Contra Monica S On Whether Veganism Is A Toxic Woke Cult: Also The Comprehensive Case For Veganism
One more demonstration of the low quality of discourse about veganism
Someone called Monica S wrote an article titled Why veganism a toxic woke cult (sic). I’m going to respond to it despite it being low-hanging fruit because doing so is fun and shows a lot of the crazy things people believe about veganism. The things that Monica says are seen by lots of people as potent refutations of vegan advocacy, despite being more filled with error than perhaps anything else I’ve ever read in my life. This highlights what I talked about recently—much of what is said about veganism publicly is complete nonsense. I’ll also lay out in an appendix the comprehensive case for veganism. If you’re not interested in watching me pick low-hanging fruit in meticulous detail, you can skip to the appendix.
Even the framing of the article is wrong. Veganism is a behavior that involves not doing something. You can be vegan without taking any other actions. If you claimed that isolationist foreign policy is a toxic woke cult—and adduced the existence of lots of weird woke people who support isolationist foreign policy—that would be absurd, obviously. The fact that some people who do something have bad properties does not mean that the doing of the thing itself is bad.
Monica begins her essay by saying:
I don’t have a problem with people’s dietary choices- it’s a personal thing that should be respected, however what I DO have a problem is (sic) those who force their diet and ideologies onto other people and try to brainwash them.
The phrasing of forcing one’s diet on other people has always struck me as odd. There are no vegans who are forcing others to eat tofu or quinoa at gunpoint. The “forceful” actions vegans take include, at the extreme, refusing to go to non-vegan restaurants and making comments about non-vegans doing things that are evil. But that’s not forcing anyone to do anything—it’s just making a moral pitch. By this standard Monica is forcing vegans to stop being vegan by arguing against their view.
Of course, if vegans are brainwashing people—making them believe things that are false and harmful—that is bad. But, as we’ll see, that’s totally false. The case for veganism is simple, straightforward, and overwhelming. As Huemer says:
Vegans, however, are obviously not making frivolous charges. Vegan arguments have a straightforward and obvious logic, which many sophisticated philosophers consider unanswerable. When meat-eaters pause from expressions of disdain long enough to try to engage with them, the objections they raise are among the most absurd, most easily answered objections to be found in all of philosophy. (By the way, that is a widely-shared assessment among people who know the literature.)
If you don’t know any of my work, you might assume I am just overconfident and that I say that about everything I disagree with people about. But if you know the rest of my work, you know that in fact, I say that about nothing else. I think this is literally the most one-sided controversial issue. Every other controversial belief I have has more reasonable objections against it.
Finally, the comment about respecting others diets is misguided. If others like some food that I don’t, then I shouldn’t be a jerk about it. But if people’s dietary choices involve doing things that are deeply, grotesquely evil—far worse than anything else they are doing—then I should comment on them, just as I’d comment if a person was beating their child. As Huemer notes:
Do you think vegans are too “preachy”, “moralistic”, or “judgmental”? I sometimes hear these sorts of complaints. It sounds like it’s all very well for these finicky vegans to fill their own plates with tofu and broccoli if they want. But where do they get off bothering everyone else with their “moral concerns” and trying to make people feel guilty? When are they going to just shut up and drink their kale juice?
If you share these complaints, then I think you don’t take morality seriously.
Vegans are not people who just don’t personally like eating meat. We’re not just picky eaters. Most vegans are people who think eating meat is morally wrong. Furthermore, we don’t think it is some trivial little foible. We think it is an extreme wrong. In terms of quantity of harm, this class of actions outweighs all other wrongs done by human beings combined, and by a wide margin.
The reasons for thinking these things have been explained clearly and at length elsewhere, so I won’t repeat any of that here. (See my forthcoming book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1138328294/.) Just accept that that is what we think. Perhaps you don’t agree with those beliefs, but accept that that is in fact our belief.
If that’s what one thinks, what should one do? Should one just shut up and drink one’s kale juice in silence – so as to avoid annoying the people who are committing the horrific wrong by momentarily making them feel bad about it?
No, one should not. Not unless one doesn’t care about morality. When other people are committing horrific wrongs, telling them that it’s wrong is really a bare minimum response.
. . .
So, if someone raises serious concerns that a common behavior may be not slightly but extremely wrong, and your first reaction is that this is “preachy”, that is failing to take morality at all seriously. I think it may be that most people fail to take morality at all seriously. They treat morality as a trivial personal preference, see others’ raising of serious moral concerns as an impolite annoyance, and feel disdain toward morally principled behavior.
Next, Monica says:
They claim that veganism has solved all of their problems and has given them a new lease of life- they’ve lost weight, they feel healthier and more energised, their skin has improved, they’ve become more compassionate people etc.
. . .
Many vegans claim that they don’t miss non-vegan foods but again they’ve been brainwashed into believing that by the Vegan Brigade. The Vegan Bridage is a toxic movement that functions much like a cult- the outside world (the non-vegans) are bad and need to be saved.
Maybe some vegans say this, I do not know. It’s probably true for many that being vegan has improved their health. I don’t say this—I think veganism has perhaps improved my health a bit, but it hasn’t been revolutionary. I do miss non-vegan foods—I think they taste lovely and sometimes my mouth waters when I see them. But I don’t eat them because I think it’s morally wrong to do so. I think it’s an extreme wrong, and one shouldn’t do hugely evil things for the sake of small pleasure.
Of course, we have lots of evidence from psychology that people adapt to things that make their life worse. As a consequence, when people go vegan, food might taste worse for a bit, but they settle in until eventually it stops tasting much worse. I’ve observed this personally—I used to like meat a lot, and when I went vegan, food tasted worse for about a year, but now I enjoy my meals roughly as much.
When people claim about veganism being cultlike or objectionable, I can understand thinking this if you didn’t think veganism was an ethical position. If you just thought people had arbitrary preferences that they were trying to get others to follow—like liking Kale—that would be rude, and if they tried to convince their friends to follow them, that would be annoying. But veganism is a moral position. It’s good, actually, to encourage others around you not to do deeply evil things, that involve complicity in the worst crime in human history.
On the last point, I don’t think non-vegans need to be saved. They are not the victims of their actions. I think they are doing immoral things and should stop, same as I do about child abusers, Nazis, child rapists, and other people doing evil things. Of course, child rapists mostly know that what they’re doing is wrong while meat-eaters don’t, so they’re more culpable, but the broad response of trying to get them to stop doing immoral things is the same in both cases.
Radical vegans are no different to pro-life campaigners who use guilt and distressing images to manipulate people. Militant vegans like pro-life campaigners use guilt to spread the message but not reality. Vegans seem to think that the animal world is all lovey-dovey and wonderful and all animals love one another. If vegans show distressing images of slaughterhouses, I’ll bring some images of my cat Lucky catching and playing with a half-dead mouse. Do these vegans feel distressed when they see a cat hunting a mouse, a lion hunting a gazelle or a fox hunting a rabbit? These prey are often tortured and played with by their predators. Are the vegans going to tell off the big bad kitty for killing a mouse despite having plenty of food?
On the point about pro-lifers, I’m happy to accept the comparison, even though I’m pro-choice. Pro-lifers try to convince people not to get abortions because they think abortions are immoral. Vegans try to convince people not to eat meat because they think meat-eating is immoral. I happen to think pro-lifers are wrong, and if they provide misleading information that is bad—just as it is if vegans do—but there’s nothing wrong with the broad approach of showing gruesome imagery to try to convince people to change their practices.
Vegans do not think that nature is lovey-dovey or that all animals love each other. I have never heard a vegan say this and I hold the opposite view. Lots of meat-eaters say that vegans think this but it’s totally irrelevant to veganism and vegans don’t actually believe it. What in the world is the argument that proceeds from the premise that all animals love each other to the premise that you shouldn’t eat animals? Imagine the following dialogue:
A: I think it’s wrong to beat children. Therefore, I will not beat children and I’ll instruct others not to do it either. Here, look at this gruesome image of a child who was beaten. This is what happens when people beat their children.
B: Oh, you’re showing me this image of when people abuse their children. But don’t you know that lions abuse their cubs? Here, look at this image of a lion abusing her cubs.
B’s response here would seem bizarre. The fact that animals do something doesn’t mean we should do it. The argument for veganism is simple and straightforward:
Eating meat causes lots of suffering for the sake of trivial benefits.
It’s immoral to cause lots of suffering for the sake of trivial benefits.
Therefore, eating meat is immoral.
No part of this basic case is refuted by pointing out that Monica’s cat Lucky kills animals. Pointing to other examples of bad things does not refute that eating meat is bad, any more than pointing to cats that kill animals refutes the claim that murder is wrong. It is upside-down moon logic to respond to “you cause X thing that is bad—look at the gruesome imagery of the industry to which you contribute,” with “here’s another bad thing that exists in the world.”
Do I tell off the big bad kitty for killing a mouse despite having plenty of food? No, because it’s not a moral agent—it’s not doing anything immoral because it can’t understand morality. It is, however, doing something bad—if I could stop it with the press of a button I would. Most humans are (I hope) moral agents, and are capable of being convinced by rational, moral arguments. If a baby shoots a gun and kills someone, they haven’t done anything wrong, but if an adult shoots someone they have, because the baby doesn’t know they’re doing immoral things.
Nature isn’t as lovely as vegans portray. I completely believe in respect for animals but animals are not on the same par as humans. An animal for example does not care about its offspring the same way the a human mother and father care for their children. In the animal world it is normal for animals to abandon their young once they’re old enough to fend for themselves. Animals aren’t attached to their young the way that the vast majority of humans are. Many animals even see their young as competition when they’re older. There are many animals that abandon their young before they’re ready or even kill them.
And ??? Yes, animals are brutal and nature is tragic. Why does that justify torturing others for small pleasure? You don’t have to think animals are as valuable as humans to think that we shouldn’t torture them for small pleasure.
Whilst animals do feel, they don’t have any sense of time or what is going on around them.
I believe in ethical slaughtering of animals for meat and animals that are being bred for meat and their products to be treated with respect and proper treatment including having enough food and space.
Is Monica against the 99% of meat consumption that comes from factory farms. Does she eat meat from factory farms. If so, this is just virtue signaling. You are not virtuous if you condemn evil things that you yourself do. If not, then she’s 99% on board with veganism. I’d still disagree with her view, but it would be more reasonable. And what does a sense of time have to do with anything? There are humans without a sense of time—can we torture them for food? Of course not.
Humans have eaten meat and dairy products since the beginning of time.
Humans have raped and murdered each other since the beginning of time. That doesn’t mean it’s good.
Vegans may say that eating meat and animal products is bad for the environment but I fail to see how being vegan is the correct solution to saving the planet. Say the whole world went vegan, there would be a huge amount of pressure to grow crops and that would also mean taking crops away from the animals which means that they would die out.
What??? There’s lots of evidence that meat produces much more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution. When we grow crops we don’t steal them from animals—we just grow them. What is she talking about? If we didn’t eat meat we would grow more plants.
Also what do vegans propose for obligate carnivores- those animals such as cats who would become very sick and die if meat wasn’t a part of their diet? The natural world isn’t so simple after all. Radical vegans are encouraging the disharmony of nature.
Vegans will differ on this. I’d support feeding them lab meat if possible, if not, wiping them out probably. Though that depends on complex empirical questions. But you can think
A) Obligate carnivores who need meat to survive should eat meat.
B) We, who don’t need to eat meat to survive, shouldn’t eat meat.
Do I believe people should eat less meat? I think that too much of anything isn’t good for anybody. Too much alcohol and too much junk food isn’t good for one’s health. Meat however especially in its leaner form does carry many health benefits and vitamins that a vegan diet cannot completely provide.
Monica accuses vegans of being crazy, dogmatic propagandists. She then proceeds to spout bogus, evidenceless propaganda without a hint of irony. Veganism lowers all cause mortality according to the best prospective cohort studies and is better for health overall. What benefits can’t be provided? Monica doesn’t say.
It is a fact that vegan diets lack many nutrients and vegans have to take supplements to make up for it. Surely ingesting fake and unnatural forms of vitamins isn’t healthy either?
This is just evidence-free emotion-based argumentation. The fact that Monica feels like supplements are bad isn’t evidence that they are bad. She is hypothesizing from the armchair about the impact of supplements, with no evidence. What a joke. Yes, if you’re vegan, you should take a B12 supplement, and a vitamin D supplement. No, there’s no reason to think that is bad for health. Monica spouts some more health claims with no evidence—no need to quote those, as she provides no reasons to believe any of them. After that, she says:
There are many ex-vegans who have openly spoken out about why they stopped being vegan (the main reason is the detrimental effect it was having on their health), only to face a huge backlash from the vegan community.
Nope, false! We know why most people stop being vegan—it isn’t health. Only 6% of vegans report health issues, and most of them are vague and nebulous. Most of those are probably also the result of a bad diet.
Monica’s next paragraph explains why she thinks veganism is a woke cult:
Many millennials are looking for their place in the world and these extreme groups and ideologies give them a sense of belonging and identity. As I previously mentioned, veganism is far more than just a diet; it’s an identity. Factor that with living in an ever woke world where people act as though they were born yesterday and that they’ve just discovered racism, injustice and inequality. The majority of vegans grew up non-vegan and many made the choice to become vegan in their 20’s, 30’s, 40’s etc. Surely they knew where the meat and animal products on their plates came from and still ate it regardless. They didn’t have a problem with consuming meat or animal products before it became fashionable to be vegan. That’s what I find funny.
Before I went vegan, I didn’t really think about veganism much. When I thought hard about the issues, I realized eating meat is morally wrong. This has nothing to do with wokeness and everything to do with the recognition that you shouldn’t cause lots of pain and suffering for the sake of minor benefits. Changing your mind, when it’s not in your best interest to do so, is virtuous, not indicative of wokeness. If a person becomes convinced that they have an obligation to donate lots to charity in their 20s, that doesn’t make them woke—it makes them non-dogmatic. It’s never been fashionable to be vegan—people get angry at vegans and sneer at them constantly. This essay is utterly disconnected from reality.
The Woke Bridage claim to care about inequality and injustice but they don’t really. Instead of tackling real issues, they march around policing any slightly harmless un-PC remark and brainwashing people to fit their agenda which is ultimately all about control. They don’t really care about the inequality, racism, sexism, animal rights etc. Instead of wasting energy on cancelling those who don’t share their extreme left-wing agenda; and guilting, manipulating and misinforming gullible millennials into turning vegan, why not actually genuinely make a difference to people’s and animals' lives?
I’ve spoken up against cancel culture and wokeness at length. I also donate most of my extra income to helping people and animals and have consistently been against cancel culture for my entire life. What, pray tell, is Monica doing, beyond complaining on the internet about those who abstain from complicity in the worst crime in history?
The biggest irony is that many vegans don’t treat fellow human beings with respect. Pressurizing and manipulating people to become vegan especially at the detriment of their health is cruel and irresponsible.
Let the record show, I think treating humans well is good. Though I agree vegans should not “pressurize” other to be vegan—it would be bad if people put non-vegans in pressure cookers until they became vegan. Pressuring, on the other hand, is good—just as it’s good to pressure people to stop doing other heinous, deeply evil things.
I completely believe in treating animals with respect and without cruelty however animals have different purposes whether for labour (many animals are working animals like horses and certain dogs who need exercise- as long as they aren’t overworked), companion animals (pets), animals that provide products and food and animals that keep away other animals and pests etc. I am an animal lover by all means- I actually prefer animals to people. I hate animal cruelty (this doesn’t include ethical slaughtering) and I don’t agree with killing animals for sport or killing animals for clothes and bags. Nor do I agree with animals being used for science (which I find pointless as human and animal biologies are very different and most studies carried out on animals don’t equal the same results in humans).
If you’re opposed to animal cruelty, you should think almost all meat-eating is seriously morally wrong:
The biggest irony is that many vegans don’t treat fellow human beings with respect. Pressurizing and manipulating people to become vegan especially at the detriment of their health is cruel and irresponsible.
It being worse for their health is a claim that she’s provided no evidence for. In my experience, vegans are more compassionate than others—more likely to donate to effective charities, for instance. Convincing others to be vegan is good, because veganism is morally right. It being cruel and irresponsible is begging the question—it assumes that veganism is harmful, but Monica hasn’t successfully argued for that.
Monica’s article is the typical ubiquitous lowbrow propaganda that involves someone who has had a discussion with a few new-age hippie vegans and thought about the philosophical case for veganism for less than five minute spouting off their views—expressing absurd distortions of the vegan position, insane overconfidence in very implausible claims (like that it’s okay to eat animals because they don’t have a sense of time), and ill-researched evidence-free health claims. Utter trite. And yet this is what almost everyone has to say about veganism. Most people just ignore the case for veganism, never taking seriously the possibility that they do something deeply horrifying every day. Those who do mostly sneer. In the rare cases when a person stops sneering for long enough to utter an actual objection, that objection is so terrible that it should never convince anyone—often it’s just a banal irrelevant platitude like “nature is brutal.” Such is the state of the public discourse.
Appendix: An essay I wrote for a class arguing for veganism
The Ones We Mutilate
Right now, roughly 74 billion animals are enduring horrendous suffering on factory farms (Huemer, 2019, p.4). Nearly all meat comes from these factory farms, thus, when one typically eats meat, they are paying for more factory farming. Cows are branded with hot irons; chickens and pigs are confined in tiny cages; pigs tails are sliced off with no anesthetic (Ibid, p.5). About 60% of pigs have pneumonia, for they are forced to live in filth, ammonia, and feces for such a large portion of their life (Ostanello et al, 2007). Other horrifying mistreatment and mutilation is extremely pervasive (Rachels, 2011). Given these horrifying facts, we have significant and far-reaching obligations to animals that we are not meeting. These obligations to reduce their suffering and not dine on their corpses do not depend on any especially specific ethical views—they merely rely on common-sense ideas that suffering is bad, and that one should not cause significantly bad things. Furthermore, common-sense moral notions imply that we have strong obligations to reduce the suffering of animals even in the wild.
In his essay “All Animals Are Equal,” (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.363-366) the philosopher Peter Singer argues that all animals are equal in a very limited sense. This does not, of course, mean that pigeons should be permitted to vote or drive cars. Rather, it means we should consider their interests equally. If two events cause equal harm—one to a person, the other to an animal—we should regard them as equally bad. One’s pain is just as bad no matter what species they are.
If all animals are equal, then it is almost certainly impermissible to eat meat. After all, the reason factory farming goes on—the reason untold numbers of animals are horrifyingly mistreated, mutilated, and slaughtered, is that consumers demand it. Were demand to dry up, there would be no supply of meat. This has also been concluded by the most thorough empirical study of this (McMullen, & Halteman, 2019) which claims that the average person will, over the course of their life, cause hundreds of extra animals to be bred into existence, and be cruelly slaughtered.
Given the sheer number of animals being farmed, it is overwhelmingly plausible that factory farming causes, every few years, more suffering than has ever existed in human history (Huemer, 2019). This means that every year, one causes lots of animals to endure miserable existences, with their conditions reminiscent of the worst treatment ever endured by humans. Given this, being complicit in factory farming, and causing hundreds of extra animals to be bred into miserable existences is almost certainly impermissible. This follows as long as one accepts that it is wrong to cause vast amounts of suffering for the sake of comparatively minor benefits.
One might deny this. They may claim that our duties to animals are less stringent than our duties to people—many justifications are given for this claim. People, for example, claim that because of an animals’ limited cognitive abilities, their suffering is less bad. But this is both arbitrary and implausible. For the arbitrariness—why in the world would it matter to the badness of one’s suffering how smart they are. When one has a headache, it seems bizarre to suppose that the factor that makes that really bad is their cleverness—were they unable to do calculus, their headache would be less bad. Is Einstein’s pain intrinsically worse than that of other people?
As for the implausibility, it requires holding that, for example, babies' pain is less bad. After all, babies are not very smart—they can accomplish no complex cognitive tasks. Similarly, there are some severely mentally disabled people who are less “smart” than animals. Nonetheless, it would be absurd, cruel, and barbaric to suppose that their suffering is barely bad.
Additionally, even if one thinks that animals suffering is less bad merely by virtue of their intelligence, this would still not exonerate factory farming. Factory farming causes such enormous quantities of suffering, that even if animal suffering is only, say, 10% as bad as human suffering, or only 1% as bad, eating meat will plausibly be impermissible. So in order for eating meat to be permissible—something that we do merely for the sake of pleasure in most cases—one will have to think that animal suffering is barely bad at all.
But this defies common-sense. As Norcross (2004) argues, nearly everyone agrees that it would be wrong to torture puppies to produce a chemical that makes chocolate taste better. But this is very similar to the real world, in which we cause animals to endure lots of suffering primarily for taste pleasure. So there is an extremely strong case for abstaining from meat, if one can do so, which most of us can. And the position of the American Dietetics Association—the largest group of medical professionals in the world— is that “Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes” (Craig & Mangels, 2009, p.1266). This is confirmed by a meta-analysis conducted by Dinu et al 2017.
One might think that we matter more just because we are humans. But this once again raises the charge of arbitrariness—why is it that merely being a human in the biological sense, being a homo sapien sapien, makes us matter morally infinitely more than the other creatures on earth? Additionally, this garners the result that if we came across peaceful grazing aliens, smarter than us, it would not be wrong to torture them and eat them. Such a view is implausible, absurd.
One could argue that the crucial trait that matters for moral worth is being a member of a smart species—thus, humans are included and animals aren’t. But this gets a horrifically immoral result. There are severely mentally disabled humans. Suppose that we discovered that they were actually a different species—they were subject to a virus that altered their DNA so much that they were a different species in a biological sense. That or they were swapped out by very capable aliens. On this account, mistreating them, eating them, and tormenting them for the sake of trivial taste pleasure would be permissible. This result is also hopelessly arbitrary. If we came across a severely cognitively enfeebled alien in a cave, it would be bizarre to say that we need to know what other members of its species are like outside of the cave to know if its suffering is bad.
If we think suffering matters, we must conclude that much of our treatment of animals is severely wrong. When we eat them, wear them, perform cruel and inhumane medical tests on them, this is wrong, absent an extremely strong justification. Such a justification is not present when we torment animals for the sake of trivial culinary pleasures—nor is it permissible when we torment them to make a pleasant looking coat. Singer would no doubt agree.
One could object by pointing out that this only makes a case against factory farmed meat. What about the other meat: is that impermissible? In response, it’s worth noting that nearly all meat in the U.S. comes from factory farms—above 99%. If one were, for example, arguing about whether U.S. arms sales are good or bad, it would be bizarre to focus on 1% of arms funneled to Micronesia, rather than the big picture. The status of eating humanely raised meat is complicated, and will hinge on various both empirical and moral questions. But this is only a very small part of the question—one can grant that it’s permissible to eat meat when it lives a good life, and still think nearly all meat being eaten is impermissible.
One could, as, for example, Hsiao (2017) does, argue that cruelty to animals is not bad, for they lack a rational nature. However, this is extremely dubious. For one, it is not at all clear that the idea of a nature—rational or otherwise—exists. If we conclude that the only reason it is bad to torture people is because of dubious natural law based claims about a rational nature, then were we to conclude that this theory is false, then no one’s suffering would be bad. But we cannot rest the badness of suffering on such a shaky foundation. It is implausible to say that, were we convinced that dubious claims about natural law were disproved, then suffering would not be bad.
Furthermore, this has utterly unacceptable normative implications. The puppy torturing highlighted by Norcross is just one example. It would entail that it would be permissible—and right even—to burn live cats, if they were a marginally more efficient fuel source than existing sources. However, any moral view that sanctions cars running on burning live cats is horrendous and false.
These claims also mean that we should take wild animal suffering seriously. Tomasik (2009) notes that there are plausibly at least 10^18 animals that exist in the wild. Tomasik (2015, p.133) notes “Most of these animals endure intense suffering during their lives, such as from disease, hunger, cold, injury, and chronic fear of predators.” Many give birth to enormous numbers of offspring, very few of whom survive for very long—some lay thousands or millions of eggs. This means that the fate of nearly every wild animal—and, by extension, nearly every sentient being to ever live—will consist of living a short life of intense suffering, cut short by predation, starvation, or death of thirst.
This is a serious problem, and the same broad logic that applied to factory farming will apply. Now, in the case of the wild, there are far more complex factors that need to be navigated, such as the impact of actions to improve the lot of wild animals on the ecosystems. But nonetheless, the fact that nature churns out more death, desolation, and misery than has ever existed in human history every single year, makes the suffering it generates an extremely significant problem that is worth working on. If we should do nothing, that is because of practical reasons, not moral ones.
To meet our obligations to wild animals, we might, for example, cull predators. But at this point, the science of wild animal suffering is in its infancy—the primary thing that should be done, at this point, is more research, to figure out effective interventions. There might be other values that we also must take into account. If, for example, one thinks that preserving species is valuable in and of itself, then we ought to sometimes preserve a species, even if that decreases aggregate utility. But all remotely plausible views should hold that wild animal suffering is a significant problem—for this follows from the idea that suffering is bad, which is perhaps the most obvious ethical propositions, and one that each of us is intimately acquainted with each time we suffer.
Ultimately, reflecting on our obligations to animals makes it obvious that they are quite significant. This only requires accepting an obvious fact; that suffering matters. The reason this produces surprising conclusions is because the facts about the world are surprising—it is surprising that we, as humans, inflict more suffering on animals than has ever been inflicted on humans in history , by factory farming them. It is surprising that 10^18 beings in the wild live miserable existences. But if we do not shy away from these depressing facts about the world, their implications for our obligations become extraordinarily clear, and our usual disregard of animals becomes impossible to defend.
Bibliography
Craig, W. J., & Mangels, A. R. (2009). Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. Journal of the American dietetic association, 1266-1282.
Dinu, M., Abbate, R., Gensini, G. F., Casini, A., & Sofi, F. (2017). Vegetarian, vegan diets and multiple health outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 57(17), 3640-3649.
Huemer, M. (2019). Dialogues on ethical vegetarianism. Routledge.
Hsiao, T. (2017). Industrial farming is not cruel to animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30, 37-54.
McMullen, S., & Halteman, M. C. (2019). Against inefficacy objections: The real economic impact of individual consumer choices on animal agriculture. Food Ethics, 2, 93-110.
Norcross, A. (2004). Puppies, pigs, and people: Eating meat and marginal cases. Philosophical perspectives, 18, 229-245.
Ostanello, F., Dottori, M., Gusmara, C., Leotti, G., & Sala, V. (2007). Pneumonia disease assessment using a slaughterhouse lung‐scoring method. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series A, 54(2), 70-75.
Rachels, S. (2011). Vegetarianism. In The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). Ethical theory: an anthology. John Wiley & Sons.
Tomasik, B. (2009). How many wild animals are there? Retrieved April 1, 2023, from https://reducing-suffering.org/how-many-wild-animals-are-there/
Tomasik, B. (2015). The importance of wild-animal suffering. Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism, 3(2), 133-152.
Your writing on animal welfare is forceful, in a good way, and well argued. I am more convinced, though, that persuasion is a poor use of one's time, if one wishes to significantly reduce animal suffering. Kelsey Piper lays out that case well here (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/31/18026418/vegan-vegetarian-animal-welfare-corporate-advocacy).
Associating veganism with woke westerners is also pretty myopic. Vegetarianism is closely associated with religious conservatism in India / Asia. Given the sheer numbers of Indian and Asian vegetarians, it’s more accurate to call vegan / vegetarianism a conservative ideology