As if anyone ever makes this argument from logic
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
It's all emotions and desperately attempting to hold onto the belief that they're a "good person"
They also feed ground animal remains to animals. They also feed animal waste to plants.
Those friggging animals are everywhere!!!
(Except my trusted neighbourhood farm, they even use vegan fertiliser)
Hmm, i know this is probably sarcasm.
Real question though, does animal based fertiliser have an actual impact on vegan choices ?
I hadn't even considered it until just now.
It’s only partly sarcasm. This farm uses only plant based fertilisers, but I guess it’s hard to find out if the food in the supermarket is completely animal free. Buuuut… I don’t know that much about vegan food sources.
ah, that's my bad for not properly phrasing my question.
Like how, "bacon = not vegan" and "cheese = not vegan" and "honey=controversy, for some reason".
Is there some sort of ruling passed down from the vegan starchamber that says "animal fertiliser grown plants = not vegan" or is it not a common enough consideration to have an agreed upon consensus?
I always thought: If X depends on taking advantage of animals, X is not Vegan. But I guess there are people out there who consider themselves vegan because they avoid X if X requires to actively harm animals.
And as I said, I‘m not Vegan so who am I to judge.
I always think of vegan as a spectrum, (many of the best things are a spectrum).
With sliding scales in there for stuff like morals, ethics, culture, circumstance etc.
Once you hit a threshold of vegan traits you're a real™ vegan.
My judgement on this is also suspect, so ymmv.
Yeah don't they have vegan leather? So I think as long as there is no suffering involved, vegans are cool with it.
And I'll keep responding that the Jain monks already took the morally correct side in that predicament - avoiding harming any life forms, no matter the personal cost
Okay I'll just stop eating then!
What about fungi, mold or algae can they feel pain?
Just starve! Don't eat anything, nothing's ethical to eat.
And they eat a lot of kilos of plants for a kilo of meat.
OK, I’ll bite, how is it an argument in favour of veganism, I’m genuinely not seeing it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed, it then becomes a decision about the cost/benefit ratio of how you spend your time/energy trying to reduce harm.
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.
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.