Conclusion
What is probably easier: dissuade the 300,000 hunters in Germany from hunting, so that five million fewer animals are shot every year? Stop all animal testing, which could spare one and a half million animals in Germany from suffering and death? Or convince all vegetarians, for whom millions more animals are killed (specific information on the number of vegetarians do not exist, due to inadequate statistical coverage, if it were just 5% then about eight million birds would be killed solely for their consumption of eggs) than are killed for hunting and animal testing put together, that they should go vegan? Notable here is the glaring disparity in the number of hunting and anti-vivisection campaigners (and organisations) compared to the number of people living vegan.Those who place their selfishness above their ethical conduct could only, if ever, be influenced by legal sanctions similar to those that already partly exist in relation to various species. In many parts of the world it is punishable to consume certain animals, or to kill them for consumption. This applies variously to monkeys, dogs, insects, cats, humans (these in fact almost everywhere), cattle, pigs, whales, etc. The reasons for such bans are often, however, highly questionable. They range from "species(ist) protection" to religious delusions.
Those who want to oppose this and live ethically – something like an ethically motivated vegetarian – will become vegan
- as soon as they realise that animals are mistreated and killed for their consumption of milk and eggs, just as they are for the direct consumption of their bodies,
- and the sooner the penny drops, the sooner they become vegan.
Therefore it is not only justified, but an urgent imperative to point this out exactly, clearly, unambiguously, relentlessly, drastically, and without euphemisms.
(next: Calculations)
July 19, 2010