Besides that, think about this. What really is wrong with committing "just" 95% to any cause? Coaches go on and on about giving 120%, but that's stupid, and mathematically impossible. How much can you really give? 100% is impossible too if you consider you need to give some percent to just keeping your body's vital systems going. Breathing is like 1%, your heart another 1%. Basic brain function plus overhead comes to another 1%, right? It seems only fair to leave a couple percent for yourself. That comes to what? 5%! That leaves 95% to dedicate to any endeavor. 95%. BAM! I think that's a very generous amount.
Apply this idea to veganism as the post suggests, and we are on easy street. You won't even need bother to read labels anymore. Any animal bits in there will easily fall under our freebie 5%. Yup, go ahead and eat that birthday cake. You can probably manage to pack in some spare ribs too if it's only occasional, or you limit yourself to like six or something each time you eat out. Here's a cool idea: eat a large vegan breakfast everyday. This will increase the amount that falls under your vegan 95%, which in turn increases the amount in your 5% allowance for the good stuff. By lunch, you could be sprinkling some cheese on your salad, or even bacon bits! Keep snacking during the day on fruit and veggies, and by suppertime, you could probably squeeze in a whole side dish of meat.
 |
| Your gateway to guilt-free bacon. |
But this is really too good of a concept to limit to veganism. We can go hog wild with this (using "hog wild" falls under my 5% allowance for stereotypical animal sayings). First on my list: Stealing. I've like, almost never stolen anything. Maybe as a little kid. I suppose I didn't make a lot of effort to find the owner of a twenty I found in a hallway once. Taken in toto, I'm currently scoring about 99.9999999% in the "didn't steal" category considering my entire life. That gives me a 4.9999999% leeway to accumulate goods beyond my means. Heck, even stuff I can afford, I could just get for free as long as it doesn't push me under my 95% goal. I've got a lot of time to make up for, and a lot of spaces to fill on my ceramic figurine shelves.
That's very cool of course, but let's not forget the intangibles. I consider myself a very fair minded, non-discriminatory person. Once in a while though, I feel a bit jealous at the camaraderie I see when one group verbally abuses another. I often overhear things like, "I say, friend, do you see the way that group carries on, what with their tinted spectacles, and their chapeaus adjusted just so? I imagine they will later partake in a round of miniature golfing as their kind is apt to do. Let us have a jolly laugh at their expense!" Great guffaws of laughter then ensue. This is what I at least assume I would often overhear, but I never get close enough to make out anything because these people probably all have horrible body odor and I have to walk upwind from them. I can now though devise my own jibes to share with those whose skin tone (and lack of any discernible body odor) I share. Of course, I am not and never will be racist, but who wouldn't want to indulge a mere 5% of the time?
This is just the tip of the iceberg of course. I don't kick 95% of the people I interact with in the nethers, but you darn well better watch out if you're in that 5%! Sexual harassment? It's a big no-no of course, but I think the hotties will neatly fit in the 5%. Even now I'm making my do-and-don't murder lists. It's getting tough coming up with 9.5 people I don't want to kill for every person on my murder list, but really, this is the sacrifice I have to make.
I think a 95% vegan world would be preferable to the world we have now. Sorry, but I just don't have it in me to point my finger in judgement at someone who has reduced their use and intake of animal products by 95%. How can anyone do that to someone who's making an effort, however imperfect or incomplete as their attempt might be?
ReplyDeleteYou can compare it to not murdering or stealing 5% of the time, but let's look at this from another perspective. If we were to reduce carbon emissions and environmental pollution by 95%, I think it would have a SIGNIFICANT impact on our world. What would our major cities look like if crime was reduced by 95%? What if doctors were able to cure 95% of all cancer cases? Would you point your finger at them and pronounce, "Not good enough?"
I suppose I'm looking at this from a "glass is half full" viewpoint rather than a half empty perspective. I applaud people for trying their best rather than condemning them for not doing enough.
Do I abhor how animals are treated? Of course. Do I want it to end? Yes. Will it? I don't know - but if it does, it will happen slowly, and we have an overwhelming amount of work to do in terms of cultural, economic and political reform. With the way society is "evolving," it's looking more and more unlikely. Our so-called democracies have evolved into corporate oligarchies, and the only way to get them to listen to us is with our wallets. If meat consumption was reduced by 95% overnight, this would force reforms in these brutal industries. You'd see meat substitute departments triple in size, and meat departments relegated to a small freezer in the back of the store.
You could look at the "95% vegan" standpoint from a rigid moral perspective - or you could look at it from a (cough) rational and realistic perspective.
Suffering will always exist, even if every human reduced meat consumption by 95% - both by animals and by humans - but it would be a lot less than the carnage that exists today.
As I've said in other comments, your moral stance is honourable and I share your idealism, but it's not reasonable given the reality of human psychology and the propaganda that's being circulated by corporations that have a vested interest in the consumption and use of animal flesh and byproducts - from agriculture, to health care to clothing companies. People are uneducated and brainwashed and think this is the way it has to be to survive. It's up to the vegan community to educate them in a way that's diplomatic and non-judgmental. If we take a stance of moral superiority, we've already lost.
I applaud people who are 95% vegan. Though they're not 100% there yet, they're doing the best they can, and that's surely better than doing nothing at all. Taking a rigid, perfectionist stance on this won't promote change - in fact, I believe it's a hindrance to change.
I think if we are to, ideally, convince every single person in the world to abstain from meat, we need to show them how it can benefit them first. People are really good at putting blinders up when it comes to how "food animals" are treated, but when they are shown scientific evidence that appeals to their self-interest, they are more likely to listen.
It might not be the most moral way of achieving the goal of minimizing suffering, but it's the smartest way. I don't think animal and human suffering will ever be fully eliminated...but if it could me minimized by 95%, that would be an excellent start.
Curing cancer is not a choice, and neither is reducing crime. Veganism is a moral imperative, and one that most adults have the power to choose.
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with the speed that someone transitions to veganism. When someone consciously makes a choice to use animals for convenience or pleasure while knowing the consequences of that choice, it is a violation of that imperative. Someone transitioning should still have the goal of eliminating animal use (and most of are always transitioning in some ways). Someone proclaiming that they are vegan, yet purposefully causing some few animals a year to suffer because they want to eat birthday cake really has no excuse.