Last week I went along to one of the Wheeler Centreâ€™s IQ2 debates, â€˜Should Animals Be off the Menu?â€™ with my usual high hopes of learning something new, and in a way, I suppose I both learned something new and confirmed something old.
New: vegans can stack the Town Hall.
Old: most people donâ€™t actually want to learn, they just want to be right.
So allow me to take you through the â€˜debateâ€™, such that it was…
Peter Singer, renowned philosopher and author of Animal Liberation (1975), was the first speaker for the affirmative. Singer is what I usually refer to (perhaps sloppily) as an ethical pragmatist, but I gather he is more rightly classified a secular, preference utilitarian ethicist… (Although I have some training in philosophy, itâ€™s not actually my field, so please correct me insofar as it is useful to the discussion we will have here, but not for the pure pleasure of pedantry, if you please.)
Singer opened with the arguments I would expect from him, and ones I agree with:
- â€˜we can live a healthy life without eating animalsâ€™, and
- â€˜misuse of grain to feed animals is wastefulâ€™.
On the first point, I agree with Singer that the majority of the global north could lead a healthy vegetarian life. I certainly did for seven years of my life. Iâ€™m not sure it would solve our environmental woes given the state of industrial monocropping, industrial-scale dairy and intensive poultry raising for the majority of the worldâ€™s eggs, but heâ€™s right, most of us could be healthy as vegetarians. As for how healthy even we in the global north could be as vegans, there are healthy vegans around (and some less healthy), but Iâ€™d be interested in research around how many are taking supplements (especially B12…), and what sustainability would really look like if we all ate fridgeloads of processed soy products.
In many parts of the global south, strict vegetarianism or veganism is clearly less healthy given lack of availability of nutrient-dense foods, but Iâ€™ll return to that point later.