AND THE
HYENAS LAUGHED NO MORE?
In a Vegan Utopia the environmentalists would not have it all their own way — there'd be no place for predation. Andrew Luke explains w h y . . .
T
his article is motivated by a concern that veganism and environmentalism are not compatible ideologies. For the p u r p o s e s of this piece I shall use 'environm e n t a l i s m ' to denote the ideology of pres e r v i n g t h e w o r l d in its natural state in perpetuity, and doing so because nature is s o m e t h i n g that should be preserved in its o w n r i g h t , r e g a r d l e s s of its i n s t r u m e n t a l value f o r h u m a n (or other) beings.
Interference N o w , there are numerous reasons for being vegan. On environmental or anthropocentric g r o u n d s , the production of animal-derived f o o d s , etc, is inefficient and this either cause s u n n e c e s s a r y e n v i r o n m e n t a l d a m a g e or results in human starvation. One might also b e v e g a n b e c a u s e o n e o b j e c t s to h a r m i n g sentient beings. Most vegans, I suspect, are v e g a n f o r a c o m b i n a t i o n of these reasons; however, for those w h o are vegan partly or primarily f o r the latter reason and w h o lay claim to being environmentalists, problems of i n c o n s i s t e n c y arise. If w e are to t a k e objections to harming sentient life seriously, t h e n t h e r e are g o o d vegan r e a s o n s f o r i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h n a t u r e to m a k e it m o r e humane. T h e idea of interfering with nature to the extent required has certainly been around for a while. For example, in his novel, Men Like Gods, H G Wells paints a picture of a Utopia in w h i c h t h e w o r l d h a s b e e n m a d e into a G a r d e n of E d e n . N o x i o u s a n i m a l s and plants, those that have a tendency to eat or sting h u m a n s , h a v e b e e n e x t i r p a t e d . T h i s p r o c e s s , the U t o p i a n s e x p l a i n , has taken m a n y centuries. E a c h species of plant and animal w a s considered for its aesthetic value 6
and ecological importance, and those that are both noxious and extraneous have been done away with.
A Vegan Utopia Wells' Utopia is not vegan — nor even vegetarian: the primary motive was to provide human beings with a paradise in which to live. However, there is no reason we should not e n v i s a g e a vegan version of this Wellsian Utopia, a Garden Earth in which the harms that befall all beings have been eradicated, or at least reduced to a minimum. This might involve eliminating those creatures that are inimical to this project, such as carnivores. Would this be morally acceptable? Anyone with the slightest environmentalist s e n t i m e n t s is likely to be horrified by this suggestion. In part this is pragmatic: mass interference with the eco-system would risk global environmental destruction. Mosquitoes can be a nuisance, so eradicating them might seem like a good idea, but what effect would this have on the rest of the eco-system? The repercussions could be cataclysmic. Whilst admitting that such practical considerations may render the project difficult or impossible, they are beside the point since the question I am asking is a moral one: If it were possible for us to create a vegan paradise, would we be morally right to do so? M a n y people will find the proposition objectionable for altogether different reasons, partly moral, partly aesthetic. It seems profoundly wrong for a species that has been existent for the merest blink of a geological eye to eradicate irrecoverably what has taken nature millions of years to create. Who are
We must be careful not to be carried away with nature worship we to decide which species are noxious and deserve to be exterminated, and which are to be spared? The answer is that we are rational, moral beings fundamentally opposed to harming our sentient brethren. We must be careful not to be carried away with nature worship. Nature can indeed be profoundly beautiful at times; however, it can also be obscenely cruel. Hyenas, for example, do not have a particular method of killing their prey: once they have run it to ground, they eat it alive. As Wells' Utopians argue, creating a Garden Earth is about replacing the blind indifference of nature with the civilized compassion of man. Such a project should appeal to vegans. Environmentalist vegans will certainly not be appreciative of such a proposal for two reasons. Firstly, doing so would violate the environmentalist ideology of preserving the natural world; and secondly, there seems to be an asymmetry between h u m a n ' s abstaining from eating other animals and our interfering with nature to prevent hyenas, say, doing so. When one eats an animal, it might be argued, one is causing that animal's death, albeit indirectly, and therefore we are responsible for its death. However, we are not responsible in the slightest degree for the wildebeest that is eaten by hyenas. The reply hinges upon whether there is a moral difference between acting to cause harm and omitting to prevent it. So, f o r example, I may act to cause your death by The Vegan, Summer 1995