Occasionally, some vegans bring up this idea and react very sensitive when confronted with how it’s false.
Maybe they have a hard time to explain the difference between intentional raising, raping and killing versus the death of critters, which meat carries many times more because feed production uses more plants than eating plants directly. But unless you are a monk and care about every step you take and grow your own no impact is delusional. Everything we use has a impact, every metal, every plastic end every car drive. But we can stop the intentional killing. Maybe a “zero murder” philosophy and not a “zero deaths” way.
the difference between intentional raising, raping and killing versus the death of critters, which meat carries many times more because feed production uses more plants than eating plants directly. But unless you are a monk and care about every step you take and grow your own no impact is delusional. Everything we use has a impact, every metal, every plastic end every car drive.
Yes.
But we can stop the intentional killing.
Can we? I mean, agriculture is intentional. The land use alone causes killing or even worse, habitat loss. Yes, vastly more if used for milk or cheese, but I consider this point settled by now.
Maybe a “zero murder” philosophy and not a “zero deaths” way.
I’m afraid the only honest option is to not summon “zero”. Every diet causes death and suffering, but the amount can vary a lot. Also animals considered pests are killed intentionally.
That is like saying the intention of driving is killing kids on the street because it happens. Is the intention of wearing cloth to slave others? Is the intention of buying meat to kill children?
Animal industry is paying for murder and abuse, there is no way about it. It is what you pay for. That is the deal, your money their lives.
That is like saying the intention of driving is killing kids on the street because it happens.
I feel misrepresented. The harm caused by road construction and driving is not intended, but accepted. It’s part of the whole package, which is the part which is intended.
Animal industry is paying for murder and abuse
I feel we’re running in circles. I thought that part was settled, while it was never disputed in the first place. Let’s stop here.
I feel misrepresented. The harm caused by road construction and driving is not intended, but accepted. It’s part of the whole package, which is the part which is intended.
Do you think we could say the same if kill a worm by tiling the soil for plants? as not intended but accepted? That is the hole point, it is accepted side effect. But the killing of a cow is the main goal in the animal industry, not a side effect.
Maybe they have a hard time to explain the difference between intentional raising, raping and killing versus the death of critters, which meat carries many times more because feed production uses more plants than eating plants directly. But unless you are a monk and care about every step you take and grow your own no impact is delusional. Everything we use has a impact, every metal, every plastic end every car drive. But we can stop the intentional killing. Maybe a “zero murder” philosophy and not a “zero deaths” way.
Yes.
Can we? I mean, agriculture is intentional. The land use alone causes killing or even worse, habitat loss. Yes, vastly more if used for milk or cheese, but I consider this point settled by now.
I’m afraid the only honest option is to not summon “zero”. Every diet causes death and suffering, but the amount can vary a lot. Also animals considered pests are killed intentionally.
That is like saying the intention of driving is killing kids on the street because it happens. Is the intention of wearing cloth to slave others? Is the intention of buying meat to kill children?
Animal industry is paying for murder and abuse, there is no way about it. It is what you pay for. That is the deal, your money their lives.
I feel misrepresented. The harm caused by road construction and driving is not intended, but accepted. It’s part of the whole package, which is the part which is intended.
I feel we’re running in circles. I thought that part was settled, while it was never disputed in the first place. Let’s stop here.
Do you think we could say the same if kill a worm by tiling the soil for plants? as not intended but accepted? That is the hole point, it is accepted side effect. But the killing of a cow is the main goal in the animal industry, not a side effect.