Question for Vegans and Vegetarians Regarding Modern Agriculture

[Debater Slayer]

Given the scale of agriculture needed to meet the needs of millions of people, it is usually the case that modern agriculture involves extensive pest control, use of pesticides, and expansion of farms into land that previously sustained entire ecosystems.

Furthermore, in order to ensure that the pesticides kill as few animals as possible aside from pests, they are tested on animals during research and development. From what I have read, there is currently no viable alternative to this in a lot of medical research.

My question has to do with ethics with the above issues in mind: as a vegan or vegetarian, do you see veganism or vegetarianism as a decision that completely stops the suffering or killing of non-human animals for humans' interests, or do you see it as a decision that only reduces the amount of suffering and killing involved in our food production?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Your premise appears to assume that pesticides aren't used in feed crops that sustain agricultural animals or that somehow more land would be needed for crops if society moved to a vegetarian or vegan diet.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Your premise appears to assume that pesticides aren't used in feed crops that sustain agricultural animals or that somehow more land would be needed for crops if society moved to a vegetarian or vegan diet.

That's not what I meant to imply at all; I know that meat farming is significantly more demanding and destructive of the environment than crop farming is, in addition to causing more suffering and death for animals. So my premise takes as a given that both crop and meat production cause suffering and loss of life among non-human animals, but to different extents given that the latter causes these issues on a much larger scale.

Since this is the case, is veganism or vegetarianism only about reducing these things rather than completely eliminating them? Does the question then become one of scale rather than complete prevention?

I hope this clarifies the questions I'm raising in this thread.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That's not what I meant to imply at all; I know that meat farming is significantly more demanding and destructive of the environment than crop farming is, in addition to causing more suffering and death for animals. So my premise takes as a given that both crop and meat production cause suffering and loss of life among non-human animals, but to different extents given that the latter causes these issues on a much larger scale.

Since this is the case, is veganism or vegetarianism only about reducing these things rather than completely eliminating them? Does the question then become one of scale rather than complete prevention?

I hope this clarifies the questions I'm raising in this thread.

I certainly can't and won't speak for all vegetarians' and vegans' reasons for their choices, but I can speak for mine.

For me, vegetarianism is first and foremost about eliminating animal cruelty...suffering that that is caused either through intent, neglect, or apathy. Inhumane animal husbandry practices remain in place throughout the industry.

Ideally, it would be optimal to eliminate all suffering, but I realize it's unlikely to happen until the largest issues are addressed and then move on to the lesser issues from there.

In management, we talk about opportunities metaphorically as "rocks" that range from "big rocks" to "pebbles." Success is had through first addressing the big rock issue, then move progressively onto smaller rocks, and ultimately addressing the pebble issues. If one tries to address all the rocks at once, one will find oneself overwhelmed and find that nothing gets addressed.

 

[Secret Chief]

do you see veganism or vegetarianism as a decision that completely stops the suffering or killing of non-human animals for humans' interests, or do you see it as a decision that only reduces the amount of suffering and killing involved in our food production?

If I take your meaning right, the latter. But the former seems a bit naive or ridiculous so maybe I'm misunderstanding?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I certainly can't and won't speak for all vegetarians' and vegans' reasons for their choices, but I can speak for mine.

For me, vegetarianism is first and foremost about eliminating animal cruelty...suffering that that is caused either through intent, neglect, or apathy. Inhumane animal husbandry practices remain in place throughout the industry.

Ideally, it would be optimal to eliminate all suffering, but I realize it's unlikely to happen until the largest issues are addressed and then move on to the lesser issues from there.

In management, we talk about opportunities metaphorically as "rocks" that range from "big rocks" to "pebbles." Success is had through first addressing the big rock issue, then move progressively onto smaller rocks, and ultimately addressing the pebble issues. If one tries to address all the rocks at once, one will find oneself overwhelmed and find that nothing gets addressed.

Thanks for the detailed response!

If I understand you correctly, would it be accurate to say that you believe vegetarianism is ideally about eliminating animal cruelty but that some "rocks" exist that make it fall short of that ideal, although you believe it is still much better than the "big rock" of animal husbandry?

 

[Debater Slayer]

If I take your meaning right, the latter. But the former seems a bit naive or ridiculous so maybe I'm misunderstanding?

I have seen some people assume that adopting veganism or vegetarianism—but more so with veganism—means that their diet and the products they consume are completely "cruelty-free" or totally free of animal suffering or death. I agree that this is an unrealistic view, but it is one I have encountered.

I doubt most vegans or vegetarians would agree with them either, but I don't know about specific percentages and such when it comes to who holds which views.

 

[Secret Chief]

I have seen some people assume that adopting veganism or vegetarianism—but more so with veganism—means that their diet and the products they consume are completely "cruelty-free" or totally free of animal suffering or death. I agree that this is an unrealistic view, but it is one I have encountered.

Yes, a bit of digging can sometimes unearth (unintential) links to something untoward. The interconnection of all things is a bit of a bugger. Especially perhaps with veganism. Vegetarian always only refers to diet but the label "vegan" can crop up on lots of non-food items (eg a bottle of shampoo) thus providing more chance of said links. You just gotta do what you can.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I certainly can't and won't speak for all vegetarians' and vegans' reasons for their choices, but I can speak for mine.

For me, vegetarianism is first and foremost about eliminating animal cruelty...suffering that that is caused either through intent, neglect, or apathy. Inhumane animal husbandry practices remain in place throughout the industry.

Ideally, it would be optimal to eliminate all suffering, but I realize it's unlikely to happen until the largest issues are addressed and then move on to the lesser issues from there.

In management, we talk about opportunities metaphorically as "rocks" that range from "big rocks" to "pebbles." Success is had through first addressing the big rock issue, then move progressively onto smaller rocks, and ultimately addressing the pebble issues. If one tries to address all the rocks at once, one will find oneself overwhelmed and find that nothing gets addressed.

Answer his question! Don't leave us hangin, bro!

Thanks for the detailed response!

If I understand you correctly, would it be accurate to say that you believe vegetarianism is ideally about eliminating animal cruelty but that some "rocks" exist that make it fall short of that ideal, although you believe it is still much better than the "big rock" of animal husbandry?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have seen some people assume that adopting veganism or vegetarianism—but more so with veganism—means that their diet and the products they consume are completely "cruelty-free" or totally free of animal suffering or death. I agree that this is an unrealistic view, but it is one I have encountered.

I've seen such a mentality. It seems to make their approach to veganism very detached from reality amd almost religious. Eggs are one such item. Chickens are going to lay them regardless. We can eat them so why not?
On RF I even read of a guy who made a kilt of synthetic fibers rather than wool. An environmentally uncool item because he didn't want to give a sheep a haircut?
I wonder if perhaps the more restrictive nature plays a role in attracting certain types who aren't very good at thinking for themselves?

 

[Secret Chief]

Eggs are one such item. Chickens are going to lay them regardless. We can eat them so why not?

Because in the egg industry half of all chicks (the males) are killed (either gassed or macerated).

 

[SalixIncendium]

Thanks for the detailed response!

If I understand you correctly, would it be accurate to say that you believe vegetarianism is ideally about eliminating animal cruelty but that some "rocks" exist that make it fall short of that ideal, although you believe it is still much better than the "big rock" of animal husbandry?

Vegetarianism is about not eating flesh. The reasons for not doing so will vary from vegetarian to vegetarian, ranging from personal health reasons eliminating suffering.

As far as my own reasons, the "big rock" isn't animal husbandry in and of itself. I realize eating meat is currently the social norm...try finding ready-to-eat food anywhere that doesn't contain meat or meat by-products. The "big rock" is apathy, neglect, and ignorance of the inhumane conditions that exist animal husbandry.

The other "rocks" aren't better. Ideally, I would love to eliminate the practice of taking the life of animals for sustenance, but I realize that given what is socially acceptable, there is a far greater chance of affecting change through awareness of inhumane husbandry conditions and working from there through things like the option of plant-based alternatives and ultimately moving away entirely from the desire to eat meat by introducing tasty alternatives that don't have the appearance of meat at all.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Answer his question! Don't leave us hangin, bro!

Sorry. I needed food and sleep.

 

[Secret Chief]

...try finding ready-to-eat food anywhere that doesn't contain meat or meat by-products.

Crumbs, the US sounds far behind the UK in this. There's never a lack of vegetarian options. Vegan is getting as common too.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Crumbs, the US sounds far behind the UK in this. There's never a lack of vegetarian options. Vegan is getting as common too.

It's getting better. As time passes, there are more alternatives in grocery stores that are vegetarian or vegan, but ready to eat foods...restaurants and "off the shelf" foods that have balance nutritional value are still scarce. If a vegan had to eat at a restaurant regularly here, I'm confident they would suffer a protein deficiency.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I've seen such a mentality. It seems to make their approach to veganism very detached from reality amd almost religious. Eggs are one such item. Chickens are going to lay them regardless. We can eat them so why not?

I lived next to (and briefly worked at) Maine's biggest egg farm. The cruelty to chickens is frightening. It was enough to prompt me to start buying eggs from folks who raise chickens outside of the egg industry.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I am primarily vegetarian but do eat meat if it is offered or going to be wasted. I do understand that nothing is cruelty free; just living entails the death and suffering of other things.

But I choose not to support the meat industry as much as I pragmatically can.

 

[libre]

I am a vegetarian as a matter of habit.

I gave up on 'vegetarianism' as a movement or ethical stance because it was too fixated on changing consumption patterns by regulating the individual consumer. The only places I'm aware of that have a noticeable influence on the economy as a whole are places that have incredibly longstanding spiritual traditions encouraging such.

Factory farming and other such cruelties are the way the market is taking us, I think the only way for it to change is to regulate or control the starting point in production. Individual eating habits may help some sleep at night or enjoy their meal, but I'm doubtful that my life-long vegetarianism has actually had any impact when I see the meat thrown out of supermarkets or restaurants.

I think changes must be made in the productive process to reduce suffering wherever such can be done.
If a product reduces substantial harm for human beings and does not cause a grotesquely disproportionate amount of harm to animals - I would not be concerned.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I've seen such a mentality. It seems to make their approach to veganism very detached from reality amd almost religious. Eggs are one such item. Chickens are going to lay them regardless. We can eat them so why not?

It's not eating the eggs themselves I see as an issue. If you get your eggs from a free range farm, that's great.

However, if you ever visit a commercial egg-laying facility, seeing the conditions these animals are subjected to would reveal the "why not?". I won't post videos here, but chick shredding is a thing.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It's not eating the eggs themselves I see as an issue. If you get your eggs from a free range farm, that's great.

Even then, I tend to be skeptical of bigger brands labeled "free range." Where I worked, we packed for some of the bigger brands with labels of "free range" but were decidedly not free range.