Veganism kills animals too

[IndianVegan]

This was ChatGPT's answer to my question: Does veganism really reduce animal suffering if pesticides and insecticides are used during the production of vegan food?

---

Yes. The existence of pesticide use is a genuine ethical challenge for veganism, but it does not negate the fact that a vegan diet generally reduces animal suffering overall.

Here's why:

• Most crops are not eaten directly by humans. A large proportion of the world's soy, maize, wheat, and other crops is fed to livestock. That means raising animals for food requires growing crops first, and those crops also involve pesticides. Eating plants directly usually requires fewer crops than feeding them to animals and then eating the animals.
• Animal agriculture causes additional harms beyond crop production. Farmed animals are bred into existence, confined, transported, and slaughtered. These harms occur in addition to the insects and other wildlife affected by growing their feed.
• Land use is much greater for animal products. Producing meat, dairy, and eggs generally requires more land than producing an equivalent amount of plant food. More land use often means more habitat loss and more encounters with pesticides and other agricultural impacts.

That said, veganism is not a claim that one can live without causing any harm to animals. Rather, it is an attempt to avoid animal exploitation and reduce suffering as far as is practicable and possible. Modern agriculture—whether it produces plants or animal feed—does harm wildlife, and many vegans acknowledge this openly.

So the question is not "Does veganism eliminate animal suffering?" The answer is no.

The more relevant question is "Does veganism, on average, reduce animal suffering compared with a typical diet containing animal products?" Based on the best available evidence about food production, land use, and livestock farming, the answer is yes.

 

[Graeme M]

Yes, this is true. But it's still true that vegans are paying for animals to be killed by very cruel methods, and it's also true that people can eat a diet containing animals and cause fewer animals to be harmed than an average vegan. That's why we should never claim that veganism is cruelty free or that no animals died for our food, a claim commonly made by vegans on social media.

Something I often point out that veganism is not Jainism. It is not attempting to prevent all harm and death to animals; heck even eating animals is acceptable within the vegan framework if it is necessary. I don't think killing wild animal pests in crop production is wrong, if it is necessary within current methods. However because as vegans we are supposed to prevent all cruelty in food production, we should still make an effort to mitigate that as much as we can.

I do this by very much limiting wheat consumption (I never eat biscuits, rarely eat cake, eat bread only sparingly), avoiding almond milk in favour of soy milk (a better milk alternative and self-pollinated), keeping food intake to my calorie needs and not more, eating my friend's eggs, and rarely eating food only for taste pleasures. I am not aware of any food I typically consume just for its taste - some enjoyable foods I eat are still healthy and contribute to my wellbeing (though occasionally I eat for taste, it's just not my routine). Bear in mind that latter point is also one vegans often make which can be ridiculed - that non-vegans kill animals for a moment's taste pleasure. Unfortunately, vegans eating food just for the taste are doing the exact same thing.

If you are interested, I've delved into this issue in great depth. The answer is that - excluding insects - a typical vegan consumer's diet reduces the scale of animal harm and death by up to 80-90%. Including insects, it is not as great a reduction, but it is still a reduction. It's just we have no numbers to work with in that context.

Here's how it goes. A typical non-vegan consumer requires about 40-100 animals killed each year to eat directly. They also causally contribute to incidental harms such as male chick killing, male dairy calf killing, on-farm losses, transport losses, disease losses, seafood bycatch and so on. On top of that, wild animals are killed on all agricultural lands. Research shows that a typical consumers cropland footprint is about 0.15-0.20 hectares of cultivated croplands. If it turns out that on average, about 100 wild animals are killed per hectare (and the estimates vvary from about 20 to 100), then non-vegans causally contribute to about 20 wild animal deaths. On top of this, non-vegan consumers also need about 0.3 hectares of perennial cropland (for animal feed) and 0.75 hectares of grazing land, and as I said wild animal are also killed on those lands as well. Altogether, a typical non-vegan consumer (not all of them, of course) will contribute to as many as 100-150 animal deaths each year.

A typical vegan consumer needs around 0.12-0.18 hectares of cropland. And that's it. So their animal death toll (again, excluding insects) is perhaps 20 wild animals each year (and very likely fewer than that). This means that not only do vegan consumers do far more to tackle animal injustice, but they also reduce the scale of harm to animals by up to 90%, compared to the average non-vegan consumer.

And my best guess is that this works in about 90-95% of cases - that is, the typical non-vegan consumer makes up about 90-95% of the population. Incidentally, a genuine carnivore dieter who is fastidious about their consumption and chooses wisely can cause fewer animals to be killed than a typical vegan consumer. It's just staggeringly unlikely.

 

[g0rph]

Yes, this is true. But it's still true that vegans are paying for animals to be killed by very cruel methods, and it's also true that people can eat a diet containing animals and cause fewer animals to be harmed than an average vegan. That's why we should never claim that veganism is cruelty free or that no animals died for our food, a claim commonly made by vegans on social media.

Something I often point out that veganism is not Jainism.

That's a good thing. Jainism permits dairy.

It is not attempting to prevent all harm and death to animals; heck even eating animals is acceptable within the vegan framework if it is necessary. I don't think killing wild animal pests in crop production is wrong, if it is necessary within current methods. However because as vegans we are supposed to prevent all cruelty in food production, we should still make an effort to mitigate that as much as we can.

I do this by very much limiting wheat consumption (I never eat biscuits, rarely eat cake, eat bread only sparingly), avoiding almond milk in favour of soy milk (a better milk alternative and self-pollinated), keeping food intake to my calorie needs and not more, eating my friend's eggs, and rarely eating food only for taste pleasures.

That's the main think I seek when eating. Taste pleasure. But it certainly doesn't need to be any more harmful than not.
I generally use oat or soy milk (I am not fond of almond milk anyway).
But I do use a lot of wheat ( I made some fantastic seitan only last week).

I am not aware of any food I typically consume just for its taste - some enjoyable foods I eat are still healthy and contribute to my wellbeing (though occasionally I eat for taste, it's just not my routine). Bear in mind that latter point is also one vegans often make which can be ridiculed - that non-vegans kill animals for a moment's taste pleasure. Unfortunately, vegans eating food just for the taste are doing the exact same thing.

Not "exactly the same thing" at all. Eliminating crop pests is nothing like the same as choosing to breed into existence pigs, cows and killing them, often after them leading a horrific life up to that point.

If you are interested, I've delved into this issue in great depth. The answer is that - excluding insects - a typical vegan consumer's diet reduces the scale of animal harm and death by up to 80-90%. Including insects, it is not as great a reduction, but it is still a reduction. It's just we have no numbers to work with in that context.

Here's how it goes. A typical non-vegan consumer requires about 40-100 animals killed each year to eat directly. They also causally contribute to incidental harms such as male chick killing, male dairy calf killing, on-farm losses, transport losses, disease losses, seafood bycatch and so on. On top of that, wild animals are killed on all agricultural lands. Research shows that a typical consumers cropland footprint is about 0.15-0.20 hectares of cultivated croplands. If it turns out that on average, about 100 wild animals are killed per hectare (and the estimates vvary from about 20 to 100), then non-vegans causally contribute to about 20 wild animal deaths. On top of this, non-vegan consumers also need about 0.3 hectares of perennial cropland (for animal feed) and 0.75 hectares of grazing land, and as I said wild animal are also killed on those lands as well. Altogether, a typical non-vegan consumer (not all of them, of course) will contribute to as many as 100-150 animal deaths each year.

I don't like the "number of deaths" way of looking at it at all.
If you only eat beef then you are directly responsible for very few deaths. But for a great deal more suffering.

A typical vegan consumer needs around 0.12-0.18 hectares of cropland. And that's it. So their animal death toll (again, excluding insects) is perhaps 20 wild animals each year (and very likely fewer than that). This means that not only do vegan consumers do far more to tackle animal injustice, but they also reduce the scale of harm to animals by up to 90%, compared to the average non-vegan consumer.

And my best guess is that this works in about 90-95% of cases - that is, the typical non-vegan consumer makes up about 90-95% of the population. Incidentally, a genuine carnivore dieter who is fastidious about their consumption and chooses wisely can cause fewer animals to be killed than a typical vegan consumer. It's just staggeringly unlikely.

Question.
Who is more ethical?
Someone who is 100% vegan. But buys all their food and everything else from the store.
Or. Someone who kills a few moose, deer or boar a year, grows all their own fruit and vegetables. Rarely uses the store except for essential supplies that can't be DIY'd (medicine etc).

It's always been a tough one for me, but I do think it's still the first person because of intent.

i.e. Is the result or the intent more important when dealing with moral philosophy?

 

[Graeme M]

Not "exactly the same thing" at all. Eliminating crop pests is nothing like the same as choosing to breed into existence pigs, cows and killing them, often after them leading a horrific life up to that point.

I take your point, but I'm thinking about it from the perspective that many vegans take which is that any killing is wrong. The context of my comment is the claim by vegans that killing for enjoyment is wrong (Earthling Ed makes this argument all the time). But if vegans are buying and eating food primarily for pleasure, aren't they doing the same thing? I'm not making a case for the rights or wrongs of this but showing how making these claims exposes vegans to charges of hypocrisy and can lead to reputational damage.

I don't like the "number of deaths" way of looking at it at all.

The number of deaths thing is a common criticism and it works, because too many people claim veganism is cruelty free/least harm. It's hard to argue that reducing harm is enough, when you've started out by claiming cruelty free/least harm.

Who is more ethical?
Someone who is 100% vegan. But buys all their food and everything else from the store.
Or. Someone who kills a few moose, deer or boar a year, grows all their own fruit and vegetables. Rarely uses the store except for essential supplies that can't be DIY'd (medicine etc).

Within the vegan framework, I think the vegan is the more ethical, simply because the scale of harm from a vegan consumer's choices is really quite small. They aren't causing some outsized quantum of harm and suffering that dwarfs what the ethical hunter is doing and they are tackling animal injustice effectively. However, I think it can be argued that hunting animals for food within an authorised animal management program is ethical. That's because the animals hunted are free, they are going to be killed in any case, and I don't think it's unfair to kill a free-living animal for food when necessary. By withdrawing demand from commercial production, the hunter may be reducing the scale of wild animal deaths for their food, they are not contributing to environmental damage and pollution the way vegans are, and they are participating in conservation efforts. I'm not defending wild animal management programs, merely pointing out they exist and are legal, so when non-vegan people engage in such activities they are not acting illegally and their overall impact may be more positive than that of vegans buying food from stores.

 

[1956]

I take your point, but I'm thinking about it from the perspective that many vegans take which is that any killing is wrong. The context of my comment is the claim by vegans that killing for enjoyment is wrong (Earthling Ed makes this argument all the time). But if vegans are buying and eating food primarily for pleasure, aren't they doing the same thing? I'm not making a case for the rights or wrongs of this but showing how making these claims exposes vegans to charges of hypocrisy and can lead to reputational damage.


The number of deaths thing is a common criticism and it works, because too many people claim veganism is cruelty free/least harm. It's hard to argue that reducing harm is enough, when you've started out by claiming cruelty free/least harm.



Within the vegan framework, I think the vegan is the more ethical, simply because the scale of harm from a vegan consumer's choices is really quite small. They aren't causing some outsized quantum of harm and suffering that dwarfs what the ethical hunter is doing and they are tackling animal injustice effectively. However, I think it can be argued that hunting animals for food within an authorised animal management program is ethical. That's because the animals hunted are free, they are going to be killed in any case, and I don't think it's unfair to kill a free-living animal for food when necessary. By withdrawing demand from commercial production, the hunter may be reducing the scale of wild animal deaths for their food, they are not contributing to environmental damage and pollution the way vegans are, and they are participating in conservation efforts. I'm not defending wild animal management programs, merely pointing out they exist and are legal, so when non-vegan people engage in such activities they are not acting illegally and their overall impact may be more positive than that of vegans buying food from stores.

It is comments like your last 2 sentences - as well as Many others - that create My opinion that you @Graeme M are a Troll… While you claim to support Vegan ethics, it appears to me that the Majority of your comment's are Anti Vegan rather than Pro Vegan… You repeatedly take the stance that living a Vegan lifestyle is not Really doing enough fight against Animal Cruelty…

In your “hypothetical” scenario about the hunter who is doing so for “conservation” purposes - No they are not acting illegally - however, how can you say that their impact is more positive than a Vegan’s impact? As @g0rph stated the hunter’s intent is to Kill… They most likely take pleasure in the killing, they possibly encourage friends and family to join them - thus creating More hunters/killers… Yes, the animals were Free - then they are Dead! How can that possibly Not be Cruel?!? The only reason that there are animals that “need” to be culled is because of Humans and there are other more humane methods of dealing with overpopulation… It is also Implausible that the hypothetical hunter is not doing any shopping at the grocery store, they are most likely buying many of the same items that Vegan's are buying so How can their impact be more positive than a Vegan?

One of my brother-in laws was a hunter - yes, they ate what he killed, but they also ate plenty of other dead animals purchased from the grocery store.