I would like to try again the definition of veganism of the Vegan Society from the year 1979, just to determine clearly from the beginning what forms the basis for the following statements:
“Veganism is a way of life that seeks – as far as practically feasible – to avoid all forms of exploitation and cruelty against suffering animals for food, clothing and other purposes; and subsequently promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. With regard to nutrition, this means doing without all products that are wholly or partly obtained from animals.“
The list of what animals are exploited in our society is long. It is obvious with meat, milk and eggs, i.e. when a living being is transformed into food that is neatly placed somewhere on a shelf, whereby fish should also be included under meat – which should be logical, but still does not happen. To meet the needs of the previous way of life, 60,000,000,000 terrestrial animals and around 2,000,000,000,000 aquatic animals die each year. Of this, 120,000,000,000 come from so-called fish farms, which in turn are fed with fish, in addition to antibiotics. In addition to these billions in murders, there are other exploitative practices. Suffering for wool, down, fur, for animal experiments or as entertainment in zoo and circus, at rodeo, bull-, dog- or cockfighting, when singing birds catching, in tournament or dressage riding, in horse or dog races. Fashion is also involved when living animals are transformed into fashion accessories. Lobsters are still cooked alive, geese are stuffed for the liver and plucked alive. The list could go on and on, but the conclusion is that we mistreat our fellow creatures for reasons that are actually completely unacceptable, for amusement, beauty or simply because we enjoy torturing them.
It would be so easy to end all this suffering, and I have not yet met anyone who openly said to my face, „Yes, I want my fellow creatures to suffer“. Nevertheless, vegans want nothing more than to end their suffering with their way of life. Life itself is characterized by suffering and pain, so avoiding all the suffering that I can avoid is the very least. I can avoid where I am the cause or the client. “Just let it go” is the message, and the fact that vegans live by example shows that it is entirely feasible.
But what happens if you say that I don’t use anything that comes from animals because no fellow creature should suffer because of me. Then you are branded as radical and militant and antisocial. No, it must not be said that avoiding suffering is by no means radical. That’s all it’s about. Nothing else. It would be that easy.
„Then take care of the suffering of the people,“ you get to hear immediately. But that we do it by helping to ensure that no rainforests are cleared for animal feed and that no more indigenous peoples are displaced, that the vegan diet could prevent 800,000,000 people in the world from starving because we don’t give them that Taking away staple foods for our so-called „farm animals“ doesn’t count. No, you can’t say that either.
That with a vegan diet and the associated change in agricultural production, the anti-biotic resistance and the pandemics can be avoided, which can be avoided through our dealings with nature, which we either flatten for animal husbandry or feeding or for new roads not say. After all, we now have a vaccination and everything is fine. Nothing against the vaccination. But it is pure symptom control. The causes of the pandemics remain. But you can’t say that either.
In summary, you can say, no, you can’t say anything that would make the world less suffering, especially when it comes to food. Immediately one is accused of accusing the other of their behavior, even if one only presents the facts. Nothing else. Facts are remodeled into allegations and immediately counterattacked. But yes, you guessed it, you can’t say that either.