I’m killing half as many creatures for my transient pleasure as I was last year.
Oh, why not just stop murdering entirely?
Sorry, it does not work that way. Each way of doing agriculture kills creatures. There are insects, rodents, snails and birds harmed in any landscaping operation, wether the end product is meat or plant.
All you can do by changing your diet from meat to plant is a gradual change. You kill less and do less harm, which is great. But you still kill and do harm, that’s just how these things are.
Maybe a kill-free diet is possible with food synthesized in sterile labs, but the resources for that also have to come from somewhere.
We know that we have a Impact on others but shouldn’t the goal be to keep it a minimum?
Animal industry is the intentional killing and abusing of animals. Animal feed is the biggest part of crops grown, for those crops all kind of animals are killed on a big scale. Veganism is about reducing the impact, stopping the intentional killing and reducing the unavoidable impact as much as possible. There is no delusion of a “zero impact vegan” it is just a construct for people who want to justify not changing them self.
We know that we have a Impact on others but shouldn’t the goal be to keep it a minimum?
Yes, completely agreed.
There is no delusion of a “zero impact vegan”
Maybe I misunderstood the person I was initially responding to, but I understood them as exactly that, when they said what I already quoted two times.
It’s also not the first time I encountered this attitude. Maybe they don’t actually believe what they say, but then my critique is directed at the wording. There is no zero kill diet (although plant based diets are clearly much less harmful than other diets).
Occasionally, some vegans bring up this idea and react very sensitive when confronted with how it’s false. Maybe that defensiveness is fueled by cognitive dissonance which we mostly know from the other side.
Occasionally, some vegans bring up this idea and react very sensitive when confronted with how it’s false.
Maybe they have a hard time to explain the difference between intentional raising, raping and killing versus the death of critters, which meat carries many times more because feed production uses more plants than eating plants directly. But unless you are a monk and care about every step you take and grow your own no impact is delusional. Everything we use has a impact, every metal, every plastic end every car drive. But we can stop the intentional killing. Maybe a “zero murder” philosophy and not a “zero deaths” way.
the difference between intentional raising, raping and killing versus the death of critters, which meat carries many times more because feed production uses more plants than eating plants directly. But unless you are a monk and care about every step you take and grow your own no impact is delusional. Everything we use has a impact, every metal, every plastic end every car drive.
Yes.
But we can stop the intentional killing.
Can we? I mean, agriculture is intentional. The land use alone causes killing or even worse, habitat loss. Yes, vastly more if used for milk or cheese, but I consider this point settled by now.
Maybe a “zero murder” philosophy and not a “zero deaths” way.
I’m afraid the only honest option is to not summon “zero”. Every diet causes death and suffering, but the amount can vary a lot. Also animals considered pests are killed intentionally.
That is like saying the intention of driving is killing kids on the street because it happens. Is the intention of wearing cloth to slave others? Is the intention of buying meat to kill children?
Animal industry is paying for murder and abuse, there is no way about it. It is what you pay for. That is the deal, your money their lives.
That is like saying the intention of driving is killing kids on the street because it happens.
I feel misrepresented. The harm caused by road construction and driving is not intended, but accepted. It’s part of the whole package, which is the part which is intended.
Animal industry is paying for murder and abuse
I feel we’re running in circles. I thought that part was settled, while it was never disputed in the first place. Let’s stop here.
All you can do by changing your diet from meat to plant is a gradual change. You kill less and do less harm, which is great. But you still kill and do harm, that’s just how these things are.
True. The difference is between calling it good enough halfway or going as far as possible though. So they do have a point, although I agree that (like in every other group of people) there are some that are a little over enthusiastic and in danger or turning people away instead of encouraging them.
Sorry, it does not work that way. Each way of doing agriculture kills creatures. There are insects, rodents, snails and birds harmed in any landscaping operation, wether the end product is meat or plant.
All you can do by changing your diet from meat to plant is a gradual change. You kill less and do less harm, which is great. But you still kill and do harm, that’s just how these things are.
Maybe a kill-free diet is possible with food synthesized in sterile labs, but the resources for that also have to come from somewhere.
With a vegan diet, less plants need to be harvested, so less insects, rodents, snails, birds would die.
In 2013, University of Minnesota researchers calculated that 67% of crop calories in the U.S. fed animals while 27% fed people.
I know, and that’s a great reason for a plant based diet.
But read again to what I replied:
There seems to exist the delusion of kill-free agriculture, when the best we can achieve is to kill less.
We know that we have a Impact on others but shouldn’t the goal be to keep it a minimum?
Animal industry is the intentional killing and abusing of animals. Animal feed is the biggest part of crops grown, for those crops all kind of animals are killed on a big scale. Veganism is about reducing the impact, stopping the intentional killing and reducing the unavoidable impact as much as possible. There is no delusion of a “zero impact vegan” it is just a construct for people who want to justify not changing them self.
Yes, completely agreed.
Maybe I misunderstood the person I was initially responding to, but I understood them as exactly that, when they said what I already quoted two times.
It’s also not the first time I encountered this attitude. Maybe they don’t actually believe what they say, but then my critique is directed at the wording. There is no zero kill diet (although plant based diets are clearly much less harmful than other diets).
Occasionally, some vegans bring up this idea and react very sensitive when confronted with how it’s false. Maybe that defensiveness is fueled by cognitive dissonance which we mostly know from the other side.
Maybe they have a hard time to explain the difference between intentional raising, raping and killing versus the death of critters, which meat carries many times more because feed production uses more plants than eating plants directly. But unless you are a monk and care about every step you take and grow your own no impact is delusional. Everything we use has a impact, every metal, every plastic end every car drive. But we can stop the intentional killing. Maybe a “zero murder” philosophy and not a “zero deaths” way.
Yes.
Can we? I mean, agriculture is intentional. The land use alone causes killing or even worse, habitat loss. Yes, vastly more if used for milk or cheese, but I consider this point settled by now.
I’m afraid the only honest option is to not summon “zero”. Every diet causes death and suffering, but the amount can vary a lot. Also animals considered pests are killed intentionally.
That is like saying the intention of driving is killing kids on the street because it happens. Is the intention of wearing cloth to slave others? Is the intention of buying meat to kill children?
Animal industry is paying for murder and abuse, there is no way about it. It is what you pay for. That is the deal, your money their lives.
I feel misrepresented. The harm caused by road construction and driving is not intended, but accepted. It’s part of the whole package, which is the part which is intended.
I feel we’re running in circles. I thought that part was settled, while it was never disputed in the first place. Let’s stop here.
With 50% less meat consumed, less plants need to be harvested, so less insects, rodents, snails, birds would die.
Also which is easier to sell to someone currently eating meat with every meal?
True. The difference is between calling it good enough halfway or going as far as possible though. So they do have a point, although I agree that (like in every other group of people) there are some that are a little over enthusiastic and in danger or turning people away instead of encouraging them.