This is one that comes up here and there. So, “fossil fuels” are almost entirely plant and bacterial matter- which would generally be considered vegan. There may and likely are some animals like fish in these fuels, in very small, generally most likely near infinitesimal amounts. On the one hand, hearing “it’s fin if there’s a little animal in there…” may irk anyone who’s ever had to pass on their favorite eastern with a vegan companion because meat and plants are prepared in the same space etc; on the other hand- we have to remember that the idealism of veganism isn’t actually about not using animal products- it’s in large part about avoiding or mitigating the exploitation of or cruelty to animals. In the case of fossil fuels, no cruelty is done to animals and no animals are strictly speaking exploited. The animals were dead- for eons- before their products were used- after nature had transformed their remains into a completely different form. The animals weren’t killed for the…
.. purpose of using their remains, nor were made to unduly suffer by any forces other than nature. This explanation may not satisfy all, but it’s fairly reasonable. If we were going to argue that vegans cannot drive it would make far more sense to point to the vehicles. While companies like Michelin have begun producing “vegan tires,” cars are chock full of animal products, not just things like leather interior- synthetic rubbers used in tires, seals, etc and all manner of elements of the car contain animal byproducts from animals that were killed in our own lifetimes and for the explicit purpose of processing them for commercial exploitation. Modern cars are packed full of electronics- electronics which use things like glues and screens and batteries which often contain animal products. You can see where that is going… in the modern world where cell phones and computers are so necessarily for so many to conduct their basic lives…
… we could say it isn’t actually possible to be a “pure vegan.” Common touchscreens like those in phones are often made with animal products for example. Buuuut…. Well…. The thing is that these things are really inescapable. Dirt itself- the place many veritable a come from- is full of animal products. Even many rocks and minerals come from animals (long gone.) The misconception is that vegan philosophy is all about not using animal products or benefiting from them. That’s not 100% true. Many wide spread vegan philosophies simply say that a vegan tries to minimize direct relationships to animal exploitation- and with reasonings based in animal suffering and/or the environment; and when practical or possible. With that understanding we can see that swallowing a fly doesn’t make a vegan a hypocrite nor does necessarily driving a car or using a computer or even wearing an animal product perhaps.
I can put it into another frame to make more sense of it. Someone who wants to preserve water because they are concerned about the environment or the exploitation of water rights for the less privileged- they might avoid long showers and use more efficient appliances. They might use low/no water landscaping at home and not consume drinks like soda which as an industry tends to use a lot of drinkable water to produce a much smaller volume of liquid product. Things like that. Most of us upon hearing someone say they are a water conservationist wouldn’t scream: “gotcha hypocrite!” Because we saw them with ice in a drink or swimming in a lake. The idea is that some reduction in harm is better than none, not that we can escape practical reality through idealism. For most anyway. There surely are those vegans who are obnoxious or completely lacking awareness. There are people like that who aren’t vegan though- so that’s not a specific strike against vegans.
I will say that we can argue that even if trying does no practical good, that making an effort in the interest of doing good is better than not trying at all- in that view we could see that if a person has all failing grades in school, it doesn’t change reality if they study hours a day or skip class everyday- the reality is the grades are failing. That said- most people would probably be more sympathetic to the failing student who is making every effort they can to try and do better even if it isn’t paying off. The practical reality is that there is a greater chance in general that the person making some effort might actually one day see positive results from their efforts versus the person who is putting in no effort.
Of course- it’s also true that sometimes trying to do good is worse than doing nothing. Often we try to do good for how it makes us feel vs. actual results. Good intentions are behind some terrible things in history. Those trying to “help” out of good intentions…
.. can do more harm than good depending upon the circumstances. A classic example is where many programs where volunteers would travel to underdeveloped communities and build things have fallen out of favor. In many cases these programs were actually shown to do harm. Having free labor come in and erect buildings tends to have a negative impact on those who’s livelihoods come from building things. So many of these programs have shifted to providing labor for native companies to build faster or take on more complex projects, or simply raising funds and offering grants to local businesses and those in a community with plans and demonstrated ability to deliver plans for a greater good. There are many other examples, but never forget that many believed colonialism was “helping” “primitive” peoples “become better.” So intentions aren’t where the rubber hits the road.
On that note- much of what I’ve said may sound like a glowing review defending vegan ideologies or even advocating them. I will be clear when I say I generally do not. I simply believe in reason and motivating bias. It is also true that I am against misdirected criticism. That is to say, even if I don’t support a politician but someone outright lies about them, of course I would speak up- what is being attacked there isn’t the politician- the truth is being attacked. What’s worse, where valid criticisms exist for a thing and we focus on easily debunked mistruths or faulty logic and poor demonstrated understanding- that pulls a potentially productive conversation into a useless place. An example that is topical is Mr. Musk. Of hot debate are his politics. He’s being “attacked” as a flip flopper or conservative in liberals clothing. But… this just pulls the conversation away from relevant topics like his mistreatment of workers, disregards of rights and law, grand and false promises…
.. and a litany of other issues that are of more practical concern to society at large than who he plans to vote for. He is often the target of mistruths or half truths, salacious reporting etc. and each such story not only distracts from the relevant- it desensitizes us. “The boy who cried wolf” and all that. When you criticize an ideology, a person, etc. and you do so repeatedly under easily disproven or fundamentally flawed methods and reasoning- it generally hurts a cause. Each rebuffed attempt creates an image that you’re simply “out for blood” and will grasp any straw, or that your entire point isn’t valid because so many aspects are faulty. We see this prominently in issues like the “gun debate.”
Those “pro gun” people often roll their eyes as words like “assault weapon” or “bump stock” enter a public lexicon and are thrown around and misused. So many gun laws and debate topics rely on talking points that anyone with causal fire arms knowledge could easily debunk. The…
.. smallest, “low power” cartridges are referenced as “powerful rounds” and blatant factual errors are made like stating a common rifle has a cyclical rate that would make a chain gun jealous. This cements the stance of so many “pro gun” people that “anti gun” people are too ignorant to discuss the issue, that they will do or say anything. Etc etc. it creates grounds to dismiss even legitimate arguments without listening because after having one’s time wasted so many times, why would you listen now? The reverse is true as well- with “anti gun” people often being subjected to “hill people” arguments and ridiculous decrees. The number of “pro gun” people I’ve heard make impassioned arguments based in their constitutional rights… by people who then proceeded to demonstrate through their words that they didn’t actually know what the constitution said let alone understand the legal or functional principles or even basic functioning of the constitution or it’s place in law- staggering.
I don’t really blame anyone who tunes out the moment someone taking a pro gun stance mentions “constitutional rights” because most often, what comes after is either the exact same parroted argument that’s been said a million times or just.. utter nonsense. Ideas like the rights in the constitution are free from all constraint- which all we need to do is consider if constitutional rights know no restriction… how is it constitutional to throw a person in jail or require them to wear clothing in public or what part of the constitution allows the law to restrict things like necrophilia?
It’s like… derp.
The “vegan conversation” follows much the same pattern. As much as so many people cringe at “actually, I’m vegan” or such- imagine how so many vegans feel when the moment someone finds out or notices they are vegan- they can already predict how things will likely go?
I mean- what vegan hasn’t had to hear the “would you eat a chicken sandwich if someone threatened to kill 5 chickens if you didn’t..?” Or “if you’re vegan how do you justify driving a car/using electricity from fossil fuels” etc etc. In the end that’s all a bit circular. People should be free to make personal decisions about their lives overall.
There are however- in closing- valid concerns and criticisms surrounding vegan practices. These aren’t things that should be held against the character of any particular vegan, and no single vegan should be or is qualified to speak for every one who calls themselves a vegan or holds “vegan ideals.” There are things we can discuss though- ideas and perspectives to be shared.
while bacteria are neither plant nor animal, they are closer to animal most of the time... but the whole vegan thing is nonsense is anyway; we've gone over this before about how plants technically scream when they are eaten fresh, some require to be eaten for procreation, and some require wildfires or freezes.
Yes, various plants have all manner of distress response. Some plants have evolved to be able to “summon” insects or such to defend them, some plants “share” light or otherwise communicate and collaborate. Of course, the general conclusion is that plants are far simpler organisms and don’t “think” or “feel.” Of course- that’s the same argument that was applied to animals and often still is. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that medical science even recognized babies could feel pain. Let’s allow that to sink in- until the 1980’s, any given credible medical source would tell you that a human baby didn’t feel pain- or at the least that it couldn’t store a memory of that pain- that essentially pain didn’t effect babies. Human babies.
Given that our knowledge of cognition even in dogs- man’s best friend, our 40,000 companions and the creatures which many humans consider as literal family- sometimes consider more important than family or other humans- is extremely lacking- take those two facts and combine them; then factor in that we haven’t put anywhere near the time, effort, or care into understanding plants as living beings, and plants are far more foreign to out biology and cognition than most any animal, including our beloved dogs. What we get is a big question which doesn’t get much attention let alone even a thousandth of the research put into understanding the cat- another prominent animal in our lives that we have surprisingly sparse understanding of.
So I mean- yeah. The whole anti animal suffering logic to veganism is a touch arbitrary when we get to the philosophy of what makes it ok to kill a bug but not a shrimp, what makes a lizard any more worthy as a life form than a bacteria? What makes a plant less worthy as a life than a cow? That said- we all draw arbitrary lines. This lie is ok but that lie isn’t. Using one drug recreationally is ok but this other one isn’t. Etc etc. at the end of the day it often hinges on some level of practicality. It just isn’t possible to live without hurting by something or someone. Wether by necessity or self interest, few if anyone never breaks or bends their principles, most of us simply justify those breaks or bends. I can’t however say that just because we can’t get 100% results means that 0% is the only other option. Trying to reach 100% and falling short is probably better than settling for not trying because you can’t perfectly execute a principle. Though I would generally agree.
That last part "it just isn't possible to live without hurting" <--- truth... that's part of mother nature, and it the sooner it's accepted, the easier it gets; it's still hard if you focus on it, but it does get a little easier. Sometimes I like to think what critters my body will sustain when I die. That thought also helps.
For real. I mean, it can be hard to reconcile. Most people generally do t enjoy or would rather not be responsible for hurting others, but it’s just part of the rules. Many people feel a guilt- how can they generally enjoy life knowing that their life causes harm or that others are suffering on their behalf? The view is a bit narrow though. As you point out, one way or another, at some point life rules that we will also help others- if at least as raw materials back to the world when we decompose etc.that said we can certainly make conscious choices to reduce the harm we cause and increase the good we do. It’s not a numbers game, I can’t say how much or what “goods” can “balance” out bads, all I can say is that I think most people would agree that if something has guaranteed “bads” they’d at least prefer it come along with some “goods.”
oh yeah, forsure. Minimizing damage is what we can do, but that also shouldn't be our sole goal and drive us all crazy and annoy each other, cuz then we'd be doing more of the damage that we would be trying to manage.
Of course- it’s also true that sometimes trying to do good is worse than doing nothing. Often we try to do good for how it makes us feel vs. actual results. Good intentions are behind some terrible things in history. Those trying to “help” out of good intentions…
Those “pro gun” people often roll their eyes as words like “assault weapon” or “bump stock” enter a public lexicon and are thrown around and misused. So many gun laws and debate topics rely on talking points that anyone with causal fire arms knowledge could easily debunk. The…
It’s like… derp.
The “vegan conversation” follows much the same pattern. As much as so many people cringe at “actually, I’m vegan” or such- imagine how so many vegans feel when the moment someone finds out or notices they are vegan- they can already predict how things will likely go?
There are however- in closing- valid concerns and criticisms surrounding vegan practices. These aren’t things that should be held against the character of any particular vegan, and no single vegan should be or is qualified to speak for every one who calls themselves a vegan or holds “vegan ideals.” There are things we can discuss though- ideas and perspectives to be shared.