bijnada.nl
the last vegan feast
There are worse foods, but they are never vegan, but they can be friendly-er then factory farmed.
Can eggs be vegan-friendly?
- Thread starter Graeme M
- Start date
@Graeme M I've only quoted the paragraph to which I'm replying.
I think you are correct that many people balk at veganism because they judge it to be too restrictive. I've lost count of the number of vegetarians who mention cheese as a food they would be unable to give up. But I became pescatarian back in the summer of 1968, vegetarian a bit less that 4 years later, and something in-between vegetarian and vegan more recently... maybe around 25 years ago. I was fortunate to have family and friends who understood why I was doing it, and were sympathetic and supportive, even though they did not choose that path themselves. But- the options we have now!!!... Impossible Burgers! Vegan milk substitutes that taste as good as the real thing- but without either the cruelty or the saturated fat! (although I'd like them to lose the titanium dioxide coloring... maybe they have by now?...) "Just Egg" vegan egg substitute! Vegan hot dogs (which I haven't gotten around to trying because I was always on Team Burger, though I ate hot dogs in my pre-veg days when they were served)! And... yes... vegan substitutes for fish- which might have shortened my transition from pesco to full vegetarian if they'd been available back then (because I've tried them, and they're quite satisfying).
Some of the newer foods I mention might not be suitable for everyone- for instance, people who must avoid soyfoods. But even then, there are options: I usually drink soymilk, but there was at least one non-animal "milk"- "Vegelicious", made partly from potatoes!!.. which was quite satisfying, taste-wise, although it wasn't nearly as close to cow's milk nutritionally as the soy options have been.
I don't know if pescatarianism, let alone veganism, will ever be the lifestyle of the majority. But we can support options that make them easier.
Wow... How can you compare that to wild animals destroying crops which you have no control over, while you are intentionally raising an animal to be slaughtered, the fck.
PS: I don't agree with killing animals, but instead setting traps(then release) and fences, and ready to pay the extra price for such farming regulations.
OP
OP
You are discounting the scale. When we grow crops, we have to cover a lot of land in those crops. That takes land from wild populations, reduces biodiversity, harms many animals from fertiliser runoff, chemical use and so on. Then, we kill wild animals in large numbers because they threaten our crops. Of course, we have some moral justification for killing very large numbers of wild animals in such cases, but this remains a significant harm to the wild nature. It's a pretty unjust situation, caused purely by voluntary human over-population.
In the case of the eggs I get from my friend, she raises her hens in natural conditions, though she may give them commercial feed (I don't really know what she feeds them), and they enjoy natural, safe and healthy lives. They are not common commercial egg laying breeds. She does kill roosters when they become a threat to the overall wellbeing of the flock and prepares their remains as human and pet food. So while they are killed, they at least serve a very good use, unlike the large numbers of wild animals we kill to protect crops.
Think about this in the context of crops and killing wild animals. We intentionally grow crops while knowing we will kill many animals to do that. Can you explain the significant difference between that and killing these roosters?
What do you mean scale. They feed a large percentage of population obviously they are big. Plus your chickens feed, where do you think that comes from? You are killing wild animals and roosters!! And the killing of rooster is premeditated killing while wild animals killed are trespassers. We should all be out on the streets calling for more strict and humane farm regulations(like fencing) instead of raising and killing animals. The problem is the side effect of trespassing wild animals so let's solve that instead of pointing out this problem, making a whataboutery, and going in the opposite direction killing roosters. Let's solve problems, not create new ones by pointing out those problems.
Missed this.
Veganism is about animal rights. Leather is not food. Vegans do not use leather.
But it is about not exploiting animals or using animal products. So eggs are not vegan.
"Either it is an animal rights term or it is a food term" This is a false dichotomy...logical fallacy. Of course, it can be both.
It's a bit like saying "Either they are a human, or an ape".... when in fact, humans are apes.
OP
OP
I simply mean that the scale of cropping has an enormous and deeply negative effect on wild populations and the environment. Cropping is not a benign activity. Also, the scale of wild animal killing to protect crops is very large. You go on to discount this because these animals are "trespassing", and while I agree there is something of a moral difference between protecting crops and commercially raising animals for food, I think that the scale of harm from crop protection is still a huge moral issue.
Trespassing wild animals are killed intentionally as well. However, in the case of these hens, they are not being raised as a commercial enterprise. They will be raised regardless of what choices I make - my friend gives me the eggs for free and her doing what she does in no way depends upon my eating those eggs. In other words, whatever harms she causes from doing this - roosters killed, wild animals killed to protect the feed crops, whatever - will continue to happen. On the other hand, me eating these eggs will reduce the scale of harm from my diet.
They feed almost all the of the population in the world, obviously they are huge. The point is crops cause the least amount of harm and ecological destruction compared to fishing, or animals raised on these crop feed. Plus raising animals for planned killing, whether commercially or not, is a huge moral issue compared to killing of animals while protecting the most efficient way to produce food, which is crops. Please understand.
If you are eating unfertilised eggs from a rescued hen then I find no moral issue there, provided you don't have the money or access to medical facilities to spay the hen. What difference does it make if she is raising them as a hobby or commercially. Just because she is not making profit makes this somewhat ok? It's still the same inefficient and cruel form of food production where both the roosters and hen's feed crop trespassing animals are killed. If a robber offers you free money will you accept it? Afterall the robbing is already done and whether you accepting the money or not it's not going to change anything. Will you accept the meat of a cow which was raised as a hobby by your friend? Your friend is doing something wrong and you are wanting to be a part of it, instead of convincing her to change her hobby. Not good. You are only looking at the pain, suffering and death aspect, and concluding since my actions are not increasing pain and death, it's all ok. There is a moral aspect as well. In most cases both these aspects coincide, but not in all the cases.
I forgot to address your, reducing scale of harm if you eat those eggs, line. If your friend is giving to you for free then obviously she has to substitute it with something else. Maybe she will eat those feed crops which you would have had if you hadn't got those eggs. You were just trading food.
If she says the eggs will go to waste and that's why she is giving them to you then there is a harm reducing argument there. But they are not going to waste, plus she has other animals which can eat them in case she can't.
If she says the eggs will go to waste and that's why she is giving them to you then there is a harm reducing argument there. But they are not going to waste, plus she has other animals which can eat them in case she can't.
OP
OP
I'm not sure I follow you here. My friend is a farmer who raises sheep and cattle. Her hens are simply a hobby - she keeps them just because she likes them. Her own diet does include some eggs but she cannot eat all of the eggs produced, so she gives some away as well as feeds her dogs and the hens with them. I think you are trying to over-complicate this.
Not necessarily at the personal level, which after all is primarily what vegan ethics are about. Our own choices.
I do understand your point and broadly I agree. However, personally hunting for food is a different matter as I see it. But my main point is that growing crops IS a moral concern when we find that it causes substantial negative impacts. We should not wave that away just because it might be of slightly lesser moral weight.
