Let’s also say you’ve been reading and watching. You’ve been paying attention. You have become educated on the issues involved in veganism.

You know that the vast majority of animal-based agribusiness is horrifically cruel as well as terrible for the environment. You know how to meet your nutritional needs without consuming animal products. And you know there are resources to help you learn how to dine out as a vegan, keep costs low, and learn to cook vegan food.

You even know a variety of answers to the “Where do you get your protein?” question.

But let’s say that none of this has been enough to convince you to go fully vegan. Maybe you’ve even tried to go vegan before and your first attempt failed. Maybe you “just love cheese too much” or maybe your current living situation makes you feel like veganism is “too difficult.” You stick to a diet that is largely plant-based, and you really try to eat vegan as much as possible, but you just don’t feel like the vegan label applies to you. At least not yet.

So what should you call yourself?

You’re a “Vegan In Progress.” You’re a V.I.P.

That is, it is common for humans to feel some empathy for cats, dogs, dolphins, horses, rabbits and other mammals like cows and pigs. Some people act on that empathy by eating only certain types of animals that they think of as dissimilar to humans (such as chickens or fishes). Some people act on that empathy by eating only animals who have been treated according to certain “humane” standards. Vegetarians extend the empathy and choose not to eat animal flesh. Vegans extend that empathy to reach all sentient species and refrain from intentional and unnecessary harm to them.

But what gets someone who cares about animal suffering to make the leap into veganism?

A recent study on empathy compared omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans. The study looked at the brains of vegans and nonvegans while showing them images of human and animal suffering. Among other findings, they discovered “a distinctive pattern of empathic response and emotional control in vegans.”

“while omnivores are characterized by a greater activation of the bilateral posterior MTG during both human and animal negative valence scenes, vegetarians and vegans have constantly an higher engagement of empathy related areas while observing negative scenes, independently of the species of the individuals involved” [...]

“Collectively, our results reveal that distinct brain responses are evoked by emotionally significant pictures of humans and animals in people with vegetarian and vegan feeding habits, as well as between vegetarians and vegans, suggesting that different motivational factors might underlie their preferences and moral attitudes.”

What can a vegan advocate learn from this? The take-away, as I see it, is that nonvegans think differently than vegans. We don’t just have different beliefs, habits, education, resources, etc. though we may have those, too; we literally process the knowledge of others’ suffering differently. We literally think about animal suffering differently than omnivores.

Hence, if we want to effectively advocate for animals, we can’t rely solely on the reasoning that is most compelling to us. Nonvegans don’t think like us. So we must include discussions that appeal to nonvegans. We must find ways to encourage animal rights that fit into nonvegans’ paradigms.

An example:

Hat tip: vegan.com

Nicolette Hahn Niman, a lawyer and livestock rancher, is the author of “Righteous Porkchop: Finding a Life and Good Food Beyond Factory Farms.” wrote a piece for the NY Times called, The Carnivore’s Dilemma.

In the piece, she concludes:

“None of us, whether we are vegan or omnivore, can entirely avoid foods that play a role in global warming. Singling out meat is misleading and unhelpful, especially since few people are likely to entirely abandon animal-based foods. Mr. Gore, for one, apparently has no intention of going vegan. The 90 percent of Americans who eat meat and dairy are likely to respond the same way.”

“Still, there are numerous reasonable ways to reduce our individual contributions to climate change through our food choices. Because it takes more resources to produce meat and dairy than, say, fresh locally grown carrots, it’s sensible to cut back on consumption of animal-based foods. More important, all eaters can lower their global warming contribution by following these simple rules: avoid processed foods and those from industrialized farms; reduce food waste; and buy local and in season.”

My thoughts on this article:

Niman is right that most Americans won’t stop eating meat tomorrow, regardless of the damage to the environment or human health. They just don’t care enough to make a real, lasting, significant change.

She’s wrong to mislead readers in to thinking that it’s easier to “avoid processed foods and those from industrialized farms” than to go vegan. Her suggested style of eating (“conscientious” carnism) requires much more effort than simply opting for beans or tofu rather than cow or chicken flesh.

For example: a vegan can shop at the local grocery store. They simply shop mostly in the produce section and get some bags or cans of beans, rice, pasta, oatmeal, etc. But a “conscientious carnivore” must go to Whole Foods or a local farmer’s market, which is an unrealistic expectation for most Americans. Beans and rice are available at every grocery store in the US. “Humane” meat isn’t.

She’s right to suggest the possibility that “a conscientious meat eater may have a more environmentally friendly diet than your average vegetarian.”

She’s wrong to suggest such a possibility is probable.

She’s right to remind readers of the link between soybean crops and deforestation. And she’s right to point out that much of the soy is grown to feed animals in industrial farms.

Niman is wrong to imply that vegetarians need to rely on soy for protein. That’s a flat-out myth. There are plenty of high protein plant foods available to vegetarians and vegans.

But more importantly, most people don’t need to seek out high protein plant foods when they go veg, they need only eat enough plant-based foods in order to consume adequate amounts of protein. (See the FAQ for more info.)

I think Niman is doing a good thing by encouraging meat-reduction. But ultimately, is it enough?

—
Thank to Mimi for the link.

Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don’t need it now. Says Dr. William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, “Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores.”

Read the whole article at Huff Post >>

My thoughts:

Are Humans Naturally Omnivores?
Does it matter? Why does it matter?
We don’t have to eat animals to survive, so why should we?