Alan Ranta rants against Moby for encouraging veganism [“Listening to Moby is murder”, October 23-30]. Moby’s case for veganism is not based on the ethical treatment of animals but rather how animal agriculture causes more climate change than all of transportation combined. At one point, Ranta raises the concept of “ethical harvesting”.
There’s nothing ethical in taking a being—who can think, remember, play in the grass, relish in the sun, love her friends, and take care of her family—and inflicting violence in the form of premature death on it, or treating its body parts like they’re your property to consume for the sole purpose of pleasure. Since nutritionists agree a vegan diet can be perfectly healthy, it’s not being done for the purpose of health.
But Ranta should be happy to know that when animal rights are understood to intersect with human-rights movements (permit my gall in suggesting such a possibility), vegan advocacy does not focus its energy where there is food insecurity or great monetary expense. Yes, this includes the tundra.
Ranta is right on one point, however: the challenge of resisting animal agriculture or climate change, for that matter, will not be solved in personal purchases alone but through institutional means as well. All the more reason for cutting government subsidies to animal agriculture. Like Moby said.
> Miriam Sabzevari / Vancouver