Alexander David
Comments3
This is the question. I agree with finm that we should stay alive since: 1) we just might figure out a way to stop the mass suffering, and 2) we just might develop the intention to do something about it.
To add on a third, point, I would say: 3) if humanity goes extinct, then there is a possibility that either:
- a) no other species capable of humanity's intelligence and empathy ever comes into being, whereas nature stays on, thus guaranteeing mass suffering until the end of the universe; or
- b) even if another another species like humanity (or humanity itself) emerges, that would require hundreds of millions of years, during which sentient beings would suffer.
So I'm of the belief that humanity should be kept alive, because it is the only—albeit small—specter of hope for sentient beings. Now, I am a bit more hopeful than you, simply because within the span of a mere 4000 years of civilization (which is a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things), humanity has, in many places:
- recognized the evil of slavery, caste system, etc.;
- outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex;
- done away with the belief that war is "glorious";
- even passed laws outlawing certain practices against animals (California's Proposition 12);
- actually tried to realize utopia (ex. French and Russian Revolutions, etc.) (even though they failed spectacularly)
Vive humanity! Well, of course we have done as much—if not much more—horrible things to each other and to animals, but ultimately... upon whom else can we rest our hopes, my friend?
First of all, I think this is a fantastic article. It's very clear and brings some new, interesting points.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my crude summary of what you're essentially trying to get at:
- Diagnosis of a problem: The conventional definition of veganism—i.e. "Avoid all first-order consumption!"—overlooks other animal-harms caused by adherents of that definition, as well as harms prevented by actions that do not conform to that definition. And as I understand it, the reason why this is a problem (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is that, 1) it "limits intellectual freedom," and 2) pushing too hard on this definition might lead to a situation where the total man-made suffering of animals might be higher than otherwise could've been under a more flexible definition.
- One possible solution to the problem: We shouldn't be so inflexible by demanding conformity to the conventional definition. We should allow some expansion/dilution of the definition, so that other ways/acts to reduce human-caused animal suffering (ex. reducing vehicle usage) can be welcomed/encouraged, even if the person performing such an act eats meat. This may lead to a state where the total man-made suffering of animals is lower than would've been under the world that demands conformity to the conventional definition.
If this is correct, then here's my take: if my goal were to minimize the total man-made suffering of animals, then I would demand conformity to the conventional definition, because I think—as you said—it brings "solidarity," "uniformity," and "a clear understanding of what is required." Without such a vigorous clarity, I don't think veganism could have grown to the current level.
If vegans were to start accepting meat-eaters so long as they perform other animal-benefiting acts, I have a feeling that the entire movement would eventually lose its identity, as second-order harms are not only harder to track but also do not motivate/confront people as much as first-order harms. Your solution would work if people actually started reducing vehicle usage for animals, etc. but my take is that such a thing wouldn't happen, precisely because of the diluted vigor of the veganism movement.
Here's my advice, if I may. If you know that someone's already written on the topic, but you're still hesitating as to whether to write it or not—instead of abandoning it without a second thought—then I assume there's something that you feel is still worth writing; as you say, "I acknowledge that I might have some novel ideas and something to add." Or perhaps the way you look at the issue, the way you express it, the way you summarize it, the particular point you emphasize, etc.
I mean surely, if you really thought that someone else has already written something that sufficiently matches what you're about to say, you wouldn't even be asking this question, no?
As for the sense of "overwhelm," no I don't feel it. I appreciate well-written posts, but as far as I could tell, this forum's guidelines do not include any requirements to either "refraining from already-discussed topics" or "making brilliant posts all the time." So why self-impose further requirements? You have ideas, so you should express them within the bounds set by this platform. Go for it!