Should They?

Now, I said back in the mission statement that I planned to keep an open mind regarding vegans and veganism, and I have done so and will continue to do so, and by the conclusion of Project UMB I expect I'll have developed a permanent empathetic (if not sympathetic) bond with the vegan community. A part of this involves setting out where my mind is at the moment with regard to that community, before attempting to chart its forward (or backward) progress.

To that end, I would like to address an article Major Bludd forwarded to me recently entitled "Should Vegans Procreate?" it doesn't have a date on it, but there are indications in the writing that suggest it was written in the 1990s. Apparently it was very controversial when it was published in The Vegan (a possibly now-defunct publication of The Vegan Society), so those two facts suggest that this article is, at the very least, not representative of the views of all vegans. That disclaimer out of the way, let's take a look.


The Greenest Gray
The article leads off with a backgrounder on the net negative impact of the human race upon the planet. Population exploding, urban sprawl, irreversible development of arable land, and so forth. Yes, all things granted. But at the time of my reading, let alone the article's writing, the entire human population of the earth could be comfortably housed in an area the size of Texas and there is such an overabundance of food crops that the US Government is still paying farmers to NOT grow things for the sake of price stability. Plus, there's the whole biofuel thing, which is not popular because of its environmentalism, but for its low cost, which is a quality tied to the supply of corn relative to demand. Sure, one day all of this will change. But at current pace, we should probably do more worrying about the sun exploding.

That said, I do sympathize somewhat. I remember seeing The Lion King when I was little, and being sad upon leaving the theatre that I did not live in a lush, pristine savanna and likely never would. Of course, these were the dreams and letdowns of a small child because that's what I was.


Free Will Got Those Minks Killed
The article goes on to refute a common defense held by vegans who favor procreation, namely, that by having children and raising them to be vegan, the net human vegan representation is increased and is thus actually a good thing. There are three reasons given by the author why this is wrong:

1) The questionable morality of imposing your beliefs on another (in this case, your child). This is an entirely foreign way of thinking to me, and reminds me of the whole honey debate. Where do you draw the line? You have to draw it somewhere. Everything we say--and do--can be seen as a challenge to another's way of thinking. Sentences later, the author suggests that the energy spent raising a child be better spent gaining mature converts and "campaigning". Imposing your beliefs on others is thus argued as immoral when it's your own child, but not when it's a faceless mass of strangers. I am reminded of Stalin's quote regarding tragedies and statistics.

2) No guarantee your child will remain a vegan. Even if you are not bothered by the idea of indoctrinating your child, it's still probably a long shot that the kid will hold fast to the things their parents try to make them do. After all, how many vegans were raised to eat meat and dairy and so forth? Most of them, probably. Their currently held beliefs were born out of rebellion, what makes you think your kids will be any different? Fair point, if that's your top concern.

3) You risk not being able to fully provide for a child. I'm trying to be considerate and not snarky but this is starting to try my patience. Good lord, nobody can promise that they'll give their kid everything he/she needs, nobody should, and to an extent it's probably for the best that they don't. Dealing with some kind of hardship growing up is not a bad thing. Look at the "Greatest Generation" that spilled out of the Great Depression. Now look at the asshole baby boomers that grew up with everything and have been screwing up the universe since the 1970s.


www.treatiseorfetus.gov
Then the author comments on the idea that procreation is a natural instinct for humans and is thus fitting and proper. While a basic urge, it is nevertheless a self-serving and ego-driven need, serving no purpose but to propogate the genes of the parents in their roundabout attempt to defy mortality. The author argues that "our greater priority must surely be to the welfare of the Earth".

I really don't understand why we should care about the welfare of the Earth if we've already accepted that we will, or at least should, cease procreating until our species is extinct and our presence in this reality utterly forgotten. Once you've come to grips with that, what else really matters? Certainly not the Earth, one terrestrial world in an infinite universe of terrestrial worlds. There are more of them than there are of us.


Tomorrow We Come Back And We Cut Off Your Johnson
But maybe I'm a bit off base there. The author does not want the human race to die out. Rather, it just needs to shrink to a great extent, or at least spread out a bit. Through a gardening analogy, the author states that a human only reaches its full potential when it gets enough attention. The present state of overcrowding prevents most children from developing a sense of moral spirituality (I find these last two ideas to be entirely without basis in fact).

In the last couple of paragraphs, the author betrays her earlier statement that she does not want the human race to die out:

What has this world, that is so far from being ideal, to offer the child you say you love and yet launch into its cold and cruel embrace? The only fact a parent can guarantee his or her child is death.

and:

Naturally we, as vegans, although we take great pleasure in the sight of gentle and beautiful farm animals, would far rather they did not exist at all. Vegans have enough love to desire their loved-ones not to feel the pains of this world.

and:

It must be said that if you, as a vegan, choose to give birth to a child and it later turns out to be a meat eater, it renders your own personal commitment completely invalid.

And it is at this point that I simply cannot take the author seriously anymore. Really? A human has nothing to contribute to the universe if he/she is an omnivore? That the idea that nonexistence (for humans AND animals!) is preferable to life and its experiences, painful and otherwise? Truly, this line of thinking is worthy of no sentiment but purest pity.

That said, the elements of the article that I do agree with fit together to form an effective argument against procreation by vegans. Vegans are born out of rebellion moreso than upbringing, and fewer human beings equals fewer animal products consumed equals a lower demand for animal products equals fewer animals slaughtered. The math works. But this idea requires the prioritizing of True Veganism at the expense of...just about everything.


The More You Know
Considering this article helped me orient myself with regard to the honey debate, as well. The fact is, every human being, by virtue of their existence on this planet, is affecting the rest of it--to an infinitesimal degree, perhaps, but is affecting it nonetheless. This unavoidably leads to the death or injury of other creatures, through no intention to do so, and in spite of intentions to do the opposite. The only way, as I see it, to really live up to the ultimate obligation of True Veganism is to launch oneself into outer space and out of Earth's orbit, so as to never risk negatively affecting the planet or anything on it again.

I'm relieved to know that this article was so hotly debated when it was published. It proves that there is a sizable demographic of sensible people within the vegan community. You can, in fact, withhold support for factory farming and other forms of cruelty-for-profit through a vegan lifestyle without advocating the extinction of mankind.