Please also check out vegantheoryclub.org for a great set of well-run communities for vegan news, cooking, gardening, and art. It is not federated with LW, but it is a nice, cozy, all-in-one space for vegans.
We ask that the you have an understanding on what veganism is before engaging in this community.
If you think you have been banned erroneously, please get in contact with one of the other mods for appeals.
Moderator reports may not federate properly and may delay moderator action. Please DM an active mod if an abusive comment remains after reporting it.
Welcome to c/[email protected]. Broadly, this community is a place to discuss veganism. Discussion on intersectional topics related to the animal rights movement are also encouraged.
'Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals ...'
— abridged definition from The Vegan Society
The rules are subject to change, especially upon community feedback.
A compilation of many vegan resources/sites in a Google spreadsheet:
Here are some documentaries that are recommended to watch if planning to or have recently become vegan:
Lemmy: vegantheoryclub.org
Mastodon: veganism.social
To all the people downvoting this:
Vegan here. I got all of these responses multiple times online and in face-2-face discussions. And believe me when I say, people where mostly serious when they put out these statements.
The clowns on the right kind of describes my inner WTF response quite accurately though. 🤷
Holy shit the last one is so infuriating. Like, even if they did, you end up needing to cultivate a lot less plants if you're vegan instead of a carnie, thus still reducing harm overall
As a social animal, we have a strong instinct to conform to the herd's views, because it's more important to our survival to agree with the group than it is to be objectively correct. But then we must live in a state of cognitive dissonance, constantly protecting the lies we tell ourselves. A little bit of thought shows why carnists "murder" more plants than vegans do. But does take a little bit of thought, and if you don't think, it sounds like it makes sense, so it's the perfect distraction. The point of these "arguments" isn't to make and support a claim about reality. It's simply to distract the person making the argument from their own thoughts and feelings that they are unwilling or unable to process. They are very afraid of disturbing the worldview that they uncritically accepted as a child. But that worldview isn't based in reality, it's based in wishful thinking and propaganda from capitalists. It requires constant bulwarking through denial, distraction, histrionics, groupthink, etc. People are genuinely afraid that they might change their mind, and suddenly find themselves without a herd. They'll tell themselves any stupid thing to prevent that from happening.
Very well put
"My morality is based on what lions do"
Really?
I had the genuine question asked once about "But lions do eat meat and how would you stop them?" In a discussion about why I am vegan. 🙈
lol that's absurd
i think it's important to not mock those ridiculous questions, no matter how bad people act towards you, though. im not a vegan myself and i can imagine people being genuinely confused and saying some very weird things
It was not the first time I got that response. I genuinely don't know where people get this from?!
it’s important to not mock those ridiculous questions
Totally! It might be the first time a person gets to think about the matter in a deeper way. It is normal for them to be all over the place.
I think my answer at that time was something along the lines of:
It's true that these wild animals need to do that. But you are not a wild animal. You are an intelligent human, that has anything they could ever think of in the supermarket right around the corner. While a lion might not have another choice in order to survive, we as humans are not not in the same position. We can choose to eat something different while still enjoying our food and live a happy healthy life. So would it still be right for us to kill other sentient beings, if we are not forced to do so?
I normally think of my discussion partners as intelligent people that are able to reason. I won't let them off the hook easily, but there is no reason to "fight" with them as this will improve exactly nothing.
It was not the first time I got that response. I genuinely don’t know where people get this from?!
there's a lot of assholes out there! i think its always best to remind everyone that we should be kind to each other, especially when we disagree or misunderstand each other
i didn't mean to imply you're an asshole haha sorry if that's what came across
i think your response is sensible
i didn’t mean to imply you’re an asshole
Don't worry. I wasn't lead to believe that. Quite the contrary: You sounded like a sensible person one can reason with. That's why I took the time to reply in greater depth, so you (and maybe others) understand our viewpoints a little better. :)
i think your response is sensible
Thank you for the kind words!
Eating meat is considered in most scientific thoughts as an evolutionary trait that occurred due to humans' original nomadic nature. Meaning it was easier to hunt an animal for food than having to replace energy and proteins with plants. Plus at the time meat was introduced into the human diet, we would have had to compete with grazing animals, and edible plants were scarce. There are many good alternatives to meat, and I personally agree that cattle industries have gone too far in many regards. However, meat is still one of the easiest ways to give yourself the nutrients required for the human body
Eating meat is considered [...] as an evolutionary trait
Correct. But these early humans had no supermarkets or global trade systems. We (and our food selection process) has very little to do with the constraints that these previous generations had. Your argument basically boils down to "it is natural for us to eat meat. This is called "appeal to nature" and is a logical fallacy (i.e. not a very good argument).
cattle industries have gone too far
Kudos to you for acknowledging that.
meat is still one of the easiest ways to give yourself the nutrients required
I do not agree, as meat is lacking in some of the essential nutrients or has a suboptimal composition of them. But even if it was the best source, that would not necessarily justify everything we do (i.e. harm other sentient beings) to get it. To give you an (over the top) counter example: Human meat would even be much better in terms of it's nutrient composition - but no one would argue for canibalism because of that fact.
What I was getting at is that it's harder to fight evolution and it takes time. Advocating for meat free lifestyles would most likely push different evolutionary traits in a few million years. And you have to consider cultural influences as well. Additionally, veganism is more prominent in higher income countries because of food processing and "health food" taxes cost money, so many vegan items aren't inexspensive. Those people that are too impoverished to afford a full vegan diet would starve without meat. Also consider those places where the land can't be fertilized and farmed. Those people as well would starve. Trade could resolve that only if they can afford it.
So this is a bit of a non sequitur, I just think it's interesting.
We already evolved FROM being exclusively meat-eating animals. When the first land animals (our direct ancestors) enter the fossil record, there were no plants on land that were edible to them. We already evolved INTO herbivores.
it’s harder to fight evolution and it takes time
See, I don't really understand why you think we would need any evolution for this. For what it's worth, we are already very well capable of thriving on a plant-exclusive diet with our current genetic setup.
meat free lifestyles would most likely push different evolutionary traits in a few million years
Most probably not - or at least not to great extent. You need a selection pressure for evolution to happen. I.e. you need natural selection. And since our food-choices influence our chances for reproduction very little in our modern days. Humans removed them selves to a great extent form "evolution by natural selection" anyways in our age.
you have to consider cultural influences as well
Cultural influences can be used as an explanation for a status quo, but are a bad justification for future behavior most of the time.
Additionally, veganism is more prominent in higher income countries because of food processing and “health food” taxes cost money, so many vegan items aren’t inexspensive.
I can not agree with you on that statement in any way. The cheapest staple foods you could get are mostly vegan (Grains, Legumes, Dried goods, seeds, vegies, fruit, potatos). Meat and animal products are quite expensive to produce in comparison. Most of the time this just does not seem like it, because animal ag is extremly subsidized to keep this industry economically viable. If anyone would need to pay the FULL price of animal products, most of us would not be able to afford then on a regular basis.
Those people that are too impoverished to afford a full vegan diet would starve without meat.
Completely backwards. "Poorer" regions that have a climate suited to produce crops often have traditionally a very plant heavy diet, since things like grains and legumes have a great shelf life and are very cheap. Meat is fucking expensive. It boils down to basic thermodynamics. You need to put so much calories into an animal that you will never be ably to retrieve by consuming their body. It is wasteful.
Also consider those places where the land can’t be fertilized and farmed. Those people as well would starve.
No one in their right minds would say that some indigenous tribes or the Inuit need to be eating veggie burgers tomorrow. We are talking about the vast majority of people on this planet - like you and me. And we have the choice. Diverting the argument over to some hypothetical about foreign tribes or poor people is not necessary and also not at the heart of the arguments.
Did you read the articles?