#acti-veg

[devoted1989]

Image with kind permission from Joan Chan

[archaeocommunologist]

@watercolourpeony

OK. Let’s take as a given 1.) that shrimp do suffer, and that they suffer in a way that is meaningfully similar to human suffering and 2.) that because individual shrimp are capable of experiencing suffering, it is incumbent upon us as ethical actors to prevent or mitigate that suffering.

If both of those things are true, it’s easy to see how veganism as an ethical commitment falls out! But veganism is definitely not the only implication of these premises, and that’s where the problems start to crop up.

One problem is: what about everything else that eats shrimp? If the reason for me, as a human, to avoid eating shrimp is because it causes suffering to the individual shrimp I am eating, I don’t see how we can be blasé to all the fish, turtles, seals, and penguins who spend all-day-every-day eating shrimp. Shouldn’t we be doing something about that suffering? If not, why not? After all, even if every human stopped eating shrimp today, there would still be vast numbers of shrimp dying horrible, painful deaths!

Another problem: what about consumption that harms other humans, but indirectly? For example, we know that some large proportion of the world’s cobalt is mined using child slaves. Are you doing everything in your power to make sure your electronics don’t have child-slave cobalt in them? If not, how do you explain your ethical priorities? Shouldn’t the suffering of human children be at least as important as the suffering of shrimp?

In my view, the answer to both of these problems basically boils down to feasibility. We don’t do anything about the on-going genocide against shrimp that occurs in every ocean of the world every day of the year, because, well, what are we supposed to do? The penguins need to eat, and it’s difficult to see how we, as a human society, would helpfully intervene. Similarly, it’s very difficult to function in the developed world without a phone and laptop, and the supply chains that provide the cobalt for those electronics are obscured, so it’s hard to verify whether or not child slavery has been involved. Most of us it seems (including all the Tumblr vegans) buy what we can afford and hope for the best.

And that’s all fine, as far as it goes. But if you permit the feasibility exemption, it seriously weakens your categorical assertion that it is always wrong for humans to eat shrimp. If it’s OK for a penguin to eat shrimp because it must, and if it’s OK for you to have a smartphone because it’s hard to tell whether or not child slavery has been involved in its provenance, it seems a bit weak to then make strong claims about the moral necessity for all people to prevent the suffering of tiger prawns.

All of which is to say: you’re actually admitting that causing suffering is acceptable if it’s “necessary.” But then you need to work to define what is “necessary” because that definition will change wildly between people. Is it “necessary” for me, as a white person living in a developed country, to eat shrimp? What about a brown person from a fishing community in the developing world? What about a poor white person from a fishing community in the developed world who is working to revitalize their fading industry through aquaculture? And on and on. It’s disingenuous in the extreme to position yourself as the arbiter of “necessity” for all people everywhere.

I really do think that the suffering argument is the very weakest one that gets marshalled in defence of veganism, despite its enduring popularity.

[brock-o-lee]

@acti-veg

[dreamvegan]

Happy New Year’s Eve ✨

How about making going vegan your New Year’s resolution?

@acti-veg has wonderful guides on why to go vegan and how to do it!

https://acti-veg.com/resources/why-go-vegan/

Why Vegan?

From saving animals to supporting workers and the environment, there are so many important reasons to go vegan.

https://acti-veg.com/home-2/how-to-get-involved-help-animals-to-live/

How to go vegan

By going vegan you are making a real and lasting difference in the world. However, since we live in a society that treats veganism as in som

[gettingvetted]

Y'all. I've officially made it as a vetblr/animal science/animal welfare/animal agriculture blog. Acti-veg has blocked me. I've not even had any direct interactions with them 😂

[thatveganwhiterose]

Shout out to @acti-veg for being one of the most patient and kind vegans (and vegan bloggers) I’ve ever met on this website. (Or any site.)

He’s been doing this crap for years: getting the same questions, the same shitty attacks, the same arguments and he always handles things with grace and clarity. Even when he gets mad, he is still cool and level-headed. So many posts I’ve lost my own shit on because poster(s) can be so fucking infuriating? Acti-Veg stays calm as fuck.

The fact that he is still going strong is absolutely amazing to me, what with adult life and the real world being so hectic and busy. 

He also takes the time to answer all asks and messages he get on this site. Like hot damn, how does he juggle all of it?

But seriously. If you haven’t been following this guy and are active on tumblr as a vegan...go give him a follow!

[coyuties]

@acti-veg @necessaryveganism Hi! I’m looking for a little help in how to reply to this, with proper sources. I would appreciate help from any other vegans as well!

I’ve just started actually engaging with debate myself. I typically avoid conflict, because I get extremely anxious and, even online, shaky and sick.

I posted something and a friend-of-a-friend who loves to argue (what I heard about him, upon something seeing this debate) saw it and decided to start a debate.

This is in no way a rush, I’ll reply when I’m ready and want to, but thanks ahead of time to anything willing to help with finding sources to go against his claims! (I will be doing so too)

I’ll put in text what was said after a read-more

“ First off, #1: Estimates ranging from 14% to 51% is just not acceptable. That margin of error is just to wide to have any meaning. I am sure it's impact is substiantal, but it leaves out the fact that cow shit methane is used to fertilize crops. Of course it's a delicate cycle where we use another animal for beneficial purposes but the writer leaves it out completely in hopes that you miss the massive gaping logically hole of needing animal shit to grow crops cause every nation except North Korea outlaws the use of human shit on plant growth. #2 An apple 150g takes 125 litres of water. Where as milk takes 940 litre/kg. http://waterfootprint.org/.../interactiv.../product-gallery/ How about you check your source of that material instead of relying on that "1,000 gallons of water to produce just ONE gallon of milk" First off, that equation is wrong, and if you believe it it would mean milk requires less water to grow then apples do. FYI, cool site, I did like it. #3: It's pretty much well known at this point that farming animals sadly will save them. We destroy what we do not need because humans will not compete for resources against other lifeforms without human rights. We end them, and not always for meat, the buffalo's got in the way of our trains, we ended them. Animals need to coexist with us for survival. The point of the 1/3 of land being used for animal is fair, but 2/3rds is for humans. We don't stop because we have enough, we won't stop because we don't eat meat. Plus those lands have animals that survive in a delicate ecosystem that we destroy every year not because of meat and animals. We interfere with those ecosystem either way, and as climate change occurs, those forest/jungles will die out and we either grow over them or let them rot into a marsh and eventually a desert. #4 "Dead Zones" Everyone knows it's cause of oil spills. A couple millennium of animal raising didn't do shit compare to a decade of oil spills. The whole cause of those dead zones was because the fish were killed off and algae bloomed out of control. Look that one up. it's been solved for nearly a decade now. 5. Cleaner Air... It uses talk about "300+ million tons of manure" Yea well we grow plants with it. We couldn't grow as many plants without it. There, does that appease and disprove your claim that I provided no proof?”

“ Veganism to me is a joke because I don't understand why anyone would limit themselves in terms of diet from choice rather than environment. That being said, I respect the choice since I know many people that refuse to eat meat. But generally they do so because of the harm being inflicted onto other lifeforms, not because they think it could actually contribute to anything else besides conservation efforts. BTW, it is a really nice site. It's pretty interesting, and you should check out how badly nuts need water to grow”

“ FYI, almonds and pistachio take more water the chicken, but not as much as cows.”

[dangitsbatman]

acti-veg replied to your post: acti-veg: For those of you who think you don’t...

@dangitsbatman what you’re describing is very much not the norm though, I’m not sure if you’re aware of that. I don’t know any vegan who still has cravings a year in, aside from the occasional odd moment. Those who do have them it’s very rarely any sort of battle.

We must know wildly different vegans.  I just want it to be clear that your experiences may vary.  I don’t want someone like me to think something is wrong because they think you won’t have cravings.  For me, it really is a sort of battle, and one worth fighting every day.  I’ll have days when I’m depressed and drive by a fried chicken spot and have to talk myself out of stopping.  Or when I’m in the ice cream aisle looking for vegan stuff and staring my old favorite down for a moment before I pick up the non-dairy stuff that I like just enough.

And like I said:  I know it’s not just me.  I don’t know any vegans IRL who don’t go through the same thing to some degree.  I’m very glad that it’s easy for so many.  I wouldn’t want it to be a hard thing for anyone.