Philosophical Vegan Forum

At the moment our numbers are so low that most people just see us (vegans) as annoying, judgmental pricks, but what will happen once there are as many vegans as meat eaters? I don't think there is any historical precedent with two more polarized groups living side by side. With such strong emotions involved will it even be possible to keep the movement non violent? WIll there be a fraction within the vegan movement between moderate vegans and hardliners who will do anything to stop the killing of innocent animals?

Veganism is growing so fast in some countries, such as Israel, that I don't think it's unlikely that we will see this scenario in our life time.

Well, it could be a bit like the religious situation of the Netherlands, where atheists are now in the majority. At a certain point everybody would just be used to veganism and it might become a bit of a taboo to talk about eating meat. Later on young generations growing up in this society might naturally grow into veganism as it is so prevalent in the world around them. This is what happened with atheism here, and my best bet would be that the situation would be similar for veganism.

miniboes wrote:Well, it could be a bit like the religious situation of the Netherlands, where atheists are now in the majority. At a certain point everybody would just be used to veganism and it might become a bit of a taboo to talk about eating meat. Later on young generations growing up in this society might naturally grow into veganism as it is so prevalent in the world around them. This is what happened with atheism here, and my best bet would be that the situation would be similar for veganism.

I think the dynamics involved would be completely different. Even though religious people dislike atheists, most of them don't see us as a threat to their lifestyle. A meat eater, however, would fight to the bone to keep his right to eat meat. Also, I think vegans, in general hold a lot more contempt towards meat eaters than atheists do against religious people. Personally, seeing someone eat meat always makes me angry, whereas seeing someone practice their religion doesn't make me angry at all.

Another difference is that a strong vegan majority will most probably demand legislation against the production and consumption of meat whereas atheists will always support the right to religious freedom.

Jebus wrote:

miniboes wrote:Well, it could be a bit like the religious situation of the Netherlands, where atheists are now in the majority. At a certain point everybody would just be used to veganism and it might become a bit of a taboo to talk about eating meat. Later on young generations growing up in this society might naturally grow into veganism as it is so prevalent in the world around them. This is what happened with atheism here, and my best bet would be that the situation would be similar for veganism.

I think the dynamics involved would be completely different. Even though religious people dislike atheists, most of them don't see us as a threat to their lifestyle.

Well, they don't in the Netherlands anymore, but the situation in the US looks very different. Claims about the war on Christmas and stuff, the Christians seem to feel pretty threatened.

A meat eater, however, would fight to the bone to keep his right to eat meat.

Since when are we talking about rights? You said veganism approaching the majority, not a law being passed to ban eating meat. Perhaps meat-eaters would try to persuade veg*ns to eat meat to avoid the production of meat collapsing, but that's little different from religious people trying to get people to attend church.

Another difference is that a strong vegan majority will most probably demand legislation against the production and consumption of meat whereas atheists will always support the right to religious freedom.

I honestly don't think vegans would or should push for a meat ban. It would be much better to draw away government support (the subsidies that make meat affordable) and perhaps raise taxes for their GHG emmissions. Those would be way more subtle and are very similar to the push for secularism we see in the US right now (e.g. making churches pay taxes). Banning meat would perhaps also encourage illegal activities, as we see with drugs.

Also, I think vegans, in general hold a lot more contempt towards meat eaters than atheists do against religious people. Personally, seeing someone eat meat always makes me angry, whereas seeing someone practice their religion doesn't make me angry at all.

That's true, and I don't think it will be exactly the same. In fact, it might be completely different. I do think this is the most comparable scenario we have right now. Another comparable movement is the movement away from smoking, where now it's just kinda weird if someone smokes, that person is regarded as an addict and everybody just kinda moves away. The reaction might be more aggressive in the case of meat due to the morality of it though.

miniboes wrote:Another comparable movement is the movement away from smoking, where now it's just kinda weird if someone smokes, that person is regarded as an addict and everybody just kinda moves away. The reaction might be more aggressive in the case of meat due to the morality of it though.

Smoking, at least anywhere remotely public, is a serious moral issue too though; so they probably do have quite a bit in common.

I consider smokers to be bad people, they're each 10% responsible for the death of another human being (deaths from cancer, heart disease, and strokes due to second hand smoke exposure being about 10% of the deaths of first hand smoke, which is very nearly 100% of smokers).

I've never known anybody to ever reliably smoke in private or completely away from where anybody would be exposed to second hand smoke. It's possible, I'm sure, just like it's possible for somebody to eat only roadkill, but I don't believe anybody does it (extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence).

From both a health and moral position, I see the two as somewhere in the same order of magnitude. So, excellent comparison IMO.

As more people become vegan, meat analogues and substitutes will become better, cheaper, and more widely available making going vegan easier and less inconvenient for weak and lazy people, which will cause a huge influx of people eating partially or wholly vegan.
Mostly just fad diet idiots like the "paleo-diet" people will be after dead animals to eat. It will get harder to find it at restaurants and grocery stores, though, just as it used to be hard to find specialty vegan products.

Meat will just get more expensive, animal welfare laws will finally tighten (making it even more expensive), until it's just a luxury item for weird meat fetish people. It may eventually be banned in some areas, but by then almost nobody will care.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I consider smokers to be bad people, they're each 10% responsible for the death of another human being (deaths from cancer, heart disease, and strokes due to second hand smoke exposure being about 10% of the deaths of first hand smoke, which is very nearly 100% of smokers).

Wow, I had no idea second-hand smoking was that bad. Good thing I hold my breath whenever I see someone smoking near me I guess (I have asthma, although it got better since I went vegan and lost weight inhaling smoke never fails to make me feel ill). I don't perceive smokers as immoral they smoke in places where other people will inhale it (e.g. mall entrances, during a conversation). I mean, I am very fond of farting and not doing so makes me feel bad (stomach pain) but still do all I can not to fart in company, I don't see why smoking should be much different.

miniboes wrote:I mean, I am very fond of farting and not doing so makes me feel bad (stomach pain) but still do all I can not to fart in company, I don't see why smoking should be much different.

Because farting doesn't give people who smell it cancer?

If something merely smells bad, I have no problem with it.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

miniboes wrote:I mean, I am very fond of farting and not doing so makes me feel bad (stomach pain) but still do all I can not to fart in company, I don't see why smoking should be much different.

Because farting doesn't give people who smell it?

I mean to say it should not be too hard to avoid smoking in public.

miniboes wrote: I mean to say it should not be too hard to avoid smoking in public.

Ohh.

Actually, it's pretty hard. Think about a city; inside buildings is public, on the sidewalk is public, definitely can't do it in a bus, bathrooms are off limits (which are totally appropriate for farting). Smoke carries in a way farts don't, and smoking takes a lot longer than farting, a single cigarette producing several minutes of smoke.

The only way to smoke in the city is if you find a vacant lot or something, and jump the fence and stand in the middle of it, or if you own a car; you can possibly smoke in your car with the windows up... but the smoke is still going to get out.

Apartments are on public air systems too, your smoke will carry out the window or under the door and affect the neighbors, or even through internal ventilation. Likewise, smoking even on your own property in any urban area, your smoke will carry and affect the neighbors.

The only way to reliably smoke non-publicly is to be out in the countryside, where it will be very diluted by the time it reaches anybody. But very few people live or work so far away from other human beings.
Otherwise, you'd need to build a box to contain the smoke and put an air filter in there rated for filtering smoke out of the air; hundreds or thousands of dollars of investment.

Smokers just don't care enough about the health of other people to do any of that. They don't mind other people getting cancer, or even are in denial that smoking causes cancer. Kind of how meat eaters are in denial about the problems caused by animal agriculture.

Does choosing to be ignorant make somebody a bad person? In effect, yes, I think it does.

miniboes wrote:Well, they don't in the Netherlands anymore, but the situation in the US looks very different. Claims about the war on Christmas and stuff, the Christians seem to feel pretty threatened.

I think the only really significant difference is that the religious do have a lot of influence on political decisions and policies in the USA. In the Netherlands religious thoughts aren't having that much influence anymore. Even a political party like CDA (Christian Democratic Appeal) doesn't seem to care that much about what the bible says and actually seem quite secular. In contrast to the SGP (Reformed Political Party)—that is taking the bible literally—has not a lot of influence regarding their conservative biblical thoughts. So I think that atheists in the USA don't feel threatened by Christians, but by bad policy. Apart from that, they tend to be very open and liberal towards believers (like Jebus noted, most will embrace freedom of religion).

miniboes wrote:Since when are we talking about rights? You said veganism approaching the majority, not a law being passed to ban eating meat. Perhaps meat-eaters would try to persuade veg*ns to eat meat to avoid the production of meat collapsing, but that's little different from religious people trying to get people to attend church.

Well, I think that what Jebus is saying does make sense. Eating meat is conflicting harm to sentient beings. When lots of people recognize this simple fact, there naturally will arise a desire to make a ban for eating meat. If you're taking Mill's harm principle seriously, it does make a lot of sense to ban a practice that is causing harm to others.*

If you would take this in the context of humans, it might be more obvious. Suppose half of the population is raping children and the other half isn't. Do you think the half that isn't raping children is completely fine with having no ban and doesn't want to take away the pleasure of those who do rape children? I think the same can be said about a population with half of them (or even less) being vegan.

The situation is very different from a situation of just having a difference of opinion when innocent sentient beings are harmed in the process. It's the same reason some Christians have a lot of trouble accepting abortion being performed (except that it's based on false ethical propositions and understanding of reality of course).

miniboes wrote:It would be much better to draw away government support (the subsidies that make meat affordable) and perhaps raise taxes for their GHG emmissions. [...] Banning meat would perhaps also encourage illegal activities, as we see with drugs.

That the depends on the state that society is in. What you are proposing here already would make sense to do as a government. When veganism is becoming more and more mainstream, there will inevitably be put more pressure on the practices that involve animal cruelty. But I think what you're getting at, is that the society should be supportive of the ideas and policies of governments, otherwise it will fail. And I do agree with that. The decision have to be and will be made through democratic means, so it would be the majority's (or in principle a majority of course) decision, taking in account minority's desires and the impact of the restrictions.

*If you have time, you can read this article, which goes into depth about exactly this question of banning meat: https://www.academia.edu/8361770/Kunnen ... ul_Cliteur_ (and I'm so sorry it's only availably in Dutch... it's one of only a handful of articles I read about animal ethics that is written in Dutch)