• weeeeum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I feel like instead of a giant push for veganism, there should just be a push to eat what’s sustainable.

    Beef and dairy? Causes huge amount of greenhouse gasses and with current methods of production, it is not sustainable

    Blue fin tuna? These things have been way over fished and are endangered. Not sustainable, just try it once and move one with your life.

    Tilapia ? These things grow like weeds and can be fed efficiently. Go ahead, good source of protein for your diet.

    Honey? We need bees and they are an important pollinator for crops. Go nuts (just watch your sugar intake}

    Almonds? Takes huge amounts of water to grow and exacerbates droughts in the areas they are farmed. Eat less of these.

    Potatoes? Grow stupid easily in all sorts of conditions. Go nuts.

      • weeeeum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Yeah exactly, people arguing whether dragon fruit or some shit is a “super food”. The super food is right in front of us, potatoes (and onions).

        What other food has been so vital to our survival that its disappearance could ravage a population (Irish potato famine)

        No offense to dragon fruit, blue berries or whatever exotic fruit, but if they went extinct, not that much could change.

        • quicksand@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Obligatory Irish potato famine was a result of British policy. But I agree with your sentiment

    • Rob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I’d already be very happy if everyone took your approach, but it’s not the entire story for veganism. Sustainability is an important factor for myself and many others, but so is animal welfare.

      It’s a bummer that animal welfare is pretty much inversely correlated with emissions. Packing chickens together and making their lives miserable is much better for the environment than having them roam free.

      Veganism happily aligns with environmental sustainability. But when you believe we shouldn’t exploit animals at all, just pushing to eat what’s sustainable ignores a lot of pain and cruelty.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 minutes ago

        I think “exploitation” is the wrong word to be used. I’m not vegan, so I really have no bearing on this, but exploitation doesn’t equal harm.

        This post for example is about bees. They’re being exploited (in that we’re using them to get resources), but is it harmful? I have trouble saying yes. It seems somewhat ideal for them. They get to go about their lives like normal, though usually in a place with a lot of flowering plants, and they get taken care of. Occasionally honey is gathered from them, but this doesn’t actually harm any bees.

        I think vegans follow dogma too much. They should consider their reasons for themselves, and consider what food sources fall into that. The dogma is useful for quick communication and sharing of information, but I would suspect honey farming is a lot better for the living things involved than even a lot of plant farming, which requires large swathes of land to be dedicated to farming, which certainly isn’t good for native species and arguably plants can feel too.

      • weeeeum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        This is probably a hot take but I have the opinion that nature isn’t any more merciful than we are. Existence is suffering and every animal ends up as feed for another.

        Is it better to be raised in horrid conditions in a farm, or to spend every moment of your life scavenging for food, running for your life, while probably infested with parasites just to be torn to pieces, alive, by a wolf or other predator?

        Humans at least have the decency to sedate or knock unconscious our food. Wild animals have to experience being eaten alive.

        • Rob@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          This is a false equivalence; the answer is “neither”.

          Veganism doesn’t seek to end all animal suffering, but not to exploit animals for humans’ sake. We don’t need animal products to survive, so we shouldn’t add to whatever misery already exists naturally.

          In the case of livestock, we should just stop breeding them. No vegan is arguing for dumping all cattle in the savannah to be hunted by lions.

    • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      About honey: we do need bees. But taking away their honey which they work really hard for to sustain their colony during the winter and replacing it with sugar water is really bad for them and makes their colony weak. They can get viruses, bacteria and fungi much faster, which they can spread to other colonies or when splitting up when their queen dies.

      Next to that, bees we use for honey are a very aggressive territorial species. They claim their territory and all the other bee and whasp species are killed and pushed out. There are many bee and whasp species who do not live in colonies but are very important for the biodiversity. Replacing them with our bees, which will die and get sick faster because we take away their nuteician rich honey, is a bad idea.

      We do need our bees, but in reduces quantities to keep the balance. But we shouldn’t take their food.

      • racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I’d say the issue is that if honey isn’t vegan because you’re causing harm to bees, isn’t most of modern vegetable agriculture at least equally harmful to bees & other insects due to all the pesticides being used?

        Or is it just if we directly involve bees, it’s bad, but if we inflict greater harm in a less direct way, it’s acceptable?

        • CetaceanNeeded@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Not just insects. Vermin control is critical and often not very ethical. Here in Australia, rabbits and kangaroos can be a big issue for farmers too and are often killed to protect crops when they become too numerous. Ducks can be a big issue for rice farmers here and permits are issued to shoot ducks on crops.

        • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Every aspect of our globalised and industrialised world is causing harm. Veganism is about reducing the harm we’re responsible for as far as possible and reasonable. Renouncing honey is easy. So it’s possible and reasonable. No vegan thinks they’re responsible for zero suffering or even zero dead animals, we’re simply trying to reduce the number as best as we can without starving ourselves.

          • racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            But if honey is cultivated in a way that’s better for the bees than other sources of sugar, wouldn’t using honey be more logical for vegans?

            • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              51 minutes ago

              In a perfect world I think this could be true. Small scale backyard beekeeping with native species, where I only take the surplus the bees themselves don’t use, where queens are left alone and drones are allowed to reproduce in their own pace. The problem is: That’s not how it’s done on the industrial scale at all. So even if you had such a bee utopia in your backyard and could replace all your sugary needs with that, as long as the well being of bees is of interest to you you’d probably still refrain from buying products that have honey in them. In a capitalist society companies will always use the cheaper stuff, and that comes almost exclusively with massive animal exploitation.

        • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          isn’t most of modern vegetable agriculture at least equally harmful

          I’m a going with far more harmful.

          • ZeffSyde@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Yeah. The modern method of acres and acres of one species being farmed, with or without pesticides and other performance enhancing drugs is terrible for the environment.

            For many animals, you might as well build an asphalt parking lot for each acre of corn or soy you plant. Same goes for Western grass lawns.

            The critters that can’t adapt starve or move away.

      • khaleer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I mean bees are producing way more than they are using. We just shouldn’t take it all.

        • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          53 minutes ago

          It’s a buffer for when the climate is different then normal so they will need more food…

          • vert3xo@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            25 minutes ago

            That’s not true, bees really do produce more than one colony needs. The thing is that when they have no more room to store honey some bees will take a large portion of it and leave to start a new colony which is bad for you as a beekeeper and other insect species. The way I see it you definitely should take the honey. Just leave some for the winter.