Thank you, Tommy.
Sentience seems to be on a continuum, and we really don’t know about animals like oysters. For a time, it was thought that oysters weren’t sentient and so there was no problem with eating them from a vegan perspective, though there were concerns about vegans eating them simply because it would appear inconsistent and there isn’t the opportunity to explain the relevance of sentience to everyone all the time. Veganism is usually described as not harming animals, but really only sentient animals are relevant. If someone has a taste for sponges, I don’t care if they eat them all day long. Sponges are animals but they aren’t conscious and don’t feel. More recent evidence does show that oysters may feel some pain, but nothing like that of a rabbit or pig or chicken.
I agree that focusing on our ability to empathize is a problem. That can lead to people dismissing animals with vastly different ways of experiencing the world, like octopuses, who are pretty clearly sentient. It can also lead to a greater emphasis on defending “cute” or “smart” animals.
I know that a lot of arguments defending animals focus on how intelligent they are, but intelligence is not an important factor in animal sentience. I think there is some value, though, in broad comparisons of animals with centralized nervous systems. Most scientists agree that vertebrates tend to suffer similarly. But I don’t think that because dogs are more like humans and are smarter than cats, the suffering of cats matters less, or because pigs are smarter than cows, the suffering of cows matter less. And while smarter animals may be able to suffer in different ways (psychological ones), that doesn’t mean that the worst pain a smarter animal can suffer is worse than the worst pain of a less intelligent one.
I wrote a post about animal sentience in case you’re interested. https://steemit.com/philosophy/@goose/animals-as-persons-what-s-sentience-got-to-do-with-it
There is a small but vocal minority of vegans who think that people who eat animals are just bad people. I half understand where they’re coming from because to those of us who are “early adopters” of veganism, something just clicked, and we realized how horrific it is. It just seems objectively wrong if we care about the suffering of others. And it’s easy to get angry and frustrated that so many others so nonchalantly view animals as resources. But any vegan who is willing to stop and think about it for 30 seconds will realize that if non-vegans were bad people, that means that just about everyone they know and care about it is a bad person. That means 99% of the people in the northern hemisphere are just bad people. It doesn’t make any sense. The normalization of animal abuse is a social problem.
I don’t want to work with people who would view you as a monster, either, and neither would most vegans. At the same time, I don’t agree that we should be encouraging people to eat less meat. I think we should be asking people to think about the reasons to respect other animals and to care about their pain and suffering. And I think that will eventually lead to people seeing animals so differently that they don’t want to eat any meat at all.
If you’re on Facebook, you might like the Animal Ethics page: https://www.facebook.com/Animal-Ethics-1424658461139957/
Like I said, eating less meat is not enough.
This may not tackle the initial purpose which is to make suffering less, right?
I know there are vegans which don't care what other people do, they have made a choice not to contribute to what they see as suffering and that is something I can respect.
The problem I have with no one ever eating meat again relates to the consequences on the long run. Vegans often refer to their desire for all people to stop meat consumption as an evolutionary step, and it is, if we stop eating meat this would most surely have an effect on our bodies, our minds, our behavior. I simply don't think we've studied enough what those consequences would be to claim this (stop meat consumption completely) would help us (us includes other animals) in the overall picture. We need to get evolutionary scientists to do a projection so that we can at least have some idea of the changes we may expect with this massive dietary change.
You and I see the problem very differently. I agree that the goal is to reduce suffering, and I agree that people eating less meat reduces suffering, and I agree that attacking or vilifying people who eat any amount of meat is silly and unproductive. And I do think people like you help to move society forward on the issue of respecting animals. But I don’t agree that I should express your opinion. I should express mine. I want to work towards eliminating all unnecessary suffering. And it’s hard to find a clearer or bigger case of unnecessary suffering than people eating animals. I’m not going to say I think it’s great for people to just eat less meat, because I don’t think that. I think it’s unnecessary and it contributes to suffering for no good reason.
If someone really cares about the plight of animals, they will care very much what other people do, even if they choose not to express it. I think you are more valuable to helping animals than people like them. I would much rather see you blogging and talking about it, and challenging positions like mine and getting conversations going about it. You think it’s something that is worth talking about. That’s going to contribute more to helping shift societal attitudes than people quietly eating a vegan diet.
But I don’t think I should be encouraging people to eat less meat. I’m not just coming from a moral absolutist position. My goal is helping animals, and I will do it in whatever way I think will do the most good in the long run (including for future animals). My approach is subject to change based on new information, but based on the current state of knowledge on the issue, it’s not tactically smart to talk about eating less meat if what I want to see is a vegan world. It’s well known from other social movements that you always get less than you ask for. So when I say I think everyone should be vegan, the response of many people is likely to be, “Well, I’m not going to go vegan, but maybe I can eat less meat.” It may seem counter-intuitive, it may seem like when people are challenged with a message they see as extreme or “impossible,” they will just reject and ignore it. But decades of social movement research show that is simply not the case.
It’s even more important for me to continue repeating the “extreme” message because so few people are doing it. And the more it’s discussed in a reasonable manner, the more it becomes considered a legitimate view and topic of conversation. This is already (only recently) starting to be seen as a legitimate topic of discussion in academia, the law, and among effective altruists, and it’s because of the insistence of people who won’t compromise on the message and are able to back it up with logical arguments and evidence.
But actually the “vegan” message is not a huge part of my advocacy because what I really want people to do is start thinking about other animals differently, and I want people to think it’s important to speak up for animals – in their own way, even if they don’t agree with me.
This is a whole other topic of conversation (which I’m happy to have at some point). For now, I’ll just say that it’s been very well established that humans can be healthy on a vegan diet, so I’m not too interested in what evolutionary scientists have to say about it or whether it is “natural” or not.
Thank you for the conversation.
I just want you to know that it has nothing to do with it being considered natural or not by scientists, but scientists take the time to study what changes like this have caused in the past not only to our species but other species as we all connect. They can more easily predict what could happen in the future, and I mean thousands and thousands of years ahead.
It has little to do with our health right now too, what I am talking about is how we are going to look like, feel like, act like, due to this change in many generations. And how this relates to the suffering that we experience and cause.
The smallest change can have the greatest impact. I just don't think the responsible thing to do, knowing what I know, is advocate for a change this big without investing enough in studying whether it will be helpful at the end.
Thanks for sharing! There truly is value in striving to alter the way we see the rest of the creatures.