everyone makes such distinctions. including vegans. they don’t care that animals are displaced by agriculture, killed in the protection of crops, or their harvesting.
It takes far more plant matter to feed a cow than to feed a human. As you go up the food chain you lose the majority of energy to heat (up to 90% IIRC) so it actually takes far less to plants to just est them directly rather than eat meat. For that reason alone there would be far more displacement with a carnivorous diet, but then there is also the added land displacement from the actual rearing of the animals themselves. So if you care about animals killed by the protection of crops, or displaced by agriculture, then a vegan diet makes the most sense.
people can’t eat grass or silage. but that’s entirely besides the point. vegans don’t avoid plants that were protected from pests and scavengers. they decide to treat some animals differently for just as arbitrary reasons.
I think you’re letting perfect be the enemy of good here. You’re acting like the options are (a) cause as much suffering as you like, or (b) literally not eat anything at all. But of course there is ample middle ground between these two poles.
Note that in my other messages I said the point of veganism is to not cause any unnecessary suffering. Eating a burger is unnecessary. Eating in general, however, is necessary. That said, there are ways of eating that which cause drastically less suffering (ie by being vegan). So if your goal is to minimize suffering, that’s the way to go.
You’re acting like the options are (a) cause as much suffering as you likeno.
Letting animals be tortured and slaughtered en masse just to satisfy your trivial gustatory preferences is acting as if you can just cause as much suffering as you like.
eating a burger doesn’t cause any harm, anyway.
Are you unfamiliar with the industry standards in factory farms and slaughterhouses? If you are then theres no way you can honestly believe that eating a burger does not cause harm. Does it not harm the cow to slit her throat and let her bleed out?
A) raise cattle which, as there are not enough grassy pastures, I will have to grow food to feed, causing harm to lots of smaller animals and insects
B) eat the food I was already growing, and I will have to cause about 1/4th the harm
C) grow my own food and use fencing and netting to prevent as much harm as I can
D) starve to death
If you can’t do C because you don’t have the space or time, then I wouldn’t blame someone for picking “reduce harm as much as I can without starving to death.” Paying money to people who are engaging in factory farming is not on that same level.
everyone makes such distinctions. including vegans. they don’t care that animals are displaced by agriculture, killed in the protection of crops, or their harvesting.
It takes far more plant matter to feed a cow than to feed a human. As you go up the food chain you lose the majority of energy to heat (up to 90% IIRC) so it actually takes far less to plants to just est them directly rather than eat meat. For that reason alone there would be far more displacement with a carnivorous diet, but then there is also the added land displacement from the actual rearing of the animals themselves. So if you care about animals killed by the protection of crops, or displaced by agriculture, then a vegan diet makes the most sense.
people can’t eat grass or silage. but that’s entirely besides the point. vegans don’t avoid plants that were protected from pests and scavengers. they decide to treat some animals differently for just as arbitrary reasons.
I think you’re letting perfect be the enemy of good here. You’re acting like the options are (a) cause as much suffering as you like, or (b) literally not eat anything at all. But of course there is ample middle ground between these two poles.
Note that in my other messages I said the point of veganism is to not cause any unnecessary suffering. Eating a burger is unnecessary. Eating in general, however, is necessary. That said, there are ways of eating that which cause drastically less suffering (ie by being vegan). So if your goal is to minimize suffering, that’s the way to go.
>You’re acting like the options are (a) cause as much suffering as you like
no. I’m saying that everyone makes decisions about which animals get treated which ways. eating a burger doesn’t cause any harm, anyway.
Letting animals be tortured and slaughtered en masse just to satisfy your trivial gustatory preferences is acting as if you can just cause as much suffering as you like.
Are you unfamiliar with the industry standards in factory farms and slaughterhouses? If you are then theres no way you can honestly believe that eating a burger does not cause harm. Does it not harm the cow to slit her throat and let her bleed out?
>Letting animals be tortured and slaughtered en masse
eating beans doesn’t stop this. vegans are letting them be slaughtered as well.
My options are
A) raise cattle which, as there are not enough grassy pastures, I will have to grow food to feed, causing harm to lots of smaller animals and insects
B) eat the food I was already growing, and I will have to cause about 1/4th the harm
C) grow my own food and use fencing and netting to prevent as much harm as I can
D) starve to death
If you can’t do C because you don’t have the space or time, then I wouldn’t blame someone for picking “reduce harm as much as I can without starving to death.” Paying money to people who are engaging in factory farming is not on that same level.
I get my food from a grocery store, and I bet you do too.
the animal is already dead. all the harm took place long before I decided what to eat.
You do realize that they only kill the animal because people like you pay to eat their flesh, right?
that’s not causal.
And there you go:
“Holier-than-thou vegans with pamphlet level arguments they force upon everybody are a problem.”
People don’t share your dietary choices. Deal with it.
Is what I said incorrect? Do you disagree that animals are being tortured en masse to satisfy our trivial gustatory preferences?
Now you got it, Sherlock.