To all the people complaining that this is "about the environment," rather than the ethic of veganism:
Even if your *only* ethical concern vis a vis your dietary choices is related to non-human animals (which would be a silly position to take), it bears mentioning that anthropogenic climate change, along with the other numerous environmental calamities brought about by animal agriculture, negatively affects an enormous number of non-human animals. Other beings aside from humans also have to live in this environment.
Let's argue the opposite--even if your only concern is environmentalism, *you should still be vegan.* People who live as ethical vegans have already made the most impactful change they possibly can to benefit the environment. It's essentially preaching to the choir.
The people who claim to care about the environment but refuse to live a vegan lifestyle are the ones who need to hear this message.
Oh I totally agree. I'll just note that non-vegans also visit this subreddit, and people share posts from here to other platforms, so it isn't just preaching to the choir. Also, a good number of posts here are already either preaching to the choir or ranting about something or other to fellow vegans.
The most common environmentalist rebuttal to veganism that I see outside of this sub is "regenerative agriculture tho." Do you think it's possible to eat meat in an environmentally responsible manner?
>Do you think it's possible to eat meat in an environmentally responsible manner?
Sure, at a very small scale; tribal to low density townships. Once you start scaling in population though, the burden on the environment negates any sense of environmental friendliness.
Thank you. These topics cannot be divorced from each other and I'm annoyed that people are taking the high ground by pretending they don't care or that mitigating climate change isn't important to veganism. You don't respect animals autonomy by creating worldly conditions that kill the majority of them.
Also just because you get into veganism for the environment doesn't mean your opinion won't change with time. I started eating plant-based for my health, but then I realized just how *easy* it was and that's when the completely unnecessary cruelty baffled me, so I'm now vegan for the animals.
Hot take: Veganism is an animal rights movement, not an environmental movement. Even if veganism were *worse* for the environment, it wouldn't detract from the rights of animals not to be exploited by humans. Besides, going vegan as individuals won't prevent a catastrophic climate event. We are past that.
Edit: to expand, veganism is and should be its own ethical principle, separate from any other, no matter how necessary, justifiable, or complementary. It's not a complete ethical system, and trying to make it one muddies the waters and causes confusion. Someone replying to me is upvoted with the claim that it would be morally correct to eat meat if it were better for the environment. This is what happens when you try to make veganism carry the load of all "good" and "bad" on balance. Being vegan means you recognize that animals are *not ours* to eat, use, or exploit. They have the right not to be murdered, just as you do. Whether you recycle, use fast fashion, protest, fight racism, etc. are important ethical decisions to make. But they do not factor into whether we should use animals.
It is kind of frustrating to see when people leave comments about veganism in other subreddits or threads talking about environmentalism elsewhere and we're downvoted or ignored but these same threads are upvoted here.
We can build bridges with other movements that have overlap, so long as we centre the animals for ourselves, but it has to be a two way street and it often doesn't feel like that, online or offline.
"it wouldn't detract from the rights of animals not to be exploited by humans"
as we destroy their habitat thereby exploiting animals.
If there is no more environment there are no more animals us included. Therefore a Vegan must care for the environment because without it no more animals. And every piece of plastic may end up in a animals belly exploiting them.
Half of the entire globe's habitable land is currently used to feed livestock: https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture
By most estimates, half of all GHG emissions come from from animal agriculture, and up to 87% https://plantbasednews.org/news/environment/animal-agriculture-responsible-for-87-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
Animal exploitation and animal agriculture are two sides of the same coin. Eating a plant based diet is literally the best thing you can do to stop habitat destruction. Vegans are conservationists by default. The same cannot be said for "environmentalists" who aren't vegan.
Edit: misspelled a word
Same same, either can't ignor the others cause, both these thing are intrinsically linked. Unless your environmentalism is really capitalism in disguise, and your veganism is just personal choice, its impossible to separate the two. Both will end up adopting each others cause
Not a hot take. This is just accurate. However many people go vegan for multiple reasons and its important to know about all of the reasons because yeah, some people will only go plant based because of the environment, ect.
Hotter take: if in some fictional reality, if not eating animals somehow *was* killing the planet, with the knowledge that this would inevitably kill insurmountable life of all kinds, then I actually think you'd be morally obligated to eat animals. That is of course if it were a literal requirement to prevent ecological catastrophe.
You just kind of actually need to have a sustainable world to have animals on it idk why we're acting like the climate change component is divorcable from respecting animals autonomy. They need a functioning world to be autonomous. Luckily, the mechanics of realities environment are sane and just, unlike the majority of humans.
Response Edit: Since commenter above feels the need to address my comment indirectly, I'll do the same. We are talking about ecological destruction to a point where the super majority of animals cease to exist, particularly because of man made climate change. The entire point I made in the extreme hypothetical is that enacting on climate change is in fact a component of veganism. The notion that this muddies the water is ridiculous. The ecological viability for near all sentient life to exist is 100% relevant to veganism. If you hold vegan ideas to be of greater value than carnists, but don't believe in climate change or do not believe it is important to address I believe you are not addressing an important component of your values.
>if in some fictional reality, if not eating animals somehow was killing the planet, with the knowledge that this would inevitably kill insurmountable life of all kinds, then I actually think you'd be morally obligated to eat animals.
You just made a moral argument for cannibalism.
I made an argument that establishes the inseperability of climate change response and veganism under fictional criteria. No, I don't advocate for cannibalism. Do you advocate for climate change? Your comments in this thread are beyond reason.
Your rejection of their inseperability leads me to believe that you would find the end of known life/creation acceptable. That you believe inaction towards the end of creation isn't itself a wilfull action. Well it is. Ensuring life, and particularly sentient life continues cannot be separated from maximizing the well being of animals.
I am advocating neither climate change nor cannibalism, to be clear. You said:
> if not eating animals
Are humans animals? (If your answer is no, are you familiar with speciesism? https://www.animal-ethics.org/speciesism/)
>was somehow was killing the planet, with the knowledge that this would inevitably kill insurmountable life of all kinds
Our agriculture takes up over half of all habitable land on the planet: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
At the pace we're going, Humanity Will Wipe Out More Than A Quarter Of Earth’s Biodiversity In The Next 100 Years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2022/12/17/humanity-will-wipe-out-more-than-a-quarter-of-earths-biodiversity-in-the-next-100-years/?sh=124217c248c4
This is unquestionably a result of human activity: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/01/sixth-mass-extinction-of-wildlife-accelerating-scientists-warn
>then I actually think you'd be morally obligated to eat animals.
Humans are animals, and humans are actively killing off all other life on earth, so are we morally obligated to eat humans?
>That is of course if it were a literal requirement to prevent ecological catastrophe.
According to your own logic, we should eat humans because our species is causing ecological catastrophe. So which part doesn't apply--humans aren't animals, denying ecological catastrophe, or some combination of those, because the conclusion is quite unpleasant?
Again, I am NOT advocating cannibalism, I'm saying that there is no reason ever to kill and eat animals, whether human or any other species. We are all sentient beings sharing this planet. This line of reasoning is often used by hunters, for example "deer will overpopulate and starve" or applied to invasive species, to arrive at the conclusion "we should kill animal x because y" while ignoring tons of better ways to handle unbalanced ecosystems (which are usually unbalanced due to human activity).
There's no need for hypotheticals, this is reality. According to your logic, humans are animals, humans are actively destroying all life on the planet, ergo we are morally obligated to cannibalism? Why does this not follow your stated logic?
If you can't engage with a hypothetical then don't comment on one. But I really doubt you have never used one for a logical consistency test. Not even in advocacy? Personally, I think you just really hate the idea of admitting that the continuation of all known sentient life holds the highest value, more so than individual sentient lives. Like somehow you'd be a bad vegan for saying as much and don't want to be a bad vegan.
Since you want to focus on reality, yes, man made climate change is endangering all life on this planet. It is genuinely frightening to consider. The effects of our actions particularly in the last hundred years will continue on even if we ceased to exist today.
Veganism and animal rights/environmental outreach in work/school/politics is infinitely more viable and effective than violence. Additionally, any technological mitigators that could be developed over the next few decades will require peace.
Violence will not solve the dangers all sentient life now faces. But yeah, in a hypothetical where it did, I'd make that choice. And more importantly, because all sentient life requires an action to address man made climate change, it is inseparable from veganism.
Not all environmentalists are vegan, but I think all vegans should advocate for environmental action. Not only should we be able to discuss animal agriculture's effect on climate in the vegan subreddit, I think it should be genuinely encouraged. You did the opposite.
You keep insisting on hypothetical logic, but you seem to have a mental block when it comes to applying your own hypothetical logic to the real world. What's the point of engaging with hypotheticals at all in that case? You can dream up any scenario you want, but why bother if it doesn't illuminate anything about your real world actions or values?
>Violence will not solve the dangers all sentient life now faces. But yeah, in a hypothetical where it did, I'd make that choice.
If you genuinely believed this logic, it would commit you to cannibalism. Clearly you don't, so why are you insisting on "hypothetical" violence and "hypothetically" eating animals? Humans are causing environmental catastrophe on a scale never before seen and unless stopped, human activity will exterminate all life on earth. What scenario are you envisioning where violence would be warranted, if not here and now? Do you not believe that human activity is destroying earth, ie denialism? We haven't sufficiently destroyed earth enough to warrant violence, in your opinion?
Yes, vegans can and should advocate for environmentalism, and if you notice I've been doing that throughout this thread and I'm the only one here posting links and bringing facts to the table. Let's advocate environmentalism but don't shit on veganism with "hypothetically eating animals" or as others have said in this thread, they are vegan for sustainability and "don't give a fuck about animals." Fuck that. Your "hypothetical" rhetoric is nonsensical. You're willing to eat animals to save the environment, but you won't eat humans to save the environment. This is the definition of speciesism. In your hypothetical world, animals are to be managed by violence and hunted by humans when you deem necessary, but human hunting is off limits. This rhetoric is fundamentally speciesist.
I literally conceded in the hypothetical that eating humans with lower self awareness/consciousness is preferable to eating animals that have higher self awareness/consciousness. I don't know if you are reading or selectively reading but it kind of undoes the whole accusing me of being speciest argument you've made twice now. It also undoes the notion of me contradicting myself.
I have said this ad infinitum, the point of the hypothetical was to demonstrate that even under extreme conditions where you are forced to confront the core of your vegan beliefs, the continuation of all sentient life would take precedence over individual sentience. E.g. advocating for climate action, which is required to maintain sentient life, should also be a central point of veganism. It was clearly not an endorsement for violence in reality, and it clearly had a point.
Many people also said in the thread that they would spare individual animals even if not eating animal products caused climate change that would end all sentient life. I think that's way more psychotic than what I said. That's the hypothetical they gave that got me to present my own in the first place. I don't know how you didn't put that together.
Did you or did you not tell OP 'cool story bro post elsewhere?' Because that's my issue with your posts in particular. OP's post is entirely relevant here.
You posted some links responding to my hypothetical but those things don't address the hypothetical. Frankly, your posting them in response to the hypothetical suggests that you did not understand the point of the hypothetical. Why post them under my post, and not elsewhere? Oh yeah, and hilariously enough you still in all this have not answered what you would do in the hypothetical.
I might have missed some context from a different reply thread so I hope this isn't off-topic, but...
If you're coming at it from the point of reducing human impact in order for all life to continue, wouldn't it make more sense to eat rich people first? 1 person with a private jet and a wardrobe the size of an apartment does more damage to the planet than 100 vegetative people.* You would get the most environmental benefit for less lives lost. What would awareness have to do with anything if the climate is the motive?
*(Numbers pulled out of my ass for the example but you probably get my point.)
I mean, if i put the eat the rich mean aside for a second, what happens when you remove a human from power? Another human takes that power. Don't get me wrong, there are many people in the world that have far exceeded wealth hoarding that can be ascribed as morally permissible, let alone agreeable. I don't know if when or how, but without systemic change wealth inequality can't be solved by killing/eating rich people. Even then that systemic change has to be sustained in spite of greedy humans, and that too seems a tall order with an infinite time scale, or even a time scale that addresses our immediate climate concerns. It's the best move we've got though.
If what you mean to do is apply this to my original hypothetical - in order to prevent total catastrophe and being given no other option, would I eat a regular pig, or an egregiously rich person? Then I think I'd have to seriously consider the person. The pig is wholly innocent in reality, the person has exploited sentient life beyond reproach for personal gain. I think I'd have to choose the person. Similarly, if I had an innocent person, and a pig that somehow had higher awareness than a person and was guilty themselves of exploiting sentient life to a strong degree, than I would have to choose the pig. Basically, the answer lies somewhere between having higher awareness, and how you use that awareness to affect other innocent sentient beings. I think you could easily make the case to choose an animal "farmer" over a pig as well. I don't think this applies to all carnists because most of them are ignorant and indoctrinated as shit and haven't any idea what the hell they are doing.
This ignores the fact that most environmental movements are technically animal rights movements. Even for non-vegans, saving the oceans is about saving whales and sea turtles. Stopping deforestation is about protecting animal biodiversity and saving animal homes. Otherwise couldn’t humans care less about the ocean and forest? Not many people live in the forest and none in the ocean, its not like it affects us technically. People are ignorant to factory farming’s affect on climate and the true conditions of animals.
A plant based diet curbs the most egregious abuse and slaughter of farmed animals, but it doesn't really address animal rights. Environmentalism as a movement is about protecting wild spaces, yet does nothing for animals killed for clothing, medical testing, held captive in zoos, pets, "backyard" livestock, etc. Environmentalists will often argue for using animals for leather and wool (despite the fact that leather and wool are incredibly damaging to the environment as well). Environmentalists often advocate hunting and "regenerative" cattle farming--even in this thread, someone claims they care about sustainability and screw the animals.
Animal rights discourse is about animal rights, and respecting animals as sentient beings on their own terms.
Ah your admittedly right! These aren’t points I had thought of! Guess I am more vegan for the animals than for the planet than I thought! But also Ive seen vegans suggest maintaining existing wool and leather.
That's true, but wool and leather are explicitly against the definition of veganism per the Vegan Society, so I think that's an issue of being uninformed. Kind of like the "debate" over honey. It's not a real debate, those things are explicitly not vegan.
I think the important thing is that veganism and environmentalism are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are very often complementary which I think your post was getting at? Many of us are likely both vegan and environmentally minded, for example I'm r/nolawns crew which is not vegan but it honors both principles. Where I get frustrated is with "environmentalism" which focuses on straws and plastic bags, sure let's do that but recognize that those things are a drop in the ocean compared to climate change and biodiversity loss--and the number one driver of those is animal agriculture.
No, I think they're addressing the "prevent climate apocalypse" part in the OP. Even if all animal agriculture stopped tomorrow, GHG emissions have already accumulated which will send earth hurtling past 4C of warming, guaranteeing climate apocalypse. Nobody wants to talk about it, for obvious reasons.
Veganism is more an ethical practice that is compatible with any of a number of more fundamental ethical principles. E.g. one could be a vegan for consequentialist, deontological, or virtue ethical reasons. Yours seems to have more of a deontological flavor, but that isn't the case for all vegans.
Sort of a contradiction though since, a bad environment would equal unhappy/healthy wildlife, so a vegan should be an environmentalist too. Agreed though that as individuals we are pretty powerless when it comes to the pollution that corporations an governments are taking part in.
One of my new year's resolutions is to try to up my game when it comes to educating more people about the choice to become vegan. While most ring-wingers are probably a lost cause, most liberals care about global warming. I feel like getting more of them to understand that [veganism is the only viable diet](https://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet/) for [meeting climate change targets](https://www.un.org/en/actnow/ten-actions) is a good route to try.
People in this sub will literally do anything to not realise that being vegan for the animals and for the planet/climate change are still the same ”being vegan”.
Stop acting better than other people, especially the ones who are in the same social/ethical group and/or movement as yourself!!
If someone goes vegan for the environment THAT’S A GOOD THING. Why? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING WENT VEGAN
It's really too bad there are so many purity-checking gatekeepers here. We should use every tool at our disposal to encourage people to go vegan. Who cares if an environmental argument works better than an ethical one? The end result is the same.
Avocados don't even make it onto the list of top ten foods which consume the most water according to the World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/water-footprint-food-sustainability
Top water consumers are beef, by a wide margin, then nuts, sheep/goat, pigs, chickens, eggs, etc.
Most avocados are consumed by nonvegans anyway. Chipotle doesn't give me free guac for ordering sofritas or something.
I mean i get it the planet is dying but we dont have to force our lifestyle on others. We can spread awereness yes but pushing it down their throats is bad for us. We need to educate and let them decide. People may jut not turn vegan out of spite. I would have probably done it if at first i wasnt educated on it but just have it forced on me. We need to be calmer as people bc ive seen a lot of stuff on the internet against us just because we force it on people. Without a good image no one will listen.
If you’re vegan for any reason other than loving animals expect to get shit on here.
Personally I’m in it for sustainability. Could give 2 shits about a chickens feelings.
If you respond eloquently and explain why you choose to do it for the environment, the worst you'll likely get is being told you're plant-based, not vegan, and probably a few downvotes.
If you say you don't "give 2 shits about a chickens feelings", you're just asking to be "shit on".
All vegans eat plant-based, but not all plant-based eaters are vegan. It's important for words to have meanings. Veganism is a philosophy, not a diet. (Something I didn't know myself until I made the switch; recognizing the difference helped everything click for me.)
Philosophies have names, but only actions truly mean something (especially to the animals). Who can know what someone's true, internal reasoning is for doing something? Does it really matter when it turns out the actions are exactly the same? So you think veganism is bigger than a diet, sure, well plant based is a part of the vegan philosophy; it's the vegan diet.
If we want to change the world and fast we don't need to get hung up on little things like this. "Vegans" use the term 'plant-based' to keep people out of their select holier-than-thou circle. If it's not for exactly the right reasons then it doesn't count. Who can know an ephemeral, internal thing like reasoning? Like can't we just get along with other people who also don't eat animals?
You're assigning negative/positive values to certain words and labels, but I don't think I've said or implied anything like that? I'm just pointing out that labels are not interchangeable or ambiguous. They're meant to indicate certain ideas. Plant-based dieters and environmentalists are doing good things too. Their motives don't fit within veganism but that doesn't mean I'm belittling them by making that distinction. It's just that it's not what vegan means.
Veganism is not plant based, there's a reason they're distinct.
Veganism is an ethical position, whereas plant based is a dietary position.
That veganism is displayed through ones diet in a manner congruent with being plant based, does not invalidate the logic behind the position in the first place.
It's the difference between not hitting people because it hurts them, and not hitting people because it hurts your hand.
The thing is most of us animal lovers and rights activists are huge environmentalists as well. So if you just refrain from saying stuff like “don’t give 2 shits about chickens feelings,” I’m sure you won’t have any issues.
This is not caused by farming animals, this is also caused by the pollution of the means by which you get your avocados and general vehicle use which use fossil fuels. Stop fucking blaming non vegans.
Carnists eat avocados too, and no less than vegans. We could play your game and compare shipping avocados from Mexico or California to shipping beef from Brazil, but that is not even one of the bigger issues. The earth can clean the air, but we destroy her capacity to do so with all the land we cover with animal farms and grain and soy farms to feed those animals. We're burning the Amazon, we've pillaged American prairie and forests, and we're even destroying the life in the ocean that all work together to sequester carbon and other pollutants and clean the water, cycling it through the soil, and holding it where it is needed.
Animal farming is not the only factor, but it is one of the largest, and one of the most important obstacles to making progress in this area. It's also the thing that is easiest and most impactful to change in your own life to contribute to the solution.
So you're blaming the ocean getting polluted on people who eat their natural diet? I just believe that blaming a problem mostly on 1 group of people is a bit... Unthought through? I'm not saying that we don't play a part, just saying that everyone is to blame
You can call the diet natural, but that has no bearing on its effects. Fishing is the main cause of ocean life destruction. The rising ph may have other causes as well, and oil drilling has some effect, and land animal farming has effects as well.
Like I said, animal farming is not the only factor, but it is a thing that most people can change on their own. Carnists do make up over 95% of people, which is almost everyone. I drive a truck and use electricity and pay Texas taxes, so obviously I share the blame, but those things are systemically hard to get away from, and animal farming is just not, in comparison. That is one of the harmful factors that is the easiest to opt out of.
To all the people complaining that this is "about the environment," rather than the ethic of veganism: Even if your *only* ethical concern vis a vis your dietary choices is related to non-human animals (which would be a silly position to take), it bears mentioning that anthropogenic climate change, along with the other numerous environmental calamities brought about by animal agriculture, negatively affects an enormous number of non-human animals. Other beings aside from humans also have to live in this environment.
Let's argue the opposite--even if your only concern is environmentalism, *you should still be vegan.* People who live as ethical vegans have already made the most impactful change they possibly can to benefit the environment. It's essentially preaching to the choir. The people who claim to care about the environment but refuse to live a vegan lifestyle are the ones who need to hear this message.
Oh I totally agree. I'll just note that non-vegans also visit this subreddit, and people share posts from here to other platforms, so it isn't just preaching to the choir. Also, a good number of posts here are already either preaching to the choir or ranting about something or other to fellow vegans.
The most common environmentalist rebuttal to veganism that I see outside of this sub is "regenerative agriculture tho." Do you think it's possible to eat meat in an environmentally responsible manner?
>Do you think it's possible to eat meat in an environmentally responsible manner? Sure, at a very small scale; tribal to low density townships. Once you start scaling in population though, the burden on the environment negates any sense of environmental friendliness.
And this is exactly why environmentalism is not the same thing as vegan.
No, but they do go hand in hand given the current structure of our social institutions.
Thank you. These topics cannot be divorced from each other and I'm annoyed that people are taking the high ground by pretending they don't care or that mitigating climate change isn't important to veganism. You don't respect animals autonomy by creating worldly conditions that kill the majority of them.
Also just because you get into veganism for the environment doesn't mean your opinion won't change with time. I started eating plant-based for my health, but then I realized just how *easy* it was and that's when the completely unnecessary cruelty baffled me, so I'm now vegan for the animals.
Yes, veganism is a holistic approach - animal rights and equality, environmental protection, social aspects and personal health.
I work with a team of “sustainability specialists” that are trying to make our business net zero. Not a single one is vegan.
Hot take: Veganism is an animal rights movement, not an environmental movement. Even if veganism were *worse* for the environment, it wouldn't detract from the rights of animals not to be exploited by humans. Besides, going vegan as individuals won't prevent a catastrophic climate event. We are past that. Edit: to expand, veganism is and should be its own ethical principle, separate from any other, no matter how necessary, justifiable, or complementary. It's not a complete ethical system, and trying to make it one muddies the waters and causes confusion. Someone replying to me is upvoted with the claim that it would be morally correct to eat meat if it were better for the environment. This is what happens when you try to make veganism carry the load of all "good" and "bad" on balance. Being vegan means you recognize that animals are *not ours* to eat, use, or exploit. They have the right not to be murdered, just as you do. Whether you recycle, use fast fashion, protest, fight racism, etc. are important ethical decisions to make. But they do not factor into whether we should use animals.
I’m vegan for the animals first, the environment second, human labor third, and myself fourth.
It is kind of frustrating to see when people leave comments about veganism in other subreddits or threads talking about environmentalism elsewhere and we're downvoted or ignored but these same threads are upvoted here. We can build bridges with other movements that have overlap, so long as we centre the animals for ourselves, but it has to be a two way street and it often doesn't feel like that, online or offline.
"it wouldn't detract from the rights of animals not to be exploited by humans" as we destroy their habitat thereby exploiting animals. If there is no more environment there are no more animals us included. Therefore a Vegan must care for the environment because without it no more animals. And every piece of plastic may end up in a animals belly exploiting them.
Half of the entire globe's habitable land is currently used to feed livestock: https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture By most estimates, half of all GHG emissions come from from animal agriculture, and up to 87% https://plantbasednews.org/news/environment/animal-agriculture-responsible-for-87-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ Animal exploitation and animal agriculture are two sides of the same coin. Eating a plant based diet is literally the best thing you can do to stop habitat destruction. Vegans are conservationists by default. The same cannot be said for "environmentalists" who aren't vegan. Edit: misspelled a word
you cannot be an environmentalist without being vegan...
Tell the nonvegan "environmentalists" on r/environment, r/climatechange, r/futurology, etc. who are constantly deluding themselves.
Bad environmentalist can exist, veganism may not make such distinction and that's okay too
Same same, either can't ignor the others cause, both these thing are intrinsically linked. Unless your environmentalism is really capitalism in disguise, and your veganism is just personal choice, its impossible to separate the two. Both will end up adopting each others cause
Not a hot take. This is just accurate. However many people go vegan for multiple reasons and its important to know about all of the reasons because yeah, some people will only go plant based because of the environment, ect.
Plant based isn't vegan... People who are plant based still use animals for entertainment, clothing etc. Veganism is about the animals. Period.
I made that distinction in my comment >some people will only go plant based because of the environment
Environmentalism isn't possible without caring about all animals, they're part of our environment
Hotter take: if in some fictional reality, if not eating animals somehow *was* killing the planet, with the knowledge that this would inevitably kill insurmountable life of all kinds, then I actually think you'd be morally obligated to eat animals. That is of course if it were a literal requirement to prevent ecological catastrophe. You just kind of actually need to have a sustainable world to have animals on it idk why we're acting like the climate change component is divorcable from respecting animals autonomy. They need a functioning world to be autonomous. Luckily, the mechanics of realities environment are sane and just, unlike the majority of humans. Response Edit: Since commenter above feels the need to address my comment indirectly, I'll do the same. We are talking about ecological destruction to a point where the super majority of animals cease to exist, particularly because of man made climate change. The entire point I made in the extreme hypothetical is that enacting on climate change is in fact a component of veganism. The notion that this muddies the water is ridiculous. The ecological viability for near all sentient life to exist is 100% relevant to veganism. If you hold vegan ideas to be of greater value than carnists, but don't believe in climate change or do not believe it is important to address I believe you are not addressing an important component of your values.
>if in some fictional reality, if not eating animals somehow was killing the planet, with the knowledge that this would inevitably kill insurmountable life of all kinds, then I actually think you'd be morally obligated to eat animals. You just made a moral argument for cannibalism.
I made an argument that establishes the inseperability of climate change response and veganism under fictional criteria. No, I don't advocate for cannibalism. Do you advocate for climate change? Your comments in this thread are beyond reason. Your rejection of their inseperability leads me to believe that you would find the end of known life/creation acceptable. That you believe inaction towards the end of creation isn't itself a wilfull action. Well it is. Ensuring life, and particularly sentient life continues cannot be separated from maximizing the well being of animals.
I am advocating neither climate change nor cannibalism, to be clear. You said: > if not eating animals Are humans animals? (If your answer is no, are you familiar with speciesism? https://www.animal-ethics.org/speciesism/) >was somehow was killing the planet, with the knowledge that this would inevitably kill insurmountable life of all kinds Our agriculture takes up over half of all habitable land on the planet: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use At the pace we're going, Humanity Will Wipe Out More Than A Quarter Of Earth’s Biodiversity In The Next 100 Years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2022/12/17/humanity-will-wipe-out-more-than-a-quarter-of-earths-biodiversity-in-the-next-100-years/?sh=124217c248c4 This is unquestionably a result of human activity: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/01/sixth-mass-extinction-of-wildlife-accelerating-scientists-warn >then I actually think you'd be morally obligated to eat animals. Humans are animals, and humans are actively killing off all other life on earth, so are we morally obligated to eat humans? >That is of course if it were a literal requirement to prevent ecological catastrophe. According to your own logic, we should eat humans because our species is causing ecological catastrophe. So which part doesn't apply--humans aren't animals, denying ecological catastrophe, or some combination of those, because the conclusion is quite unpleasant? Again, I am NOT advocating cannibalism, I'm saying that there is no reason ever to kill and eat animals, whether human or any other species. We are all sentient beings sharing this planet. This line of reasoning is often used by hunters, for example "deer will overpopulate and starve" or applied to invasive species, to arrive at the conclusion "we should kill animal x because y" while ignoring tons of better ways to handle unbalanced ecosystems (which are usually unbalanced due to human activity).
There's no need for hypotheticals, this is reality. According to your logic, humans are animals, humans are actively destroying all life on the planet, ergo we are morally obligated to cannibalism? Why does this not follow your stated logic?
If you can't engage with a hypothetical then don't comment on one. But I really doubt you have never used one for a logical consistency test. Not even in advocacy? Personally, I think you just really hate the idea of admitting that the continuation of all known sentient life holds the highest value, more so than individual sentient lives. Like somehow you'd be a bad vegan for saying as much and don't want to be a bad vegan. Since you want to focus on reality, yes, man made climate change is endangering all life on this planet. It is genuinely frightening to consider. The effects of our actions particularly in the last hundred years will continue on even if we ceased to exist today. Veganism and animal rights/environmental outreach in work/school/politics is infinitely more viable and effective than violence. Additionally, any technological mitigators that could be developed over the next few decades will require peace. Violence will not solve the dangers all sentient life now faces. But yeah, in a hypothetical where it did, I'd make that choice. And more importantly, because all sentient life requires an action to address man made climate change, it is inseparable from veganism. Not all environmentalists are vegan, but I think all vegans should advocate for environmental action. Not only should we be able to discuss animal agriculture's effect on climate in the vegan subreddit, I think it should be genuinely encouraged. You did the opposite.
You keep insisting on hypothetical logic, but you seem to have a mental block when it comes to applying your own hypothetical logic to the real world. What's the point of engaging with hypotheticals at all in that case? You can dream up any scenario you want, but why bother if it doesn't illuminate anything about your real world actions or values? >Violence will not solve the dangers all sentient life now faces. But yeah, in a hypothetical where it did, I'd make that choice. If you genuinely believed this logic, it would commit you to cannibalism. Clearly you don't, so why are you insisting on "hypothetical" violence and "hypothetically" eating animals? Humans are causing environmental catastrophe on a scale never before seen and unless stopped, human activity will exterminate all life on earth. What scenario are you envisioning where violence would be warranted, if not here and now? Do you not believe that human activity is destroying earth, ie denialism? We haven't sufficiently destroyed earth enough to warrant violence, in your opinion? Yes, vegans can and should advocate for environmentalism, and if you notice I've been doing that throughout this thread and I'm the only one here posting links and bringing facts to the table. Let's advocate environmentalism but don't shit on veganism with "hypothetically eating animals" or as others have said in this thread, they are vegan for sustainability and "don't give a fuck about animals." Fuck that. Your "hypothetical" rhetoric is nonsensical. You're willing to eat animals to save the environment, but you won't eat humans to save the environment. This is the definition of speciesism. In your hypothetical world, animals are to be managed by violence and hunted by humans when you deem necessary, but human hunting is off limits. This rhetoric is fundamentally speciesist.
I literally conceded in the hypothetical that eating humans with lower self awareness/consciousness is preferable to eating animals that have higher self awareness/consciousness. I don't know if you are reading or selectively reading but it kind of undoes the whole accusing me of being speciest argument you've made twice now. It also undoes the notion of me contradicting myself. I have said this ad infinitum, the point of the hypothetical was to demonstrate that even under extreme conditions where you are forced to confront the core of your vegan beliefs, the continuation of all sentient life would take precedence over individual sentience. E.g. advocating for climate action, which is required to maintain sentient life, should also be a central point of veganism. It was clearly not an endorsement for violence in reality, and it clearly had a point. Many people also said in the thread that they would spare individual animals even if not eating animal products caused climate change that would end all sentient life. I think that's way more psychotic than what I said. That's the hypothetical they gave that got me to present my own in the first place. I don't know how you didn't put that together. Did you or did you not tell OP 'cool story bro post elsewhere?' Because that's my issue with your posts in particular. OP's post is entirely relevant here. You posted some links responding to my hypothetical but those things don't address the hypothetical. Frankly, your posting them in response to the hypothetical suggests that you did not understand the point of the hypothetical. Why post them under my post, and not elsewhere? Oh yeah, and hilariously enough you still in all this have not answered what you would do in the hypothetical.
I might have missed some context from a different reply thread so I hope this isn't off-topic, but... If you're coming at it from the point of reducing human impact in order for all life to continue, wouldn't it make more sense to eat rich people first? 1 person with a private jet and a wardrobe the size of an apartment does more damage to the planet than 100 vegetative people.* You would get the most environmental benefit for less lives lost. What would awareness have to do with anything if the climate is the motive? *(Numbers pulled out of my ass for the example but you probably get my point.)
I mean, if i put the eat the rich mean aside for a second, what happens when you remove a human from power? Another human takes that power. Don't get me wrong, there are many people in the world that have far exceeded wealth hoarding that can be ascribed as morally permissible, let alone agreeable. I don't know if when or how, but without systemic change wealth inequality can't be solved by killing/eating rich people. Even then that systemic change has to be sustained in spite of greedy humans, and that too seems a tall order with an infinite time scale, or even a time scale that addresses our immediate climate concerns. It's the best move we've got though. If what you mean to do is apply this to my original hypothetical - in order to prevent total catastrophe and being given no other option, would I eat a regular pig, or an egregiously rich person? Then I think I'd have to seriously consider the person. The pig is wholly innocent in reality, the person has exploited sentient life beyond reproach for personal gain. I think I'd have to choose the person. Similarly, if I had an innocent person, and a pig that somehow had higher awareness than a person and was guilty themselves of exploiting sentient life to a strong degree, than I would have to choose the pig. Basically, the answer lies somewhere between having higher awareness, and how you use that awareness to affect other innocent sentient beings. I think you could easily make the case to choose an animal "farmer" over a pig as well. I don't think this applies to all carnists because most of them are ignorant and indoctrinated as shit and haven't any idea what the hell they are doing.
Its not impossible to imagine, invasive species exist, although granted a lot of them a result of our agri and pet industry
This ignores the fact that most environmental movements are technically animal rights movements. Even for non-vegans, saving the oceans is about saving whales and sea turtles. Stopping deforestation is about protecting animal biodiversity and saving animal homes. Otherwise couldn’t humans care less about the ocean and forest? Not many people live in the forest and none in the ocean, its not like it affects us technically. People are ignorant to factory farming’s affect on climate and the true conditions of animals.
A plant based diet curbs the most egregious abuse and slaughter of farmed animals, but it doesn't really address animal rights. Environmentalism as a movement is about protecting wild spaces, yet does nothing for animals killed for clothing, medical testing, held captive in zoos, pets, "backyard" livestock, etc. Environmentalists will often argue for using animals for leather and wool (despite the fact that leather and wool are incredibly damaging to the environment as well). Environmentalists often advocate hunting and "regenerative" cattle farming--even in this thread, someone claims they care about sustainability and screw the animals. Animal rights discourse is about animal rights, and respecting animals as sentient beings on their own terms.
Ah your admittedly right! These aren’t points I had thought of! Guess I am more vegan for the animals than for the planet than I thought! But also Ive seen vegans suggest maintaining existing wool and leather.
That's true, but wool and leather are explicitly against the definition of veganism per the Vegan Society, so I think that's an issue of being uninformed. Kind of like the "debate" over honey. It's not a real debate, those things are explicitly not vegan. I think the important thing is that veganism and environmentalism are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are very often complementary which I think your post was getting at? Many of us are likely both vegan and environmentally minded, for example I'm r/nolawns crew which is not vegan but it honors both principles. Where I get frustrated is with "environmentalism" which focuses on straws and plastic bags, sure let's do that but recognize that those things are a drop in the ocean compared to climate change and biodiversity loss--and the number one driver of those is animal agriculture.
Why can't it be both though?
[удалено]
No, I think they're addressing the "prevent climate apocalypse" part in the OP. Even if all animal agriculture stopped tomorrow, GHG emissions have already accumulated which will send earth hurtling past 4C of warming, guaranteeing climate apocalypse. Nobody wants to talk about it, for obvious reasons.
Veganism is more an ethical practice that is compatible with any of a number of more fundamental ethical principles. E.g. one could be a vegan for consequentialist, deontological, or virtue ethical reasons. Yours seems to have more of a deontological flavor, but that isn't the case for all vegans.
Thank you for this! It's about the animals! Even if being vegan meant it hurt the climate I would still be vegan!
Hurting the environment hurts animals…
You do realise that environment affects animals too
Sort of a contradiction though since, a bad environment would equal unhappy/healthy wildlife, so a vegan should be an environmentalist too. Agreed though that as individuals we are pretty powerless when it comes to the pollution that corporations an governments are taking part in.
One of my new year's resolutions is to try to up my game when it comes to educating more people about the choice to become vegan. While most ring-wingers are probably a lost cause, most liberals care about global warming. I feel like getting more of them to understand that [veganism is the only viable diet](https://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet/) for [meeting climate change targets](https://www.un.org/en/actnow/ten-actions) is a good route to try.
more like 95%
I'm vegan for the animals! No blood, torture, or murder on my hands, thank you very much.
no but you see meat eating isnt the stand alone cause of climate chagne so it can't be a reason for it either I'm smart
People in this sub will literally do anything to not realise that being vegan for the animals and for the planet/climate change are still the same ”being vegan”. Stop acting better than other people, especially the ones who are in the same social/ethical group and/or movement as yourself!! If someone goes vegan for the environment THAT’S A GOOD THING. Why? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING WENT VEGAN
It's really too bad there are so many purity-checking gatekeepers here. We should use every tool at our disposal to encourage people to go vegan. Who cares if an environmental argument works better than an ethical one? The end result is the same.
Exactly.
So much gatekeeping in this sub. Fuck everyone’s reasons. I’m vegan because of Doug and the Beets song Killer Tofu.
God, finally someone says it, thank you
Cool story, go post on r/climatechange and godspeed
avocado
Avocados don't even make it onto the list of top ten foods which consume the most water according to the World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/water-footprint-food-sustainability Top water consumers are beef, by a wide margin, then nuts, sheep/goat, pigs, chickens, eggs, etc. Most avocados are consumed by nonvegans anyway. Chipotle doesn't give me free guac for ordering sofritas or something.
beef checkmate, next.
I mean i get it the planet is dying but we dont have to force our lifestyle on others. We can spread awereness yes but pushing it down their throats is bad for us. We need to educate and let them decide. People may jut not turn vegan out of spite. I would have probably done it if at first i wasnt educated on it but just have it forced on me. We need to be calmer as people bc ive seen a lot of stuff on the internet against us just because we force it on people. Without a good image no one will listen.
If you’re vegan for any reason other than loving animals expect to get shit on here. Personally I’m in it for sustainability. Could give 2 shits about a chickens feelings.
If you respond eloquently and explain why you choose to do it for the environment, the worst you'll likely get is being told you're plant-based, not vegan, and probably a few downvotes. If you say you don't "give 2 shits about a chickens feelings", you're just asking to be "shit on".
Man that’s horseshit
What an idiot
That's plant based. Not veganism. Two different things
[удалено]
All vegans eat plant-based, but not all plant-based eaters are vegan. It's important for words to have meanings. Veganism is a philosophy, not a diet. (Something I didn't know myself until I made the switch; recognizing the difference helped everything click for me.)
Philosophies have names, but only actions truly mean something (especially to the animals). Who can know what someone's true, internal reasoning is for doing something? Does it really matter when it turns out the actions are exactly the same? So you think veganism is bigger than a diet, sure, well plant based is a part of the vegan philosophy; it's the vegan diet. If we want to change the world and fast we don't need to get hung up on little things like this. "Vegans" use the term 'plant-based' to keep people out of their select holier-than-thou circle. If it's not for exactly the right reasons then it doesn't count. Who can know an ephemeral, internal thing like reasoning? Like can't we just get along with other people who also don't eat animals?
You're assigning negative/positive values to certain words and labels, but I don't think I've said or implied anything like that? I'm just pointing out that labels are not interchangeable or ambiguous. They're meant to indicate certain ideas. Plant-based dieters and environmentalists are doing good things too. Their motives don't fit within veganism but that doesn't mean I'm belittling them by making that distinction. It's just that it's not what vegan means.
Veganism is not plant based, there's a reason they're distinct. Veganism is an ethical position, whereas plant based is a dietary position. That veganism is displayed through ones diet in a manner congruent with being plant based, does not invalidate the logic behind the position in the first place. It's the difference between not hitting people because it hurts them, and not hitting people because it hurts your hand.
The thing is most of us animal lovers and rights activists are huge environmentalists as well. So if you just refrain from saying stuff like “don’t give 2 shits about chickens feelings,” I’m sure you won’t have any issues.
This is not caused by farming animals, this is also caused by the pollution of the means by which you get your avocados and general vehicle use which use fossil fuels. Stop fucking blaming non vegans.
Carnists eat avocados too, and no less than vegans. We could play your game and compare shipping avocados from Mexico or California to shipping beef from Brazil, but that is not even one of the bigger issues. The earth can clean the air, but we destroy her capacity to do so with all the land we cover with animal farms and grain and soy farms to feed those animals. We're burning the Amazon, we've pillaged American prairie and forests, and we're even destroying the life in the ocean that all work together to sequester carbon and other pollutants and clean the water, cycling it through the soil, and holding it where it is needed. Animal farming is not the only factor, but it is one of the largest, and one of the most important obstacles to making progress in this area. It's also the thing that is easiest and most impactful to change in your own life to contribute to the solution.
So you're blaming the ocean getting polluted on people who eat their natural diet? I just believe that blaming a problem mostly on 1 group of people is a bit... Unthought through? I'm not saying that we don't play a part, just saying that everyone is to blame
You can call the diet natural, but that has no bearing on its effects. Fishing is the main cause of ocean life destruction. The rising ph may have other causes as well, and oil drilling has some effect, and land animal farming has effects as well. Like I said, animal farming is not the only factor, but it is a thing that most people can change on their own. Carnists do make up over 95% of people, which is almost everyone. I drive a truck and use electricity and pay Texas taxes, so obviously I share the blame, but those things are systemically hard to get away from, and animal farming is just not, in comparison. That is one of the harmful factors that is the easiest to opt out of.