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.
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?
deleted by creator
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
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.
Venus flytrap are plants. Simple as that.
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.
Train networks good enough for people to travel wherever they want are difficult on the scale of large countries like Canada, the US, and Russia.
Incorrect. The US was built on passenger rail travel. It just wasn’t as profitable as freight and also once cars started becoming a thing then car interest groups started fucking things up to make more money.
We had a world class transcontinental rail system that was stunningly expansive. Much of it, especially the branch lines that went just about everywhere people built towns and cities, has been abandoned, sold, or converted to bike paths. Now we have basically a freight only system with near zero branch service, and some local and inter-city rail transit that is utterly shitty by developed world standards.
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.
deleted by creator
If the pig dies naturally, you probably don’t want to eat it, right? Because it was either from disease, or it’ll be a really un-tasty pig 🤷♂️
It’s a hypothetical. Assume for the sake of the exercise that the pig is the tastiest to ever live by sheer unknowable chance.
If we’re speaking in pure hypotheticals, then to me personally, if you raise the animal like you would a pet, then at the end of their life when they die naturally, if you butchered the remains, cooked it, and ate it, that would fall under my definition of vegan. But as you indicated, that’s going to depend on each vegan’s definition.
However, my point still stands that animals who die of natural causes are generally not healthy in the end. Think of elderly humans. They either die due to disease or cancer, or they are skin and bones, right?
There’s a reason animals are slaughtered earlier in their lives. Part of it is quicker turnaround on profit, but part of it is the quality of the meat.
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.
deleted by creator
Then they overate veganism first and foremost
I’m replying here cos I can’t find the comment you posted: I see humans as worthwhile as any other species but boy do we overrate ourselves. We’re the most important creature, the animal that has to be better than all the rest. We’d go without eating if that were possible. In the end what we do doesn’t matter much. Life keeps on going where it can and the spheres keep turning around.
Vegan here. Interesting question! I think you’re going to get a different answer depending on the vegan you talk to. Personally, this is the definition of veganism I subscribe to:
“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.”
By that definition, for me, it is not vegan. If the VFT has been grown by humans, and fed insects, then that is non-vegan, because there was a lot of animal suffering that went into growing that VFT. Furthermore, VFTs are not required for sustaining the human body, so the only reason to do this is for human pleasure or something.
Edit to add: if the VFT was found in nature, I probably still wouldn’t consume it, because 1) I don’t even know if VFTs are edible 2) if they are, I’ve got better food with me that probably caused less animal suffering, and are less morally ambiguous.
Thanks! A legitimate answer, other than people calling me a moron.
I’ll admit, this was a ‘is a hotdog a sandwich’ kind of question.m, but I learned something too!
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.
deleted by creator
Yes. They aren’t digesting meat, they are absorbing potassium and fixed nitrogen. The plant cells are, well, plant cells.
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.)
Look up cochineal and you’ll stop eating lots of red/pink food coloring as well.
I just did an Internet search. Today I learned. Still not sure I wish I did. 😶
It’s fucking bizarre is what it is. It’s like something out of Prometheus.
Figs and wasps are in a mutually beneficial relationship. Fly traps kill flies. Veganism is about suffering.
I can’t breathe from laughing at this.
Yes. It’s a plant. Made of plant things. In the same way that plants that are fertilized by dead bodies would also be vegan. You aren’t eating meat. The plant is receiving sustenance from breaking down that organic material but you aren’t.
Meat is literally dead bodies, which we derive sustenance from.
Harvested plants would be considered dead (plant) bodies, so where is the difference?
The best argument I’ve heard so far is the one around sentience, but that gets confusing too, since plants react to stimuli and grass can signal other plants it’s being eaten.
But the question you asked was about a vegan diet.
The difference is complex chemical reactions. These complex reactions could be “sentience” but it’s the number of reactions and how they all work together to accomplish goals beyond their singular function.
Plants perceived communicating is due to adaptation and evolution to protect themselves from predators and fire. They did not develop communication skills like an animal would have to also protect itself. Perception and interaction are not communication.
No no. I mean if a plant is nourished by dead animals who have died near them. Or in some places where animal bodies are used in fertilizer.
If the VFT was grown for human purposes such as eating then no it would not be vegan, as they require a small but steady stream of bugs to grow. Though if you found a feed alternative like a nutrient pill then I guess it could be vegan. As for a VFT found in the wild then yes it would be vegan, anything it has consumed in the past wasn’t done so for your sake.
I think you made a typo in your first sentence. I think you meant to say it’s non-vegan in that scenario.
Thanks for letting me know, fixed.
In the same way as eating a cow is not considered vegan even though the cow only eats grass, yes eating a plant that eats flies would still be vegan.
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.Well I hope those plants taste as good as they smell to flies…
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
ITT: people misunderstanding the difference between vegetarianism and veganism
Here’s the quick version: Vegetarians don’t eat animals. Vegans don’t eat stuff made of animal suffering.
Fly traps are made of animal suffering.
Which side of the debate were you on, OP?
Both, but with a leaning towards ‘not vegan’
I feel like whatever the answer is, it has to be the same as “is eating mushrooms vegan?”
