Extreme?

Ahimsa

Forum Legend
Joined
Nov 2, 2020
Reaction score
302
Location
UK
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
How far does your ethical veganism extend? Would you, for example, decide on having no children because of what humans do to the natural world?
 
How far does your ethical veganism extend? Would you, for example, decide on having no children because of what humans do to the natural world?
Good question. I think I need to be able to live reasonably comfortably but, within comfortable boundaries I will do all that I can. I find that the more I do, the more the boundaries shift and make it easier to do even more so who knows where it all ends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1956 and Ahimsa
you can have vegan, responsible, ethical children that contribute more to society than they detract.
or not have children and therefore reduce population growth and not use valuable resources.
 
you can have vegan, responsible, ethical children that contribute more to society than they detract.
or not have children and therefore reduce population growth and not use valuable resources.
True, but they may not want to be vegan, or ethical, which makes them a bit of a gamble. There's also the fact that even by living as an ethical vegan you'd probably have a more detrimental effect overall than a positive one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1956 and Brian W
True, but they may not want to be vegan, or ethical, which makes them a bit of a gamble. There's also the fact that even by living as an ethical vegan you'd probably have a more detrimental effect overall than a positive one.
True. Children are a bit of a roll of the dice. Maybe you just have one but she has 8!
 
True. Children are a bit of a roll of the dice. Maybe you just have one but she has 8!
Yes, one is enough these days. You can't begrudge a couple one child ... even if it does grow up to be a cannibalistic serial killer! 👹
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Brian W
Hello :)
This subject is very philosophic, and there are a lot of different points of view about it. Personally, I am not sure that I want to become a mother one day. I have dreams that I want to fulfill, sand at this moment children are not in the picture. If I will ever get pregnant, I will keep the baby and I will try my best to raise him or her to be a good person.
Meghan
 
Hello :)
This subject is very philosophic, and there are a lot of different points of view about it. Personally, I am not sure that I want to become a mother one day. I have dreams that I want to fulfill, sand at this moment children are not in the picture. If I will ever get pregnant, I will keep the baby and I will try my best to raise him or her to be a good person.
Meghan
A good father will usually provide good children. The problems are usually on the y chromosome so if the father has problems in some way, he's likely to pass them on. Remember that no matter how good you are, nature/nurture is usually around 50/50.
 
There's nothing un-vegan about having kids. There are major ethical considerations but having kids isn't inherently unethical either.

There's an idea of voluntary human extinction by choosing not to procreate. I'm not a supporter. But we obviously need to make some major changes as a species to leave room for nature to thrive and develop alongside us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian W and Ahimsa
How far does your ethical veganism extend? Would you, for example, decide on having no children because of what humans do to the natural world?
The problems of this world, and there are many, will not be solved by unborn children. I believe that humans are the worst thing that has happened to this earth, but problems need to be solved and if no one is here, admittedly that's the best outcome but, if you want the human race to survive we need children brought up and educated in a proper manner with vegan and green issues at the top of the list. My father wrote the philosophy of veganism even before the Vegan Soc. existed and was one of the three founder members. It was adopted with small variations and has since been updated over the years as ideas change. I was born in 1942 and as far as I am aware was the first vegan child in the UK. I knew and met all the early vegans and every one of them was vegan for moral and animal welfare reasons. Today there are other reason people change. I don't mind that as long as they are vegan it's good for the planet and animals. What their philosophy is about veganism I don't know but whatever it is is fine with me. Not all things in life are governed by philosophy.
 
Last edited:
but, if you want the human race to survive we need children brought up and educated in a proper manner with vegan and green issues at the top of the list.
Why would we specifically want the human race to survive? To whom or what would it give any advantage?
 
  • Like
Reactions: IC_ and Ahimsa
Why would we specifically want the human race to survive? To whom or what would it give any advantage?
In many ways I agree, however, those who don’t care about the planet will most likely continue to reproduce.
Therefore if Vegans also continue to reproduce at least there would be a chance of having future generations who also care about the Animals and the planet... But, I definitely agree that for the planet’s sake it would be Much better off without humans.......
 
  • Like
Reactions: IC_
Why would we specifically want the human race to survive? To whom or what would it give any advantage?
I can't see any advantages to the human race being here as it is, other than in the distant future we may one day be able to get off this dying planet and somehow take the genetic information of many other species with us; therefore saving them. Our presence also enables us to help other species if we so wish, but considering the harm we cause in our current state, that's a no brainer. However, if all humans were ethical vegans then the help we provided to animals would far outweigh the harm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Second Summer
Why would we specifically want the human race to survive? To whom or what would it give any advantage?
If you even noticed I said "IF" you want the human race to survive. I wasn't saying I do or that anyone else should say I do, or not as the case may be. It was not a statement, more of an option. Personally I don't. This planet would be a lot better off without us. I think this is a question of whether you think we're gods chosen children or not. Being atheist I have an unbiased opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ahimsa
I'm honestly surprised at the misanthropy here. Any other species, given the power to procreate and consume as unconstrained by ecological limitations as humanity, would also be catastrophic for the environment. The vast majority of our negative impact isn't the result of something uniquely bad in humans. But our concern about our impacts and our efforts to save other species and ecosystems is the result of something uniquely good in us. And the only way forward I see is to foster the compassion and values driving those efforts, rather than fostering a species level self-loathing that accomplishes nothing.
 
I'm honestly surprised at the misanthropy here. Any other species, given the power to procreate and consume as unconstrained by ecological limitations as humanity, would also be catastrophic for the environment. The vast majority of our negative impact isn't the result of something uniquely bad in humans. But our concern about our impacts and our efforts to save other species and ecosystems is the result of something uniquely good in us. And the only way forward I see is to foster the compassion and values driving those efforts, rather than fostering a species level self-loathing that accomplishes nothing.
I agree, we have to be optimistic and support the good in the world. However, how much of this good is actually altruistic. In my opinion, much of the concerns centered around ecology and environmentalism seem to be more concerned about saving the human race and pleasures it obtains from the natural world. I may be wrong but considering that humans kills around 70 billion animals a year for food and pleasure, not including sea life and the millions they torture to death every year in laboratories. I'm not even going to go to the horrendous atrocities humans perpetrate against each other, but think of the Yemen at the moment for example. Therefore, I really don't see much good in the vast majority of people. And, in respect of global warming and the havoc we have brought to the planet and the natural world, humans would never have let it get this far if the majority of us had ever been good.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
Sax said:
I'm honestly surprised at the misanthropy here. Any other species, given the power to procreate and consume as unconstrained by ecological limitations as humanity, would also be catastrophic for the environment. The vast majority of our negative impact isn't the result of something uniquely bad in humans. But our concern about our impacts and our efforts to save other species and ecosystems is the result of something uniquely good in us. And the only way forward I see is to foster the compassion and values driving those efforts, rather than fostering a species level self-loathing that accomplishes nothing.
I agree, we have to be optimistic and support the good in the world. However, how much of this good is actually altruistic. In my opinion, much of the concerns centered around ecology and environmentalism seem to be more concerned about saving the human race and pleasures it obtains from the natural world. I may be wrong but considering that humans kills around 70 billion animals a year for food and pleasure, not including sea life and the millions they torture to death every year in laboratories. I'm not even going to go to the horrendous atrocities humans perpetrate against each other, but think of the Yemen at the moment for example. Therefore, I really don't see much good in the vast majority of people. And, in respect of global warming and the havoc we have brought to the planet and the natural world, humans would never have let it get this far if the majority of us had ever been good.

Taking both of those answers together, they about sum up life, the universe and everything from different points of view. Both are right in their own way. But if we didn't have both bad and good, life would be meaningless. you can't have one without the other. But which do we sort out 1st? You might say, because we're human beings, we should sort ourselves out 1st. Just by doing that, the world would be a much better place because we humans are the root of all the problems there are. If you look back in pre history, there has never been a species as short lived as we are going to be. Even those that died out lasted a few million years first. We humans will never last that long. Personally I'd give us, at most, another 500-1000yrs. Perhaps less. I know that's a pessimistic view but it's more in hope than pessimism. Because once we've gone the rest of life on earth can flourish in peace. Only man is greedy, no other species has the capacity for that and for that reason they would not rape the world as we have. If every billionaire gave 10% of their wealth it would pay off all the debts of every country in the world instead of investing it so it makes even more. What can you do with that sort of money? Nothing. It just makes more and more. You come in with nothing and you go out with nothing, what makes it worth it is what you can do with it while you're here. Unfortunately greed steps in and nothing, or very little gets done that's philanthropic. sometimes someone doles out a few million to a good cause and everyone says, "Oh that's nice". What they don't realise is that gift is pocket money to those that have the great wealth and they will very soon have recouped it with the interest on the remaining wealth that's invested. Other animals on the other hand don't have greed, ever. Sure, they're territorial and will fight to protect that and even pinch another's territory if they can, but that's purely to survive, not greed. Only humans have that urge. And just to put in a spoke, if it wasn't for religion, the world would be a lot safer and a better place. Because there are religious groups that are so greedy they want to dominate the whole earth! Where's the humanity in that!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou and Ahimsa
I agree, we have to be optimistic and support the good in the world. However, how much of this good is actually altruistic. In my opinion, much of the concerns centered around ecology and environmentalism seem to be more concerned about saving the human race and pleasures it obtains from the natural world. I may be wrong but considering that humans kills around 70 billion animals a year for food and pleasure, not including sea life and the millions they torture to death every year in laboratories. I'm not even going to go to the horrendous atrocities humans perpetrate against each other, but think of the Yemen at the moment for example. Therefore, I really don't see much good in the vast majority of people. And, in respect of global warming and the havoc we have brought to the planet and the natural world, humans would never have let it get this far if the majority of us had ever been good.
Good points. I may need to bone up on my Aristotle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ahimsa