Great, Now We’ve Got ‘Seagans’ To Deal With
I don’t know whether I missed the memo on this or something, but it seems 2017 is the year we’re 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 that’s what the fish want – your admiration of those who don’t unnecessarily kill them whilst you go ahead and feast on their bodies. Apparently, the way to respect the lives of sentient beings isn’t to stop exploiting them, it’s to make sure you’re only consuming “safely caught” aquatic animals who are not close to extinction. And don’t forget, only consume fish with a low mercury content, because the fish clearly give a fuck about that when they’re 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 – they’re 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].” They’re telling vegans that it’s okay to “order the salmon at a restuarant instead of just ordering the vegetables.”
Well, it’s not okay. Cramer and McComsey’s position is devoid of a moral element, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means they’ve 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 it’s wrong to assume animals are sources of food just as it’s 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, it’s right at home promoting continued exploitation.