I know I said that I had nothing else to say, but I can't let this one slide. First of all, that's not true. To consistently keep a Vegan diet is still expensive. I don't know what your definition of "poverty" is, but I know for a fact it's too poor to sustain a vegan diet. Secondly: It's like you're purposefully ignoring other aspects of being hella hella poor. You have less time to cook things. You have less time to get groceries. Sometimes you have to choose between food and rent. This is where that whole privileged thing I was talking about comes into play, you're not recognizing any of these things.You make it sound like beans, rice, potatoes, carrots, kale, onions, fruit, nuts and seeds are prohibitly expensive!
I am perplexed by this perspective. Could you, or thenewgreen, please help me understand it? Any restricted diet will be more expensive than simply eating whatever food is cheapest. When I can't find any leftovers, my lazy meal is a can of corn, a can of black beans, and a can of chick peas mixed together with some hot sauce. It costs about three bucks. The ingredients last forever in the closet, even if the power goes out. They will survive a long bike ride in the heat of summer, even if I drop them or leave them outside overnight. They require no appliances to prepare, just a can opener and a spoon and two minutes. Substitute canned tomatoes, carrots, green beans or mushrooms according to taste. It's not ideal dining. But do you have a meat-based recipe that can match this in terms of cost, convenience, or nutrition? I know there are food deserts where Trader Joe's does not venture. In those neighborhoods of liquor stores and pawn shops, can people find ground beef or a frozen bird but not bread, peanut butter, rice or potatoes? There's only one realistic place for the inner city poor to buy meat, and it's not Morton's Steakhouse. Even if we don't care about animal welfare, should we celebrate a vast industrial meat infrastructure which enables the fast food industry to provide cheap, convenient, and unhealthy food to the poor? (Uh, maybe?) The poor shopper who cares about animal welfare need not always choose between eating and good conscience. I believe we can learn from sources that use extremely annoying tactics to promote a self-righteous message, so here is PETA's list of vegetarian fast food options: http://www.peta.org/living/food/chain-restaurants/ In contrast to canned plants, sofritas are pretty good.
Yeah, sure I'll just head over to Trader Joe's or Whole Foods, when I live in rural, poor ass USA. But even then, I could just go to my liquor store and get Peanut butter... oops, can't do that because Jiffy contains honey and honey is not vegan. And I totally would take the time to care about the amount of honey in Jiffy, if a rat hadn't just bit my sister Nell.
Look at this way, then. When you are poor, YOU DO NOT GIVE A SHIT. When you are poor, you are literally unable to process other areas of your life because you're so fucking TIRED. This is where the whole privilege thing pops up again! You don't HAVE to worry about poverty, so you (royal you, not actual you, wasox) get to harp about animals and shit. These people don't, so they get whatever is closest and cheapest. Sometimes they have to think about kids, who don't WANT corn and fucking black beans, you monster. So, they want tasty food that's cheap, while also able to get them through a day. Where do you find that?
Thank you for explaining. When you said "To consistently keep a Vegan diet is still expensive," I naively thought you were talking about budgeting. Now I see you are shouting the more nuanced view that poor people cannot "afford" – in terms of time, energy, and attention – to live by strict dietary ideals. I agree. My kid eats meat, eggs and cheese every day and I would not welcome the challenge of keeping him on a vegan diet, especially if I were also struggling to pay the bills. You and thenewgreen seem to be responding to a jerk who says poor people should go hungry rather than eat animal products. I have not seen that view expressed on Hubski. Perhaps it was implied, or I missed it. For my part, I will state that: • Poor people should be allowed to do whatever they need to do to get by. • Hunters should be allowed to enjoy their sport. • Alaskans should be allowed to eat polar bear. I could go on to discuss matadors, circuses, and snake charmers. Eventually, the only thing left to talk about will be ... the majority of meat consumption in this country. I believe that most meat is consumed by people who could comfortably reduce their consumption and thereby reduce suffering. Do you think they should?
We aren't really talking about meat, we are talking about life and death. So, the question is l, "which life and death provides the least suffering?" Can we just accept that death is coming for every creature on this planet? Are we going to insert human criteria of what suffering is on animals? How are we measuring "happiness?" If life is so precious, and we don't want to kill these animals then isn't the giving of life precious too? There's no doubt that a tremendous amount of "life" is given by people that raise livestock. Many of these "sentient" beings would have never been brought into sentience in the first place, the joys of their lives, the happiness that they have would have never been had, had it not been for us consuming their cheese, eggs and eventually their meat. My consumption of animal products creates life. Now, the question is what type of life does it create? If I'm consuming products that are factory farmed, where chickens are kept in pens where they can't move and their beaks are cut off and they are pumped full of hormones, well I will not even try to argue that that is a life worth creating. However, and I have mentioned this before, I have a cousin that owns what she calls a "moreganic" farm. The criteria that they set forth is far more stringent than "organic." In regards to their livestock, they raise chickens and I daresay that no chickens will ever be loved more. Do they harvest their eggs? Yes, they do and they sell them at a farmers market. Do they eventually eat the chickens? Yes, they do. But, would that chicken have died anyway? Yes. Would that chicken have lived had they not had their farm? No. So, was the life that this chicken lived worth creating? Well, I happen to have interviewed one of their hens:
Me: thanks for doing this chicken, I appreciate it. Hen: sure, no problem Steve glad to help bridge the divide Me: so how do you feel about my cousin taking your eggs and selling them? Hen: yeah, I thought you might ask that. Well, to be really frank, I'm a chicken and I honestly don't give a shit nor do I have any understanding of what is occurring. However I am good at laying eggs Me: thanks for the candor. Are you glad you exist? Hen: again Steve, I really have no understanding of the question however, I will say that I like to run around in the yard and peck at the earth and sometimes, in June, the sun shines just right through my large, warm and cozy henhouse so that the light bounces against the wall and I swear it looks like a Picasso light drawing. Me: how do you feel about your inevitable death at the hands of your captors? Hen: They're not my captors, they keep me safe from the fox and the Hawk, they love me and would never hurt m....... Baaawk"!! Me: Hi cousin, that hen didn't even see you coming. You snapped its neck so quickly. It thrashed once and now almost seems to have a smile on its beak. Oh look at the sun break through the henhouse... She was right about that.
Your cousin's farm sounds wonderful. If I could go to a Chipotle that sourced poultry from there, I could enjoy a chicken burrito without a twinge of guilt. Thanks for the investigative report. Now that we have covered niche compassionate farms, I could go on to discuss modern hunter-gatherer tribes, eating roadkill, and people with allergies to fruit and vegetables. Eventually, the only thing left to talk about will be ... the majority of meat consumption in this country. I believe that most meat is consumed by people who could comfortably reduce their consumption and thereby reduce suffering. Do you think they should?
On February 2, 2015, thenewgreen wrote:I believe that most meat is consumed by people who could comfortably reduce their consumption and thereby reduce suffering. Do you think they should?
ANSWER THE QUESTION: ...If you don't answer the actual questions above, it will speak volumes.
The new green is at a government conference but I will reply. Yes, I think that when possible, people should reduce suffering as they are aware of it existing. Just passed up fried chicken and had salad. I did this prior to reading this for the reason stated above.
I didn't realise you meant that poor! I don't see being able to afford basic necessities as a privilege but I now understand why you'd think that if you have to choose between rent and food. May I ask what is it that you eat if you can't afford basic vegetables? What do you find that is cheaper than vegetables?