Blogosaurus Vex

April 19th, 2007

A good comment was left for me. While I generally blog about light, fluffy topics, occasionally I do stray into more serious matter. Vegetarianism is that kind of matter. Without further ado, the comment, and my response:

From Incognito, in reference to A Fish Is Not A Vegetable:

Pescetarianism would be the term for the fish and vegetable ideal. (Thank you!)

But are you also against animal testing? Giving some poor heartless baby a Baboon heart? Lab experiments on mice?

Do we have philosophical consistency in our moral stance on a steakless life?

Do I have philosophical consistency? The short answer is, of course not.

A brief preamble: in general, I choose not to eat meat for two reasons. The first is the deplorable, atrocious living conditions that meat animals suffer under. The second is the massive environmental damage that is a direct result of meat production, be it animal waste runoff or dragnet fishing. But when you get right down to it, vegetarianism is a philosophical farce. Every day I do things that impact the earth and the other creatures on it in terrible, negative ways. I drive my car. I take medications that have doubtless been tested on animals. I study in a field that makes regular use of rodents and primates for research. Even the vegetables I eat are grown on land that has been cleared of its indigenous life to make room for wheat, as well as sprayed with pesticides, and so on.

Even Jains can’t avoid harm.

That said, there are actual, measurable gains to be made as a vegetarian. In fact, a tiny amount of animal meat less is needed for the world now that I no longer buy it, and I imagine that somehow that must translate into less deaths. (Well, probably just more waste… but if you imagine the vegetarians as a block, then we have some progress.) The same can be said, by extension, for environmental damage that results from meat production. Less meat made means less damage done. These are worthy achievements.

But in fact I do think humans are more important than animals. I totally support medical testing on animals, though I believe it should be as ethical as possible (for example, you can easily look up research standards, and they require things like application of anesthetics, comfortable living conditions with access to other animals for socialization, and so on). Of course testing is cruel and awful, but I’m comfortable paying that price for the maintenance and advancement of medical science. If a baby needed a baboon heart (I don’t know anything about this, including whether it’s ever happened or is even possible), I say fuck the baboon. Lab experiments on mice? In general, I support ethical use of animals in scientific research. I personally wouldn’t want to do it, and I guess that tells you something – but I am untroubled by the use of mice or rats in labs. Yet I wouldn’t buy fur and I also don’t buy leather.

There is some kind of complicated math of relative value at play here and I am no philosopher, and don’t pretend it’s airtight or perfectly reasoned out. So bear with me.

It an inescapable reality that we live in a tightly interlocked ecosystem here on Earth. If we don’t change how we live, we’re going to find ourselves without a viable planet. I suppose a cynic could say I make my choices ultimately to serve the best interest of people, and to a degree that is true. But there is also an ethical component.

Someone said we should eat meat because we’re top of the food chain. I think that’s bogus. Given we’re top of the food chain, does that give us the right to eat meat? Here’s another question: because men are bigger and stronger than women, does that give them the right to rape? What’s the difference? There is none. In both cases we have one most powerful agent, one victim group, and one desire (we’ll leave aside the multiplicity of reasons for raping and meat eating and just lump them together under the heading of “things we want to do,” i.e. pleasures). In both cases the agent is able to enforce their will. But as a society we think one is fine and the other is punishable by jail time. I realize drawing analogies is fraught with danger but I hope you see that my point is this: just because we can eat meat isn’t a good enough reason to do so. We are a thinking animal, and there is some responsibility that comes along with that. Once you find out how most meat is produced, it becomes impossible to justify supporting that system. Once you learn about the social and mental lives of animals, it starts to feel bad to kill them. We love our pets to distraction; why can’t we see that a pig is just a pet we haven’t met yet?

Where is this going… certainly I am an imperfect creature who is obviously only partially committed to change and to my morals. But you have to start somewhere. Being imperfect is no reason to abandon the whole project entirely. It’s not like we can’t live harmlessly on Earth so we should just go and light all the oil wells in Iraq on fire, what the hell, the planet’s doomed anyway. I believe every bit counts. I’m doing some bits. They count.

Posted in Personal, Vegetarianism | 5 Comments »