Now, understnad that I have only known a single vegetarian my entire life. Y'all are the very first real contact I have ever had with V*gans.

Why is it that there seems to be so little care for the HUMAN animal? It seems so assinine to me, and seems to be the MAIN reason that mainstream meat eaters think of us as wackos.

Seriously - we will debate for YEARS about the ethics of using honey (the poor insects!!!!11!!), but I see very little concern over the korean sweatshops filled with going-blind little girls who are hand-sewing our shoes together.


Please discuss this with me. Is Humanity honestly to be considered a second class animal? We SEEM to just flat out don't give a **** about humanity's needs and concerns, but we honestly consider obscue buddist sects that wear face masks to protect BUGS to be a goal worth reaching.

I'm not deliberately trying to troll - don't get me wrong. I'm just curious about the average VB user's views. Does mankind not count? Do we value bugs more than people?

There are many groups working to draw attention to and improve human rights issues. Being concerned about animals is in no way a statement that human issues are not important. The answer to overseas sweatshops isn't eating animals, but not shopping at Mal-Wart is a good start.

I think wacko perception is more a factor of not questioning the government-sponsored indoctrination that we all receive that corpses and lacatation will make us big and strong, and sometimes a bit of denial by people who loves them their Whoppers.

But then, like Ripley said, "You don't see them fscking each other over for a percentage".

i think that 'seem' is an important aspect of what is going on here.

many organizations, many individuals who are vegetarian, are continually working on these very human problems. but many people only look to the human problems. they don't go to animal issues. they don't go to environmental issues.

when a person is an environmentalist (regardless of diet) people ask them 'what about human issues?' and "why are you wasting time with that when there's this?' when a vegetarian or animal wefarist (not necessarily vegetarian) talks about animal issues, they often get the same sorts of questions.

it's largely because people think like trees rather than strawberry plants. for many of us, these issues are connected. Animal issues and environmental issues are human issues. And, aside from those connections, human issues exist for us too--likely because we're thinking beyond the human animal, we've been thinking about and working for the human animal for a long time, and then we were able to broaden the net of thinking out to include them. This is how a strawberry plant is--it grows outward spreading roots.

those who think we should focus mostly or solely on human issues are thinking like trees, one idea (trunk) growing upward and then branching out. the trunk is 'humans come first' or 'human issues matter most' and then from that the branches of 'these are all the human issues we need to deal with.'

the strawberry-plant approach allows us to recognize that when we eat less meat, we make it possible for others to have more food thus working toward the 'starvation' human issue. when we protect the environment, human beings who live in poor areas (us and abroad) have better living conditions, clean water and air, and fewer health problems. when we work against sweat shop labor (which, btw, i do), then we're not only supporting human lives, but the animal and environmental issues in that region. it's all interconnected--it's all part of the larger picture.

and for many of us, one thing leads to another leads to another.

the strawberry-plant approach allows us to recognize that when we eat less meat, we make it possible for others to have more food thus working toward the 'starvation' human issue.

and for many of us, one thing leads to another leads to another.

Amazing...post...(btw...my...spacebar...is...broke n....this...is...likely...my...last...post...tonig ht...lol...)....

I...am...hoping...that...MOST...V*gans....have...a t...least...similar....ideas....as..I..said..I..am ..new....

I...have...to...disagree...though...that...eating. ...less...meat...would...end...or...even...work... towards...less...starvation....I...think...(god... this...dot...dot...dot...crap...sucks...)...that.. .most...starvation...is...caused...directly...by.. .politics...military...regimes...dictators....thin k...of...a..."starving...country.,....look...up...pictures....ca n...you...find...a...politician...or...military... person...from....ANY...starving...nation...that... looks...hungry????......

no, you're correct that the issue of food distribution in regards to starvation is one of the primary reasons why the problem exists. when we send aid to a country, we even recognize that a certain level of corruption is going to happen. i don't have the 'real' statistics off hand, but i think something like 1/10th or something of what is given actually gets 'to the people' because of corruption within a country.

but, in a localized economy based on sustainable agricultural practices, the consumption of less meat can increase the possibility of distribution among more people. essentially, creating a surplus of vegetables (because more will be grown to fill demand) as well as a surplus of animal products. we're seeing this locally with our field-to-city organic coops popping up around philadelphia and camden. these coops go into the poorest neighborhoods taking the surplus supplies from a variety of local growers. when we support alternative farms, we support the environment and local economy. when we consume less meat and dairy, these products can be spread amoung many people. so, it's doing a great job locally--in places where fresh produce is rarely available and organic yogurt is unheard of! And, it brings health to individuals in the community as well--not just the starvation/hunger issue--and those communities feel valued and therefore proud and are able to spend money (less!) on good produce and then spend their saved money on fixing up their homes or education for their children. these food coops actually help curb urban blight!

see, rhizomes.

I concern myself with both non-human animal issues and human issues.

The act of being vegan or vegetarian is passive. I don't need to actively do something that takes up my time. The time I spend being vegan is the time I would spend eating and shopping as if I were an omni. Therefore, being vegan is no threat to any other movement out there that doesn't directly conflict with it (such as hunting).

Some parts of human issues can be passive as well. For example, I don't shop at walmart, and I try not to buy new clothes unless I know they aren't produced in a sweat shop. This doesn't really take more time away from my day. It is time I would be shopping anyway ( I actually save time because I shop so much less).

Now, time to time, these movements become active. There are protests, there are written letters, there are studies, there is direct action, etc. At this point someone needs to decide between what they think they can be most effective at.

This isn't directly related but I think it is a parallel. This is from an interview (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9350) with Richard Stallman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Stallman). Don't worry if you don't know who he is. Just know that he is an activist that works for software and digital rights. He is being interviewed by Zmag who largely deals with human rights in terms of war, solidarity, and so on. The interviewer asked a question that I think is very relevant to your question and makes sense.



JP: How would you respond to those who suggest that free software activists lack a sense of proportion? Given the vast scale and suffering of war, invasions, occupations, poverty, doesn't the freedom to use computers pale to insignificance?

RMS: Maybe our views have been misrepresented. It is impossible for one person to be involved in all issues. It shouldn't be surprising that a programmer would be involved where his skills and talents are most effective.

If I thought free software was the only or most important issue, I can see how people might think that that lacks proportion. But I do not think it is the only or most important issue. I just believe this is where I can do the most good.

A problem arises when people who might be sympathetic to our ethical position, but focus on other issues, fall into the habit of helping to pressure others into using non-free software. It falls to me to tell them they are doing so, that they with their own actions are giving certain large companies more power. When you send someone a ".doc' file, a "Word' file, or an audio or video file in RealPlayer or Quicktime format, you are actually pressuring someone to give up their freedom. Perhaps because I constantly have to bring this up, people believe I don't have a sense of proportion.

Sometimes people take for granted that I will participate in those activities with them. Thus, when I webcast a speech, I have to ask which format it is going to be webcast in. I am not going to go along with a webcast of my speech about freedom that you have to give up your freedom in order to hear or watch. Once I put my coat over a camera before giving my speech, when I learned it was webcasting in RealPlayer format.

I think his answer shows how you can passively support many causes, while it may appear as if you are only actively supporting one.

jon:

seriously great points. i do often find that people who assert these kinds of questions against certain kinds of activists--asking them to focus on human rights issues--often do not act passively or actively toward the very issues that they think are better than the ones that we may be acting on. whihc is often interesting.

Why is it that there seems to be so little care for the HUMAN animal? It seems so assinine to me, and seems to be the MAIN reason that mainstream meat eaters think of us as wackos.

Seriously - we will debate for YEARS about the ethics of using honey (the poor insects!!!!11!!), but I see very little concern over the korean sweatshops filled with going-blind little girls who are hand-sewing our shoes together.


Please discuss this with me. Is Humanity honestly to be considered a second class animal? We SEEM to just flat out don't give a **** about humanity's needs and concerns, but we honestly consider obscue buddist sects that wear face masks to protect BUGS to be a goal worth reaching.

I'm not deliberately trying to troll - don't get me wrong. I'm just curious about the average VB user's views. Does mankind not count? Do we value bugs more than people?

Who is the vegan you speak of? I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't do any of those things or overlook any of those issues.

I don't shop at Walmart or Gap or any of the other stores that are widely known to carry sweatshop clothing.

I regularly volunteer in my community.

I make use of public transportation.

I vote.

I recycle.

I educate others about issues I find important.

I write letters, magazine articles and social commentary.

I go to more human rights rallies and protests against discrimination/bias etc. than any animal rights issues.

I speak up here about what I *can't* openly discuss in mixed groups-my veganism. Why? I know there is an open audience for it here (one would hope :D ) and I discuss all those other things at length with people who are often not interested or open to discussing veganism.

Why is it that there seems to be so little care for the HUMAN animal? It seems so assinine to me, and seems to be the MAIN reason that mainstream meat eaters think of us as wackos.


Ask them what they are doing for humans. That'll usually shut them up.

Seriously - we will debate for YEARS about the ethics of using honey (the poor insects!!!!11!!), but I see very little concern over the korean sweatshops filled with going-blind little girls who are hand-sewing our shoes together.
We're split on the honey issue, but we don't debate the ethics of little girls working horrible jobs for practically nothing because we all agree that it's a bad thing.

With that said, I (don't) do as much for humans as I (don't) do for other animals:

I do not eat humans

I do not wear human skin or upholster my furniture with it

I do not buy breastmilk from forcibly impregnated women who have their babies taken from them only to be reimpregnated as soon as possible

I do not buy any garments made from human scalps with the hair still attached

I do not hunt humans for recreational purposes

If anyone who participates in those types of activities would like to debate the ethics of doing so I will throw in my usual ½¢. Unless they're being asses about it and then I'll just ignore them.

(in response to Zoe's post...)
Amazing...post...

I...am...hoping...that...MOST...V*gans....have...a t...least...similar....ideas....as..I..said..I..am ..new....

really though, why would you care so much (hope) if "MOST" vegans have similar views to that on human rights issues? I would imagine that they do, however, your and anyone else's willingness to care that animals suffer horribly and needlessly for food should not really rest on whether you or anyone else thinks that other vegans are good enough people. Even if you discover that we only care about animals and don't care about humans at all, would that make animal cruelty o.k.? With animal issues, people frequently decide whether to care based on the perceived faults or goodness of the personalities of people who promote this cause, rather than the worthiness of the cause itself.

ed: re-reading this, I didn't mean to say that you wouldn't care about animal cruelty if you didn't approve of our other values, but it does seem to me that it's too important to many people that vegans' other views can be shown to be mainstream before they can take veganism seriously. Which is a huge disservice to animals and what they suffer. I think people should just take the issue and look at it for what it is.

In my experience, many or most vegetarians seem to care deeply about human issues.

If, however, there are some people who care more about animals than humans it is probably because animals are perceived as being innocent, cute/cuddly, and/or helpless. You may have noticed that humans can be jerks and really horrible sometimes, which might dissuade some people from wanting to help them.