this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Vegan
1843 readers
1 users here now
A place for solarpunks working toward a world without speciesism
Rules
- This is not a place to debate veganism
- There is no place for (carnist) trolls
- No unsolicited promotion of commercial products
- No speciesism
- No promotion of violence in any way
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OK, I’ll bite, how is it an argument in favour of veganism, I’m genuinely not seeing it?
Less harm is better than more harm. It's also impossible to walk around without ever stepping on insects, but just because some harm is inevitable that doesn't mean I should walk around and slaughter everything that I can find.
With a vegan diet (ideally also vegan clothes, cosmetics etc.) you achieve a significant reduction of harm to the planet, animals and also humanity itself (climate warming, pandemics, working conditions etc.).
That doesn't mean that veganism is 'perfect' in all aspects. Who knows - maybe in the future we'll find ways to produce healthy and delicious food straight out of air and electricity without any involvement of living organisms and thereby further reduce harm. But for the moment doing what we can would be a huge step forward.
Agreed, it then becomes a decision about the cost/benefit ratio of how you spend your time/energy trying to reduce harm.
Veganism might not be the maximally effective activity from an ROI point of view.
I personally see it as a "doing what we can live with" as opposed to "doing what we can", the difference being the impact personal decisions have on the choice of harm reduction activities.
It's borderline pedantry on the face of it, but the distinction is important for me.
IMHO the harm-ROI for veganism is pretty huge. It's neither super difficult nor costly to become vegan and all the knowledge about food and nutrients that you may learn is a helpful skill in general.
You need to kill more plants to feed the cattle you eat, than if you just ate the plants.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. But it's never transferred with 100% efficiency, far from it in fact.
So if feel bad about plants dying, stop eating animals and go straight for the plant itself.
So like a harm reduction thing?
Yeah, pretty much
You kill 1000 plants, feed 50 animals. Then kill those 50 animals to feed about 10-15 people. If you remove the animals from this equation, you can feed 30-40 people using those 1000 plants. Basically, if people shift to plant based diet, not only you are reducing harm done to animals, but plants too.
Veganism means you are reduce harm and pain caused to every living being.
Ps - obviously those numbers and proportions aren't exact, but I am sure I gave you a better perspective.
How many insects and small rodents are killed? Also, what about the pesticides that seep into the soil?
Argument still in favour of veganism.
If we are putting animals as food in the equation, we need more plants, means more insects, rodents etc die too. If we don't rely on animals for food, we don't need as many plants, less rodents, insects die.
If accurate (the idea, not the numbers), that sounds reasonable.
I'd argue there's much more to it that just calories in/out though.
Harm reduction should ideally account for as much of the system as possible.