*One individual choosing not to eat and wear animal products is not going to end all of the suffering in the world, but it will reduce suffering*

Well or so you imagine. That really depends on what you eat and
what sort of animals were raised. Now if they were lambs on my
farm, they did not suffer, but actually had very happy lives.
Personally I also eat free range eggs and free range chickens.
So the only thing that I would achieve by following your advice
is to deny them the happy lives which they now have. Yes those
lives end, but so does yours. If you are hit by a bus tomorrow,
it will be shortened too, like it or not. Thats life, if we risk
living, we risk dying. But do not confuse dying with suffering.

I actually enjoy having animals, watching them contentedly grazing
lush feed, lambs playing games and all the rest. I could have been
a banker in Zurich and made real money lol, farming is at best
a lifestyle, hardly too profitable.

But farming has also taught me the realities of Darwinian evolution
theory. Only so many can survive at any one time, or the result
is mass starvation.

Now if you made a case for only eating humanely farmed meat, it would
make some kind of sense, but veganism is at best a confused philosophy
which ignores nature.

So farming as I do, is a win for the animals and me, and win-wins are
about as good as it gets in life.

@Pericles:

When your article ‘suggests the habits of your omnivorous fellow-citizens are analogous to those of a chronic solvent sniffer living in a humpy slitting the throat of a puppy in the presence of a five year-old, you are in lecture territory.’

Okay, that’s fine if you consider a lecture, but I think I have made a well-supported argument about the similarity between these habits and this incident, both in the article and in these comments. You obviously disagree. But regarding the puppy slaughter incident being worse because a five year-old being there, obviously that would be traumatic for the five year old, but it makes no different for the animal being slaughtered whether a five year-old is there or not. And while some details are different (such as the five year-old being there), it is very similar over all – an animal being slaughtered for food.

‘Pop statistics that ultimately have no useful application in real life.’

Okay, here is a statistic that has ‘useful application in real life’:

‘A global vegan diet (of conventional crops) would reduce dietary emissions by 87 percent, compared to a token 8 percent for “sustainable meat and dairy.” ’ http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/11/16/agnostic-carnivores-and-global-warming-why-enviros-go-after-coal-and-not-cows/

You can reduce your environmental impact by not consuming animal products – surely that is a statistic that has ‘application in real life.’

‘You are perfectly free to regard your fellow-citizens as callous murderers, bent on killing for their own enjoyment.’

I don’t think people are ‘bent on killing for their own enjoyment’ and believe that the arguments for veganism make sense to many people, and some will put this into practise. As I explained in a comment above: ‘About 99% of people oppose unnecessary suffering to animals, yet about 99% of people unnecessarily consume animal products that cause suffering – so I think there is plenty of potential for a change in attitudes and actions.’

‘you are in the minority’

Yes but that doesn’t have much to do with the validity of my argument. People opposing racism, sexism etc were in the minority in the past, it didn’t mean they were wrong.

@Atman:

‘I have nothing further to say on your opinion though I don't wish to change it.’

That’s fine. I’ll respond to your points – you can take these responses as rhetorical questions if you’d like.

1. In your first point I’ll replace ‘meat eaters’ with ‘cock fighters’ – no one has been able to say why these two practises are significantly different, and no one is arguing that we should not try to change the opinions and actions of cock fighters: ‘Your intolerance of and rejection of the rights of cock fighters while they do not reject your right not to engage in cock fighting is a form of moral elitism even though you reject this idea.’

2. Yes, I reject the argument against anthropomorphism. I believe that ability to suffer, desire to avoid suffering and death, form relationships etc is not limited to humans and assigning such traits just to humans despite evidence to the contrary is a blatant example of speciesism (discrimination based on species).

3. I focus on animals eaten by people because that is about 99% of the animals slaughtered by humans. I also bring up using animals for clothing. I also oppose the use of animals for entertainment etc. But just because animals die for other reasons beyond food, I don’t see why that implies we should be eating them.

4. As I’ve just commented to someone else: ‘Yes [I’m in the minority] but that doesn’t have much to do with the validity of my argument. People opposing racism, sexism etc were in the minority in the past, it didn’t mean they were wrong.’ Just because the majority of people do something at a particular point in time in a particular society, doesn’t automatically make it right.

5. ‘Your arguments and even the title of your essay are emotionally driven’: I don’t think this is a particularly emotional argument but I also don’t see anything wrong with having some emotion either. Whether there is emotion or not, there are lots of facts, supported with sources (see the hyperlinks throughout the article).

G'day Nick
These bloody aphids are hammering my lettuce.
Any advice?

>>I personally give insects, oysters etc the “benefit of the doubt” and do not consume honey, oyster sauce etc – but again, I don’t see what bringing up these more “marginal” cases has to do with the argument.<<

That's because you're looking at it the wrong way. The moral problem to be dealt with is cruelty to animals and your solution is veganism: completely avoiding all animal products. The oysters and the insects and the eggs over the fence from my neighbor's happy chooks are examples of edible animal products that don't involve any cruelty to animals. Clearly veganism isn't the only solution to the moral problem we're trying to answer: it may not even be the best solution. I consider veganism an act of pointless and possibly dangerous self-flagellation when the obvious answer is ethical omnivorism.

Cheers,

Tony

@Yabby:

“Free range” labels may make people feel better, but they do not necessarily involve significantly better treatment of the animals (if at all). Peaceful Prairie animal sanctuary investigates so-called “free range” farms and what they have found is not pretty, especially for chickens – they do not live the happy lives you imagine when you see the happy packaging:

http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html

Yes, I could be hit by a bus tomorrow, but would that excuse someone deliberately running over me because they could make money from it? I don’t think so.

I don’t think dying in itself is suffering, but killing someone because it is in your economic interest to do so when they could otherwise live longer, happy, healthy lives is causing suffering or at least imposing harm. You are depriving them of future pleasure. As I mentioned to another commenter, animal behaviourist Jonathan Balcombe explains this point about other animals valuing their own lives from 34.52-36.44 of this interview: http://animalvoices.ca/2011/03/29/unpacking-the-animal-umwelt/

It is possible to enjoy spending time with animals without killing them for profit. As I’ve already mentioned, spending time at an animal sanctuary (which actually considers the interests of animals, rather than their profits), would be one alternative. Yes, farming is not the most profitable lifestyle around, but that doesn’t change my point earlier that when animals are raised for a certain product, they are killed when it is in the economic interest of that industry, not when it is in the animal's best interest (euthanasia).

I don’t see how not killing animals is going to lead to mass starvation.

“Humane” is a nice word to put in front of something to justify it, however, I think “humane” animal products is a very flawed idea, for reasons I’ve already outlined. Of course people prefer the “humane” myth argument, because it makes them feel better about continuing to contribute to the slaughter of animals. But while people may feel good about themselves, it doesn’t mean it is a “win” for the animal who is on the receiving end of the violence.