Defending the crop deaths allegation

[LoreD]

Living necessitates killing. Being vegan necessitates killing a lot less. If anybody quibbles that that makes it useless being vegan, then they are willfully making excuses and have no intention of looking for truth. This "discussion" is going round and round in circles and is a complete waste of time!

Yep

 

[silva]

So much like the arguments about all other environmental issues. Yes, there is a LOT to overcome with the sourcing and recycling, as well as costs, but without advocating and funding all the new developments we will never realize the benefits, and reduce the costs
There are so many other ways of farming that are not given the chance to flourish. Vegans are primarily the ones who care enough to change

 

[Tom L.]

I think I explained this just above. However, this is not a question of vegans worrying about animals killed in the production of food that is necessary, but animals killed in the production of food that is unnecessary. Should vegans worry about that?

If a product we buy for pleasure, for the good feelings we get from its use, requires the deliberate harming of one or more other animals, are we right to buy that product? As a general vegan principle, what do you think?

Yes, vegans should be mindful of that and should avoid such products. I think they do already; many or most of them already concern themselves with issues such as fair trade or environmentally-friendly products. If they don't, then maybe a successor to Watson should step up to the plate and find out what the problems are- and more importantly, the solutions. Keep in mind that, for a long time, many vegetarians (myself included) were unaware of the death and suffering animals had to endure for unfertilized eggs and dairy products.

Another riff on this topic: How do you define "unnecessary"? We've mentioned coffee and cane sugar; I suppose there are others.

Also, most people consider vegetarianism a bit too hard- let alone veganism. Maybe a cohort of vegans will similarly balk at perfectanism. I give the issues we're considering here some thought, and will continue to do so.

 

[Graeme M]

Another riff on this topic: How do you define "unnecessary"? We've mentioned coffee and cane sugar; I suppose there are others.

Also, most people consider vegetarianism a bit too hard- let alone veganism. Maybe a cohort of vegans will similarly balk at perfectanism. I give the issues we're considering here some thought, and will continue to do so.

Well, that is an interesting question. When I raised this, it was more from the point of view of finding out how to respond to critics who use this tack (I was talking just recently with a few other people who have now run into this criticism and they also had no idea how to respond). I don't think I am much worried by this personally as I eat very few things purely for pleasure and also because my response seems reasonable - we just don't know enough to make a decision one way or another. In the end, it's the same problem as whether we should do anything for pleasure given the impacts on the natural environment.

But what is unnecessary? Of course, critics don't care and are just using this issue as a way to bring vegans into disrepute. I think it would be very hard to know, but perhaps what you say is the only serious thing any of us can do. Keep that concern in mind and make the best choices we can. I think that in addition to the response that I outlined earlier I'd add that education can help with everyone whether vegan or not in terms of what are the best choices to make, but the fact that people don't always know enough or make poor choices doesn't invalidate veganism as an idea about what's right to do.

 

[Sax]

As a matter of practicality we have to draw a line somewhere. Only consuming what I truly need sounds like a diet plan I would inevitably fail at, but let's say I could stick with it.

I love cycling. Sometimes I'll go ride 100mi because it feels good and makes me happy. But it definitely increases my caloric needs. Should I minimize my energy expenditure to reduce harm?

I love traveling to mountain bike in new places and driving there inevitably kills insects as my car impacts them. Should I minimize how far and fast I drive?

What about walking, knowing I'll eventually step on insects?

The logic has no end point. We have to draw a line somewhere. If we accept some predictable-but-unintended killing and not others then it sounds like a very arbitrary choice.

I think directly contributing to intentional exploitation or killing is the least arbitrary place to draw a line. Nothing about veganism says you can't go further. But inventing a standard of perfection for vegans then calling them hypocrites for not meeting it is the oldest trick in the book.

While I think insects have moral relevance there's a huge difference between intentional and unintentional killing. If someone pouring out a barrel of oil into a pond is criticizing me for accidentally using too much oil on my bike chain that's not someone who is seriously engaging with ideas, and no argument is going to checkmate them into agreeing with me.

 

[Graeme M]

I didn't go back to reread this thread, but I have formulated what I think will be my response should I run into this one again. And like I said, there's clearly no point in any kind of serious engagement with someone making that claim.

Our primary aim is to prevent the exploitation of other animals, so that's why we don't buy meat, dairy and wool, for example. Our secondary aim is to prevent cruelty to other animals whenever we can. Killing pests to grow crops is cruel, but it is necessary as we have a right to defend our food and the pests are free living animals. We can hope that farmers don't kill pests, but even if they do it's less of an ethical failure. In the case of the foods that we eat for pleasure, we really don't have enough information about whether we are causing more animals to be killed by buying a cake (discretionary) versus a kilogram of lentils (non-discretionary). If that's the case, there is no way to really say whether it is better or worse to eat one thing or the other as part of our diet. It seems wrong to buy an unnecessary food and cause animals to be killed, but in the end we can't be certain whether it makes any difference at all. For sure, we should all keep such concerns in mind and make the best choices we can. And we should be open to learning more whenever we can. But the fact that people don't always know enough or make poor choices doesn't invalidate veganism as an idea about what's right to do.

By the way, I also wrote to Fussy Vegan, a team here in Australia that produce a really good app that will tell you if a product is vegan or not, I think this is also great info:

"We stick to the vegan standards when listing something as vegan/not vegan. At the present time, and with the exception of Biodynamics (which required mandatory animal use), pre harvest processes are not considered when determining the vegan status of a product or ingredient. I think cosmetics that have been tested on animals is different to eating products made from wheat or soy. Firstly, because animal testing on cosmetics is neither necessary or required to prove the safety of the cosmetic. Whilst some animals may still be unintentionally killed in the process of harvesting grain or soy for example, that is not intentional. Some farms may use pesticides, etc that do intentionally kill pest animals, but it is not currently feasible to verify what farm the wheat in the loaf of bread came from. We have regular discussions with the major vegan organisations and maybe one day the vegan standards will get stricter around pre harvest processes, but that probably will not be until after animal agriculture has been stopped altogether. It is also worth noting that there is no point targeting wheat or soy in particular as you could say the same thing about any crop at all. Unless you grow your own food, there is no way to know whether any animals were killed via pesticides or harvesting processes."

Fussy Vegan

The Fussy Vegan website has vegan product reviews, vegan recipes and vegan travel tips.

fussyvegan.com.au

 

[Tom L.]

Ah- okay. The fact that animals don't choose to live on cropland, knowing that humans regularly come through that area with heavy equipment (or weapons), is a difference which hadn't occurred to me. But I still think that there is a difference between purchasing something which necessarily involves deliberately killing animals and purchasing a necessity (food) which also kills animals as an unintended result.

Well, to repeat myself, that is not what we have been discussing. The issue at hand is the exactly opposite thing.

Sorry. I should have read through this thread more carefully, instead of responding to posts/statements in other on-line discussions from who-knows-how-many years ago...

I think the issues we've been discussing in this thread matter, but we evidently don't have a solution at this point- at least I don't (other than to suggest avoiding the waste of food, and maybe experimenting with pest-friendly ways of growing food. I can tolerate that state of affairs for now.

I really don't mean to drag this thread out if everyone else is ready to give it a rest. I'll delete this post, if you wish.

 

[Lou]

Sorry. I should have read through this thread more carefully, instead of responding to posts/statements in other on-line discussions from who-knows-how-many years ago...

I think the issues we've been discussing in this thread matter, but we evidently don't have a solution at this point- at least I don't (other than to suggest avoiding the waste of food, and maybe experimenting with pest-friendly ways of growing food. I can tolerate that state of affairs for now.

I really don't mean to drag this thread out if everyone else is ready to give it a rest. I'll delete this post, if you wish.

I think it's fine. We are getting into the "feeding the fed horse" category. And there is probably no end/solution or conclusion to this issue. but I think we all need to think about these kind of things.

 

[Graeme M]

I'll delete this post, if you wish.

No need, but I feel the issue doesn't need more discussion. I think I have developed a reasonable response I can give to anyone about this and I am writing a blog post to talk about that.

 

[Tom L.]

I think it's fine. We are getting into the "feeding the fed horse" category. And there is probably no end/solution or conclusion to this issue. but I think we all need to think about these kind of things.

(bold/italic emphasis mine) I JUST GOT THAT- and I like it much better than the more customary "flogging a dead horse" saying.

 

[Lou]

(bold/italic emphasis mine) I JUST GOT THAT- and I like it much better than the more customary "flogging a dead horse" saying.

Both PETA and Goudreaux have articles on changing to Animal Friendly idioms. That one is pretty creative.
I also like Feeding Two Birds with One Scone.

Animal-Friendly Idioms That Your Students Will Love | PETA

Replace outdated phrases that are harmful to animals with these fun alternatives. Plus, get exclusive idiom posters for your lesson!

www.peta.org

 

[VeganRachel]

The omnivores' argument is based on the faulty (and never admitted) premise that no pests are killed for meat production. So they think that they are comparing the death of one cow against the death of thousands of insects and rodents. It is a faulty comparison, because it is just false.

If you drive the 20 km road between the town and where I live, you will see two fields of grazing cattle and about twenty fields of corn. So tourists driving that road think they see free-range cattle, for whom they think no pests are killed, and acres of crops, which are heavily sprayed with pesticides. What they are not told is that all of that corn is grown for animal feed, both for cattle and for poultry. Local residents can tell which corn is grown for feed because of the way it is harvested. It turns out that nearly 100% in this valley is for animal feed, but tourists never see that. Nor do they see the feedlots where the non-free-range cattle are warehoused and fed.

They never see the poultry farms. either. Huge sheds that house 30,000 birds each in conditions you do not want to think about. There are dozens of them in the area, but they just look like some kind of storage facility to the unthinking tourist. They don't register the existence of the big transport trucks that haul the chicken feed from the processing plants to the farms. Just another big truck. But all the tourist sees is acres of corn that they assume is intended for human consumption.

All those pests that the pesticides kill in the corn fields are killed for the production of meat. And given that it takes ten pounds of feed to produce one pound of meat, the impact of meat production is vastly greater than the impact of growing veggies for human consumption.

Yes, there are crops here that are grown for human consumption, and yes, many of them are sprayed with pesticides. And yes, it is regrettable that we vegans cannot be totally free from causing harm. My wife and I try to buy organic or un-sprayed local veggies when we can: there is a local market garden where we buy most of our veggies.

But the truth is that the majority of pests killed in agriculture are killed for meat production.

And...cattle trample on plants and even small animal homes...and cattle ranchers are allowed
to shoot predator animals (bears, wolves, coyotes, foxes) to protect their cattle...and
the USDA has slaughtered 30 MILLION wild animals in 30 years to protect Cattle ranching.
So many humans who romaticize about beef have no clue this is part of their steak.
Watch the documentary, "The USDA's war on wildlife" www.predatordefense.org/USDA.htm

 

[Lou]

And...cattle trample on plants and even small animal homes...and cattle ranchers are allowed
to shoot predator animals (bears, wolves, coyotes, foxes) to protect their cattle...and
the USDA has slaughtered 30 MILLION wild animals in 30 years to protect Cattle ranching.
So many humans who romaticize about beef have no clue this is part of their steak.
Watch the documentary, "The USDA's war on wildlife" www.predatordefense.org/USDA.htm

Actually, I bet that is not even the significant part of the problem.
its all the cropland and crops that are utilized to feed livestock.

I could take a minute to look up the numbers. but I think I have references earlier on in this thread.

 

[Graeme M]

And...cattle trample on plants and even small animal homes...and cattle ranchers are allowed
to shoot predator animals (bears, wolves, coyotes, foxes) to protect their cattle...and
the USDA has slaughtered 30 MILLION wild animals in 30 years to protect Cattle ranching.
So many humans who romaticize about beef have no clue this is part of their steak.
Watch the documentary, "The USDA's war on wildlife"

I may have already touched on this earlier but I didn't go back to look. The point that defenders of animal farming are making is a little different from your characterisation. They are saying that, grazed in natural holistic ways, ruminants do not cause any additional harms beyond natural events. That means that a steer for example can feed X number of people with just the one intentional death, whereas to feed the same number of people from crops, a lot more animals are harmed intentionally (probably thousands, possibly millions). Now, they'd be right, IF the steer was grazed on natural grasslands with minimal pest animal management and no suppkementary feed. I have actually worked this out for an Australian context and it's true, you will feed more people per animal deaths in that situation.

However, this is almost never how things are in practice. And as I have said before, on average a vegan will always cause far fewer animals to be harmed than a non-vegan. It's just that we can* farm animals for food and cause vastly less harm to other animals than growing crops.

* where "can" means almost never.

 

[VeganRachel]

Actually, I bet that is not even the significant part of the problem.
its all the cropland and crops that are utilized to feed livestock.

I could take a minute to look up the numbers. but I think I have references earlier on in this thread.

I agree that the cops fed to farm animals is a massive problem. HOWEVER, omnivores overlook the
massive amount of wildlife that is slaughtered so humans can have their steaks. Ranchers are also
legally allowed to shoot wild animals that threaten their profits. MOst humans care about wild
animals, yet have no awareness that their steak causes the death of so many coyotes, bears, and wolves.
It is a hidden casualty of omnivorism...cheers to you.

 

[VeganRachel]

I may have already touched on this earlier but I didn't go back to look. The point that defenders of animal farming are making is a little different from your characterisation. They are saying that, grazed in natural holistic ways, ruminants do not cause any additional harms beyond natural events. That means that a steer for example can feed X number of people with just the one intentional death, whereas to feed the same number of people from crops, a lot more animals are harmed intentionally (probably thousands, possibly millions). Now, they'd be right, IF the steer was grazed on natural grasslands with minimal pest animal management and no suppkementary feed. I have actually worked this out for an Australian context and it's true, you will feed more people per animal deaths in that situation.

However, this is almost never how things are in practice. And as I have said before, on average a vegan will always cause far fewer animals to be harmed than a non-vegan. It's just that we can* farm animals for food and cause vastly less harm to other animals than growing crops.

* where "can" means almost never.

I hear you, but it is all semantics. Its' sad that humans constantly justify cruelty by using numbers, and accepting killing in order to eat.
We owe the animals we have slaughtered through human history a massive apology. But some insist on calling them "food".
NONE of us would trade places with them. I for one choose not to have my body and soul be their stinky rotting graveyard.