Defending the crop deaths allegation

[Brian W]

You need to stop.IMO you are doing more harm than good. Like answering a toddlers asking 'why' over and over.

Precisely!

 

[Tom L.]

Yes, this is my strategy. But it does rather fail considered plainly as per my example in my comment immediately above. Is it moral for vegans to buy foods they don't need, knowing animals are harmed and killed to grow those foods? If so, then isn't the entire premise for veganism flawed? And if it is flawed, then why is anyone under any obligation to take it seriously?

I just went through the posts in this thread since your post I'm quoting, although I didn't go to any of the links people included in their posts (yet). You still haven't quoted any quantitative data as to how many animals are killed (by all means and reasons) in the whole process of vegan food production. In that case, it cannot be said that your strategy fails "rather plainly" or at all. To reiterate: I am not arguing that animals' deaths can be disregarded because they are unintended or incidental/accidental. I'm saying this argument (which has been going on for at least two decades, IIRC) needs reasonably accurate data before it is worth pursuing further.

 

[Graeme M]

I just went through the posts in this thread since your post I'm quoting, although I didn't go to any of the links people included in their posts (yet). You still haven't quoted any quantitative data as to how many animals are killed (by all means and reasons) in the whole process of vegan food production. In that case, it cannot be said that your strategy fails "rather plainly" or at all. To reiterate: I am not arguing that animals' deaths can be disregarded because they are unintended or incidental/accidental. I'm saying this argument (which has been going on for at least two decades, IIRC) needs reasonably accurate data before it is worth pursuing further.

Well, the matter of actual numbers isn't so much the point. It's a question of ethics. If the ethical claim is that we shouldn't cause harm and suffering to other animals for a taste, then how do we justify eating cakes or any other discretionary food that requires animals to be harmed? Or put more generally, is it ethical to buy an unnecessary product for our own personal pleasure if other animals are harmed in its production. Most vegans just say we can't be perfect so we are excused. Non-vegans aren't very impressed by that tactic.

I don't have an answer to that. I think they are right.

 

[Lou]

You still haven't quoted any quantitative data as to how many animals are killed (by all means and reasons) in the whole process of vegan food production.

Probably there can not be any good quantitative data. And one could argue does the number really matter.

Maybe the only thing that matters is that if we all went vegan there would be LESS animals killed by agriculture.

 

[silva]

Well, the matter of actual numbers isn't so much the point. It's a question of ethics. If the ethical claim is that we shouldn't cause harm and suffering to other animals for a taste, then how do we justify eating cakes or any other discretionary food that requires animals to be harmed? Or put more generally, is it ethical to buy an unnecessary product for our own personal pleasure if other animals are harmed in its production. Most vegans just say we can't be perfect so we are excused. Non-vegans aren't very impressed by that tactic.

I don't have an answer to that. I think they are right.

Pretty sure every time you get into one of these debates someone eats an extra steak....
I would also believe those debates probably cost a few people from considering even trying
This argument is no different than those who trash the idea of renewable energy because it isn't 100%. Or compares DeSantos mountain of lies to Liz Warrens story of native american heritage
No one you argue has any intention of going vegan and arguing only cements their decision. Presenting them evidence to support plant based diet has almost zero deaths would do nothing more than stop them from arguing, call you a nutcase, and find some other reason to kill animals

As it stands, there aren't a lot of obese vegans. there are a ton of obese omnivores, which tells you right there, they're eating a lot more, and that lot comes mainly from animal sourced foods, which of course are using the resources that could be going towards food for humans.
You're also leaving out the environmental impact on land water and air that also causes the deaths of animals, and leads to extinction of so many species of insects and animals as well
You could use the omni argument of the perfect grassfed pasture raised only animals, only organic produce eating omni diets and compare to gmo and non organic produce and processed foods vegans

By the way, you're using an electronic device? Do you know where they're made, and the treatment of the workers, and the environmental impact of all the materials? You're quite the hypocrite

 

[Graeme M]

By the way, you're using an electronic device? Do you know where they're made, and the treatment of the workers, and the environmental impact of all the materials? You're quite the hypocrite

Can I remind you that at no point have I said this is MY argument. I have reasons for dismissing these kinds of concerns which I have shared here before. I am only interested in whether there is a solid rebuttal but I don't think there is. Whether that matters I don't know. I try to argue with people who make these claims but as you point out, they don't have any wish to choose veganism and are motivated to knock the idea. So I suppose the better course is just for me to ignore them because if I make the mistake of getting into the discussion, I end up failing to make a convincing case.

 

[LoreD]

Can I remind you that at no point have I said this is MY argument. I have reasons for dismissing these kinds of concerns which I have shared here before. I am only interested in whether there is a solid rebuttal but I don't think there is. Whether that matters I don't know. I try to argue with people who make these claims but as you point out, they don't have any wish to choose veganism and are motivated to knock the idea. So I suppose the better course is just for me to ignore them because if I make the mistake of getting into the discussion, I end up failing to make a convincing case.

Yep

 

[silva]

Can I remind you that at no point have I said this is MY argument. I have reasons for dismissing these kinds of concerns which I have shared here before. I am only interested in whether there is a solid rebuttal but I don't think there is. Whether that matters I don't know. I try to argue with people who make these claims but as you point out, they don't have any wish to choose veganism and are motivated to knock the idea. So I suppose the better course is just for me to ignore them because if I make the mistake of getting into the discussion, I end up failing to make a convincing case.

Yep

 

[Lou]

So I suppose the better course is just for me to ignore them because if I make the mistake of getting into the discussion, I end up failing to make a convincing case.

Well, probably, but as I stated earlier, these kinds of conversations among your friends here at the vegan forum can serve the important purpose of developing our reasoning and clarifying our thoughts. Reminds me of that guy who said something about a life unexamined.

Meanwhile in another thread I quoted Matthew Ball, the executive director of Vegan Outreach. He was discussing the honeybees. But I believe we can apply the same reasoning to animal death in crop production.

the desire for clear dietary rules and restrictions makes little difference in the grand calculus of animal suffering: “What vegans do personally matters little,” he says. “If we present veganism as being about the exploitation of honeybees, it makes it easier to ignore the real, noncontroversial suffering” of everything else. Ball doesn’t eat honey himself, but he’d sooner recruit five vegans who remain ambivalent about insect rights than one zealot who follows every last Vegan Society rule.

 

[Graeme M]

“If we present veganism as being about the exploitation of honeybees, it makes it easier to ignore the real, noncontroversial suffering of everything else"

What does that mean?

 

[Lou]

What does that mean?

don't sweat the small stuff?

 

[Graeme M]

don't sweat the small stuff?

I guess. I mean, I really cannot decipher that sentence. Do you have a link to the context of that quote?

 

[Lou]

I guess. I mean, I really cannot decipher that sentence. Do you have a link to the context of that quote?

It's way at the bottom.
Also I think it's you can draw some parallels with the "crop death controversy" and this "honey debate".

 

[Tom L.]

Well, the matter of actual numbers isn't so much the point.

Then what is the point?

It's a question of ethics. If the ethical claim is that we shouldn't cause harm and suffering to other animals for a taste, then how do we justify eating cakes or any other discretionary food that requires animals to be harmed? Or put more generally, is it ethical to buy an unnecessary product for our own personal pleasure if other animals are harmed in its production. Most vegans just say we can't be perfect so we are excused. Non-vegans aren't very impressed by that tactic.

I don't have an answer to that. I think they are right.

Again: my post #10 in this thread mentioned the presumably unnecessary, avoidable deaths of humans from relatively-lax speed limits. I generally don't see anyone excusing murder because people are dying from theoretically preventable accidents. Does anyone really expect us vegs to treat animals better then humans?

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.


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?

(bold emphasis mine) So the matter of actual numbers IS the point... or, at least, a relevant point (for someone to whom animals matter). Why should we vegans need to worry about animals killed in the production of our food when human society accepts avoidable deaths of humans on our highways?

 

[Graeme M]

Again: my post #10 in this thread mentioned the presumably unnecessary, avoidable deaths of humans from relatively-lax speed limits. I generally don't see anyone excusing murder because people are dying from theoretically preventable accidents. Does anyone really expect us vegs to treat animals better then humans?

For the record, I am only continuing with this discussion because people are posting comments. Which is fine, I just want to be clear I am not trying to prolong the debate.

Tom L, I do not think these are comparable contexts. Yes, it is true that some human activities result in human suffering. But by and large, we choose to place ourselves in risky situations such as driving on highways because the payoff to us we deem to be sufficient. In other words, it's a voluntary system that mostly rewards US, the participants. Animals killed by any activities we undertake with the sole purpose of killing them are not voluntary participants; they also are not generally rewarded for participating. I think there is a world of moral difference there.

So the matter of actual numbers IS the point... or, at least, a relevant point (for someone to whom animals matter).

Well, that's why I say my defence fails to carry through. In the end, someone can just say the numbers don't matter, it's the principle. They'd be right.

Why should we vegans need to worry about animals killed in the production of our food when human society accepts avoidable deaths of humans on our highways?

I think I explained this just above. However, this is not a question of vegans worrying about animals killed in the production of food that is necessary, but animals killed in the production of food that is unnecessary. Should vegans worry about that?

If a product we buy for pleasure, for the good feelings we get from its use, requires the deliberate harming of one or more other animals, are we right to buy that product? As a general vegan principle, what do you think?

 

[LoreD]

For the record, I am only continuing with this discussion because people are posting comments. Which is fine, I just want to be clear I am not trying to prolong the debate.

Tom L, I do not think these are comparable contexts. Yes, it is true that some human activities result in human suffering. But by and large, we choose to place ourselves in risky situations such as driving on highways because the payoff to us we deem to be sufficient. In other words, it's a voluntary system that mostly rewards US, the participants. Animals killed by any activities we undertake with the sole purpose of killing them are not voluntary participants; they also are not generally rewarded for participating. I think there is a world of moral difference there.


Well, that's why I say my defence fails to carry through. In the end, someone can just say the numbers don't matter, it's the principle. They'd be right.


I think I explained this just above. However, this is not a question of vegans worrying about animals killed in the production of food that is necessary, but animals killed in the production of food that is unnecessary. Should vegans worry about that?

If a product we buy for pleasure, for the good feelings we get from its use, requires the deliberate harming of one or more other animals, are we right to buy that product? As a general vegan principle, what do you think?

Oh, stuff a sock in it. That is what I think.

 

[Lou]

I guess. I mean, I really cannot decipher that sentence. Do you have a link to the context of that quote?

oh. forgot to send you the link. here is the link. the quote is way at the bottom

Why vegans can't decide whether they're allowed to eat honey.

slate.com

Then in getting you that link I found this one.

Is Opposing Migratory Beekeeping Vegan Hypocrisy? (avocados, almonds & Sandi Toksvig)

Avocados are as vegan as they can be. In this article we look at why there is a weird misconception floating around the internet claiming vegans can't eat avos!

veganslate.com

This controversy has even more parallels with your issue than the just honey vegan thing.

And instead of don't sweat the small stuff they go with one of my favorites slogans:

Don’t Let Perfection Be The Enemy Of The Good​

 

[Tom L.]

Tom L, I do not think these are comparable contexts. Yes, it is true that some human activities result in human suffering. But by and large, we choose to place ourselves in risky situations such as driving on highways because the payoff to us we deem to be sufficient. In other words, it's a voluntary system that mostly rewards US, the participants. Animals killed by any activities we undertake with the sole purpose of killing them are not voluntary participants; they also are not generally rewarded for participating. I think there is a world of moral difference there.

Ah- okay. The fact that animals don't choose to live on cropland, knowing that humans regularly come through that area with heavy equipment (or weapons), is a difference which hadn't occurred to me. But I still think that there is a difference between purchasing something which necessarily involves deliberately killing animals and purchasing a necessity (food) which also kills animals as an unintended result.

 

[Graeme M]

But I still think that there is a difference between purchasing something which necessarily involves deliberately killing animals and purchasing a necessity (food) which also kills animals as an unintended result.

Well, to repeat myself, that is not what we have been discussing. The issue at hand is the exactly opposite thing.

 

[Brian W]

Living necessitates killing. Being vegan necessitates killing a lot less. If anybody quibbles that that makes it useless being vegan, then they are willfully making excuses and have no intention of looking for truth. This "discussion" is going round and round in circles and is a complete waste of time!