Is it true that being vegan actually saves animals?

[Rory17]

Hi ?,
Does being vegan actually save animals or does it just not support the slaughtering? Do the animals still get slaughtered anyway?
Thanks.

 

[Lou]

Depends on your perspective, who you ask, and throw in a dash of semantics.

If you ask NPR claims the answer is close to 100 animals a year. PETA says close to 200. OneGreenPlanet figures about 400 animals a year.

Those numbers are just on paper. Calculations. If demand drops then the suppliers must grow or harvest less product. Very few animals are being rescued and sent to sanctuaries. The numbers are maybe just the breeders not breeding as much. For unfarmed Seafood, those numbers are harder. With lower demand, fewer animals are harvested.

The semantic issue is how we are defining saving. If to be saved the animal has to be rescued - the number is pretty low. But if saving represents not being harvested - then those higher numbers are valid.

But don't worry about those sets of numbers. Think of how if you WERE NOT vegan, how many animals slaughters would you supporting or participating in.

 

[TofuRobot]

Well, of course it does. It saves them by reducing the demand for animals being raised for slaughter. Ergo, fewer animals will suffer for the sake of someone's plate (and whatever else, by not choosing to buy leather/wool/silk, etc).

 

[Forest Nymph]

Yes, we live in a capitalist society. Capitalism hinges on supply and demand. If demand shrinks, but there's an excess of supply, the farms lose money. No capitalist wants that. So subsequently supply (animal slaughter) shrinks according to demand.

People choosing vegan, one by one, or in small groups, gradually has lead to the existence in the US stock market called the Vegan Climate Index. This is a measure of stocks of ONLY companies both environmentally and vegan friendly. Now wealthy investors and fast food restaurants and even meat companies are responding to the demand for plant based products. This in turn will decrease the number of animal products consumed.

Furthermore, due to vegans, allergies and paleo freaks, dairy farms are actually closing down because of decrease in demand for milk.

This is why as a vegan it's much more important for you to refrain from purchasing non vegan products for omni friends, stop cooking animals for spouses, and enforce veganism on your children like a real parent with a grasp of basic pedagogy, than it is to cry because you accidentally ate half a teaspoon of mayonnaise on your veggie burger. It's all about changing the real world, not obsessing on personal purity.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Hi ?,
Does being vegan actually save animals or does it just not support the slaughtering? Do the animals still get slaughtered anyway?
Thanks.

Animals are bred, raised and killed in response to demand. For each person going vegan, less animals will be bred in the first place. They will not suffer and they will not die because they will never even be born.

Saying that going vegan saves animals from slaughter or from death is (probably/mostly) not true. As if the animals producers breed the same number of animals and then they hear someone went vegan and so they just set aside 100 a year thereafter to live out great lives on the farm. Of course they don't. And no-one is saying that, in fact. But the way some people talk about "saving" animals sometimes seems to gives that impression to people!

The truth is that going vegan offers no benefit for the animals whatsoever unless you think their life is so awful that it would be better not to be born - which in the case of some animals, notably factory farmed chickens and maybe pigs, may actually be true.

However, that doesn't justify eating meat since eating meat is still immoral, and it is still immoral to do what meat eaters do regardless of the fact that it gives animals a life, It's easy to understand this simply by imaging that we were breeding humans for meat in the same way.

Also, for each person going vegan a significant amount of the earth's resources will be saved (water, land, less pollution and global warming) meaning that more humans and/or wild animals can exist or that the ones currently here can have better lives. Therefore, going vegan does lead to a net good.

All of what I'm saying only applies to bred meat though, which is most meat and fish farms.

For wild caught animals (mostly fish), none of the above is true. Each vegan really has caused a certain numbers of wild animals to be saved, and these wild animals will instead of being killed for me go on to live their life until they die of natural causes. In fact, given the sheer number of fish killed, they are actually the majority of sentient beings killed and the going vegan saves x lives might not be far from the truth after all.

Another thing I just thought of is that in the life of an average meat eater, even if they never eat fish, in the hundreds of animals that died to feed them, it's quite plausible that maybe at some point at least one of these could have been a wild animal might have been killed at some point that might otherwise have gone on to live a good life. Perhaps at an upscale restaurant or eating at the house of a friend. I'm not sure how likely this is in the UK, but in rural parts of the US and other countries I think this is possible. You never really know what you are eating when you ask for meat.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Side note - It took me a while to figure out why this “you save x animals per year” dogma is so persistent even though, in my opinion, it’s somewhere between misleading and just plain wrong (except in case of fish, see above), but I think I've got it now:

1. The "save animals" vegan activism creates a more positive and emotionally pleasing argument, which may be more effective advocacy: telling people to do a good thing rather than to stop doing a bad thing (although it does risk meat eating defenders finding the flaws in the argument).
2. Simplicity. The alternative way I've described it in my previous post is somewhat complicated and awkward to express.
3. The "saving animals" argument is suited to the deontological ideology, whereas the "going vegan actually benefits humans and wild animals but doesn’t benefit farm animals" is probably more correct but is more of a utilitarian argument and, since vegans are mostly not utilitarian (in my opinion), they don't naturally tend towards this kind of thinking or find it pleasing.

 

[Forest Nymph]

Side note - It took me a while to figure out why this “you save x animals per year” dogma is so persistent even though, in my opinion, it’s somewhere between misleading and just plain wrong (except in case of fish, see above), but I think I've got it now:

1. The "save animals" vegan activism creates a more positive and emotionally pleasing argument, which may be more effective advocacy: telling people to do a good thing rather than to stop doing a bad thing (although it does risk meat eating defenders finding the flaws in the argument).
2. Simplicity. The alternative way I've described it in my previous post is somewhat complicated and awkward to express.
3. The "saving animals" argument is suited to the deontological ideology, whereas the "going vegan actually benefits humans and wild animals but doesn’t benefit farm animals" is probably more correct but is more of a utilitarian argument and, since vegans are mostly not utilitarian (in my opinion), they don't naturally tend towards this kind of thinking or find it pleasing.

Oh good Lord Jaime. Not again.

It's not just because it's "emotionally pleasing." You are correct to point out decreasing meat demand simply eliminates the domesticated animals being bred into existence, but veganism also encompasses stopping animal testing, banning wearing of fur (as we have in California), and seeks to create activists who literally rescue animals by sending agricultural animals to sanctuaries, or who join movements like Direct Action Everywhere, or Animal Liberation Front. Public demonstrations like National Animal Rights Day (which I've joined) and PETA antics really do save animals by changing public attitudes and laws. PETA got Barnum and Bailey Circus shut down after years of persistence.

Your murmurings to yourself about deontological vegans seems to be some sort of pet theory you have that is extremely overgeneralized.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Forest Nymph, I don't want to debate with you due to your lack of basic manners, inability to concede a point even when I proved you conclusively wrong, unhealthy obsession with attacking me and undermining me and the way you repeatedly misrepresented my views.

 

[Forest Nymph]

Forest Nymph, I don't want to debate with you due to I proved [I have an] unhealthy obsession with referring to other vegans as impractical, deontological personal purists

FYP

 

[Nekodaiden]

Oh good Lord Jaime. Not again.

It's not just because it's "emotionally pleasing." You are correct to point out decreasing meat demand simply eliminates the domesticated animals being bred into existence, but veganism also encompasses stopping animal testing, banning wearing of fur (as we have in California), and seeks to create activists who literally rescue animals by sending agricultural animals to sanctuaries, or who join movements like Direct Action Everywhere, or Animal Liberation Front. Public demonstrations like National Animal Rights Day (which I've joined) and PETA antics really do save animals by changing public attitudes and laws. PETA got Barnum and Bailey Circus shut down after years of persistence.

Your murmurings to yourself about deontological vegans seems to be some sort of pet theory you have that is extremely overgeneralized.

In all my decades of omnivor-ism not a single PETA video or advertisement ever did anything to sway me towards not eating dead animals/their secretions. Neither any other animal rights group or individual. While it is true I was nudged into trying it by a speech by a single individual (Gary Yourofsky) - I wouldn't have even listened or been swayed by him if I hadn't already experienced certain life issues and done some investigation that
was not in the least related to PETA ads or animal rights groups activism.

I am sure I am not alone in this, and asking everyone to be an activist (by how you define it - protesting, joining groups, etc) in "being vegan" doesn't
convince outsiders (and many insiders) to even try going vegan(or stay one if they already are). Most people have a huge issue just dumping the animal products, much less jump on the activism train - not to mention that many wouldn't even be good at it.

 

[nobody]

The truth is that going vegan offers no benefit for the animals whatsoever unless you think their life is so awful that it would be better not to be born - which in the case of some animals, notably factory farmed chickens and maybe pigs, may actually be true.

The South African philosopher David Benatar, who is a vegan and antinatalist, believes that the lives of all sentient beings are so awful that it would have been better for them to have never been born, even if they don't know it due to a bias toward optimism. He has said that it will be good when all sentient species have gone extinct because then and only then will suffering end.

I agree with him, but I believe it is much more true of domesticated animals than anyone else. Of all the life forms on the planet today, none are worse off than domesticated animals and I see boycotting animal products and retail pets as saving non-existent animals from coming into existence. Additionally, by not procreating myself, I save humans from the horrors of existence and all the horrors those humans would inflict on others, the environment and animals throughout their lives, if they were to come into existence.

 

[Forest Nymph]

In all my decades of omnivor-ism not a single PETA video or advertisement ever did anything to sway me towards not eating dead animals/their secretions. Neither any other animal rights group or individual. While it is true I was nudged into trying it by a speech by a single individual (Gary Yourofsky) - I wouldn't have even listened or been swayed by him if I hadn't already experienced certain life issues and done some investigation that
was not in the least related to PETA ads or animal rights groups activism.

Right, because you didn't become vegan at first, you went plant based for health (which is fine, you're still not eating animals) and that's why you like to argue about being more lenient with the term "vegan." The OP is vegan for the animals. The OP is actually vegan. And yes, vegans refrain from using animal products in other aspects of their lives, as well as seeking products which weren't tested on animals, and at the very least vote for vegan-friendly measures which can change laws - and above all, at the end of the day, as I've mentioned more than once on this forum, PETA is a numbers game, PETA doesn't specialize in "converting" individuals, they exist to change the status of animals on a global scale, often through their amazing legal team and through mass education (i.e. accidentally vegan groceries, vegan fast food options, vegan at Wal-Mart), as well as shutting down institutions like zoos and water parks that mistreat marine mammals.

I always liked PETA. Even before I was vegan. I was pretty much born a vegetarian, though. I only ate meat because I came from such an authoritarian old school Southern family.

I am sure I am not alone in this, and asking everyone to be an activist (by how you define it - protesting, joining groups, etc) in "being vegan" doesn't
convince outsiders (and many insiders) to even try going vegan(or stay one if they already are). Most people have a huge issue just dumping the animal products, much less jump on the activism train - not to mention that many wouldn't even be good at it.

The OP seems to have a heart for activism or at least rescue, from their other posts. So as it pertains to them (and not to you, and other people who are plant based for health) ...yes, they'll at least donate to a vegan or animal rights foundation yearly or monthly, or help out with domestic spay/neuter, or perhaps convert their family members, partner, or a friend. Even the quiet ones who are REALLY VEGAN do stuff. Even if they're not activists in the sense that I am, or that professional activists like Gary Yurofsky are.

Again, too, it's a NUMBERS GAME. Look at the Vegan Climate Index in relation to stocks on Wall Street. It's pretty amazing how one or three people going vegan at a time to add up to major change. One person can do a lot if they are so inclined, but a bunch of people together can change the world by doing surprisingly little.

 

[Forest Nymph]

The South African philosopher David Benatar, who is a vegan and antinatalist, believes that the lives of all sentient beings are so awful that it would have been better for them to have never been born, even if they don't know it due to a bias toward optimism. He has said that it will be good when all sentient species have gone extinct because then and only then will suffering end.

I agree with him, but I believe it is much more true of domesticated animals than anyone else. Of all the life forms on the planet today, none are worse off than domesticated animals and I see boycotting animal products and retail pets as saving non-existent animals from coming into existence. Additionally, by not procreating myself, I save humans from the horrors of existence and all the horrors those humans would inflict on others, the environment and animals throughout their lives, if they were to come into existence.

He sounds like he should be in a mental institution. Anyone who is pro-extinction should probably be in prison.

 

[Sax]

@Forest Nymph, eco-dictator.

@nobody, you sound like you'd be interested in the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT)

Suffering is a part of life. Without it happiness would be hollow. A future where no one ever feels sadness or pain would be a dystopia.

I'm okay with the fact that animals suffer. What bothers me is inflicting that suffering upon them needlessly.

 

[Forest Nymph]

@Forest Nymph, eco-dictator.

Inmates of my pro-extinction prison:


- The CEOs of Exxon Mobil and BP oil
- Dick Cheney
- The executive staff of Tyson Foods
- Trump and Sons
- Assorted trophy hunters

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this philosopher, but we've got enough negligence on this planet by selfish Westerners to begin with, without Hitler Reincarnated influencing others philosophically to actually destroy the planet faster. That's the "hasten Armageddon" mentality of some evangelical cults. That's why they keep voting for fossil fuels when it otherwise doesn't profit them in any way. I actually learned about these psychos in a class called Environmental Conflict Resolution. I'm picturing this South African guy clubbing baby seals and dumping oil into the ocean while he eats tofu. How is wanting to kill everything vegan.

 

[nobody]

Inmates of my pro-extinction prison:


- The CEOs of Exxon Mobil and BP oil
- **** Cheney
- The executive staff of Tyson Foods
- Trump and Sons
- Assorted trophy hunters

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this philosopher, but we've got enough negligence on this planet by selfish Westerners to begin with, without Hitler Reincarnated influencing others philosophically to actually destroy the planet faster. That's the "hasten Armageddon" mentality of some evangelical cults. That's why they keep voting for fossil fuels when it otherwise doesn't profit them in any way. I actually learned about these psychos in a class called Environmental Conflict Resolution. I'm picturing this South African guy clubbing baby seals and dumping oil into the ocean while he eats tofu. How is wanting to kill everything vegan.

He has said when all life in the universe has gone extinct, like maybe near the end of the universes' life, that will be good, because with sentient life, the bad always outweighs the good, and this is something we are not aware of due to a bias toward optimism.

For example, a young couple planning a family does not consider the last 10 years of their future childrens' lives, which could be long slow declines filled with suffering and illness; they do not consider the suffering that the lives of their children will cause to wild animals due to their consuming resources and polluting the environment, or the suffering farm animals will endure due to their eating them, or to any of the other types of suffering that will occur. They only think of happy stuff because of the bias toward optimism, which is an evolved coping mechanism of of our brains.

 

[Forest Nymph]

He has said when all life in the universe has gone extinct, like maybe near the end of the universes' life, that will be good, because with sentient life, the bad always outweighs the good, and this is something we are not aware of due to a bias toward optimism.

For example, a young couple planning a family does not consider the last 10 years of their future childrens' lives, which could be long slow declines filled with suffering and illness; they do not consider the suffering that the lives of their children will cause to wild animals due to their consuming resources and polluting the environment, or the suffering farm animals will endure due to their eating them, or to any of the other types of suffering that will occur. They only think of happy stuff because of the bias toward optimism, which is an evolved coping mechanism of of our brains.

I still strongly disagree and suspect this person of suffering from clinical depression...at best. His words are pointless, nihilistic, and frankly irresponsible in the middle of the sixth mass extinction.

I can agree that it's better to never be born rather than to be force bred into a life of torture on a factory farm, but I will not in any intelligent capacity align with someone arrogant enough to deem themselves a "philosopher" for spouting some psychologically disturbed, intellectually lazy garbage like "when everything dies it will be great because there will be no more suffering." There also won't be any happiness. Or thinking. These are the thoughts of a person who is about to commit murder suicide, not the words of a serious scholarly academic.

 

[nobody]

I still strongly disagree and suspect this person of suffering from clinical depression...at best. His words are pointless, nihilistic, and frankly irresponsible in the middle of the sixth mass extinction.

I can agree that it's better to never be born rather than to be force bred into a life of torture on a factory farm, but I will not in any intelligent capacity align with someone arrogant enough to deem themselves a "philosopher" for spouting some psychologically disturbed, intellectually lazy garbage like "when everything dies it will be great because there will be no more suffering." There also won't be any happiness. Or thinking. These are the thoughts of a person who is about to commit murder suicide, not the words of a serious scholarly academic.

I was paraphrasing from memory from a long time ago but the Wikipedia article explaines his philosophy much better:

David Benatar - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Nekodaiden]

Right, because you didn't become vegan at first, you went plant based for health (which is fine, you're still not eating animals) and that's why you like to argue about being more lenient with the term "vegan." The OP is vegan for the animals. The OP is actually vegan.

How does Forest Nymph define vegan? It changes with the day and month and person she’s arguing with:

(My underscores and bolded statements: I thought about expounding but have tried to limit that because I trust that intelligent readers will not need it.)

1) "Right, because you didn't become vegan at first, you went plant based for health (which is fine, you're still not eating animals) and that's why you like to argue about being more lenient with the term "vegan." The OP is vegan for the animals. The OP is actually vegan."

vs

(To another poster, different thread)

2) "While I appreciate that you have finally given me a respectful and detailed response, and I can agree with some of it, you don't seem to comprehend that some people will NEVER go vegan - or even vegetarian - for animal rights."

https://www.veganforum.org/threads/original-definition-of-vegan-was-better.3589/post-20934


Note: Rory17 (the OP) has stated on numerous occasions that he/she sometimes eats dairy, and
considers themselves “mostly vegan”, not vegan. I appreciate honest self appraisals like this. However
FN states she is vegan despite this seemingly largely on her stated motive of animal rights.



Advice to aspiring vegan:



“
3) " My experience is that it's easier to tell people you don't like or want meat than anything else. Then they might give you a casserole with dairy in it or something with eggs, a box of granola bars with honey or a loaf of bread that's not vegan, but at least you're not directly purchasing animal products yourself, not eating flesh and likely only eating smaller amounts of animal products in things."

https://www.veganforum.org/threads/newbie-looking-for-support.3895/post-23514


Veganism is “not a diet” according to her:


4) “The number one reason I have a problem with this is because a lot of whiny "ex-vegans" on YouTube or Internet forums were never vegan to begin with they were just on a diet, and when the wind changed, so did they.

Vegan isn't a diet like Paleo or Atkins. Those are diet plans. Veganism is not a diet plan. WFPB is a diet plan, but you are not required to stop wearing leather on a WFPB diet, nor do you have to adopt a WFPB to be a Vegan. The two things can compliment each other, but they are not the same thing.”

https://www.veganforum.org/threads/original-definition-of-vegan-was-better.3589/post-20540


(It is worth noting here that according to Donald Watson who founded Veganism – vegan IS a diet - and while it is not a “plan” like avoiding grains but eating tubers, or eating flax but staying away from peanuts or other specifics like that – it is one that excludes all animal products in the diet. That was rule #1, and the only rule. Going beyond that was optional and encouraged if it was in line with your conscience, situation, etc. I think many people who strongly resist this idea are not followingrule #1 and are therefore looking for other ways to qualify. )



5)
“Plant based is a politically correct term used by academics and dietitians to describe the diets of vegans, vegetarians and in some cases flexitarians. 100% plant based typically denotes the diets of vegans, even if they have to take medication that was once tested on animals or that contains an egg component.”



https://www.veganforum.org/threads/am-i-considered-vegetarian-or-plant-based.3594/post-23519



Getting the picture yet? Can you imagine someone saying "I am 100% male, but I do have a menstrual cramp component"?



6) “I dunno. A lot of times people who are drunk or who have hangovers crave eggs and/or cheese. The fat absorbs the alcohol, and there's something in eggs that helps your body metabolize alcohol.”

https://www.veganforum.org/threads/...-you-what-is-not-good-for-you.3772/post-22747


Note: Fat doesn’t absorb alcohol and there’s nothing special in eggs that “helps metabolize it”. If you search my posts for keyword “alcohol” you would know it’s something that is a bit of an issue for me, I have been very open about this – and while it’s nothing to brag about I do have the direct experience of knowing that cheese and egg cravings don’t precede or proceed alcohol/excessive alcohol consumption. People who get these cravings are either eating them or eating a poor vegan diet that is lacking in nutrients. For FN, I’m positive it’s both.



7) “What are you missing. Meat isn't even food to me like its completely gross and inedible. Eggs aren't too far behind. Cheese is the only thing that ever looks neutral or remotely appealing but then I think about how gross dairy is. “



https://www.veganforum.org/threads/questioning-veganism-after-being-vegan-for-3-years.2304/post-9722



Public service for anyone here thinking of actually trying to avoid all animal products in their diet as a first and foremost prerequisite for calling yourself a vegan – don’t listen to cheagans who are in denial about their mistakes. All you’ll wind up being is as confused as them.

 

[nobody]

I'm okay with the fact that animals suffer. What bothers me is inflicting that suffering upon them needlessly.

If you intentionally bring an animal (human or non-human) into the world through breeding, you are doing just that. I didn't know about the VHEMT but I do find it interesting and I'm all for it.