I would like to present a few arguments - in the service of all - with the aim of encouraging veganism.
If we take the strict definition, vegans are individuals who exclude, as much as possible in practice, the use of any product of animal origin (veganism) and adopt an animal-friendly lifestyle (food, clothing, cosmetics, Hobbies…).
Vegans are therefore consumers who absorb and use the objects at their disposal, excluding products of animal origin. Thus, vegans do not so much seek to protect animals as to exclude them from their consumption circuit. Above all, they try not to consume "animal abuse" and thus ensure the morality of their providers. They are opposed to the "consumer society" reducing animal life to easy and widespread disintegration: for example, producers and breeders speak of a dead animal as a "beautiful product", butchers speak of "meat ore", cooks continually use animal extracts in their dishes (gelatin in pastry), chemists break down animals into molecules for industrial use (tallow in soap), and we are not talking about furs and leather in the clothing etc.
This definition of vegans contradicts all unfounded criticism that equates vegans to "unscrupulous producers, breeders or farmers who represent industrial agriculture". No, vegans are first of all selective consumers who make particular choices for their personal well-being. However, since animal products are omnipresent in craft, farm and above all industrial production, it is impossible for them to make an absolute selection and therefore never to consume anything of animal origin, especially since children, for example, depend on their parents' choices. Thus, veganism is most often an ideal, a concept opening the discussion. But neither is it a science with irrefutable arguments and each defends his veganism to the height of his dreams and his claims.
Vegan is therefore an informed consumer trying to solve a "personal equation" to the extent of his free will. To supplement its supplies respectful of the living world, it can call in addition to "the organic and eco-responsible sector" which tries to take less from nature, to depollute the planet and above all to guarantee a decent life for wild or farm animals condemned to death by our excessive appetite.
And for example, this french youtubeur in "Why veganism will disappear before 2045 /My autonomous farm", which reduces the "vegan movement" to "a field of dead earth, without animal life on earth and underground, intended for agriculture intensive and productivist ”… well, his argument is fallacious because he ignores the definition of“ veganism ”and above all, he has the wrong target. Rather, he should accuse unscrupulous farmers who use industrial methods and false labels to get rich with less effort (mechanized crops based on chemical inputs to weed, disinsect and fatten poor lands quickly). In addition, claiming that earthworms and beef are equally important, because they each count for "a vegan life", leads to major confusion: if the designated farmer, here a producer labeled "vegan", cultivates so his impoverished land while exterminating billions of earthworms and other tiny lives ("more than all the slaughter of animals on the whole Earth!"), the small vegan consumer who comes to buy his goods can not be accused of having exterminated himself these billions of small animals more or less buried, nor of having only prevented them from being born.
1) the origin of veganism or "integral veganism" goes back to the end of the second world war, with the creation of the Vegan Society in 1944 and the edition of a cookbook entitled "Vegan recipes". This Western-style veganism, perhaps inspired by India, therefore originated in England where it was considered from the start as a philosophy and a way of life promoting alternative solutions to animal exploitation. However, this idealist movement has never taken hold in France, countered by the French art of living, "good food" and gastronomy, with behind the search for agricultural super-yields imposed by the EEC and lobbying of the FNSEA.
2) Insofar as WE ALL in France eat these foods from intensive agriculture indifferently for decades, the simple vegan consumer cannot today be held RESPONSIBLE for encouraging this almost "above ground" agriculture and "out of life" which is not of his choice. Historically, intensive farming has never been advocated by vegans and it cannot be used to expose their mistakes by making them feel guilty.
3) Practically, if a sterile cultivation field dedicated to intensive cultivation feeds 10 vegans while preventing 10 billion earthworms from blossoming, conversely these 10 vegans are not the owners or cultivators of this sterile field, and each veg don't kill 1 billion earthworms every time he buys a box of cereal in the local supermarket. Vegans are not butchers who consume plants or otherwise, it's the world upside down.
4) The same logic pushed to the absurd would amount to saying that by eating a slice of bread, EACH OF US kills billions of animals since "the natural leaven used is also alive": this leaven mixed with flour is characterized by a complex microbial flora mainly composed of lactic acid bacteria but also of yeasts and molds, that is to say billions of micro-organisms forming a particular ecosystem which are used to aerate the crumb of the bread by dissolving it in baking.
5) Always more absurd, and since our body harbors billions of bacteria, by dying WE ALL will exterminate when we die billions of microscopic lives which live in us in secret, and therefore much more than all the slaughterhouses on Earth during our whole life: the number of bacteria in our body is estimated at 100,000 billion (99% foreign DNA). Should we deduce that vegans are liars and criminals who advance masked by exterminating these poor animals?
6) Veganism in France remains a simple practice: it is not a recognized philosophy, nor a science, nor a mode of agriculture, nor a policy, nor a religion, nor any obligation and its claims are scorned or simply ignored by the majority of consumers. However, like any practice, it has its extremists and its various facts.
7) Veganism is therefore opposed, by thought but also by some sporadic manifestations, to carnivorism. Of course, that doesn’t allow him to attack the butcher shops. Fortunately, these cases are very rare, just like banknotes (as a rule) are not burnt by the poor in need... Vegans are increasingly being fought and opposed to "anti-vegans" who call them ignoramuses, even terrorists, to convince them to return to the old pre-established rules, those of an ancestral market indifferent to the protection of animals. We can well imagine, for example, returning to the "Killings" organized in the courtyards of the shops and even in our streets in the Middle Ages, as is still organized outdoors in Africa or Asia. You speak of rejoicing for passers-by! Happy is the organized secret of slaughterhouses in Europe, this same state secret surrounding the houses of dying old people, retirement homes and other Ephad who unfortunately count thousands of premature deaths each year, in times of heat wave or epidemic .
8) And I who am not vegan, who am I? An (anti-anti-vegan)-(anti-carnivore)-carnivore, maybe? It is a little as if the classical realistic painters felt threatened by the impressionist painters who would have been threatened in their turn by the painters of abstraction, themselves called to order by the figurative painters: and therefore, in our museums, should we put away the Impressionist painters who were wrong to come and compete with classical painters? Are there not many ways of seeing things, all equally respectable?
9) Are vegans also a bit artistic to dare to differentiate themselves in this way and live freely their unacceptable veganism? The censor (carnivore) who censors the censor (vegan) who censors our cannibal lifestyle (we share with all the other animal and plant species an origin and common genes), is this censor-carnivore more tolerant than this vegan censor? And for what contrary ideology, according to what far-fetched arguments? The ones I heard are lousy.
10) Here, let's listen to the words of "low added value" of the false philolosopher Michel Onfray: "[The ecologist is ...] a vegan who puts the well being of animals at the level of men, preventing us from raising them to eat them. In fact, the animal is not a living being but a "product", which is more "cultural" [resulting from the transformation by genetic engineering of species in the service of our prehistoric appetites] ". Onfray is therefore only a carnivorous beast that claims to rule our lives! Perhaps he should take a closer look at vegan philosophy as it is defined across the Channel, with infinitely more subtlety.
11) Yes, veganism deserves, here as elsewhere, a serious philosophical treatment, on par with the stoicism experienced in ancient Greece. Because this way of life questions our emotional society and makes us dream, while remaining almost impossible to set up. Unfortunately, Onfray, Enthoven and all the other scammers of the philosophical subject (a club of narcissistic perverts), are quite incapable of philosophizing on this very essential theme. For example, if Michel Onfray dresses in hedonism and epicureanism, we know that he is only a donkey and a pleasure-seeker who gives himself old looks. Are we not all hedonists and epicureans in variable proportions, and perhaps much more than he? Likewise, let's be environmentalists to varying degrees.
Veganism in particular is fought in France and has remained in its infancy, elementary and food for decades. But no doubt it is better this way: Eco-responsibility is a response that everyone can freely compose in the face of a highly degraded political-economic-social situation, under the perverse effect of criminal productivism. Even "vegan supermarket products" look like the result of expensive fashion packaged by opportunistic manufacturers.
12) A true "Art of French vegan cuisine", in addition to traditional culinary knowledge and old eating habits, would require the follow-up of conquering nutritionists in addition to recognized expertise. In fact, 100% pure veganism is neither possible, nor advisable, nor desirable without medical supervision. Because this solution of abstaining from consuming "animal products" (called meat) is not suitable for many of us and must therefore be adapted according to the profile of each. Vegans could organize "vegan days", "vegan holiday meals" and occasional "vegan diets" to teach everyone how to feel good without adding animal suffering.
Unfortunately, the vegan approach, often presented as a quest for the absolute, remains experimental and threatens the health of a few with its intransigence. Philosophy should provide answers: for example, integral veganism, just like integral stoicism, is it not a view of the mind?
"Why do I stop being vegan after 2 years of veganism? The goal is not to discredit veganism but simply to share what I have experienced. What is true for me is not necessarily trues for others. My body has strengths and weaknesses that others do not have, and each one does with its own organism." /Morgan
13) Nowadays, the carnivorism and anti-vegan struggle taught by the old school represent a counter-evolution. That said, veganism in a soft and concrete form could gradually pass in France from "Ridiculous and Dangerous" to "Evident", according to Schopenhauer's formula.
Let's see, and if each of us had to slaughter the animal he wishes to devour by taking from the beast the share that belongs to him, how many of us would prefer to become vegetarians rather than killing and cutting a lamb, a calf, a cow , a horse, a rabbit, a chicken and even a magnificent fish? And if each of us were to witness the successive killing of all these animals, would we still be hungry for fresh flesh at the end of this tragic experience? In fact, we are aware of the practices in slaughterhouses, but the stomach, our second brain, is cruel. And this way of delegating the right to life and death to professional killers to execute billions of wild or farmed animals, isn't that cowardly and despicable? Of course, it is easier to treat vegans as manipulators and extremists rather than admitting our predatory abuses. And then, when Onfray is scandalized and gets mad at Greta Thunberg, it is the logic of the stomach that governs it. No, nothing to do with philosophy ... Only the belly and the tail ... But I'm kidding.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire