Freegan Market Economics
Their avowed disdain for consumer capitalism notwithstanding, the dumpster-diving Freegans do seem to at least appreciate supply and demand… though maybe not quite well enough. If their primary concern is with market demand for products involving animal suffering, after all, why not create positive demand for products like free-range eggs by shopping at places like Whole Foods?
The rationale for not going this route is supposed to be that the less humanely produced products will just go to waste otherwise. But this ignores some of the positive externalities of supporting more humane products. If the consumption of those who care supports the emergence of an organic market in a given neighborhood, it may well come to be patronized by many people who otherwise would simply have gone to an ordinary supermarket. And the "interconnectedness" argument is just loopy. The Freegan quoted in the Sacramento Bee piece argues that the six bucks he spends on some tofu may itself be respent at McDonalds. Well, fair enough. But if he's earning less because he's consuming less, then the money someone might have paid him for his labor might also go instead to the same business. It's not clear how less economic participation makes matters any better from an animal welfare perspective.
For those who think this is something novel, by the way, recall that Abbie Hoffman covered this ground pretty well about three decades ago.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Mountain Goat: Eat your vegetables!!
Goat,
I hope you're being ironic about vegans releasing greenhouse gasses. I'm still immature enough to enjoy fart jokes, but you do realize that the production, processing, storage and delivery of livestock-meat is very energy intensive, right? That a vegetarian diet uses much less water, results in much less air and water pollution, and releases much less CO2?
Heh heh - they eat beans.
Maybe we should eat the vegans.
If you feed an alligator, you should not be surprised if it eats your arm.
I think the point that the freegans make--although not really deep or new--is about non-participation in a system. And they are right: buying things makes the system go, in a way that taking the detritus does not.
But Sanchez is way off mark by pointing at Abbie Hoffman: Hoffman's favorite point was stealing or misrepresenting one's way to free food. (Sample quote: "If shoplifting food seems easy, it's nothing compared to the snatching of clothing.")
The freegans (as far as I can tell) just take what is thrown away. I don't think I'll be taking up freeganism any time soon, but, as the Who said, "The kids are all right." If they want to get by eating trash, riding bicycle, and wearing used clothes, I say more power to them and their romantic ideals.
"They are animals; they rip each other apart while alive."
Humans are animals; they rip each other apart while alive.
This whole Naturalistic Fallacy thing (that what is natural is good) can be great fun! So long as one can avoid the unpleasant little fact that most animals have no choice in what they eat, or the ability to consider whether it is right or wrong if they even had a choice, while animals of the human variety have - at least in America - a great deal of choice as to what they eat, and can consider the rightness or wrongness of such choices.
Tigers can't choose to be vegans - humans, however, can. And you don't even have to reject the Naturalistic Fallacy to understand that.
Where do I start with this juicy thread?
Sounds like Freegans are not much different than some ex-smokers I know: they've only given up paying for what they use, but are happy to use. Fine with me, I donate a lot of venison.
Does this mean we can quit recycling, knowing that `earth savers' will sort our trash for us? That would be a great advancement for mankind [except, of course, the Freegans.]
I totally reject the concept of being inhumane to animals. They are animals; they rip each other apart while alive. Being inhumane is telling the customer the restroom is for employee only.
The vegan lifestyle puts us all at risk. Vegan diets release a lot of greenhouse gases. Eat meat, save the planet.
My comment had nothing to do with vegetarianism, and everything to do with treatment of animals. A human's natural existence is not to be torn limb from limb and eaten while still alive. But that is the natural existence for most animals. My treatment of the animal is much "quicker" than it would otherwise get. The gray fox will not kill that rabbit as quickly as my Audi Fox does.
I kill more deer than I can eat, but have an outlet for meat donations. So long as these scroungers will eat free meat, I'll keep killing more. They do have an impact on demand.
Hey, don't vegetarians compete with these animals for food sources?
"A human's natural existence is not to be torn limb from limb and eaten while still alive."
Your ignorance of history and biology, among other related subjects, is stunning. It is only due to active human efforts that such fates, and worse, are no longer considered "natural" - unless one is to sy the societies of the Norse, Aztecs, and Native Americans were not "natural".
Regardless this is the naturallistic fallacy again, wherein what is natural is considered equivalent to what is good. I'll leave you to consider whether extermination according to race or tribe, rape, and murder are also natural, and if not so how it is that they came about, and how they remained the norm in ever so many parts of the world for so long.
Unneccessary pain, suffering, and death are all quite natural. It is, at the very least, not fitting of any reasonable informed being possessing even the smallest empathetic or humanistic thread in their entire body to consider such things, judge them "natural", and therefore somehow good or desirable, or even acceptable beyond neccessity.
Goat sez, "Hey, don't vegetarians compete with these animals for food sources?"
Vegetarians eat tiny amounts of food, compared to that which would be fed to livestock to produce the same numbers of calories. If the whole world went vegetarian, we would be able to meet our needs while cultivating much less land for crops, just by eliminating the corn, oats, etc. grown for feed.
If Freegans really want to cause little to no inpact on the earth then they should go the whole hog and kill themselves. Dead people cause no environmental problems - in fact if they tell us where they are going to kill themselves we can make sure they are composted and their death will be even more environmentally friendly.
Signed realistic vegan.
freeganism, veganism (and many other isms)etc is positive in that iandi is making a concious effort to try not to harm our mother earth a little less. but we should all remember that iani are all part of the problem, no matter how much lighter iandi may think iandi is treading on the earth. if iandi accept that iandi is this cause of harm, then iandi may finally realise how to live in harmony.one love