Philosophical Vegan Forum

I was involved with PETA quite a lot when I was younger. It's my involvement that lead me to going vegan in the first place. At the time, I think, PETA was not as vocal in Canada as it was in the US - being both young and Canadian, I never encountered some of PETA's more ridiculous ads until later on in life (e.g. their ads exploiting sex and nudity, their ads talking about obesity and weight-loss, ridiculing body hair or making other unsavoury statements). I never saw the ugly, sexist, racist, ableist, etc. side of PETA.

It is no secret that PETA supports the euthanization of animals. When I had joined up with PETA, they taught me that their support for animal euthanization was so that animals "too sick to be loved" could pass away peacefully. We were lead to believe that the only animals who were euthanized were those who were extremely damaged beyond saving, that trying to save their life would cause them a lot of pain and it is in their best interests to let them pass with kindness and dignity. But as years went on and I began to study the real supported views and actions of PETA concerning euthanization, I found out that this is not exactly the case. They do not only euthanize animals who are sick or hurt. They euthanize, just like any kill shelter, animals who didn't find homes. Even healthy animals.

People hear this and act shocked, as if the SPCA and every average animal shelter doesn't also kill animals despite claiming to be proponents of animal welfare and rights. If you think it is shocking that PETA supports the deaths of animals, but not shocking that we allow so many kill shelters to operate in our cities, I think there's something to be said about hypocrisy there.

Why is euthanasia of animals so often supported? It's not because there are so many animals beyond saving. It's because to save an animal, you have to spend money on their treatments and surgeries. Since most people who support animal welfare admit that animals' lives aren't nearly as valuable as human lives, it's also not hard to see that they often believe money is more valuable than an animal's life. Our shelters are full of animals who haven't yet found a home, and it is extremely expensive to try and accommodate all of them in one place in the long run. Euthanasia exists because of our choices - because we choose to shop instead of adopt, because there are people out there who still don't want to neuter/spay their pets, because human beings are making irresponsible choices when it comes to the lives of animals.

Yes, PETA supports euthanasia, and they shouldn't. But they really aren't the only ones who support euthanasia, and they aren't creating a system in which euthanasia becomes the only option. We are creating that world, we have to take some responsibility.

HOWEVER, the claim that "PETA KILLS" more animals than the average kill shelter is a bit of sensationalized propaganda pushed by meat lobbyists and anti-veg*n advocates. The demonization of PETA (which wasn't hard with their shady ad tactics) needs to be taken in the context it was created. I think we need to make it clear to people that when we criticize PETA, it's because they're not doing enough for animals, not because we should do less for animals. Criticism of PETA should lead people to go vegan, not affirm their omnivorism.

Volenta wrote:I think that animal welfare opponents have a fear of animal circumstances getting a bit too good and therefore run out of arguments to oppose the consumption of meat and other animal products. And if that happens, there is a fear that the end goal of liberation never will be realized. Besides, vegetarians could go back to eating meat if the circumstances are better. I think this is the underlying motivation of the abolitionist camp.

I don't think animal circumstances will be getting "too good" in the near future. The population of earth is expected to reach ten billion before stabilizing, the earth has the capacity to sustain only ten billion vegans(http://www.livescience.com/16493-people ... pport.html), therefore the Meat Industry in order to survive, would have to make their model as energy efficient as possible, a modern factory farm is the result of this need for efficiency(minimize animal movement to minimize energy lost as heat etc). For this to happen the demand for meat must not decrease, unfortunately most of the increase in population will happen in the developing and un-developed countries, these are the countries where the demand for meat will increase as people come out of poverty(http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/11/3907S.long). My conclusion would be that as long as the meat industry exists the condition of animals would continue to deteriorate.

preet wrote:I don't think animal circumstances will be getting "too good" in the near future.

Well, of course there already is the happy meat industry. Animals have generally more space, less stress, toys to play with, are free to go outside, things like that. There just are less objections to be given to this situations. Is it a morally justifiable method? No, of course not, but for many people this is enough (at least they think it's okay because of propaganda). Animal people have to push harder to convince people why it's still unethical. And I think this is the fear abolitionists have.

preet wrote:The population of earth is expected to reach ten billion before stabilizing, the earth has the capacity to sustain only ten billion vegans(http://www.livescience.com/16493-people ... pport.html), therefore the Meat Industry in order to survive, would have to make their model as energy efficient as possible, a modern factory farm is the result of this need for efficiency(minimize animal movement to minimize energy lost as heat etc). For this to happen the demand for meat must not decrease, unfortunately most of the increase in population will happen in the developing and un-developed countries, these are the countries where the demand for meat will increase as people come out of poverty(http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/11/3907S.long). My conclusion would be that as long as the meat industry exists the condition of animals would continue to deteriorate.

It's absolutely true that it's unsustainable, and that's why there eventually will be alternative food sources (currently they are already looking at making food out of insects). I don't think the progress welfarists already have established will be dismissed / roll backwards, but there certainly will be a conflict between different values in the future. Welfare reforms require more space, while sustainability requires factory farming (ignoring climate problems for a second). So I think the future would be even harder for us if there weren't welfare reforms already established.

Be aware though that the unsustainability of future farming is really different subject. I was talking about abolitionists being against PETA because they are welfarists.

currently they are already looking at making food out of insects

Interesting, what would be the advantage of using insects?(apart from the fact that it might be ethically more acceptable) How would it be more sustainable?

Be aware though that the unsustainability of future farming is really different subject. I was talking about abolitionists being against PETA because they are welfarists.

I shouldn't have taken the statement out of context.

preet wrote:

currently they are already looking at making food out of insects

Interesting, what would be the advantage of using insects?(apart from the fact that it might be ethically more acceptable) How would it be more sustainable?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM8s1ch5TRw

tldr; it's a more sustainable way of getting animal protein because insects require less food or something.

as far as i know animal protein is something we should avoid, also plants are still more effective than insects

if only we could get this notion that we need animal protein out of people's heads..

miniboes wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM8s1ch5TRw

tldr; it's a more sustainable way of getting animal protein because insects require less food or something.

as far as i know animal protein is something we should avoid, also plants are still more effective than insects

if only we could get this notion that we need animal protein out of people's heads..

Absolutely. It's an easy source to get much of the essential nutrition—just like meat is—so people look for alternatives like this. I would suspect it's also a lot healthier than meat. Seaweed is also a serious candidate for future food, which luckily for us is vegan.

Secretly it's also pretty hilarious that people rather eat insects rather than going vegan.

Volenta wrote:Secretly it's also pretty hilarious that people rather eat insects rather than going vegan.

Yeah, it just proves how powerful the lobbying of meat and dairy industry has been. It's truly sad.

http://www.peta.org/blog/eight-secrets-peta-works/
Really nice video, explains the reason why PETA does the things, it does.

Is it true that they threw animal blood on everyone who was wearing jackets make of animal fur? Wait a minute.. where did they get the blood from?

RedAppleGP wrote:Is it true that they threw animal blood on everyone who was wearing jackets make of animal fur? Wait a minute.. where did they get the blood from?

I think they use red paint.