I mean, self sacrifice not where someone or something is destroyed to satisfy the human taste, nor do I don't mean inflicting self harm.
The sacrifice I am refering to is where someone abstains or forgoes a regular habit of consumption as a part of a redirtection of lifestyle, so I am not reffering to a tempory abstinance.
Thoughts have arisen after my former partner mentioned how she regrets giving up her leather shoes to be with me, as I was and still am vegan. She said she was pressured into giving away some treasured footwear. I pointed out that she had a choice not to be with me, so the pressure was of her own making. She doen't accept it was freedom of choice, a pressure she created out of her desire to be with me, a decision she clearly regrets for 31 years.
Ok the reason we had this discusion is because she infers by my reluctance to accept animal products on the land that I am intollerant and I need to be more understnding. My argument is that I do not want anyone to bring animal products on to the land, and that is my freedom of choice.
I accept that there are occasions where I will overlook instances when someone who is not intending to stay visits. And I can understand that there is no further harm done or intended by using an animal product once it has been acquired. It is the acquistion and not the function it is put too. I have for instance eaten a piece of cheese, more notable as at the time I eat only a raw vegan diet of fruit. I more recently found myself with company having bought two Clive's pies, only to discover one contained cheese. My friend, also vegan, was bit put out. I explianed the act had been done and it would be an insult to throw away the cows good karma, due our bad. I consequently took a piece to eat to show that is wasn't the material consumption but the thought that was the problem.
I hear that people want, or say they need, to continue to use animals and consume animal products but it is not something I want.
So a issues arises when dealing with a, vegetarian who wants or, vegan who still has leather; as for example, in a pair of shoes.
In some situations it may seem innocuous, or maybe an lack of consideration or even a lack of commitment to not using animals and their by products.
Innoccuous: Someone may visit wearing leather shoes or wearing a woollen jumper; I may not notice or tolerate it for some personal reason of wanting the persons company.
Lacking consideration: Some may visit wearing a leather or fur coat or they may bring out some leather to 'work on' in my presence. They may bring some animal foods to eat. All of these I would take issue with as they are an obvious use of an animal product and I am being made clearly aware of the person choice not to just continue their exploitation of animals. If I say or do nothing I am clearly being complicit and supporting such use. I have to have a very exceptional reason to say nothing or just make a passing comment.
Commitment: This only applies to people who declare an interest not to use animal products for spiritual or ethical reasons. I will draw a similarity to meditation. The intent is stop the use of those that are physically or intellectually to weak to challenge fair trade. This includes, young, old and infirm people by virtue of their diminished strength and their lack of intellectual prowess to avoid being used. Clearly this applies to aliens, foreigners and all non human animals.
The avoidance of using such people is clear. There is no skill learnt if all one has to do is to exploit the weak. It just bullying and shows an inherent weakness in me that I do exploit such people, so being vegan is a backup technique to keep me thinking about my strength of will. It is surely tested all day and every day.
Still what of those that are not so committed what arguments do they use to hide their lack of strength, what excuses do they find to use or be complicit in the use of animals. Often they will argue that people are more important, but that is a failing logic as people are far better placed to look after themselves than other animals.
The final thoughts, which prompted this writing, which I write with some nervousness, is how the arguments that keeping a pair of leather shoes is acceptable, for a committed vegan.
As I said it is not the wearing of the leather but the action of putting it on that requires the break in the meditation. That the shoes are comfortable or that the animal is already dead may be facts to the wearer but are not part of the vegan meditation. So I will highlight the lack of logic, for if there was any in such arguments then the following would also be true. Yet I doubt may people would would do this and certainly not vegans, and yet given that this entails the use of human body parts, it could arguably be more acceptable than using that of a weak animal, if of course the human was fit and well, able and willing to be complicit. However in this pointed example the human was not consenting, just like the cow that was skinned to make shoes.
The case here is one that may well have happened and I'm sure I have read reports of similar uses of human body parts. First I would like to say that a tribal warrior may well eat the heart of it's enemy with the understanding that it evokes a strengthening of will, but the warrior would not eat the heart of a weak enemy and invoke the thought of weakness.
In desperate situations people have resorted to cannibalism as a final means of survival, but I doubt that they with take home any leftovers and store them for the future.
The gritty titty
There are stories of breasts being made into pouches, no doubt dicks made into some cigar holders or maybe even a pair of gloves. So what reason does a vegan have to keep animal products? Is it any different from buying a hand bag made by nazi's from romany or jewish hide. After all the torture was done a while ago, all I did was to buy the product and it's very comfortable and look's good: ?? Look's good and comfortable %*!? Don't even mention vegetarians, they're below reasonable exploitation. Still I have to eat something; or do I?
Waste can define produce that is excess to requirements by the retailer and end user, especially packaging, and by-products of manufacturing they deem have no value.
The term wasteful is used to define the act of producing waste rather than the product and in doing so really refers to the person who is responsible. That the term is used more to state the act as being wasteful rather than the person shows a reticence to confront the whole person. The implication is that if the act is curtailed then the wastefulness goes away.
There is an implied ethical or moral issue around the lack of use of by-products that could be put to good use, or that it is OK to waste things that could only be put to bad use or to use any waste for bad use.
The issue to the user is whether waste can be put to what in their designs is deemed good. To the group the wasteful argument is one of ethics that bind each person to it's support group yet may not be a universal agreement.
There may be a moral use of the word waste but that would not apply to a material product.
Personally I throw away perfectly good food, and some isn't harvested and rots in situ.
Whereas it is true that those who are wanting will see value in the discards of those with abundance there is no moral issue in that either the richer or the poorer have any ethical obligation to each other. A lion may bring down a far greater animal than it is able to consume, and a single apple tree may produce more that the grower chooses to harvest.
The fact is that each of us consumes to the best of our ability and desire. There is no reason to support another competitor by actively providing excess assets.
My experience is that actively growing produce for sale reduces the value of the product as there will be no excess in the notion that I can sell larger quantities at a lower cost, meaning a continually increasing production and greater competition. My choice was to produce a convenient quantity, well beyond my own use and sell what I could term ~ excess.
As monetary gain was not a priority the interaction with other became dominant and so I would give produce away and ask the recipients to return the waste for composting. Increasing, less was returned and understandably no one would come and pick their own produce if I delivered it. So all the excess has now become waste.
If people choose to use their energy complaining about others rather than growing or producing their own consumables and cannot be bothered to collect vegetables and wood that has already been grown and ready to collect then it is they that are wasting an opportunity to use excess produce.
After all there is no such thing as waste just wasteful people, those campaigners and politicians with no moral value that try to get other people to do their dirty work for them and their ethics. They are just consumers in the chain to be consumed, so no waste their either. :)