/r/DebateAVegan
A place for open discussion about veganism and vegan issues, focusing on intellectual debate about animal rights and welfare, health, the environment, nutrition, philosophy or any topic related to veganism.
Please be warned that while we forbid hate speech as well as rude and toxic behavior, DebateAVegan cannot be considered a safe space and regardless of perspective you may run into ideas that you find offensive or appalling. Please take care of your mental well being.
A place for open discussion about veganism and vegan issues, including genuine questions or arguments about animal rights and welfare, health, the environment, nutrition, philosophy, or any topic relating to veganism.
You are welcome to bring up questions and topics that have come up before, but please search older posts first to see if your question has already been sufficiently answered. You can also find some resources related to common topics on our wiki.
1) No hate speech. No attacks on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
2) Stay on topic. Arguments, questions, and beliefs about veganism are all welcome.
3) Don't be rude. Toxic communication is defined as that which harms the dignity of others. This rule applies regardless of intention or accuracy, and even if the target of the abuse is a third-party. A full description of this policy is available on our wiki
4) Argue in good faith. Users should act with the intention of having honest and meaningful discussion. The precise definition of 'good faith' that we moderate for is on the wiki. In summary:
Don't ask loaded questions.
Don't just post copied content.
All posts should support their position with an argument or explain the question they're asking.
Do not present an excessive number of arguments at once.
Do not frequently change the subject in a way that makes discussion difficult.
Do not ignore all replies to your post.
5) Don't abuse the block feature. This includes:
Blocking another user so that you can get the last word.
Blocking community members (who are otherwise in good standing) in order to preemptively remove them from discussion.
6) No low-quality content.
If you see someone breaking any of these rules, please report the content in question so it is brought to a moderator's attention, and consider sending a modmail. Expanded versions of our rules are available on on our wiki.
/r/DebateAVegan
When considering impact of going vegan with respect to animal suffering, the debate is rarely set out in terms that make sense to me.
People claim farmed animals experience severe suffering throughout their lives, so we should all stop eating meat, and call it a day. But this makes as much sense as saying needles hurt, therefore vaccinating children is wrong, or saving five people instead of one in a triage situation is wrong because one person dies. A thing can cause suffering or harm to someone without being an all-things-considered harm. And I think it’s the latter that morally matters in the vast majority of cases.
Animal farming affects not just farmed animals, but also wild animals and insects. Could it be the case that most wild animals, and especially insects, experience severe suffering throughout their lives as well (because, say, most of them are spawned, exist for a few seconds, and then die a painful death), and human appropriation of forests and grasslands for animal agriculture spares a large number of them from being born into lives of suffering?
If so, because wild animals and insects are so much more numerous compared to their farmed counterparts (10 quintillion vs. 90 billion), animal agriculture, despite harming farmed animals, would actually benefit a much greater number of wild animals and insects, and so it’d be an all-things-considered benefit to animals.
Taking the example of an egg farm, in order to find out whether going vegan is an all-things-considered benefit to animals, I think the comparative analysis has to therefore be:
• The reduction in net total suffering of the chickens not existing compared to them existing
vs:
• The change in net total suffering of the animals and wild bugs that would habitat the farmland freed up by the chicken farm if it were abandoned, minus whatever land is used to farm the protein I replace eggs with.
Has anyone considered doing this before making bald assertions regarding veganism’s ability to reduce animal suffering? There’s a very real possibility, perhaps even a high probability, that—from the perspective of someone looking to reduce animal suffering—going vegan is an irrationality akin to choosing the wrong option in the classic trolley problem: letting a trolley run over ten people instead of only one person.
I understand that purist vegans are against any practice that restricts an animal's freedom and automony, and commercializes an animal.
That will include pets like dogs and cats, even if they were got from a shelter {although they is considerably better than a breeder). Is that correct? Are purist vegans against pets?
I have been a responsible aquarist for 20 years. I have kept fish as pets, and kept them well. I have never bred them on purpose. Also, unlike some other aquarists, I've never crammed them into a small space, giving them much more room than required. For example, having 6 to 7 discus fish in a 6 foot long, 160 gallon tank. I believe my fish have a better and longer life than they will in the wild. Of course, there is an aspect of commercialization as I buy these fish from local breeders.
Is this a gray area? Will love to hear the community's thoughts. I currently have a large 6 foot tank sitting in my living room and I'm trying to decide which way to go with it.
I'll preface that I am vegan and don't necessarily hold this view, but was just curious as to why we don't see this?
I recognize I am assuming that sacrificing your life for others in general is a moral imperative, and also that if this is a moral failing of vegans then it is one I am guilty of myself.
I am more so wondering why we have such a lapse here? Are vegans to some extent also guilty of speciesism?
I have heard a lot about traditional zoos and how they’re terribly exploitative of animals, but what about places that seem like more of a grey area?
Around where I live theres a place called Northwest Trek that has a a variety of local animals. There’s a large open area with tram tours, but also smaller exhibits with animals to walk around to as well, like a zoo.
The general idea as far as I can see is that it provides a large area for animals to be kept safe, and restore harmed animals, but they’re of course also used for entertainment, and I’m sure they feed many animals other animals too.
Is a place like this acceptable to financially support?
We give dead humans a certain level of respect solely because they are human. I can't think of a logical reason that includes all the people we bury but does not require us to bury animals that die in towns and cities.
I don't see many people who are motivated to bury dead animals the same way people would be motivated to bury dead people if there was a society that put dead people in dumpsters or let them decompose on the side of the road.
This is NOT a question to somehow grasp at straws or make fun of vegans. I am genuinely interested on answers.
Even today there are several places where large scale agriculture is not viable and its peoples remain mainly pastoralists with all it's implied animal product consumption.
What do you think about these people becoming vegan and losing it's subsistence base?
Thank you for your time!
I am vegan and am a big supporter of animal liberation movements. However my main concern is the lack of intersectionality and solidarity against human suffering. Human and animal exploitation is intrinsicly linked. The way in which we depersonalise/deinvidualise animals to comodity status has informed our treatment and exploitation of humans. Our horrific treatment of opressed groups throughout history that has had a lasting impact has been justified through the same logic as animal exploitation, the group is dehumanised and seen as inferior, and compared to animals as a justification for slavery, colonialism the majority of genocides throughout history and the opression of women. In a similar sence when we see the reminents of the old opressive systems through neo colonialism, white supremacy, patriarchy, wage slavery, and the ongoing genocides throughout the world, not only do we need to fight these systems for humanitarian reasons, We should fight as vegans and anti speciesists to end all forms of exploitation, if we fight the cognative dissonence against human exploitation we can then more easily convince people against animal exploitation, by showing them how similar all animals are to humans.
Secondly, our image as vegans is bad, i do not think this in any way is justified and it is based on the fact that vegans make people reflect on uncomfortable thoughts of their complicity in the murder, rape and torture of animals. However, this image is not necesseraly inevitable and solidarity with other movements against exploitation does not help our image. If we didnt just support movements against opression and exploitation but did so as vegans, we could gain sympathy from other movements. And at the very least, these movements are open minded and have overcome much of the social conditioning and cognative disonance to justify forms of exploitation, meaning theyre more likely to go vegan and support animal liberation movements.
Finaly, oftern times we have a shared enemy. The murderous companies who lobby the government to support the torture murder and comodification of animals are interlinked with human exploiters. By supporting many of these movements we can indirectly support animal liberation.
How would you as a vegan respond to someone claiming that they would never eat pigs or support the killing of pigs since they seem genuinely like very intelligent animals. But they would eat frogs since they see them as basically zombies, no conscious experience?
Do most vegans disagree that this is true? Or rather chose to be on the safe side and assume that frogs have a conscious experience.
Let's say hypothetically that we could determine which animals have consciousness and which don't. Would it be okay then to torture and kill those animals that we've determined don't experience consciousness?
I'm asking since I'm not experienced enough to refute this argument
I know for humans, because we are towards the top of the food chain (or at least we think we are) and had to depend on hunting/farming for survival, that both plant and animal exploitation allowed us to construct the world we live in. I think some people are dependent on animal products and are unwilling to suffer unnecessarily if meat is available. So...1) Is there any moral difference between killing and eating something that was bread and naturally selected over longer periods of time to provide for omnivores/herbivores/whatever thrives on it? 2) Does it make it any different from something that actually shows pain? 3) Do humans suffer from a vegan diet? (and is human or animal suffering more important) 4) You can take B12 supplements, but it doesn't replace essential protein (especially when it comes to neurodivergence, ADHD, low IQ, labor intensive occupations, and a lot of other physical ailments) 5) Is veganism just based on extreme religious beliefs with sexism tied into it and a way for families to save money? 6) If you agree, human exploitation is unethical and breeding is necessary. Basically get killed like an animal (war, genocide, exile/abandonment) or bred like a plant to provide.
Hi vegs,
I've recently learnt from a colleague at work about bloodhound rental for farmlands here in this side of the country. Her husband owns multiple bloodhounds that are specifically trained to hunt any pests such as rats that destroy and eat the farm crops. His business is apparently in very high demand, is booked out weeks in advance and he is busy all the time going out to calls across different farms (mostly potato crops around my area as that's the most abundant) where his dogs swiftly kill any kind of animal ruining the crops.
My question is would you still buy produce from these farms if you were aware of how they eliminate any sort of animal that threatens the crops, does it still make it vegan?
I work at a pet store, so I know a fair amount about animal nutrition. I had a lady try to tell me that it was more humane to feed a cat a vegetarian diet. Your cat will DIE if it does not get animal protein. Dogs can live on a vegetarian diet, but only if they cannot tolerate anything else. But if that is the case, they are not healthy anyway. Cats lack the enzyme to process vegetables. Please do not try to make your cat conform to your diet. Cats have evolved to be carnivores. Please, for the sake of your cat, do not try to change that.
Let me preface this post by saying that nothing about this is meant to be an ethical justification of the meat industry or consuming meat broadly. The meat industry, especially in the United States has a lot of ethical and environmental issues that I’m not trying to dismiss or ignore. Also, I don’t care what anybody eats as long as it isn’t one of their neighbors or something like that. I’m not trying to evangelize or indoctrinate anyone into some kind of diet cult. I just have some observations and questions about the unintended consequences of a completely vegan world, that I’ve never really gotten a good answer for.
The major issue I see starts with what happens to all of these massive populations of livestock and other animals that are currently being farmed as a food source? Let’s look at cows specifically to keep things simple starting out(we can talk about other types of animals in the comments, but for the purpose of framing the discussion I’m going to stick to cattle).
In my admittedly brief research I found that currently there are estimated to be a little less than 30 million beef cows living on farms across the US. There are also around 10 million dairy cows. I’m not sure if those numbers represent separate or overlapping populations, but at any rate that means there are 30 million-40 million cows currently being raised as a food source across the US. If people stopped consuming animal products entirely, how should the massive herds of livestock be handled going forward?
The farmers who tend to those flocks no longer have an economic incentive, nor do they have the economic means necessary to continue tending to those massive herds. For the sake of making this post easier to read and respond to I will break down my questions into a few separate topics that you all can choose how much of and what specifically you’d like to respond to from here.
Like I said in my preface, I’m not looking to convert anyone to any weird diet cult. I don’t care what you eat, and I respect your individual choices and hope they make you happy. I’m just curious about how vegans as a community would address these issues. I think it’s really weird when people get evangelical about basically anything. People should be free to live however they choose. But I often hear vegans, especially in online communities, talk about how their dietary choices are more ethical or more kind or environmentally friendly for one reason or another. And I’m just curious how you guys would address some of these problems that seem to contradict that ethos and would ultimately lead to an entirely different set of problems and ultimately suffering for those animals that the philosophy is trying to protect.
I've followed Alex O'Connor for a while, and I'm sure a lot of you know that he ceased to be vegan some time ago (though ironically remaining pro-the-vegan-movement). One of the major reasons he left was because of "practicability" - he found, that while definitely not impossible, it was harder to stay healthy on a vegan diet and he felt unable to devote his energy to it.
Many vegan activists insist on the easy, cheap, and practicable nature of being vegan, and I agree to a large extent. You don't really have to worry that much about protein deficiency (given how much we already overconsume protein and the protein richness of most foods vegans eat), and amino acids will be sufficient in any reasonably varied, healthy diet. If you don't just consume vegan junk food, micronutrients (like iron) are easy to cover naturally, and taking a multivitamin is an easy way to make sure you're definitely not deficient. Besides this, unprocessed vegan foods (legumes, nuts, vegetables, tofu) are generally cheaper than meat, so if you don't buy the fancy fake meat stuff it's actually cheaper. Lastly, there seem to be far more health benefits than deficits in veganism.
When I see these kinds of defenses of veganism, though I agree with them, I always wonder if they matter to the philosophical discussion around veganism. It may be that these are additional benefits to becoming a vegan, but it doesn't seem to me that they are at all necessary to the basic philosophical case against eating meat.
Take the following hypothetical to illustrate my point: imagine if a vegan diet was actually unhealthy (it isn't, but this is a hypothetical). Imagine a world where being vegan actually caused you to, say, lose an average of 5 years of your lifespan. Even in this extreme situation, it still seems morally necessary to be vegan, given the magnitude of animal suffering. The decrease in practicability still doesn't overcome the moral weight of preventing animal suffering.
In this case, it seems like practicability is irrelevant to the philosophical case for veganism. This would remain true until some "threshold of practicability" - some point at which it was so impracticable to be vegan that eating meat would be morally justified. Imagine, for example, if meat was required to survive (if humans were like obligate carnivores) - in this case, the threshold of practicability would have been crossed.
My question then, is twofold:
How much does practicability matter in our current situation? Should we ignore it when participating in purely philosophical discussions?
Where do we place this "threshold of practicability"? In other words, how impracticable would it have to be for carnism to be morally permissible?
NOTE: I recognize the relevance of emphasizing practicability outside of pure philosophical discussion, since it helps break down barriers to becoming vegan for some people.
I'm currently in my freshman year of college, but am still living with my parents at home, and they don't eat vegan. I am trying to be vegan, and I'm wondering if anybody has broad practical suggestions for how to eat vegan in a carnist household.
It especially becomes philosophically tricky for me when there's a communal dish with some meat mixed into it, and it's difficult to figure out when it is actually better to compromise. I think that some situations, like preventing inevitable food waste, are justifiable, but it becomes more complicated and hard to discern in other situations. In the previous example, where there's a dish with meat mixed in, sometimes I know my abstinence of the meat parts of the dish will just cause others to eat more, so I don't have a net effect. I also, however, don't want to present as hypocritical in the eyes of those around me, since I want them to be won over to my side.
I know it's hard to give practical advice through a forum like this, but I'm wondering if there are any general guiding principles that people find helpful to apply to each situation and determine what the best option. Is a more utilitarian approach sufficient (i.e. just try to reduce the net consumption of meat, but eating meat in ways that don't cause more net consumption are permitted), or do you have a different way of judging these situations?
What are your general thoughts on Peter Singer and his views on veganism specifically? I was introduced to the philosophical case for veganism through Peter Singer, but I've also noticed a lot of people here disagree with him.
So, the vegan philosophy means to reduce harm as far as possible and practicable. We know that animals are harmed for farming plants (crop deaths", but eating plants is still considered fine because people have to eat something in the end.
But what about seasoning? It is both, practicable and possible, to not use seasoning for your dishes. Will your meal taste bland? Yeah, sure. Will that kill you? No.
Seasoning mostly serve for taste pleasure. Taste pleasure is no argument to bring harm to animals, according to veganism. Therefore, seasoning is not justified with this premise.
Vegans only use images of cute pigs, lambs. They never talk about the shrimps, lobsters or fish that get killed as they care less about them. Also the double standards are incredible, 0 sympathy for pests that are killed during crop production.
Ok also potassium ofc, at least. And water. Electrolytes which plants crave.
My recent comments and posts say a bunch more.
I am disenfranchised with just-follow-big-organisations. Anecdotally, I have had a very bad experience resolved by measured solutions of sodium/potassium/water (budget LMNT, but I just used saxa salt, and I guess I did buy magnesium bisglycinate). I'm still in an extremely precarious situation (well, I mean if I can drink low-salt water/soymilk and things go bad very quickly), I suspect because my bone sodium stores (at least) are low, but I still am able to feel very good (and do things, I theorise the psychological sort of stuff is about the sodium conserving system which Cochrane mentioned, but I'm a nub). I mean, very good like an energetic child (I probably shouldn't move so much though). If I am wrong let this be disproved. Yes I will see professionals but I have social issues, and also it takes so much goddamn time.
For some reason I expected this person to be one of the better sources https://youtu.be/zPLtJAiZKX8 (jerry I know this is 1 person however I feel like it brings up important points succinctly) however the explanation is such a bad case, especially if you read every word in the counter-position like https://www.cochrane.org/CD004022/HTN_effect-low-salt-diet-blood-pressure-and-some-hormones-and-lipids-people-normal-and-elevated-blood (please it's not a long read). Cochrane good or something. I don't know how the salt conserving system affects things but from what this explains and piecing together things anecdotally, it's not great. Oh for more pro-salt position, find LMNT articles like https://science.drinklmnt.com/electrolytes/the-whos-misguidance-on-sodium/ and if you can be annoyed to then also the actual studies they refer to like https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2663255
Well still, even if you are a big-org-shill (my language is not great ok, it's parodic) you might not be eating even the minimum set by the AHA 500mg daily. That's a 1/4 tsp sodium chloride, 1/2 tsp sodium potassium chloride mix (better tbh, but for the synergistic potassium, not the lower sodium). If you are like me, you will be surprised by how much that actually looks like. Much more than some sprinkles. Powder = scary. However it is quite funny that instant noodles and similar ramen have so much sodium but don't seem so (processed food disguise).
The other terrible thing is that they allow non vegans to serve on the board of directors, essentially its the same as BLM allowing racist cops who have killed people to serve on the board and vote on decisions
I have often said possible and practicable is not necessary to be in the definition, as a vegan i can judge when something is an emergency and that life saving medication with gelatin is an acceptable excuse, i dont need it to be actually specified that i can make exceptions under possible and practicable as people will abuse that to the fullest extent while at the same time feeling that they are still vegan and thus ethical, i am disabled and my disabilities make life difficult, other people with my same issues deem veganism as impossible and impracticable and they are a victim of their disability therefore they are not unethical, i chose to look for solutions rather than excuses and have been vegan for a while now, apparently im considered an ableist
The original definition of veganism did not have that sentence, the veg society decided to put it in later, IMO to be used as a loophole
Being perceived as ethical is an important thing to people on the left and thus alot identify as vegan or put Palestine flags on their profile pic, actually doing something and changing their lifestyle requires more effort and isnt important to them since people think they are ethical
A perfect example of why possible and practicable needs to be removed is the most voted comment on this post https://reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/1g52ewn/comment/ls805xg/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Apparently its impossible and impracticable to refuse animal cruelty gifts
Consider an individual who says that they don't care about the ethics of veganism, and therefore do not care about factory farming. The vegan then states that banning factory farming has many benefits for humans (when it comes to things like antibacterial resistance).
So, the guy responds with "Alright, in that case I am in support banning factory farming. However, I will not stop eating meat, because this is not my burden to bear. This is something that has to be done with legislation."
The vegan then usually says something like, "alright, but what if everyone thought that way"?
This response doesn't make any sense to me. If everyone thought that way, then legislation would be passed and factory farming would be coercively stopped, no?
How do y'all feel about vegan products that try to imitate meat/other animal products? Even though they don't cause animal suffering like meat, it seems to me under some consideration they're a little morally iffy. It's kind of like giving kids toy guns to play with - lots of people do it, and it doesn't necessarily obviously cause a ton of harm, but it's a little disturbing when you think about it: you're giving children mock versions of death machines. Or, perhaps a more accurate analogy would be baking bread in the shape of a swastika - i.e. food that recalls the existence of present or past suffering and evil.
I'm not sure how the best and most understandable way to phrase my thoughts here is, so if you want to see a previous but fairly convoluted discussion of a similar topic check out this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1fwmci5/comment/lqjw9li/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Otherwise, feel free to try and understand me as I try to write down my thoughts here:
One of the most well-known philosophical cases for veganism is made by Peter Singer in Animal Liberation. One of the main points that Singer makes here is that "speciesism" is irrational and immoral, and that there are no reasonable metrics by which we can differentiate the moral worth of human versus animal suffering.
While I know not all vegans here are utilitarians, I think most vegans here would agree that speciesism is unjustified. A deontologist phrasing of anti-speciesist thought might describe it in terms of "moral rights" or the "moral community": there is no reasonable way to absolutely differentiate the moral rights of humans and sentient animals/there is no reasonable way to exclude all animals from the moral community, etc. I'm not well acquainted with all of the technical philosophical language used, so perhaps I'm not describing this well, but hopefully you get the gist of what I mean here by "anti-speciesism".
My question in light of the acceptance of anti-speciesism would be something along these lines: how come anti-speciesism with regard to moral consideration of harms we inflict upon animals doesn't also apply to the moral duties of animals? How do we differentiate the fact that we find it immoral to inflict harm upon animals, but we don't consider them immoral when they inflict harm upon each other? If one tries to differentiate the two, doesn't that lead one to take a speciesist position on our moral duties towards animals as well, or is there a way to do so that avoids this implication?
To give a concrete example of what I mean, I'll give an analogy:
Imagine you see a pack of wolves attacking and killing a deer. You would not pass moral judgment on them; i.e. the wolves are doing nothing immoral, because their ability to perceive morality is not as great as that of humans.
Now, imagine a group of humans attacking and killing another human. You would pass moral judgment on the group of humans, since they can perceive the immorality of their actions to a far greater degree than the wolves.
It seems like the reason we differentiate between the wolves and the humans with regards to their moral responsibility relates to their moral perception.
This differentiation is problematic, however. For example, imagine a group of sociopaths attacking and killing somebody. The sociopaths have warped moral perception and are unable to perceive the "wrongness" of their actions; however, I think we would still pass moral judgment on them. If we do so, this means our differentiation of who is morally accountable for their actions is not based on moral perception, but on who is or is not human. It seems like we apply this moral duty to all humans, and do not apply it to any animals - it is a distinction which we draw upon the line of species between humans and all other animals. In other words, it is a different form of "speciesism" as it relates to moral duty.
Is this speciesism not arbitrary? Isn't it as arbitrary as the speciesism we reject, which allows humans to slaughter animals because they taste good? In that case, shouldn't we reject this form of speciesism?
If we do reject this form of speciesism, however, it seems we have a big problem on our hands, because now we hold the group of wolves accountable for killing the deer. We should protect the deer, and (if one believes in retributive justice) punish the wolves. This seems slightly absurd.
Any thoughts on this problem/dilemma? Where is my reasoning faulty? What are the implications of this line of thought?
(tagging u/Kris2476 who encouraged me to post this.)
I feel strongly that for veganism to be achieved on a large scale, vegans will need to become educated in plant based nutrition.
Most folks who go vegan do not stick with it. Most of those folks go back due to perceived poor health. Link below.
Many vegans will often say, "eating plant based is so easy", while also immediately concluding that anyone who reverted away from veganism because of health issues "wasn't doing it right" but then can offer no advice on what they were doing wrong Then on top of that, that is all too often followed by shaming and sometimes even threats. Not real help. Not even an interest in helping.
If vegans want to help folks stay vegan they will need to be able to help folks overcome the many health issues that folks experience on the plant based diet.
https://faunalytics.org/a-summary-of-faunalytics-study-of-current-and-former-vegetarians-and-vegans/
As far as i know, vegans make up like ONE percent of earth's population. And then there's people like me that will never even consider opening my mind to the possibility of being vegan. So I must ask, if their goal is to end the exploitation of animals, do they know that they're probably not going to succeed?
I typically agree with the mainstream philosophy of veganism on an intellectual level. I'm reading some of the comments in the conversations on this /r a few minutes nodding my head in agreement to a lot of opinions, then I look down at the piece of beef in the bowl of beef stew I'm eating and proceed to shovel it into my face. It's more complicated than the inner conflicts we create for ourselves with things like smoking and drinking because other living animals are involved, but in a lot of ways it's similar. Does everyone know smoking is bad for them? Yes, but do they continue to do it?
I would guess most people rarely ever stop to think about the piece of meat their eating as a part of a whole cow that used to feel feelings but was given life for the sole purpose of feeding humans, just like they don't stop and think about the potential for a doctor telling them 20 years in the future that the black spot on their lung is cancer. The thing that bothers me the most is knowing how some animals suffer from birth to death in their brief/brutish existence on earth, but man, asking people to forgo all meat products, yoghurt, cheese, milk, etc. is a tough sell.
The challenge is impassioning the middle class to a degree which rivals that of a typical vegan and compels them to want to make these radical changes in their life. In my experience a typical vegan is thoughtful, educated, and highly socialized people. In other words, they are not the average citizen. At present these are considerations the average person just doesn't care enough about and will probably never have the capacity to embrace it, at least voluntarily, even if the slaughterhouse was moved to their front yard.
I think the biggest challenge I see vegans facing is first creating that inner struggle in the general public (because I don't even think that has been accomplished) then not only reaching a point where people's conscience outweighs current attitudes of laziness and apathy, but also supplanting the millennia of all manner of animal production industries being integrated into society's infrastructure. The financial implications alone are overwhelming. Companies like Beyond Meat cannot compete with companies like Cargill. To put it into perspective Beyond Meat does about 350 million in revenue annually. Cargill? 165 billion.
I say philosophy, because perhaps there are certain circumstances where a child would require a plant based diet. However I am unsure.
To my knowledge, children benefit greatly from the nutrition that comes from, eggs, lean meats, and poultry.
I understand that there are supplements for the nutritional deficiencies that come with veganism, but I believe it is unnecessary to supplement a child when you could simply feed them a proper diet.
I'm no parent, I am a high school student, perhaps I am biased.
I am willing to change my perspective if given a reasonable response that addresses my concerns.
Edit: perspective changed
The science seems almost settled on this since the very large review of the literature published in 2021: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2021.1880364
Plant-based sources* of omega-3 fatty acids include a lot of ALA, but aren't significant sources of DHA or EPA. When I was a vegan, the argument was that ALA is converted into EPA and DHA as needed, but this is not the case according to present nutritional science. We are very poor at converting and the ratio between ALA, EPA, and DHA effect health and developmental outcomes for human patients.
Based on the studies identified in this review and in agreement with our previous work, consumption of high doses of ALA from flaxseed oil and echium oil does not increase the O3I and may lead to overall decreases despite significant increases in blood ALA levels, which confirms previous recommendations that a direct source of EPA and DHA is most beneficial.
I contend that vegans should take this as seriously as they now take B-12 supplementation.
Bonus debate: vegans should support seaweed-shellfish polyculture for its proven ability to restore coastal habitats with minimal inputs and waste. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/global-study-sheds-light-valuable-benefits-shellfish-and-seaweed-aquaculture
* Algae are not true plants. This distinction is important from a nutritional context, not a moral one.
Approximately 87-88% of global soybean production would be required to produce the 60 million metric tons of soybean oil annually. What will happen to all the byproduct, which is soybean meal, if there are no animals to eat it? I believe we will eventually have to reduce the production of soybean oil and increase the production of alternative oils as the demand rises.
Is there any good alternative oil to soybean oil that won't result in wasted byproducts and can produce enough oil for humans?
As many people asked the source of 87-88% calculation. I am adding two sources and the way I have calculated.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/620477/soybean-oil-production-volume-worldwide/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267271/worldwide-oilseed-production-since-2008/
Soy contains 18-20% oil. Check the yearly global requirement for vegetable oil from soy. Then calculate how much soy needs to be produced to meet that oil requirement. Finally, compare this against the total global soybean production
To begin with, I don’t think having pets (ie, keeping an animal for company, comfort or emotional reasons as another member of the family) is not vegan (what moral ground do you have to using said animal for you personal benefit and safety?). But that’s not the point I’ll argue, so thanks in advance for being logically and intellectually honest and not addressing this mere opinion in the comments.
Any non-herbivorous animal shouldn’t be fed a vegan diet, not because of their health (although it should largely be considered) but because they didn’t consent to being fed said diet. It is not admissible to impregnate a cow against her desires, it is not admissible to steal eggs from hens against their wishes, and, in general, it is not admissible to perform things to an animal that they did not consent into. It’s that axiomatic.
If it is indeed admissible to feed an animal a diet they didn’t consent to, tautologically, it is admissible and justified to do or use an animal for things they didn’t consent to, although not immediately desirable. It would mean that there are scenarios and situations were dismissing the animal’s wishes and agency is justified. It doesn’t matter that a vegan diet is safe for animals, they didn’t consent. If we can do nonconsensual things to animals under certain arbitrary circumstances, then there could be a potential scenario where taking eggs from a hen or eating the already dead corpse of a pig could be justified
Looking for some credible sources on republican/democrat politics relating to either supporting or opposing a vegan lifestyle.