Interesting thought, but humans didn't harm the life that became fossil fuels, most of which came from plant matter anyway. I'm not in a position to unilaterally declare something vegan, but I'm pretty sure fossil fuels are vegan by default.
Sure, its use can harm animals. Still, I could kill a mouse with a cucumber, but it wouldn't change the fact that cucumbers are vegan.
Hmmm⊠but taking your argument to the opposite end; the normal consumption of a cucumber may not typically harm animals but I think there is an argument to be had that the normal consumption, and production, of fossil fuels typically does.
It's a common viewpoint among vegans that systems that depend on animal exploitation should be abolished. On the other hand, systems that contain animal exploitation should be improved.
I'll give two examples with human animals so it can be clear:
Slavery? Should be abolished.
People getting ran over and killed by cars? We should improve that.
The ones I always come back to are pollinator-dependent crops such as fruits and tree nuts. Wild and feral pollinators are not abundant enough to sustain the level of production we presently demand in these crops. Presumably, if more people were to become vegan then we would demand them even more.
From what I know, vegans oppose the transportation of pollinators for pollinating these crops. Yet it seems most vegans eat plenty of them (apples, peaches, plums, almonds, avocados, etc).
You definitely could bring the wild pollinators back. I do that with my own garden in my backyard. But that means youâd have to remove parts of the orchard to provide a habitat for the pollinators, lowering the density of the trees. Lower density => lower production => smaller crop => more expensive almonds (or peaches etc).
If we want everyone to be vegan thatâs gonna mean mostly giving up the luxury products that many vegans currently enjoy and switching to staples (beans, squash, corn, root veggies).
Lower density only means lower production of the usable land remains the same. Which would not be the case if the world became vegan: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Do those crops depend on transportation of pollinators? To me it seems like they don't.
By your own admission, there are natural pollinators. We can also manually pollinate them, which reinforces my point that systems that *contain* exploitation should be improved.
Manually pollinating thousands of almond trees is definitely possible. But then you should expect almonds to be in the same price range as vanilla pods, another manually pollinated crop.
Thanks for conceding. Now to your new point: once the majority of people are vegan, we can focus on those systems that can be improved. Currently the majority does not even care about animal exploitation, so there's very little value in trying to change systems that don't depend on animal exploitation.
Those two counter examples that I provided aren't all possibilities to replace open pollination. Surely experts in the field can come up with better solutions once this problem actually becomes a worry in the minds of the majority.
The question is: can you turn it into a product? Would people be willing to pay $100/lb for hand-pollinated almonds? Itâs potentially something to explore on a small scale.
I would love to know how many vegans would pay that much for an ethical product.
Can you give some real world examples of systems that contain animal exploitation that vegans would want to see improved? I'm not sure I completely follow that point.
It's kind of revelatory that vegan is a shifting term, that means whatever it wants to mean for the believer.
I tell vegans all the time that in order to have their potato chips brought to them, first they have to have millions of hectares of fields destroyed, planted with a monoculture potato crop, sprayed with pesticides, harvested by diesel equipment, made in a factory with pollutants, placed on trucks which ship all over the country.
Swallow a fly, oh my God the world is ending. Kill a couple thousand things on the way to get your vegan chips, let's not talk about that.
Vegans are aware of the damage the supply chain does, hence "buy local" being such a common phrase and the push to support small local farms. I'm not sure what you're accomplishing besides hilighting that capitalism is an awful economic structure that incentivises profit over environment, which sure good message, but most people choosing to adopt such a culturally despised practice are going to be aware of the externalities already.
It's kind of revelatory that vegan is a shifting term, that means whatever it wants to mean for the believer.
Really? Itâs not new, at least. Vegans love to disagree about what specific things are vegan- some are cool with honey, some are cool with nestle products made without animal products, and some are cool with anything they donât pay for. Many arenât cool with any of that, but donât think twice about killing a mosquito in their home.
Itâs an individual choice and youâve got to decide what you care about and prioritize that.
This, 100%. For some reason people imagine vegans as an ideologically aligned group rather than a bunch of people making their own varied decisions for their own varied reasons. Then when inconsistencies come up between vegans they'll decry it all as performative. Meanwhile, vegans themselves tend to just be happy to see others making their own best effort and the hair-splitting over what is vegan matters a lot less than generally resisting animal product consumption in any capacity.
Setting a unifying standard for a broad group of people that they'll never meet and then reacting to the shock of them failing to meet that standard is a common rhetorical tactic in other contexts, no surprises it turns up here too.
Vegan has always been about doing the best you can in reducing the harm you do onto others and the environment as much your able to. Some vegans absolutely will refuse the use of petrol but most will see it as a current necessary evil they have to deal with and just reduce when able to in their current modern lives.
Even if it was dinosaurs, the dinosaurs weren't harvested, much less exploited, in any way. They died of natural causes. Hell, even if the aliens decided to farm them and we used what remained it still wouldn't be exploiting them since it's more akin to scavenging.
This is shifting blame. Fossil fuels are vegan in the sense of origin, however the harm done to the biosphere in using them is not vegan. Therefore a vegan using fossil fuels in a dependent society is to blame.
Sure. It's not the much higher percentage of people participating in this, it's the vegans. At least they're making attempts to change, unlike the rest of us.
We do the best we can to reduce harm and suffering.
Modern life is not vegan by nature, human infrastructure destroys animal habitats, human pollution is destroying the planet. Our species is responsible for the deaths of trillions of animals. Our existence is complicity.
Doing what I can to avoid consuming products of animal suffering is never going to be enough to counteract the majority of humans who revel in it. Especially as it's them who've built/control/condone the broken systems this world is running on and will be ending due to.
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to excludeâas far as is possible and practicableâall forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
The plastic (including polyester fabrics) in your car was most likely derived from petroleum. The car parts were most likely shipped around during manufacturing using combustion engine vehicles. The energy to cast those car parts, probably some of it comes from non renewables. The labour to build the car almost surely comes from other people who consume gas (for example to drive to the EV factory)
That "100%" renewable energy? The installation and maintenance of it was/is almost certainly done with large industrial equipment and vehicles burning fossil fuels. (Similar issue with production of parts).
Look, I'm not saying you aren't making positive choices by choosing renewable options. What I am saying is, while they are more renewable, they aren't truly 100% renewable when you factor everything involved in it. Fossil fuels are so pervasive in society, it's virtually impossible to both function in a modern society and not contribute to the consumption of fossil fuels.
Are people not allowed to better themselves in your world without 100% total perfection? It's about doing our best in the world we live in, man. It seems like you're committed to misunderstanding that, sadly.
Context: am not a vegan, but I strongly believe that perfection is the enemy of progress. Moreover, attitudes like this conveniently excuse folks from doing anything to better themselves or the world around them because "it's hopeless" or "nothing I do will change anything".
You seem like a generally reasonable dude, hopefully you will be able to learn how your misconceptions about veganism and eating meat are just that: misconceptions.
Actually đ€, the refining process for many fossil fuel products requires the use of inorganic chemicals AND are proven to be hazardous to human health meaning they canât even fit the US âOrganicâ certification. (Though I suppose the oil industry has enough money to bribe lobby the regulators)
Now if you meant âorganicâ strictly as in âthe final product is a purely hydrocarbon compoundâ then youâre correct, assuming youâve entirely distilled out any metals or other inorganic compounds of course.
3.2. Potential as Medicinal Crop
Utricularia is recorded to be edible and high in nutrients. Some species used as folk remedies are mildly astringent and diuretic. U. caerulea is used to dress wounds while U. bifida is used to treat urinary diseases. Although yet to be widely researched, the medicinal potential of this species-rich genus is immense. In Peninsular Malaysia, U. bifida and U. minutissima are pioneers of open disturbed wetland and are often locally abundant, although U. caerulea is increasingly rare. U. bifida is highly suited for acidic damp soils. Neither chemical nor organic fertilisation is necessary. It can be cultivated without having to modify bad drainage or liming the soil to increase pH, therefore, it is a suitable alternative for small-scale herb cultivation on nutrient-poor, waterlogged soils.
76 Comments
CazzoBuco@lemmy.world · 69 pts · 337d
zrst@lemmy.cif.su · 23 pts · 336d
It's like explaining free software to someone who only uses apple products.
butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 336d
They willfully refuse to try and understand, then we get posts like this every two weeks.
Gold_E_Lox@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 58 pts · 337d
looool
how do you know if someone hates vegans?
don't worry they'll tell you
anakin78z@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 336d
OMG I'm totally using this from now on. đ
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 337d
Interesting thought, but humans didn't harm the life that became fossil fuels, most of which came from plant matter anyway. I'm not in a position to unilaterally declare something vegan, but I'm pretty sure fossil fuels are vegan by default.
Sure, its use can harm animals. Still, I could kill a mouse with a cucumber, but it wouldn't change the fact that cucumbers are vegan.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 337d
Hmmm⊠but taking your argument to the opposite end; the normal consumption of a cucumber may not typically harm animals but I think there is an argument to be had that the normal consumption, and production, of fossil fuels typically does.
lalo@discuss.tchncs.de · 11 pts · 337d
It's a common viewpoint among vegans that systems that depend on animal exploitation should be abolished. On the other hand, systems that contain animal exploitation should be improved.
I'll give two examples with human animals so it can be clear: Slavery? Should be abolished. People getting ran over and killed by cars? We should improve that.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 336d
The ones I always come back to are pollinator-dependent crops such as fruits and tree nuts. Wild and feral pollinators are not abundant enough to sustain the level of production we presently demand in these crops. Presumably, if more people were to become vegan then we would demand them even more.
From what I know, vegans oppose the transportation of pollinators for pollinating these crops. Yet it seems most vegans eat plenty of them (apples, peaches, plums, almonds, avocados, etc).
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 336d
and why might that bee??? đȘđȘż
lalo@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 336d
Oh honey, I have no idea
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 336d
You definitely could bring the wild pollinators back. I do that with my own garden in my backyard. But that means youâd have to remove parts of the orchard to provide a habitat for the pollinators, lowering the density of the trees. Lower density => lower production => smaller crop => more expensive almonds (or peaches etc).
If we want everyone to be vegan thatâs gonna mean mostly giving up the luxury products that many vegans currently enjoy and switching to staples (beans, squash, corn, root veggies).
lalo@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 336d
Lower density only means lower production of the usable land remains the same. Which would not be the case if the world became vegan: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 335d
that relies on poore-nemecek 2018, which is problematic. you might be right but your link isn't good evidence.
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 335d
If we eliminate animal ag we will have more than enough space for lower density production, here Seppoland as an (albeit extreme) example:
And since we won't be eliminating animal ag under capitalism the profit motive is gonna be moot point anyway.
lalo@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 336d
Do those crops depend on transportation of pollinators? To me it seems like they don't.
By your own admission, there are natural pollinators. We can also manually pollinate them, which reinforces my point that
systems that *contain* exploitation should be improved.chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 336d
Manually pollinating thousands of almond trees is definitely possible. But then you should expect almonds to be in the same price range as vanilla pods, another manually pollinated crop.
lalo@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 336d
Thanks for conceding. Now to your new point: once the majority of people are vegan, we can focus on those systems that can be improved. Currently the majority does not even care about animal exploitation, so there's very little value in trying to change systems that don't depend on animal exploitation.
Those two counter examples that I provided aren't all possibilities to replace open pollination. Surely experts in the field can come up with better solutions once this problem actually becomes a worry in the minds of the majority.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 335d
The question is: can you turn it into a product? Would people be willing to pay $100/lb for hand-pollinated almonds? Itâs potentially something to explore on a small scale.
I would love to know how many vegans would pay that much for an ethical product.
Soulcreator@programming.dev · 2 pts · 337d
Can you give some real world examples of systems that contain animal exploitation that vegans would want to see improved? I'm not sure I completely follow that point.
lalo@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 336d
Animal manure as fertilizer in farming. We can use fertilizers that don't depend on animals to be made.
Krudler@lemmy.world · -17 pts · 337d
Is any of what you are saying material though?
It's kind of revelatory that vegan is a shifting term, that means whatever it wants to mean for the believer.
I tell vegans all the time that in order to have their potato chips brought to them, first they have to have millions of hectares of fields destroyed, planted with a monoculture potato crop, sprayed with pesticides, harvested by diesel equipment, made in a factory with pollutants, placed on trucks which ship all over the country.
Swallow a fly, oh my God the world is ending. Kill a couple thousand things on the way to get your vegan chips, let's not talk about that.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 337d
Well that's... needlessly hostile?
Vegans are aware of the damage the supply chain does, hence "buy local" being such a common phrase and the push to support small local farms. I'm not sure what you're accomplishing besides hilighting that capitalism is an awful economic structure that incentivises profit over environment, which sure good message, but most people choosing to adopt such a culturally despised practice are going to be aware of the externalities already.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 337d
Really? Itâs not new, at least. Vegans love to disagree about what specific things are vegan- some are cool with honey, some are cool with nestle products made without animal products, and some are cool with anything they donât pay for. Many arenât cool with any of that, but donât think twice about killing a mosquito in their home.
Itâs an individual choice and youâve got to decide what you care about and prioritize that.
eupraxia@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 336d
This, 100%. For some reason people imagine vegans as an ideologically aligned group rather than a bunch of people making their own varied decisions for their own varied reasons. Then when inconsistencies come up between vegans they'll decry it all as performative. Meanwhile, vegans themselves tend to just be happy to see others making their own best effort and the hair-splitting over what is vegan matters a lot less than generally resisting animal product consumption in any capacity.
Setting a unifying standard for a broad group of people that they'll never meet and then reacting to the shock of them failing to meet that standard is a common rhetorical tactic in other contexts, no surprises it turns up here too.
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works · 33 pts · 337d
Vegan has always been about doing the best you can in reducing the harm you do onto others and the environment as much your able to. Some vegans absolutely will refuse the use of petrol but most will see it as a current necessary evil they have to deal with and just reduce when able to in their current modern lives.
TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 29 pts · 337d
people fucking love to do these gotchas against anyone for even fucking trying, don't they
well congrats, you did it, you convinced all of us to compromise on our principles
zrst@lemmy.cif.su · 10 pts · 336d
I love vegans because they're usually pretty normal people that have see front-and-center how collectively stupid most people are.
The majority of people are proud of their ignorance because it makes them fit in with others.
Canconda@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 336d
The irony of this comment.
zrst@lemmy.cif.su · 4 pts · 336d
How so?
CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 336d
You're saying vegans are normal people while also saying that normal people are stupid and ignorant.
vk6flab@lemmy.radio · 20 pts · 337d
This is like banning HâO, NaCl and CââHââOââ from your life because "you don't like chemicals".
(Water, Salt and Sugar)
Krudler@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 337d
My sister had a freak out and told me she would never allow chemicals on her lawn. I said what about nitrogen?
NO FUCKING WAY
I followed up by asking her what she thinks our breathable atmosphere is made of, and what is captured by the rain and falls on her grass?
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN
I told her no, I don't, because when you just make up imaginary definitions for words, no one can ever know what you mean.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 6 pts · 337d
This is a pretty dumb hill to die on. If someone says "chemicals on their lawn" it's pretty clear they mean lawn treatment services.
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 337d
You sound fun
zrst@lemmy.cif.su · 17 pts · 336d
Oil is vegan, though.
It's made from the remains of dead plants.
Also, I'm not sure how vegans view corpses of animals.
bigfondue@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 336d
remon@ani.social · 2 pts · 336d
Plankton does contain animals.
Vandals_handle@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 335d
Phytoplankton is composed of plants. Zooplankton and Ichthyoplankton are composed of animals.
bigfondue@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 336d
adaveinthelife@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 336d
I'd argue the extraction, refinement and typical uses of petroleum oil are somewhat not-vegan.
CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 336d
Like a dead cow, chicken, or pig? Probably not favorably.
Chainweasel@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 337d
Oil is actually primarily formed from algae, not dinosaurs, so it should qualify.
Coal is plant matter, so it also qualifies.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 2 pts · 336d
Even if it was dinosaurs, the dinosaurs weren't harvested, much less exploited, in any way. They died of natural causes. Hell, even if the aliens decided to farm them and we used what remained it still wouldn't be exploiting them since it's more akin to scavenging.
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 14 pts · 337d
This is shifting blame. Fossil fuels are vegan in the sense of origin, however the harm done to the biosphere in using them is not vegan. Therefore a vegan using fossil fuels in a dependent society is to blame.
Sure. It's not the much higher percentage of people participating in this, it's the vegans. At least they're making attempts to change, unlike the rest of us.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 0 pts · 337d
Plankton have animals in it though.
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 2 pts · 337d
So they only use algae-only oil. Still doesn't change the point.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 1 pts · 337d
Where do you buy algae only oil?
Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 337d
Bikini Bottom
unknown@piefed.social · 13 pts · 336d
We do the best we can to reduce harm and suffering.
Modern life is not vegan by nature, human infrastructure destroys animal habitats, human pollution is destroying the planet. Our species is responsible for the deaths of trillions of animals. Our existence is complicity.
Doing what I can to avoid consuming products of animal suffering is never going to be enough to counteract the majority of humans who revel in it. Especially as it's them who've built/control/condone the broken systems this world is running on and will be ending due to.
mvirts@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 336d
Labor exploitation isn't vegan. Vegans are doing the best they can, better than me.
Bacon vegans are the most nonsensical
harsh3466@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 337d
If the baseline vegan precept is no animal products of any kind, then I would agree nobody is actually vegan
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 337d
The commonly accepted definition is summarized by the Vegan Society:
KurtVonnegut@mander.xyz · 7 pts · 337d
Depends on whether you're talking about oil/gas or coal. The former is dead marine fauna (edit: and flora), the latter is dead terrestrial flora.
prex@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 336d
Coal is from woody (containing lignin) plants. I think oil/gas is from algal mats.
KurtVonnegut@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 335d
Oh yes good point. I guess flora and fauna are confusing terms in this context. Wiki talks of zooplankton and algae.
(The "zooplankton part" might still be relevant to the original post.)
Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 337d
essell@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 337d
Any plastic in that EV?
Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 337d
SkyNTP@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 337d
The plastic (including polyester fabrics) in your car was most likely derived from petroleum. The car parts were most likely shipped around during manufacturing using combustion engine vehicles. The energy to cast those car parts, probably some of it comes from non renewables. The labour to build the car almost surely comes from other people who consume gas (for example to drive to the EV factory)
That "100%" renewable energy? The installation and maintenance of it was/is almost certainly done with large industrial equipment and vehicles burning fossil fuels. (Similar issue with production of parts).
Look, I'm not saying you aren't making positive choices by choosing renewable options. What I am saying is, while they are more renewable, they aren't truly 100% renewable when you factor everything involved in it. Fossil fuels are so pervasive in society, it's virtually impossible to both function in a modern society and not contribute to the consumption of fossil fuels.
Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 337d
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · -2 pts · 337d
Is the food you eat farmed with tractors and transported in semis?
Electric_Druid@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 336d
Are people not allowed to better themselves in your world without 100% total perfection? It's about doing our best in the world we live in, man. It seems like you're committed to misunderstanding that, sadly.
Context: am not a vegan, but I strongly believe that perfection is the enemy of progress. Moreover, attitudes like this conveniently excuse folks from doing anything to better themselves or the world around them because "it's hopeless" or "nothing I do will change anything".
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · -1 pts · 336d
Iâm a believer in harm reduction and the lesser of two evils thatâs why I vote democrat.
zrst@lemmy.cif.su · 5 pts · 336d
I didn't know this post was made by satan.
You seem like a generally reasonable dude, hopefully you will be able to learn how your misconceptions about veganism and eating meat are just that: misconceptions.
Zier@fedia.io · 6 pts · 337d
Vegan? Probably. But it is 100% Organic.
AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 337d
Actually đ€, the refining process for many fossil fuel products requires the use of inorganic chemicals AND are proven to be hazardous to human health meaning they canât even fit the US âOrganicâ certification. (Though I suppose the oil industry has enough money to
bribelobby the regulators)Now if you meant âorganicâ strictly as in âthe final product is a purely hydrocarbon compoundâ then youâre correct, assuming youâve entirely distilled out any metals or other inorganic compounds of course.
toiletobserver@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 337d
Can a vegan eat a carnivorous plant?
Evil_Incarnate@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 337d
They probably won't because I think they'd taste disgusting.
I'd try one if I knew it wasn't poisonous tho.
minnow@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 337d
Bladderworts have medicinal uses.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3353273/
remon@ani.social · 2 pts · 337d
I really don't get why people hate tomatoes.
cryptTurtle@piefed.social · 2 pts · 337d
you eat oil?
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 4 pts · 337d
I eat all kinds of oil.
Olive oil, cannabis oil, fish oil...
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · -3 pts · 337d
Is a leather couch vegan?
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 337d
Only if not bought and taken when it instead would've became landfill
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 0 pts · 337d
So a steak dinner that someoneâs about to throw out can be vegan?
toomanypancakes@piefed.world · 1 pts · 336d
It's only vegan once it's been thrown out. That's why I buy bulk steaks for dinners and throw them away to make it vegan before I eat them.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 1 pts · 336d
elevenbones@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 335d
Ok buddy.
quacky@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 335d