EU Consuming fish is more ethical than eating plants

[Ohad]

I came to a conclusion that eating fish is more ethical than eating plants....

......given that vegan food production harms insects and rodents(by its production process)- the production process of cows and chickens is probably even more harmful to those insects(because chickens and cows are fed with vegan food). however, if we pay on fish murder, we do not necessarily pay for plant food production(because some fishes are drugged out of the ocean and are not fed up with vegan corps). its even safe to assume the more animals are killed for vegan food the killed for plants.
please help me find the truth about this. ive been really strugling with it.

 

[poivron]

Are you serious? You really think more animals are harmed when you eat plants than animals? Have you considered that the animals whose flesh you eat had to eat something themselves to get to the size they were when they were slaughtered and their flesh was cut up and packaged? Feeding an animal plants, and then eating the animal, is much less efficient than eating the plants directly, so by eating animals, you are causing many times more insects to die than you would by eating plants.

Any time you eat an animal who lives in the sea, you are causing the death of five times as many animals by weight. Watch "Seaspiracy". The oceans are being destroyed as a result of people not caring about the consequences of their eating habits.

I find this kind of debate, where someone who wants to continue to support cruelty to animals comes to a vegan message board to get agreement from vegans, to be utterly offensive. If you want to eat the flesh and secretions of animals, you have an entire culture surrounding you that not only supports but celebrates your decision. You are not going to convince a group of people who have decided to live compassionately to go back to supporting cruelty.

 

[Lou]

I came to a conclusion that eating fish is more ethical than eating plants....

.... please help me find the truth about this. ive been really strugling with it.

Ohad, that is a statement that is very Troll Like. (hence the tart reply from @poivron

Fortunately I remember your name and I went and checked your previous posts and I don't think you are a troll. Although I am worried a bit that you are spending to much time listening or reading opinions form anti-vegans.

I agree with poivron but I would like to point out that a an important factor of ethics is intent. One way to illustrate this is with laws. Murder is still a crime but less of a crime when the murder is accidental or unintentional

When animals are killed by the harvest of plant foods it is unintentional. when fish are harvested their deaths are intentional.

Also keep in mind that it is well established that over-fishing is one of the biggest threats (maybe even the biggest) to the oceans. One reason not to eat fish is you don't want to contribute to an ecological disaster.

I looked around for a good article for you to read. I like this one cause it is short but covers all the main points.

Troubled Waters: The Case Against Eating Fish - North American Vegetarian Society

 

[Humble Carrot]

Please do some more research Ohad.....Well said poivron. Lou, as always, you're dropping the knowledge.

 

[Sax]

Seems like Ohad is discounting fishery bycatch but counting plant "bycatch". Or is operating under the assumption plant bycatch is a bigger ethical concern.

I honestly don't know which results in more animal deaths (difficult to work out with any reliability), or how much suffering each causes in the process (fundamentally unknowable). So we can't be responsible for determining that balance...and if you think you've worked it out you're really just making a guess.

But this isn't a guess: one industry is trying to kill animals, and works hard to increase the demand for animal corpses. The fishing industry would jump at the chance to kill more if it was financially viable, and buying fish helps make that a reality.

 

[David3]

The tuna is a carnivorous fish: Atlantic Bluefin Tuna.

So, if you eat tuna, there is more than one death. There are also the deaths of all the fish/invertebrates eating by that tuna.
.

 

[Lou]

Seems like Ohad is discounting fishery bycatch but counting plant "bycatch". Or is operating under the assumption plant bycatch is a bigger ethical concern.

I honestly don't know which results in more animal deaths (difficult to work out with any reliability), or how much suffering each causes in the process (fundamentally unknowable). So we can't be responsible for determining that balance...and if you think you've worked it out you're really just making a guess.

But this isn't a guess: one industry is trying to kill animals, and works hard to increase the demand for animal corpses. The fishing industry would jump at the chance to kill more if it was financially viable, and buying fish helps make that a reality.

Very good points!

One thing that makes really no difference to what you said but I find is interesting is that at least two studies ( I think one was in England and the other in New England) attempted to quantify the number of small mammals that were killed during plowing and harvesting operations. They even radio tagged mice.

Their initial conclusion was that few small animals actually died during these operations. It turns out that the mice can hear the machinery coming and run away. However, long term the mouse population shrank drastically. The researchers hypothizied that the lack of cover allowed them to be eaten by predators.

But disregarding that ultimately confusing piece of info the basics as we all seem to agree on is that in one case the animal weather are inadvertent - unintentional. and the other is intentional.

 

[Lou]

The tuna is a carnivorous fish: Atlantic Bluefin Tuna.

So, if you eat tuna, there is more than one death. There are also the deaths of all the fish/invertebrates eating by that tuna.
.

Well.... those other fish would be dead whether you ate that tuna or not.

But... I understand that in some fish farming operations they "feed" the fish they are raising with other fishies. Not sure if the other fishies are raised or caught wild.

 

[beancounter]

Guys don't validate this OP by responding.

It's probably just a bot anyway.

 

[Danielle]

So why would you choose to kill an animal directly to avoid indirect deaths

 

[Sax]

So why would you choose to kill an animal directly to avoid indirect deaths

If it results in less death and suffering overall I can see the argument for it. But you'd better be sure of any knowledge you use to justify killing.

And then there's the economic side...paying for death incentivizes more death, and that's the cycle that's got us to where we are now.

 

[Lou]

Guys don't validate this OP by responding.

It's probably just a bot anyway.

I don't think so. He has 16 msgs here.
He is just a young 'un.
"Never miss an opportunity to befriend or teach."
- Dag Bluefield

 

[Lou]

So why would you choose to kill an animal directly to avoid indirect deaths

I can think of lots of hypothetical situations but all the real ones have to do with vermin.
For instance the extermination of mosquitoes to prevent malaria.
or the hunting of cane rats which are responsible for massive crop destruction.
The hunting of cats in Australia to protect wildlife.

 

[beancounter]

I don't think so. He has 16 msgs here.
He is just a young 'un.
"Never miss an opportunity to befriend or teach."
- Dag Bluefield

He knows that this is a vegan forum. Unless he's very naive, he's probably aware that his OP could agitate people.

 

[Lou]

He knows that this is a vegan forum. Unless he's very naive, he's probably aware that his OP could agitate people.

Maybe I"m naive but I think his concern is legit. There are always people telling vegans, harvesting plants kills animals, or plants produce more methane than cows. there are dozens of stuff like that around and sometimes from mainstream media. I'm thinking he heard it and believed it and thought we should have a chance to refute it. His last line is, "please help me find the truth about this. ive been really strugling with it."

Kudos to him for being skeptical enough to ask for help.

He even said "please".

 

[walterbyrd]

Might be worth remembering:
1. About 2/3rds of crops that are grown, are grown to feed livestock. So if growing crops kills animals, then eating livestock makes the situation worse.
2. I think more whales are killed by becoming entangled in fishing nets, than are killed directly by whalers.
3. The vaquita (world's smallest cetation) may be already functional extinct because of fishing.
4. Practically all sea turtles are endangered, they get tangled in fishing nets.

Mic. The Vegan made a worthwhile video about this:

Vegans think they don’t kill animals but they do

 

[Tom L.]

Hi, @Ohad -

It's been argued for some time (at least since around 2000) that the mass-production of vegan foods causes collateral, unintended death of animals living on cropland. I believe this is true- both from being killed directly by the heavy machinery used, and also from the sudden removal of cover, which leaves small animals of all kinds suddenly vulnerable to predation by other animals (as @Lou mentioned above). However, small animal populations are known to experience large increases and decreases for various reasons; small animals are constantly preyed upon by carnivores of all kinds and must reproduce constantly, otherwise they would go extinct.

Please understand: I'm not making light of the animal death agriculture causes. I'm not even saying that an animal is any better of if they're killed by another animal than by a human. I'm just arguing that it doesn't justify or excuse killing them intentionally. As I see it, the death of animals from agricultural operations would indicate merely that wasting food is not vegan.