There’s more than one way to define veganism. Primary distinction: is it about avoiding animal products whenever possible or is it about minimizing animal suffering/exploitation whenever possible? (Sub-argument, what counts as “exploitation”?)
I feel that no matter what you do, there will always be some level of suffering by something.
Unless you’re entirely lab growing all of your food in some sterile environment, but then it’s a matter of how you’re sourcing energy and disposing of waste to prevent harming creatures. I believe we’re still a ways off from entirely lab grown foods being a sustainable/economically viable option for most people as well.
Transportation of any kind will lead to the deaths of animals and insects. Even if you’re not operating a vehicle.
Personally, I feel that drawing the line at insects being non-vegan is a bit arbitrary, since at that point why is plant suffering not taken into account? Plants are multicellular organisms that respond to stimuli. They are living organisms, they reproduce, and they have a form of respiration.
I’m not vegan but I like to live based on harm reduction where I can. I’m thankful to the organisms that are helping to fuel me and it is for that reason I try my best to avoid being wasteful. I’m from a family that has hunted for food and we always made sure that no parts went to waste from an animal’s sacrifice. We also only ever went for as much as we needed, not the maximum allowed.
This is pretty much the point I aim for whenever I talk about veganism. It is arbitrary, but strong proponents tend to frame it as an obvious moral truth. I’m with you: be aware of and grateful for everything that contributes to your life and livelihood.
My own brand of “harm reduction” means eschewing plastic whenever possible, this means leather and wool instead of polyester and vinyl (cotton and linen can’t do everything, and vegetable leather just isn’t durable)
re: “real vegans”
There’s more than one way to define veganism. Primary distinction: is it about avoiding animal products whenever possible or is it about minimizing animal suffering/exploitation whenever possible? (Sub-argument, what counts as “exploitation”?)
I feel that no matter what you do, there will always be some level of suffering by something.
Unless you’re entirely lab growing all of your food in some sterile environment, but then it’s a matter of how you’re sourcing energy and disposing of waste to prevent harming creatures. I believe we’re still a ways off from entirely lab grown foods being a sustainable/economically viable option for most people as well.
Transportation of any kind will lead to the deaths of animals and insects. Even if you’re not operating a vehicle.
Personally, I feel that drawing the line at insects being non-vegan is a bit arbitrary, since at that point why is plant suffering not taken into account? Plants are multicellular organisms that respond to stimuli. They are living organisms, they reproduce, and they have a form of respiration.
I’m not vegan but I like to live based on harm reduction where I can. I’m thankful to the organisms that are helping to fuel me and it is for that reason I try my best to avoid being wasteful. I’m from a family that has hunted for food and we always made sure that no parts went to waste from an animal’s sacrifice. We also only ever went for as much as we needed, not the maximum allowed.
This is pretty much the point I aim for whenever I talk about veganism. It is arbitrary, but strong proponents tend to frame it as an obvious moral truth. I’m with you: be aware of and grateful for everything that contributes to your life and livelihood.
My own brand of “harm reduction” means eschewing plastic whenever possible, this means leather and wool instead of polyester and vinyl (cotton and linen can’t do everything, and vegetable leather just isn’t durable)
That’s a brand of thought I could subscribe more to, thank you for sharing your perspective.