There is a surprising amount of debate over that in vegan circles. Beyond Meat taste test their burgers against cow burgers to compare the flavour and some vegans will say you can’t consider those burgers vegan while others would say it’s a very small amount of animal consumption to allow for a vegan burger that might help convert more people and so the benefit outweights the harm massively. I’m vegan and I don’t really know what side to lean towards, but there’s debate over everything from honey to almonds, and debate on whether it’s acceptable to order vegan food from non-vegan restaurants, just as examples.
That’s hilarious. What if someone who gets their calories from eating meat cooks up a vegan meal? That meal couldn’t have been made without killing an animal.
That’s a fair point. I suppose like any movement there’s a wide spectrum of people and one end of the spectrum would be those who are as strict as that. I don’t think it’s very productive to be that strict though, certainly where I live and with the health conditions I have it would be impossible to live life so strictly compared to someone in top health living in a major city.
I’d advocate for long-term harm reduction, myself.
While obviously it would be better for the cow to have been able to live a full life, but in (I think) 15 years or so that cow would be dead either way.
Something that can be helping new cows regularly, like a Beyond Burger that can appeal to those that would otherwise just pick a normal burger, I basically consider it to be harm-neutral after the lifespan of the animals they’re using for those taste tests is up.
Honestly, this is the trolley problem. On the main lane, we have a bunch of cows about to be run over by our “Meat Industry” trolley. Pull the lever to redirect the trolley and butcher some cows for beyond burger development. I would pull the lever, but it’s not a clear moral win.
There is a surprising amount of debate over that in vegan circles. Beyond Meat taste test their burgers against cow burgers to compare the flavour and some vegans will say you can’t consider those burgers vegan while others would say it’s a very small amount of animal consumption to allow for a vegan burger that might help convert more people and so the benefit outweights the harm massively. I’m vegan and I don’t really know what side to lean towards, but there’s debate over everything from honey to almonds, and debate on whether it’s acceptable to order vegan food from non-vegan restaurants, just as examples.
That’s hilarious. What if someone who gets their calories from eating meat cooks up a vegan meal? That meal couldn’t have been made without killing an animal.
That’s a fair point. I suppose like any movement there’s a wide spectrum of people and one end of the spectrum would be those who are as strict as that. I don’t think it’s very productive to be that strict though, certainly where I live and with the health conditions I have it would be impossible to live life so strictly compared to someone in top health living in a major city.
I’d advocate for long-term harm reduction, myself.
While obviously it would be better for the cow to have been able to live a full life, but in (I think) 15 years or so that cow would be dead either way.
Something that can be helping new cows regularly, like a Beyond Burger that can appeal to those that would otherwise just pick a normal burger, I basically consider it to be harm-neutral after the lifespan of the animals they’re using for those taste tests is up.
Honestly, this is the trolley problem. On the main lane, we have a bunch of cows about to be run over by our “Meat Industry” trolley. Pull the lever to redirect the trolley and butcher some cows for beyond burger development. I would pull the lever, but it’s not a clear moral win.
It feels like perfect is not just the enemy of good enough, it’s slaughtering its family and salting its crops.
By that logic all oxygen consuming animals are climate change monsters.
They make it harder than it needs to be.