Some thoughts on Vegan extremism, parenting and thermodynamics!

Whilst writing To Ve or Not to Ve I started following some vegan groups on social media. Don’t worry that wasn’t my only research! I also read books, and scientific papers! It was interesting to see how people thought and reacted to stories and comments. I get that the "converted" are often the most zealous, and understand that the most extreme end of veganism essentially says that you can have nothing at all to do with animals - other than rescue them and put them in a sanctuary or leave them free in the wild. The most extreme end of veganism doesn't allow pets either! That’s fine if that’s your view, but it seems if someone tries to bring up talk of sustainable or ethical farming (with regards to animal products) they are immediately shot down - usually by those who proudly label themselves as "vegan for 5 years".

I have to say that I do understand where they are coming from - most carnists don’t think about the fact that it is an oxymoron to “humanely” slaughter an innocent animal. So it is probably true that those flying the vegan flag most often come across “ethical farming” simply as a way for carnists to rationalise their meat consumption. Also anyone who looks at the numbers in any detail will realise that whilst some animal product farms may claim to be “sustainable” or "ethical" they are usually less "efficient". This means we simply couldn't produce enough of these ethical animal products to fulfill the current levels fo demand.

The experience that really got me thinking about this was when I saw a post on reddit about Germany banning the slaughter of male chicks in egg farming. This got me very excited and I posted that when writing my book I tried to see how we could feasibly source “slaughter-free” eggs - one part of this being to not kill male chicks. Being in a Vegan group I was down voted and got some quite angry comments back. As much as I tried to talk about slaughter-free egg production, someone or another would send a raging post back about how I didn't know how the chickens are treated, or what happens to chicks after a few years. It was almost as if they were so absorbed in the vegan narrative of “animal products are bad” that they wouldn’t have a discussion about it. Finally one person apologised on behalf of the group and actually engaged in polite discussion (though still maintaining the stance that my theory of slaughter-free eggs was impossible). It seemed in that space no one considered it possible to use animal products at all - I respectfully bowed out of the conversation, pointing out that what I was talking about is theoretical, and would of course massively reduce the supply of animal products, making them more expensive.

On the other side of the coin. I was talking to my dad about my book the other day. And he rather succinctly pointed out something that I had come to realise whilst writing. He said - "You can never avoid all harm, the level of entropy in the universe is always increasing". Those who know the laws of thermodynamics will probably understand this point immediately but I'm going to explain it in my long winded fashion anyway.

In physics entropy is the level of "disorder" and the second law of thermodynamics states that the level of disorder in an isolated system is always increasing. Another way to say it is that if you want to create more order inside that system you have to do work which will create more disorder somewhere else.

As a parent, think of it like this - the house will keep getting messier - the only way to avoid this is to put in time and effort to tidy it (bring order) but in doing so you have not been able to cook dinner so have to order a takeaway - meaning your house might look tidy but the kitchen at that local pizza place just got messier!

So how does entropy relate to veganism or non-veganism? This analogy is not perfect but let's consider it anyway. By trying to avoid harm to the animals we are essentially trying to bring a level of order to the universe. What we know from the second law of thermodynamics is that any attempt to bring order to a system (avoid harm to animals) may succeed locally - but will ultimately mean that in the world as a whole the level or disorder (harm to animals in this case) has probably increased. This sounds really weird but there was one example that may make the idea clearer.

I have to admit I'm a huge fan of Earthling Ed. He clearly is passionate about Veganism, but is also well educated on the details and keeps his calm and logic when debating the most unreasonable of people. I recall watching a video where his team and him were on their way to some event, but heard on the way that there was a truck of turkeys which had been involved in an accident leaving the birds injured or lose on the road or trapped in cages. (I can't seem to find the video anymore but here is a link to an article about the incident). The team sped over in their van to help, and even had an altercation with the police. If I recall correctly from the video some of the injured birds were now unsuitable for sale, but were alive so would be put down. The team offered to take those birds away to a sanctuary. They were not allowed to do this. However one extremely compassionate soul eventually wrapped herself around one of the animals refusing to let it go (a policy of "if you want to take this turkey to slaughter then you quite literally have to go through me") and eventually Ed and his team were allowed to take this one bird away to safety.

I totally understand what they did, managing to save that one turkey from slaughter is still a life saved. However I wonder, in driving their van at high speed to the scene of the crash how many insects would they have killed? Their choice to take action to try to save the lives of the turkeys (bring order) did succeed locally (one of the birds in the truck was saved from slaughter). But their action may well have cause the end of multiple lives (increased disorder) so the global level of deaths increased. Let me be clear - I'm not saying they should have left the turkey's to their fate - I fully agree with their their decision to go to try to save them. I just wonder if either they weren't aware that their action would cause harm to other living beings, or that perhaps they placed higher value on the lives of poultry then they did on the lives of insects.

I repeat again that this is not an excuse to sit at home and do nothing but just to accept that when living in this world the things we do may well cause harm. All of a sudden the prayers we say that ask for forgiveness for any harm we may have unknowingly caused make more sense.

Let's get back to veganism. To address an obvious loop hole here - if someone is vegan but does not actively go about trying to save animals then surely they are not taking an action that increased harm. I agree and therefore at a macro level the more people who avoid eating animal products the less harm there will be to animals.

What I'm writing about here though is the mindset here in the west towards farming. So many vegans have been exposed to promises of "ethical" or "compassionate" farming that does not avoid harming animals that perhaps now when someone says the words they simply hear "I will be nice to the animals before I slaughter them". It got me thinking of how to broach the subject and I thought of a thought experiment. Whilst trying to put it together I eventually wrote a story which you can read in full here: The Little Creature.

(If you want to read the story and like a bit of mystery I recommend you read the story before continuing. There is a bit of a twist at the end of the story and the rest of this post will pretty much give it away.)

It’s to try to address this notion that any human-animal relationship is one sided and exploitative. So not so much a “convince vegans ethical farming is possible” type thing but to introduce to them the idea that it may be possible to share what animals have in a compassionate way. To be clear though, essentially no one farms like this. So here is the short version of the thought experiment:

Almost every parent would die for their children and do their best to protect them from harm. However in raising a child there will be times when parents put them through some short term emotional or physical distress. For instance denying them a treat to teach discipline may cause temporary emotional distress now, but will mean the child will grow up with a better sense of what to eat. Alternatively giving in all the time will mean the child may grow with no sense of boundaries around food and as a result suffer illnesses as they grow older. So we can never raise children in a total “harm free” way - because we want them to grow up to be “productive members of society” (Ideally “happy, content, productive members of society). When we do this we do not consider it exploitation of the child by the parents - it is "tough love". That being said, we we make use of them - they may help around the house, they may bring us joy, later they may even contribute financially to the family but we would always take care of them.

Now consider if a family raises an animal, treats them with love and compassion as a member of the family, and aim not to harm the animal for personal gain. Obviously killing that animal to eat it is out of the question. However what if the animal can provide something that the family can use, without having to cause the animal lasting emotional of physical distress?

How is that different to a child helping in their parents?

I’ll repeat again that as far as I know, the supply of animal products to the market where the animals are treated as a member of the family is negligible. So this is in no way a justification for purchasing animal products that are produced by harming the animals.

The issue has become that the demand for animal products that technically could be obtained in a slaughter-free way (e.g. milk, eggs, honey, wool) has grown to such an extent that the industry is forced to harm the animals to maximise output and eventually kill them when their production declines. Compared with raising children where we may encourage them, or coax them to push them to succeed (and in some cases parents push too hard). The cost of failure is a best a pat on the back saying "better luck next time" but at worst some level of emotional scaring as the parent declares them a failure.

So, having read the above (or especially the story for full impact), I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of a family raising an animal and ask yourself these three questions:

Would you be willing to kill that family member so that she could be eaten or would you consent to allow someone else to do it?

Would you be willing to put that family member into an industry where, whilst she is kept alive, she is exploited, trapped, depressed and forced to “produce” to keep her place?

Would you object to make use of any gifts that family member is willing to share with you whilst you ensuring they are loved and cared for?

No need for "answers on a postcard" (oh boy that shows my age!) - and there are no online polls. This is simply a question for you to consider.