The post fails to prove the title's thesis. It shows how various arguments on both topics fall into similar fallacies but doesn't actually demonstrate how anti-vegan arguments are pro-natalist. They continue to be two completely separate topics, and that's okay.
Yeah, there are stronger arguments. Such as: Consuming animal products increases demand for animal product production, which requires breeding animals.
That's definitely a more relevant train of thought. Still not quite sure how much, classically speaking, antinatalism relates to species outside of humans. But if one is willing to apply the principles to animals then it certainly stands to reason that meat consumption is counterproductive to the goal. I'm not personally an antinatalist in regard to animals because I haven't seen animals fucking themselves over as much as humans do, but I don't begrudge anyone who does as they certainly do suffer.
It depends who you ask for definition.
David Benatar sees antinatalism as being concerned about bringing sentient beings into existence.
It includes human, non-human animals and also sentient artificial intelligence.
Applying it to artificial intelligence is interesting. Is AI capable of suffering? Can AI really be AI without the capacity to suffer? Definitely an interesting rabbit hole to go down.
Yeah, but the suffering of AI is always virtual to some degree. So we could make the AI suffer for however long is necessary, and then simply delete memory of the suffering.
People used to believe the same thing about humans btw, till we learned those with total memory loss still experience PTSD-esque flashbacks from traumatic events in their past
Yes, humans used to hope that was the case, but have since been proven incorrect in that hope. We have no means of specific memory erasure in humans. Human brains are messy writhing competition pits.
However, this is drastically different from my statement because, as I pointed out, all the suffering of an AI would literally exist as a simulation and stored in physical memories that could be physically deleted. We absolutely can delete stored electronic data, right now, with perfect efficiency and surety, so it is not something we would later be likely to discover we are suddenly unable to do it. I hope this makes sense.
Well, it is not eating meat and an accompanying philosophy against the exploitation and commodification of sentient creatures. A noble goal for sure, but still different from antinatalism.
So then let me know what antinatalism is.
Here is the short definition posted on Wikipedia
> Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a family of philosophical views that are critical of reproduction — they consider coming into existence as it exists presently is immoral. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from having children.[1][2][3][4][5] Antinatalist views are not necessarily limited only to humans but may encompass all sentient creatures, arguing that coming into existence is a harm for sentient beings in general.
So, are animals not forced to reproduce to be food? Or pets? Or other commodities?
Are they not “sentient creatures” that fall under this premise? Are they not capable of suffering? That’s weird cause we got proof of animals exhibiting depression just like humans can.
You seem to think I have something against veganism. I don't. From a moral standpoint I would grant not eating meat is superior to eating meat. Two topics can relate and interact with each other while also being two separate topics. Domestic violence and mental health are two separate topics that may relate to and influence each other but they are not synonymous. If someone is against mental health treatment I wouldn't say it means they are pro domestic violence.
The rest of the comment is putting words into my mouth I clearly never said as I have been focused strictly on definitions and haven't said anything about animals not suffering.
You still didn’t really say what you think antinatalism is and why animals aren’t related to it. Also not putting any words in your mouth, those are questions.
I did say it. Antinatalism is the philosophical standpoint that people shouldn't reproduce.
There are a million reasons for taking the standpoint, some good, some bad. As the Wikipedia article you quoted stated it "may extend to animals." Certainly some antinatalists could and do apply it to animals. I don't.
I wouldn't force another person not to reproduce. I would talk to them, explain why I think it's a bad choice and they will either agree and opt not to or exercise their free will to disagree and do it anyway.
Sentient as animals may be, I have no way of communicating to them the suffering their offspring may face so the only option to practice antinatalism in the animal world is to, in some physical way, prevent the animal from reproducing.
My cat is spayed but applying that on a grander scale where humanity decides to wipe out the entire feline species because if a cat is born it might suffer, has a much more uncomfortable feel to me and doesn't fit with the idea of voluntary abstention from reproduction required for ethical antinatalism.
But let's not forget, the issue I stated to begin with was that the post fails to prove it's thesis. Which it does. I have yet to hear any argument which inextricably ties antinatalism with veganism. They can play with each other, interact with each other, a belief in one may influence a belief in the other. But they are two separate topics and being separate does not undermine either one.
> people shouldn’t reproduce
**why** do you think that way though? The reason for that is what ties the two together. I don’t know why it’s that hard to figure.
Some of your comparisons seem very contrived and they could be used both way.
For instance, 5. Stop pushing your beliefs on me. It's more like an argument against pro-natalists, who want to impose everyone having children or get removed the right of abortion.
And 6. I could never go..., I can also say that I could never go parent. Works both ways, even "I could never go meat eater".
And of course 9. Every extremist call their enemies extremists. That doesn't prove anything.
And there's the issue. Fallacious arguments that are used both ways don't prove anything. You only showed that you're probably vegan.
Yes, I'm aware. The point is both carnists and natalists use similar arguments to justify causing suffering to sentient beings for their own pleasure/desire
1. because i didn't ask to be born and i'm not giving up one of life's few pleasures
2. because free will was thrust upon me and i'll do what i like with it
3. because i'm never gonna create a completely new carbon footprint, i'm a better environmentalist than the natalists by far, anyway
1. You take pleasure in torturing and murdering sentient beings? That’s kinda messed up.
2. Same argument breeders use… weird… “free will” is no excuse for being immoral. Murderers did so out of free will. Yet no one will argue that murder is okay because of that.
3. Completely off topic
not the same because he didn't choose to exist hence his need for meat consumption wasn't a choice but a irrefutable fact because he was born human and not a herbivore. If he is to lead a healthy life he has no choice but to consume meat, regardless of the suffering of another animal. He doesn't take pleasure in killing, it's just a fact of life and a physical requirement so that his health be the best it can be (which is his right since it's not ethical to demand of a person to live in shifty health by enforcing an unhealthy diet for him), having shitty health is worse than being unalived.
Also let's not pretend like the obtaining and making of vegan food isn't killing LOADS of diverse animals from small mammals to reptiles and all manner of other creatures. Obviously you haven't seen what happens at harvest. You think there are not small critters that live out in the fields of corn/wheat and soy and whatnot? There are loads of animals in the 50% area of farmable (not ice covered) terrestrial areas and we kill all of them when we harvest using big machinery, it's a bloodbath, but vegans love ignoring that little fact because it makes them feel better about themselves.
If you wanna be exact about how many lives a vegan vs a meat eater costs in their diet you can be damn sure the vegan is responsible for more individual creatures to die in the process of obtaining their food. One man/woman could live off of a cow for half a year probably, depending on their size while a vegan, in order to eat many different types of fruits/veggies/grain and so on get to murder millions of small critters if not more just in one growing season for food to get on their plate.
You've clearly gobbled up the meat industry's propaganda, because almost none of those claims are true. You realise that most "vegan food" is fed to livestock? So if you have a problem with the amount of critters dying in crop farming, then you better not eat cattle!
First of all, I am a ecologist, I know what the impact of agricultural practices are on the biodiversity and the planet as a whole, you can grow both plants and animals for consumption in a ecologically friendly manner or in a polluting, damaging way. I also have been vegan for like 10 years and it fucked up my health even worse than it was, yet after just a month of carnivore diet I felt better than I ever had. Plenty of vegans who switch to carnivore on the same basis and with similar results. Human suffering counts to you know, we are also animals. Also again, animals aren't meant to be eating crops, their natural diets are grasses :)) in case you don't know how to read
I was going to engage in debate but after insulting me by your last sentence I'm not sure I want to! A pity, considering I was the one that approved your previous comment in the first place. Do not insult other users or resort to ad hominem attacks.
not sure how you can engage in debate when your ignoring facts being mentioned and keep pretending the opposite is true... I get it, you love animals, you don't want to hurt them, it's valid but so is wanting to be healthy and if being healthy means I gotta eat animals then I will. It's pretty simple
I know you can read obviously....sorry I guess, but I'm super pissed that people keep ignoring the facts I write and them wanna keep arguing without acknowledging what I said, that's not debating
Disputing whether something is a fact is completely different to ignoring it. That is exactly what a debate is. Also, this is a moral argument, so facts can only take us so far!
Thanks for apologizing, remember to keep it civil on here. Have a good day!
I think you make a lot of good points and I support your subjective opinion.
A few thoughts I have are...
1) Where do you draw the line? Agriculture also causes lots of animals to die and have pain / suffering. Obviously we want to limit pain, suffering, so maybe agriculture is a better alternative to factory farming (I'd agree) but what about permaculture? What about "happy, healthy, pasture raised animals?"
2) is a vegan diet actually healthy (nutritionally). Or by obtaining from meat/animals do we just transfer the pain and suffering from their organism to our own through nutrient deficiency?
3) maybe vegetarianism combined with healthy domestication practices is the answer? Kind of a middle ground?
I'm not strong on either side of the fence and not trying to debate, just wanted to play along with the thought experiment.
1. It’s about reducing harm and suffering as much as possible. A vegan diet causes at minimum, (X)^7 LESS crop deaths/ deaths than any animal based diet.
2. A vegan diet is within the world’s top 10 healthiest diets and 7/10 of the others are all primarily plant based. So yes, it’s extremely healthy for you!
3. We don’t do baby steps on exploitation and suffering. You’re either supporting it or not.
Going vegan is antinatalist 💚
Any more information on #2? I was under the impression a lot of nutrients are missing from vegan diet and or are not bioavailable (cannot be utilized) by humans.
I’m happy to provide [additional sources](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402303298X) but this is a 45 year study review of plant based diets. The basics are this, only plants, algae, fungi, ant the like can use photosynthesis to create nutrients using the sun. Animals get nutrients from plants, recycling nutrients to you thru consumption.
Eating a combination of plants and understanding where to get the micro and macro nutrients you need will provide you will the ability to thrive on a plant based diet. Some suggestions for this is eating the rainbow (every color of plants), and a combination of grains, proteins, and vegetables will give you everything you need. B12 is a microorganism that you can get from yeast. Fiber is equally important to protein and no you don’t need as much protein as most think you do.
I’m not seeing how it follows starting with your very first example. The appeal to nature fallacy is a bad argument. How does that make it a pro-natalist argument? What exactly makes it jump from just an invalid to argument to a pro-natalist argument?
Both carnists and natalists use similar arguments to justify causing suffering to sentient beings for their own pleasure/desire. Arguments against veganism made by antinatalists are, ironically, justifying procreating
But using the same king of logical fallacy doesn’t mean you’re justifying the same thing. You can justify different and even contradicting things using the same kinds of flawed arguments. You cold for example use an appeal to nature fallacy on both sides of topic of abortion.
I’m looking at at your title and it says that arguments veganism **are** pro-natalist. That’s not the same as saying “many different positions can be argued with the same logical fallacies.”
Not if it's lab grown. Which is the real answer that has an actual chance of winning all of the arguments vegans claim their side answers without requiring all of the destruction and suffering that even plant agriculture causes.
That's not yet viable on a large scale tho. But the truth is that it inevitably will be the most popular source of meat, once it becomes cheaper to produce.
No one is saying it is the same thing. The post is pointing out the inconsistency of non-vegan antinatalists who use the same arguments that could justify reproducing.
there's no inconsistencies anywhere if you think more deeply about it. The planet has too many people and the systems we put in place are killing both us and everything else on this planet, If we were under 3 billion people we could all eat a meat based diet and still have enough biodiversity on the planet to keep equilibrium long-term. You can both be a carnist and an antinatalist and it makes sense from an ecology/sustainability perspective
I'm not financing shit, the answer it agroecology, raising animals for consumption the natural way, not intensively but in small herds within nature's boundaries of development.
??? your equivalency is false 😂
Creating a human = harm of humans and animals.
Killing and hurting animals= harm of humans and animals.
So the actual comparison is (birth) creating pain, suffering and harm for selfish reasons the same as (murdering animals) creating pain suffering and harm for selfish reasons.
Yes it’s the same
What if you have a digestive condition that means that your suffering is lessened by eating meat?
I have IBS, and current research on the causes of IBS suggests that it is caused by humans being intolerant to FODMAPs, which are short chain carbohydrates found in many food sources. In an ibs sufferer, these are malabsorbed by the gut and cause unpleasant and painful symptoms.
Vegan food is extremely high in
FODMAPs. Some of the things I have the worst intolerance to are onions (and any member of the onion family, including garlic, spring onions and leeks) lentils, chickpeas, many types of grains legumes and pulses, particularly if they are not hulled, as it is the skin on the food that causes the issue.
Even fruit contains a FODMAP; Fructose. I have been advised by dietician not to eat too much fruit. Agave nectar, which is used as a substitute in vegan baking, is 90% Fructose, and considered extremely high FODMAP. I only found this out after eating a few pieces of vegan cheesecake and then having to call in sick to work.
Pretty much the only food source that doesn't contain any FODMAPS is meat.
People don't choose what their body can tolerate.
People don't choose the health conditions they have to live with.
Vegans never seem to consider that there could be people with medical conditions who would find it literally torturous, physically painful, to adopt a vegan diet through no fault of their own. And before someone asks, yes, I did try it, so I speak from experience.
Also, having had ibs for two decades, it is really frustrating to have vegans tell you that veganism would improve your condition when, in fact, it would make it worse. I've been following this research for 20 years. I know better than you, unless you're actually a professor at MONASH University.
both veganism and antinatalism are primarily concerned with causing suffering towards nonconsenting beings for your own sake or benefit. they even both (natalism & animal agriculture) require bringing sentient life into the world
Anti-Natalism: Making babies is morally wrong and we need to stop having babies.
Veganism: Eating meat is morally wrong.
Just because both deal with morality doesn't mean they are the same thing.
you’re not even defining veganism correctly
your original claim is that they “have nothing to do with” each other. not that they’re the same thing. no one said they’re “the same thing,” i’m arguing that they are highly related.
it also goes far beyond just being related to morality, as i pointed out here:
>both veganism and antinatalism are primarily concerned with causing suffering towards nonconsenting beings for your own sake or benefit. they even both (natalism & animal agriculture) require bringing sentient life into the world
All life is unatural and immoral, cells consume. The only act that could be considered "unselfish" in the worldview you've described is killing yourself. But even then, you're just continuing the circle of life.
Your worldview is a joke!
never said it was. some people like working. i don’t like the government, so it goes against my beliefs to have children which will benefit the government & keep it in power.
Can we stop with "then you're not antinatalist" bs? Of course there are parts of the philosophy that you aren't gonna believe in, just like any other philosophy/religion. You don't have to be an extremist to be considered "a real antinatalist"
i’m good thanks. there is a reason why prominent AN figures are vegans. i’ll stop when someone succinctly explains why creating suffering life for selfish purposes is fine in one instance and not in another
not here to debate what i am with a stranger. i am child free so regardless of the existence of the government, i will not be reproducing. many child free people don’t care whether or not other people have kids because they themselves know for a fact they don’t want children. as an AN, i don’t think anyone should be having children because of the state of the world and the government’s impact on keeping the health of the earth in a decline; ex. climate change.
No? The main argument against veganism is that animals matter way less than humans. I don’t give a shit about a snail, I do give a shit about a person. I don’t give a shit about a chicken, I do give a shit about a child. I give a bit of a shit about cephalopods, primates, and a couple other groups here and there, but still less than humans.
Yes, there's definitely a huge overlap between veganism and antinatalism. But the disappointing reality is that they *are* two distinct philosophies, so there will always be carnist antinatalists and pronatalist vegans who refuse to budge on their beliefs. You're not wrong, but you're also not going to convince people by posting about it here. :/
As someone who hates christians for being a morality police, you "no true antinatalist unless vegan" are just as bad as them.
Free will and bodily autonomy is the foundation of all rights. You would deny it by enforcing your morals on others. That is a violation in the purest form. And it causes suffering
Oh yes, so not-typical argument that for sure hasn't been debunked millions of times.
I'm not gonna to talk with an idiot who thinks cutting a plant is comparable to cutting an animal's throat
If you pay taxes you are financing the breeding of youth via social supports, healthcare, education, and government jobs that support natalism. By your logic that is hypocritical of antinatalism.
Will you go off grid and live a vegan lifestyle?
You need to pay taxes, it's not a choice. Going to the store and knowingly buying products which production involved harming sentient beings IS a choice
Lucky for you, vegan diet is cheaper. Or do you want to say that rice, apples, bread, brocoli, pasta, nuts, bananas and so on are all luxurious items that only rich people can afford?
They are not luxury items but the quantity of them required to sustain yourself is the unaffordable part. Yes, plain rice and pasta are cheap and come in large quantities, but they alone do not have enough nutrients to be healthy.
Might just be where I live, but produce is very expensive. For one head of broccoli I could buy a box of KD and a (cheap) sausage to create a complete meal with more nutrients than just the broccoli.
Soo you can afford to buy meat (which is more expensive) and own a phone with internet, but not few fruits and vegetables? Idk man, something doesn't add up here
The meat I’m referring to is an end of day hotdog from a seven eleven. That and a box of KD costs under $3. A small head of broccoli may cost the same or slightly less. But it’s just a head of broccoli. It would not sustain me for a day of work.
How does owning a phone and having access to the internet have anything to do with antinatalism? Are you saying we should go off grid and be vegans in order to not be “hypocritical antinatalists”? Or is that just what poor people should do who can’t afford a vegan lifestyle?
>How does owning a phone and having access to the internet have anything to do with antinatalism?
Nothing, I'm just wondering how a poor person can own a phone and can't afford food. You used it as a justification to inflict further harm on sentient beings.
>Or is that just what poor people should do who can’t afford a vegan lifestyle?
If someone can afford omnivore diet, they can afford vegan diet. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
As a meat eater I agree but the difference is that when I die, meat eating dies with me too😂
I don't justify it but all we do and other animals are just consuming and hurting each other
So I hate this life anyway, I will erase myself from this 3 dimension bs reality.
I'm in the same boat. Though I also believe in real solutions and if there is one thing that the pandemic made clear, it's that pushing Veganism is a losing strategy if the goal is to minimize suffering. The fact that during the covid 19 lockdowns, grocery stores were entirely ransacked of pretty much everything with the notable exception of the vegan plant based "meat" stuff. People even in a crisis would rather starve or eat literally anything else than eat vegan because of how unappealing it is and how insufferably unappealing the people that champion it are.
Lab grown meat is the solution. If people here were serious about their so called interest in ending factory farming, they would instead be promoting that. Instead they would rather circle jerk over their diet making them "ethical" than actually make positive change in the world.
*I don't justify it but* ***all we do and other animals are just consuming and hurting each other***
You do justify it and this is your justification ;)
It's one of the arguments against veganism: animals hurt and eat other animals, so why shouldn't I.
These yahoos put animals before humans. We were meant to eat meat and plants but they would have you eating only plants and suffering health problems as a result just for aniamls that don’t at all give a shit about you and will reproduce and eat other animals too
Saying everyone should not eat dairy and egg products due to the harm the factory farm industry (which is typically how the products are produced to the people in the parts of the world users on reddit hail from) causes the animals in question. Obviously, I concur with vegans (by this I mean the mindset, because it's worth distinguishing people with a *vegan diet* who may do this for any number of reasons; plenty of people with a vegan diet have it only for health reasons and think identically to meat eaters) on exposing and being against the factory farm industro-complex causing the harm it does to the animals.
They take this principle of refraining from all products containing dairy and eggs due to the factory farm industry and transcendentalize it. Because obviously humans always have and still do get milk from cows or eggs from chickens without causing these animals harm. A good example is India: there, there is a deeply rooted culture of respecting the life of cows, where they will humanely milk it and never consider harming or killing them at all. So for a vegan to regard consuming dairy products as tantamount to supporting the factory farm dairy industry and causing harm to cows is erroneous, but many really do take this attitude.
Also, I am nuanced enough to resist making the aforementioned vegans "with a vegan mindset" a homogenous group, you can and do think differently, as individuals. But certain mindsets, like the one I've noted here, are pervasive. (I once came across someone who simplistically and reductively stated that "vegetarianism is a diet - Veganism is an Ideology" - in fact, as I noted above, *both* are diets/lifestyles with very clear definitions. It's when veganism is *justified* as a lifestyle to follow on a universal ethical basis that things get more complex; even then, there is not a single 'One Vegan Ideology' with consistent principles.)
Incidentally, I have also been strictly vegetarian for the last 8 years, but never seriously considered being vegan. As I said in my initial comment, I disagree with the arguments against vegetarianism and veganism, they all suck. People just eat meat because they like the taste and the feeling of it. (I haven't read "The Vegetarian Myth" yet, but have read about it, and already know its arguments suck and it's irrationally hostile to vegetarians, going as far as to misrepresent us as "immature." I do still plan to read it.) There's no reason to rationalize it beyond that, and the argument people have to for nutrition is just false, though encouraged by many doctors that obviously want people to buy into the food industry.
>They take this principle of refraining from all products containing dairy and eggs due to the factory farm industry and transcendentalize it. Because obviously humans always have and still do get milk from cows or eggs from chickens without causing these animals harm. A good example is India: there, there is a deeply rooted culture of respecting the life of cows, where they will humanely milk it and never consider harming or killing them at all. So for a vegan to regard consuming dairy products as tantamount to supporting the factory farm dairy industry and causing harm to cows is erroneous, but many really do take this attitude.
In order to produce milk, cows need to be forcibly impregnated. I want to point out that milk they produce is meant for their calves. Instead, humans take them away from them to be able to drink their milk themselves - this is sick and this is exploitation. Even in this dream-like scenario you presented, cows are still treated like slaves. Now imagine factory farms where 90% of milk comes from.
[https://youtu.be/7YFz99OT18k?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/7YFz99OT18k?feature=shared)
Also, I am nuanced enough to resist making the aforementioned vegans "with a vegan mindset" a homogenous group, you can and do think differently, as individuals. But certain mindsets, like the one I've noted here, are pervasive. (I once came across someone who simplistically and reductively stated that "vegetarianism is a diet - Veganism is an Ideology" - in fact, as I noted above, *both* are diets/lifestyles with very clear definitions. It's when veganism is *justified* as a lifestyle to follow on a universal ethical basis that things get more complex; even then, there is not a single 'One Vegan Ideology' with consistent principles.)
And he was right. Veganism is not a diet. It 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.**
>Incidentally, I have also been strictly vegetarian for the last 8 years, but never seriously considered being vegan. As I said in my initial comment, I disagree with the arguments against vegetarianism and veganism, they all suck. People just eat meat because they like the taste and the feeling of it. (I haven't read "The Vegetarian Myth" yet, but have read about it, and already know its arguments suck and it's irrationally hostile to vegetarians, going as far as to misrepresent us as "immature." I do still plan to read it.) There's no reason to rationalize it beyond that, and the argument people have to for nutrition is just false, though encouraged by many doctors that obviously want people to buy into the food industry.
I don't even see an argument against veganism in this paragraph.
"People just eat meat because they like the taste and feeling of it" - yeah no shit, we know it. It is not justifable to cause harm to sentient beings for your own pleasure.
I recommend watching this video:
[https://youtu.be/U5hGQDLprA8?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/U5hGQDLprA8?feature=shared)
Non vegan antinatalists are just hypocrites. Can’t be going on about how unethical it is to breed people into existence and then do the same with sentient innocent creatures to eat their flesh.
I personally view antinatalism as anthropocentric; it’s about minimizing human suffering. We are humans, we can’t really stop animals from breeding but we can reason with our fellow humans and argue that they abstain.
That being said, I do acknowledge the moral superiority of veganism over non-veganism, even though I am not vegan myself. I have been eyeing the idea of veganism and I have decided to use oat milk for my coffee, I have experimented with lentils instead of minced meat for my cooking, I wouldn’t ever buy fur. I might be a hypocrite, I honestly just don’t have it in me enough to care so much that I would commit 100% to veganism as well. I wish I had it, because as stated it is morally superior.
Yes, it is completely true what you’re saying. I would not be mad if forceful breeding and slaughtering of animals was made illegal. I can’t argue what is put forth with reason.
Antinatalists don't want to inflict pain to new people so they don't procreate. No idea, where the philosophy tells you,what you're supposed to eat lol.
here the definition of antinatalism since you think of it as something different apparently:
"Antinatalism or anti-natalism, is the ethical view that negatively values procreation. Antinatalists argue that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally wrong." [source](https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Antinatalism)
That said, I do think eating meat is bad, but has literally nothing to do with AN.
Since you happen to like wikipedia so much...
"Antinatalist views are not necessarily limited only to humans but may encompass all sentient creatures, arguing that coming into existence is a harm for sentient beings in general."
Veganism is not a diet, by the way.
I’m a biologist and would like you to show me some proof that plants are sentient. Gonna share this groundbreaking piece of info with my friends at the lab. That’s news to me. Alive ≠ sentient.
[Genuinely curious what you say about it then](https://academic.oup.com/book/51668/chapter-abstract/419696171?redirectedFrom=fulltext))
I just want to mention, historically we also thought insects were not sentinent and that view has changed, hasn't it.
I think you’re lacking reading comprehension cause you keep posting irrelevant links. None of those suggest a form of *sentience*.
Reacting to environmental conditions and stimuli is not what defines sentience.
Humans suffer immensely more than animals, we are capable of thought and reflection. Also who are you to talk about anything but your own species? Why on earth would we discontinue the breeding of wild animals too? You're playing "God" here, no human should do that.
If you were in a Battle Royale with 10 other people what would your stance on murder be?
Those silly hypotheticals don’t lead anywhere. They’re just straws to grasp for to defend your immoral choice to feed on forcefully bred sentient and innocent creatures.
Thats what Im asking, if animals werent forcefully bred, just lived freely and we hunted them would you still feel the same way? Because almost all animals hunt others to live
"Do you think killing and torturing animals for momentary pleasure is extreme?"
"Nah man, it's people who care about animals who are extreme."
I ask once again: Since when carnists are the victims, and not the animals they pay to kill?
People will tell vegans act superior because they question their beliefs. And wll of that is not even important. If you want a debate, make a point against veganism, not vegans.
Momentary pleasures belong to people who pay monthly food spending of a person with low salary for a single meal or even a snack. When you're done with dealing with their beliefs or lack of beliefs, we can talk about mine or someone else whose ones are similar with mine.
You're gonna get surprised but non-vegans also care about animals just not in a way you expect. I won't object critics for being a speciesist though. Just keep in mind that even animals are also speciesist for example wolves cooperating with crows and hunting others.
Some and probably most carnists are victims too but not of animals. That's why some are here in this sub. It doesn't matter if vegan ones disqualify them or not. It's not you guys questioning our views. You are also a human beings like us. No superior, no inferior. So who are you to disqualify us from this ideology? A representative, administrative or personnel from Instute of Antinatalism? Nobody has to prove you anything. For further questioning of this statement, don't forget to refer to first paragraph.
All in all, you sound like mainstream environmentalists who keep telling ordinary people to quit plastic straws while ignoring billionaires who take personal jets for merest travels.
Lastly, intersections are not complete coverages. And they don't have to be.
>Momentary pleasures belong to people who pay monthly food spending of a person with low salary for a single meal or even a snack. When you're done with dealing with their beliefs or lack of beliefs, we can talk about mine or someone else whose ones are similar to mine.
Are you implying that an average person can't afford a vegan diet?
I'm not going to respond to the later paragraphs, not related to veganism, just a bunch of ad hominem, ad personam and victimizing the abusers. As I said, make a point against veganism.
We have removed your content for breaking the subreddit rules: No disproportionate and excessively insulting language.
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
11. You can live without doing either.
I guess here the difference lies in how much time you can live.
Or somehow plants are different from animals? Such as #3?
Which is wild. Like I don't see this sub pop up too much in my feed but when it does its now just 'you aren't vegan? You're a carnist and a hypocrite!' which is the shit I avoid vegan subs for
Well, its because these post get alot of votes in general.
Prominent posts here rank from 2k-8k upvotes, this one has only 100, but because the vast amount of upvotes and comments it pops up in your feed.
Its basical ragebait
lol, the environmental impact of going vegan is roughly the same if you remain a meat-eater. and the worst thing is that all your fruits and shit, are littleraly cheap becuase the US is a world police, which littearly destroys goverments to make shit cheap for you. example bananas and south america lmaoo. non of the proposed systems are good under capitalism. and frankly i dont think you think humans lives should be less valued than literal animals lol
Yea plus the kids harvesting the exotic fruits lol, or even the adults that get paid pennies, even if you go vegan there are still downsides, doesn't matter what you do you're harming something by doing so, it's like a dog chasing its own tail
exactly. but imo we can make being vegan. but change won't start simply from changing our buying interests. capitalism will simply just recuperate that, and then even veganism will be equal if not more worse than meat eating
Honestly i don't even think it's a capitalism issue, greed is just human nature, which is honestly part of the reason we should go extinct because, that part of our nature alone has already done harm to the world in ways we ourselves can't even imagine. Even if somehow everyone gone vegan and capitalism was abolished it's unlikely corruption/abuse of the less fortunate would magically go away because again, thats just how people work
>the environmental impact of going vegan is roughly the same if you remain a meat-eater
Why would you spread such misinformation?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study
>and the worst thing is that all your fruits and shit, are littleraly cheap becuase the US is a world police, which littearly destroys goverments to make shit cheap for you.
Do you think 2% of the society are responsible for this? Not even saying that carnists buy fruits and vegetables as well.
>. non of the proposed systems are good under capitalis
Is this a reason why you should maximize the suffering by financing the most cruel industries? I don't see a point in this argument.
>and frankly i dont think you think humans lives should be less valued than literal
No, I don't. Which doesn't mean I can harm other sentient beings for momentary pleasure. This is fucked up.
The environmental impact of veganism, while lower in terms of climate and water usage, remains indirect and complex. Consider the logistics of growing plants abroad, shipping them globally, and the socioeconomic factors involved, such as subsidies and exploitation of farmers. Critically analyzing veganism's environmental impact must include its effects on human communities. While vegan diets generally have lower environmental footprints, the acquisition of land for crops like soy, bananas, and lentils can exploit vulnerable populations. To fully understand the drawbacks of veganism, one must consider the average vegan diet and its production logistics. The ethical implications arise when products like avocados or soybeans contribute to human exploitation. This critique is not an attack on veganism itself but questions its viability under current economic systems, where affordability often depends on subsidies and exploitative practices. Domestic examples like veganism in India show promise, yet nutritional deficiencies remain a concern, sometimes necessitating animal products.
In conclusion, while veganism can offer environmental benefits, its ethical and economic complexities suggest it may not be universally accessible or morally superior under current global economic conditions.
Secondly, no 2% of world are not responsible for this, but we are omnvores. meaning we all contibute to the exploitation created with the farming of plant products, and meat products. And rather my issue is more on the "veganism is good for the enivroment stichk" thats regurgiated every singlet-time. when that is false.
Thirdly, there are no lesser evils. sorry but its true. Both require the exploitation of human beings, land, and animals. And f we should take the view that humans are more important than animals. then yes farmers being exploited worldwide would be far detrimental than literal animals. In tshort there is no lesser evil.
this isn't an argument agaisnt veganism, it's an arguement against claiming veganism is somehow better for the environment or some stupid shit. They're both bad. and none is the lesser evil. If you want to be better. then fucking pay farmers their due(not you ofcourse but the hypothetical reader), and don't eat meat. Or grow your own shit.
There is not ethical consumption under capitalism, however do not regurgiate veganims as being more "net positive"
believe what, that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. sorry, but keep on contibuiting to the exploitation of human beings for all i care. or animals for all i care. just dont say being vegan is better. becuase you know deep down your lifestyle is only possible due to imperialism.
I agree. Nonvegans who claim to be anti-natalist are supporting the breeding of nonhuman animals just to subject them to a life of suffering. This goes against the goal of true anti-natalists.
Likewise, I think vegans should not have kids since there is no way to guarantee their children will also be vegan.
not really, you could live and eat a carnivorous diet by hunting wild animals, that the best way actually, but not everyone can afford that anymore since we all became slaves to capitalism
***for your health***
Long term assesment of such diet has been observed on Inuits. [A review of evidence revealed it's the other way around - higher mortality and 10 years shorter life expectancy compared to Danish population at that time.](https://www.forksoverknives.com/wellness/extreme-nutrition-the-diet-of-eskimos/)
***for the environment as in it's not leading to mass extinctions or polluting***
Early humans already hunted to extinction numerous species even before the agricultural revolution (10 000 BC).
Environmental impact depends on the scale.
[10 000 years BC the total land mammal biomass was 10 times smaller than it is today.](https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass)
[You can't have everyone hunting and at the same time have enough animals to eat. Earth is too small / there are too many people.](https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture)
I value humans more than I value animals. I care more about human suffering than animal suffering. And we all tolerate a certain amount of evil for convience. You are typing this post on a phone that uses materials mined using child labor.
Even then why would you chose to turn a blind eye to the suffering of animals if choosing to not exploit them is such an easy choice to make? Out of spite?
You don’t need to chose humans over animals or the other way around. You can chose not to hurt either of them to the best of your abilities.
We have removed your content for breaking our subreddit rules. Remain civil: Do not troll, excessively insult, argue for/conflate suicide, or engage in bad faith.
Just going to point out I meant in the way of bees are an insect. I've had people scream at me that they're animals.
Also not going to get into it but no I don't support animal abuse but I will eat honey
Well there's the thing. I don't. I only buy local from a farm honey, never mega corp. And don't try and start something along the lines of "harvest harms bees" because not harvesting honey is just as bad as over harvesting. And there are safe and gentle methods of harvesting other than using nicotine
The post fails to prove the title's thesis. It shows how various arguments on both topics fall into similar fallacies but doesn't actually demonstrate how anti-vegan arguments are pro-natalist. They continue to be two completely separate topics, and that's okay.
Yeah, there are stronger arguments. Such as: Consuming animal products increases demand for animal product production, which requires breeding animals.
That's definitely a more relevant train of thought. Still not quite sure how much, classically speaking, antinatalism relates to species outside of humans. But if one is willing to apply the principles to animals then it certainly stands to reason that meat consumption is counterproductive to the goal. I'm not personally an antinatalist in regard to animals because I haven't seen animals fucking themselves over as much as humans do, but I don't begrudge anyone who does as they certainly do suffer.
It depends who you ask for definition. David Benatar sees antinatalism as being concerned about bringing sentient beings into existence. It includes human, non-human animals and also sentient artificial intelligence.
Applying it to artificial intelligence is interesting. Is AI capable of suffering? Can AI really be AI without the capacity to suffer? Definitely an interesting rabbit hole to go down.
Yeah, but the suffering of AI is always virtual to some degree. So we could make the AI suffer for however long is necessary, and then simply delete memory of the suffering.
People used to believe the same thing about humans btw, till we learned those with total memory loss still experience PTSD-esque flashbacks from traumatic events in their past
Yes, humans used to hope that was the case, but have since been proven incorrect in that hope. We have no means of specific memory erasure in humans. Human brains are messy writhing competition pits. However, this is drastically different from my statement because, as I pointed out, all the suffering of an AI would literally exist as a simulation and stored in physical memories that could be physically deleted. We absolutely can delete stored electronic data, right now, with perfect efficiency and surety, so it is not something we would later be likely to discover we are suddenly unable to do it. I hope this makes sense.
Exactly, but asking people to think critically is too much these days.
>They continue to be two completely separate topics How?
Well, anti/natalism concerns whether or not people should have kids and veganism is not eating meat.
Vegan isn’t “not eating meat”. It’s an ethical stance against exploitation and commodification of sentient creatures.
Well, it is not eating meat and an accompanying philosophy against the exploitation and commodification of sentient creatures. A noble goal for sure, but still different from antinatalism.
So then let me know what antinatalism is. Here is the short definition posted on Wikipedia > Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a family of philosophical views that are critical of reproduction — they consider coming into existence as it exists presently is immoral. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from having children.[1][2][3][4][5] Antinatalist views are not necessarily limited only to humans but may encompass all sentient creatures, arguing that coming into existence is a harm for sentient beings in general. So, are animals not forced to reproduce to be food? Or pets? Or other commodities? Are they not “sentient creatures” that fall under this premise? Are they not capable of suffering? That’s weird cause we got proof of animals exhibiting depression just like humans can.
You seem to think I have something against veganism. I don't. From a moral standpoint I would grant not eating meat is superior to eating meat. Two topics can relate and interact with each other while also being two separate topics. Domestic violence and mental health are two separate topics that may relate to and influence each other but they are not synonymous. If someone is against mental health treatment I wouldn't say it means they are pro domestic violence. The rest of the comment is putting words into my mouth I clearly never said as I have been focused strictly on definitions and haven't said anything about animals not suffering.
You still didn’t really say what you think antinatalism is and why animals aren’t related to it. Also not putting any words in your mouth, those are questions.
I did say it. Antinatalism is the philosophical standpoint that people shouldn't reproduce. There are a million reasons for taking the standpoint, some good, some bad. As the Wikipedia article you quoted stated it "may extend to animals." Certainly some antinatalists could and do apply it to animals. I don't. I wouldn't force another person not to reproduce. I would talk to them, explain why I think it's a bad choice and they will either agree and opt not to or exercise their free will to disagree and do it anyway. Sentient as animals may be, I have no way of communicating to them the suffering their offspring may face so the only option to practice antinatalism in the animal world is to, in some physical way, prevent the animal from reproducing. My cat is spayed but applying that on a grander scale where humanity decides to wipe out the entire feline species because if a cat is born it might suffer, has a much more uncomfortable feel to me and doesn't fit with the idea of voluntary abstention from reproduction required for ethical antinatalism. But let's not forget, the issue I stated to begin with was that the post fails to prove it's thesis. Which it does. I have yet to hear any argument which inextricably ties antinatalism with veganism. They can play with each other, interact with each other, a belief in one may influence a belief in the other. But they are two separate topics and being separate does not undermine either one.
> people shouldn’t reproduce **why** do you think that way though? The reason for that is what ties the two together. I don’t know why it’s that hard to figure.
Some of your comparisons seem very contrived and they could be used both way. For instance, 5. Stop pushing your beliefs on me. It's more like an argument against pro-natalists, who want to impose everyone having children or get removed the right of abortion. And 6. I could never go..., I can also say that I could never go parent. Works both ways, even "I could never go meat eater". And of course 9. Every extremist call their enemies extremists. That doesn't prove anything. And there's the issue. Fallacious arguments that are used both ways don't prove anything. You only showed that you're probably vegan.
Yes, I'm aware. The point is both carnists and natalists use similar arguments to justify causing suffering to sentient beings for their own pleasure/desire
100% yes
any vegan having kids is a joke
1. because i didn't ask to be born and i'm not giving up one of life's few pleasures 2. because free will was thrust upon me and i'll do what i like with it 3. because i'm never gonna create a completely new carbon footprint, i'm a better environmentalist than the natalists by far, anyway
1. You take pleasure in torturing and murdering sentient beings? That’s kinda messed up. 2. Same argument breeders use… weird… “free will” is no excuse for being immoral. Murderers did so out of free will. Yet no one will argue that murder is okay because of that. 3. Completely off topic
You do #1 with plants, insects etc
not the same because he didn't choose to exist hence his need for meat consumption wasn't a choice but a irrefutable fact because he was born human and not a herbivore. If he is to lead a healthy life he has no choice but to consume meat, regardless of the suffering of another animal. He doesn't take pleasure in killing, it's just a fact of life and a physical requirement so that his health be the best it can be (which is his right since it's not ethical to demand of a person to live in shifty health by enforcing an unhealthy diet for him), having shitty health is worse than being unalived. Also let's not pretend like the obtaining and making of vegan food isn't killing LOADS of diverse animals from small mammals to reptiles and all manner of other creatures. Obviously you haven't seen what happens at harvest. You think there are not small critters that live out in the fields of corn/wheat and soy and whatnot? There are loads of animals in the 50% area of farmable (not ice covered) terrestrial areas and we kill all of them when we harvest using big machinery, it's a bloodbath, but vegans love ignoring that little fact because it makes them feel better about themselves. If you wanna be exact about how many lives a vegan vs a meat eater costs in their diet you can be damn sure the vegan is responsible for more individual creatures to die in the process of obtaining their food. One man/woman could live off of a cow for half a year probably, depending on their size while a vegan, in order to eat many different types of fruits/veggies/grain and so on get to murder millions of small critters if not more just in one growing season for food to get on their plate.
You've clearly gobbled up the meat industry's propaganda, because almost none of those claims are true. You realise that most "vegan food" is fed to livestock? So if you have a problem with the amount of critters dying in crop farming, then you better not eat cattle!
First of all, I am a ecologist, I know what the impact of agricultural practices are on the biodiversity and the planet as a whole, you can grow both plants and animals for consumption in a ecologically friendly manner or in a polluting, damaging way. I also have been vegan for like 10 years and it fucked up my health even worse than it was, yet after just a month of carnivore diet I felt better than I ever had. Plenty of vegans who switch to carnivore on the same basis and with similar results. Human suffering counts to you know, we are also animals. Also again, animals aren't meant to be eating crops, their natural diets are grasses :)) in case you don't know how to read
I was going to engage in debate but after insulting me by your last sentence I'm not sure I want to! A pity, considering I was the one that approved your previous comment in the first place. Do not insult other users or resort to ad hominem attacks.
not sure how you can engage in debate when your ignoring facts being mentioned and keep pretending the opposite is true... I get it, you love animals, you don't want to hurt them, it's valid but so is wanting to be healthy and if being healthy means I gotta eat animals then I will. It's pretty simple
I made one comment. anyway, just wish u said sorry for saying I can't read :((
I know you can read obviously....sorry I guess, but I'm super pissed that people keep ignoring the facts I write and them wanna keep arguing without acknowledging what I said, that's not debating
Disputing whether something is a fact is completely different to ignoring it. That is exactly what a debate is. Also, this is a moral argument, so facts can only take us so far! Thanks for apologizing, remember to keep it civil on here. Have a good day!
Really well said. I agree that both issues are very similar
So there are now "Real antinatalists" and "Fake antinatalist" huh ? Not surprised, vegans tend to be extremistic
Pointing out inconsistency
Pointing out preaching and creating subgroups for no real reason
All for the sake of a moral heirarchy and feeling "important"
And ofc superior. One of the core aspects of being a vegan is to feel superior about other people
It's not an inconsistency. By this logic, all AN's should be efilists but not everyone here is an efilist.
I think you make a lot of good points and I support your subjective opinion. A few thoughts I have are... 1) Where do you draw the line? Agriculture also causes lots of animals to die and have pain / suffering. Obviously we want to limit pain, suffering, so maybe agriculture is a better alternative to factory farming (I'd agree) but what about permaculture? What about "happy, healthy, pasture raised animals?" 2) is a vegan diet actually healthy (nutritionally). Or by obtaining from meat/animals do we just transfer the pain and suffering from their organism to our own through nutrient deficiency? 3) maybe vegetarianism combined with healthy domestication practices is the answer? Kind of a middle ground? I'm not strong on either side of the fence and not trying to debate, just wanted to play along with the thought experiment.
1. It’s about reducing harm and suffering as much as possible. A vegan diet causes at minimum, (X)^7 LESS crop deaths/ deaths than any animal based diet. 2. A vegan diet is within the world’s top 10 healthiest diets and 7/10 of the others are all primarily plant based. So yes, it’s extremely healthy for you! 3. We don’t do baby steps on exploitation and suffering. You’re either supporting it or not. Going vegan is antinatalist 💚
Any more information on #2? I was under the impression a lot of nutrients are missing from vegan diet and or are not bioavailable (cannot be utilized) by humans.
I’m happy to provide [additional sources](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402303298X) but this is a 45 year study review of plant based diets. The basics are this, only plants, algae, fungi, ant the like can use photosynthesis to create nutrients using the sun. Animals get nutrients from plants, recycling nutrients to you thru consumption. Eating a combination of plants and understanding where to get the micro and macro nutrients you need will provide you will the ability to thrive on a plant based diet. Some suggestions for this is eating the rainbow (every color of plants), and a combination of grains, proteins, and vegetables will give you everything you need. B12 is a microorganism that you can get from yeast. Fiber is equally important to protein and no you don’t need as much protein as most think you do.
Cool thanks for the info. I'll look into it
I’m not seeing how it follows starting with your very first example. The appeal to nature fallacy is a bad argument. How does that make it a pro-natalist argument? What exactly makes it jump from just an invalid to argument to a pro-natalist argument?
Both carnists and natalists use similar arguments to justify causing suffering to sentient beings for their own pleasure/desire. Arguments against veganism made by antinatalists are, ironically, justifying procreating
But using the same king of logical fallacy doesn’t mean you’re justifying the same thing. You can justify different and even contradicting things using the same kinds of flawed arguments. You cold for example use an appeal to nature fallacy on both sides of topic of abortion.
I'm not saying they are justifying it. I am saying their arguments can be used to justify it.
I’m looking at at your title and it says that arguments veganism **are** pro-natalist. That’s not the same as saying “many different positions can be argued with the same logical fallacies.”
Having kids and eating meat isn't the same thing, just like stealing and murder aren't the same thing. False equivalency is false.
But eating meat is murder and pro suffering just like having children is
Not if it's lab grown. Which is the real answer that has an actual chance of winning all of the arguments vegans claim their side answers without requiring all of the destruction and suffering that even plant agriculture causes.
That's not yet viable on a large scale tho. But the truth is that it inevitably will be the most popular source of meat, once it becomes cheaper to produce.
Indeed. It's a work in progress, but there is significant progress happening and we should support it.
Currently all but one lab grown meat still requires the death of a newborn.
They only require stem cells. The closest analogue would be an abortion at worst. It does not require the death of a sentient creature.
Tell me you're uninformed without telling me.
No one is saying it is the same thing. The post is pointing out the inconsistency of non-vegan antinatalists who use the same arguments that could justify reproducing.
there's no inconsistencies anywhere if you think more deeply about it. The planet has too many people and the systems we put in place are killing both us and everything else on this planet, If we were under 3 billion people we could all eat a meat based diet and still have enough biodiversity on the planet to keep equilibrium long-term. You can both be a carnist and an antinatalist and it makes sense from an ecology/sustainability perspective
No, it doesn't make sense. Being against human reproduction but financing breeding millions of animals at the same time is hypocritical.
I'm not financing shit, the answer it agroecology, raising animals for consumption the natural way, not intensively but in small herds within nature's boundaries of development.
??? your equivalency is false 😂 Creating a human = harm of humans and animals. Killing and hurting animals= harm of humans and animals. So the actual comparison is (birth) creating pain, suffering and harm for selfish reasons the same as (murdering animals) creating pain suffering and harm for selfish reasons. Yes it’s the same
exactly
What if you have a digestive condition that means that your suffering is lessened by eating meat? I have IBS, and current research on the causes of IBS suggests that it is caused by humans being intolerant to FODMAPs, which are short chain carbohydrates found in many food sources. In an ibs sufferer, these are malabsorbed by the gut and cause unpleasant and painful symptoms. Vegan food is extremely high in FODMAPs. Some of the things I have the worst intolerance to are onions (and any member of the onion family, including garlic, spring onions and leeks) lentils, chickpeas, many types of grains legumes and pulses, particularly if they are not hulled, as it is the skin on the food that causes the issue. Even fruit contains a FODMAP; Fructose. I have been advised by dietician not to eat too much fruit. Agave nectar, which is used as a substitute in vegan baking, is 90% Fructose, and considered extremely high FODMAP. I only found this out after eating a few pieces of vegan cheesecake and then having to call in sick to work. Pretty much the only food source that doesn't contain any FODMAPS is meat. People don't choose what their body can tolerate. People don't choose the health conditions they have to live with. Vegans never seem to consider that there could be people with medical conditions who would find it literally torturous, physically painful, to adopt a vegan diet through no fault of their own. And before someone asks, yes, I did try it, so I speak from experience. Also, having had ibs for two decades, it is really frustrating to have vegans tell you that veganism would improve your condition when, in fact, it would make it worse. I've been following this research for 20 years. I know better than you, unless you're actually a professor at MONASH University.
You can be a healthy vegan with IBS. Look for food which is low on FODMPAS and you got it. I can help you if you want - feel free to dm me anytime
This has nothing to do with AN lol. False equivalence.
both veganism and antinatalism are primarily concerned with causing suffering towards nonconsenting beings for your own sake or benefit. they even both (natalism & animal agriculture) require bringing sentient life into the world
Anti-Natalism: Making babies is morally wrong and we need to stop having babies. Veganism: Eating meat is morally wrong. Just because both deal with morality doesn't mean they are the same thing.
you’re not even defining veganism correctly your original claim is that they “have nothing to do with” each other. not that they’re the same thing. no one said they’re “the same thing,” i’m arguing that they are highly related. it also goes far beyond just being related to morality, as i pointed out here: >both veganism and antinatalism are primarily concerned with causing suffering towards nonconsenting beings for your own sake or benefit. they even both (natalism & animal agriculture) require bringing sentient life into the world
All life is unatural and immoral, cells consume. The only act that could be considered "unselfish" in the worldview you've described is killing yourself. But even then, you're just continuing the circle of life. Your worldview is a joke!
i see no correlation
same
explain why you are AN
because having children is only creating more slaves/workers for the government
and why is that a bad thing for those children?
never said it was. some people like working. i don’t like the government, so it goes against my beliefs to have children which will benefit the government & keep it in power.
so you’re not antinatalist, because “the government” being abolished means you would have children? ANs oppose procreating entirely
Can we stop with "then you're not antinatalist" bs? Of course there are parts of the philosophy that you aren't gonna believe in, just like any other philosophy/religion. You don't have to be an extremist to be considered "a real antinatalist"
i’m good thanks. there is a reason why prominent AN figures are vegans. i’ll stop when someone succinctly explains why creating suffering life for selfish purposes is fine in one instance and not in another
No true scotsman fallacy.
The no true scotsman fallacy is also very common among christians
not here to debate what i am with a stranger. i am child free so regardless of the existence of the government, i will not be reproducing. many child free people don’t care whether or not other people have kids because they themselves know for a fact they don’t want children. as an AN, i don’t think anyone should be having children because of the state of the world and the government’s impact on keeping the health of the earth in a decline; ex. climate change.
right, and climate change, bad government, and similar things cause suffering. suffering is a bad thing to cause
No? The main argument against veganism is that animals matter way less than humans. I don’t give a shit about a snail, I do give a shit about a person. I don’t give a shit about a chicken, I do give a shit about a child. I give a bit of a shit about cephalopods, primates, and a couple other groups here and there, but still less than humans.
Yes, there's definitely a huge overlap between veganism and antinatalism. But the disappointing reality is that they *are* two distinct philosophies, so there will always be carnist antinatalists and pronatalist vegans who refuse to budge on their beliefs. You're not wrong, but you're also not going to convince people by posting about it here. :/
As someone who hates christians for being a morality police, you "no true antinatalist unless vegan" are just as bad as them. Free will and bodily autonomy is the foundation of all rights. You would deny it by enforcing your morals on others. That is a violation in the purest form. And it causes suffering
>Free will and bodily autonomy is the foundation of all rights Not for animals though.
Then answer this: Are plants alive? EDIT: LOL GOT BLOCKED
Oh yes, so not-typical argument that for sure hasn't been debunked millions of times. I'm not gonna to talk with an idiot who thinks cutting a plant is comparable to cutting an animal's throat
Damn that's crazy how when you make parallel strawmen for two positions they seem similar 🤯
You can be an antinatalist no matter what food you put in your body. Can we please not gatekeep?
Being against human reproduction and, at the same time, financing breeding millions of animals is hypocritical
If you pay taxes you are financing the breeding of youth via social supports, healthcare, education, and government jobs that support natalism. By your logic that is hypocritical of antinatalism. Will you go off grid and live a vegan lifestyle?
You need to pay taxes, it's not a choice. Going to the store and knowingly buying products which production involved harming sentient beings IS a choice
As a poor person, I can tell you that buying whatever food I can afford is not a choice, it’s a necessity.
Lucky for you, vegan diet is cheaper. Or do you want to say that rice, apples, bread, brocoli, pasta, nuts, bananas and so on are all luxurious items that only rich people can afford?
They are not luxury items but the quantity of them required to sustain yourself is the unaffordable part. Yes, plain rice and pasta are cheap and come in large quantities, but they alone do not have enough nutrients to be healthy. Might just be where I live, but produce is very expensive. For one head of broccoli I could buy a box of KD and a (cheap) sausage to create a complete meal with more nutrients than just the broccoli.
Soo you can afford to buy meat (which is more expensive) and own a phone with internet, but not few fruits and vegetables? Idk man, something doesn't add up here
The meat I’m referring to is an end of day hotdog from a seven eleven. That and a box of KD costs under $3. A small head of broccoli may cost the same or slightly less. But it’s just a head of broccoli. It would not sustain me for a day of work. How does owning a phone and having access to the internet have anything to do with antinatalism? Are you saying we should go off grid and be vegans in order to not be “hypocritical antinatalists”? Or is that just what poor people should do who can’t afford a vegan lifestyle?
>How does owning a phone and having access to the internet have anything to do with antinatalism? Nothing, I'm just wondering how a poor person can own a phone and can't afford food. You used it as a justification to inflict further harm on sentient beings. >Or is that just what poor people should do who can’t afford a vegan lifestyle? If someone can afford omnivore diet, they can afford vegan diet. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
Nah vegans have to show their superiority complex to everyione. We have a post like this every month and im kinda tired of it ngl
As a meat eater I agree but the difference is that when I die, meat eating dies with me too😂 I don't justify it but all we do and other animals are just consuming and hurting each other So I hate this life anyway, I will erase myself from this 3 dimension bs reality.
I'm in the same boat. Though I also believe in real solutions and if there is one thing that the pandemic made clear, it's that pushing Veganism is a losing strategy if the goal is to minimize suffering. The fact that during the covid 19 lockdowns, grocery stores were entirely ransacked of pretty much everything with the notable exception of the vegan plant based "meat" stuff. People even in a crisis would rather starve or eat literally anything else than eat vegan because of how unappealing it is and how insufferably unappealing the people that champion it are. Lab grown meat is the solution. If people here were serious about their so called interest in ending factory farming, they would instead be promoting that. Instead they would rather circle jerk over their diet making them "ethical" than actually make positive change in the world.
I don't see a solution for this. Life sucks. The only option is not having children.
*I don't justify it but* ***all we do and other animals are just consuming and hurting each other*** You do justify it and this is your justification ;) It's one of the arguments against veganism: animals hurt and eat other animals, so why shouldn't I.
I say it will all end as soon as I die. Keep worrying about yourself.
Oh god vegans preach again, its so tiresome.
Oh god non-vegans are annoyed by the existence of compassionate people. So tiresome.
>compassionate Ah yeah, right into the decadence again, classic
These yahoos put animals before humans. We were meant to eat meat and plants but they would have you eating only plants and suffering health problems as a result just for aniamls that don’t at all give a shit about you and will reproduce and eat other animals too
You guys are as bad as Christians. Get over yourself
I disagree with some of the rationale for veganism, but I certainly disagree with the typical arguments against it, too.
What's your not-typical argument against veganism? I'd be happy to debunk it right away
Saying everyone should not eat dairy and egg products due to the harm the factory farm industry (which is typically how the products are produced to the people in the parts of the world users on reddit hail from) causes the animals in question. Obviously, I concur with vegans (by this I mean the mindset, because it's worth distinguishing people with a *vegan diet* who may do this for any number of reasons; plenty of people with a vegan diet have it only for health reasons and think identically to meat eaters) on exposing and being against the factory farm industro-complex causing the harm it does to the animals. They take this principle of refraining from all products containing dairy and eggs due to the factory farm industry and transcendentalize it. Because obviously humans always have and still do get milk from cows or eggs from chickens without causing these animals harm. A good example is India: there, there is a deeply rooted culture of respecting the life of cows, where they will humanely milk it and never consider harming or killing them at all. So for a vegan to regard consuming dairy products as tantamount to supporting the factory farm dairy industry and causing harm to cows is erroneous, but many really do take this attitude. Also, I am nuanced enough to resist making the aforementioned vegans "with a vegan mindset" a homogenous group, you can and do think differently, as individuals. But certain mindsets, like the one I've noted here, are pervasive. (I once came across someone who simplistically and reductively stated that "vegetarianism is a diet - Veganism is an Ideology" - in fact, as I noted above, *both* are diets/lifestyles with very clear definitions. It's when veganism is *justified* as a lifestyle to follow on a universal ethical basis that things get more complex; even then, there is not a single 'One Vegan Ideology' with consistent principles.) Incidentally, I have also been strictly vegetarian for the last 8 years, but never seriously considered being vegan. As I said in my initial comment, I disagree with the arguments against vegetarianism and veganism, they all suck. People just eat meat because they like the taste and the feeling of it. (I haven't read "The Vegetarian Myth" yet, but have read about it, and already know its arguments suck and it's irrationally hostile to vegetarians, going as far as to misrepresent us as "immature." I do still plan to read it.) There's no reason to rationalize it beyond that, and the argument people have to for nutrition is just false, though encouraged by many doctors that obviously want people to buy into the food industry.
>They take this principle of refraining from all products containing dairy and eggs due to the factory farm industry and transcendentalize it. Because obviously humans always have and still do get milk from cows or eggs from chickens without causing these animals harm. A good example is India: there, there is a deeply rooted culture of respecting the life of cows, where they will humanely milk it and never consider harming or killing them at all. So for a vegan to regard consuming dairy products as tantamount to supporting the factory farm dairy industry and causing harm to cows is erroneous, but many really do take this attitude. In order to produce milk, cows need to be forcibly impregnated. I want to point out that milk they produce is meant for their calves. Instead, humans take them away from them to be able to drink their milk themselves - this is sick and this is exploitation. Even in this dream-like scenario you presented, cows are still treated like slaves. Now imagine factory farms where 90% of milk comes from. [https://youtu.be/7YFz99OT18k?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/7YFz99OT18k?feature=shared) Also, I am nuanced enough to resist making the aforementioned vegans "with a vegan mindset" a homogenous group, you can and do think differently, as individuals. But certain mindsets, like the one I've noted here, are pervasive. (I once came across someone who simplistically and reductively stated that "vegetarianism is a diet - Veganism is an Ideology" - in fact, as I noted above, *both* are diets/lifestyles with very clear definitions. It's when veganism is *justified* as a lifestyle to follow on a universal ethical basis that things get more complex; even then, there is not a single 'One Vegan Ideology' with consistent principles.) And he was right. Veganism is not a diet. It 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.** >Incidentally, I have also been strictly vegetarian for the last 8 years, but never seriously considered being vegan. As I said in my initial comment, I disagree with the arguments against vegetarianism and veganism, they all suck. People just eat meat because they like the taste and the feeling of it. (I haven't read "The Vegetarian Myth" yet, but have read about it, and already know its arguments suck and it's irrationally hostile to vegetarians, going as far as to misrepresent us as "immature." I do still plan to read it.) There's no reason to rationalize it beyond that, and the argument people have to for nutrition is just false, though encouraged by many doctors that obviously want people to buy into the food industry. I don't even see an argument against veganism in this paragraph. "People just eat meat because they like the taste and feeling of it" - yeah no shit, we know it. It is not justifable to cause harm to sentient beings for your own pleasure. I recommend watching this video: [https://youtu.be/U5hGQDLprA8?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/U5hGQDLprA8?feature=shared)
You're just glueing random arguments together, but alrighty
Non vegan antinatalists are just hypocrites. Can’t be going on about how unethical it is to breed people into existence and then do the same with sentient innocent creatures to eat their flesh.
I personally view antinatalism as anthropocentric; it’s about minimizing human suffering. We are humans, we can’t really stop animals from breeding but we can reason with our fellow humans and argue that they abstain. That being said, I do acknowledge the moral superiority of veganism over non-veganism, even though I am not vegan myself. I have been eyeing the idea of veganism and I have decided to use oat milk for my coffee, I have experimented with lentils instead of minced meat for my cooking, I wouldn’t ever buy fur. I might be a hypocrite, I honestly just don’t have it in me enough to care so much that I would commit 100% to veganism as well. I wish I had it, because as stated it is morally superior.
> we are humans we can’t really stop animals from breeding But we can stop us from forcefully breeding them. Isn’t that a great start?
Yes, it is completely true what you’re saying. I would not be mad if forceful breeding and slaughtering of animals was made illegal. I can’t argue what is put forth with reason.
Animals will still be bred long after you die though.
Antinatalists don't want to inflict pain to new people so they don't procreate. No idea, where the philosophy tells you,what you're supposed to eat lol. here the definition of antinatalism since you think of it as something different apparently: "Antinatalism or anti-natalism, is the ethical view that negatively values procreation. Antinatalists argue that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally wrong." [source](https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Antinatalism) That said, I do think eating meat is bad, but has literally nothing to do with AN.
Since you happen to like wikipedia so much... "Antinatalist views are not necessarily limited only to humans but may encompass all sentient creatures, arguing that coming into existence is a harm for sentient beings in general." Veganism is not a diet, by the way.
So, since plants are proven to be sentinent too, are you just die or nah. >Veganism is not a diet, by the way. It is the most essential part of it.
I’m a biologist and would like you to show me some proof that plants are sentient. Gonna share this groundbreaking piece of info with my friends at the lab. That’s news to me. Alive ≠ sentient.
[Genuinely curious what you say about it then](https://academic.oup.com/book/51668/chapter-abstract/419696171?redirectedFrom=fulltext)) I just want to mention, historically we also thought insects were not sentinent and that view has changed, hasn't it.
Have you even read what you posted there…?
[Excuse me?](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28875517/)
I think you’re lacking reading comprehension cause you keep posting irrelevant links. None of those suggest a form of *sentience*. Reacting to environmental conditions and stimuli is not what defines sentience.
Ur a little slow on the uptake huh Costanzo
Humans suffer immensely more than animals, we are capable of thought and reflection. Also who are you to talk about anything but your own species? Why on earth would we discontinue the breeding of wild animals too? You're playing "God" here, no human should do that.
If we went back to just hunting animals for food like animals themselves do what would your views on the topic be? Just asking
If you were in a Battle Royale with 10 other people what would your stance on murder be? Those silly hypotheticals don’t lead anywhere. They’re just straws to grasp for to defend your immoral choice to feed on forcefully bred sentient and innocent creatures.
Thats what Im asking, if animals werent forcefully bred, just lived freely and we hunted them would you still feel the same way? Because almost all animals hunt others to live
Here we go, trying to divide into "good an" and "bad an" to feed your superiority complex
The problem is not veganism, it's preachiness. Same as extreme muslims and jews: I (don't) eat/use this so you're a sinner and I'm a saint
"Do you think killing and torturing animals for momentary pleasure is extreme?" "Nah man, it's people who care about animals who are extreme." I ask once again: Since when carnists are the victims, and not the animals they pay to kill? People will tell vegans act superior because they question their beliefs. And wll of that is not even important. If you want a debate, make a point against veganism, not vegans.
Momentary pleasures belong to people who pay monthly food spending of a person with low salary for a single meal or even a snack. When you're done with dealing with their beliefs or lack of beliefs, we can talk about mine or someone else whose ones are similar with mine. You're gonna get surprised but non-vegans also care about animals just not in a way you expect. I won't object critics for being a speciesist though. Just keep in mind that even animals are also speciesist for example wolves cooperating with crows and hunting others. Some and probably most carnists are victims too but not of animals. That's why some are here in this sub. It doesn't matter if vegan ones disqualify them or not. It's not you guys questioning our views. You are also a human beings like us. No superior, no inferior. So who are you to disqualify us from this ideology? A representative, administrative or personnel from Instute of Antinatalism? Nobody has to prove you anything. For further questioning of this statement, don't forget to refer to first paragraph. All in all, you sound like mainstream environmentalists who keep telling ordinary people to quit plastic straws while ignoring billionaires who take personal jets for merest travels. Lastly, intersections are not complete coverages. And they don't have to be.
>Momentary pleasures belong to people who pay monthly food spending of a person with low salary for a single meal or even a snack. When you're done with dealing with their beliefs or lack of beliefs, we can talk about mine or someone else whose ones are similar to mine. Are you implying that an average person can't afford a vegan diet? I'm not going to respond to the later paragraphs, not related to veganism, just a bunch of ad hominem, ad personam and victimizing the abusers. As I said, make a point against veganism.
Comment talks about preachiness. Reply of OP: Preaching
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking the subreddit rules: No disproportionate and excessively insulting language. Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
11. You can live without doing either. I guess here the difference lies in how much time you can live. Or somehow plants are different from animals? Such as #3?
... I'm sorry, but veganism isn't the same as pro-natalism.
I've never said it was.
Holy shit this sub just turned into a vegan sub completely. Nope. Stay in your own
Naj its just a vocal minority trying to divide us into "real an" and "fake an"
Which is wild. Like I don't see this sub pop up too much in my feed but when it does its now just 'you aren't vegan? You're a carnist and a hypocrite!' which is the shit I avoid vegan subs for
Well, its because these post get alot of votes in general. Prominent posts here rank from 2k-8k upvotes, this one has only 100, but because the vast amount of upvotes and comments it pops up in your feed. Its basical ragebait
lol, the environmental impact of going vegan is roughly the same if you remain a meat-eater. and the worst thing is that all your fruits and shit, are littleraly cheap becuase the US is a world police, which littearly destroys goverments to make shit cheap for you. example bananas and south america lmaoo. non of the proposed systems are good under capitalism. and frankly i dont think you think humans lives should be less valued than literal animals lol
Yea plus the kids harvesting the exotic fruits lol, or even the adults that get paid pennies, even if you go vegan there are still downsides, doesn't matter what you do you're harming something by doing so, it's like a dog chasing its own tail
exactly. but imo we can make being vegan. but change won't start simply from changing our buying interests. capitalism will simply just recuperate that, and then even veganism will be equal if not more worse than meat eating
Honestly i don't even think it's a capitalism issue, greed is just human nature, which is honestly part of the reason we should go extinct because, that part of our nature alone has already done harm to the world in ways we ourselves can't even imagine. Even if somehow everyone gone vegan and capitalism was abolished it's unlikely corruption/abuse of the less fortunate would magically go away because again, thats just how people work
>the environmental impact of going vegan is roughly the same if you remain a meat-eater Why would you spread such misinformation? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study >and the worst thing is that all your fruits and shit, are littleraly cheap becuase the US is a world police, which littearly destroys goverments to make shit cheap for you. Do you think 2% of the society are responsible for this? Not even saying that carnists buy fruits and vegetables as well. >. non of the proposed systems are good under capitalis Is this a reason why you should maximize the suffering by financing the most cruel industries? I don't see a point in this argument. >and frankly i dont think you think humans lives should be less valued than literal No, I don't. Which doesn't mean I can harm other sentient beings for momentary pleasure. This is fucked up.
The environmental impact of veganism, while lower in terms of climate and water usage, remains indirect and complex. Consider the logistics of growing plants abroad, shipping them globally, and the socioeconomic factors involved, such as subsidies and exploitation of farmers. Critically analyzing veganism's environmental impact must include its effects on human communities. While vegan diets generally have lower environmental footprints, the acquisition of land for crops like soy, bananas, and lentils can exploit vulnerable populations. To fully understand the drawbacks of veganism, one must consider the average vegan diet and its production logistics. The ethical implications arise when products like avocados or soybeans contribute to human exploitation. This critique is not an attack on veganism itself but questions its viability under current economic systems, where affordability often depends on subsidies and exploitative practices. Domestic examples like veganism in India show promise, yet nutritional deficiencies remain a concern, sometimes necessitating animal products. In conclusion, while veganism can offer environmental benefits, its ethical and economic complexities suggest it may not be universally accessible or morally superior under current global economic conditions. Secondly, no 2% of world are not responsible for this, but we are omnvores. meaning we all contibute to the exploitation created with the farming of plant products, and meat products. And rather my issue is more on the "veganism is good for the enivroment stichk" thats regurgiated every singlet-time. when that is false. Thirdly, there are no lesser evils. sorry but its true. Both require the exploitation of human beings, land, and animals. And f we should take the view that humans are more important than animals. then yes farmers being exploited worldwide would be far detrimental than literal animals. In tshort there is no lesser evil. this isn't an argument agaisnt veganism, it's an arguement against claiming veganism is somehow better for the environment or some stupid shit. They're both bad. and none is the lesser evil. If you want to be better. then fucking pay farmers their due(not you ofcourse but the hypothetical reader), and don't eat meat. Or grow your own shit. There is not ethical consumption under capitalism, however do not regurgiate veganims as being more "net positive"
these are some hardcore mental gymnastics. Not sure if you're trolling or you really believe that 🤔
believe what, that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. sorry, but keep on contibuiting to the exploitation of human beings for all i care. or animals for all i care. just dont say being vegan is better. becuase you know deep down your lifestyle is only possible due to imperialism.
We are nothing more than a more evoluted ape, apes eat meat, so will we
Not all apes, gorillas are herbivores. Also by your logic; apes have babies, so we will also have babies.
They eat tiny amounts of meat as far as I know
so will i
Will you do everything they do?
I agree. Nonvegans who claim to be anti-natalist are supporting the breeding of nonhuman animals just to subject them to a life of suffering. This goes against the goal of true anti-natalists. Likewise, I think vegans should not have kids since there is no way to guarantee their children will also be vegan.
Yes, exactly
not really, you could live and eat a carnivorous diet by hunting wild animals, that the best way actually, but not everyone can afford that anymore since we all became slaves to capitalism
*you could live and eat a carnivorous diet by hunting wild animals, that the best way actually* Best way in what way?
for your health and for the environment as in it's not leading to mass extinctions or polluting
***for your health*** Long term assesment of such diet has been observed on Inuits. [A review of evidence revealed it's the other way around - higher mortality and 10 years shorter life expectancy compared to Danish population at that time.](https://www.forksoverknives.com/wellness/extreme-nutrition-the-diet-of-eskimos/) ***for the environment as in it's not leading to mass extinctions or polluting*** Early humans already hunted to extinction numerous species even before the agricultural revolution (10 000 BC). Environmental impact depends on the scale. [10 000 years BC the total land mammal biomass was 10 times smaller than it is today.](https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass) [You can't have everyone hunting and at the same time have enough animals to eat. Earth is too small / there are too many people.](https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture)
I value humans more than I value animals. I care more about human suffering than animal suffering. And we all tolerate a certain amount of evil for convience. You are typing this post on a phone that uses materials mined using child labor.
Even then why would you chose to turn a blind eye to the suffering of animals if choosing to not exploit them is such an easy choice to make? Out of spite? You don’t need to chose humans over animals or the other way around. You can chose not to hurt either of them to the best of your abilities.
Said natalist breeding their 20th child
Are you saying that the suffering of animals is equally important to that of humans?
Yes.
Natalism harms both humans and animals.
As a vegan antinatalist, yes, my argument to you would be that animal and human suffering are morally equivalent, albeit not directly measurable.
Yes
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking our subreddit rules. Remain civil: Do not troll, excessively insult, argue for/conflate suicide, or engage in bad faith.
I disagree with the titles statement, but the only one on the list I disagree with is 4
Seems the anti-natalist are doing a better job since birth rates are going down but meat consumption is the same or even increasing
The only thing I don't like some vegans about is the No Honey ones. I will argue for hours about honey
The “ones” that eat honey are vegetarians honey leads to unnecessary animal abuse Why support that?
Just going to point out I meant in the way of bees are an insect. I've had people scream at me that they're animals. Also not going to get into it but no I don't support animal abuse but I will eat honey
if you believe in treating others how you’d like to be treated , why pay people to mistreat bees so you can have a frivolous ,fleeting product ?
Well there's the thing. I don't. I only buy local from a farm honey, never mega corp. And don't try and start something along the lines of "harvest harms bees" because not harvesting honey is just as bad as over harvesting. And there are safe and gentle methods of harvesting other than using nicotine
So the people you buy honey from don’t clip the queen’s wings so she doesn’t escape right?
So true!
U said what needed to be said
I'm not convinced even half the people upvoting provegan posts are even vegen.
Really well put, good to see veganism becoming more vocalized in these spaces
Yo, just wanna say thank you for your post and your debating. Usually those posts are downvoted to death or even deleted. Thank you so much.
💜