Written by Dan O’Keefe

Last Thursday, I went to the library looking for a good read. I happened to come across a very unique section. After receiving a little direction, I checked out a first edition called ‘Vegan.’ He also goes by Adam Bowers, and was a part of the McLaughlin library’s Human Library initiative.

When asked why a person became a vegan, most will give an answer that relates to concern for animal rights or welfare. Others will offer health and nutrition as their reason. But, how about philosophy? Bowers says that philosophical reasons helped bring about his choice to become a vegan.

While his reason for change might be different, Bowers lives just like any other vegan. He has gone against the norm of North American society. He has faced criticism and stereotypes. And, he leads a healthy, interesting, and fulfilling lifestyle.

So, how does philosophy affect one’s belief that veganism is the way of choice?

“[I believe in] the utilitarian concept of the greatest good for the greatest number of people,” said Bowers. “[I think about] consequences and decisions, as well as the implications of actions.”

Bowers looks for the course of action that will bring the greatest good. And often, the greatest good seems to lie parallel to veganism, and contrary to human practices.

Bowers identifies two of the world’s greatest problems as overpopulation/hunger and disease.

For the first of these issues, the simple solution is to reduce the amount of energy that humans use. It isn’t so much that there aren’t enough resources, but that there aren’t enough resources for the rate at which humans consume them.

No transfer of energy is 100 per cent efficient. What is bewildering is why so much energy is wasted by growing food for animals, when eating that food would be much more energy efficient. But, industrial agriculture continues to waste energy raising animals en mass for food.

As Bowers suggested, money is the bottom line for these companies and they are sacrificing sustainability for profit, and not thinking of the larger issues.

“It’s not a problem if the input into animals was equal to the output for humans,” said Bowers. “But that will never be possible.”

Animals are like middlemen in business. If they are cut out, the consumer gets more for less. As veganism cuts out the animals, it is much more efficient in terms of energy and does the most good, which is one reason it works for Bowers.

Concerning the issue of disease, the blame often lies with animals, or rather, how humans treat animals.

The conditions in slaughterhouses are ripe for disease. In order to be efficient, these facilities pack as many animals as possible into the smallest space. This creates a filthy and overcrowded setting, ideal for the spread of disease, such as the H1N1 swine flu (pigs) or the H5N1 avian flu (birds). The greatest good for humanity would be to eliminate slaughterhouses to prevent the diseases that flourish within them.

On the topic of slaughterhouses, Bowers quoted Leo Tolstoy.

“As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will always be battlefields,” he recalled, citing the great novelist.

War, seen by many as a completely and utterly horrible waste of resources, money, and life, is frequently fought over valuable and disappearing resources, which could be preserved and made available to both sides, if they weren’t consumed at such alarming and wasteful rates. Again, the efficient and peaceful vegan lifestyle stands as the best solution.

Bowers also sees substantial problems that lie in the treatment of animals as property.

Animals are living things that, like humans, can feel pleasure and pain, and in some cases, even exhibit emotions. People are quick to condemn slavery or sweatshops, because it is wrong to treat humans like property; however, those same people often see no problem in treating animals as property.

Sadly, making animals into property is what makes animal cruelty seem acceptable.

“Animal cruelty is only [viewed as] bad when someone owns the animal,” said Bowers.

It is wrong if someone abuses someone’s pet, but what if no one owns the abused animal? Who will try to protect what isn’t theirs?

At one point, Bowers struggled emotionally when recalling a story in which the abuse and exploitation of someone’s ‘property’ was turned into a revolting and disgusting game. When the game was over, the ‘property’ had outlived its usefulness to the ‘owner’ and was discarded, its life no longer worth anything in the eyes of its ‘owner.’

“Not exploiting animals at all – that’s the goal of veganism,” said Bowers, suggesting once again that philosophy indicates veganism is the right choice.

Bowers finished our discussion with an interesting thought.

He compared veganism to a fork: a multipronged approach to food and life. Certainly, there are prongs dedicated to health and nutrition, environmentalism, and animal welfare. But there are also prongs for ethics, philosophy, and the utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.

Hopefully, that fork is reaching towards an ethical, philosophical, and vegan meal.