I'm in a similar situation with my mother-in-law. I'd happily pay a bit more each month to support her Netflix account. If they block her, we may just cancel the subscription completely.
My mother-in-law is a self-proclaimed useless person at anything technical. You don't know how many hours it took for us to explain her phone to her. I gave her a Netflix profile and signed her in to my account. It makes life so much easier. I'd happily pay more for the ability to share my account with her. At this rate we'll have to administer two accounts from our house, rather than let her use mine. Why are they just making this harder, rather than just asking us to pay more to continue doing what we're doing?
They can actually choose whether they want to be milked every morning.
One line leads to a tiny milking station. There, retired surgeons use designer nanopumps to relieve silk gland tensions. The spiders appreciate it and get a tiny block of tofu fly treat afterward.
The spiders who don't want to be milked that particular day can instead enjoy a relaxing day. They other like goes to the relaxation area, full of empty corners ready for cobwebbing and prismed sunbeams that emulate natural variances in brightness. When the surgeons are done with milking, they provide enrichment in the form of RF nanodrones, made from recycled cat toys, to stimulate web strands and act as nontoxic prey substitutes.
Unfortunately accidents do happen, since even the tiniest drone tends to be several orders of magnitude larger than the biggest spider volunteers. Sometimes they exhibit something more akin to a panic reaction than relaxation. Steps are taken to minimize these irregular adverse events, but a balance towards profitability must be enforced.
All in all, like with most vegan products, the quality is much lower but the price can be much higher. It all works out as long as nobody asks too many questions.
It was meant in jest, but if you must take it seriously, my opinion is that veganism as a movement has largely been coopted by high-gloss, low-impact "plant based foods" marketing that follows all the aesthetics and few of the values of older movement. There isn't a measurable decrease in meat production or consumption, just a noted increase in overpriced prepackaged vegan food products.
I say that as a vegan of more than a decade. Its recent popularity is more indicative of successful marketing than consciousness raising. It's just another fad diet to folks, not a lifestyle change resulting in better livestock conditions.
Could you describe what the values of the older movement are? I would have assumed them to fall under the umbrella of "don't consume animal products and reduce suffering when possible", which the new type of products still achieve.
I think it also likely that much of today's raising of consciousness - for veganism or otherwise - comes from successful marketing; is that inherently bad?
Lastly, two of the largest milk producers have filed for bankruptcy in the last few years, so there certainly seems to be some positive impact. Dairy is bad for humans and animals (and the environment!), and I'm very glad people are accepting that and making a change.
IMHO only -- I don't claim to be representative of any other planteater but myself -- it sought holistic, transformative change. Rather than just "eat less meat" (like Meatless Mondays, which is supposed to be a stepping stone), it was maybe more aligned with the Slow Food movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_Food) in that it wanted people to think about how our food systems are connected to not just animal treatment (factory farms, tiny cages) but our communities, our economy, our politics, and ultimately our view of our place in the world (atop it, or within it). I'm not going to dive too deep into that because it would easily be an hours-long discussion, but suffice to say that it viewed animal suffering as the symptom of a systemic disease, the tip of a rotten iceberg, resulting from a disconnected and exploitative experience rooted in modern capitalism. It's not just about whether laying hens have enough space, but the workers behind them, the communities that host the farms, the politics that arise from urban-rural divides into food production vs consumption, agriculture as an economic sector and political force, and ultimately how we as a society treat not just animals but each other and the lands we occupy.
Fast forward to 2021, you have meat conglomerates like Tyson creating brands like Raised & Rooted, which sells nuggets that are half-chicken and half-plant. Ostensibly this decreases the need for as many chickens (or else they're producing only half-dead chickens), but it doesn't really work that way; AFAIK (and I admit I am not a market expert, just an interested bystander) their chicken production is still growing (https://craft.co/tyson-foods/metrics), and the Frankenuggets are just an additional snack item on top of their existing product lines. It supplements the cruelty, the icing on top of the torture, rather than seeking any sort of transformative change.
And by and large the market is headed more and more that way, towards industrial food conglomerates buying up or creating in-house vegan brands to add a greener sheen to their bloody enterprise, without actually changing the way they do business or the way they treat any vulnerable part of the system.
Veganism as its core was, in my opinion, about consuming LESS so that others may live more. Plant-based foods, as a health & diet craze, is more about supplementing your existing diet (and profit) with more manufactured products that ultimately come from the same industrial giants that made it all fucked up to begin with.
It's the difference between back-to-the-land whole-food farming/eating and Soylent, the vegan artificial meal drink.
But that's just my interpretation. Others are free to disagree.
Within that bigger context, though, are plant-based foods still a net improvement even if they don't drive transformative change? It's dubious to me. I think it encourages a mindset akin to recycling: "just do it, don't think about it" in that both are minimally impactful in and of themselves, but make people feel good that they're doing it. I forget the scholarly term for it but there's a body of research suggesting that if you can provide a small action for people to take to alleviate their guilt over something, they're less inclined to make bigger, transformative changes to their lives. Anybody can pick up a package of Frankenuggets and think they're doing the world a favor, and that's enough. But does it result in a net decrease in meat or dairy production? Not as far as I know, but if there is an analysis on this, I would love to be informed.
Regarding the dairy bankruptcy, actually I did not know that, and reading more (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/06/borden-da...), they do cite the rise in plant-based alternatives as one factor in their continuing decline. So maybe it does help? I know that would contradict my earlier points, but data is data. Personally I would be skeptical of too quickly attributing plant-based foods as the major determining factor in that, but time will tell. It's easier for capital to introduce new product lines that match consumer fashions than for executives to reexamine their values. But if I'm wrong, just let me know.
It seems what you may be recognizing is the delineation between veganism and a plant-based diet.
I consider veganism a philosophy that leads to inevitable action in the world, contrasted against a plant-based diet which is just that - flexible (e.g. those half-meat abominations, or blended cows milk with oat milk), not particularly rooted in selfless ideology/thought process, and excludes all the other ways that other beings could suffer from our consumption practices.
Your analogy to recycling I think is also spot on, especially in the context of plant-based diets - there's a fleeting feel-good thought of "I'm doing my part!" that falls apart under any serious scrutiny. Similarly, companies like Nestle adding plant-based options very squarely fit the definition of greenwashing, IMO.
To supplement my case that vegan replacements are the main disruptors to those industries, let us look no further than the incredible amount of recent lawsuits that attempt to limit how they're labelled, under the false pretense of "customers are getting confused!!1!" [0][1][2][3]
Thanks for sharing your perspective, and mad respect for how long you've been vegan - feel free to drop me a message if you're in the Austin area! There are plenty of hip, plant-based places to quietly criticize while sipping a beer.
(Sorry for the slow reply! Your response made me want to dwell on this some more before answering.) One, whatever my replies may be, I am by no means either a purist or an exemplar. I appreciate delicious foodlike products as much as anyone. I just wish it didn't stop there. But I'm also terrible at keeping up with purity. At the end of the day I usually just eat whatever I'm craving, usually mac and (shitty) cheese more than anything pure or whole.
Two, yes, I'd love to meet up in Austin at some point! I've heard good things about it and always wanted to visit. If I make it out there at some point I'll definitely hit you up.
Three, I have to admit I never thought about the First Amendment issues around this, with Schinner vs the meat industry lawyers as to what the word "dairy" means or "cow" or "burger". Miyoko's is (frankly) just aight, but that they're fighting the good fight means a lot. I have mad respect for the idealists.
What would your ideal world be like?
I used to think I knew the answer to that. As I got to know more people and animals, I'm no longer sure I do. Predator-prey gives way to primary producers and decomposers, with humans caught in the middle trying to oversimplify it all.
Our fatalistic flaw may not even be our selfishness, but our hedonism. We don't plan evil, we just act according to our (base) urges. 99% of us, anyway. We're doomed by genetics, not immorality.
Sorry. I'm pretty drunk. Would love to hear your thoughts, here, or over a beer someday in Austin.
I took it in jest. I just thought the spiders were eating what they normally do, but consenting to give us milk somehow, despite the fact they don't have nipples.
Seems to be a pattern with human thinking. Plenty of noble causes, some recent and very very public, get tarnished because of select bad actors. I don't know why but so many of us seem to look for reasons to say that X isn't a problem.
Whether or not i agree with (loud) vegans shouldn't affect the idea that our treatment of animals in large scale slaughter is abysmal. By nearly any measuring stick.
Why are we so prone to write off large, obvious movements? I see it so frequently.. yet i look for a reason to not hate the people that write-off, because it feels like so, so many.
Those people just promise that they will reduce suffering it, but is fake advertising. This is the real problem.
Cherry picking the most outrageous cases and in denial about the real consequences of their actions. Releasing minks, for example, is increasing animal suffering, not decreasing it. Opening the chimp cages in a zoo leads not to the chimps being happy, it leads to chimps being shoot and dead, etc, etc...
But they are basically blind to anything excepts what it fits in the narrative. They just choose the next victim, collect the money, and move on.
Publons is a nice way of keeping track and I use it myself, but I think institutions are generally willing to take faculty at their word with respect to reviews we have completed. (Although my statement here is really just based on anecdotal evidence, so I could be wrong.
