6 ms·

I'm pretty sure strict vegans (is there any other kind?) would continue to have a problem with it. The original definition is: Veganism is a way of living whic

by latch 15y ago

I'm pretty sure strict vegans (is there any other kind?) would continue to have a problem with it. The original definition is: Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals Note that they consider honey to be an exploitation of animals...so I assume extracting muscle tissues from a cow would also be considered exploitation of animals. Furthermore, it pretty explicitly states "living on the products of the plant kingdom".

Sniffnoy 15y ago
Yes, but one has to wonder whether linear output requiring nearly constant animal input, vs. linear output requiring linear animal input, will cause some people to rethink this (thus resulting in a split in veganism). Every burger may ultimately come from exploitation of a cow, but if the burger in front of you does not come from any additional exploitation of a cow, many people may not have a problem with it. Unless there are already existing products that have this property, in which case I guess we have our answer. Or if it's not so non-linear as it sounds, in which case there's no question.
- latch 15y ago
  Well, there's still the issue of "living on the products of the plant kingdom." The only thing I can think of that's similar would maybe be recycled leather. I still think ethical vegans would have a problem with it, and I don't see this changing the opinion of anyone doing it for health reasons. I think environmental vegans are the most likely to buy into this..if it even becomes an efficient way to produce nutrition/calories. I could certainly see some more pragmatic organizations throwing their weight behind it.."if you must eat beef, at least eat this kind of beef (but consider X, Y and Z as even better alternatives)."
  - ido 15y ago
    I still think ethical vegans would have a problem with it, and I don't see this changing the opinion of anyone doing it for health reasons. I think very few will have an ethical problem with it, most non-meat-eaters are vegetarians and not vegans, and I suspect even among vegans most are not as strict as you think.
- lloeki 15y ago
  > "thus resulting in a split in veganism" Theere's already a split: vegetarianism vs (strict) veganism. In French we actually have two distinct words: "végétarisme" vs "végétalisme" (which are both cases of "véganisme"). The former is concerned with cruelty and eating living animals, and is assumed to have no problem consuming milk and eggs. The latter is assumed to reject all forms of animal proteins, living exclusively on vegetal products.
furyofantares 15y ago
> The original definition is There is a wide range of people that call themselves vegan. Diets vary greatly, and the reasons for choosing those diets varies even more. Some eat honey. Some don't. Some eat tons of junk food and don't care about health. Some eat incredibly healthy and don't care about animals. Some are guided by beliefs about the economy or about sutstainability. Some eat animal products when they would otherwise be thrown away. Some eat meat or other animal products on very rare occasions. You may not want to call some of these people "vegan", or maybe they are the ones you aren't calling "strict vegan", but they probably get value out of calling themselves vegan because it's a convenient way to give someone an idea of what kinds of foods they wish to avoid. There isn't a vegan authority, and people aren't reading some definition as a set of instructions, because being a vegan isn't the goal, at least for anyone I've met, it is a means to some goal. The goals vary, and the dedication to those goals vary, which is there is a wide variety of diets. If you limit who you want to call a "strict vegan" to people who read some definition and then follow it, where following the definition is the goal itself, then I think you're left with almost nobody. I don't like to call myself "a vegan" largely because it facilitates the misconception I'm following rules rather than making choices. It's not a religion or a personal trait, it's a dietary choice (for me, a lifestyle choice for others, who may minimize animal product use outside of their diet.) People ask me if I can eat this or that, rather than do I eat it, will I eat it, or do I want to eat it, and they really seem to mean "am I able to" as if I might not be capable of eating meat, or as if there is some authority with power over me that will not allow it. That's not the case. I can eat meat and drink milk, of course. I just don't want to. There may be foods you don't want to eat as well. But I probably can't predict how you would react to changes to those foods. And you probably can't predict how I will react to lab-grown meat. For that matter, I probably can't predict how I will react, either.

by latch 15y ago

Sniffnoy 15y ago

Yes, but one has to wonder whether linear output requiring nearly constant animal input, vs. linear output requiring linear animal input, will cause some people to rethink this (thus resulting in a split in veganism). Every burger may ultimately come from exploitation of a cow, but if the burger in front of you does not come from any additional exploitation of a cow, many people may not have a problem with it. Unless there are already existing products that have this property, in which case I guess we have our answer. Or if it's not so non-linear as it sounds, in which case there's no question.

latch 15y ago
Well, there's still the issue of "living on the products of the plant kingdom." The only thing I can think of that's similar would maybe be recycled leather. I still think ethical vegans would have a problem with it, and I don't see this changing the opinion of anyone doing it for health reasons. I think environmental vegans are the most likely to buy into this..if it even becomes an efficient way to produce nutrition/calories. I could certainly see some more pragmatic organizations throwing their weight behind it.."if you must eat beef, at least eat this kind of beef (but consider X, Y and Z as even better alternatives)."
- ido 15y ago
  I still think ethical vegans would have a problem with it, and I don't see this changing the opinion of anyone doing it for health reasons. I think very few will have an ethical problem with it, most non-meat-eaters are vegetarians and not vegans, and I suspect even among vegans most are not as strict as you think.
lloeki 15y ago
> "thus resulting in a split in veganism" Theere's already a split: vegetarianism vs (strict) veganism. In French we actually have two distinct words: "végétarisme" vs "végétalisme" (which are both cases of "véganisme"). The former is concerned with cruelty and eating living animals, and is assumed to have no problem consuming milk and eggs. The latter is assumed to reject all forms of animal proteins, living exclusively on vegetal products.

furyofantares 15y ago

> The original definition is There is a wide range of people that call themselves vegan. Diets vary greatly, and the reasons for choosing those diets varies even more. Some eat honey. Some don't. Some eat tons of junk food and don't care about health. Some eat incredibly healthy and don't care about animals. Some are guided by beliefs about the economy or about sutstainability. Some eat animal products when they would otherwise be thrown away. Some eat meat or other animal products on very rare occasions. You may not want to call some of these people "vegan", or maybe they are the ones you aren't calling "strict vegan", but they probably get value out of calling themselves vegan because it's a convenient way to give someone an idea of what kinds of foods they wish to avoid. There isn't a vegan authority, and people aren't reading some definition as a set of instructions, because being a vegan isn't the goal, at least for anyone I've met, it is a means to some goal. The goals vary, and the dedication to those goals vary, which is there is a wide variety of diets. If you limit who you want to call a "strict vegan" to people who read some definition and then follow it, where following the definition is the goal itself, then I think you're left with almost nobody. I don't like to call myself "a vegan" largely because it facilitates the misconception I'm following rules rather than making choices. It's not a religion or a personal trait, it's a dietary choice (for me, a lifestyle choice for others, who may minimize animal product use outside of their diet.) People ask me if I can eat this or that, rather than do I eat it, will I eat it, or do I want to eat it, and they really seem to mean "am I able to" as if I might not be capable of eating meat, or as if there is some authority with power over me that will not allow it. That's not the case. I can eat meat and drink milk, of course. I just don't want to. There may be foods you don't want to eat as well. But I probably can't predict how you would react to changes to those foods. And you probably can't predict how I will react to lab-grown meat. For that matter, I probably can't predict how I will react, either.