Anyone who has been vegan for more than a few months is probably familiar with what I call “The Inuit Defense.” When presented with an argument for veganism, it’s common for people to bring up the diet of some remote indigenous population (usually the Inuit) as justification for why they should continue consuming animal products. “Well, the Inuit must hunt and fish in order to survive,” they say. The implication being that if the Inuit cannot be vegan, they shouldn’t be expected to be vegan either.
In other words, if everyone can’t be vegan, no one should even try.
It may be true that there are still people in extreme parts of the world who, due to circumstances beyond their control, must kill animals to survive. But does that mean we should get a free-pass, too? We, who by comparison, live lives of abundance and comfort? We, who do not eat animal products out of necessity, but rather out of desire?
Does one person’s need excuse another’s greed? Or does our relative good-fortune and luxury of choice obligate us to do better — to act more ethically and responsibly?
Necessity and desperation, while not necessarily excuses for violent actions, certainly make them more understandable, and perhaps even pardonable. It’s easier to understand why a woman would shoot her husband if we know she did so in self-defense. Similarly, it’s easier to understand why a man would resort to stealing if we know he did so in order to obtain life-saving medication for his child.
But who among us would argue that because a battered woman shoots her husband, we should feel free to go out and shoot anyone we please?
Who would argue that because a desperate father steals medication for his child, we should feel justified stealing that BMW we wish to drive, or those diamond earrings we admire?
So why is it acceptable to argue that because an indigenous person somewhere in the world may be forced to hunt in order to feed his family, we should feel entitled to throw another steak on the grill?
It just doesn’t make any sense.
If we are fortunate enough to be able to live without causing violence and harm to others, shouldn’t we do so…and do so with gratitude? To use the desperate or necessary actions of the less-advantaged as an attempt to justify our needless participation in animal abuse is shameful. It seems to me that those of us who can be vegan, should, regardless of whether or not there are people out there (real or hypothetical) for whom veganism is not yet a possibility.
Wonderful article….thank you so much for writing this…..and for your heart and mind…
Excellent article Jo. Is it really “need” that the Inuit eat animals or is it really closer to the same reason(s) that people here in the U.S. eat animals. It is understood or in the least argued that today, Joe Q Public living in Anytown continental USA eats meat because it is seen as normal. Even if, in some hypothetical (and awesome I might add) future, the vast majority of people here in the US were vegan because it was finally acknowledged as much healthier and much less costly (not only in terms of higher health care costs associated with an animal-based diet but to produce plant-based foods is usually far more efficient) and it became more the norm to eat this way, Joe Six Pack might still eat animals (because he honestly feels physically better when he eats meat) but the reason might not be so much that it is normal or convenient (it probably wouldn’t be in a mostly vegan USA) but rather (likely) because Joe Six Pack holds a speciesist attitude, even if he might not even be consciously aware of it. In all likelihood, Joe Six Pack, if it became extremely inconvenient (a true hardship) to find animals that he could kill and eat, would not grab Little 5 year old Mary Jane from the small house at the end of Main Street when no one was looking and take her home to eat. I’m not talking about a Jeffrey Dahmer, but simply Joe Six Pack. Joe Six Pack, if it became a real hardship to find the meat that he likes to eat in the US might go to another country where it was less of a hardship to do so. In other words, his speciesist attitude (in conjunction with the current law, but set that aside for the moment) is the underlying reason why he chooses to stay in that hypothetical (future) USA so long as it isn’t a real hardship to find meat that is taken only from animals that are not of the human variety. Joe Six Pack stays but not if the only meat around is found on people.I don’t think it is that different, an underlying reason, why people like the Inuit eat meat from animals that are not of the human variety. In other words, if some freak epidemic of cataclysmic scale killed off the vast majority of marine life in and around the areas far and wide from where the Inuit normally kill marine animals, would the Inuit people, “need” to eat the meat off of each other or would they instead seek to do something else that would be considered radical, immoderate, even drastic – like relocate even if afar? In such a situation I’m convinced that the Inuit would choose to relocate rather than at any point kill humans for their meat to eat. I believe it is this hypothetical scenario which demonstrates that the underlying reason for eating animals is a speciesist one and no other reason. Sure, laws protect humans from eating each other, but even if there were no such laws, do you really think that people would start “needing” to kill other humans on massive scale? Concurrent with this, the Inuit cherish and love their dogs (from the little I have found on this subject). Some Inuit still use dogs to pull their sled and some may use dogs in hunting or retrieving. Americans, as a cultural group, love dogs also. Both peoples love dogs and eat other animals they consider food. Are both peoples operating under carnist thinking when it comes to animals? With that, is the title of your article perhaps not all that accurate? Isn’t it really a choice and a perceived need for not only Joe Q Public here in the US but also for Inuit people?Finally, when it comes to Joe Q Public or the Inuit people in terms of the “need” to kill animals, is the difference really of degree (inconvenience) rather than of kind (speciesist attitude)? I argue that it is of degree.
p.s. My point is, I feel that choosing our words is very important and while writers like Jo do this exceptionally well, I believe that it is appropriate to challenge each other when we feel there is a meaningful reason to do so. In this case I feel there is. If we define “need” as choosing to rely on a speciesist attitude over the inconvenience of hardship then we are opening the door to anyone’s argument that they “need” to eat meat from non-human animals based on some hardship they claim. And of course for me living in the convenience of Big Town USA it is quite easy for me to assert something like this because I am not faced with the same hardships that Inuit people face, still I feel it is worthwhile to address how we ascribe meanings to words. If we are talking about real “needs”, sure enough calories and adequate nutrition (and an atmosphere with 21% oxygen) are real needs for humans but is living in a remote area really a need or is it something else? I don’t believe it is an insignificant point when discussing this particular topic.
Excellent post as is the comment and analysis on speciesism left by Sexyvegan. Sad truth in a nutshell is that nonhumans are marginalized – Nearly invisible… Often compared to vegetables. Yet, ironically – Their flesh always seems to be a matter of life and death to the consumer – Never to the owner of the flesh to begin with.
It’s a job wading through the muck. Thanks for continuing to do so.
WELL said..
No horribly said this guy needs to shut up how do you explain canine teeth this is a stupid argument that is contrditary because god says he gives us all animals on fours or in the sea for food. And a plant is a living creature too so if your just going to use that argument it also makes no since.
Thanks for your comment – it really sheds light on the type of mentality that allows this needless violence to continue.
FABULOUS. You said what I always want to say, but in such an eloquent way. Thanks.
Fuck you you vegan bitch it’s my god given right to hunt I can kill if I want to if you have a problem with that you come down to my house and ill whoop your ass.
Although it’s a bit disturbing, I think it’s telling when meat-eaters reveal their true nature rather than trying to hide behind the guise of being “humane, animal-lovers.” So, thank you for your honesty.
Yes indeed! What a wonderful opportunity to provide them with a forum that exposes their truer intent. So much for unsocial, mayhem-driven, violent vegans… It’s evident who the power lusters (and wackos) are! Well done!
It is oddly telling how people will point to a population that has nothing to do with who they are or their daily lives, pick something that the population does that they want to continue doing, and use this as if by some kind of logical extension, their actions are now justified. Interesting how they point to the “luxuries” they want to continue to enjoy, not things that wouldn’t benefit them, like a lack of access to education or modern medicine.
PS – Yes, let the violent people expose themselves for whom they are.