Yes.
Rationale?
Venus fly traps are not animals.
/end thread.
That’s the whole debate, OP. It’s solved with this short exchange.
But they eat animals.
Fungi are more closely related to animals than plants. Are they vegan?
I think you need to look up the definition of of “vegan.” It’s not based on what your food eats: you can’t call eating a grass-fed cow “vegan.”
Fungi is also not animals.
If a plant has to eat animals to survive then that plant is a product of animal suffering. Thats why vegans don’t drink milk or eat eggs too. So if that’s the definition of vegan that someone subscibes to then the flytrap is not Vegan.
That’s not the definition of vegan. The definition of vegan is a person who abstains from animal products. Plants are not animal products.
Eating a venus flytrap is also removing a plant that eats animals.
There are plenty of vegans who would tell you they abstain from any products of animal suffering, otherwise they would use products that were tested on animals. Just because you test lipstick on animals, doesn’t make the lipstick a product of animals, its a product of animal suffering. Your definition is not the only one and doesn’t exclude animal tested products, which many vegans go out of their way to avoid.
Veganism is about sentience
If you could operate a series of trolley problems regarding sentience for the average vegan, would a somewhat quantifiable hierarchy arise?
For example, would a vegan save one human over three pigs, or over 100 pigs?
If a vegan could use vegan means to prevent the death of all mosquitoes without upsetting the ecology of the planet Earth, but the mosquitoes would then start infecting more humans with hazardous but non-deadly diseases, should the vegan attempt those means?
I can’t speak for other vegans, but as a vegan, I’d pick an animal’s life over a human’s, so your trolly problem is easy for me. Fuck humans, there are over 8 billion of us and we don’t need any more; fewer there are, the better it is for this planet.
Ecofascism? That you?
Is milk sentience, eggs? Or what about dead fish?
Specifically it’s about the consent of any sentient beings involved in the production.
Milk and eggs are fine as long as you’ve acquired them via free market exchange with the animal that produced them. n
Like, breast milk from a woman is okay for a vegan to eat as long as it wasn’t forcibly taken from her.
Which, to be clear, .00001% of human consumed milk doesn’t involve torturing cows and stealing their babies
Is this a joke or are you a moron? We forcibly impregnate cows and steal their children… and then do it over and over again until they die
I’m not vegan, but do you seriously not get how animal suffering works? Go watch Earthlings or Dominion if you’re curious
deleted by creator
Dead fish? Do yiu think most people are eating them alive?
Yes
Fungi are more closely related to animals than plants.
I bring this up too. What my kid asks, “what is vegan?”, and my wife says, “someone who eats plants”, then I shout from across the room, “and fungi!” Tbh no one is amused but me.
There’s nothing hypocritical about eating fungi! I just want recognition for the fungal contribution.
I’ll answer your question with another question: is it Vegan to eat bacon made from a pig you personally raised up from birth after it dies naturally having lived a full life?
If you define Veganism as a diet, then bacon’s bacon. If you define Veganism as a personal reaction to the cruelty of industrial farms, then perhaps this is how you get Vegan bacon. If you define Veganism as something more spiritual, then perhaps desecrating your dear friend’s corpse by eating it is even worse.
I’m in the road kill is vegan camp, so sure after Winnie croaks chow down.
Isn’t roadkill another symptom of human cruelty, i.e. building roads and cars, creating a death trap that cuts through eco systems? The only real difference is that roadkill exists because of carelessness rather than intention.
Roadkill is a side effect of our advancement as a civilization. Unfortunately there is no way to avoid using cars or transportation if you want to keep living in our society.
Roadkill is akin to crop deaths, a side effect of our advancements. No other way to keep our society, but animal farming can be completely avoided and it’s easy and cheap once you get to it.
At this point, the number of cars is about as disconnected from human progress as the consumption of animal products is. Much like we could easily remove the majority of animal product consumption, we could also remove the majority of cars and car miles.
Being vegan requires only to change your buying choices. What your’e suggesting requires one to plant/locally source everything you consume, work close to your home, and completely change your means of transportation.
Veganism is about not exploiting animals as practicable and possible. Which one do you recognize is practicable and possible for most humans?
I am saying reduce the number of cars, but not to zero. I’d guess that in developed nations, maybe 20% or 30% of cars are actually needed (obviously depending on the country and the local level of car use). Similarly, some percentage of animal products is actually useful even in developed nations (for now), e.g. for pregnant women or people with weird allergies.
And of course, society needs to support lifestyle choices for them to be viable. That’s the same for veganism and a life without a car.
I believe we should tackle the problems we can solve right now, if you can stop using cars and source locally, that’s great.
Most of us can already change to a vegan lifestyle and stop contributing to intentionally killing animals that don’t want to die. Once most people get onboard with that, then we should address accidental deaths.
Using fur instead of most plastic fabrics is the environmental choice. As an environmentalist, Fur/Leather are the best choices for clothing.
I’m all about human advancement, but nothing about cars is required. If it were trains, sure I’m with you.
“Nothing about cars is required”
ho boy you’ve obviously never lived anywhere super rural. When the nearest house is 15 miles away, you need some form of transportation better than a bike.
This is a very “never lived anywhere but the city” take
I guess rural living didn’t exist between 1900 and the beginning of human civilization did it? Because this is a very “ignorant of history and can’t imagine an alternative” take, which doesn’t reflect well upon you.
Lol and things took exponentially longer and had a massive time investment to go anywhere.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not big on car centric design, but pretending personal transportation isn’t and hasn’t been important is just ignoring the practicality of the world.
deleted by creator
Expecting me to believe that you didn’t have any ultieror motives in raising the pig you intend to eat is like convincing me your adult daughter consents to sex with you. Is it theoretically possible? Sure. Do I trust ANYONE enough to make that call in complete honesty? No. So it’s not vegan.
I would say yes. Plants feed off of the bodies of dead lions according to this animated documentary I saw, and that doesn’t make them any less vegan. Then again, I’m not a vegan, so I might be entirely wrong.
But Scavengers feed off dead bodies too. Is Hyena vegan? What about crow?
They are animals so no
Yeah but what about robots, coffee cups, and tennis balls??
I think the average vegan response would be “no thanks but Godspeed to you”
Feeding off of dead bodies isn’t what makes it vegan or not. Plants are plants and animals are not, regardless of their diet.
Or are you trying to argue that grass isn’t vegan?
No, more that animals are harmed in the growth of a fly trap.
Animals are harmed in industrial farming as well. It sucks, but doesn’t make wheat not being vegan.
Your double negative is throwing me for a loop.
I also don’t get the jump from industrial Ag and wheat.
Can you word your point differently?
Wheat is vegan, even if animals are harmed in the process of growing and harvesting it (pesticides, rodents in combine harvesters).
Venus fly traps are vegan, even if they harmed flies.
What if the meat was harvested in a humane manner? Nitrogen asphyxiation, for instance, which is being trialed for use on humans wishing to commit suicide?
I’m not debating the merits current meat harvesting; on an industrial scale it’s abhorrent. I’m just mostly wanting to know where the line is drawn
In my case I point out above, the only real differences is that humans have a choice and animals would not (this is a big one, I will grant you) and what is ultimately consumed.
That’s an easy one: no, because they are animals.
And what’s a human being? A mineral?
Besides being cannibalism, I’m pretty sure all vegans would tell you that humans have sentience greater than, if not on par with, the average animal. So eating one would not be vegan
Humans overrate themselves.
Then they overate veganism first and foremost
I can’t breathe from laughing at this.
I believe there are some vegans who won’t eat figs because they absorb the body of a certain type of wasp. I forget the details, but the point is - it probably depends on the vegan
One key detail of that is that the figs contain the bodies of that type of wasp, so you’re technically still eating an animal if you’re not extremely careful.
Is that not also true of the fly trap?
As far as I know, the vegan prerogative is to avoid harming any living creature, and avoiding eating animals comes downstream of that. I think other vegans believe eating any animal for any reason is immoral, but I’m not really sure of their rationale.
So on the one hand, you might be able to convince a vegan to eat roadkill…
There’s some debate over whether bivalves are vegan, because they don’t have a central nervous system and therefore can’t experience suffering.
Oh sure, most of the time. My understanding is they digest pretty slowly. So I’d say, most of the time, it’s not vegan.
Maybe a better case study would be figs since people actually eat those. From what I’m seeing in search results there is some difference of opinion, but maybe the prevailing opinion is that figs are fine for vegans because they are not intentionally exploitative or cruel to animals.
I’m not vegan but I won’t eat figs because of what you’re touching on here. (I just find it gross.)
I just did an Internet search. Today I learned. Still not sure I wish I did. 😶
Look up cochineal and you’ll stop eating lots of red/pink food coloring as well.
It’s fucking bizarre is what it is. It’s like something out of Prometheus.
Yes. They aren’t digesting meat, they are absorbing potassium and fixed nitrogen. The plant cells are, well, plant cells.
If the plant is carnivorous are it’s cells not the product of animal suffering?
Nature’s metal. We can’t change that. However for the first time in history you have the opportunity to not eat the only companions we have in the universe.
That doesn’t change how the plant made those cells though.
If we were involved in the process, say 1m Venus traps in a shed and fed flies bred specifically then that’s not OK. But as its part of a natural plant process then it’s still wierd but OK. I think, who am I to say? The vegan judge?
Well the point of the post is to nit pick a hypothetical since I doubt many people, much less vegans are actually eating those plants, we’re all casing judgement here. Especially since not everyone definition of veganism is the same. To me if its dietary and chemical then obviously it doesn’t matter, but if the ‘product of animal suffering’ is someones black and white philosophy then to me Flytraps seem about as vegan as consuming the flies they eat (which is only like one month). While an insignificant amount, it is measurable is all I’m saying, literally a technicality but that’s why its a basically hypothetical post online I suppose. In reality, everyone draws their own line somewhere, from the jainists who breath through cheese cloths to protect any microorganisms they can to the carnivours.
Is murdering a murderer who plans to murder again murder?
I imagine there is gray in veganism, as with all philosophical life choices.
If you murder a murderer, the number of murderers in the world stays the same.
So you should murder at least two.I’ve taken some high school algebra so let’s see how I can analyze this.
- Is murdering a murderer who plans to murder again murder?
- Is murdering X murder
- Murdering X = murder
- Is murder murder?
- Yes
I feel like whatever the answer is, it has to be the same as “is eating mushrooms vegan?”
Which side of the debate were you on, OP?
Both, but with a leaning towards ‘not vegan’
Well, the definition of being vegan is eating plants only. The part about animal sufffering is a justification of being vegan.
Well, to be more precise, vegan stands for the lack of an animal’s influence in a product. This distinction is important as mushrooms/fungi are not categorised as simple plants, vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts and so on.
Correct. If it’s not an animal product (as in, meat or an animal byproduct lile milk and eggs), it’s vegan.
Lack on animal exploitation*. If you find a dead animal while dumpster diving or a roadkill and you bring home to eat, it’s vegan because you’re not contributing to the exploitation of living sentient beings.
I would argue that roadkill is a product of human exploitation of the environment as a whole, so roadkill isn’t vegan.
Also, if roadkill is vegan you know you’re going to get some psycho with a massive cow catcher on the front of his pickup who’s “vegan” because he only eats what he runs down in his truck.
There is a difference between accidental deaths and intentional killing. Veganism is about stopping animal exploitation as far as possible and practicable.
Accidentally killing an animal and eating their flesh is something completely different to deliberately killing an animal and eating them.
If you happen to find a dead animal and eat it, you are not exploiting them for their life, just their dead remains.
Virgin salad nibbler vs Chad roadkill scavenger.
Wrong. Vegans can’t consume meat or animal products. This entire exploitation thing is only a justification.
By that definition, animal testing is vegan as long as the end result doesn’t contain an animal product, which is not. Veganism is about not exploiting animals as far as possible and practicable.
Cultured meats will be vegan, accidental roadkill is vegan, as well as dumpster diving, because you’re not exploiting living sentient beings for that.
You can check out more info on the history of veganism: https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/history
Bro is arguing with the fucking dictionary, I can’t even… I don’t know what to say. I just want to say you’re kinda reaffirming some stereotypes about vegans and I’ll end it at that.
No need to be pedantic. I’m pointing you to the Vegan Society, who actually created the term vegan. I’m merely trying to educate you on the topic. The dictionary definition is simplifying an entire philosophy, otherwise vegans would also be okay with horse and dog races, horseback riding, using animals as labor and other forms of animal exploitation.
Quote of the important part of the article (highlights by me):
The word vegan was coined by Donald Watson from a suggestion by early members Mr George A. Henderson and his wife Fay K. Henderson that the society should be called Allvega and the magazine Allvegan.
Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. This is later clarified as “to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man”.
Edit: thank you for all the thoughtful replies from the people who downvoted but left an explanation!
The more I think about this question, the more complexities it creates. I am not a vegan, so I can only guess what the average vegan would think…
- If you eat a plant that causes harm to a living being like an insect, are you doing a moral good from a vegan perspective because you are reducing harm?
- Would it be morally good for a vegan to use vegan means to prevent more harm to animals?
- Would it be the ultimate moral good for vegans to hunt down every wild Venus flytrap and consume them?
- What if the Venus flytrap only ate insects that significantly harmed animal or human populations by spreading diseases?
- If vegans could alter the environment using non-vegan means, in such a way that bats stopped eating mosquitoes without upsetting the overall ecosystem, but these mosquitoes started spreading a terrible but non-deadly disease in humans, would it be moral for them to do so, or would it be immoral for them to avoid it?
Unfortunately, I don’t know the calculus a vegan uses when placing value on the life of a human versus an animal, so the bat mosquito thing is entirely up in the air for me up in the air for me
A Venus flytrap cannot consent to being eaten, so no.
What? Plants don’t consent to being eaten. In fact, under this logic only cannibalism can be vegan.
Correct.
