I dont know whether I missed the memo on this or something, but it seems 2017 is the year were attempting to break the world record on stupid.
The Huffington Post put out a piece spotlighting a new book written by chef Amy Cramer and author Lisa McComsey. The book, called Seagan Eating, advocates for a fully plant-based diet with one exception you can eat seafood. Apparently the book is targeted at those looking for a healthier diet but who are unable to go whole-hog and become vegan. Oh and, the seafood has to be sustainably-fished, low-mercury seafood. Because happyfish, right?
With respect to ethical vegans, Cramer says that we absolutely honor and admire them. Of course, because thats what the fish want your admiration of those who dont unnecessarily kill them whilst you go ahead and feast on their bodies. Apparently, the way to respect the lives of sentient beings isnt to stop exploiting them, its to make sure youre only consuming safely caught aquatic animals who are not close to extinction. And dont forget, only consume fish with a low mercury content, because the fish clearly give a fuck about that when theyre hauled out of the ocean to suffocate.
Aside from the heinous rights violations this pair are advocating including but not limited to getting friendly with your fishmonger and having a sniff of the bodies before buying theyre promoting seaganism as an environmental position. That makes as much sense as promoting the consumption sustainably raised beef or dairy as an answer to climate change. Animal agriculture in whatever form is an ecological disaster.
Perhaps most disturbingly, the authors see seaganism as fitting a huge need for vegans who want variety and, for health reasons, they now realize they can eat [fish]. Theyre telling vegans that its okay to order the salmon at a restuarant instead of just ordering the vegetables.
Well, its not okay. Cramer and McComseys position is devoid of a moral element, but that doesnt mean there isnt one. It just means theyve assumed animals to be things. There is no moral difference between aquatic animals and any other animals. They are all sentient beings with the moral right not to be used as resources. Our exploitation of them is entirely unnecessary we inflict suffering and death upon them for no other reason than we like how they taste. But pleasure is not a sufficient justification for inflicting suffering and death. Seaganism attempts to assert that there is a health component to the argument for consuming seafood. But that argument is utterly irrelevant when we can live optimally healthy (and in many cases, healthier) lives without inflicting suffering and death. When we recognise that sentient beings have moral value, and that our actions towards them require some form of moral justification, we see that its wrong to assume animals are sources of food just as its wrong to assume humans are sources of food.
The Huffington puts seaganism in the same category as climatarianism and reducitarianism, something that both Cramer and McComsey seem content with. And that makes sense, as another non-position that simply gives people an excuse to continue doing the wrong thing, its right at home promoting continued exploitation.
See the article here:
Great, Now We've Got 'Seagans' To Deal With - Ecorazzi
