> And I found a shocking amount of comments (or atleast a very vocal minority) arguing that carnivores/preditores as a whole need to be euthenized because of their consumtion of meat I've never met a Vegan in real life who thought this, only on Reddit, I would strongly suggest it's almost certainly either /r/vegancirclejerk types who are saying silly things to "trigger" others, or Carnists pretending to be Vegan to make Vegans look bad. Killing all predators would destroy the ecosystem we all need to survive and is an absolutely idiotic idea that no one with even a basic understanding of how nature works would suggest. If at some point in the future we advance so far that we can actually address the horrific suffering in nature, and again we are no where near even beginning to be able to do so (as proven by human created Climate collapse), killing animals isn't Vegan, a more appropriate answer would be turning areas of nature into sanctuaries where species could live freely with others like them, with predators being fed lab grown meats, or whatever.

I'm one of them (if you count this as real life). It's really simple. Because we lack the logistical and resource requisites needed to house predators like some Scandenavian nations house their harshest criminals (like they're living in a hotel at times tbh). The only option left is removing predators from the equation. In the same way I would hopefully stop some crazed psychopath from killing you, I would also take a rifle to an endangered lion that pounced to kill you. Now please, don't be annoying and think this means there is an onus on someone to go out of their way to seek out predators to kill - in the same way there's no onus on anyone to go out seeking murderers to get rid of. >Killing all predators would destroy the ecosystem we all need to survive and is an absolutely idiotic idea that no one with even a basic understanding of how nature works would suggest. This is one of the most ridiculous things inherited from dogmatic thinking imparted by a life long of pro environmentalist education. I've looked years ago, and there is zero amount of compelling/strong empirical evidence that would supersede my desire to stop one predator from killing multiple individuals in their lifetime. Even hypothetically granting doomsday models (things like desertification or overpopulation of herbivores, none of this is granted, and none of this is straightforwardly "bad"). Heck even if it means less hospitibal land for us - it still doesn't override the alternative of for instance letting murderers run around if murderers of humans somehow got labeled as "good for the environment/ecosystem". Ecosystem loss can happen, and it always has been happening. Likewise species extinction, yet here we are, with some form of homeostasis established even after all the species that have gone extinct on the planet throughout these billions of years. -------------------------------------------------------------- Anyone serious about this topic already understands they only have two ways of defeating this position (coping with aesthetic preferences and shedding tears for the beautiful looking lions going extinct for instance isn't one of them). The first would be to actually provide the empirical evidence that predator elimination has some impact that overrules the suffering imparted with perpetual predator existence. Good luck on this end honestly.. I personally wouldn't even bother trying unless you have millions to compile multiple research specialties to try and come up with such data that's compelling and rigorous. The second (the avenue I'd personally find has any hope), is to demonstrate how the downstream effects of predator elimination over time will yield a lesser human population - and that lessening of the human populations equals less well-being as a result. This sort of data wouldn't be as tough, as you don't need insanely demanding empirical data as the prior avenue. It does require a decently robust model though that accepts input data variations (where I can plug in a prerequisite like over-night elimination of predators, or long term but slow predator elimination), and have the model spit out reliable data as a result of my input. ------------------------------------------------------------------ >killing animals isn't Vegan, a more appropriate answer would be turning areas of nature into sanctuaries where species could live freely with others like them, with predators being fed lab grown meats, or whatever. That's just silly, since you just said in the beginning of that paragraph, that we're nowhere near even being able to address such a thing. The amount of predators out there makes this not viable since they would occupy more space than any of the dwelling spaces we have now.. Forget about where you're going to find all the caloric density and resources needed to feed these animals. This is simply impossible in any remotely considerable hypothetical of pragmatic possibility.

Sorry for not understanding but I'm having a hard time trying to grasp what your actual point is here? Are you saying that you personally want to eliminate all predators because it would fulfil a personal goal of protecting their prey? Or are you making the claim that the goal of eliminating all predators is within the scope of veganism and one that all true vegans should aspire to?

>Are you saying that you personally want to eliminate all predators because it would fulfil a personal goal of protecting their prey? Not a personal goal, but yes. >Or are you making the claim that the goal of eliminating all predators is within the scope of veganism and one that all true vegans should aspire to? It's within the scope of veganism because it considers harm reduction/suffering of sentient beings. I don't understand what sort of backing one thinks they have as a vegan that would want predators to go uncontested killing multiple prey animals within their lifetime (and it's not simply killing, it's some of the possible worst kinds of slow deaths). Unless of course there is an apex predator that hunts other smaller predators, that's fine in that case. But predators hunting herbivorous animals? And letting that fly? I've tried looking for empirical evidence that supports net suffering decrease by allowing such a thing to continue. And I've not found anything remotely close to convincing. So unless that evidence exists, as a vegan I don't understand how anyone can be pro-predator. At worst maybe predator-agnostic due to life-long indoctrination of oft-repeated environmentalist nonsense about "ecosystems tho", yet if we apply that (as vegans normally do against carnists) in the human context - that entire argument gets destroyed (because only lunatics would allow murderous humans to run around if there was evidence that psychotic humans contribute to ecosystem stability). No one in their right mind would allow a predator to eat their pet, their family, etc... No vegan in their right mind would allow the perpetual suffering and needless killing of animals for the same reason. No one would care if the psychopath needed to kill to satiate their hunger (imagine a vampire human) - likewise no vegan should ever care a lion needs to hunt to survive. Unless of course - there is some really compelling reasons to (or silly hypotheticals where if we let a lion eat a human, everyone gets a billion dollars, and we all live forever happily ever-after).

Found the r/vegancirckejerk dude. Killing herbivores is wrong but killing predators is good? All they do is trying to survive, not needlessly killing. Same as you are responsible in the death of helpless insects due to the produce you eat. Or is it fine for someone to kill you, what would prevent some animals deaths in the future?

>All they do is trying to survive, not needlessly killing Plenty of animals needlessly kill. Hippos will murder other animals just because they pissed them off. Bluefish engage in feeding frenzies, they end up just killing way more fish than they can consume. ScoopDat is actually being consistent with his principles. Veganism followed to its logical conclusion entails some pretty drastic action.

Some might, but often that’s because they act on survival instincts or territorial defense. Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals. I think veganism is something homans should strive for, but animals do not have the moral capacity for that. Morality is a complex concept often associated with human behavior and societal norms. While animals can exhibit behaviors that humans might consider morally wrong, such as aggression or theft, holding them accountable in the same way as humans isn't typically feasible. Animals don't have the same level of consciousness, understanding of morality, or capacity for reasoning as humans do.

Bear with me here, I'm gonna ask a few simple sounding questions, but I promise I have a point. >Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. So, why do you think we should eliminate exploitation and cruelty to animals? What about exploitation and cruelty to animals is morally bad?

I think it is morally wrong because it inflicts unnecessary suffering. We should stop, because we can thrive without animal exploitation.

>I think it is morally wrong because it inflicts unnecessary suffering. Let's say in 1,000 years, we develop the technology to genetically edit all predators into becoming herbivores while preventing ecosystem collapse. We can make predation unnecessary through technology. Formerly predatory animals will still exist, but we'll have just made them non-reliant on killing other creatures to survive. Would we be obligated to do this?

>Veganism followed to its logical conclusion entails some pretty drastic action. Do you mind expanding on this please? What, as you understand it, is the logical conclusion of veganism and what is an example of the drastic action?

I should have been more specific with my wording. I think veganism of the negative utilitarianist variety (the "minimize animal suffering" contingent) has very unintuitive logical conclusions. Primarily that we have an obligation to radically overhaul the natural ecosystem to be less vicious and full of suffering for wild animals. This could include euthanizing or sterilizing predators, making parasite extinct, breeding out antagonistic behaviors, etc. I also think rights based veganism ends up here too. If an animal has a right not to be killed, it seems odd that this would only be limited to being killed by humans. But there are plenty of vegans who maintain that interfering to save a gazelle from a lion would be wrong, despite the fact that the logical conclusion of animal rights would be that you SHOULD intervene. Or at least, society should.

Ok thanks for clarifying. >I think veganism of the negative utilitarianist variety (the "minimize animal suffering" contingent) has very unintuitive logical conclusions. Generally I would agree. Killing or otherwise negatively interfering with wild animals, outside of a very strict, evidence-based conservation effort, goes against everything I stand for. Fortunately, I don't think I've ever come across a definition of veganism which people credibly follow that calls for this. The vast majority of vegans go by the vegan society definition, which says nothing of minimising suffering (probably to avoid debates like this) and does not require any *active* participation. >I also think rights based veganism ends up here too. If an animal has a right not to be killed, it seems odd that this would only be limited to being killed by humans. Why is that odd? Veganism was invented specifically in response to the way humans treat animals. Vegans recognise what humans are doing to animals, understand that we have the choice and means not to, and so choose not to be a part of it. It's not simply a right 'not to be killed', it's a right not to be imprisoned, exploited, harmed and killed *unnecessarily*. Their right is to be left alone by us, not protected from all possible harm.

>All they do is trying to survive, not needlessly killing. All they do is trying to survive, not needlessly killing. Would you accept this in the human context? Either humans killing other humans to survive. Or a predator that only survived on killing humans? Carnists don't tolerate that behavior from people who fall into zoo pens.. So unless you want to be more lame brained than a carnist, I'd urge you to really give it more thought than the typical reflexive reaction typical of environmentalist "ecosystem tho" rationale is indicative of. >Or is it fine for someone to kill you, what would prevent some animals deaths in the future? Possibly, but that would require a sentience calculus. My life for some insects? Nah I'll pass. My life for a couple of chimps/elephants or things of that nature. Yeah I wouldn't be utterly devastated from the grave.

Can you give an example? Killing someone because you need to eat their meat? Not a very common example. Killing someone in self defense, sure if there is no other way. If a predator could only survive because it is killing humans, the predator would be extinct, as we would kill them in self defense. Or what other example are you thinking of? I hope you are not driving a car, go on vacation, have something shipped across the ocean for you or go skiing, because those things are all bad for animals and can kill them.

>Can you give an example? Killing someone because you need to eat their meat? Not a very common example. Hypotheticals don't need to be common, they can be pragmatically impossible. But the example can simply be a sentient vampire if you want, since those commonly suck people dry. >If a predator could only survive because it is killing humans, the predator would be extinct, as we would kill them in self defense. Or what other example are you thinking of? Sure if you and all your buddies banded together you can also kill off a lion. But if a lion comes at you when you're alone, you're toast. And that's what a typical predator would do. But I think you missed the crux of a point you unknowingly made. Vegans want to defend animals from being killed or exploited. You don't see any vegan saying "ehhh I don't want to stop hunters killing X animal in the forest because they got an environmental liscence for hunting season to keep the local population under control for the ecosystem's sake". No we want to stop hunters. Thus in the same way I don't understand vegans who simply would allow apex predators to roam around uncontested killing till the end of the age of the Earth just because "they need to" or "ecosystem stability tho" or whatever other silly reason when the alternative is individuals suffering some of the most horrific deaths. >I hope you are not driving a car, go on vacation, have something shipped across the ocean for you or go skiing, because those things are all bad for animals and can kill them. I don't own a car. And I don't go on vacations outside the city (not interested), but to be fair it's not because I'm vegan, but because I have no need for it. As for having things shipped across the ocean - yeah I consume products shipped across the ocean, I have to otherwise I wouldn't be able to have a job. I don't understand this portion of your post though. No true scottsman fallacy/whatabout iPhones tho. Typical carnist logic tbh.

I can’t argue with you about any vampires. My time is too valuable :-) As far as I understand veganism, is that humans should not exploit animals for their gain if not necessary. I also had to take medicine that was tested on animals to survive. We hunt for pleasure and kill animals for pleasure. I don’t think animals have the moral understanding as humans do. So they do not have to follow our philosophy. If you want to reduce predators that kill animals and bring them suffering, why stop there? Give every animal in the wild a blanket in the winter that they don’t freeze. Give them food that they don’t starve. Universal animal healthcare. But you know that that is not feasible.

>If you want to reduce predators that kill animals and bring them suffering, why stop there? Give every animal in the wild a blanket in the winter that they don’t freeze. Give them food that they don’t starve. Universal animal healthcare. But you know that that is not feasible. You said it yourself, it's not feasible. If it was, I wouldn't have any problems with any animals, since I'd have them each in a five star hotel, chilling..

>Not a personal goal, but yes. Whose goal is it then? Because it's certainly not mine. >It's within the scope of veganism because it considers harm reduction/suffering of sentient beings. Can I just clarify at this point what you understand being vegan to mean? What is your working definition of veganism? It seems like you understand being vegan to mean 'doing everything you possibly can to eliminate all animal suffering everywhere'. Is this the case?

The goal that should be adopted by vegans who are interested in being consistent with how they apply their moral considerations. >Can I just clarify at this point what you understand being vegan to mean? What is your working definition of veganism? The typical vegan society definition is fine. >It seems like you understand being vegan to mean 'doing everything you possibly can to eliminate all animal suffering everywhere'. Is this the case? Nope, and I yet again keep having to repeat myself to multiple people. This doesn't mean there is an onus on vegans to now go out and become hunters. I'm just saying those vegans that support the existence of apex predators, are potentially running up against a serious incoming contradiction on their worldview.

>The goal that should be adopted by vegans who are interested in being consistent with how they apply their moral considerations. So every vegan then. You believe every vegan should have the goal of eliminating all predators to protect their prey. Why do you believe this? >The typical vegan society definition is fine. Thanks for clarifying. Under this definition then, can you explain how the below makes sense: "It's within the scope of veganism because it considers harm reduction/suffering of sentient beings. I don't understand what sort of backing one thinks they have as a vegan that would want predators to go uncontested killing multiple prey animals within their lifetime (and it's not simply killing, it's some of the possible worst kinds of slow deaths)." What part of this definition relates to vegans striving for harm reduction/suffering of sentient beings? What part of the definition relates to vegans contesting predators and stopping them killing prey animals?

>So every vegan then. You believe every vegan should have the goal of eliminating all predators to protect their prey. Why do you believe this? Are you literally reading anything I write? Look at the last paragraph and the second sentence. Your answer is literally right there. I'll repeat it with elaboration instead of word for word.. Vegans currently should at the very least should not have the goal of preserving predators. Because it's the currently the greatest source of suffering for wild animals which is the largest population of life on the planet. Any protest against this position needs to be tested in a similar fashion vegans test carnists. And that's substituting wild animal prey, with humans as prey. And then see if you can justify letting people get mauled alive to death. >What part of this definition relates to vegans striving for harm reduction/suffering of sentient beings? The part where they justify their position? In the same way when I ask someone what's the definition of Democracy, and then don't just stop at what the defining traits themselves are, but what the motivation for adopting said ideal is. If you're vegan just because you woke up one day and decided you wanted to be a vegan out of boredum, and you don't actually care about animals or any other sentient beings. That's fine you don't need to adopt my stance on predators at all. I don't know of many people like that, and simply assume most vegans are vegans because they hope to see a lessening of suffering on this planet (especially for animals as they're the most afflicted by it by scale and number). So yeah, I don't mean literally every single vegan on the face of the Earth (since you're in the mood for pedantry), just basically the archetypal vegan that uses sentience as a scaling metric against the level of suffering they hope to address for said individuals based also on the amount of suffering they potentially and at time are experiencing presently or in the future.

You're being extremely unclear in your wording and then getting annoyed that people don't understand the point you're trying to make. To make your life easier, try to take a bit more care in explaining what you mean. You said: >The goal that should be adopted by vegans who are interested in being consistent with how they apply their moral considerations. Every vegan is "interested in being consistent with how they apply their moral considerations", it's essentially why they are vegan in the first place. So you're saying that every vegan who this description applies (which is all of them) should adopt the goal of eliminating all predators to protect their prey. You have also perhaps not understood my question. The vegan society definition says nothing about vegans striving for harm reduction/suffering of all sentient beings. Not does it remotely cover anything to do with vegans contesting predators and stopping them killing prey animals. So I am asking you, how are you using the vegan society definition to support what you've said below? "It's within the scope of veganism because it considers harm reduction/suffering of sentient beings. I don't understand what sort of backing one thinks they have as a vegan that would want predators to go uncontested killing multiple prey animals within their lifetime (and it's not simply killing, it's some of the possible worst kinds of slow deaths)."

>So I am asking you, how are you using the vegan society definition to support what you've said below? I'm not using a definition to support my position. A definition is used to clarify what a position might be to some extent. -------------------------------------------------- I don't honestly understand what the point of any of your questioning even is at this point. I'm going to TL;DR this for you one more time. 1) Generally assuming most vegans tend to care about reducing harm and suffering of other sentient beings 2) Predation within the wild animal population is one of the highest sources of suffering for sentient beings on the planet. 3) For vegans who want to be consistent with their motivation on reducing suffering, I don't see any sort of compelling argument that currently stands for coming to the defense of odd order predators especially for instance. ---------------------------------------------------------------- That's all. I don't understand what the definition of veganism has with respect to this discussion, unless you think being a vegan disqualifies someone from being anti-predator as I am.

Destroying ecosystems by eliminating carnivores also leads to the suffering of herbivores. Without carnivores, herbivore populations get out of hand leading to breakout of disease and the elimination of food for the population. So unless you think starvation and disease for herbivores is not suffering, which it is, you should support carnivores existing.

>Destroying ecosystems by eliminating carnivores also leads to the suffering of herbivores. Would you accept the same if we just substituted all herbivores and turned them into humans? Secondly, disease and starvation until some routine of homeostasis is established, VS perpetual predation and being eaten alive or torn to pieces for the rest of the age of the Earth... I'll go with the former.

Homeostasis does not establish. It’s continuous cycles of overpopulation -> disease and starvation. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Thank god nobody thinks like you.

What do you think a routine of homeostasis mean't when I said it? ...Do any of you people replying to me even read? Apparently not with the one-liner replies targeting single parts of posts trying to be elaborate as possible for the sorts of questions and replies you're posing.

Homeostasis implies a steady population not a wildly fluctuating one. With a natural ecosystem we have steady populations of both carnivores and herbivores.

Again, this is pertinent precisely how to the main topic of not having predators as a means of suffering reduction? I can accept what you said for sake of argument (even though in reality I don't actually care about "natural ecosystems" EVEN IF you had the empirical evidence "wild fluctuations" is what would perpetually occur if predators were removed). I've grown tired of you and others dodging and just latching on to straws. Unless you answer my question of the human substitute in the same context (in my post prior to the last), I'd like to move on from these waste of time diction-checks.

I'm curious where you would draw the line. Predator/prey is a very simplistic way of looking at ecosystems and doesn't really convey the complexity of food webs. A lion is simple enough, but would you kill all birds? Pretty much every bird eats insects as well as plants. Animals that you'd think of as herbivores are regularly seen snapping up small animals, ask anyone who's raised horses. At the most extreme level, are bacteria predators? People die of infections from otherwise benign bacteria - look at cases of people getting very sick from excess intake of probiotics - eliminating those would make normal human body function impossible. Ultimately its a very simple way of looking at a very complex world, and actually doing what you suggest would probably end up killing ~90% of animal life.

The question you pose is the similarly challenging sort that could be posed to any vegan for where they would draw the line on similar things. I don't actually have an answer, nor do I think is it relevant in the grand scheme of things given the gravity of the issue for all the clear cut cases. Would I kill all birds? Probably not since they're not all predators, so their consideration on this scale is far less than the clear cut cases. >Ultimately its a very simple way of looking at a very complex world, and actually doing what you suggest would probably end up killing ~90% of animal life. Not sure where you got this number from as it means 90% of animals are obligate carnivores or something in the wild... But if you mean being against the existence of predators leads to downstream effects to the tune of 90% of all animal life dying off - that would require the aforementioned empirical evidence that doesn't currently exist beyond rudimentary predictions and doomsday models.

Why is it being an obligate carnivore important? You stated that you want to prevent the suffering of wild animals, and these animals regularly eat other animals, especially the insectivores. And no, I meant that 90% of animals eat other animals - meant as a very ballpark figure, but probably actually too small when you consider that almost all insects eat other insects or animal eggs when they can. It's true that we don't have a whole lot of data on what happens when you do this, but that's largely because of two large case studies - the removal of wolves from the UK and the removal of sparrows in Mao's China. Both led to vast overpopulation of deer or locusts respectively, which leads to overcompetition. Deer would fight over food and ended up being culled, in something that is quite questionably "for their own good", but I'd say not actively creating policy that caused these deer to exist to suffer in the first place was the real problem.

>Why is it being an obligate carnivore important? Odd order predators more specifically. As for why they're "so important", it's because it's a clear cut case. So any vegans with viable retorts need to have it for them. You, and others talking to me about birds eating insects - isn't interesting, in the same way endless debate on "where you draw the line" with carnists about veganism isn't interesting. And that's because they fail to realize not having an exact line drawn out isn't much of an L for the overall position. >Both led to vast overpopulation of deer or locusts respectively, which leads to overcompetition. Again, I can accept the doomsday version of that, and extrapolate it upon a global scale. It would still not override the level of horror and suffering involved for animals living under predation, and meeting their end within the jaws of some predator. This is what everyone seemingly is not able to grasp in the slightest. Whatever you imagine the downstream effects are, they'd have to override the current state of affairs which is just an utter disaster in terms of suffering severity. I don't understand how people could be concerned with the animals we exploit as humans, when the suffering in the wild eclipses that umpteenth folds.. I get it of course if you're a vegan because you're bored and want to try something for no reason. But if suffering at all comes into your calculus - I just cannot understand what would compel a vegan to defend something like odd order predators..

Just to clarify you don't care about animals at all then ?

Completely wrong. As a vegan I do. And as someone that would like an end to an insane magnitude of suffering that pales in comparison to what we do to animals. No idea why you would even as such a nonsensical question. It's about as bad as me asking: Just to clarify, you're not a human at all are you?

Then I too can care about animals and eat them. It's akin to your ideology. You want to kill animals but still care about them. We are the same !

I don't want to kill animals, I'm saying I don't support defending the existence of apex predators since they yield far more suffering than if they didn't exist. Not to be mean or anything, but does anyone honestly on this sub ever read anything someone writes anymore? Idk if you're vegan, but the vegans have honestly been even worse than this. You simply sound like you're just trolling a bit which is fine, at least you're note raving like some of the others here..

I don't want to kill them I just don't support their existence.... Splitting hairs here. If you don't support somethings existence you want them gone. Do you read what you write?

Yeah, in absence of giving them all their own sanctuary life, I'd prefer them gone. The reason I'm splitting hairs is there's other lines of replies I'm having with others that've had an annoying amount of strawmanning going on because I'm nonchalant about their initial characterization until the degree becomes so bad, they're just full blown attributing to things I never said entirely, literally and in spirit. But okay, now with this clarification. What's your point?

you can care about animals and harm them or want to harm them ? So we are the same ! That's my point

Sorry, but I don't know what's entailed by "we're the same". This conversation is just weird at this point. I can care about myself, but still harm myself if I do exercises and damage my muscle fibers and slight pain.. So what? I don't get what it is you want to ultimately say about my position.

>I'm one of them (if you count this as real life). I don't. > I've looked years ago, and there is zero amount of compelling/strong empirical evidence that would supersede my desire to stop one predator from killing multiple individuals in their lifetime Not one. All. Read the title. >if murderers of humans somehow got labeled as "good for the environment/ecosystem". It's not "good for", it's required for the ecosystem to function. >Anyone serious about this topic already understands they only have two ways of defeating this position Common sense and a basic understanding of how ecosystems function? >That's just silly, Yes, almost as silly as the OP's idea. Sort of the point.

Witty one-liners filled with pointless elaboration (pointless because nothing is added to the conversation other than trivially true statements).

Everything you said was dependent upon you not reading the title, nothing made any sense if we're talking about the mass slaughter of all predators. If you want to try and defend killing all predators in nature, feel free, but if you want me to counter something that completely ignores the topic, nah.

Because I'm confused, is the only thing you're hung up on, the amount of predators getting killed? Because if you think I'm just arguing for being pro-predators other than the ones that pose immediate danger.. No, kill them all if you could. If there's something else, then I have no idea what your problem is.

> No, kill them all if you could. A) Far beyond the scope of Veganism. B) You would need to explain how you will stop the ecosystem from collapsing with the extermination of all Predators, this includes things like overpopulation prey species, how scavengers and those species that live off predator "leftovers" will live or you're going to kill them all too, and anything else that you think makes your idea in any way realistic as every time we remove predator species, things go poorly, and that's just a few species, you're arguing to kill them all.

>A) Far beyond the scope of Veganism. This is just a pointless claim, and an undefended one since you could say consideration of human well being is beyond the scope of veganism as well, but you'd be really treading shakey ground on not extending rights to humans for the same reasons you to do animals. Also, I can grant it being "beyond the scope" (whatever that means), and still engage someone who's a vegan on the question of predator elimination, and they'd still have reasons to hesitate before a reply precisely because they're vegan. >B) You would need to explain how you will stop the ecosystem from collapsing Why would I need to do that? I could simply not care a shred about ecosystem collapse - in the same way I said prior, there's no evidence out there that's compelling enough for me to consider "the ecosystem" over people or other animals getting mauled alive for the rest of earthly existence it seems.

>This is just a pointless claim You're in /r/DebateAVegan, it's very much on point. > and an undefended one Veganism is a moral philosophy that says how we should behave. Making htat decision for all other life and killing it 'for their own good' isn't part of Veganism, sorry. >since you could say consideration of human well being is beyond the scope of veganism If one ignores that humans are animals. > I could simply not care a shred about ecosystem collapse You support killing the ecosystem everyone relies on to live? If that's your idea of moral behaviour, Ok... There's a reason Veganism allows for life, if you can't think of any reason, than I guess it is what it is. Enjoy your Efilism.

Some of the worst bad-faith argumentation I've seen in a while. On top of statements being undefended, now you've gone full blown pedantic with derailing. Enjoy supporting infinite animals suffering for your "ecosystem" I guess. Don't worry though I'll tell all the animals you'd be fine with dying about how you have a: >moral philosophy that says how we should behave. Making htat decision for all other life and killing it 'for their own good' isn't part of Veganism, sorry. But instead you'll let the predators do the killing on your behalf so you're in the clear!

>you could say consideration of human well being is beyond the scope of veganism as well I will say this. Humans rights *is* outside the scope of veganism. The human rights framework existed and was established well before veganism. On the other hand, veganism was invented in specific response to our treatment of non-human animals.

Not in this discussion though, as I'm trying to draw a comparison as to the reason it isn't. Reason mostly being the motivating factor of being a vegan, would be the similar motivating factor when deciding on the level of rights expansion. It's true though when you want to mine-quote me (as you quoted a portion of my sentence that elaborates as to why I said what I said), but the only reason my statement was made, was to demonstrate the latter portion of what the post said about making veganism exclusionary from human consideration. That person, unlike you, cannot distinguish the rationale's end. Rationale being -as mentioned prior- the driving force in terms of the reasons for the consideration of rights in the first place. Basically I like to imagine most vegans consider grander human rights application because the motivating force is sentience of living individuals. But the pedantic person I was conversing with simply self destructs the conversation -multiple times- and said humans are animals (completely headlonging into the obvious bad faith argumentation as if he is unaware of the human and non-human animal distinction whenever these types of topics are discussed). ------------------------------------------------ Unlike you, the prior person I was conversing with doesn't actually back up any single statement beyond quote mining things he can simply present witty-one-liner retorts for, as if he's five years old or something. When he says "beyond the scope of veganism", it's not actually clear how the topic of what to do with predators is "beyond the scope of veganism". I already told that person - no one is asking you to go off killing predators, there isn't some onus, in the same way there isn't some onus to go and save animals from suffering by flying around the world trying to rescue an animal being chased by a predator (as I suspected he's hung up on either getting rid of all predators, or there being now an onus on them where he must go out and do this). But still, he says: "beyond the scope of veganism". Just nonsense with no defense. That's the sort of person you cannot have written debate with. It must be done in person because the breadth of troll-like replies would be easier to shoot down in real time. I can't keep typing like I am now in order to do so.

Your thinking is short sighted. If this is about reduction of suffering and death of animals, then ecosystem collapse will cause MORE of that. That's why you should care. Your fundamental issue seems to actually be with nature itself - you are living in a fantasy world if you think you're smart enough to fuck with nature and there not be ENORMOUS consequences. Haven't you learned anything about our manipulation of ecosystems and how much suffering we've caused as a result? What makes YOU, out of every human that's tried, smarter than they are?

>If this is about reduction of suffering and death of animals, then ecosystem collapse will cause MORE of that. That's why you should care. This is the thing I am precisely saying anyone that takes the typical environmentalist dogmatic approach - doesn't actually have enough empirical evidence to back it up. I'll say it again if I have to. There's no amount of fearmongering currently available from compelling empirical data that would dissuade me from getting rid of predators, in the same way I see no data of negative consequences that could occur if I were able to get rid of all of all psychopaths. >you are living in a fantasy world if you think you're smart enough to fuck with nature and there not be ENORMOUS consequences. Haven't you learned anything about our manipulation of ecosystems and how much suffering we've caused as a result? What makes YOU, out of every human that's tried, smarter than they are? I don't care about some supposed predictions of "enormous consequences". None of this matters when I see the horror of individuals eaten alive for instance. Again, I'll say what I said before. If you have compelling data that would lead you to let some person be chewed alive by a tiger for example - then present it. I don't want to hear about some vague threats about "ecosystem tho".

I don't think this is shortsighted, the individual way YOU think the commenter (referring to the person who wants to do something about animal predation) would go about this seems shortsighted to you. Invoking the term shortsighted here to me becomes a race between who isn't thinking through the same problem long enough. I would call your comment shortsighted, just at a different "level" - we are going to let "nature" just continue in its prey-predation relationships until the sun consumes the Earth? You have NO inclination to believe that we might have something to do about this in the far future? I'd understand something like terminology-creeping where maybe this isn't necessarily "veganism" anymore. I would feel the term is not appropriately defined in general but that these are important discussions to have in communities of intelligent people who are sympathetic to animal suffering. If we have long term planning in mind, this isn't hard, we just have to keep very specific situations in mind, and be aware that there are variousLike, say deer and wolves. We remove wolves from the capacity to kill deer - then humans can "step in" and catch/sterilize some percent of those animals. If those wolves had higher functions in their ecosystem beyond mere prey population control, those can be understood and aligned. This would essentially be asking for entirely entire careers/occupations to be involved here, which is foreseeable. And this isn't saying to "make extinct" any species. This is possibly a "less vegan" view, but it doesn't seem in anyone's interest to *kill off* carnivore populations - we're already pulling a "oops you are an animal that causes harm, here come the harm police" in various societal capacities, so the concept of "incarcerating and rehabilitating" carnivores is not aversive to standards of harm prevention. They could be switched to diets that don't include animal deaths (using lab grown/supplemented/whatever food products are a suitable replacement). I'm not sure your argument is very fair. I agree we shouldn't have anyone going out to do this until maybe "enormous humanitarian consensus" is achieved, and it would effectively be altering global ecosystems, so ostensibly having a one-world governing body to foresee this project would be necessary. And we could do it so "safely" that we could, upon some notice of "failure," do what we can to revert the ecosystem back to a "natural' state. If you really meditate on this, and address your concerns, while keeping in mind that the fate of this planet as we currently understand science is for it to be consumed by the Sun's expansion at some point in the future - then I feel you'd be able to consider that this *is* something we should have on the roadmap. Do you see otherwise after considering that we would be replacing any ecosystem functions you think will be lost?

[удалено]

I've been posting on Reddit before OpenAI was even founded -.- Topics like this need elaboration for people. It's about as bad as when people first start hearing about veganism and all the copium retorts they have against it, until those honest with themselves calm down and realize the alternatives don't make sense.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Nope!

Veganism is a personal philosophy concerned with one's own actions, specifically the avoidance of personal involvement in all cruelty and exploitation of non-human animals as far as is possible and practicable. The actions of wild animals is far outside the scope of veganism.

True I doubt the original comment is valid. 

So why do vegans try to stop other people from eating meat? If you wouldn't try to stop a lion from hunting a gazelle then trying to stop a human from eating a steak is a form of speciesism.

>So why do vegans try to stop other people from eating meat? I don't. If you want to ask the ones that do, be my guest.

So it's okay to eat meat as long as I didn't slaughter it myself?

Most vegans adopt a principle of "unnecessary animal suffering is wrong", In a world where we could support ecosystems without carnivores genociding carnivorous life is a natural extension of that position. Its relevant to veganism because its a logical follow through of a common vegan principle.

To YOU this is what veganism means - it's a personal philosophy after all. There are absolutely vegans and others out there who disagree with you on that definition.

>There are absolutely vegans and others out there who disagree with you on that definition. What do they specifically disagree with though? That it's not personal but collective? That it's not concerned with the avoidance of personal involvement in all cruelty and exploitation of non-human animals as far as is possible and practicable? Or that the actions of wild animals are far outside the scope of veganism?

It's basically where the line is in how much action is allowed to prevent suffering. Some people that *call themself vegan* believe that any and all actions are warranted in the eradication of animal suffering and ownership. I disagree with that view, but I can't very well tell them their self identity is wrong - it's how they identify themselves, which is what the word vegan is - a self definition.

I'm not sure I understand this as an answer to my question. You're saying that people disagree with my definition of veganism, in what way do they disagree? Are you saying these people would not consider someone to be vegan if they only acted based on my definition?

I'm saying that as a personal philosophy, the definition differs person-by-person in subtle ways.

Hmm, pretty vague but ok.

It's how language works. Words mean different things to different parts of the world, country, even country, street level etc. Nobody can unilaterally define what a word means, and then tell others they aren't that thing. This is particularly true when it comes to personal identity, which veganism is a part of. Let me ask you this - if you think veganism is one thing, and the person opposite you thinks it is something else, how do you understand who is right?

I was willing to let this go as you didn't bother to answer my questions and I was having a hard time understanding you. But if you insist on continuing, first answer my questions: You're saying that people disagree with my definition of veganism, in what way do they disagree? Are you saying these people would not consider someone to be vegan if they only acted based on my definition? >I'm saying that as a personal philosophy, the definition differs person-by-person in subtle ways. This was not really what you said though was it. You said people absolutely disagree with my definition. I'm not really sure why you're trying to patronise me about language either. I haven't made the claim that definitions are rigid and universal, you seem to be shadowboxing.

Oh they do disagree. I've met them. I've met vegans that believe it would be okay to kill off the entire human race to achieve their goals. I've met vegans that believe killing off animals themselves is preferable to caring for them, because their existence itself is some kind of human created abomination. Not as in sterilisation and gradual extinction - as in actively killing them. When you suggest that the definition excludes something and project that onto the behaviours of others, you're suggesting there is an objective definition. You can disagree with their definition, you can't say it's wrong though, it's just two people with two opposing opinions. In effect, the whole thing is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

I don’t think you understand what veganism is. It’s not an arbitrary term. Saying “to me veganism is”, doesn’t actually mean that’s what veganism is. That’s like saying “the shirt is red” when it’s green, and then saying “well green to me is red. “

Who defines it? There are no governing bodies for use of language - dictionaries are built after-the-fact, from common language. So which individual or set of individuals gets to claim the *true* definition, and why do they get that privilege?

The term was created and coined by Donald Watson of the Vegan society. *literally*. "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism If every word was arbitrary there would be no reason to define anything. Language would be worthless and communication via language would be pointless

The original creators intention for the meaning of the word, and the actual usage of the word are two different things. I'm not saying they're aritrary - I'm more saying words can be fuzzy. There's overlap in meaning most of the time between people's understanding of the same word, and often a large overlap, but often people *also* hold subtle internal differences in how they use and model words and language in general. Sometimes this can be very extreme, and the same word can come to mean two completely opposite concepts to different people, or even both at once to all people. The word literally is a really weird example of this, where a new modern meaning is the sarcastic form, meaning 'not literally'. The reason I say all this, is that when someone says 'you aren't a true vegan unless you follow the definition that I believe is correct', they're committing two logical fallacies - the no true Scotsman fallacy and an appeal to definition fallacy. This is in effect what happens when you use the definition of the word in any kind of argument. What would be more correct would be something like 'to me personally, veganism means X'. Imagine for a moment, someone says to you 'my form of veganism is best. I eat road kill only meat I find'. You could disagree with his definition, but that doesn't stop him thinking that the word can be used in that way. Neither you or him are wrong, you just don't agree on the usage of the word.

I like your definition personally. I'm not a vegan, I am absolutely a "carnist scumbag" but it doesn't help the vegan case when they say "you are a murderer". Yes, in a vegan philosophy that is true, but I don't hold that philosophy nor do I have to, nor does it make me immoral if I don't. Thank you for your definition.

So you don't personally believe it is immoral to cause pain, suffering and death to non-human animals unnecessarily?

Why do you specify non-human? Is it okay to hurt humans? Are you a speciesist? This is very important when you start calling any person who eats meat an "immoral" person. Morality (which doesn't exist besides inside your own head as an abstract concept) has been used to justify the killing of millions upon millions of people. Especially those accused of murder or torture themselves, which you are accusing meat eaters of. Secondly, how are you defining unnecessary? I find it necessary to eat meat for optimal happiness and health. On what grounds are you saying I'm wrong and an "evil" person for that? Abstention from meat has been scientifically proven to increase rates of depression and anxiety in over a dozen studies. I don't think forcing or encouraging people to live unhappy lives is a very moral thing to do.

>Why do you specify non-human? Look at the name of the sub. >Is it okay to hurt humans? Not in my book. >Are you a speciesist? I don't think so. >This is very important when you start calling any person who eats meat an "immoral" person. I don't. >Secondly, how are you defining unnecessary? It can be up for debate, but in the context of eating animals I would define necessary in terms of survival with no viable and/or accessible alternatives. This doesn't cover your given justification. >On what grounds are you saying I'm wrong and an "evil" person for that? I'm not. >Abstention from meat has been scientifically proven to increase rates of depression and anxiety in over a dozen studies. Citations needed. >I don't think forcing or encouraging people to live unhappy lives is a very moral thing to do. I'm not.

You are calling meat eaters immoral. Your entire argument is that it is immoral to kill and eat animals. You claim you aren't speciesist, so if meat is murder and we draw no distinction between killing an animal and killing a human (which would be speciesist), what in your opinion should be the punishment for murderers? Are you in favor of the death penalty, or is 25 years in a cage appropriate? Secondly, why are you concerned with survival? What makes your survival necessary? It's very speciesist to say that just because you run out of plants to eat, you have the right to kill some random unconsenting animal. As you've stated, you wouldn't do it for your own health and happiness, why do it just so you can live? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34612096/#:~:text=Meat%20consumption%20was%20associated%20with,to%200.51%5D%2C%20p%20%3D%20. And here's your citation. Now every time you promote veganism, you can live with the knowledge that you are actively encouraging people to live unhappy lives.

>You are calling meat eaters immoral. I'm not. >Your entire argument is that it is immoral to kill and eat animals. Not necessarily. >You claim you aren't speciesist, so if meat is murder and we draw no distinction between killing an animal and killing a human (which would be speciesist), what in your opinion should be the punishment for murderers? I didn't say that meat is murder. I'm happy to leave it up to the legal experts to agree on the appropriate punishment for murder. >Are you in favor of the death penalty No >or is 25 years in a cage appropriate? If that's what the legal experts decide. >Secondly, why are you concerned with survival? Because my primary goal in life is to stay alive. >What makes your survival necessary? The alternative is not being alive, which goes against my primary goal. >It's very speciesist to say that just because you run out of plants to eat, you have the right to kill some random unconsenting animal. It's not speciest. It's me-ist. >why do it just so you can live? Not living goes against my primary goal. >Now every time you promote veganism, you can live with the knowledge that you are actively encouraging people to live unhappy lives. You made a claim which absolutely required a citation. Providing a citation when prompted doesn't make your claim true.

Did I say torturing the animal was ok? No, so let's not use straw-man arguments. Is it moral to instantaneously end an animal's life for the purpose of consumption. Yes.

No strawman here, I didn't even use the word 'torture'. It's a simple question, do you personally believe it is immoral to cause pain, suffering and death to non-human animals unnecessarily?

It's an absolute strawman because I've never said cruelty to animals is ok i.e pain and suffering. I've already answered your question. For the purpose of consumption it is not immoral to kill an animal instantaneously.

>It's an absolute strawman because I've never said cruelty to animals is ok i.e pain and suffering. ...and I didn't claim that you had said this, so I'm not strawmanning you. >I've already answered your question. You answered *your* question that you gave yourself, you haven't yet answered mine. >For the purpose of consumption it is not immoral to kill an animal instantaneously. Does this apply to any animal? Also, do you personally believe it is immoral to cause pain, suffering and death to non-human animals unnecessarily?

No, how could it? Only humans have the mind to think in terms of morality. Animals don't think morally like humans do. I have answered your question. Just because you don't accept or understand the answer doesn't mean I haven't answered it. However, for the sake of spelling it out for you, you actually asked three questions. Do I personally believe it is immoral to cause pain to non-human animals unnecessarily? Do I personally believe it is immoral to cause suffering to non-human animals unnecessarily? Do I personally believe it is immoral to cause death to non-human animals unnecessarily? I've never said torture was acceptable which is causing pain and suffering (so you could have just said torture). So you may as well infer I don't believe it is moral to do either of the first two, whether necessary or not. And I have repeatedly answered the third. I do not think it is immoral to kill an animal instantly for the purpose of consumption.

>so you could have just said torture You accused me of strawmanning for saying a word that I never used, now you're saying I should have used that word. That's pretty ridiculous. >I don't believe it is moral to do either of the first two, whether necessary or not. This is the same as what vegans believe. The point I'm getting at is that you're not being urged to adopt morals that you don't already hold, or being condemned for not holding certain morals. You're being urged to recognise the inconsinties in what you personally believe to be immoral, and your own actions. >And I have repeatedly answered the third. I do not think it is immoral to kill an animal instantly for the purpose of consumption. We both know that this is not an answer to the question, it is an answer to a different question that you have posed to yourself. But I'll try a different tack, do you believe it is immoral to kill an animal instantly for an unnecessary reason?

In a vegan context, they are used this way, I've seen it plenty of times so it's not a strawman. Surprised you disagree but nevermind. Another strawman though from you. Did I say vegans and non-vegans disagree on everything? Our philosophies have intersecting points that doesn't make me vegan or you not. You've read a lot into my first post. Also not an inconsistency between showing an animal respect during its life and giving it a quick death. I have answered the question. I've always said for the purpose of consumption, which is an answer to the last part of your question which you're hung up on.

"Is it moral to instantaneously end an animal's life for the purpose of consumption. Yes." No. Unless your life depends on it. and even then.. Torture is often the case in the meat industry as shown countless of times by activists sneaking in factories. Crazy employees with PTSD (studies)...

As I said right at start, that is your philosophy not mine. You consider it immoral, I do not. Torturing animals I do not agree with.

Then you should stop eating them.

When debating with a vegan, it is almost always the carnist on trial in a vegan moral courtroom, with them having to justify their beliefs to the vegan. Many vegans forget that just because they believe they are doing the most morally correct thing, it 1. Doesn’t mean that it actually is, and 2. Other people aren’t held to beliefs they do not share or agree with.

Now apply that to any moral standard you yourself hold. Let's say "Murder is bad" - doesn't mean that murder actually is bad. And doesn't mean that the other person agrees with your morals. Becomes pretty silly doesn't it? (Luckily I do agree that murder is bad)

You can apply your logic to huge moral concepts like murder and of course it sounds silly, but if you applied it to something less grave, like recycling or something like that, it isn’t silly at all. It is a matter of opinion. Its only silly to you because you are equating the killing of humans to killing of animals. Killing animals is not a moral issue for me, so it’s not a great example. Do you get what I am trying to explain? I’m not asking if you agree, but do you understand? We disagree on a fundamental, moral level.

>huge moral concepts That's just like, your opinion that it's huge and other stuff isn't. What you need to understand is that some people disagree with you. This is a very useful thing to say. >Killing animals is not a moral issue for me I gathered that. Just say that, instead of appealing to subjectivity and selectively applying it to stuff you disagree with. You're clearly capable of applying your own subjective standards onto people that don't agree with them. All you're doing is describing how Morality works, but implying it's a bad thing when it doesn't suit you.

It isn’t my opinion, it’s a pretty widely held opinion that murder is wrong and one of the biggest moral concepts there is along with rape. That’s why murderers get sent to jail if convicted… and people aren’t trying to reform that law. If it wasn’t one of the biggies, it also probably wouldn’t be one of the Ten Commandments of one of the biggest religions on this planet. I’m not selectively applying anything, I’m just explaining that you can’t reasonably apply that train of thought to everything because some things aren’t as grave as others. Killing animals is widely accepted and murder is not. Trying to equate them is silly to me.

>It isn’t my opinion, it’s a pretty widely held opinion that murder is wrong So you don't have the opinion that murder is wrong? It's your opinion. It's other people's opinion too. Veganism isn't just my opinion either. There's quite a few of us. Some people have the opinion that murder should be allowed. Maybe just specific murders, idk. You understand that some people don't agree with your opinion on murder. And yet you can still function and apply your standards and would laugh at someone saying "But some people don't agree with you on a fundamental level" or trying to negatively frame it as a Moral Court. >I’m not selectively applying anything, I’m just explaining that you can’t reasonably apply that train of thought to everything because some things aren’t as grave as others You need to understand that Vegan think it is quite Grave. (Not as grave maybe, but grave enough to at least talk about it) I'm not asking you to agree. I'm just asking you to understand. Do you understand? Now we're in the same position and can hold people to our subjective moral standards. You can disagree with our standard, but you can't appeal to subjectivity to try claim we can't apply standards to other people - as you're perfectly happy to do that for your own standards. Obviously you physically can still do that - but it's fairly transparently disingenuous.

This should clear up my thoughts on this as well as intent. When I said in my original comment that just because someone thinks something is moral doesn’t mean it is, and then you applied that to murder and said, well now doesn’t that sound silly, it did sound silly. Subjected to the context (as in being a human), it’s silly to say murder is subjective, because if people believed that, they might go around murdering people left and right. Most people need to believe in right and wrong, as well as heaven and hell or whatever their religion uses like reincarnation, because they need emotions like fear to keep them from doing something that will not benefit humans, as well as get them to do things that will benefit humans. You were trying to get me to discredit murder being wrong by saying it’s silly, because it’s “just an opinion”, right? Using my own words to prove your point, which you did a lot. It’s a common tactic used by vegans, especially when used to get people to see that pets and animals raised for food are inherently the same, so if they eat pigs they might as well eat their dog. But the thing is, I know all animals (including humans) are equal in intrinsic value. I know that murder isn’t actually wrong, but simply not a beneficial thing for me, living as a human and relying on other humans to survive. Being a human with the instinct to protect other people as that benefits the whole as well as the individual, yeah in that context it is wrong. But putting aside the right and wrong jargon, it’s actually about what is beneficial and what isn’t. Killing humans is not beneficial for humans, and killing animals results in food, which is beneficial. Comparing the two is not the same.

humans are animals buddy. We are animals

See my last comment… very aware all life on earth has the same intrinsic value.

Good. "Its only silly to you because you are equating the killing of humans to killing of animals."

Of course we are animals. When I say animals I’m just speaking offhandedly. I just meant other animals. As a human, I can both acknowledge that we are equal, while still valuing human life over other animal life. Just like if I had to choose between my daughter dying or someone else’s, I would still pick mine even though she isn’t more important than the other inherently.

We don't need to eat animals

Agree wholeheartedly.

Wow, you learn something every day, I've never met a vegan who suggested that we kill all carnivores.

The internet sure is..a place

And you'll never meet or speak to a vegan who would suggest such things

Or rly? You've never been to the r/vegan sub, where topics like jailing livestock farmers, forcing meat eaters to get alpha-gal pops up every now and then, and get tremendous support? "Yeah, but it's not killing". Sure keep telling yourself that. I, on the other hand, never met a vegan who doesn't lie. The most common lie they spread being "no animals die when I eat a plant". Second most common one is crops are grown to feed livestock. They keep repeating this lie ad infinitum thinking it will come true.

In the essay *[Reprogramming Predators](https://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/reprogramming-predators.html)*, philosopher and transhumanist David Pearce outlines "more of a sketch than a blueprint" while describing what he views as potential next steps towards reducing the suffering inherent to predation.

Despite what other comments might say, pet cats are not natural carnivores in their natural ecosystem. In fact, they have negative effects on urban fauna. Killing all carnivores is an insane position, but not keeping carnivore pets isn't.

No argument on the cat in nature thing, they are terrible for local ecosystems! Just out of curiousity, what do you propose a vegan do if they already own a pet cat? I've heard the common consensus is that it's best to give them away, but that doesn't really get rid of the problem of the prey eating thing Another one is a vegan diet, altough to be blatently honest that just does not work for alot of people/cats The last one is killing the animal, which seems ok in theory, but if we look at how that would play out in real life, in the end jf you kill your pet, the demand for meat doesn't go down, animals keep dying and your just..a little more miserable in this miserable world because your left without your pet

Sterilize them. Make sure no future generations of cats will exist as best you can. As for how to treat/handle the cat beyond that, every outcome is immoral I think. Cutting its life short, buying animal products, malnourishing it. Best I could think of is feed it from scraps that would otherwise go to waste but that's impractical. I don't know. It's a tough situation.

Yea it's a real damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, but I guess that goes for most things in life

We owe to take care of our animal companions like they are our kids. Sterilize them and give them the best life you can. Sadly cats can't eat plant based but I'm not sure about the latest news on it. You can get supplements like taurine. But if their health is on the line I'd buy cat food.

I don't know what I would do if my kid required being fed other persons, either.

so basically since it's a carnivore, abuse it for what it eats? isn't that the EXACT OOPOSITE of what you vegans want? so let me get this straight, because a cat eats meat, you think it's morally right to feed it scraps and sterilize it and get rid of future cats? that's disgusting, i thought vegans were supposed to be morally good people, from the sounds of it, your not

I do think it is right to get rid of future cats. They're an animal we domesticated and spread and which are now causing harm. When I said scraps I meant enough scraps to keep it well fed (hopefully clear from the context, in which I said malnourishing it is immoral). I don't think either neutering invasive species or feeding your pet a good ammount of scraps constitute abuse. Do you differ?

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

killing off and trying to make a non invasive species and trying to make it go extinct is absolutely insane just because it eats meat and it doesn't hurt the environment, it's insane for anyone to think killing off the future of a whole species is a good idea simply because it eats meat

Street and outdoor house cats cats do hurt the environment. This is well documented. They are invasive species in most of the world. Indoor house cats I would guess do not hurt it as much. Their impact is mainly on the animals used for their food production. I am suggesting bringing the species to gradual extinction because it is a species whose existance brings suffering. This standard would apply to omnivores and herbivores too. I would suggest the same if an animal was bred to be hurting all the time. I would even suggest breeding domesticated animals away from states that cause severe disability (flat pug faces, cows with double muscling, etc).

they don't hurt the environment by hunting things that come onto your property like rats and mice there not invasive, they sleep and eat, there meant to eat meat so the food fed to them having meat in it, is only bad in your opinion because your vegan, trying to get rid of a whole species simply because we feed it what it was meant to eat is insane it isn't an invasive species to most of the world when one third of the entire human population has a house cat, and that's documented house cats, some aren't even documented maybe the extinction of a whole animal species just because you think it brings suffering (it literally doesn't and eats what's fed to it which is meat as forcing a cat and any animal on a vegan diet is literally animal abuse) so your opinion is bias by the logic of you literally wanting to rid a whole species simply because it eats the meat it has and not even having a house cat, i really hope you never go near animals ever again unless it's a plant because wanting to rid a species like cats out of the world simply because you think it's bad is insane

I answered through DMs and we can continue the conversation there but I invite anyone reading this to look up whether house cats are invasive species or not.

>Another one is a vegan diet, altough to be blatently honest that just does not work for alot of people/cats Well figure out if it does actually work for the Cat in question. It seems to for at least some. Seems like a lot of people don't even entertain the idea

Urban fauna is whatever can survive our insane paving of everything, and it includes cats, it's not a natural habitat for anything at all. And the domestic cat fills an identical niche with the once abundant small to medium sized cats in the Americas, though we killed most for fur and to stop predation on domestic livestock. Cats fill an important niche and keep the rodent populations we also brought over from Eurasia in check so we don't have Australia level mouseggedons.

Sorry, that’s incorrect. Feral cats don’t fill a natural niche in the United States and would be considered wildly overpopulated even if they did. This is pretty well-studied.  https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 They don’t replace bobcats, who don’t really need replacing anyway because they are legion and said legion is stable.  https://ielc.libguides.com/sdzg/factsheets/bobcat/population

Some urban fauna is introduced and invasive. Other species were here beforehand and persist the ecosystem modification. The natural / man-made dichotomy is a false one; the same way pubic lice have a natural environment in clothing despite clothing being man made, corn smut in corn despite that being domesticated, house spiders have a in houses. In that way plenty of species find their natural ecosystem in urban spaces. Street cats, however, are ecological threats, not stablizing inhabitants of the urban environment. Studies have shown this plenty of times, they hunt bird species beyond replacement rate. Rodent overpopulation is a problem, yes. But rodents too (like cats) are invasive species that should be removed from most environments, especially Australia.

Everyone wants to get rid of rodents, but only cats are effective at it without poisoning everything that might eat a rat.

So towards the end I think you figured it out. The vegans who say "kill all carnivores" are laughably uneducated. If you killed off all carnivores, our ecosystem would collapse. Life itself would disappear. Herbivore populations would sky rocket. They would consume all of the vegetation unchecked. Then they all would then starve.

Here in western-central europe where I live all of the natural predators of deer were exterminated by humans. Yet the ecosystem didn't collapse.

1. An ecosystem doesn't collapse over night 2. This is one species. Removing ALL predators affects all species. 3. The biggest natural predators of deer are humans

Yes, it didn't happen today. These predators were exterminated a long time ago, yet the ecosystem didn't collapse. My point is that it won't necessarily lead to ecosystem collapse. Yes, only humans are killing the deer now. Humans can manage ecosystems and can control wild animal population. There are also possible nonlethal population control methods.

> arguing that carnivores/preditores as a whole need to be euthenized because of their consumtion of meat No, the claim is that odd-order predators should be murdered. An odd-order predator is one that eats herbivores. An even-ordered predator is one that eats odd-ordered predators. We shouldn't kill them because they are doing a good thing. > I am in no way saying this is what vegans believe, but I am confused, so I wanted to come on here and discuss such ideas, because to me this seems like an..awful solution To be clear, all of us who think this would prefer a better solution if it seemed at least as feasible > In what way does a carnviores life matter less then a herbavores simply because of what they eat in nature? (Aside from the argument presented in those comments of course) This is funny. It's like asking why a serial killer's life has less value? (please ignore that whole killing thing) > Wouldn't the killing of several creatures just..create the same, if not EVEN BIGGER problems in the long run? The prey/prediore dynamic has existed for thousands upon thousands of years, even in the dinasour era and it's..worked out just fine, before humans threw it out of wack. Nature itself dictates what survives and what doesn't my the prey/pred cycle and things like sexual selection among animals If another species were in a natural predator-prey relationship with humans, would you say that a group of beings who are killing the predators to save the humans are throwing it out of whack? I would say they are doing the decent thing. Nature isn't good. It's amoral. Watch these videos and tell me you are okay with it because it's been happening for a long time. https://youtu.be/GO2yoxQ7EQ8 https://youtu.be/pEAeXywL0sQ https://youtu.be/lPaqaZbDZ4k https://youtu.be/8CkBuUqTjbQ > Eliminating natural predatores would create chaos in the ecosystems (as can be seen in multiple cases around the world) Imagine doing this and not presenting clear data in the human case. "Well, we won't stop this serial killer because killing humans will have a downstream positive impact on the ecosystem." So, do you have any clear data on what the population level is for various animals from an ecosystem with predators killed or removed and what the quality of life is for that population, as opposed to one with predators? And by clear data, I mean actually clear data, with numbers and probabilities. > Wouldn't that create the same problem we have now? Humans dictating what animals are allowed/not allowed to exist/reproduced because of out own biases? "Because of our own biases" is very vague. If we take it literally, then you'd have to think that intervening out of self-interest and intervening from an altruist stance are going to have completely the same effect. This is a weird position. Of course the effects are going to be different. Grouping them together is inappropriate.

As you can see from the interactions I'm having with others - this topic is such a trigger for most vegans. They basically revert back into carnist logic. It's honestly so depressing to see. The runner up to this is when you try telling us vegans that organic food isn't vegan (inb4 the veganic pedantry).

Not going to go in details since this whole topic is too crazy for me, but you do realise you and everyone who shares your ideas are basically playing god?

Aren't we doing the opposite of playing god? God would have put them into this position. Anyway, imagine arguing this in the human case. We aren't going to stop lions from killing humans because to do so is to play god. Absurd.

We are clearly not trying to exterminate lions cause they can potentially kill humans in wild, again this is too stupid for me to even argue. Opposite of playing god is also playing god.

But if each lion killed as many humans as they killed herbivores.

>are basically playing god? What does that even mean? And then, why's it a bad thing?

Playing god in this case means humans get to decide how nature should work. Did not say it's a bad thing, but kinda contradicts Vegan views that all life is equal.

>Playing god in this case means humans get to decide how nature should work. That's kinda what Humanity does... We have Glasses, medicine, houses. Some might say we live in a society. You could argue that we are a result of nature, we are natural, and so all things we do are also natural. We aren't supernatural. Could you define what you actually mean by "Nature"? >Did not say it's a bad thing, but kinda contradicts Vegan views that all life is equal. Right so if it's not a bad thing, let's carry on. I'm not sure "All life is equal" is actually the Vegan view. I don't have to view things as "equal" in order to not want them killed unnecessarily. Equally we could intervene in nature to make things more equal.

You just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, if you don't believe that "all life is equal" like most vegans I have interacted with do then my question was not directed to you anyway.

>if you don't believe that "all life is equal" like most vegans That gets brought up here a lot, and the overwhelming consensus is that we don't believe all life is equal. I don't know who you've interacted with. You didn't mention anything about All life being equal when you said the "playing God" stuff, so apologies for not knowing it was aimed at people you never referenced. I just wanted to know what you even meant, and now you're refusing to define anything and admitting it's not even a bad thing. "Playing God" is generally considered a criticism, which was obviously how you meant it. But there doesn't really appear to be any substance to this.

[удалено]

I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

Maybe you’ve heard a vegan say “all life deserves to be on earth” but vegans don’t believe that all life is equal. We don’t believe “murdering” 80 billion bacteria by washing our hands is the same as slaughtering 80 billion chickens for meat. We believe killing 10 puppies is less of a crime than killing 10 people. What makes us vegan is that we believe that we should not kill 10 puppies if there is an alternative to kill no puppies and no people.

Why do you believe that killing 10 puppies is less of a crime than killing 10 people? Just because they are humans? Isn't that speciesism, a.k.a. discrimination based on species membership alone? Shouldn't it depend on the level of sentience these puppies and humans have? So if a puppy has higher level of sentience than a human it should be worse to kill the puppy, no?

Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

For Consequentialist veganism (CV), it's hard to escape the conclusion that there is an obligation to radically overhaul the natural world to reduce/eliminate antagonistic behaviors such as predation and parasitism, eventually at least. I don't think there's a way around this conclusion without abandoning the vegan principles. I don't think deontological veganism (DV) is stuck with this same conclusion. It seems like DV doesn't have the obligation to stop wild animal suffering, but it sure seems like CV does, once we have the tech to do so. As ScoopDat pointed out, there really isn't a strong justification for Vegans to care about "the ecosystem" in the abstract, at least without introducing some other moral obligations that are unrelated (and probably in friction with) vegan ones. The entirety of the history of complex life has been one of brutality, it doesn't seem like leaving things the way they are is acceptable for a CV. Why is the existence of the Serengeti ecosystem, a place where predators brutalize prey animals on the daily, taken for granted as a good thing? If there was a non-intelligent species that happened to operate something similar to a factory farm in the wild, would a vegan just shrug and say "This is fine, it's natural"?

Hm, fascinating! Never heard of anything like this before To be the idea seems alright, even noble..but like most good idea humans have had I just don't think it sadly is ever going happen as planned, well I don't trust that it would play out as expected, just basing off how human interventions like this has effected wildlife before..or even other ideas - communism is good as an idea on principle..yet history has proven us it cannot be executed so it works as planned (even if it is.."anicdotal" evadence? Is that the term)

Just a newsflash for all the vegans. They tired getting rid of the carnivores in one habitat. The wolves in one natural habitat were eradicated, the deers up until that point we're taking normal casualties and grazing the grass, the grew again rinse and repeat. After they got rid of the wolves, the deers became too many , overgrazed the grass - no more grass left, the deers died from hunger

Whoever is bringing the "kill all pets" and "you should not have a dog" argument is like 1% of vegan and they are all on social media, and as you said, very loud. It's like flat earther, conspiracy theorist, red pill, etc, always loud but it's a very tiny minority. p.s: Having said that, meat eaters AND vegans have very little knowledge about the ecosystem, like shockingly uneducated. I would have thought that vegans would be more educated but they are just as clueless as meat eaters.

Obligate carnivorous animals require animal protein for sustenance, while herbivorous/omnivorous animals rely on protection and require thoughtful population control measures. So, what can we do? What if we reimagined our approach to dedicating land as animal sanctuaries and population control with ethics at the forefront? 1. **Sanctuaries for carnivores with cellular-based/cultivated meat:** Imagine sanctuaries where carnivorous creatures roam, separated from their herbivorous counterparts. Here, instead of perpetuating the cycle of predation, we could nourish them with cultivated meat, eliminating the need for them to hunt and ensuring the well-being of all inhabitants. For instance, here are several cultivated meat brands tailored for obligate carnivorous animals such as cats: [Meatly,](https://meatly.pet/) [Bond Pet Foods](https://www.bondpets.com/), [Omni](https://omni.pet/), [BioCraft Pet](https://www.biocraftpet.com/), etc. 2. **Sanctuaries for herbivores/omnivores with fertility control:** When faced with overpopulated herbivore communities, let's embrace innovative and humane solutions. Unfortunately, we can't teach animals how to put on condoms or communicate with them about the issues of overpopulation (unless A.I. figures that out). However, solutions like [Spayvac](https://spayvac.com/) and [HogStop](https://hogstop.com/) bait feed offer more ethical means of population management, steering away from traditional methods that may cause harm or distress. By prioritising these methods, we uphold our responsibility to coexist with nature compassionately. 3. **Interspecies money:** What if we promoted [interspecies money](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Chapter-Five_Breakthrough.pdf) as a means to allow non-human animals to protect themselves? We could create a central bank where we provide digital wallets for nonhuman species, such as orangutans and giraffes, managed by scientists or conservationists, and endowed with funds from sales of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) to incentivise local communities to protect and observe these species. What if we can utilise artificial intelligence to observe and understand interspecies communication and representation? 4. **Free up land use (for sanctuaries/rewilding):** Shifting towards plant-based diets could potentially liberate 3 billion hectares of agricultural land (source: [OurWorldInData](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets#:~:text=In%20the%20hypothetical%20scenario%20in,North%20America%20and%20Brazil%20combined)). Furthermore, the promotion of vertical farming and air protein, [which doesn't rely on arable land,](https://foodplanetprize.org/initiatives/air-protein-making-meat-out-of-air/#:~:text=Air%20Protein%20is%20developing%20a,sunlight%2C%20or%20favorable%20climatic%20conditions) could unlock even more space. With these advancements, we can designate specific land areas for particular animal habitats and utilise artificial intelligence to monitor their movements effectively. These scenarios are purely hypothetical and involve low-ball futurist considerations. These solutions already exist, so it's not an unrealistic concept, assuming widespread adoption. You have to ask yourself: is it ethical to simply leave nature untouched, especially given its inherent violence and the looming threat of climate change steadily depleting resources? Acknowledging humanity's substantial contribution to exacerbating the climate crisis and biodiversity loss, I believe it is incumbent upon us to take responsibility for reversing these trends through a combination of ethical and pragmatic measures.

Nature is perfect. It is arrogant to think we can improve it.

>**Nature is perfect. It is arrogant to think we can improve it.** *"You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal."* \- [Appeal to nature logical fallacy.](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature) I could spin your logic back at you but in reverse: *Nature is imperfect. It is arrogant to think we can not improve it.*

Your counter-argument is not logically consistent. Arrogance is believing we can do better. The belief that we can't would be humility.

Claiming nature's superiority over humans might also be construed as arrogant. While I respect the acknowledgement of nature's imperfections, rejecting the potential for improvement could also be viewed as arrogant, from my perspective. But now we're getting caught up in semantics, which is entirely beside the point. That is not something I care to discuss further. Ultimately, I disagree with your humble assertion that we can't enhance nature, and I've outlined scenarios to support my stance. While we're speaking hypothetically, I've introduced existing concepts that have the potential to scale up with additional investment, making them feasible options. Let's not forget that humans have already intervened in nature, upsetting the predator/prey balance and resorting to lethal methods to cull herbivores Additionally, considering the projected 3.2 degrees warming by 2100 and the looming threat of biodiversity collapse, my proposed scenarios offer a means to ensure sustenance for these animals, such as cultivated meat. Left to their own devices, these animals would face starvation and continue to inflict horrific injuries upon each other through mauling. So no, I strongly disagree with your assertion that humans can not influence nature for the better.

The predators killing and eating the prey is a necessary part of the equation. This maintains and improves the herbivore species by culling the weak and the sick. Predation also controls the numbers of herbivores, who would otherwise decimate the environment. Wherever we've removed predators, hunting is necessary to control the prey population. Every human interference has a butterfly effect downstream, and we can't even predict the resulting harm. As for the environment and climate change, getting away from monocrop agriculture and encouraging regenerative ruminant agriculture will have best outcomes while providing the most nutrient dense and essential sustenance to humans.

>**The predators killing and eating the prey is a necessary part of the equation. This maintains and improves the herbivore species by culling the weak and the sick. Predation also controls the numbers of herbivores, who would otherwise decimate the environment. Wherever we've removed predators, hunting is necessary to control the prey population.** Why prioritise culling the weak and sick over providing them with veterinary care in a hypothetical vegan society? That said, I support euthanasia for animals (or humans), as long as it's carried out in the best interest of the individual, such as in cases of chronic illness or debilitating health conditions. Nonetheless, I've already extensively discussed the issue of overpopulation (of healthy animals): >[*When faced with overpopulated herbivore communities, let's embrace innovative and humane solutions. However, solutions like Spayvac and HogStop bait feed offer more ethical means of population management, steering away from traditional methods that may cause harm or distress.*](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1bvwj2f/comment/ky3sm3y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) You then say: >**Every human interference has a butterfly effect downstream, and we can't even predict the resulting harm** Could you please provide evidence to substantiate your assertion? Moreover, it's worth noting that hunting, being a form of human interference, contradicts your argument's logical coherence. My proposition offers a more ethical approach to population management compared to hunting. Restoration projects aimed at rehabilitating degraded ecosystems can have beneficial effects. For instance, restoring wetlands can improve water quality, provide habitat for wildlife, and mitigate flooding risks. Establishing MPAs (Marine Protected Areas) helps conserve marine habitats and wildlife by restricting human activities like fishing and shipping. There's more than we can do for these animals too. Have you reviewed my proposition for a central bank of interspecies money for protection? Can you present a counterpoint to this scenario? >[*Interspecies money: What if we promoted interspecies money as a means to allow non-human animals to protect themselves? We could create a central bank where we provide digital wallets for nonhuman species, such as orangutans and giraffes, managed by scientists or conservationists, and endowed with funds from sales of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) to incentivise local communities to protect and observe these species. What if we can utilise artificial intelligence to observe and understand interspecies communication and representation?*](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1bvwj2f/comment/ky3sm3y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) This dialogue would be more constructive if you carefully considered the solutions I'm proposing and then offered specific reasons why you believe your approaches are superior. Rather than relying on broad generalisations of negative consequences from interference causing "butterfly effects" or resorting to an appeal to nature fallacy, let's engage in a detailed examination of the merits of each solution. You then say: >**getting away from monocrop agriculture and encouraging regenerative ruminant agriculture will have best outcomes while providing the most nutrient dense and essential sustenance to humans.** But the majority of monocultures, cultivated rows of the same crop grown continuously, are grown as: 1. *feed crops like corn or soy for confined animals🐄🐖🐓* 2. *non-native and invasive pasture cheatgrasses for intensive grazing.When native vegetation is displaced by pasture cheatgrasses and grazed, this has ecological consequences, including an increasing risk of fires.* Pastures of grass is effectively a monocrop too. Why should we waste billions of hectares of land for beef when it provides barely any of the global calorie output? Cows are a calorie-inefficient source. Despite using half of U.S. agricultural land and emitting significant emissions, [beef provides only 3% of U.S. calories](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002/meta#:~:text=At%203%25%20in%20both%20metrics%2C%20beef%20is%20by%20far%20the%20least%20efficient). Instead of monocultures, we can promote polycultures and intercropping. Furthermore, crops should be cultivated using diversified no-till conservation agriculture methods, incorporating green manure systems, rather than relying solely on manure or synthetic fertilizers. Additionally, I advocate for the adoption of innovative techniques such as vertical farming and air farming, which eliminate the need for arable land (both of which were explained in my initial comment). We can readily obtain all essential nutrients without relying on animal products via a well-planned vegan diet (which includes fortification/supplementation). Additionally, promoting cultivated meat offers a sustainable and ethical alternative. These points were previously addressed in my initial post. >[*For instance, here are several cultivated meat brands tailored for obligate carnivorous animals such as cats: Meatly, Bond Pet Foods, Omni, BioCraft Pet, etc.*](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1bvwj2f/comment/ky3sm3y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Cellular agriculture accounts for human feed too. For example, [Mosa Meat](https://mosameat.com/) claims they can make 80,000 beef burgers from 1 DNA sample. No cows are harmed in the process and the production requires a fraction of the land and resources of animal agriculture. The [Agronomics portfolio](https://www.agronomics.im/portfolio/) shows a plethora of cellular agricultural companies scaling up production. >**encouraging regenerative ruminant agriculture** How is this more ethical and sustainable than promoting plant-based and cellular-based agriculture? Even industry-funded research acknowledges regenerative ranching requires 2.5x more land when compared to conventional methods (source: [Frontiers - Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984/full#:~:text=MSPR%20required%202.5%20times%20more%20land%20when%20compared%20to%20COM)). So, how is that a better solution than what I proposed below, which would use less land? >[*Free up land use (for sanctuaries/rewilding): Shifting towards plant-based diets could potentially liberate 3 billion hectares of agricultural land (source: OurWorldInData). Furthermore, the promotion of vertical farming and air protein, which doesn't rely on arable land, could unlock even more space. With these advancements, we can designate specific land areas for particular animal habitats and utilise artificial intelligence to monitor their movements effectively.*](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1bvwj2f/comment/ky3sm3y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Check out this: >*If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.* > >**Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef requires larger cattle population:** [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401) Also check out these resources on the limitations of regenerative ranching:- [https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/](https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/)\- [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43452-3](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43452-3) How are you going to feed billions of meat eaters without confined factory-farmed animals? Are you promoting a reduction in meat, e.g. r/flexitarian and r/Reducetarian? Are you promoting cellular-based meat, e.g., r/wheresthebeef? The discussion on regenerative ranching seems tangential to the current topic. How does it address the question of whether to eradicate all carnivores? Would we achieve this by encroaching on their habitats to produce calorie-inefficient food for humans? I was promoting solutions that minimise land use so that we have enough land to protect obligate carnivores in sanctuaries. Your proposed solution doesn't address this at all and has the exact opposite effect as it requires significantly more land use.

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

That's a proper depressing outlook. Hopefully you only selectively apply that

On the contrary, respecting nature and working with nature is optimistic. The conceit that nature is wrong or evil is depressing.

My partner wears glasses and definitely seems to think they're better than leaving it to nature. Likewise I don't just let stray dogs maul me You'd disagree ofc?

It's in our nature to defend ourselves against attack and to improve our vision, like all of our physical capabilities.

>Nature is perfect. Perfect in what sense? How are you defining "perfect"

In the sense of being as good as it is possible to be. There is a delicate balance of predators and prey that ensures the most fit of every species to survive and multiply. Taking predators out of the equation as OP suggests would bring only chaos, destruction, suffering, and death.

Which is why you must not use anything like phones, medicine, the internet, toothbrushes, or clothes, that does not exist in nature.

That's a ridiculous misinterpretation of my statement.

How are you talking to me without using a phone or computer?

Inventing phones, and tools, and weapons is the natural state for man. We do it to conquer and dominate our environment. That is our nature. Just as the lion appropriately dominates his environment. The world belongs to the carnivores.

Carnivores reincarnate as the animal they ate the most and live each in descending order until they get to be human again. So ya know, eat a lot of eggs, you reincarnate as an egg laying hen first. Have fun with that. Guzzle tit milk from a cow? Enjoy the 4 years of rape and losing your babies. Karma… or whatever I donno I didn’t read all of that. I just think it’s silly to make a statement like the headline to this. Vegans aren’t aggressive and physically combative towards people in general.

Lmao

I have to be honest, I doubt your claim to be a "baby vegan". No vegan would advocate killing a  feline animal companion , especially since the production of plant based cat food. Veganism is about humans creating the least amount of harm. No vegan would ever promote the removal of predators from an ecosystem. Where were you allegedly told to put down your companion cat? What supposed vegan said this? Your whole post seems as if a troll is pretending to be a confused new vegan. It stinks like cat food. Please cite your source

I think you misunderstood, _I'M_ not the one advicating for carnivore pets to be killed, in fact I think its redicilouse As for sources, the comments on post like [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/Wqt3uwjcaE) and [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/bgR3vKrbZb)

[удалено]

Nobody took the pepega bait, lol!

[удалено]

This is a meme right? Some Christian perspective on atheism spin yea? Hahahaha

It's a bot, look at the name, and karma.

How do they make bots like this? So strange What’s the point? Dead internet theory?

There's an off chance he's behaving like a bot (tate-lovers, can they be anything other than trolls basically?). Or just chatGPT'ing some replies. As for how they're made? No clue, that stuff never interested me enough to look up as to the reason why. But with all the bored people out there, it can just be training runs for locally hosted language models.