@Darky: I’m not going to play Joe Internet for you on this one – you’re going to have to make up your own mind, about this and any number of other foods (and food additives) along the way. Personally, I’m curious about what a lot of things taste like (for instance, I make a vegan risotto and have no idea if it tastes like risotto, but the same could be said for other “foods” society would view as abhorrent) but it’s simply not worth it to me to actually find out – not because I’m worried about my “vegan certification,” but at least in part because it would go against the identity I’ve carved out in my mind, and I feel I’m at my best when I’m acting consistently with my beliefs. Everything we do can be summed up as a “knee-jerk reaction” to some belief we hold, at some level, and I don’t know that that’s a bad thing.

That said, I don’t think information is the biggest problem anymore. 20 years ago, what happened in slaughterhouses and battery farms wasn’t common knowledge, but it pretty well is now; how many people know what happens and can’t or won’t change? I know more omnis than vegans who’ve seen Earthlings, for example, and it made them feel bad but it didn’t make them want to change anything.

Perhaps both welfarists and abolitionists need to stop trying to discredit each other and focus more on the limits of simply providing information and/or appealing to people’s consciences and see what they can do about the underlying problem. Which I think is: the social price to be paid for going (and staying!) vegan.

People always say they couldn’t be vegan, it would be too hard, and activists respond by discussing how easy it is to get your iron here, your calcium here, etc. I think what they find potentially too hard is how they’ll have to interact differently with people and take some abuse. Maybe forever (I’ve been vegan 6+ years and I’m 34, yet my family still thinks I’m going through a phase, and that’s the most minor of the social price I’ve paid.).

Also, let me say that many of the issues that are framed as “welfare vs abolition” are in fact not so insoluble. For example, if I say free-range eggs lead to less suffering than battery eggs, and you say that they undeservedly reduce our guilt – well, then, aren’t you really just arguing for a less narrow view of welfare? The reduction of guilt that comes with “humane” products is bad because it leads to further exploitation, which is bad because it leads to further suffering. It always comes back to suffering.

@James: thanks for the video, I’ll be sure to check it out this afternoon!

Drawing a line at all is unnecessary, though. We could instead loosely order things in a continuum, and say that oysters feel more pain than plants, but less pain than, say, vertebrate fish.

Here’s a video of Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer discussing various related topics – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU – You may not like these guys, but they do a reasonable job of reviewing the basic issues here.

A friend of mine asked me why I don’t use pearls. I gave her the pat “no animal products” explanation, but couldn’t really provide her with more information than that. I mean – if we use the “sentient being” or “ability to suffer” categorization, I’m not sure oysters, clams, mussels, etc. technically fit. That being said, I still feel like it crosses the “animal” barrier, which is enough for me. But it sill puts me in a tough position. Usually, I’m able to explain to others why I feel the use of animals is cruel, unnecessary, and wrong, even if they’re treated insanely well (if slaughter can be considered “insanely good” treatment). In the case of bivalves, however, I fall a bit short on ammo, but stick to my guns regardless (two firearm references in a single sentence – quite a feat, I think!)

I’ll make one more “quick” comment, this time about the abolitionist/welfarist dichotomy. I agree with some of what you say. First, yes, obviously ensuring that animals suffer less is good – in theory. The problem is that the reduction of animal suffering often accompanies a reduction in our guilt about using, eating, and wearing such animals. In other words, I won’t give up eggs, because I can just buy the “free-range” ones, and eat “humanely”. It also presents a funny message. For example, PETA encouraged veg-folk everywhere to eat at KFC following the boycott, so that the veggie-chicken option would stay on the menu. So… they wanted us to support financially a chain that is responsible for the abuse and murder of countless chickens. Why wouldn’t people be confused about veganism??

That’s my piece: thanks for providing the space for it!

I gotta say, I’m really freaked out about the “brand-dilution” aspect.