Defending the crop deaths allegation

[Graeme M]

I know that I have touched on this in other conversations, but it remains a real thorn in my side, so to speak. lately, this particular criticism (crop deaths though) is getting new traction. Non-vegans are saying, well if the rights of other animals count, why is it OK to kill pest animals? A new wrinkle I am seeing is the charge that if vegans eat foods for taste (pleasure), as indeed they do, isn't it hypocritical to do that if animals are killed to grow those foods. As far as I can see, that is true.

The responses I see from vegans are typically either misinformed or too esoteric for the average person to grasp. And of course most people aren't interested anyway because any excuse will do.

Has anyone ever seen a really succinct and successful defence against this criticism that doesn't depend on either "exploitation" or "least harm"? I don't think there is one.

 

[Kathy Lauren]

The omnivores' argument is based on the faulty (and never admitted) premise that no pests are killed for meat production. So they think that they are comparing the death of one cow against the death of thousands of insects and rodents. It is a faulty comparison, because it is just false.

If you drive the 20 km road between the town and where I live, you will see two fields of grazing cattle and about twenty fields of corn. So tourists driving that road think they see free-range cattle, for whom they think no pests are killed, and acres of crops, which are heavily sprayed with pesticides. What they are not told is that all of that corn is grown for animal feed, both for cattle and for poultry. Local residents can tell which corn is grown for feed because of the way it is harvested. It turns out that nearly 100% in this valley is for animal feed, but tourists never see that. Nor do they see the feedlots where the non-free-range cattle are warehoused and fed.

They never see the poultry farms. either. Huge sheds that house 30,000 birds each in conditions you do not want to think about. There are dozens of them in the area, but they just look like some kind of storage facility to the unthinking tourist. They don't register the existence of the big transport trucks that haul the chicken feed from the processing plants to the farms. Just another big truck. But all the tourist sees is acres of corn that they assume is intended for human consumption.

All those pests that the pesticides kill in the corn fields are killed for the production of meat. And given that it takes ten pounds of feed to produce one pound of meat, the impact of meat production is vastly greater than the impact of growing veggies for human consumption.

Yes, there are crops here that are grown for human consumption, and yes, many of them are sprayed with pesticides. And yes, it is regrettable that we vegans cannot be totally free from causing harm. My wife and I try to buy organic or un-sprayed local veggies when we can: there is a local market garden where we buy most of our veggies.

But the truth is that the majority of pests killed in agriculture are killed for meat production.

 

[Lou]

The omnivores' argument is based on the faulty (and never admitted) premise that no pests are killed for meat production. So they think that they are comparing the death of one cow against the death of thousands of insects and rodents. It is a faulty comparison, because it is just false.

That was a really good job. Kudos.

 

[Lou]

I know that I have touched on this in other conversations, but

Yeah, and I think we should have put this to bed. I believe you have gotten the answer to this. I suppose you are still fishing because you either don't like or don't accept the answer.

it remains a real thorn in my side, so to speak. lately, this particular criticism (crop deaths though) is getting new traction. Non-vegans are saying, well if the rights of other animals count, why is it OK to kill pest animals?

The simple answer which I have given to you in several forms now is that is not the killing that is the vegan issue - it's the exploitation.

A new wrinkle I am seeing is the charge that if vegans eat foods for taste (pleasure), as indeed they do, isn't it hypocritical to do that if animals are killed to grow those foods. As far as I can see, that is true.

they are killed either accidentally or incidentally. Not on purpose. That is the whole thing in a nutshell,

The responses I see from vegans are typically either misinformed or too esoteric for the average person to grasp. And of course most people aren't interested anyway because any excuse will do.

Not sure which responses you are bringing up. but since I'm one of the vegans who have discussed with you I'm feeling your accusation unfounded. I am not misinformed. and not esoteric.
But yeah I agree with you that if "most people aren't interested" than what does it matter.

Has anyone ever seen a really succinct and successful defence against this criticism that doesn't depend on either "exploitation" or "least harm"? I don't think there is one.

Those are the best defenses.

 

[Sax]

What's the practical solution?

Or is this an appeal to futility?

 

[Graeme M]

I suppose you are still fishing because you either don't like or don't accept the answer.

No, I know the answer and I think it is right. No-one else does. In discussions, when I use the exploitation or least harm defences, people simply ridicule them. I see other vegans trying the same defences, same outcome. Perhaps it doesn't matter, but I would love to be able to say something that actually carries weight. These defences only work with someone who is already vegan!

Exploitation doesn't work because it requires a certain understanding about what that means. The difficulty with this defence is that it's about us, not the animals. No animal cares whether it is exploited, so non-vegans don't see why it matters.

Least harm doesn't work because eating plants alone isn't necessarily least harm. And even if it were, the scale is so vast that non-vegans simply shrug their shoulders and say, you guys are doing it too so why do I need to worry? The number of animals killed to grow crops is so staggeringly big that the number of animals killed directly for food is simply a blip on the graph.

they are killed either accidentally or incidentally. Not on purpose. That is the whole thing in a nutshell,

Too many vegans offer this argument of incidental deaths. Incidental deaths matter, if your argument is "least harm". However, it is likely that the vast majority of animals killed to grow crops are killed quite purposefully. This problem is so bad that entire species are threatened with extinction. If at least some of these killings are due to the growing of crops for pleasure (eg sugar cane), then why do vegans buy those foods and support this killing? And if vegans don't care enough about the animals killed to grow food for taste, why should a non-vegan be worried about animals killed for food?

I am not saying that as vegans, any one of us should feel these defences are inadequate. Veganism as an idea about our relations with other species is right. We owe other species justice. But I am seeing vegans simply fail to carry through the argument because they don't have a quick and easy way to defuse the problem of animals being killed to grow crops. Perhaps I just have to accept that there isn't a defence that a non-vegan will "get" because any excuse is good enough in their eyes. More to the point, perhaps I simply need to stop talking to others about veganism...

 

[Graeme M]

Just to be clear, I'm not criticising veganism. Rather, I want to do better when seeking to defend criticisms from others.

 

[Kathy Lauren]

The number of animals killed to grow crops is so staggeringly big that the number of animals killed directly for food is simply a blip on the graph.

I addressed this in my post. Did you read it?

 

[LoreD]

The greatest reduction in animal deaths would be reducing consumption of animal products. Less crop land used would mean more rewilding, and fewer crop deaths.

That doesn't even take in consideration the animal deaths because of loss of habitat due to the burning down rainforests so animal feed can be produced. And the clearing of land for animal grazing.

How much of the world's cropland is actually used to grow food? - Vox

Just 55 percent of the world's crop calories are actually eaten directly by people. Another 36 percent is used for animal feed. And the remaining 9 percent goes toward biofuels and other industrial uses. (Those figures come from this paper by Emily Cassidy and other researchers at the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment.)

The proportions are even more striking in the United States, where just 27 percent of crop calories are consumed directly — wheat, soy, or fruits and vegetables grown in California. By contrast, more than 67 percent of crops — particularly all the soy grown in the Midwest — goes to animal feed. And a portion of the rest goes to ethanol and other biofuels.

Some of that animal feed eventually becomes food, obviously — but it's a much, much more indirect process. It takes about 100 calories of grain to produce just 12 calories of chicken or 3 calories worth of beef, for instance.

 

[Tom L.]

.......
Too many vegans offer this argument of incidental deaths. Incidental deaths matter, if your argument is "least harm". However, it is likely that the vast majority of animals killed to grow crops are killed quite purposefully. This problem is so bad that entire species are threatened with extinction. If at least some of these killings are due to the growing of crops for pleasure (eg sugar cane), then why do vegans buy those foods and support this killing? ......

(Graeme's original post only partially quoted- bold emphasis mine) Hmmm... although sugar cane doesn't provide a food absolutely necessary for survival (table sugar), it does provide calories- and we do need those, even though for those of us in "developed" countries, calories are usually easy to come by! Therefore, I don't see a truly significant difference between growing sugar cane or crops such as beans, wheat, spinach, kale, tomatoes, etc.

I've thought about the arguments about deaths of animals from growing vegan crops too, and discussed them on-line. I think it's appropriate to compare it to driving. Some time ago, as I understand it, the nationwide highway speed limit was reduced (with a view to conserving gasoline). However, another happy result was that casualties from auto accidents were also consistently reduced. When the speed limits were increased again, highway injuries and deaths went back up also.

I agree that incidental deaths matter, and should not be disregarded because they are unintended. However, I would argue that it is invalid to argue that humans should show greater concern for animals on cropland than for motorists. I would also argue that defending one's food supply is a matter of survival- not convenience.

 

[Graeme M]

I addressed this in my post. Did you read it?

I'm not sure, which post was that?

 

[Graeme M]

The greatest reduction in animal deaths would be reducing consumption of animal products. Less crop land used would mean more rewilding, and fewer crop deaths.

That is probably debateable, but I don't think it is relevant. Non-vegans aren't attacking specifically that claim. Instead, they are more or less making two claims. One is that if vegans cause animals to be killed for their food, why should non-vegans worry about animals being killed for their food. And two, if vegans do worry about the animals killed for food that we don't need, why then do they eat foods they don't need but which cause animals to be killed.

I have the answers but unfortunately these do not appear to resonate with many non-vegans.

 

[Graeme M]

Hmmm... although sugar cane doesn't provide a food absolutely necessary for survival (table sugar), it does provide calories- and we do need those, even though for those of us in "developed" countries, calories are usually easy to come by! Therefore, I don't see a truly significant difference between growing sugar cane or crops such as beans, wheat, spinach, kale, tomatoes, etc.

To an extent, this would be my argument. But it is essentially an argument from ignorance, I think. Whatever we eat has a cost. The fact that we don't know that cost is what prevents us making better choices. On the face of it, whether I eat kale or sugar for the given calories doesn't matter if I don't know the cost. We would have to be able to show one as worse than the other before it would matter. But still, the question remains. As vegans, isn't our job to prevent unnecessary cruelty and suffering whenever we can? If I did know that sugar causes more suffering and death than kale for the same calories, am I not under an obligation to not eat sugar? My answer is yes, but in the absence of the information I need to make a judgement, I don't need to worry about this. That does rather open me up to empirical claims that demonstrate I DO need to worry, though.

I agree that incidental deaths matter, and should not be disregarded because they are unintended. However, I would argue that it is invalid to argue that humans should show greater concern for animals on cropland than for motorists. I would also argue that defending one's food supply is a matter of survival- not convenience.

Just to clarify, I am not so much worried about unintended harms, but rather the intended harms from managing pests. Which, if we count invertebrate species, is a very large number. There also seems to be a difference between driving a motor vehicle and intentionally shooting wild animals, baiting mice and spraying crops with pesticides. The non-vegans are saying something equivalent to this: We all drive motor vehicles so we are all causing many animals to die unintentionally. And we are all causing animals to suffer and die for our food. Why do I need to worry about the ones killed for MY food when you aren't worrying about the ones killed for YOUR food? Why does it not matter in regard to driving cars but it does in food production?

 

[Lou]

No, I know the answer and I think it is right. No-one else does.

Wait. You know the answer. Please tell me what it is.

In discussions, when I use the exploitation or least harm defences, people simply ridicule them.

Part of me wants to say you are not making the case well. but I never win this argument either. But what I run into is more of a Don't know/Don't care response.

I see other vegans trying the same defences, same outcome. Perhaps it doesn't matter, but I would love to be able to say something that actually carries weight. These defences only work with someone who is already vegan!

Well that might be the whole enchilada. Come to think of it, no one used logic, facts or reasoning for me to become vegan. those things all came later. For me it was an emotional response to the mass animal cruelty that calls itself livestock production.

Exploitation doesn't work because it requires a certain understanding about what that means. The difficulty with this defence is that it's about us, not the animals. No animal cares whether it is exploited, so non-vegans don't see why it matters.

Well as many philosophers have pointed out - its not about what the animal knows - its what we know. or as another philosopher claimed is do they suffer.

But you're probably right about the exploitation thing. it's more of a fine point that vegans need to keep things in perspective.

Least harm doesn't work because eating plants alone isn't necessarily least harm.

yeah, I think it is. I guess it can get complicated with maybe some exceptions and maybe some conditions, but if you take it as whole....

And even if it were, the scale is so vast that non-vegans simply shrug their shoulders and say, you guys are doing it too so why do I need to worry? The number of animals killed to grow crops is so staggeringly big that the number of animals killed directly for food is simply a blip on the graph.

See Kathy's answer

Too many vegans offer this argument of incidental deaths. Incidental deaths matter, if your argument is "least harm".

Incidental deaths are relevant to "exploitation answer".
but it can also be used in the least harm argument if you stipulate that the harm has to be on purpose.

 

[Graeme M]

Wait. You know the answer. Please tell me what it is.

Well, it's what you say. Exploitation. Makes sense to me, but apparently not to non-vegans. I'd go a little bit further though, in the sense that it isn't merely exploitation but something about being modern humans in a world of 8 billion people. I don't really think there is anything inherently wrong with using and eating other animals, it only becomes a problem in the world we created over the past 10,000 years.

Part of me wants to say you are not making the case well. but I never win this argument either.

Well, that's why I asked the question. is there an easy way to make the case, cos I don't seem to be able to.

yeah, I think it is. I guess it can get complicated with maybe some exceptions and maybe some conditions, but if you take it as whole....

Probably true, but when we start talking at the level of individuals -which we are in conversations with non-vegans - not so much.

if you stipulate that the harm has to be on purpose.

Right. And who made you the authority on what conditions are stipulated? I don't mean that personally, but it's what people ask me. Why do I make that stipulation? Just so it worked out for my argument. My argument is useless if I have to state my conditions for it to carry through.

 

[LoreD]

That is probably debateable, but I don't think it is relevant. Non-vegans aren't attacking specifically that claim. Instead, they are more or less making two claims. One is that if vegans cause animals to be killed for their food, why should non-vegans worry about animals being killed for their food. And two, if vegans do worry about the animals killed for food that we don't need, why then do they eat foods they don't need but which cause animals to be killed.

I have the answers but unfortunately these do not appear to resonate with many non-vegans.

In life we move to the position of !east harm. And that is relevant.

You are a contrarian. You just like to argue.

 

[Kathy Lauren]

I'm not sure, which post was that?

Post #2 in this thread.

 

[silva]

No, I know the answer and I think it is right. No-one else does. In discussions, when I use the exploitation or least harm defences, people simply ridicule them. I see other vegans trying the same defences, same outcome. Perhaps it doesn't matter, but I would love to be able to say something that actually carries weight. These defences only work with someone who is already vegan!

Exploitation doesn't work because it requires a certain understanding about what that means. The difficulty with this defence is that it's about us, not the animals. No animal cares whether it is exploited, so non-vegans don't see why it matters.

Least harm doesn't work because eating plants alone isn't necessarily least harm. And even if it were, the scale is so vast that non-vegans simply shrug their shoulders and say, you guys are doing it too so why do I need to worry? The number of animals killed to grow crops is so staggeringly big that the number of animals killed directly for food is simply a blip on the graph.


Too many vegans offer this argument of incidental deaths. Incidental deaths matter, if your argument is "least harm". However, it is likely that the vast majority of animals killed to grow crops are killed quite purposefully. This problem is so bad that entire species are threatened with extinction. If at least some of these killings are due to the growing of crops for pleasure (eg sugar cane), then why do vegans buy those foods and support this killing? And if vegans don't care enough about the animals killed to grow food for taste, why should a non-vegan be worried about animals killed for food?

I am not saying that as vegans, any one of us should feel these defences are inadequate. Veganism as an idea about our relations with other species is right. We owe other species justice. But I am seeing vegans simply fail to carry through the argument because they don't have a quick and easy way to defuse the problem of animals being killed to grow crops. Perhaps I just have to accept that there isn't a defence that a non-vegan will "get" because any excuse is good enough in their eyes. More to the point, perhaps I simply need to stop talking to others about veganism...

There are sooo many analogies to make here. Literally anytime someone has a reason to apologise it could be said why not just keep doing it all the time since you do it anyway ?
I can't remember the last time I had someone argue this point (besides you!) but I just got snarky with them and turned the tables whenever something came up, often being a real jerk. Things like how pointless things like heart bypass operations are when the majority will just go back to their habits anyway

Every thing we do to make things better makes things better.

 

[Veganite]

You are a contrarian. You just like to argue.

@Graeme M
I'm not one for name calling, but I am inclined to agree with the second sentence I have quoted. To say you have touched on this is hilarious. You have literally flogged this topic to death on this forum. I can't speak for everyone, but for me this is the same thing over and over. In fact, I believe since you first joined this forum, this has been your main interest of discussion. What is your point? Is it in fact to argue? I really have to ask?

*

 

[Graeme M]

What is your point? Is it in fact to argue? I really have to ask?

I think it's a little unfair to say I have "flogged" this topic, but it IS a topic relevant to veganism, isn't it? I've learned a lot from discussions here, including learning about the concern of exploitation. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to properly respond to the crop deaths thing, even though I have done lots of research, asked lots of questions and even written blog posts about it. I don't really need to talk much about anything else in regard to veganism given I am personally convinced of the idea. But I keep getting flummoxed when people hit me up with this one.