Is veganism enough?

Hashtag_Eevee

Forum Novice
Joined
Mar 20, 2022
Reaction score
17
Age
16
Location
Bristol, England
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
Lately I've been feeling like veganism isn't enough, and I am being a huge hypocrite, not because of me being a vegan by definition but because I tell myself I love animals but then I am doing things like using this phone that contains animal fat, eating foods that could have been fertillised by dead animals, using batteries, telling myself that little things like using plastic bags coated in animal fat doesn't really matter. I know there is this whole thing about practicality and stuff but it's like a LIFE that is at stake, and that matters more. Idk
 
I agree - there's no ability to claim moral superiority of veganism that one person's version of consuming animal products is worse than another's - simply because it's 'not intentional' (a claim used by activists like Earthling Ed - and his cohort - which simply isn't true - as if you're consuming crops that you know will have a potential of killing animals - then consuming those products would incur intention) - because harming animals occurs regardless.

Another issue is that everyone's definition of veganism is different.

Until the issues in regards to veganism change - then it'll never be enough - as it won't be truly vegan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
the reason why you feel it's not enough is because veganism doesn't do what it's set out to do compared to an omnivore diet. Veganism is actually pretty counterintuitive when you really look at it - so it works against you as you try to follow it - thus leading to feelings of inadequacy. So if others don't jump on board - then of course you'll feel insufficient in your own work. I'll give an example as to why:
- which is more vegan - eating fish directly from the ocean or eating lettuce that had fish meal placed in as fertilizer? While on the surface if you go to the grocery store - fish vs lettuce has a clear winner as to waht's vegan - the lettuce. But if you look at how it's grown - then eating fish directly actually is more vegan - because you're getting more nutrients from fewer fish - it would likely take much more fish to grow enough lettuce to eat a nutritional equivalent or even if it's the same volume - it still takes more fish - because of the inefficiencies in growing - the lettuce must uptake the nutrients - so not all of the fish is likely going to be used in the plant and thus it will need more. Based on the size of the plant will determine if there's less or more fish needed.

The problem with veganism is that it's all circumstantial. We live in a non-vegan world - so no matter how much a person tries to be vegan - it'll never be. Any animal you don't consume will just be consumed by someone else. Any attempt to be vegan will be subverted by the contamination and promulgation of animal products in the processing stages.

That is why I believe in transhumanism and minimalism over veganism - veganism is just a stepping stone for these. At the very least, having full control over the manufacturing of your own products - by making your own - would lead to better avoiding animal products. However, to truly avoid veganism is to relinquish any desires for consumption or to have a post-scarce way of consumption that doesn't use resources - like digitization through virtual reality. Consuming fewer resources in general and helping protect the environment makes more sense than veganism - as it does way more and has veganism already built in. If you want to do more, than it's time for you to go to the next step in the avoidance of violence in consumption. I'm already in that direction and there in ways.

Veganism doesn't work in a non-vegan world - because non-vegan means have to occur just for a vegan to live - like an abundance of factory farming that riles people up or the killing of aggressive species to extinction just for a vegan human to have a habitat on Earth that's designed for that animal or to avoid the need to kill or attack just to have your own survival so you're not eaten by a lion or other animal looking to you as a meal. Veganism doesn't really work outside of a non-vegan world.
 
the reason why you feel it's not enough is because veganism doesn't do what it's set out to do compared to an omnivore diet. Veganism is actually pretty counterintuitive when you really look at it - so it works against you as you try to follow it - thus leading to feelings of inadequacy. So if others don't jump on board - then of course you'll feel insufficient in your own work. I'll give an example as to why:
- which is more vegan - eating fish directly from the ocean or eating lettuce that had fish meal placed in as fertilizer? While on the surface if you go to the grocery store - fish vs lettuce has a clear winner as to waht's vegan - the lettuce. But if you look at how it's grown - then eating fish directly actually is more vegan - because you're getting more nutrients from fewer fish - it would likely take much more fish to grow enough lettuce to eat a nutritional equivalent or even if it's the same volume - it still takes more fish - because of the inefficiencies in growing - the lettuce must uptake the nutrients - so not all of the fish is likely going to be used in the plant and thus it will need more. Based on the size of the plant will determine if there's less or more fish needed.

The problem with veganism is that it's all circumstantial. We live in a non-vegan world - so no matter how much a person tries to be vegan - it'll never be. Any animal you don't consume will just be consumed by someone else. Any attempt to be vegan will be subverted by the contamination and promulgation of animal products in the processing stages.

That is why I believe in transhumanism and minimalism over veganism - veganism is just a stepping stone for these. At the very least, having full control over the manufacturing of your own products - by making your own - would lead to better avoiding animal products. However, to truly avoid veganism is to relinquish any desires for consumption or to have a post-scarce way of consumption that doesn't use resources - like digitization through virtual reality. Consuming fewer resources in general and helping protect the environment makes more sense than veganism - as it does way more and has veganism already built in. If you want to do more, than it's time for you to go to the next step in the avoidance of violence in consumption. I'm already in that direction and there in ways.

Veganism doesn't work in a non-vegan world - because non-vegan means have to occur just for a vegan to live - like an abundance of factory farming that riles people up or the killing of aggressive species to extinction just for a vegan human to have a habitat on Earth that's designed for that animal or to avoid the need to kill or attack just to have your own survival so you're not eaten by a lion or other animal looking to you as a meal. Veganism doesn't really work outside of a non-vegan world.
I know you are trying to give advice but some of this I just disagree with and is not really true I think.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: silva
feel free to explain.
Well in this post it's comparing fish to lettuce...in others it's the debunked anti-nutrients, and the plants producing chemicals that are bad---when both are easily dealt with from cooking,and lectins and phytates have their own benefits.
Veganism is not about perfection, and it's not hard.
 
Well in this post it's comparing fish to lettuce...in others it's the debunked anti-nutrients, and the plants producing chemicals that are bad---when both are easily dealt with from cooking,and lectins and phytates have their own benefits.
Veganism is not about perfection, and it's not hard.
well no wonder you don't agree with what I wrote - I never brought up anti-nutrients - you did! I don't think it makes sense to discuss further with you until you thoroughly read and understand what I wrote unfortunately - you're wayyyy too off topic here.
 
- which is more vegan - eating fish directly from the ocean or eating lettuce that had fish meal placed in as fertilizer?

Agriculture Nutrient Management and Fertilizer | US EPA

Most fertilizers that are commonly used in agriculture contain the three basic plant nutrients: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Some fertilizers also contain certain "micronutrients," such as zinc and other metals, that are necessary for plant growth. Materials that are applied to the land primarily to enhance soil characteristics (rather than as plant food) are commonly referred to as soil amendments.

Fertilizers and soil amendments can be derived from:
  • virgin raw material
  • composts and other organic matter
  • wastes, such as sewage sludge and certain industrial wastes.
 
well no wonder you don't agree with what I wrote - I never brought up anti-nutrients - you did! I don't think it makes sense to discuss further with you until you thoroughly reawasd and understand what I wrote unfortunately - you're wayyyy too off topic here.
I was including things you've replied to on other threads i didn't bother responding to.
You complicate veganism far too much
 
  • Like
Reactions: David3
- which is more vegan - eating fish directly from the ocean or eating lettuce that had fish meal placed in as fertilizer? While on the surface if you go to the grocery store - fish vs lettuce has a clear winner as to waht's vegan - the lettuce. But if you look at how it's grown - then eating fish directly actually is more vegan - because you're getting more nutrients from fewer fish - it would likely take much more fish to grow enough lettuce to eat a nutritional equivalent or even if it's the same volume - it still takes more fish - because of the inefficiencies in growing - the lettuce must uptake the nutrients - so not all of the fish is likely going to be used in the plant and thus it will need more. Based on the size of the plant will determine if there's less or more fish needed.
.
Per Allied Market Research, plant-sourced and mineral-sourced organic fertilizers have a larger market share than animal-sourced organic fertilizers: Organic Fertilizers Market Size, Share | Industry Forecasts 2030

Animal-sourced fertilizers don't just include fish meal - they also include animal manure, blood meal, and bone meal. With the possible exception of blood meal (popular among small U.S. consumer segments), these are waste products. Organic Fertilizers Market to Reach $11.16 Billion by 2022 - Analysis by Source, Form, Crop Type & Region - Research and Markets . Whether these waste products are used or discarded makes little difference, ethically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian W
While on the surface if you go to the grocery store - fish vs lettuce has a clear winner as to waht's vegan - the lettuce. But if you look at how it's grown - then eating fish directly actually is more vegan - because you're getting more nutrients from fewer fish - it would likely take much more fish to grow enough lettuce to eat a nutritional equivalent or even if it's the same volume
.
According to the University of Florida Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences:

"Most commercial fishmeal is made from small, bony, and oily fish that otherwise are not suitable for human consumption and some is manufactured from by-products of seafood processing industries."

Link: FA122/FA122: The Benefits of Fish Meal in Aquaculture Diets


That is to say, fish meal is made from "bycatch" - waste from the fishing industry : Bycatch - Wikipedia . Whether this dead animal "waste" is used or discarded makes little difference, ethically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian W
However, to truly avoid veganism is to relinquish any desires for consumption or to have a post-scarce way of consumption that doesn't use resources - like digitization through virtual reality.
.
Virtual reality "doesn't use resources"?

Virtual reality requires computer hardware, which requires resources to build and operate. Minerals, plastics, electricity.
.
 
Lately I've been feeling like veganism isn't enough, and I am being a huge hypocrite, not because of me being a vegan by definition but because I tell myself I love animals but then I am doing things like using this phone that contains animal fat, eating foods that could have been fertillised by dead animals, using batteries, telling myself that little things like using plastic bags coated in animal fat doesn't really matter. I know there is this whole thing about practicality and stuff but it's like a LIFE that is at stake, and that matters more. Idk
It's about doing the best you can, veganism makes a huge impact, fewer animals will be bred and slaughtered because of that choice. This is just the beginning, I believe the use of animals will become less and less, as long as people like you care : )
 
well no wonder you don't agree with what I wrote - I never brought up anti-nutrients - you did! I don't think it makes sense to discuss further with you until you thoroughly read and understand what I wrote unfortunately - you're wayyyy too off topic here.
This was your post I was referring to:
you can also juice veggies - it just will be stripped of fiber, but won't have anti-nutrients - at least in a way that'll impact the body. It's easier to digest food in liquid form.
I also heard certain types of chopping also leads to either better absorption or reduction of antinutrients (since cutting something exposes it to air - leading to chemical reactions like oxidizing - such as browning of apples and avocados - to making stuff go rancid - like flax seeds; or it may break down plant body parts in a way that's easier to eat) - I'm no expert to really know and say and it's been a while since I looked into it - but I heard chiffonade does this best - due to the diagonal cutting into the fibers.
You've conflated so many things. Chopping doesn't reduce "antinutrients", but it does improve the sulforaphanes in broccoli, and improve the allicin in garlic.
Nothing to do with oxidiizing.
You grind seeds with a hard shell like flax so you can absorb them and not just have them pass through
You should look up nutritionfacts.org, and/or other reputable and researched sites
 
I was including things you've replied to on other threads i didn't bother responding to.
You complicate veganism far too much
why didn't you just reply to me there? It overcomplicated discussing anything here!
 
According to the University of Florida Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences:

"Most commercial fishmeal is made from small, bony, and oily fish that otherwise are not suitable for human consumption and some is manufactured from by-products of seafood processing industries."

Link: FA122/FA122: The Benefits of Fish Meal in Aquaculture Diets


That is to say, fish meal is made from "bycatch" - waste from the fishing industry : Bycatch - Wikipedia . Whether this dead animal "waste" is used or discarded makes little difference, ethically.
I believe it does, because those fishers are not putting the bycatch back into the ocean - they're using it on plants - so it is ethically relevant. They don't remove them before they die - so if they're dead by the time they arrive doesn't matter - they were alive. Even if they're not alive - they're a food source ofr other animals and removing it from the ocean takes their food source away from them. Takes calcium to build coral away from the ocean floor too, among other issues. Bottom line - it's bad.