vegan muse

Posts Tagged ‘vegan

Mapping Society along Ecological Lines

leave a comment »

Cairns Birdwing
What can the butterfly teach us?

Social ecology is an appeal not only for moral regeneration but also, and above all, for social reconstruction along ecological lines.” – Murray Bookchin

Social ecology seeks to philosophically fuse the natural world (first nature) with that of human society (second nature), saturating the latter in the roots of the former. By appealing for moral regeneration, social ecology strives to socially reconstruct present-day society along ecological lines.

Society is in need of identifying and replacing forms of social domination associated with our economic system. Social ecology presents such a case. It claims that the environmental crisis is a result of the hierarchical organization of power and the authoritarian mentality rooted in the structures of our society. The Western ideology of dominating the natural world arises from these social relationships. As Bookchin argues, if we are to change human society, our relationship with the rest of nature will inevitably become transformed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Abolishing Exploitation: Francione’s Case for Animal Rights

With respect to animal rights, the welfarist reform differs in kind, not degree, from the abolitionist reform. The former seeks quantitative measures, arguing degree of exploitation. The latter, the abolitionist reform, seeks qualitative measures, arguing moral inconsistencies. Francione writes: “We have historically justified our exploitation of nonhumans on the ground that there is a qualitative distinction between the minds of humans and other animals.”

The following briefly describes Professor Francione’s Theory of Animal Rights, in his words. For a thorough explanation of Francione’s abolitionist theory of animal rights, visit his website, Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach.

We ought to abolish animal exploitation and not seek merely to regulate it.”

Francione on Animal Voices, CIUT 89.5 FM in Toronto, Canada

“Our only justification for the pain, suffering, and death inflicted on these billions of nonhumans is that we enjoy the taste of meat and dairy products. And if we really do take seriously that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on nonhumans, our enjoyment in eating animal products cannot be a morally acceptable justification. Our only use of animals that is not transparently trivial is the use of animals in experiments intended to find cures for serious human illnesses. But even in this context, there are serious questions about the necessity of animal use. Because of the biological differences between humans and other animals, there is always a problem extrapolating the results of animal experiments to humans. The data produced by animal use are often unreliable. For example, results from toxicity tests using animals can vary dramatically depending on the method that is used. Considerable empirical evidence indicates that, in many instances, reliance on animal models in experiments has actually been counterproductive. For example, the failure to create an animal model of lung cancer led researchers to ignore evidence of a strong correlation of smoking and lung cancer in humans.”

Moral Schizophrenia

“We kill billions of nonhumans every year for reasons that cannot plausibly be considered as “necessary” even though we maintain that we accept that it is wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering on animals. When it comes to other animals, we humans exhibit what can best be described as moral schizophrenia. We say one thing about how animals should be treated, and we turn right around and do another.”

“If we recognized that all sentient beings had a basic, moral right not to be treated as property and that we had a moral duty to stop treating sentient beings as resources, we would stop bringing domestic animals into existence for our use. Recognizing “animal rights” does not mean letting all domestic animals run free in the streets. It means caring for those whom we have caused to come into existence. And not bringing anymore into existence to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experiments. If we took the interests of animals seriously, we would stop bringing domestic animals into existence. There is no reason-other than our pleasure, amusement, or convenience-to eat animal meat or dairy, wear animals, hunt animals, or use animals in entertainment.”

An abolitionist and a welfarist: Professor Francione and Erik Marcus debate

Note: All thoughts in quotations are those of Gary L. Francione.

Thoughts on Fishing

Fishing is not in keeping with the subject-of-a-life philosophy (Regan) you, the reader, are most likely familiar with. Fish, like other sentient beings, are an end in themselves and thus not a means to be exploited. They, like humans, possess inherent value. The abolitionist would argue that one (a human being) is never justified in performing an act such as this (among other things, the usually violent removal of a sentient being from its catered oxygenated environment and the subsequent allowance of maximum pain via suffocation upon removal, what we call fishing), no matter the circumstance. Since I indeed subscribe to this philosophy, I therefore think that fishing and ethical discussion have a qualitative difference and not a quantitative one (differs in kind, not degree). Ethicality is thus nonexistent when one engages in the act of fishing. We have seen this avenue of thinking applied to free-range (nonbattery-cage) chickens, pastured cows and the like. These attempts to bring ethics into the discussion are simply welfarist-based; concern is rooted in treatment, not in the reason as to why this sort of thing exists in the first place. Slavery was/is a perfect example: By philosophical standards, was slavery ever justifiable? Of course not.

As Gary Francione, Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark, contends, “Many heinous practices and traditions, including slavery and sexism, have been justified by appeals to arguments that assume that certain people are naturally superior and others are naturally inferior.” It seems as though ethics is abandoned, or severely wounded (enter the welfarist), when the subject of our thought/action is nonhuman. Fishing is exploitative and immoral at its very root and thus is deemed unacceptable.

Fish Is Not a Health Food 1; 2

Fish protein clogs the arteries and is damaging to both kidneys and bone. 15 to 30 % of fish fat is saturated fat, which is particularly problematic for our species. Also, Omega-3 fatty acids can be collected from plants (where fish obtain it from). Humans require 0.5 to 2 g per day, which can easily be obtained from plant foods. In our toxic food environment, fish is labelled as a healthy item but in reality, it is just healthier than a cheeseburger. Some fish have more cholesterol per calorie than beef. Our waters have become our sewer systems and fish are now loaded with environmental contaminants. Even wild Alaskan salmon have detectable levels of mercury. People who eat the most fish (Greenlanders and Eskimos) have a low life expectancy and high rates of osteoporosis (highest levels on the planet). Does this sound like a food intended for human beings to subsist on? I think not.

Written by Ethan Handur

May 30, 2009 at 9:36

Amino Acids – A Brief Discussion

leave a comment »

veganmuse-vegan-food-pyramid.jpg

The following briefly discusses amino acids in a plant-based diet.

Enzymes break down protein into four units, namely:

i) Polypeptides;
ii) Dipeptides;
iii) Peptides;
iv) Amino acids –> amino acids are the smallest unit of protein.

There are approximately twenty-two amino acids that are of interest to biochemists; eight of which are essential (the human body cannot generate or synthesize these) and fourteen that can be synthesized by the human body (derived from the eight essential ones).

In alphabetical order, the eight essential amino acids are:

i) Isoleucine
ii) Leucine
iii) Lysine
iv) Methionine
v) Phenylalanine
vi) Threonine
vii) Tryptophan
viii) Valine

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ethan Handur

December 24, 2007 at 22:34

What’s Wrong With Soy Milk?

with 9 comments

Can soy milk be hazardous to your health? Robert Cohen, also known as the ‘Not Milk Man‘ of NotMilk.com, thinks so and has provided us with a thorough response. For those of you unfamiliar with Cohen, he is the founder and executive director of the U.S. Dairy Education Board, which works to dispel the myth that milk is a perfect food.

Cohen’s response can be read here.

An excerpt from Cohen’s article:

“Do methanol, ethanol, and formaldehyde do your body any good? Do preservatives preserve health, or do they merely preserve enormous profits gained by manufacturers at the expense of your health?”

This is a must read for anybody currently consuming or thinking of introducing soy milk into their diet. Also, it is important to note that I have chosen not to discuss the environmental impact of soy cultivation but will do so in a future post.

Man cannot pretend to be higher in ethics, spirituality, advancement, or civilization than other creatures, and at the same time live by lower standards than the vulture or hyena.” – Jay Dinshah (1933 – 2000)

Be Well.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ethan Handur

November 4, 2007 at 15:39