all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 54 points 1 year ago

That's a crude joke

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago*

    No processed foods, true vegans eat crude oil and raw uranium for their daily calorie intake

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    • Coal is made from plants.

    • Oil is made from plankton and algae.

    • Natural gas is made from microorganisms.

    I believe all three have a small chance of also being made from an animal. But I wasn't able to verify that part.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Yes. No animal was intentionally harmed or killed to be turned into oil. This puts it in the same category as foraged deer antlers or cicada wings, or I guess compost where you found a squirrel carcass and added it to the pile.

    You could argue that animals are harmed by the process of extracting and burning fossil fuels, and thus it's not vegan. But this isn't very convincing to me, since that's a secondary effect and not necessary to the process of consuming fossil fuels. (Or at least not necessary in the same way that killing chickens is necessary in order to make chicken sandwiches, for example.) And if you start worrying about a big web of consequences of your actions, then it seems like you're mostly just adding stress to your life without actually making the world a better place.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This isn't entirely true. Sometimes queen bees have their wings cur off to insure they stay in the beehive, and thus make the beehive produce honey. Also, the queens can then often be discarded/killed at the end of the season. So no harm being done in the production of honey is not always the case.

    I feel like there should be an option to certify honey as being vegan if no harm is done to the bees in the process though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    There's a fair bit of nuance around the topic of whether honey should be vegan or not, since honeybees also overproduce, and that is its own problem. Like with sheep's wool.

    Although crude oil has the additional complication where it's an incidental post-death product, like fertiliser, and from that viewpoint, it would be about as ethical.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I mean I think bees are harmed in the production of honey, it's just that most people don't care about bee welfare. Commercially they're bred by crushing the male to extract semen, and any operation above hobby scale will clip the wings of the queen so that the hive can't escape.

    Then you necessarily need to replace their ideal food source with something that is nutritionally much worse for them (basically sugar water), and then hope that they survive on that long enough to make more honey for us to take.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So if a vegan has a pet chicken and treats it well, can the vegan eat the eggs?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Imo "backyard eggs" are really small potatoes, especially when like 98% of eggs globally come from factory farms. But even in that case, egg-laying hens are basically bred to suffer. They lay an egg every 1-2 days, compared to like once a month in the wild, which takes a huge amount of energy and nutrients. And we've bred them to produce eggs too big for their bodies, so that even when they're treated really well, the vast majority of hens have bone fractures.

    That's why animal sanctuaries will usually either feed the eggs back to the hens, or give them medication to stop them from laying at all.

    Of course, this is on top of the fact that 100% of egg-laying hen breeders, everywhere, kill the males shortly after birth because they can't lay eggs. See this for more information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

    The definition from the vegan society is:

    Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

    Is climate change cruel to animals? It's not intentional harm, but it causes suffering. People will weigh that differently based on the ethical framework (deontology - utilitarianism spectrum).

    Going on vacation by plane arguably isn't vegan from a utilitarian perspective. Deontologists might still see it as vegan.

    If someone needs to drive a car and can't afford an EV, it's not practical to avoid fossil fuels in this case. So that would be vegan either way.

    I think the "avoiding as far as possible and practicable" principle also makes a lot of sense for the use of fossil fuels by environmentalists.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Wouldn't this mean that if someone derives a sufficient number of utils from eating meat (enough that not eating it would be "impractical"), then eating meat is vegan?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    If someone is literally starving and there's only meat available, it can be argued that it would be vegan to eat it in that situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    No, I mean like...

    Suppose where you live and where you work are fixed. You can drive and murder animals via climate change. Or you can ride your bike. But driving takes 30 min, and riding your bike takes 2 h. There is nothing dangerous or otherwise bad about riding your bike - it just takes an extra 3 h out of your day that you'd rather spend playing video games. As per the above definition, you can murder animals via climate change because it is "impractical" (ie, unpleasant because you are impatient) to ride your bike, and still call yourself a vegan.

    Now, a new scenario. Suppose you are avoiding driving and are riding your bike 2h each way to get to work. But on the way to and from work, you pass a McD's. Every time you pass it, your mouth waters. You are hungry. You really like the taste of their animal products. And the taste of a quarter pounder with cheese fills you with memories of a happy childhood. You want it so much, in fact, that not stopping there to buy a hamburger creates twice as much negative utility for you as biking instead of driving - ie, is twice as inconvenient to avoid eating a hamburger. Given this scenario and the above definition, eating hamburgers is vegan if you like them enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    it's utilitarian, but not vegan

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    and practicable

    Right. This is the part I'm curious about. If someone enjoys consuming animal products to such a degree that not consuming them is impractical, don't they then have a claim to being vegan?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    For the first situation, 3 h a day is a lot of time. I don't think we should expect people to make such big sacrifices every day, at least if they work full time. People need leisure to stay healthy too. If it was 1h or 1:30h it would be reasonable to take the bike imo, but at 3h I'd cut them some slack. There are simply much more effective climate measures that we as a society should implement. They shouldn't buy a new gas car if they can avoid it though.

    For the second situation:

    You want it so much, in fact, that not stopping there to buy a hamburger creates twice as much negative utility for you as biking instead of driving

    But it also causes a lot more animal cruelty than the minuscule climate impact of one person commuting. Over the years, it would mean that many animals would have to endure an extremely miserable and painful life on factory farms with constant abuse and neglect, just to satisfy taste buds.

    Compared to a warming of 0,00000000000000000001 °C or something like that, which has no measurable impact on any life on its own. Animal agriculture even has a larger climate impact than all cars on earth combined.

    A more general analogy: By driving a car, you'll do some miniscule harm to people and the environment. But if you'd knowingly chose to buy products that were produced in literal slavery conditions, and directly funded slavery that way, this would be a whole different ethical issue.

    In reality, even if a person is addicted to burgers like a drug addict, they could easily buy plant-based burger patties that taste really similar to regular ones and make their own burgers. Vegan cheese isnt quite the same yet, but a little difference in taste certainly doesn't justify torturing animals on factory farms. You still have essentially the same taste experience, especially after a small adjustment period.

    In most countries, McDonalds even has plant based burgers available afaik.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    In reality, even if a person is addicted to burgers like a drug addict, they could easily buy plant-based burger patties that taste really similar to regular ones and make their own burgers.

    Nobody is addicted to all beef patty. The addiction comes from the stuff around the hamburger patty, the sauces, the buns, the french fries. That drives carbohydrate spikes, driving insulin spikes, driving carbohydrate Lows, driving hunger. It is a pernicious addiction cycle, but the meat is not doing it it's everything else around it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    They're pretty much all made of plant matter, but that's irrelevant. What makes it vegan or not is whether you cause harm to the fauna by using it and creating demand for it.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    depends on the person, their motivation, environment, and lifestyle choices i guess. you could argue either way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    No it should be a binary thing either yes or no.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    why? its not like veganism is a mandated institution, it's merely a set of moral guidelines and perspectives.

    edit: what do you think, is it vegan?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Because saying "it depends on the individual" doesnt give us an interesting conversation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    if op cared about conversation there are many ways to go about that, asking what kind of perspective leads to an intertwining (or lack thereof) of veganism and a boycott of the fossil fuels industry, or op could have replied to my question in the edit explaining where the post idea came from and their own views on how the two things relate.

    unfortunately, i think the cum fart just wanted an excuse to 'call out' vegans in this post they made a hour or two after this one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    No, they release harmful gases into the air which harm animals.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    If you mean carbon dioxide, then I hate to tell you, but you make that as well. You existing isn't vegan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    For millions of years oxygen was a toxic and corrosive pollutant building up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments