I think you’re still arguing against a position I don’t hold.
Nobody is claiming that people facing food insecurity should prioritize veganism over feeding themselves. The existence of poverty, famine and scarcity is not in dispute. What I’m disputing is the claim that meat eating is therefore primarily explained by survival.
The vast majority of meat consumption in wealthy societies is not occurring under conditions where the choice is “eat meat or starve.” It is occurring under conditions where people have multiple available options and make choices shaped by habit, culture, identity, tradition, convenience, and social norms. That is why people have strong feelings about eating dogs but not pigs, horses but not cows, why meat is associated with masculinity in some cultures, why serving meat is associated with hospitality in others, and why rising incomes are often accompanied by rising meat consumption. None of that is explained by survival.
I also think you’re shifting the discussion from morality to effectiveness.
You ask whether veganism is “moving the needle.” But that is a different question from whether the position itself is coherent. If I refuse to buy products produced through some form of exploitation, I am not doing so because I believe my individual purchase will dismantle the entire system. I am doing so because I do not want to participate in it.
And frankly, I don’t think you’d apply that standard elsewhere. If there were products on the shelf that you knew were produced through the direct exploitation of Palestinians, would your response really be “well, refusing to buy them isn’t moving the needle”? Or would you refuse to buy them because you think participation in that exploitation is wrong, regardless of whether your individual action transforms the system? (I notice you didn’t touch on this parallell in your previous answer)
That is the distinction I’m trying to make. Individual ethical refusal is not a substitute for structural change, but it is not rendered meaningless simply because structural change is also necessary.
As for cuisine arising from available ingredients: of course it does. But that is not a rebuttal to my point, it is part of it. Material conditions influence culture. They do not eliminate culture. The fact that diets develop around available resources does not explain why different societies draw radically different moral boundaries around which animals are food, which are companions, and which are untouchable. Those boundaries are cultural.
(I notice you didn’t touch on this parallell in your previous answer)
Well they aren’t the same thing. I’ve seen the comparison made before and it’s kind of obnoxious to compare the two things and tiresome to respond to, so I had just ignored it this time. I’m not obligated to acknowledge every rhetorical point you try to make at me. The subject I’m on in that regard is whether the current veganism movement is effective, not whether I would personally be shamed into refusing to buy goods if I heard that Palestinians were being harmed in the making of them.
But if I thought BDS was an individualist movement that doesn’t appear to be doing anything and has a reputation for making shitty arguments in favor of it, I’d question it too.
It’s not meant as a personal attack against any particular vegan. My own approach for various things is shit sometimes and that needs to be acknowledged and evaluated. We aren’t imbued with the right way forward. Hell, I’m not even attacking a vegan revolutionary party here, because as far as I know, there isn’t one. What even is there to undermine with such criticism when it’s so disorganized? Am I being unfair to speak on unpleasant material realities, as I can discern them?
I think you’re still arguing against a position I don’t hold.
Nobody is claiming that people facing food insecurity should prioritize veganism over feeding themselves. The existence of poverty, famine and scarcity is not in dispute. What I’m disputing is the claim that meat eating is therefore primarily explained by survival.
The vast majority of meat consumption in wealthy societies is not occurring under conditions where the choice is “eat meat or starve.” It is occurring under conditions where people have multiple available options and make choices shaped by habit, culture, identity, tradition, convenience, and social norms. That is why people have strong feelings about eating dogs but not pigs, horses but not cows, why meat is associated with masculinity in some cultures, why serving meat is associated with hospitality in others, and why rising incomes are often accompanied by rising meat consumption. None of that is explained by survival.
I also think you’re shifting the discussion from morality to effectiveness.
You ask whether veganism is “moving the needle.” But that is a different question from whether the position itself is coherent. If I refuse to buy products produced through some form of exploitation, I am not doing so because I believe my individual purchase will dismantle the entire system. I am doing so because I do not want to participate in it.
And frankly, I don’t think you’d apply that standard elsewhere. If there were products on the shelf that you knew were produced through the direct exploitation of Palestinians, would your response really be “well, refusing to buy them isn’t moving the needle”? Or would you refuse to buy them because you think participation in that exploitation is wrong, regardless of whether your individual action transforms the system? (I notice you didn’t touch on this parallell in your previous answer)
That is the distinction I’m trying to make. Individual ethical refusal is not a substitute for structural change, but it is not rendered meaningless simply because structural change is also necessary.
As for cuisine arising from available ingredients: of course it does. But that is not a rebuttal to my point, it is part of it. Material conditions influence culture. They do not eliminate culture. The fact that diets develop around available resources does not explain why different societies draw radically different moral boundaries around which animals are food, which are companions, and which are untouchable. Those boundaries are cultural.
Well they aren’t the same thing. I’ve seen the comparison made before and it’s kind of obnoxious to compare the two things and tiresome to respond to, so I had just ignored it this time. I’m not obligated to acknowledge every rhetorical point you try to make at me. The subject I’m on in that regard is whether the current veganism movement is effective, not whether I would personally be shamed into refusing to buy goods if I heard that Palestinians were being harmed in the making of them.
But if I thought BDS was an individualist movement that doesn’t appear to be doing anything and has a reputation for making shitty arguments in favor of it, I’d question it too.
It’s not meant as a personal attack against any particular vegan. My own approach for various things is shit sometimes and that needs to be acknowledged and evaluated. We aren’t imbued with the right way forward. Hell, I’m not even attacking a vegan revolutionary party here, because as far as I know, there isn’t one. What even is there to undermine with such criticism when it’s so disorganized? Am I being unfair to speak on unpleasant material realities, as I can discern them?