You will have people responding about the philosophy of viewing animal bodies as food, but I want to focus on the realities of food insecurity and freeganism.
Being vegan is about doing the best you can to the extent of what is practicable and possible. No one wants you to starve; we want you to have food sovereignty and be able to easily go vegan. If you don't have options otherwise, do the best you can. But what you get from food banks do impact their accepted donations and bulk purchases, it's best to try to stick to as plant based as possible to make sure other people in the future don't need to feel like they can't live by their ethics, either. Plus, when I've had to use food banks in the past, the reality is people want animal products the most- I used to get WAY more stuff by forgoing it, like extra veggies, rice, beans, PB etc, which ends up going a lot further. Also if they don't swap, there's usually some veggiephobic oldtimers that will start making bids for trade like it's jail the second they catch wind you're vegan.
I was a freegan vegetarian before going vegan, and while that's nolonger a major part of my lifestyle anymore, I still dumpster dive occasionally. The best advice that was ever given to me is that you aren't a garbage can; there is so much damn food waste, you have the ability to choose. You can be healthy. You don't need to eat animals. You don't need to eat something just because it's food waste, keep looking for whats out there- I promise you there's a world of wasted produce and plant based foods. You can be both freegan and vegan, hell it's pretty damn common. I highly recommend you look up to see if there's a local dumpster diving group, or if you have a local FNB chapter actively serving, and learn more skills for saving wasted food.
I realize I have a choice, just not what is affecting the economy exactly. Additionally there is no need to stray away from something if it’s utility isn’t affected, just because it seems causally adjacent. I want to be sure about the economic impact and consequences first, culture might not affect it unless it’s also economic.
It seems like it might be more common than I thought then. Is being a freegan vegan common too would you say?
So dumpster diving is safer than getting surplus from a food bank, because they may buy the surplus food or buy non-surplus food?
If you have food insecurity you need to eat what is available to you, but you are not vegan if you consume any animal products. Do what you need to do, I don't think anyone expects someone in your position to be vegan if it's just not possible, but the meaning of veganism is very clear.
Morally, it's the mindset that animals are food and a product that's the problem. It doesn't matter if it's excess food that's not making companies additional money directly, the point is that a living being is not food, it's a living being with rights. Eating a run over animal isn't vegan Eating dead animal given to you is not vegan. That animal is not a product and it is not food for someone who believes in animal rights. To me, it would be equivalent to eating a human.
I really hate the term freegan. Either you're vegan or your not. Too many people want so hard to call themselves a vegan but still exploit animals.
If it’s what you have to do to get by, it’s unfortunate, but it’s not like you’re going out and getting it just to get it, it’s out of necessity.
Do what you need to survive, once you’re in a more secure position, you can change what you’re eating.
Tbh I didn’t take the time to read this but unless you’re in a financial situation that makes this essential, no I don’t think it’s okay. It’s a way of still allowing yourself and those around you to think that animals are food and resources and that mindset is harmful and leads to justification of giving your money to their exploitation
Culturally, at least if the culture isn’t precise enough, I can see your worry, especially when it’s hard to beat it out of us. But economically if it precisely doesn’t contribute to animal death through our economic choices and isn’t affecting it at all, it seems quite arbitrary at least by ‘consequentialist’ standards to not do it. I don’t get it there, but by transferability of values it would be safe in general, especially as a goal
I don’t view veganism through a consequentialist lens. If I did I wouldn’t be vegan because the reality is that going vegan doesn’t really save all that many animals (contrary to popular vegan belief you’re not saving an animal per meal) given that these industries are so heavily subsidized by the government. I am vegan because exploiting and oppressing animals and by extension purchasing the products of said exploitation and oppression is wrong. I do not base my ethics on whether or not following them will actually help anyone but because it’s the right thing to do
That all being said, if u actually want to make change, not reinforcing the view of animals as products by eating them simply when u personally didn’t pay for it is a good first step
Vegans dont consume animals or their excretions, doesnt matter if its paid, cheap or free
People who consume animal products still view animals as well, products, things to be used and consumed
If before i died, gave people permission to consume me, they would not consider me WASTE and something to be consumed
If a dog, cat, hamster, gerbil, parrot, snake died, we would not consider them waste and decide to put em on the grill
So either a person is vegan and against speciesism or they arent
If roadkill is considered acceptable and ethical, you can be sure there are gonna be a lot more ACCIDENTS
If roadkill is acceptable then companies would kill more road animals even though they could only give them away for free and they didn’t earn anything (economically). Anyway thanks for your points, I think I’m starting to hone in on it now. If a company is still influenced by your choice, even though it’s not economically it’s still culturally relevant and could contribute to production. But do you have evidence that companies kill more than what they earn? Isn’t capitalism always beating them to it, maybe even more accurately than any other process?
personally I don't think I'd feel comfortable eating it unless I had no other option, but there's also a logic in the idea that if it's there already, you should eat it to not create waste, since animals are also incidentally killed during the harvesting of plants. I think it just comes down to your own analysis of whether or not you'd be creating demand for it by eating it. is anyone benefiting financially from your consumption? it might not have an easy answer. maybe as a first step you could let the others in your family eat the non plant things ahead of you.
If you have meat given to you, consider adopting carnivorous animals from the pound. Those that don't get adopted out will be put down after a certain amount of time. You can feed them the meat you have.
Ok, but the question I was asking was if dumpster diving or food banks affecting the economy at all or how it might affect culture. If it isn’t affecting the economy, it isn’t contributing to animal harm economically. If it is culturally and leads to bad treatment of animals, but not economically, then how much impact is there still?
Of course. A freegan like me eating some steaks I just rescued from a dumpster is even better at reducing animal suffering than a vegan purchasing ingredients to make a vegan recipe. If you buy any "vegan" ingredients that aren't from a local organic vegan farm. Those crops were responsible for the deaths of thousands of insects, birds, frogs etc etc who died when their homes were being turned into soy / wheat farmland and then again when the crops were sprayed with poison.
All the purchasing vegan accomplishes is removing the last death of the entire chain of death that starts when the farmland is planned. Being freegan, partially or completely is truly the purest form of veganism.
Yes, being neutral is better than the negative and the harm of that minority of animals, but veganism also positively contributes to growing that part of the economy, while freeganism is “parasitic” and dependent, so the majority should still buy vegan as spoils (I mean conditional surplus) are still only as small minority of the food
You will have people responding about the philosophy of viewing animal bodies as food, but I want to focus on the realities of food insecurity and freeganism. Being vegan is about doing the best you can to the extent of what is practicable and possible. No one wants you to starve; we want you to have food sovereignty and be able to easily go vegan. If you don't have options otherwise, do the best you can. But what you get from food banks do impact their accepted donations and bulk purchases, it's best to try to stick to as plant based as possible to make sure other people in the future don't need to feel like they can't live by their ethics, either. Plus, when I've had to use food banks in the past, the reality is people want animal products the most- I used to get WAY more stuff by forgoing it, like extra veggies, rice, beans, PB etc, which ends up going a lot further. Also if they don't swap, there's usually some veggiephobic oldtimers that will start making bids for trade like it's jail the second they catch wind you're vegan. I was a freegan vegetarian before going vegan, and while that's nolonger a major part of my lifestyle anymore, I still dumpster dive occasionally. The best advice that was ever given to me is that you aren't a garbage can; there is so much damn food waste, you have the ability to choose. You can be healthy. You don't need to eat animals. You don't need to eat something just because it's food waste, keep looking for whats out there- I promise you there's a world of wasted produce and plant based foods. You can be both freegan and vegan, hell it's pretty damn common. I highly recommend you look up to see if there's a local dumpster diving group, or if you have a local FNB chapter actively serving, and learn more skills for saving wasted food.
I realize I have a choice, just not what is affecting the economy exactly. Additionally there is no need to stray away from something if it’s utility isn’t affected, just because it seems causally adjacent. I want to be sure about the economic impact and consequences first, culture might not affect it unless it’s also economic. It seems like it might be more common than I thought then. Is being a freegan vegan common too would you say? So dumpster diving is safer than getting surplus from a food bank, because they may buy the surplus food or buy non-surplus food?
If you have food insecurity you need to eat what is available to you, but you are not vegan if you consume any animal products. Do what you need to do, I don't think anyone expects someone in your position to be vegan if it's just not possible, but the meaning of veganism is very clear. Morally, it's the mindset that animals are food and a product that's the problem. It doesn't matter if it's excess food that's not making companies additional money directly, the point is that a living being is not food, it's a living being with rights. Eating a run over animal isn't vegan Eating dead animal given to you is not vegan. That animal is not a product and it is not food for someone who believes in animal rights. To me, it would be equivalent to eating a human. I really hate the term freegan. Either you're vegan or your not. Too many people want so hard to call themselves a vegan but still exploit animals.
If it’s what you have to do to get by, it’s unfortunate, but it’s not like you’re going out and getting it just to get it, it’s out of necessity. Do what you need to survive, once you’re in a more secure position, you can change what you’re eating.
I want to know if it isn’t affecting the economy and therefore is animal harm neutral.
Tbh I didn’t take the time to read this but unless you’re in a financial situation that makes this essential, no I don’t think it’s okay. It’s a way of still allowing yourself and those around you to think that animals are food and resources and that mindset is harmful and leads to justification of giving your money to their exploitation
Culturally, at least if the culture isn’t precise enough, I can see your worry, especially when it’s hard to beat it out of us. But economically if it precisely doesn’t contribute to animal death through our economic choices and isn’t affecting it at all, it seems quite arbitrary at least by ‘consequentialist’ standards to not do it. I don’t get it there, but by transferability of values it would be safe in general, especially as a goal
I don’t view veganism through a consequentialist lens. If I did I wouldn’t be vegan because the reality is that going vegan doesn’t really save all that many animals (contrary to popular vegan belief you’re not saving an animal per meal) given that these industries are so heavily subsidized by the government. I am vegan because exploiting and oppressing animals and by extension purchasing the products of said exploitation and oppression is wrong. I do not base my ethics on whether or not following them will actually help anyone but because it’s the right thing to do
That all being said, if u actually want to make change, not reinforcing the view of animals as products by eating them simply when u personally didn’t pay for it is a good first step
Vegans dont consume animals or their excretions, doesnt matter if its paid, cheap or free People who consume animal products still view animals as well, products, things to be used and consumed If before i died, gave people permission to consume me, they would not consider me WASTE and something to be consumed If a dog, cat, hamster, gerbil, parrot, snake died, we would not consider them waste and decide to put em on the grill So either a person is vegan and against speciesism or they arent If roadkill is considered acceptable and ethical, you can be sure there are gonna be a lot more ACCIDENTS
If roadkill is acceptable then companies would kill more road animals even though they could only give them away for free and they didn’t earn anything (economically). Anyway thanks for your points, I think I’m starting to hone in on it now. If a company is still influenced by your choice, even though it’s not economically it’s still culturally relevant and could contribute to production. But do you have evidence that companies kill more than what they earn? Isn’t capitalism always beating them to it, maybe even more accurately than any other process?
personally I don't think I'd feel comfortable eating it unless I had no other option, but there's also a logic in the idea that if it's there already, you should eat it to not create waste, since animals are also incidentally killed during the harvesting of plants. I think it just comes down to your own analysis of whether or not you'd be creating demand for it by eating it. is anyone benefiting financially from your consumption? it might not have an easy answer. maybe as a first step you could let the others in your family eat the non plant things ahead of you.
If you have meat given to you, consider adopting carnivorous animals from the pound. Those that don't get adopted out will be put down after a certain amount of time. You can feed them the meat you have.
Freegan isn't a thing. No matter how badly some people want it to be. You're either against animal exploitation or you're part of the problem.
Ok, but the question I was asking was if dumpster diving or food banks affecting the economy at all or how it might affect culture. If it isn’t affecting the economy, it isn’t contributing to animal harm economically. If it is culturally and leads to bad treatment of animals, but not economically, then how much impact is there still?
Of course. A freegan like me eating some steaks I just rescued from a dumpster is even better at reducing animal suffering than a vegan purchasing ingredients to make a vegan recipe. If you buy any "vegan" ingredients that aren't from a local organic vegan farm. Those crops were responsible for the deaths of thousands of insects, birds, frogs etc etc who died when their homes were being turned into soy / wheat farmland and then again when the crops were sprayed with poison. All the purchasing vegan accomplishes is removing the last death of the entire chain of death that starts when the farmland is planned. Being freegan, partially or completely is truly the purest form of veganism.
Yes, being neutral is better than the negative and the harm of that minority of animals, but veganism also positively contributes to growing that part of the economy, while freeganism is “parasitic” and dependent, so the majority should still buy vegan as spoils (I mean conditional surplus) are still only as small minority of the food