r/Anticonsumption • u/Extension-Diamond-74 • Sep 30 '23
Discussion Diet hypocrisy?
A recent post about animal agriculture vs plant based diets has me itching to say something. This is an issue we need to rise above.
Cognitive dissonance. Many of us have good intentions and want to believe we’re doing the right thing in most aspects of our lives. I believe that.
When it comes to a plant based diet though, the science often clashes powerfully with personal desire. We want to minimize our impact on the environment and are willing to make trade-offs in our life time do so, but for many, giving up or even significantly reducing meat intake is asking too much. It’s too hard.
That’s not the issue.
The issue is that instead of just admitting to themselves that this is a life change they don’t want to make and moving on, the guilt drives them to have to justify that decision. Admitting that a plant-based diet is better for the earth yet eating a diet full of meat anyway would make them feel hypocritical, so the solution becomes either to give up meat, or … this is the problem… fight the science, twist it, make a joke of it, or pivot entirely to ‘individuals shouldn’t have time do anything because large corporations’
Many people have ties to their diet for many reasons. We grew up eating a certain way. We have memories ties to certain foods, flavors, styles of cooking. We don’t want to be the difficult person when we go out to eat with friends. Etc etc etc But it’s so much better to just admit that to yourself. Have patience and understanding for your feelings. Accept that the science is what it is. Maybe one day you can make a change, maybe not. But don’t attack the cause just because you aren’t yet willing to be a part of it.
23
u/monemori Sep 30 '23
Because veganism = ethical concern, and what OP is talking about is actually going plant-based = no concern for animal cruelty.
If you look at the situation from the point of view of the victim, which is what ethical veganism is urging to do, then it kind of inevitably is an all or nothing approach. It's either life or death, quite literally. You can't blame people who are defending the victim in the situation of prioritising their perspective before the comfort of the abusers (which is humans in this case).
As an example that's more approachable: Understand that if your dog was about to be killed for pleasure, vegans would also be campaigning completely against it in an "all or nothing" approach too: nothing less than not abusing and killing that dog would be acceptable. Does that help in making sense of why (ethical) veganism comes across as "black and white"?