Vegans Killing Animals

[Graeme M]

If you would like to focus on insects' lives, a person would prevent more insect deaths (and cruelty) with a vegan diet than with a standard omnivore diet.
Excluding ALL insect death is not possible nor practicable. Excluding our exploitation of animals raised for food is. Reducing the volume of crops we grow to feed animals raised to be eaten is also possible and practicable.

I don't disagree. But I was getting at something different. While preventing exploitation is important, vegans nonetheless do seem to worry about reducing harm. My thinking was that IF insects count morally, there still seems to be some kind of duty on our part to consider the scale of harm caused by pest control in cropping. It seems hypocritical to wave that away on the grounds that because it is less harmful than everyday mixed food production, we don't have to worry about it at all. Vegan89 suggested that because insects have a lesser experience, we are on firm ground to think this way. I am not convinced by this and we can also look to vegan attitudes to these species for guidance. If vegans worry about eating oysters or farming insects on the grounds those animals may be sentient (and hence shouldn't be harmed or exploited), shouldn't we also worry about their lot in a plant-based food system? That is, if they are sentient enough for us to worry about exploiting them, shouldn't we also be worried about their pain, suffering and death?

In the context of the OP, Rory17 was also making the claim that because a plant-based diet is less harmful than an omnivore diet, we can rest on our laurels at that point. However, non-vegans have a very good case when they point out that by vegan moral reasoning, vegans should still be worried about the harm accruing from their own diet.

What do you think? Imagine that tomorrow we stopped farming animals and ate a plants-only diet. Pest control causes the pain, suffering and deaths of quadrillions of small animals. Should we then worry about that, or doesn't it matter? If not, why not?

 

[bEt]

As I see it, a strict vegetarian diet already greatly reduces insect harm from cropping, because you need to grow less crops to directly feed humans than to feed animals killed to feed humans.

To me, being honest about what we can practically do right now is not the same as waving away a problem. We can't allow a lack of perfection stop us from making what improvements are within our reach today.

I am hopeful that many farmers are exploring integrated pest management and other improvements. We can have hope for an even better future and simultaneously do the best we can with what we have today.

 

[LoreD]

Hello,
Please don’t give me abuse for this - I am a vegan.
I just read an article about vegans killing “gazillions” of animals like gophers, ground-nesting birds, mice, rats and of course bugs. I also remember hearing a farmer/animal transport worker saying “the biggest place you’ll see death on a farm is in a combine harvester (or something like that).”
I would respond with the argument that the animals whom the meat-eaters eat would often be fed using crops and that they would have to be grown and harvested and that would kill the other critters just like the harvesting of crops for human consumption does. Also, it isn’t just vegans who eat crops, fruits and vegetables; meat-eaters eat them as well as animals, so they are possibly causing double the amount of animal crop deaths to vegans because they eat the animals who ate crops and the crops themselves. Also, isn’t it true that more land is used to feed a non-vegan who eats both plant products and animal products than is used to feed a vegan? That’s more animals being killed during the destruction of their natural habitat and building of the farms and crop fields.
What are your thoughts?

We could stop growing feed for animals, rewild, and that would really cut down on small animal deaths.

Meat and Animal Feed

Livestock is the world’s largest user of land resources, with pasture and arable land dedicated to the production of feed representing almost 80% of the total agricultural land. One-third of global arable land is used to grow feed, while 26% of the Earth’s ice-free terrestrial surface is used for grazing.

 

[LoreD]

We could also reduce the amount of animals killed in agriculture by ending the practice of throwing perfectly good food into landfills. 40% of our food is thrown away by farmers, processors, distributors, and consumers. Just imagine reducing the acreage to the amount of food we actually consume.

I haven't been against the rising food prices. I think it will help us value the food we buy. It used to be that cleaning out the refrigerator meant filling up the garbage pail. Today it means making a big pot of soup.

 

[silva]

I'm not convinced that everybody can be vegan, especially seeing a video of somebody who was admitted to hospital after becoming vegan because her intestines were bleeding due to severe IBS. Maybe one day it won't be necessary to kill animals but not today.

Again, a vegan diet says no animal products. There are as many ways to eat vegan as there are to eat omnivore.
Many meat eaters with Ibs have had their instestines bleed and worst
Just a really bad example, as following a wfpb diet has resolved IBS of both kinds for so many

 

[bEt]

I'm not convinced that everybody can be vegan,

I've heard of a rare genetic anomaly (called g6pd deficiency or favaism) that can result in a kind of anemia when some people (in the most severe cases) consume certain legumes. I'd guess that that would make it harder to maintain a strict vegetarian diet. It is a rare condition, but I feel it shows that there is reason for tolerance in every sphere of our very complicated lives, which I feel is the same point Brian W was basically making.

Of course, there are other (also rare) conditions, such as PKU and also CBS deficiency, that require affected people to maintain a diet free of animal products in order to maintain health and avoid serious complications.

 

[VeganRachel]

I don't think it really is due to any sudden outbreak of caring. It's usually one or both of these reasons: to counter the hypocrisy of vegans claiming their diet is less harmful or is somehow free of harm, and also to highlight that there is something a little odd about defending the rights of animals like fish not to be killed for food while disregarding the rights of invertebrates not to be killed for food.

Personally I am not convinced that sentience admits of such fine gradations as some people want to claim. If a locust for example is sentient, I am not sure on what grounds one could argue that a fish or a lobster or a chicken has a greater claim to a right to life. I actually don't think there is very much in the conscious experience of a locust that is much different even from that of a cow. I'm not sure how that could be proved or disproved.

I remain uncertain about why we should worry about cows more than locusts which is why I now believe the problem of exploitation may be the greater problem in terms of ethical veganism, but even here I have my doubts. Cows have no idea they are being exploited!

In the end - at a global scale - I think we remain on safe ground to argue that a vegan diet causes less death and suffering than today's food system.

Agreed. Its' a pushback against vegans for believing our lifestyle is without harm. Animals and insects are killed every minute, but the
point is to try to do the least harm. Ironically, some omnivore's use that argument as well. Some say they would rather slaughter and
eat a steer, one animal life, than to slaughter and eat 225 chickens, multiple lives, instead. Interesting logic for sure.

 

[VeganRachel]

I'm not convinced that everybody can be vegan, especially seeing a video of somebody who was admitted to hospital after becoming vegan because her intestines were bleeding due to severe IBS. Maybe one day it won't be necessary to kill animals but not today.

I would think that eating plants that one is allergic to could cause multiple problems. So I would have a sensitive allergy test
and then avoid thos allergens. However I would believe that consuming flesh and blood and dairy would also cause problems.
Also, just because someone consumes a "vegan diet" does not equal that person eating healthfully. There are tons of vegan processed
foods that I certainly would not label as healthy, but many humans consume. Also , GMO's are known to cause severe digestive problems
in animals and humans as well. Stick to organic.

 

[FredVegrox]

I eat just food from plants and have for years, so I would count as vegan choosing to not have things taken from animals knowing there is something wrong with that. But there are animals I kill, I don't think there are those who can avoid that. I know mosquitoes, and bedbugs, and roaches, are aggressive pests, it is not all the same when any of us need to defend ourselves, would you show just as much compassion to those creatures which are attacking you without a thought? Farmed animals, and hunted animals, however, are not ever originally a threat to us.

 

[VeganRachel]

Thanks for sharing. When humans want to do something, we can find multiple excuses and justifications
for doing so. "Plants kill animals more" is one of multiple excuses. Its' amazing that humans who willingly
breed and slaughter sentient farm animals to eat them, suddenly care about some mice or rodents from
crop farming. Only when using this as a criticism against veganism.

The argument is attmpting to accept the killing of animals for omnivore humans to eat, because small
animals can be also killed but for crop farming. One animal equals the deliberate raising of animals
for humans to consume, as if they are on a par.

No one wants animals killed for crop farming, it is a side effect .Lets get farmers to somehow lower the numbers
that are killed.

In addition, 99.9% of those using the crops kill animals, argument, ALSO EAT PLANTS. And, cattle trample land and
can damage animal homes and kill them as well, in addition to manure/bodies polluting streams and ponds.
Here are some more facts debunking many crop animal deaths:

Do Vegans Kill More Animals Than Meat-Eaters?

Does a vegan diet lead to more animal deaths than an omnivorous one? Is it true that harvesting crops for vegans kills more animals than farming grass-fed beef? It's time for vegans to take a long, hard look at their lifestyles and choose the path that is truly more ethical. Let’s take a deeper...

bitesizevegan.org

Comparing Animal Deaths in Production of Plant and Animal Foods

A common claim is that vegans cause more animal deaths than those who eat animal products. We take a hard look at the numbers and logic

freefromharm.org

 

[VeganRachel]

I don't disagree. But I was getting at something different. While preventing exploitation is important, vegans nonetheless do seem to worry about reducing harm. My thinking was that IF insects count morally, there still seems to be some kind of duty on our part to consider the scale of harm caused by pest control in cropping. It seems hypocritical to wave that away on the grounds that because it is less harmful than everyday mixed food production, we don't have to worry about it at all. Vegan89 suggested that because insects have a lesser experience, we are on firm ground to think this way. I am not convinced by this and we can also look to vegan attitudes to these species for guidance. If vegans worry about eating oysters or farming insects on the grounds those animals may be sentient (and hence shouldn't be harmed or exploited), shouldn't we also worry about their lot in a plant-based food system? That is, if they are sentient enough for us to worry about exploiting them, shouldn't we also be worried about their pain, suffering and death?

In the context of the OP, Rory17 was also making the claim that because a plant-based diet is less harmful than an omnivore diet, we can rest on our laurels at that point. However, non-vegans have a very good case when they point out that by vegan moral reasoning, vegans should still be worried about the harm accruing from their own diet.

What do you think? Imagine that tomorrow we stopped farming animals and ate a plants-only diet. Pest control causes the pain, suffering and deaths of quadrillions of small animals. Should we then worry about that, or doesn't it matter? If not, why not?

You can become a breatharain and not consume any food at all.
However, if you mow your lawn, drive a car, travel on a plane or bus, own a home or rent, grow your own food,
walk your dog, feed your dog or cat or horse, buy ANYTHING that requires any type of transportation to deliver...
you will participate in the death of some type of animal or insect. It is truly impossible to not harm anything,
but this argument is often used by omnivores to justify eating animals. and criticize veganism

 

[Graeme M]

You can become a breatharain and not consume any food at all.
However, if you mow your lawn, drive a car, travel on a plane or bus, own a home or rent, grow your own food,
walk your dog, feed your dog or cat or horse, buy ANYTHING that requires any type of transportation to deliver...
you will participate in the death of some type of animal or insect. It is truly impossible to not harm anything,
but this argument is often used by omnivores to justify eating animals. and criticize veganism

Yes, but the point is that the animals that are killed - especially the insects - to protect crops are killed quite deliberately, not as an unfortunate consequence of everyday activities. So if that harm is intentional AND it is significant AND vegans want to cause less intentional harm, then we seem to be under a duty to find ways to mitigate it.

 

[VeganRachel]

The overwhelming majority of meat sold in supermarkets in the western world is raised in those types of intensive factory farms.



Yeah... good luck persuading the general public to buy your special beef for $15/lb when the factory-farmed beef is selling for like $2/lb.

Now you might reply "good luck convincing the general public to eat bok choy and tofu instead of beef," but there are actually a lot of popular foods in Asian societies that are pretty much centered around foods like that and they actually taste pretty good when you learn how to prepare them. Veganism can be very good-tasting, relatively humane, and very affordable. Not to mention healthier and better for the environment. Your special beef can't match that list of benefits.

There's another problem with your special beef: the most promising solutions people who are concerned with animal welfare have to stop factory farming are the highly sophisticated commercially-produced animal product substitutes like the Impossible Burger, Beyond Meat, etc. These are things that taste essentially indistinguishable from beef in the context of a fast food burger with the usual toppings (try the Impossible Whopper, for example). But they need customers (and the associated revenue) to develop and improve their technology, scale up their businesses, and bring prices down to the point where their products would be adopted by most of the general public in order to dramatically reduce factory farming.

When you draw people away from such products and companies with your non-solution special beef that probably couldn't ever be scaled up enough to meet the meat demand of society anyway because of its massive increase in land use; you are essentially ensuring the factory farming system's most dangerous competitor never gets the customers and revenue it needs to develop into real competition... which essentially serves to perpetuate the current factory farming system and increase overall animal suffering.



I'm inclined to think it's a bit ridiculous to concern yourself with the suffering of insects considering many billions of animals with central nervous systems as sophisticated as cows and pigs are put through the factory farming & animal slaughterhouse system so frequently.


I don't really have a problem with hunting/fishing (or at least am not focused on stopping it at the moment), but that's obviously not a practical food solution for the average person and probably could never be scaled up to meet global demand for food or meat anyway.

What reduces animal suffering is finding a food solution that is affordable, scalable, relatively kind to animals, relatively environmentally sustainable, reasonably convenient, and tasty. Impossible Burgers can check all of those boxes if the company grows as much as many think it will and scales up. Hunting/fishing can't do that. Your special beef can't do that either.

Financially supporting a relatively scalable food system that reduces animal suffering (compared with the current system) is more ethical than financially supporting a food system that can never be scaled up to meet global demand in a practical way.

Thank you. Let us all agree that when humans want to do something, we find a myriad of ways to justify and excuse that behavior.
I do find it fascinating how carnists care about insects yet slaughter the gentle and innocent to eat them, as well as obsessing
about how an animal is raised (benefits the human--taste, "nutrition", feelings of benevolence) while ignoring that the animal wants to
live just as much as a factory raised animal does. NO animal, regardless of how 'nicely' it is raised, want to be slaughtered (all at an
early age) for human pleasure. Obviously, there is not enough land to raise all animals "nicely", so those who glorify pastured
animals are interested in filling their freezers, understanding that other millions of humans cannot afford the high cost of such.
Animal ag does not care about the animals, just about keeping them alive long enough to profit from their use. Eliminating all factory
farms is okay, as most humans would be forced to cut ther consumption of animal products by surely 75%
or more, meaning they would be eating more plant foods. Are there 'more caring' carnists than others? of course. But the animals
are simply a means to an end, you die so I can have a meal. I write as a whole food ethical vegan for 25+ years, peace.

 

[VeganRachel]

We could also reduce the amount of animals killed in agriculture by ending the practice of throwing perfectly good food into landfills. 40% of our food is thrown away by farmers, processors, distributors, and consumers. Just imagine reducing the acreage to the amount of food we actually consume.

I haven't been against the rising food prices. I think it will help us value the food we buy. It used to be that cleaning out the refrigerator meant filling up the garbage pail. Today it means making a big pot of soup.

Food waste is an abomination for sure. On a side note I have dumpster dived. Not because I was starving, but because I
lived with multiple humans and some needed food. I dove in a chain store's, that begins with "A", dumpster several times. The 1st time I found
enough food (bread, potatoes, bananas, meat, milk, etcetera) to feed a family of 4 for a month. I was appalled. Another time the dumpster
had over a dozen packages of coleman beef products (expensive) among the typical items. One day a woman causght me taking a bag
of grapefruit and told me "put it back". I told her its' edible and some humans are starving. After that, they started putting all the food in
large plastic bags and ziptying it. I believe the store threw last weeks' stuff out when they got a new order in, even though it was edible.
Just be careful of refrigerated items that they are still cold.
There are some amazing videos on dumpster diving/food waste such as these, not necessarily vegan, cheers.

 

[VeganRachel]

The real reason people bring up field mice being killed in farm equipment is because they want vegans to shut up so they can go back to enjoying hamburgers or whatever. They want to just say "well animals will suffer no matter what I eat, so therefore it doesn't matter... and it's ethical for me to just eat whatever I want without showing any concern for the suffering my diet causes."

It's not a logical perspective... that's for sure. Because even if it's impossible to eliminate ALL suffering associated with your diet, that doesn't mean there is no ethical responsibility to REDUCE the suffering caused by your diet as much as reasonably possible. (Such as with a vegan diet...).

Right. And none of us are happy for any mice to be killed by crop farming, etcetera. But we all have to eat and plants are the simplest.
One more desperate attempt to say, eating the constantly bred sentient dead is sacceptable. Animal ag is all over every
single vegan message, desperately finding counter-arguments as excuses. And tons of paid shill trolls on social media platforms
and video's, making less than intelligent comments and running away without any facts. Its' about $$$ not caring about animals.

 

[VeganRachel]

I don't think it really is due to any sudden outbreak of caring. It's usually one or both of these reasons: to counter the hypocrisy of vegans claiming their diet is less harmful or is somehow free of harm, and also to highlight that there is something a little odd about defending the rights of animals like fish not to be killed for food while disregarding the rights of invertebrates not to be killed for food.

Personally I am not convinced that sentience admits of such fine gradations as some people want to claim. If a locust for example is sentient, I am not sure on what grounds one could argue that a fish or a lobster or a chicken has a greater claim to a right to life. I actually don't think there is very much in the conscious experience of a locust that is much different even from that of a cow. I'm not sure how that could be proved or disproved.

I remain uncertain about why we should worry about cows more than locusts which is why I now believe the problem of exploitation may be the greater problem in terms of ethical veganism, but even here I have my doubts. Cows have no idea they are being exploited!

In the end - at a global scale - I think we remain on safe ground to argue that a vegan diet causes less death and suffering than today's food system.

I disagree with the phrase, vegan hipocracy that their diet is less harmful. It is. Many articles debunk the desperate lie of crops killing
more small animals. In addition, 99% of omnivores also EAT crops, so those humans are not only accepting the endless cycle of breeding,
mutilating, separating mothers from offpsing, atificial insemination (rape), use, early death--but ALSO those sme plants. Also, not
considered is the damage cattle elicit on the animals/homes they trample on, the excrement that pollutes rivers and streams, and other
issues. First the BLM etcetera used cyanide bombs on millions of acres to kill cattle predators.
Second, "The USDA's war on wildlife" a revealing documentary, states that the USDA has slaughtered 30 million+ wild animals to "protect"
the cattle ranching industries (at consumer expense) in the past 30 years. This includes bears, foxes, coyotes, wolves, cougars, mountain
lions, and birds including precious eagles. ALL so humans could romaticize and salivate over steaks, but never listed on the labels!.
www.predatordefense.org and Predator Defense - The USDA Wildlife Services' War on Wildlife

Once again, these attempts at comparing whatever small animals perish in crop farming (which is sad) to the deliberate slaughter of 71 billion
farm animals every year worldwide. Is another human excuse and justification to eating the gentle, helpless, defenseless, dead animals.

 

[Graeme M]

I disagree with the phrase, vegan hipocracy that their diet is less harmful. It is. Many articles debunk the desperate lie of crops killing
more small animals. In addition, 99% of omnivores also EAT crops, so those humans are not only accepting the endless cycle of breeding,
mutilating, separating mothers from offpsing, atificial insemination (rape), use, early death--but ALSO those sme plants.

I've said a few times now that I don't think people care about animals killed in crop farming, they are only pointing out what they perceive as hypocrisy. And they do that because they have been led to believe that vegans do what they do so as not to harm other animals. In fact, some vegans even claim that their diet causes no harm, or as I have seen it said, "nothing has to die for my food".

The articles that seek to show why vegan diets cause less harm are missing the point somewhat. It's the hypocrisy that non-vegans are pointing to, and having an effective answer to that is apparently very hard to find. Once you frame veganism as a "least harm" proposition, you are immediately in the camp of supporting animals as food. Which I think is fine but many vegans do not.

 

[VeganRachel]

I've said a few times now that I don't think people care about animals killed in crop farming, they are only pointing out what they perceive as hypocrisy. And they do that because they have been led to believe that vegans do what they do so as not to harm other animals. In fact, some vegans even claim that their diet causes no harm, or as I have seen it said, "nothing has to die for my food".

The articles that seek to show why vegan diets cause less harm are missing the point somewhat. It's the hypocrisy that non-vegans are pointing to, and having an effective answer to that is apparently very hard to find. Once you frame veganism as a "least harm" proposition, you are immediately in the camp of supporting animals as food. Which I think is fine but many vegans do not.

I have read the "least harm" phrase many times as used by some vegans. I do not disagree that it has merit.
Anti-speciesists focus on the animals used for human food and experiments/circuses/racing, that is a large
(profitable) territory to counter.

True, most humans do not care about crop animal deaths, we want to eat and want the farmers to figure that out.
If the farmers are horrified by crop deaths, why have THEY not found a better solution?. Certainly this stuff has
been going on for over 40 years. My guess is that few farmers care enough to do something about it. Their goal is
yield, in order to make a profit. But it is not vegans responsibility to figure this out, we are eaters, not farmers.

However, in a world of 95-96% of omnivore humans, who is REALLY consuming the most crop foods? certainly
not the 4 or 5% of vegans/vegetarians. I understand vegans want the least harm done, period, however we are
the minority of the population. Those using the "crop death" argument, certainly to criticize non-animal eaters,
never mention that fact. Where are the omnivore and carnists speaking out and doing something about the
crop deaths?. Again, the point of the issue is completely geared toward criticizing veganism and defending carnism.
I believe human history shows us that the outsiders, as the minority, always get the criticism, while the majority of
humans do not. Until the pendulum switches, and the world is 75-95% vegan, we will continue to be criticized.

Also, how many omnivores and carnists take decisive action against the factory farming industries?.
Particularly the humans who romanticize over eating the "nicely-raised" animals?. It seems to me that
the one's who really take action about factory farms are the vegans and animal-rights groups. Ironic in
that vegans do not eat those animals we care and speak up about.
This is a similar criticism against vegans, as if WE alone are responsible for crop animal deaths...cheers.

 

[Lou]

This could be falling back on semantics But I'm not happy with the Least Harm thing.
No Harm? Zero Harm. Well what ever we call it that's what I'm for.

I know, I know, you're going to say that is unrealistic and unachievable.

Not if you put in qualifiers. I'm going to use the Vegan's Society's definition as inspiration.
No intentional deaths and just what is practical and possible.

However, I have no intention to say this to a Carnist and get into an argument. So it doesn't really help @Graeme M with his problem.

 

[VeganRachel]

This could be falling back on semantics But I'm not happy with the Least Harm thing.
No Harm? Zero Harm. Well what ever we call it that's what I'm for.

I know, I know, you're going to say that is unrealistic and unachievable.

Not if you put in qualifiers. I'm going to use the Vegan's Society's definition as inspiration.
No intentional deaths and just what is practical and possible.

However, I have no intention to say this to a Carnist and get into an argument. So it doesn't really help @Graeme M with his problem.

You make some good points. Minimum harm?. I agree. NO intentional deaths is a good way to put it.
If said to a carnist there will be arguments and excuses stated. Its' just what is considered normal.
However, we have something in common with carnists. We both love animals. They however like them dead,
and we want them to live.
Its' an emotional issue for vegans to care about animal lives and suffering. Once you wake up its' hard to go back.