Why isn't it considered vegan to harvest animals who die naturally?
from baggins@lemmy.ca to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world on 20 Nov 21:48
https://lemmy.ca/post/55518892
from baggins@lemmy.ca to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world on 20 Nov 21:48
https://lemmy.ca/post/55518892
Per the title. If an animal dies out in nature without any human involvement, shouldn’t it be considered vegan to harvest any of the useful parts from it (not nessicarily meat, think hide), since there was no human-caused suffering involved?
Similarly, is driving a car not vegan because of the roadkill issue?
Especially curious to hear a perspective from any practicing moral vegans.
Also: I am not vegan. That’s why I’m asking. I’m not planning on eating roadkill thank you. Just suggesting the existence of animal-based vegan leather.
#nostupidquestions
threaded - newest
You can do pretty much whatever you want man…
Like “vegan” isn’t even a century old yet, it was made up in the 1940s by some guy who thought vegetarians weren’t good enough, and he set whatever rules he wanted to.
You can just keep using his word, but not care about his rules.
Or you can make up your own name and rules.
People searching for labels they like and then conforming to every fucking aspect of that label and nothing else, doesn’t work out well.
So please, if you want to eat roadkill just do it.
I did…
Every reason why you can/can’t do something and be Vegan, is because the guy who made the word up ~80 years ago decided it should be like that
You’re acting like it’s a math or science, like it’s based on logic or something…
It’s not, so the answer to “why” is essentially “because the founder said that”?
Does that make sense now?
I'm not vegan and I'm here to tell you that your argument isn't valid. Whoever invented a word doesn't get to permanently declare exactly what it means down to the tiniest detail. Words change meaning over time. I would guess that especially new words change over time. The word "awful" originally meant full of awe. The word "terrible" originally meant a thing caused terror.
It doesn't matter what the creator of the word thought.
Yeah…
That’s why I said:
Thanks for aggressively agreeing with me I guess?
Weird move, and I think it’s more likely you were just confused, it works better if you ask questions when you’re confused.
[citation needed]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism
Under “Term coined by”
The concept is much older than the word we use today.
Pretty sure there was a Roman writer who said something similar
To me it’s not a matter of ethics but a matter of health. Unless you saw the animal die from something that clearly isn’t disease I wouldn’t trust meat I just found laying around.
It doesn’t have to be edible. Glue, gelatin for skin mimicry, clothing, and bones for weapons, etc are all non-edible uses of animals.
Good point. I forgot vegans included all that stuff and not just eating animal products.
For me personally: Veganism is also about signaling to the outside world. Suppose I were to skin an animal that died naturally and make a jacket out of it, this would probably be the most ethical way to produce a leather jacket. But I still wouldn’t wear it, because by doing so I would signal to the outside world that it’s okay to wear the skinned hide of animals. Outsiders can’t know under what circumstances I got the leather.
It might be a bit more radical, which is why I might face hostility, but I also throw away non-vegan foods that I unintentionally receive, instead of giving them to non-vegans. Simply because I don’t want to project to the outside: “Here you go. I would never eat it because I find it unethical, but if you eat it, then that’s okay.”
Neither would I but what about the hide?
This is something that has always bothered me about roadkill animals (esp deer which are particularly prevalent as roadkill in my area).
Its my understanding that the hide can remain in good and usable condition for days to weeks after the animal’s death. It seems that this could be a decent source of blankets and other light-medium cold weather gear.
I’d imagine it largely comes down to the skinning process. The internal organs of dead animals are supposed to get real gross real fast (and that’s in the best case scenario - if anything ruptured when they were hit, then the grossness increasing exponentially) and removing those is the first step towards skinning. Additionally, everything in harvesting the hide would need to be done by hand.
But boy, if we could build one of those Boston dynamics bots to do it…
I trust old meat I find lying around. It may be a different color, but it still spends the same.
For the second question, one could argue driving a car isn’t vegan (unless it’s electric) because gas and oil are technically animal products, even if that animal was a dinosaur
So veganism isn’t about not causing harm to animals? Or are you suggesting humans killed the dinosaurs? is it just about blindly refusing to use animal parts?
It’s mostly about consent. We can debate when and where sentience begins, but it begins somewhere and vegans hold a moral philosophy that says using another sentient being’s work product or body without their consent is immoral.
Note that I am not vegan myself but understand, if not agree with, their moral position.
And as another reply said, most vegans recognize it as a “best effort” philosophy, as they appreciate the impracticality of an absolutist stance. They are focused on “harm reduction”.
the term “consent” doesn’t appear anywhere in the definition of veganism, nor does the definition allude to the concept
Vegans aren’t just vegan, they’re vegan for a reason, and that reason is almost universally an issue of consent
if that’s true, why isn’t that party of the definition proffered by the vegan society?
do you have any evidence for this claim?
Veganism isn’t an organization with strict rules and regulations. There is no one definition of veganism. My evidence is the fact that nearly every vegan cites consent as one of the primary factors behind their decision to be vegan.
Edit: but hey here’s an article on their site mentioning it.
I’ve had this literal exact argument with you before. Glad to see you’re still committed to having the worst possible takes
this is not evidence that the reasoning is anywhere near universally about consent
what is “bad” about a take that literally references the vegan society?
I’m gonna be that “acktually…” guy for a sec here. Oil & gas (mostly) are not dinosaurs… the vast majority of petrochemicals are from compressed dead algae, plankton and plant matter long pre-dating the dinosaurs: chevron.com/…/explainer-where-do-oil-and-gas-come…
Where does this notion that oil&gas are dead dinosaurs come from? I know what you said is the truth, just as coal is the remainder of the huge forests that existed before bacteria could break down cellulose, but i would really like to know where this wrong factoid comes from - it’s literally everywhere
Here's a nice write up from a paleontologist.
Idk much about vegan philosophy and it is a philosophy not a diet to be clear. However, personally I see it as stealing from the vultures. The vegan solution is of course, to limit roadkill to negligable levels by making cars a redundant and antiquated form of transportation.
Also I wouldn’t trust roadkill to be safe for consumption
From my end, I’m a registered organ donor because I feel that I won’t need this body once I’m done with it, and if anything is useful off it for someone else, then hell, let them have my liver.
However, an animal can’t consent to that and yeah, an argument could be made that who gives a fuck, it’s a pig/chicken/cow, it’s not gonna give a shit, but death is unfortunate for anything and I’d feel more at ease that the carcus is either left for nature to do what it does than me harvesting it for food.
Interesting.
(Parent comment was edited)
And such is the circle of life right. I also feel that if we as a species can move beyond meat, then we should. I can live a perfectly normal life on my current vegan diet, and if that carcus is then left for other animals and fauna to have, thus leaving the cycle undisrupted.
I suppose what I’m getting at is that I’d rather let the animals that need those nutrients have it, as I’m already sorted.
It is going to be eaten no matter what. The chance of it being eaten is essentially 100%. So i can't see how that's part of the equation.
Sure, but a person can choose to not be the one who does it.
I think i can understand what you're saying. Unimportant sidenote, it's spelled carcass
I’m aware. I’m not the one who misspelled it.
Ope you're right
Hi, ive been vegan for a bit over 10 years. I don't think animal parts are for us to use at all. I'm not really sure why you'd harvest animals at all, I don't think normalizing the commodification of others' bodies is a good thing to be doing. If you really can't live without animal parts, that's probably the least harmful way of acquiring them. I wouldn't recommend eating anyone you find lying on the ground though, that sounds like a good way to contract horrible diseases.
Veganism is about doing the most that is possible and practicable. We probably kill insects just by walking, but it's not reasonable to never move again to avoid that. Similarly, driving a car for many people is a necessity to be able to access goods and services, and its not at all practicable to avoid driving for them.
Ultimately, veganism is a moral stance about reducing harm to others as much as you can. It's not a competition, so don't feel like you have to be perfect at it to do good.
Thank you for this perspective!
i saw a really interesting video about biking jackets and the design of them, the conclusion is that molecularly leather is the safest material for abrasion and there’s not really any synthetic replacement that comes close.
What does your perspective (in regard to veganism) have on this subject?
youtu.be/xwuRUcAGIEU
Btw this channel is REALLY entertaining and well written, I’d recommend watching this channel if you get bored sometime
I'd take the risk with synthetic materials, personally. I don't think any amount of danger I put myself in would justify killing someone else for their skin. I have a synthetic jacket with elbow and shoulder reinforcement for when I ride, and that's good enough for me.
I'll definitely check out the video later when I have more downtime though.
For the western world motorbikes are largely a luxury. Don’t do the luxury thing AND don’t wear a dead animal seems like a reasonable position to take.
For the eastern world motorbikes and mopeds is all everyone has. Far from luxury
I don’t think you understand. Leather jackets are the best for safety, it’s not just a fashion choice
I don’t think you understand.
Not doing the activity that requires protective clothing is safer than doing the activity with protective clothing.
For westerners motorcycle riding and leather jackets are luxuries so it seems the vegan solution would be to not ride and not buy leather.
There's this Hindu sect whose adherents wear veils, sweep the floor before them, and/or tread very slowly and carefully to avoid injuring, killing or eating any small insects. As you said, it's about doing as much as you can, but if it were a competition they'd win for sure.
I think you mean Jainism? It isn’t Hindu.
They also have a very strict vegetarian diet, they won’t even eat root vegetables so burrowing insects aren’t disturbed
I mean defining new religion is always tricky, Hinduism is such a large collection of beliefs, if you go too wide Jainism and Buddhism and Sikhism would unfold into Hinduism and if you go too narrow Hinduism is at best group of 12-13 separate religion.
The deeper you look the more confusing it is, while Jain texts acknowledge certain “Hindu” deities like Indra, other parts of universe building are entirely different, and if they are different where did Indra come from?
Anyway I like the distinction of dharmic religions and then defining sects such as Jain, Vaishnav, shaiva, Buddhism etc etc. They all have the concept of Dharma, Karma and Moksha. So they are all kind of interoperable in terms of lifestyle. There are sects of Hinduism that are more different than mainstream to the point it’d be hard to call them Hindu, but they self identify as Hindu, while there are sects of buddishm that are so similar to Hinduism, it’s unclear why they consider themselves a separate religion. I think at the end the distinctions between dharmic religion are always because of some geopolitical power game.
Yeah but if you ask a jain they’d say they’re not Hindu. So take it for it means.
I would argue Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism are as distinct as Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Which are the sects of Buddhism that are so similar to Hinduism? (Curiosity, not attack - i studied Buddhism in depth for my degree, but that was 20 years ago)
I would argue that Buddhism is as distinct from Hinduism as an agnostic is from the abrahamic faiths.
If you really look at Buddhism, it’s a critique of Hindu concepts such as Atman.
Of course it incorporates a lot of those concepts, because the Buddha was communicating his critique to folks who used those concepts.
For example, the four brahmavajara’s are framed in a Hindu understanding of the godhead. That doesn’t mean the Buddha believed in Brahma beyond it’s conceptualization by Hindus.
He was merely using it as a teaching device to point out the importance of the four immeasurable minds to a Brahmin who asked him what the mind of God is like.
This is a great take. Buddhism is more a philosophy of a worldview than a religious worldview.
Buddhism taking on concepts of other religions, even deities, is upaya (skilful means). Its a way draw as many people as possible out of suffering as possible. I seem to remember that’s the whole idea of mahayana Buddhism: getting as many people as possible at least partway towards enlightenment is better than only a few all the way.
Mahayana also reframes the goal toward practicing compassion in the moment and other pro social concepts (no self), rather than enlightenment of the individual.
A Western Zen teacher was asked by a student why the Bodhisattva vows are unattainable. Suffering is endless, living beings are innumerable. But we vow to end all suffering and lead all beings to enlightenment.
The Zen teacher replied, essentially, they’re silly because being helpful is the goal.
Mayahana also helped a lot with reification that snuck in during the five hundred years after the Buddha’s death. The abhidharma for example reduces the mental factors into individual components or atoms and treats them as though they have an essence or self.
Indian Buddhist philosophers such as Nagarjuna, pointed out that even these are interdependent. Jewels in Indra’s net.
For context, I’ve been studying and practicing off and on for around a decade. Took my precepts in the Plum Village Zen tradition under Thich Nhat Hanh’s lineage, and also study and practice under the guidance of a Theravada monk and scholor named Bhikkhu Analayo.
All concepts are upaya. Some are more skillful than others, such as the Dharma taught by the Buddha. But they’re signs on a map, rather than a dogma to hold onto.
Of course, individual teachers and practitioners are human, and they may see things differently than I do. But ultimately I view Buddhism as a critique of concepts, that points at the interdependent (empty) and impermanent nature of things. And most world religions seem to lean much more heavily on dogma.
But again individual practitioners in other religions may be more enlightened. I know Thich Naht Hanh was friends with a lot of Christians and studied theology in the West as a young man. Some of his closest friends included monastics like Thomas Merton. And some activists such as Daniel Berrigan and Dr King. Hanh believed that the heart of Christ and the heart of the Buddha were pointing at the same ultimate ground.
And I could also argue that Jesus was quite critical of Judaism. Though his followers have largely used him for personal and political gain in the 2000 years since his death.
Linked below is a Dharma talk were a Plum Village nun discusses the appropriation of spirituality for the sake of control of the masses.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm7NL8mOsEs
Anyway, I’ve read a lot and I’ve studied a lot. I find wisdom in both Theravada and Mahayana. Though I do find the Tibetan tradition problematic, and don’t generally spend much time with their teachings anymore. Though I am drawn to the esoteric teachings and have cribbed quite a bit from the book of the dead, I find Plum Village speaks more to my heart. And without that, the dharma is hard to hear.
I also like systems science by the way. Very similar critique of reification. Or ‘selfing’.
Back in the way way way way way way way day. Human used animal fur for warmth, and the meat to eat.
Thank you for your well rounded and ernest perspective. That final sentence really gave me pause. And it’s nice to find a corner of the internet where vegans aren’t vilified immediately for existing
If you don’t make a moral distinction between humans and other animals, it seems difficult to justify scavenging with any logic that couldn’t also be used to justify grave robbing, cannibalism, or even necrophilia.
If you don’t make any sort of moral distinction between humans and animals then sex might become on interesting topic.
This is strawman reasoning. No vegan I’ve ever met belives that there’s no moral distinction between human and non human animals. They believe that non human and have moral worth, and that moral worth is higher than 15 minutes of taste pleasure or shoes, etc.
The basic logic flows like this:
Not for us to use? Do you mean you don’t think we should or is that something that comes from somewhere “above” (religion, philosophy, something like that)
I don't think we should, other's bodies aren't ours. Just a deeply held moral belief.
That’s understandable
What the fuck are you talking about? The corpse is still made up of animal parts. For the record I’m a vegetarian because I hate animals and I think they’re gross.
I’m agitated by this post not because of whatever morality question you’re trying to pull, but for linguistics sake.
Definition of Vegan from Merriam - Webster:
People like you are the reason why the word “literally” doesn’t mean “literally” anymore and we literally don’t have a replacement word.
I’m referring to veganism the moral philosophy, not the diet.
That’s not the question you asked
The answer is no, because the definition of the word. I’m sick of “vibe” people. Words have meanings.
Buddy thinks the dictionary contains all the information he ever needs to know 😂
People don’t just wake up one day and decide they’re going to abstain from animal products for no reason.
Dude asks questions to people without doing the minimal effort of a Google search.
Maybe you forgot what community this is, chief.
…
Ahhh fuck you’re right. I thought this was regular Ask Lemmy.
Well I’m a complete jackass, but my point remains.
But that’s implied. People aren’t usually vegetarian or vegan because they “hate animals,” but rather because of ethical concerns. And even so, if they’re asking such a question, it’s because they’re basing their understanding on the ethics and not the literal definition. Otherwise, the answer is obvious.
Literally still means literally, it just ironically also means figuratively now too.
But it’s literally always meant literally.
Literally used to mean literally. It still does. It just used to a well.
Sounds like someone woke up not just on the wrong side of the bed, but off of it. Take six chill pills, bro. 😂
lexicons don’t tell you what a word should mean. they just record known uses
From a materialist point of view, I can’t see any harm in harvesting the hide of an already dead animal. However, wearing a real fur coat and calling yourself a vegan is never going to be an easy thing to explain lmao
For the sake of argument I think you could say that you’re depriving a scavenger of a meal. I don’t know if that’s how veganism is usually framed.
Won’t someone think of the bacteria??
…and crows and vultures and eagles and bears and assorted rodents and foxes and beetles and many, many more. There is actually a rather robust eco system out there, you know. And when you gut part of it, you are just asking for trouble.
I’m not vegan myself but I had asked a similar enough question to a vegan friend a while ago and liked his answer:
He said for him it’s 2 parts, 1 is that while the animal that died may not have been harmed by humans, the ecosystem that relies on scavenging carcasses will be hurt if humans effectively start removing their entire food source (same way we have driven species to extinction by hunting).
The 2nd part is that with humans everything with even the tiniest loop hole will get abused.. Imagine that we say this is okay. Today it may be the odd naturally deceased animal, in a month it’ll start including animals “killed accidentally”, in a year it’ll be someone farming animals with some weird way of culling them so they can claim it’s still natural causes by some twisted logic.. at the end of it we’d just not be able to trust any of it anyway so it’s easier to not even entertain the thought - the energy to figure it all out would be better spent on improving alternatives.
Slippery slope argument. Much more valid today then you would think. Its my primary go to to argue against deportation of immigrants for whatever reason.
A see the issue as more about habit formation and incentives, rather than the act in isolation being a problem. Those that come to rely on animal products from roadkill will inevitably turn to more conventional methods when roadkill is not available since they have become habituated to using animal products (although this is likely worse with more regular habits like meat eating).
Additionally, if this method became widespread enough, there would be an incentive to increase the amount of roadkill (or at best, not decrease it) when in reality roadkill itself is a failure of transport design and land use.
I think it would depend who you ask. I consider myself vegan and would have no major issue with someone using roadkill for parts. I mean, I would find it disgusting and could never myself, but if they want to and still call themselves vegan, I see no problem with it as the harm has already been done to the animal. Seems the same as harvesting bones from the forest - what’s dead is dead.
Umm… Wut? Why are you being a bone harvester, what do you need them for??
Bone stuff, why are you asking so many questions?
Lots of people like to use things like antlers or skulls as decorations
Whatever I want.
If you die in the woods I will find you.
Witchcraft
They call themselves freegans
seriously the graveyard is full of them
I have the same repulsive reaction to eating the body of a someone, of any species, as you probably do to eating insects or humans or literal fecal balls of steaming dung.
Oh so it’s a mental illness thing.
Veganism isn’t a hivemind. We’re all individuals that came to similar conclusions. And we will have different opinions on the details.
Some folks will say consuming those that died naturally is a-ok. Others will argue that it incentivizes creating conditions under which animals die “naturally” to harvest them.
Personally, I’m part of the group that is probably the largest by a long shot, whose opinion is: Why are we even thinking about that?
The vast majority of vegans find corpses gross, much like anything you might derive from corpses.
It also seriously does not happen often, that animals drop dead in front of you. And there’s nothing on an animal’s body that you can’t find a different alternative for. So, it really just is not a relevant question in our lives…
How about using birds’ discarded feathers for decorations? Discarded seashells? Pearls from clams that died naturally?
Speaking for every single vegan on the whole world: If you fancy that stuff, go for it. We won’t deny you our universal seal of approval for that.
It’s true, I can’t deny that vegans approve of protecting the universe’s seals.
I find corspes yuck because it feels the same as cannibalism to me. I have no issues with touching human hair or fingernails, but I wouldn’t eat your arm, spleen or eye. Does this help?
Well, I hope you are happy with the answers you already got, because my answer is that I personally don’t care to keep these items, so I don’t have much of an opinion on it. 😎
That’s kind of the point I was trying to make up there, that I don’t have to be the arbiter of all morals, just my own morals…
But if you want to keep such trinkets and you feel like you’ve informed yourself enough to know that no harm is done to these animals, and that makes you decide that it is moral, I will gladly accept your decision.
If I learn that it does harm in some way, I would let you know, though. Not to attack you, but because I would assume that you want to do no evil. And that you don’t subscribe to the
horseshitbelief that your own ignorance of evil makes it moral.I feel like I really need to drive home that veganism is when you care, but you’re also lazy. I don’t want to have to inform myself about every supply chain for my food and every possible moral effect that my actions might have. So, I just nope the fuck out of a large chunk of that by not dealing with animal-sourced products.
Like, yeah, if a bird drops a feather in front of you, the supply chain is quite obvious and I would hope you don’t set off a trend of enough people wanting feathers in their homes for there to emerge an industry.
So, it’s almost certainly fine. But if I myself don’t actually want a feather, you can bet your ass that I will gladly stop thinking right then and there.
If these were not just random examples and rather genuine questions, then I would try to help you reason through it, but ultimately the decision is yours…
They’re not just random examples for some people though. For some indigenous peoples these items are a foundational part of their cultural practices.
Then those indigenous people need to figure out their morals. Chances are, they are embedded in a context where this is a lot easier, because they don’t have factory farming. They are part of the food network and take only as much as nature can recover.
You want me to be the arbiter of all morals? Well, there’s my take. Indigenous people hunting are not the problem. Other parts of the hivemind might have a different view on that, though, and I’m not gonna apologize for their take.
Really depends on which lens of veganism you view it through. I usually judge things by the economic lens, where veganism is the response to capitalism incentivising the exploitation of animals. It’s probably one of the easiest ways to think about it, but essentially it goes like “As long as you don’t pay money for exploitation, you’re fine”
So roadkill would be fine. Saving food that would be thrown out is fine. Shoplifting is fine. Served the wrong thing at the restaurant- Complain and get your money back. Second hand down jacket from a relative who would have thrown it away otherwise - gross but fine. Stealing chickens from a factory farm and eating some of their eggs- fine. Et cetera.
I don’t think that sort of logical line can be applied to anything but individuals though. I still wouldn’t be buying leather from a company that claims to only use roadkill, as my money would still be a financial incentive to expand the operation.
Because animals that died naturally are animals
So is the point to NOT eat animals or not cause suffering?
I’m all for #2 but #1 seems arbitrary given nature.
Being vegan means not consuming animal products. The reasons are irrelevant in the definition
Well that’s just dumb.
The reasons are not irrelevant to the question being asked though. Vegan for health reasons? Sure the question is irrelevant if you get sick from any animal products. You aren’t going to eat them. Same way celiac avoids gluten.
Vegan for ethical reasons? Then the question is very relevant. Is it ethical to have a pet cat? They are carnivores and will suffer and die on the wrong food. No pets at all would be most ethical. Are you concerned about mass farming of vegetables? If machinery is used, field mice and such are getting killed to harvest your vegan diet. Are you concerned about human trafficking of migrant workers or just farmed animals? If a bear kills a deer in your yard in Montana, eats half and fucks off, is it ethical for you to eat the rest? You had no hand in it’s death and suffering. You’ll have to do something with the carcass or you’ll have more predators in your yard. Are you only eating locally grown, in season fruits and vegetables, hand harvested by fairly paid workers?
If ethics is the reason, it’s fully legitimate to debate and figure out where your personal line is drawn. We live in an imperfect world and there’s no perfect solution.
The question asked why vegans don’t eat animals that died naturally. The reason is because vegans don’t eat animals.
If you don’t like broccoli, why don’t you eat it when it’s half rotten?
This. When I was a kid, I asked this same question and it took me years to fully wrap my head around it.
The ELI5 - When we pick food, we often pick it when it’s the most fresh. We want the freshest apples, the healthiest corn. That also applies to meat. We kill animals at their peak, and harvest them for meat.
When you die, it’s because something is rotten. Lung. Heart. Cancer. Its part of aging. If some part of your body was rotten enough to kill you, that means that was circulating through the rest of your body. Say that a rabbit was killed by poison gas. Would you eat it, if technically, the poison was mostly in its lungs?
What if I was the killer using the poison gas
That’s not the case. There’s even different words to the meat depending on the age the animal got slaughtered. There’s no single “peak”.
You missed this part in the post:
“not necessarily meat, think hide”
I’ve wondered about this myself since like age 7, when our otherwise perfectly healthy horse Sissy got struck by lightning while standing under a pine tree out in the field in a storm. 😢
Living out in deer hunting country, they could have given the neighbors a shout and basically be like hey the meat’s fresh, y’all come help cut it up and stock like 10-20 freezers for free…
🤷
You probably don’t want to eat horse meat these days due to the drugs that are often given to horses, (mostly wormers). They tend to not flush out of the horses system no matter how long you wait.
I had a teacher in high school ask me to bring him a deer if I ever hit one on my way to school.
I had a teacher in high school do the same thing. He’d also note the sides of the road on the way to school so he could find fresh roadkill on the way home.
Made some great venison jerky.
Why don’t you eat humans if they’ve already died?
I would totally try it if it was legally allowed and there wasn’t a risk of diesease from eating human flesh. 🤷♂️
And, if in a situation like the Donner Party: That’s generally what happens. They don’t kill someone just to eat 'em.
i hear children taste the best. maybe we should adopt a system of indefinitely milking mothers while eating their children like is done with cows. Double Bonus. Tastiest meat plus milk.
They have to die on their own tho. And I’m not sure it would be safe to eat unvaccinated children who died of preventable illnesses.
What a humble proposal. You could almost call it modest.
prion disease lol
Because I’m not allowed in the morgue anymore.
You made me literally laugh out loud. Thank you
Because of the karma loss 🙄
I would think driving a car is not vegan because it’s fueled by dead dinosaurs.
Oil is not from dinos.
It was a lame attempt at humor since it’s called fossil fuel… I know oil primarily came from ancient algae and plankton that died and sank to the ocean floor.
Vegan just means causing as little animal suffering as possible. Us existing in a capitalist society causes suffering for animals. But where it is possible to avoid it, it should be avoided is what vegans want. Like if a vegan drives a car and a squirrel runs in front of the car the person does not suddenly stop being vegan
Cars and roads cause a lot of suffering for animals in general
Humans especially. I wouldn’t have to go to work if the roads all vanished
In fact, the numbers are estimated to be around 2 billion animals a year globally.
As for people
You mean it’s not Scott Pilgrim rules?
What if that person had no remorse for the squirrel?
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 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.
Found RFK, Jr’s Lemmy account
Some of my friends were “freegan”. Meaning if meat or something was literally getting thrown away, or if they dumpster dived and found something that wasn’t vegan, it was fair game.
Take that as you will I guess