauderdale-criminalize-homelessness/
-"Aesthetics" is more important than the welfare and health of homeless people. E.g. some States in US have laws that prohibit homeless people from having their belonging on “public property”. See article in note 1.
-Consumerism and buying more stuff than what we need for our survival – more clothes than we need, entertainment, things, etc. – is more important than helping 40 000 people that daily die by starvation and 800 million people in the world are malnourished.
- “Tastebuds”/convenience/social acceptance is more important than to respect and not exploiting nonhuman animals. If we respect animals and want to stop exploit animals we go vegan.
-People choose to consume chocolate despite that it pays for both the exploitation of humans in slave factories and cows being exploited for milk [See The Dark Side of Chocolate].
-Our consumption of cheap garments is causing the exploitation and death of factory workers in Bangladesh, China and other countries: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/cause-of-injustices-in-bangladesh-eg-in.html
-Our use of many electronic devices is paying for the exploitation of people in Congo: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/03/slavery-involved-in-producing.html
I wish and work for a world where we don’t exacerbate the poverty, starvation, injustices, environmental destruction involved in/exacerbated by the production and consumption of animal foods, which involves breeding up, using, unnecessarily harming and killing animals for food; and giving them feed that could have been used to feed starving people; while taking their land, driving them out of their homes and growing feed and raising “cattle” on land that could have been used to feed the indigenous population [2]. The feed that feeds the animals only in USA could be used to feed 800 million people. At the same time several million people die of starvation and 870 million suffering from chronic undernourishment [4]. And we have no nutritional need for this (see below).
Learn more here (including notes 2/ and 4/): http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/12/happy-new-vegan-year-free-of-violence.html
I wish and work for a world where we all can live in nonviolent self-sustained vegan permaculture-community promoting veganism and human rights: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vision-for-nonviolent-vegan.html
I understand that we in this damaged and violent world can’t escape to make choices that will harm someone else; but we shouldn’t directly exploit anyone and we should minimize the destructive impact we have to others, at the same time we maximize the positive impact we have by helping other human and nonhumans – both through stopping others from exploiting others and through helping others to become self-sustained and come out of poverty and other misery.
Do your best to be a part of the solution and not to perpetuate the problem. Go vegan. Oppose all discrimination. Live a minimalistic, non-consumerist, nonviolent lifestyle. Do your best to become self-sustained and not to be a part of the destructive monoculture-system that provides most of the food in the stores. Do your best to make this planet to a planet where justice, nonviolence and peace prevails!
Thanks for reading! Please share if you think this message is important!
Note 1. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/21/3428899/fort-lauderdale-criminalize-homelessness/
How capitalism is incompatible with ecological sustainability
måndag 27 maj 2013
Should non-human animals be vegan?? Is it immoral for carnivores to eat animals?
Stephanie,
You
wrote: “Why are you holding other species to human-invented standards, as if we
are "better" than they are?”
I believe
‘“all breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain, nor
treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away.” is a
universal moral principle, not a ‘human-invented standard’. ‘Human-invented
standard’ sounds like postmodernism (i.e. morals are relative, not absolute),
and I know you don’t adhere to this.
But if we
believe in an absolute moral, why would we think that this moral would follow
arbitrary taxonomic concepts?
Why would
we think that that a universal moral principle wouldn’t apply on some species
that evolved to become carnivores? If humans would evolve to become carnivores,
then suddenly the universal moral principle would be invalid just because of a
change in DNA? Why would it??
You
wrote: “That's one of the causes of domestication, trying to make other species
into what we would have them be.”
The cause
of domestication is violence – using violence to exploit and enslave other sentient
beings. I am not advocating universal moral principles using violence. The
cause of domestication is the use of violence, instead of love, compassion and
nonviolence. I am not using violence towards anyone to act according to the
above belief of nonviolence.The end doesn’t justify the means.
“and
start doing things YOUR WAY.”
I argue
what I believe is a universal principle of not inflicting harm upon others. I
believe we are all consciousness. I think that claiming that the non-human
animals don’t have any ethical standard to keep is underestimating who they
are, their purpose, and that is focusing on their body and DNA instead of their
spiritual consciousness.
[Part 1
of 2]
Cannibalism
among the primates is a social behavior, as is eating other animal products.
Gorillas and many vegan humans are leading the way – showing how to eat in an
ethical way.
One quote: "The one historical constant in my field is that each time a claim of human uniqueness bites the dust, other claims quickly take its place. Meanwhile, science keeps chipping away at the wall that separates us from the other animals. We have moved from viewing animals as instinct-driven stimulus-response machines to seeing them as sophisticated decision makers. "
Another quote:
"Dale Peterson, one of the world’s leading chimpanzee researchers, once mentioned to me that he believes chimps given the opportunity to satisfy their hunger with plant sources may very well ponder the morality of eating other animals. Could they be evolving ethically, just as we humans are?"
From an interesting article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578370574285382756.html
Another quote: ”Primatologist Jane Goodall became the first to describe such behavior when she witnesses a mother-daughter duo of chimpanzees kill and eat three chimpanzee infants in 1976 and since, it has been described by a number of other researchers. There are a number of possible explanations for such behavior. Due to human encroachment, food is becoming scarcer and more chimpanzees are being cramped into a smaller and smaller area which is a recipe for disaster. As this happens, different groups of primates will be forced into conflict with one another and are fighting territorial debates. Interestingly enough, a study of one group of chimpanzees found that only the aggressive females were involved in the cannibalism of chimpanzee infants. Male chimps were even spotted trying to separate the females from the infants, males that researchers believed to have fathered the infants in question which suggests that chimpanzees have more highly developed social and familial ties than once believed.”
[Related to this article: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Female-Chimps-Practice-Heavily-Infanticide-and-Cannibalism-54687.shtml ]
Who is doing the right thing??: The chimpanzee trying to save the baby, or the chimpanzee trying to kill the baby? Or does a moral universal principle not apply at all?? If so – why not?
One quote: "The one historical constant in my field is that each time a claim of human uniqueness bites the dust, other claims quickly take its place. Meanwhile, science keeps chipping away at the wall that separates us from the other animals. We have moved from viewing animals as instinct-driven stimulus-response machines to seeing them as sophisticated decision makers. "
Another quote:
"Dale Peterson, one of the world’s leading chimpanzee researchers, once mentioned to me that he believes chimps given the opportunity to satisfy their hunger with plant sources may very well ponder the morality of eating other animals. Could they be evolving ethically, just as we humans are?"
From an interesting article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578370574285382756.html
Another quote: ”Primatologist Jane Goodall became the first to describe such behavior when she witnesses a mother-daughter duo of chimpanzees kill and eat three chimpanzee infants in 1976 and since, it has been described by a number of other researchers. There are a number of possible explanations for such behavior. Due to human encroachment, food is becoming scarcer and more chimpanzees are being cramped into a smaller and smaller area which is a recipe for disaster. As this happens, different groups of primates will be forced into conflict with one another and are fighting territorial debates. Interestingly enough, a study of one group of chimpanzees found that only the aggressive females were involved in the cannibalism of chimpanzee infants. Male chimps were even spotted trying to separate the females from the infants, males that researchers believed to have fathered the infants in question which suggests that chimpanzees have more highly developed social and familial ties than once believed.”
[Related to this article: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Female-Chimps-Practice-Heavily-Infanticide-and-Cannibalism-54687.shtml ]
Who is doing the right thing??: The chimpanzee trying to save the baby, or the chimpanzee trying to kill the baby? Or does a moral universal principle not apply at all?? If so – why not?
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)