Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
#658: Selective compassion (6) by Pupaveg #658: Selective compassion (6) by Pupaveg
"An activist in Denmark was crying in national television when he saw cows getting slaughtered in Aarhus slaughterhouse. The whole population was laughing at him and calling him names. I think that the fact that people make fun of others for feeling compassion for animals is quite funny, when they grab their pitchforks when a dog gets treated poorly."

Christian Sørensen

:iconpupaveg: Art

Some animals are to be killed some aren't
What is this based on? Let's use dogs as an example as that's the most commonly respected animal, in my experience.

- Dogs are our companions
Practically any animal could be your companion if you gave them the chance. People keep pigs as companions, and form bonds with them as strong as you can with a dog.

- I just like dogs, I don't have a connection with other animals
That is not a justification for killing other animals. Somebody could equally say to you "I don't have a connection with your dog, so I am going to slit their throat". Just because of how you feel about an animal, doesn't mean that animal is disposable, they are sentient beings.

- Dogs are intelligent, other animals are dumb
That is not a justification for killing them. Other animals such as cats, hamsters and so on could be said to be less intelligent than dogs, that doesn't mean you think killing them is fine presumably. But as it happens, pigs are in many ways more intelligent than dogs, able to make connections and solve problems more advanced than anything dogs can do, and can interact on a higher level with video games, they can recognise human faces, understand reflections in a mirror, respond to commands and so on. If you have any serious consideration for animals, feel free to look up articles on chicken intelligence, cattle intelligence, sheep intelligence and so on. It is out of the question that dogs are alone as being intelligent animals.

- Companion animals are my property, like my TV
This is an absurd comparison. The reason why you'd be upset with someone killing your dog is not because they are your property, it's because they are sentient beings, living their own life, and you don't want harm to come to them. Damage to your TV is a financial loss, your companion animals are more than that surely? 

- Just our culture, it's actually fine to slit dog's throats as long as it's done in another culture not this one
That makes no sense at all. Following through with this statement, you'd be appalled if a dog was killed in front of you, but apparently if that same dog was transported to another country where it is culturally acceptable to kill them, then you'd say it was fine. Think it through - it's the same dog, precisely the same thing is happening to them. Why does it matter where it happens?

- Dogs have been companions of humans for hundreds of years
That is just because humans have chosen for it to be that way, it isn't the fault of other animals. You could make a companionship with any animal if you chose, there's no reason to be killing them just because you chose not to make a friend of them.

- You can play catch with a dog and they do tricks
You can do the same with many other species. But why do you want to kill animals who don't want to play catch? Most cats don't want to play catch, they might do other things, but most don't retrieve things and play catch like dogs do, but it doesn't logically follow that you must slit a cat's throat.

- Dogs are cute
Why do you discriminate against animals based upon what they look like? If you come across a dog that isn't cute, are you compelled to slit their throat? If someone doesn't find your dog cute, is it okay for them to slit their throat? 

- Yeah but it's because I have a connection with my animal, they're like family. Killing animals outside my family is fine.
This is a direction comparison between humans and dogs. Therefore, you are saying that killing your dog would be bad because they're like family. Killing anyone outside your family is therefore fine, would you apply this to strangers then? A human stranger is not part of your family, unlike your dog. The argument of "you're humanizing animals" cannot be used, because you are the one humanizing animals in this case, comparing them to your family. Just because an animal or human is outside your family is no grounds to slit their throat. Also, think this through. If you have an animal that currently isn't in your family, you're arguing that it's fine to slit their throat. But if you chose to instead adopt them, then immediately it's abhorrent to slit that animal's throat. It's the same animal. Look at this from the animal's perspective, not your own. 

Add a Comment:
 
:iconbookiestofworms:
BookiestofWorms Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2018
Ew!! A ching-chong!!!! They need Bookworm Adventures Deluxe!!!!
Reply
:iconmondonosuke:
Mondonosuke Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2018
I balled my eyes out when I watched cows getting slaughtered in one of those hell pits. I couldn't stop crying it was the most horrific thing I had ever seen in my life it made me want to be a vegetarian. I'm still working on that, it's hard changing things that I was raised doing but I will! I refuse to eat meat and someday I will be fully cleansed of it.
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I know how you feel. But thankfully you can still have vegan meats, so you can still enjoy the taste of the foods you ate before, without the torture. Here are some examples of vegan chicken recipes: www.youtube.com/results?search…
Reply
:iconmondonosuke:
Mondonosuke Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2018
Wow thanks I will definitely check it out! You're very smart on all of this so I do have something else to ask if you don't mind? What do full vegans do typically to get the nutrition or rather protein they need to be healthy, eat nuts and drink protein drinks? I just was wondering how I can go full vegan and be completely healthy, I know it's realistic I just don't know how, ya know?
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Protein
This nutrient is extremely easy to come across. If you are eating the correct RDA of total calories each day, then it is virtually impossible to be short of protein. Deficiency of protein is incredibly rare in modern society, and basically only affects people who are starving for whatever reason. It's not a concern for those who are eating a normal amount. The world health organization recommends between 5-10% of your daily calories to come from protein. So many common plant-based foods are in excess of that, many fall within that range, and only a few things like fruit fall slightly beneath. This really is not a concern for anybody.

Watch this short video about protein and veganism
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m4p8s…

Read more here:
www.veganhealth.org/articles/p…
Reply
:iconmondonosuke:
Mondonosuke Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2018
Well that's a relief doesn't sound difficult to change eating habits at all if there are no health concerns. Thank you so much for your time! You've inspired and changed me more than you know with just a few messages. Keep up the good fight!
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank you so much! And I will!
Reply
:iconmondonosuke:
Mondonosuke Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2018
:heart:
Reply
:iconkryptic-splash:
Kryptic-Splash Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
yeah, it is kinda double standard,at least on some people, because i know many peeps who would laugh at you crying over anything that isn't human, including pets, which is horrible.

I'm not vegan, mostly because i have only like, 3 or 4 vegetables i would even eat for several reasons i'm not gonna list here, and while i do eat meat, i wish that the meat is produced in a way that the amount of suffering animal goes through is as minimal as possible. Yes, it doesn't make the original killing any less bad, but at least the animal didn't have to suffer.
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
As I said to someone else here before: the standard legal form of slaughter for animals is for them to be "stunned" and then have their throats slit. For chickens and pigs, the stunning is generally done with an electric shock, and for other animals a pneumatic bolt pistol projects a metal rod into their forehead. It is claimed that this renders the animal 100% unconscious, but if you actually look into the facts, slaughterhouse workers will admit that there is no way to verify that this is the case for every single animal, and indeed the process doesn't always work, isn't followed routinely, and indeed, the "stun" can wear off while the animal is being killed. But regardless of the fashion of execution, there isn't a justification for taking the life. It is still taking the life of a sentient being, for your enjoyment ultimately. If somebody killed your companion animal, I doubt you'd say "that's fine because you did it humanely" as described above.
Reply
:iconkryptic-splash:
Kryptic-Splash Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
yes, i 100% understand. Stunning doesn't always work. You can see it in human executions: the substance that is supposed to make person fall asleep doesn't always work, amount si too small or one giving the substance doesn't know the correct methods, which leads to quite horrifying results when other stuff is given

But that is exactly the problem: we still kill other humans regularly, the cruelty like that is completely fine to us, especially in countries where death penalty exists(just look at what US has done recently and how they seem to think about stuff) and not only that, many countries who have had it removed have arranged public votes on it, and in many of them people want it back. It's is a state of mind this world has right now, that killing, as long as there is at least some reason, no matter how stupid it is, is justified. Was it humans, animals or plants, we don't think about it as long as there is a good reason that applies to us personally. Pigs are killed for food, criminals are killed because they are dangerous, trees are chopped down because we need space for crops, etc. No, those pigs do not need to be killed, nor do criminals or trees, but do we care? of course not. We are cold-hearted by nature, and those who aren't, well, i'm sure you know what society thinks of them(i don't mean this as an insult, sorry if it comes off that way)

And talking about companion animals, i have seen animals killed for varying reasons. My grandpa got his dog and cat taken down for simple reason that dog was getting old(she had no health issues yet however) and cat couldn't do his's job, hunting pests, anymore. My dad's rottie-dachshund-mix was killed because she had bad tumor in her belly that had spread and caused her horrible pain. and yes, they didn't need to be killed so soon, but the way it was done was painless, which makes it at least little better, and in the case of a mix, she was saved from going through unnecessary suffering. Yes, i miss them, more than any human relatives i have who have died in my small lifetime, but i'm fine with it. at the very least, they don't need to see the horror that this world is turning into.
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Do you realize that the comparison between killing innocent sensitive beings out of greed and selfishness VS killing violent criminals like serial killers and ISIS members for our own safety is extremely flawed?
Do you also think that every dictator's actions throughout history, including mass-murder, is justified because "they are cold-blooded" and "they don't care about the victims"? Or would their actions have been ok if they killed their victims faster, meaning the majority of deaths of the people they killed is justified because it was done with a headshot before they were tossed into a mass grave? Of course not! Killing is not justified by saying that the perpatrator is ok with it, or because they kill their victims "quickly". Because the most interested party, the innocent victim being killed, is denied a choice here. If we follow through with your logic, every form of violence is justified and we shouldn't even bother having laws and jails for criminals at all, because "humans are cruel by nature" and "they don't care about their victims". Killing people or other animals unnessecarily should be opposed, not praised, no matter how "fast" the victim dies.
Reply
:iconkryptic-splash:
Kryptic-Splash Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
First of all, you assume all killed people are violent and guilty, which is not the case: 4% of people in death row are actually proven to be innocent or are very likely innocent, but they are still going to get killed, mostly because of flawed and even corrupted juridical system. And, one could question if the killing is even then justified. Does killing someone make them any less worthy of living? 

And about those dictators, yes, we do recognize them as bad but many of us don't really even care. As any random bystander to name any south american dictator, or any dictator besides the obvious Mao, Hitler, Stalin and current North Korea's leader. Not to forget, many people idolize these dictators, see them as role models and alike. Many even believe holocaust was fake, noting more than propaganda, to the point that in France there is a law that says it's illegal to claim that holocaust isn't real event. It's quite horrible isn't it? To make matters worse, many countries we have such a good image on are not any better. Japan isn't fine,even now, with admitting all the war crimes they have done. Russia alters it's own history books, making them look like the heroes. Even America tries to sugarcoat the fact it has killed several innocent people in areas where terrorists live and do their business, 'for the greater good', which is honestly one of the most stupid arguments one can ever made. If a criminal lives next to me, do i deserve to be killed?

And this is not even touching the horrors we do everyday that we never even think. Several immigrants look for safety in other countries, escaping war, violence, discrimination, poverty, etc. And what happens to most of them? We kick them right back where they came from, and wonder why situation isn't getting better on it's own. We even paint immigrants as these horrible people who come in to "rape our women, kidnap our kids, steal our money and kill our people". And if they happen to be muslims, we immediately assume they are terrorists. There are entire political parties in some countries that have only one simple objective: to keep 'them' out. And people vote and support them. isn't that kinda cruel in a way, to sentence others into life in constant fear, places where children may be forced to become child soldiers, members of criminal gangs and even take part in drug trafficking? 

Besides, that was not my main point. My main point is that I can't see humans ending violence and killing of animals before we stop killing our own kind. While yes, progress has been made in all fronts, it is obvious that to go farther, we need to take actions that majority of population does not agree on. At this point, death is noting more than a distant thing you don't think about until it becomes personal and even then, and i'm talking from personal experience, it doesn't necessary even cause emotional response anymore. Heck, games have made killing into a type of entertainment, and while these games do not make people turn into serial killers, people do start to view death as just 'eh, whatever'.

also something to defend your case of ending animal killing, but also kinda on the side of people who do not wanna go full vegan: we have technology that can multiply human cells into organs we need, and although this is still very expensive and experimental field of science, it could be, when developed further, used to make meat without killing any animals. Just few cells, like a small piece of skin, could be enough, and it probably wouldn't cause animals any more pain than giving them a vaccine for example. Of course, it would still need animal dna(maybe, who knows, maybe we can make a steak from chemicals one day) and it is still far in future, but it could be a serious option to consider. I'm all in for ending any and all killing, human and animal, and would be ready to support it, but like i said, the pickiness that i have with food makes going full vegan very hard for me. 
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I am aware of the fact that there might be people in jail who are not guilty, or have been framed etc. I never said that I supported the death penalty, I said that the comparision between criminals and victims in general is absurd.
I agree with you that it's sad that some people try to make it look like some wars never happened, and that people shouldn't treat refugees like shit. But what I don't agree on is that we should remain silent about violence just because "humans will always ben violent". If we handled that logic throughout history, women would not have rights in our culture today, the slavery of poc would still be a thing everywhere (meaning I wouldn't be talking to you right now, but probably somewhere carrying rocks for white people), we wouldn't have a justice system and the world would be one big chaos. "Convenience", "being picky" or "feeling superior" to others are no moral justifications to kill other sentient beings. Animal meat and their secretions are just a fraction of the food we have available on our planet. There are over 80,000 edible plants in the world, many of which you can make things that look and taste similar to what you're used to.
Reply
:iconcaptiankritz1:
Captiankritz1 Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
i made a character that is a cannibal
Reply
:iconfrost5abor:
Frost5abor Featured By Owner Edited Dec 8, 2018  Hobbyist Artist
Hmm, I would argue that dogs have evolved specifically for humans and along side humans as if they were another member of their tribe. Dog's and humans have had a very VERY long lasting bond over the centuries from hunting together and giving and taking in order to survive. Dogs have the ability to form chemical bonds much like a mother and her newborn would with humans. It just isn't the same thing with livestock, so I guess that's where the line is drawn? Honestly dogs are pretty special creatures. We made them for us. We didn't make livestock for anything other than food.

Now make no mistake, killing animals inhumanely is horrific and if we are going to kill them to eat then it shouldn't be torture for them. Thankfully it usually is very quick and clean and it's better for them to die that way than to be eaten by wild animals who have no concept of mercy.
Reply
:icongrey-terminal:
Grey-Terminal Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2019
So much hypocracy lol
Reply
:iconfrost5abor:
Frost5abor Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2019  Hobbyist Artist
i'm surprised you know what that word means considering you can't spell it. how am i being a hypocrite? 
Reply
:icongrey-terminal:
Grey-Terminal Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2019
I hate dogs because of people like you `they are speshul`lol. Did you know pigs are much more intelligent?
Reply
:iconfrost5abor:
Frost5abor Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2019  Hobbyist Artist
that doesn't explain how i'm a hypocrite...
Reply
:icongrey-terminal:
Grey-Terminal Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2019
People put animals into categories. That is not fair i think
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Practically any animal could be your companion if you gave them the chance. People keep pigs as companions, and form bonds with them as strong as you can with a dog.
Not having a connection with other animals is not a justification for killing other animals. Somebody could equally say to you "I don't have a connection with your dog, so I am going to slit their throat". Just because of how you feel about an animal, doesn't mean that animal is disposable, they are sentient beings.

Dog's and humans have had a very VERY long lasting bond over the centuries from hunting together and giving and taking in order to survive. 

That is just because humans have chosen for it to be that way, it isn't the fault of other animals. You could make a companionship with any animal if you chose, there's no reason to be killing them just because you chose not to make a friend of them.

"They're bred to be killed so it's fine"
Following this logic, if somebody has a dog living with them, and she is pregnant, then simply standing there and saying "When those puppies are born I am going to kill them all" would be enough justification for doing so. That of course is absurd. Basically, you are not in a position to determine the fate of an animal. If the argument is that some animals have been selectively bred for consumption, then again, that is not a justification. The entire process of selectively breeding them was done at the hands of humans, and all subsequent loss of life is at their say so and is entirely unnecessary.

The standard legal form of slaughter for animals is for them to be "stunned" and then have their throats slit. For chickens and pigs, the stunning is generally done with an electric shock, and for other animals a pneumatic bolt pistol projects a metal rod into their forehead. It is claimed that this renders the animal 100% unconscious, but if you actually look into the facts, slaughterhouse workers will admit that there is no way to verify that this is the case for every single animal, and indeed the process doesn't always work, isn't followed routinely, and indeed, the "stun" can wear off while the animal is being killed. But regardless of the fashion of execution, there isn't a justification for taking the life. It is still taking the life of a sentient being, for your enjoyment ultimately. If somebody killed your companion animal, I doubt you'd say "that's fine because you did it humanely" as described above.
Reply
:iconfrost5abor:
Frost5abor Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2018  Hobbyist Artist
"That is just because humans have chosen for it to be that way, it isn't the fault of other animals. You could make a companionship with any animal if you chose, there's no reason to be killing them just because you chose not to make a friend of them."

I know that, that doesn't change the fact that that is why it is like this. It's none of our faults it is like this either, that is just how it worked out. 

"They're bred to be killed so it's fine"

Never said this. I'm saying dogs are special above all animals because of our history, and that is why people are more offended.

I still hold the argument it is better for them to die if they must the way they are, instead of being yanked from the womb of the mother and being eaten alive by a baboon. 
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Humans BREED over 50 billion(!) animals a year. These animals are genetically manipulated: intentionally bred with all sorts of health problems to increase profits. These animals have no chance to change their own misfortune, and are purely tortured and killed out of humanity's greed and selfishness, by the BILLIONS every week. Mother animals are being restrained and regulary forcibly impregnated over and over and over and over again. Their babies are killed so humans can steal their milk for themselves. The mother's genetically manipulated body is being milked over and over and over again until she cannot take it anymore and collapses. Then she gets her throat slit and is replaced by her daughters. Baby chicks in the egg industry are killed by the millions every week right after hatching because they can't lay eggs. Mother pigs are also used as breeding machines, are locked inside a cage they can't even turn around for their entire lives, until they too collapse and are discarded and replaced. 91% of the Amazon rainforest is being cut down, driving tens of thousands of species to extinction, in order to make space to grow crops meant to feed cattle. Trillions of marine animals are killed and may discarded, again because of human greed. Mother cows are being slaughtered by the billions while still pregnant, and their babies are cut from her body when she's still alive and their blood is drained while they're still breathing for fetal serum. And you argue that a baboon attacking an animal (who has a chance to change his own misfortune) to survive, otherwise he'll die of hunger, is "crueler" than the ultimate animal holocaust on earth? I mean, really? Think about what you're saying, it makes no logical sense.

"It's just the way things are" is no logical explaination for treating one animal as precious while treating another one (who have just as much feelings) like shit. 
Cultures and social norms develop over time. Whether it is slavery, women having the vote, or anything else, the fact that it was ever the norm or part of culture, is not a justification for it. If you think that culture is a justification, then if you look at other cultures, you must advocate every single practice that they do, regardless of how clearly unethical it is. That's not a rational point of view. You should be able to form a view on a practice regardless of where it happens. So if you say that killing dogs is unacceptable because your culture says so, but you think that it's fine if other cultures do it, consider the following: If someone is about to kill a dog in your culture, would you really say "Excuse me, can you please cross the border to that other culture where that kind of thing is the norm? Then I will stop caring about that dog". This is about the victim, it doesn't matter where it happens.
Reply
:iconbendy-tbw:
Bendy-TBW Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018  Student Artist
This is sadly true in todays society.
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah.
Reply
:iconbendy-tbw:
Bendy-TBW Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2018  Student Artist
My uncle in mexico has a meat shop and him and my cousion would. Kill pigs for their meat. I would never harm any one ot any animal. Even if its just a pig. If i did i would feel eminse amount of guilt.
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Same here. 
Reply
:iconrustidoodle:
Rustidoodle Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018
I mean. To me personally your point makes no difference. Animals are animals wether it be a dog or a pig, I wouldn't be put off of eating a dog if it was legal. And don't call me crazy for that either- I've seen people gag at the idea of eating a zebra but they'll eat chicken and beef soooo. Yea it just doesn't change anything for me fortunately. I guess this only really applies to people who act like this.
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It's true that killing a dog is no different from killing a pig. We've just been conditioned to think it is. All animals want to live, and we should erase the dividing line.
Reply
:iconraku99:
RaKu99 Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018
"I mean. To me personally your point makes no difference. Humans are humans wether it's an adult or a kid, I wouldn't be put off of killing a human if it was legal. And don't call me crazy for that either- I've seen people gag at the idea of killing a man but they'll kill an entirely town soooo. Yea it just doesn't change anything for me fortunately. I guess this only applies to people who act like this."

The mere fact of killing a creature just for fun it's horrible.
Reply
:iconrustidoodle:
Rustidoodle Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018
It's not for fun. It's for food- I mean yeah you can consider that useless or "just for fun" but honestly if I'm hungry for chicken ima have some chicken.
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Humans have no biological need for animal products. So by killing animals for food, we kill them for taste pleasure, meaning for fun. Animals are killed for the enjoyment of eating their dead bodies. It is not a matter of survival, as proven by all the hundreds of millions of vegans in the world.
Reply
:iconrustidoodle:
Rustidoodle Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018
Yeah I did realise that when I posted hehe- it is for fun I suppose- but that still doesn't really change it for me. I'm glad some people are able to give that up but I just like meat and certain foods too much to give it up!
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Meat is often seen as just being a type of food. But it is a dead body, of a once living creature. To say "I just like the taste" is to say "Killing is justified if I like the flavour of the dead body". If we follow through with this, then somebody would be justified in killing your pets if they liked the taste, which surely nobody would agree with. Or even extend it to humans and say that if someone likes the taste of human flesh, then it's fine to murder people. 
Reply
:iconrustidoodle:
Rustidoodle Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2018
Yeah that makes a lot of sense,, it's cool to see you have a strong argument- there's not really much I can say in return. Unfortunately that just doesn't change it to me- I guess I'm just as bad as I work on those social norms.
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Cultures and social norms develop over time. Whether it is slavery, women having the vote, or anything else, the fact that it was ever the norm or part of culture, is not a justification for it. If you think that culture is a justification, then if you look at other cultures, you must advocate every single practice that they do, regardless of how clearly unethical it is. That's not a rational point of view. You should be able to form a view on a practice regardless of where it happens. So if you say that killing dogs is unacceptable because your culture says so, but you think that it's fine if other cultures do it, consider the following: If someone is about to kill a dog in your culture, would you really say "Excuse me, can you please cross the border to that other culture where that kind of thing is the norm? Then I will stop caring about that dog". This is about the victim, it doesn't matter where it happens.

I hope you think about it. Have a nice day. :peace:
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjitterbugjive:
JitterbugJive Featured By Owner Edited Dec 7, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Oh! What is your stance on replacing animal meat with bugs in our diet? I've seen a lot of neat things about the nutrients bugs can provide, they're SUPER easy to mass produce too, and really cheap, would save on SO much space because they can be kept in much smaller enclosures. I'd honestly switch to bugs if they were more readily available but all we have are those gross dried crickets, and drying bugs basically removes the whole bug part and you're just eating exoskeleton. There are actually quite a few bugs I want to try, and there are people trying to make an effort to make them a more accepted source of food.

Also, another question, because no matter how easy you might say it is to just make a choice to switch to veganism, the fact is it's going to cost more. How is one on low income supposed to afford a vegan diet AND be in good health? Especially when they need to avoid soy because it does cause health issues in large quantities, and quinoa because of the unethical treatment of human beings that goes in to it? Not to mention the issue of the way the food tastes, it's really hard to find vegan replacements of things that give the same or better taste.
Veganism aint cheap, not to produce, not to buy, it's just really expensive especially because it's considered a 'fad' at the moment so people can get away with hiking prices "because it's healthier".
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I don't see why we should kill bugs when we can just as well eat crops? I mean, many insects have feelings, too, a heart and a brain. I don't think killing any being unnessecarily is justified.

A plant-based diet can be as affordable as you need it to be. Common staples like bread, rice, pasta, beans, oats, vegetables are all going to be affordable. I have known people personally who have been made homeless who subsequently had to live in accommodation, who continued to be vegan. Indeed, many animal products are expensive. Some might say that vegan substitute meats etc are expensive - and while that can sometimes be true, they are entirely unnecessary for a healthy diet. If you want specific advice, please contact me, or any other vegan group for tips on cheap vegan food, but yes, you can do it! I am a vegan who lives on less money than gov benefits, and being vegan saved me money actually. Vegan diets can be done in thousands of different ways, but if you want to stick to what you're already eating, I suggest you switch to making stuff like this from scratch: www.youtube.com/results?search… (I do, I can't always afford the stuff at the grocery store). I do have an old comic on it, I believe. Here it is:

Veganism is expensive by Pupaveg

I personally never eat quinoa because I don't like how it tastes. But that's no problem. It is one of the 80,000 edible vegetables on earth, so there are plenty of other choices. Soy is actually very good for health, the study that demonizes soy is funded by its greatest rival: the dairy industry, and not based on peer-reviewed studies and research. Asians have been using soy for centuries. Soy is a bean, like any other. It's not going to kill you. It has breast and prostate cancer-fighting properties, like any other bean.

Oh, and never jump on the bandwagon of the vegan trend on Youtube. Many of these Youtubers starve themselves consuming a diet that's even too deficient for a rabbit, and go to the extremes like fasting for months etc. Don't end up like those morons.
Reply
:icondragoliched:
dragoliched Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2018
Don't go Vegan. It's bad for the environment. Vegetarian or a regular diet are much better since less land needs to be used for production of food. Also, your idea of switching to bugs instead of meat is a good one too. I've tried worms, non-dried crickets, and beetles. They're all good.
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Over 50 billion animals are raised for slaughter each year. In order to feed them, it takes far more land, water and crops to feed them than it does to just feed us 7 billion humans on plants. The number of animals being farmed is unsustainable in fact, causing all kinds of pollution as a result of their manure and the greenhouse gases released, which is more harmful than all traffic pollution combined. Disagree with me? Please feel free to research it, but it's by definition going to require additional farming, space, resources, water...
Reply
:iconjitterbugjive:
JitterbugJive Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah, I know that there's a lot of vegan stuff that's actually inhumane towards people, and bad for the environment, like plastic replacing wool when plastic doesn't decompose. Economically, veganism couldn't be supported for the human race.
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Plastic isn't the only fabric you can use to replace wool. Wool is actually one of the worst things for the environment because it requires breeding, feeding and raising animals which pollute the environment with their manure and methane. Wool isn't nessecary, but there are plenty of alternatives for it made from organic cotton, linen, seaweed, wood, beech tree fiber, hemp, soybeans and many other materials.

And if one is worried about the treatment of people, all the more reason to stop using animal products, because feeding over 50 billion animals on crops requires additional slave labour to produce those crops, and to slaughter the animals.
Reply
:iconjitterbugjive:
JitterbugJive Featured By Owner Edited Dec 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Right my other questions here are pretty important ones
Vegans give pretty valid points on the fact that humans can survive without meat, but I've never seen one provide valid solutions.
For example, if there is a ban on eating meat, what happens to all the excess farm animals that are destroying the environment now for nothing? What alternatives are you going to give these companies to even allow them to change to something else that would be just as if not more lucrative? How will a ban on exotic pets be monitored for people who already have exotic pets? Are they just going to be told to get rid of them? Where do all the domesticated exotics go exactly? Who's going to provide sanctuary for all these animals? How is there any reasonable economic solution to this? Will we need to fund sanctuaries? Will we need to cull for the 'greater good' of the planet in the long run? Do we just separate all the males and females of the farm animals and hope they all die off without impacting the planet's environment too badly? What do we do with the mass amount of corpses left over when all these animals die exactly? What will stop them from doing a "meat for all" panic in order to get rid of all these animals as quickly and easily as possible?
There's the easy choice to change what you eat and buy, but ultimately meat is still a huge part of the market and it's not something that can just be 'stopped' without some SERIOUS solutions put in place first. And as long as no one's giving valid solutions, it's just not going to be reasonable to change it. A very slow, gradual change seems to be the only really valid solution but that could take decades or more to fully work.
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Edited Dec 9, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Vegans give pretty valid points on the fact that humans can survive without meat, but I've never seen one provide valid solutions.

Eating plants? And products made of plants?

For example, if there is a ban on eating meat, what happens to all the excess farm animals that are destroying the environment now for nothing?

Animals are bred by humans for consumption. As more people go vegan, less animals are bred for consumption. As such, if everyone eventually goes vegan (which may not even happen, and if it did, would gradually take place over many years), then animals would no longer be farmed. So their population would not be an issue. Livestock animals have been selectively bred by humans to be of profit to us. They suffer all kinds of health problems because they are bred to be much bigger than their natural ancestors. Continuing to breed them serves no purpose, even if everybody was vegan there would be no logical reason to keep breeding these animals, knowing they will suffer health problems due to the manner of their selective breeding. But even if you disagree with that, and if you really think there should be these selectively bred species for whatever reason - that is no reason to also slit their throats. There are endangered species right now like pandas, tigers, rhinos and so on. Slitting their throats is no part of their conservation, and to suggest doing so would be ridiculous. Most sanctuaries spay/neuter their cows, pigs etc. There are already versions of them in the wild (chicken = jungle fowl, and there are also wild cows, sheep and goats etc.) so there is no need to keep breeding the puppy mill versions of them you find on farms.

How will a ban on exotic pets be monitored for people who already have exotic pets? 

A ban on exotic pets would mean a ban on breeding them, or catching them in the wild to sell as pets. The remaining pets (like monkeys) will either go to a wildlife sanctuary (some can be released back into the wild, depending on which ones can survive) or (if they live a reasonable life, like some fennec foxes) live out their lives with their current owner. 

A very slow, gradual change seems to be the only really valid solution but that could take decades or more to fully work.

No form of oppression ever ended within a day. It took 400 years to convince white people not to own black people. And 100 years on top of that to end segregation. I think every vegan is aware that ending the oppression of animals will take time, too. But that doesn't mean we should stop speaking out for them. Because nothing ever changed because people were silent about it. The less people who buy something, the less demand there is. Animals are not being bred and killed regardless of demand. If you have a country of 10 million people, do you think that in a country of 5 million people that the size of the animal farming industy is the same? Of course it isn't. Likewise, if you have a country of 10 million non-vegans, do you think if that country instead had 5 million vegans and 5 million non-vegans, that the animal farming industry would be the same size? Again, of course not. Shops sell animal products, and then restock appropriately. If something isn't selling as well, they will order less. As such, the warehouses they stock from will then have appropriately sized orders from those shops, and will stock less ingredients to make those products, which means ordering less animal products from slaughterhouses and farms, which means less demand for animals to be bred in the first place. It's just simple maths. Everybody is responsible for what they are personally doing. The way for numbers to rise is for individuals to take accountability one by one. If you want for there to be multiple vegans to make a difference, then become one. There are hundreds of millions of vegans in the world, so we are not just one person. In the UK, 12% of people are vegetarian or vegan. If you look at the age range of 16-24, that ratio rises to 20%. It is completely worthwhile to do this and we are having an effect on the industries. Imagine if everyone who is vegetarian/vegan started buying animal products again - that would be a giant increase in demand. As such, we are keeping demand down by continuing to avoid animal products.

I hope this answers your questions. I have to go to work now, so I'll reply to your other messages later, hope you understand. Have a nice day!
Reply
:iconjitterbugjive:
JitterbugJive Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Next set of problems
The amount of farmland needed to feed a vegan world would actually take up way more land and destroy more of the environment in order to make way for it, unless someone can actually make the idea of 'vertical farms' a more popularized one.
Then there's the matter of insects that will increase with the increase of crops and farmland, especially if we're going to go non GMO and no pesticides or any kind of population control of the bugs to keep them out of the crops.
The way humanity is now it's more or less impossible to coexist with animals in a 100% peaceful way because we're always going to need to destroy things in nature in order to provide for ourselves. No matter what we do, people will need to regulate animals in some way, be it to protect our food sources, our homes, our 'territories', unless we get rid of things like cities and all start living in mud huts or caves there's no way that we can't invade on other animals. We either let nature take over or continue to progress as a species until we can find better solutions if that's even possible. There's literally no pleasing everybody, and a ban on meat will likely be similar to the ban on alcohol where there will be underground slaughterhouses and a lot of people protesting until a compromise is made. At best, regulated meat at outrageous prices might be the only real way to deter people from it, then people would need to spread a lot of anti-meat propaganda that doesn't resort to insulting peoples' intelligence with shock comparisons because that will only make people more angry about it- they just need to see things as is, and people need to discuss all the pros and cons, meat probably at best will gain a stigma. Because meat is safe to consume and provides nourishment a ban would cause really complicated issues- for example what will count as animal or not? What will count as 'eating for pleasure' vs 'eating for survival', then there has to be regulations put on hunting because you'll have to ban it for both sport and for food (Which honestly I just want hunting for sport to be illegal) Then you have to think of peoples' cultural and religious traditions, or the people who choose to live off the land and hunt for their own food, people who live of their own farms, they might not always be able to get enough access to the vegetation they need to get by.
This is kind of a 'nice in theory' thing, like communism, it sounds ideal but there are so many other cons in exchange for the pros that people don't want to think about. I see people say what the 'ideal world' would be like but not the steps that it would take to get there, the problems that would come along the way and resulting from the changes, and no matter how perfect it looks there are always going to be a lot of flaws that need to be accounted for.
Most people aren't going to look at this goal of an animal exploitation free world and think that it's a possible outcome, because everyone has different moral values with animals. People will argue if there's no farm animals and no animals for clothing, there should be no pets. People will say that if bugs also count as animals then things like flyswatters and bug zappers and bug spray should be banned because there can't be a double standard where it's okay to kill them in mass but not to eat them in mass. Will eating a bug be a crime? That's kind of impossible to regulate considering kids do it all the time. What about service animals? At what point is exploitation crossing a line? Are we basing this on what people see as exploitation or on how much stress it causes the animal? Who decides that? What about groups like PETA who think all pitbulls should be killed because they're an "aggressive breed"? People will say that domesticated animals aren't natural because we bred them specifically to function for us, so they shouldn't even exist on this planet. They think that it is humane to kill them all to free them from human oppression. From the point I brought up before, people might also say that it should be illegal to own carnivorous pets that require a bug or meat diet, because bugs are bred specifically for feeding pets too. Then, without animal testing, as awful as it can be, what is there to help us make progress? Human testing? Is that what we'll need to resort to? What about the rats that have been helping doctors understand cancer better, for example?
Understand that a powerful vegan movement is going to come with people like this who will make it more difficult to actually work, and they will use the movement to make themselves more powerful.

What I see as more reasonable is to make it illegal to be the cause of an animal's suffering, force farms to clean up their acts, come up with a proper meat alternative that actually works like the fish meat they're learning to grow on plants... but this still requires fish meat to start with, so either no meat or far less meat because the meat can be grown from a small sample of it. There are also things that dairy and eggs do that no replacement thus far can replicate, so that's another thing that needs to happen is science needs to figure out how to mimic these thing.
It might seem easy for people to just give it up but the food just DOESN'T work or taste right, there might be good veg and fruits out there but there are just not replacements for eggs or dairy that will make anything taste the way it did. And if it's this whole "how dare you feel pleasure from animals yadda yadda" no, it's food. Human beings, as a species, are OBSESSED with food, food is our whole culture, cuisine is uniquely ours, we feel joy and pleasure from good tasting food no matter the source if we personally feel that it tastes good. If it was a plant and tasted exactly like the meat, I'd eat it for the taste, not because 'it's meat' and it's just silly to think that's why people even eat it or enjoy it. People naturally just like the taste of fat and fatty things, and enjoying our food is so important to us that convincing people to deny themselves things that bring them joy and comfort is almost cruel. Give an alternative that works then sure, if's possible, but you just can't make people give up good food. There's a reason restaurants exist and have ratings that people take very seriously, and that's because people LOVE food, and that's that. And the more you tell them 'you take pleasure from animal corpses', trust me, the more they're going to ignore you instead because to them that statement makes 0 sense. At worst, they eat meat with an indifference to where it came from, indifference to it being an animal is not the same as pleasure in it being an animal. I'm only saying this because if you want to make your arguments stronger you need to get people to agree with you, not make them get defensive and pissed off. Nothing pushes people away more from the vegan movement than being treated like monsters and being accused of doing things they just don't believe or think.
To humans, as long as it is edible and has a good taste, they will eat it. Because we came from scavengers, that's just how we're built, to eat pretty much everything, even the stuff that's poison to other animals like caffeine, or is supposed to taste bad to them like peppers, we just keep finding ways to eat this stuff that we really shouldn't be able to. I saw you mention earlier about our teeth not being built for meat, but then you have most rodents who are herbivorous, yet rats do eat meat and their teeth are pretty much the same as a squirrel's.... So the teeth argument makes 0 sense, it's not about our teeth, it about how our body processes it, our teeth get the job done so obviously they can work for meat and aren't purely herbivore teeth.
I know I'm kind of playing a bit of devil's advocate here but if you're planning to make a book then these are questions people are going to have. It's easy to get the support of fellow vegans and vegetarians, they'll generally be on your side from the get go, but you're trying to talk to people who are frankly just annoyed because of pushy extremists on the matter who don't respect them as human beings and treat them like psychopaths instead.  
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Edited Dec 10, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Land use
The second image has sources in the artist description.
#215: Not enough land by Pupaveg #246: It's unsustainable by Pupaveg #649: Logic by Pupaveg
Over 50 billion animals are raised for slaughter each year. In order to feed them, it takes far more land, water and crops to feed them than it does to just feed us 7 billion humans on plants. The number of animals being farmed is unsustainable in fact, causing all kinds of pollution as a result of their manure and the greenhouse gases released, which is more harmful than all traffic pollution combined. Disagree with me? Please feel free to research it, but it's by definition going to require additional farming, space, resources, water etc. If we stopped animal agriculture, the huge amount of land we used for it could be returned to nature and we could grow trees on it again etc, especially since the majority of this land consists of rainforest land used to produce the absurd number of crops to feed cattle. We can feed the whole world 14 times over, all starving people included, if we stop wasting so much land and resources to animal agriculture.

"You can't be 100% vegan in modern society so why bother"
At this moment, animals and animal products are used in so many ways that it is near impossible to actually live in a way that avoids using any item, device or vehicle which has no connection with animal exploitation. But that difficulty is no reason to continue to be involved with the things which are extremely easy to avoid, and which form the bulk of demand for animal exploitation. Veganism isn't about dogmatically and irrationally saying "I am perfect, I harm nothing". It is about recognising the harm that is being done by our society, and trying to make a change, avoid being part of it - as far as we can. In future, as more and more people go vegan, there will be more and more alternatives developed because research will be put into new technology. Right now we are a minority, so why would giant corporations be saying "Hmm, what can we use in car tyres apart from this small amount of animal ingredients?" But as the world changes, those things will follow, and animal use will continue to decline, so it will be easier to avoid animal use in other areas of life.

"Because meat is safe to consume and provides nourishment"
Red and processed meat are class 1 carcinogens, and pretty much all meat carries health problems with it because our body doesn't need excess cholesterol and saturated fat. Meat is the #1 reason why lifestyle diseases are so common in our cultures, and why cultures who don't consume it are the longest living populations in earth, such as the Advantists Vegetarians (many of which are vegan).

"Propaganda"
The meat industry's information is literally propaganda. What they're doing is funding their own studies to publish certain results which are financially beneficial for them. They are doing exactly the same as the cigarette industry does, while people who point out the harm their products cause do the opposite. 

"What will count as animal or not? What will count as 'eating for pleasure' vs 'eating for survival'" 
Survival means that you will literally die without it because there's nothing else to eat. Humans have no biological need for meat, so eating meat is never done for survival purposes in developed countries. Some African tribes for example need to hunt to survive, because they have no shops or supermarkets, and literally nothing to eat but fish. (Ironic fact: for most of these people, this is because animal agriculture who cut down the rainforests they used to depend on for survival, and even they could be fed with a wide variety of plants if animal agriculture ceased to exist) If somebody has to kill to survive, then that's their only option. Anybody who isn't in that situation shouldn't bring this up as it has nothing to do with them. Religion and cultural traditions are no moral justifications to carry on senseless violence. I'm sure that some religions and cultures permitted slavery and the oppression of women when there came a ban on it, but no one would argue that their religion/culture takes priority over their victims their lives. And the same applies to animals. No one has the right to force their own religion/culture on others by killing them for it. There are still religions and cultures who permit violence towards humans, unwilling victims. That is no moral justification for it.

"Everyone has different moral values with animals."
But this also applies to people's views on other groups of victims. For example: there are people in my country who view homosexuals as a morally inferior group. Does that make it ok to kill homosexuals, just because they view them as "lesser" beings and believe they therefore have the right to harm them? Of course not! To the perpetrator, morality is subjective. To the victim, however, it never is. Morality is only ever subjective when the person saying that phrase isn't the victim. I'm yet to see one person who uses this excuse actually abide by its principles when it comes to them. What do I mean by this? Simple: anyone who harms others and justifies it by saying "morality is subjective" should write into their country's law courts and tell them that, should anyone ever harm them (e.g. rape or murder them), the person responsible should not be punished, because hey, morality is subjective, and who would we be to force our beliefs on the person who has raped/murdered them, right? So just like the food chain and the circle of life, the people who use these phrases always exempt themselves from the very rules of it while expecting animals to be victim to it.

Just like when testing on people of colour and Jews became illegal, despite the fact that it benefit human kind much more than animal testing ever did, animal testing should be made illegal. Harming a victim is never justified by saying that it benefits the perpatrator. If somebody forced you into deadly tests, I doubt you'd say "that's fine, because it benefits humans". At this stage, we have pretty sound knowledge of so much in chemistry, most research is redundant actually and is only going on in the same way because of outdated laws stating that it must take place. It's essentially ridiculous bureaucracy perpetuating what is clearly unethical at this time. Many products are no longer tested on animals, some countries have outlawed it entirely for cosmetics, and it is no problem. There are alternatives to animal testing. Many people like to make the argument that X people will die unless we experiment on Y animals, therefore it's justified as human life is more important, and if you outlaw animal testing then you have essentially just killed X people. It isn't as simple as that, because actually animal testing has alternatives. Companies like www.drhadwentrust.orgare working to continue medical research, without having to torture, exploit and kill animals. There is another question - is animal testing even useful to us, as we are very different to animals? Read more here to learn more. www.huffingtonpost.com/aysha-a…
Animal testing is a money-making business, and slows down progress in the medical world, making profit off sick people with medicines that come with side-effects. I'm working on a book about this, so if you're interested to read more, stick around on my page.

"There are also things that dairy and eggs do that no replacement thus far can replicate, so that's another thing that needs to happen is science needs to figure out how to mimic these thing."
Dairy and eggs are the breast milk and the periods of female animals. No human needs any of these to survive: they're even unhealthy for us. These products are purely produced for human pleasure, which comes at the expense of the environment and the animals, and only became a habit because of powerful industry propaganda which brainwashed people into believing that sucking the babymilk from another species mama's nipples was normal/natural/nessecary. It's kinda absurd when you think about it. Adult humans don't need breast milk, especially not from another species, loaded with sex and growth hormones designed to turn a calf into a giant bull. Eggs and dairy products can be easily replaced in baking and cooking. There are countless of vegan recipes online for baking and cooking.

"It doesn't taste the same"
Enjoyment is no justification to harm other sentient beings. One of my favourite non-vegan foods back when I was non-vegan was smoked mackrel. I have yet to find something that mimics its taste, but that is no justification to kill an innocent sentient being for momentary pleasure of my tastebuds. Denying someone momentary taste pleasure is not cruel when it doesn't deny another sentient being their life. Pleasure does not take priority over someone else their lives, especially if there are many other things one can make that taste good, too. If pleasure justified taking lives, we might as well allow cannibalism and other forms of violence because it feels good to the perpatrator. Perpatrators often erease the victim in their mind, thinking only of their own selfish pleasure. This applies not only to animal oppressors, but also to pretty much every other oppressor in the world. But that still doesn't morally justify harming a victim, because they are denied pleasure and even their life. Erasing the victim from oppression doesn't change the fact that you still harm them unnessecarily.

"Treating animals better"
Treating animals on farms better doesn't change anything for the animal. It just makes the problem worse, by making people feel better about harming animals unnessecarily for our greed and selfishness.

"Designed to"
No. Rats have an acidic stomach being able to process everything, even rotting corpses. Humans don't. But as I said before: humans have no biological need for animal products. So to kill animals for "food" is, in fact, killing animals for our taste pleasure: for pleasure. Harming someone else for one's own pleasure is morally reprehensible, and any good person knows that.

Basic anatomy chart by Pupaveg

I know I'm kind of playing a bit of devil's advocate here but if you're planning to make a book then these are questions people are going to have.
Most of these are actually already answered in other comics I posted. You're always free to add suggestions, because I'm still far from covering every question, but please make sure that I haven't already covered it, because that saves me a hell lot of time.

but you're trying to talk to people who are frankly just annoyed because of pushy extremists on the matter who don't respect them as human beings and treat them like psychopaths instead.
I didn't call anyone a psychopath. I am just pointing out that harming others for our own pleasure is morally reprehensible. If they feel like "psychopaths" for doing so, then that feeling is on them. I am just the messenger. The comics are not a representation of every single person who is not vegan. Each comic deals with a particular explanation for animal abuse which vegans frequently hear and deal with, or shows what happens in animal agriculture. Nowhere on any of my images do I call anybody stupid, dumb, a monster etc. I just show what certain people say, and how certain people defend what goes on. If you think that what happens in animal agriculture is stupid and monstrous, then it's your call to stop supporting it. If you have never said anything that is depicted in a single one of my comics - then they surely aren't about you. I have non-vegan friends, they follow my page, understand what I am saying, and don't take offense. They've never said this stuff to me. But, there are many people who do say these things, and my images attempt to show the absurdity of defending animal abuse. The Pupa comics exist to make people laugh and reconsider their position. Some people will not find it funny, some people won't connect at all. There is no form of outreach which is 100% effective - if there was, then that's what everyone would be doing. I know that the comics do have an impact, because I keep getting people writing to me to say they've gone vegan after really thinking about it since seeing the comics. I make them this way so they're accessible and simple. But more importantly - if you aren't vegan and you're trying to tell me how best to get the message across - then just tell me what to say to you, and I'll say it back, and then you'll go vegan right? :) 

The bottom line is: Giving animals rights isn't really such a hard concept to grasp. Just like with ending slavery, it just means you don't harm animals unnessecarily, and just avoid harming them as much as possible. I'm sure the end of slavery came with a lot of questions and issues, too. The point is that with time, all of these issues were eventually solved with time because of the ban. If we would have kept opposing the ban on slavery, these issues would still be there today and slaves would not live in freedom as they do today. The same applies to fighting the oppression of animals. As long as we keep arguing in favour of it, nothing will change for these animals, and they'll forever be slaves of human greed and selfishness.

Hm, I think that covers about everything. (Geez, these are turning into textwalls...)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjitterbugjive:
JitterbugJive Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Oh yeah no I know the mass production of farm animals is TERRIBLE for the environment, it's just that some of the alternatives people are coming up with for replacing animal products aren't exactly the safest or most ethically obtained just because of the 'trendy' phase that health food is going through right now. People are dumb and don't research the products they buy half the time, they see 'healthy' or 'vegan' and they just buy it and assume it's better. While yes there are plant alternatives, there are a lot of people who don't realize this and go plastic instead, buying things like pleather and faux fur because they just can't let go of the dead animal aesthetic.
But animals aren't the only reason people are being treated unethically, and just removing animal products won't fix this because it will put more demand on healthy alternatives to meat and companies are greedy and will find as many ways to do it as cheap as possible because they want in on the pie. Quinoa, for example, is marketed as a superfood for people, and people don't question where it comes from because all they care about is "oh no ANIMALS were harmed"
And I don't really have any respect for people who want to protect animals, but don't want to do the same for their fellow human beings because it is incredibly hypocritical. People AND animals should not be treated like a product or like machines, even if it's "better for the environment" or whatever. The better human beings are treated, the better they'll generally treat others, and the more likely they'll contribute something good to the world.
Reply
:iconpupaveg:
Pupaveg Featured By Owner Edited Dec 10, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
it's just that some of the alternatives people are coming up with for replacing animal products aren't exactly the safest or most ethically obtained just because of the 'trendy' phase that health food is going through right now.

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of global deforestation, habitat destruction, ocean deadzones, greenhouse gas emmissions, species extinction, world hunger and many more environmental disasters. Not a single other food in the world comes even close to what animal agriculture does to the environment. Even other products which are problematic at the moment (such as palm oil) fade in comparison. Don't get me wrong, palm oil production is a huge problem and is responsible for 5% of global deforestation and I totally support alternatives for palm oil. However, keep in mind that animal products account for over 70% of global deforestation, so suggesting that they're a good alternative to vegetables whom are problematic is illogical. Thankfully these specific problematic plant products are not nessecary to be vegan, and there are countless of alternatives we can use instead. I'm not sure why you mix health freaks up with vegans though: health freaks don't give a shit about the planet, they only want to eat healthy stuff, and are often not even plantbased, nevermind vegan. The majority of quinoa and palm oil products are bought by non-vegans after all. Veganism is an ethical issue: if you go to vegan groups, you will see a lot of people raising the subject on the ethics of certain products. Many vegans even boycott palm oil and slave labour produced quinoa for example. Vegans are not the same group as health freaks.

Faux fur is usually made of (organic) cotton or polyester. A plastic alternative is fleece, but if you go to vegan groups, they will often argue for alternatives to fleece (if you put fleece into your washing machine, it will release micro plastics which end up in the ocean). But as horrible as plastic is, even plastic is a better alternative to animal products, because animal products kill more life than plastic does, cause more pollution and are the leading cause of ocean deadzones. But plastic VS fur shouldn't even be an argument: there are plenty of alternatives for both, and I encourage people to buy those instead. (Even my own charity webshop contains only fairwear produced, eco-friendly material products which minimize the harmful impact of the environment, animals and on human slave labour). I also totally support the European ban on single-use plastics. Both plastics and animal products are horrible for the planet.

Removing animal products will remove the leading cause of most environmental issues and the leading cause of slave labour, because we'll no longer have to produce cheap crops to feed over 50 billion animals anymore (for every pound of animal products, up to 25 pounds of crops are fed to an animal). 
Reply
:iconjitterbugjive:
JitterbugJive Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yes, but we're going to need to use those crops instead to feed the billions of people who are no longer going to have meat or animal products of any kind in their food, it's not a take one away and leave as is scenerio, you still have to increase the amount of crops and farmland needed to provide for people, especially with the food that has to replace the dietary value of meat, dairy, and eggs which will need to be increased SUBSTANTIALLY in production. As I mentioned before though, if the concept of vertical farms becomes popular then it would not only save on space, but help clean the air better because there would be more plants in abundance.
Ultimately this needs a LOT of funding, and with the world's funding currently focused on war, oil, and big businesses, that kind of shift will need some serious backing. They won't go down without a fight. Not only that, but we can't decide something like this on a global scale. It has to be one country at a time, and I'm sure many of the less fortunate countries would completely reject this notion because they might not have the right sort of land or access to importation of goods that others might have and their animals are one of the only ways they can get by.

What becomes the punishment for killing an animal for meat? What is the punishment for eating meat? You can't have a law without punishment. Will you arrest a man for eating chicken? To arrest someone based solely on what they eat sounds Orwellian to me, but if you just gave them a fine eating meat would then become "just something to pay a small fee for" for rich people. I can see animal abuse laws applying to the killing of an animal, but eating one? That's not going to go over well with people and I'm pretty sure it would be such a big deal that people would legit fight wars over this, there will be rebellion, revolution, a lot of violence and extreme terrorism.
If you want peace, you have to be willing to fight a bloody war.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×





Details

Submitted on
December 7, 2018
Image Size
327 KB
Resolution
938×538
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
691 (1 today)
Favourites
46 (who?)
Comments
154
Downloads
0

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.