3 ms·

Why is hunting better than being vegan?

Accacin 8y ago
As someone who doesn't eat meat or dairy I've heard the argument that the environmental impact would be less than a vegan that lives in a city. The argument being that a hunter is killing an animal that lived naturally is less of an environmental impact than getting food packaged and sent across the country, etc. I'm not sure I agree, but it's the most plausible argument I've seen for not being Vegan.
- retzkek 8y ago
  > getting food packaged and sent across the country You missed the biggest factor: industrial farming. Have you been to the midwest-does that look like a healthy, natural ecosystem? A vegan (well, most people really ) who lives there gets their food from the same place as one in the city. I'm not sure any form of food production/gathering, at the scale needed today, would look any better though.
ngngngng 8y ago
Farming at any scale results in unintended animal deaths, serving no purpose other than to "get out of the way" so we can farm here. Hunting results in the death of a single animal, and that animal is then directly used for food. There is virtually no environmental impact as a result of well regulated hunting.
- meowface 8y ago
  A vegan would argue that the death of a single animal should be prevented if at all possible. They would probably argue that hunting is much more ethical than factory farming, but still very unethical.
  - ngngngng 8y ago
    I know, I've had these arguments. But it's asinine because it is quite literally impossible for any human to exist without animals dying as a result of it. There are a small percentage of vegans that are convinced that their existence results in zero animal deaths. These people are delusional. Luckily there aren't many of them. The reasonable vegans admit that it's a matter of causing as little animal death or suffering as possible. And then some percentage of what I've deemed "reasonable vegans" will also agree that hunting is about as good as any other options.
    - meowface 8y ago
      I'd like to think I fall in the "reasonable vegan" category. I know it's impossible for humans to prevent all possible animal deaths. But there's a massive gap between hunting and not killing and eating animals for food at all. Of course I'd prefer if factory farming was replaced with hunting, but I'd prefer even more if synthetic meat were the norm and raising or killing animals for food just wasn't even part of the equation anymore (as PG, and others, are predicting). As a human animal, I'd certainly rather live ~50% of my expected natural life in the wild and have it end in an instant from a weapon than be born in crammed captivity and force-fed horrible anti-biotic-laden meal for years for some higher-intelligence extraterrestrial species to consume, sure. But even though it's preferable, I still don't want to be shot and killed, even if I knew with certainty that my death was going to be short and painless. Similar to PG, I predict killing animals for sport or for food will be considered very taboo within a century. At least in Western countries.

As someone who doesn't eat meat or dairy I've heard the argument that the environmental impact would be less than a vegan that lives in a city. The argument being that a hunter is killing an animal that lived naturally is less of an environmental impact than getting food packaged and sent across the country, etc. I'm not sure I agree, but it's the most plausible argument I've seen for not being Vegan.

retzkek 8y ago
> getting food packaged and sent across the country You missed the biggest factor: industrial farming. Have you been to the midwest-does that look like a healthy, natural ecosystem? A vegan (well, most people really ) who lives there gets their food from the same place as one in the city. I'm not sure any form of food production/gathering, at the scale needed today, would look any better though.

ngngngng 8y ago

Farming at any scale results in unintended animal deaths, serving no purpose other than to "get out of the way" so we can farm here. Hunting results in the death of a single animal, and that animal is then directly used for food. There is virtually no environmental impact as a result of well regulated hunting.

meowface 8y ago
A vegan would argue that the death of a single animal should be prevented if at all possible. They would probably argue that hunting is much more ethical than factory farming, but still very unethical.
- ngngngng 8y ago
  I know, I've had these arguments. But it's asinine because it is quite literally impossible for any human to exist without animals dying as a result of it. There are a small percentage of vegans that are convinced that their existence results in zero animal deaths. These people are delusional. Luckily there aren't many of them. The reasonable vegans admit that it's a matter of causing as little animal death or suffering as possible. And then some percentage of what I've deemed "reasonable vegans" will also agree that hunting is about as good as any other options.
  - meowface 8y ago
    I'd like to think I fall in the "reasonable vegan" category. I know it's impossible for humans to prevent all possible animal deaths. But there's a massive gap between hunting and not killing and eating animals for food at all. Of course I'd prefer if factory farming was replaced with hunting, but I'd prefer even more if synthetic meat were the norm and raising or killing animals for food just wasn't even part of the equation anymore (as PG, and others, are predicting). As a human animal, I'd certainly rather live ~50% of my expected natural life in the wild and have it end in an instant from a weapon than be born in crammed captivity and force-fed horrible anti-biotic-laden meal for years for some higher-intelligence extraterrestrial species to consume, sure. But even though it's preferable, I still don't want to be shot and killed, even if I knew with certainty that my death was going to be short and painless. Similar to PG, I predict killing animals for sport or for food will be considered very taboo within a century. At least in Western countries.