It’s impossible to be vegan because it’s impossible to totally refrain from harming other life.
You’re right, it is impossible to totally refrain from harm. Veganism is about reducing harm in ways practical to the situation, particularly reducing direct or indirect intentional violence. Like many concepts such as ‘anarchy’, veganism can be open to interpretation and manifest in varying forms.
There is no such thing as body purity. Things that have harmed animals are part of nature and modernism and a part of your body.
Vegans’ bodies are less of a graveyard, but ethical vegans (as opposed to religious vegans like Jains) don’t strive to sanitize their bodies, for example realizing their bodies are natural hosts to many organisms.
Veganism was once the height of my moralism, but I have no interest in my diet anymore because I realized I was using veganism to make me feel supreme over other humans.
Ethical vegans today suffer a stereotypical perception in their role on the front line of a social movement – ‘snobby do-gooders’. While some vegans may start believing the accusation, for most vegans the compassionate motives remain primary.
Vegans discriminate against lower complexity animals, like arthropods.
How so? Even vegans who believe some animals may feel less pain or are less sentient still remain respectful of all animals. Further, vegans tend to take more action to protect Earth and cause less suffering than nonvegan counterparts. Imagine the reduction in harm a vegan primitivist would have.
I realize that the main reason I was vegan was as a show of strong will over myself, maintaining self-sacrificing discipline, that was more about my egoism than my altruism. Now I believe that I am a part of the world and fate.
Vegans can be a part of the natural world without exploiting animals. Fate can be molded. Veganism is a pursuit of living in harmony with the natural world.
Plants have feelings too.
Since ‘food’ animals eat plants, you harm fewer plants by eating them directly.
There is no clear definition of ‘vegan’, whenever there is a good argument against it, the definition changes.
One could say the same about ‘anarchy’ or ‘primitivism’. In all things anarchy, meanings are created and interpreted in the living moment. That’s just how it goes, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Veganism is not harm reduction. Harm reduction is not viable with veganism because it relies on agriculture which displaces and kills Earth’s natural life forms.
That’s why vegan primitivism is ideal. But whether living within or without ‘civilization’ veganism does less harm than the omnivore counterpart.
Veganism contradicts its own premises by supporting agriculture & industrialism which cause suffering to sentient life.
Two separate issues. Veganism does not necessarily equate to agriculture any more than omnivorism.
The real harm is agriculture, and without agriculture you must eat animals. A primitive vegan hominid nomadic gatherer is not plausible, and even if there were a case of it, it would be the minority.
In today’s modern world it’s hard to imagine any nomadic people thriving within an ecosystem for much longer, but analysis back into deep hominid history increasingly illustrate a theory of a hominid plant based diet. In today’s world much ecosystem revival & human population reduction would be required before humans could thrive primitively like our deep ancestors. So in now’s reality, the modern choice of a vegan, local, organic diet is the most harmonious diet for Earth.
Veganism harms wildlife habitat.
Not as much as the standard civilized diet.
Eating animals is the natural way for humans to be part of the world.
Human biology speaks strongly to our herbivore nature. What is also natural in a primitivist world is humans dying at the average age of 30 or 40 by something like diarrhea. Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it is worthy of advocacy.
A vegan world would be humans having no interaction with the world, remaining isolated, separate from it as to not harm it.
If humans revived ecosystems, reduced their population, and rediscovered their native habitat ranges, vegan hominids could thrive living within their ecosystem.
Natural life do not choose a diet for ethical reasons. To make dietary choices is to deny your animal self.
Sometimes animals change their dietary choices to adapt to environmental changes, and their new choices are less healthy for their bodies and their environments. The natural human diet may very well be plant based. Some believe nonhumanimals not only choose, but have ethics, though for many animals their instincts tend to override their ethical choices… just as with humans.
Choosing to not harm is anti-nature, self-deprecating.
Clearly humans are causing way more harm than is natural, the question is where to draw the line. What if a plant based diet is the deeply natural human diet? Even if not, what if time is here for humans to evolve their diet for their own survival and to strive to live in harmony?
In the real world animals live & die off of one another. Suffering is a natural phenomenon.
But that’s no justification for causing more suffering than needed.
Veganism is not humans’ natural diet.
Says whom? The most settled science on this question seems to point increasingly toward a natural plant based diet.
Veganism is an arbitrary thing that encourages people to live an illusion that they are helping the world when the harm they do still outweighs whatever benefit, if any.
All modern humans today, including vegans, can do good by ending destructive civilization, not breeding and working on reviving ecosystems. Vegans seem to have less arbitrary illusions than nonvegans.
Statistically vegans really do not save animals.
That reeks of untruth. Where did you get that from? Even so, if there’s an easily controllable choice of whether or not to needlessly exploit or harm an animal, why not make the least oppressive choice?
Veganism is pious & puritan.
This is an accusation thrown at anyone striving for betterment in opposition to the accuser and often the wrongheaded majority.
Humans do much more harm by overpopulating, so if you really want to reduce suffering, the main issue you should be spending energy on is reducing human population.
Everyone should work on reducing human population, vegans and nonvegans.
If you really want to help reduce harm, your energies would be more fruitful elsewhere.
Like where? Vegans would be more likely invest energies to help reduce harm than many.
You can still love an animal and be a part of the world by eating the animal.
Odd definition of ‘love’. Does that principle apply to all your relationships?
It’s impossible to live in the modern world without causing harm. That’s reality.
Yes, but that’s not an excuse to cause more harm needlessly.
If you really are opposed to harm, why would you not intervene when animals eat other animals?
No vegan wants all life to be vegan. Just humans. We accept nature.
Vegans are actually speciesist because they put their morality above other animals.
Being that humans have morality (and we don’t know whether other animals do or don’t), we have a responsibility to use it wisely and compassionately, with the best interest of Earth.
Vegans get stuck in dogmatism and excuse or remain blind to the harm they do.
No more so than others. In general, it seems vegans keep their eyes, minds, and hearts open fairly widely.
Circle of life.
Humans committing needless intentional violence against life with food choices (whether meat or big ag gmo monocrop) is not part of the harmony circle, especially in Earth’s Anthropocentric milieu.
Rewilding is incongruous with veganism.
First ecosystems need to be revived, human population lowered, then humans will have the environment to rediscover their natural habitat and rewild their beings.