4 ms·

> Also, I guess fish are fair game in the forest hierarchy Fish don't appear to have the ability to speak or engage in social relationship with other animals i

> Also, I guess fish are fair game in the forest hierarchy Fish don't appear to have the ability to speak or engage in social relationship with other animals in the story, so it makes sense to eat them. Like vegan find it OK eating mushrooms even though they are closer to us than they are to plants.

latexr 11mo ago
> Like vegan find it OK eating mushrooms even though they are closer to us than they are to plants. Mushrooms are the fruiting bodies of fungus. Complaining about eating those is akin to complaining about eating apples; you’re not harming the tree.
- tialaramex 11mo ago
  So, although it's difficult to generalize because exactly where the line is drawn varies from one vegan to another, it's generally not enough that the animal wasn't directly harmed. For example the honey bees make honey for a reason, just as apple trees make apples for a reason and maple trees make a sugary sap for a reason. "So that humans can eat it" isn't the reason in either case. The apples and maple syrup are categorised differently by vegans because the trees aren't animals. That's still an arbitrary line, but so are most things.
  - latexr 11mo ago
    > bees make honey for a reason For themselves. To eat. So it’s easy to understand the argument that you’re harming them directly by stealing their honey, which is the result of their labour. But surely there’s nuance there. I don’t doubt there are ethical growers who provide bees with an extra nice and controlled environment, plus care for them and help them fight pests, and thus feel like taking a share of the produced honey is a fair trade. The bees might agree. > "So that humans can eat it" isn't the reason in either case. But it is. In the case of many fruits, the goal is for an animal (humans included) to eat them, seeds and all, then poop them out (bonus fertiliser) somewhere else. > That's still an arbitrary line, but so are most things. No disagreement there, but I don’t see how any of that is relevant to my comment. I was correcting a misconception about mushrooms, not debating the nuances of vegan opinions. I don’t care for the label and don’t think it’s helpful to fight about what it means. It’s much more important to strive to be progressively better than to aim for perfection and fail. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46231187#46242623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46231187#46242623
    - tialaramex 11mo ago
      Essentially all modern honey farming is what you're calling "ethical". It's too expensive to replace the colony each year now that we have an alternative, and a winter - even a relatively mild winter in most parts of the world - will kill the bees if you've stolen all their food. Unlike the maple tree, we do know how to substitute the valuable honey for nutritionally similar but cheaper alternatives - you can buy suitable food commercially because this is a whole industry, nevertheless, vegans object to our intervention, the bees didn't make nutritionally equivalent bee food, they made honey. Even farmers who choose to calibrate and remove only some honey, judging what will be enough for their colony to survive, are considered not to meet vegan requirements for the same reason. To the extent there's a shared definition it really is as simple as originally explained, animal: not OK, non-animal: fine. One of my professors (who is now vegan) had an ethical rule prohibiting eating things which, like him, had backbones. Same idea, it's more similar to me, therefore don't eat it. All such lines in the sand are somewhat arbitrary.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
      - latexr 11mo ago
        > vegans object to our intervention Many might, but many don’t. This is a prime example of why fighting over the label is counterproductive. You’re putting a bunch of different people in the same sack and criticising them for something which the group is not consensual on. Again, I have no desire to nitpick over what makes one a vegan or not. That’s a waste of everyone’s time and only generates unnecessary conflict. It is not only detrimental but unbearably boring.
    - gbuk2013 11mo ago
      > For themselves. To eat. So it’s easy to understand the argument that you’re harming them directly by stealing their honey, which is the result of their labour. On the other hand the bee social structure (not sure what the right word to use here) is so brutal that taking their honey seems to be just keeping pace. :)
    - 11mo ago
  - ddoeth 11mo ago
    Well the reason apple trees make apples is actually that someone can eat them, and then ideally poop out the seeds so that a new tree can grow. But that is literally their purpose.
- littlestymaar 11mo ago
  > Mushrooms are the fruiting bodies of fungus. Complaining about eating those is akin to complaining about eating apples; you’re not harming the tree. Why are eggs a problem for vegans then? They are quite literally the “fruit body” of birds. Milk and honey should be even less problematic, as it's not even made of parts of cow or bees.
  - aziaziazi 11mo ago
    Each have his own reason, but I refer you to the definition of veganism by the Vegan Society (whose founder "invented" the world vegan): > [...] exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, [..] While ecology and health are cited by some vegans, many (if not most) of them are interested in avoiding unnecessary cruelty. That's why there's a discussion where some people define themselves as vegan but do eat musles and other "nerveless" animals they don't considered sentient. On the other hand bees, cows and chicken are sentient and most of they don't have a lot of fun at the farm. [1] https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

latexr 11mo ago

> Like vegan find it OK eating mushrooms even though they are closer to us than they are to plants. Mushrooms are the fruiting bodies of fungus. Complaining about eating those is akin to complaining about eating apples; you’re not harming the tree.

tialaramex 11mo ago
So, although it's difficult to generalize because exactly where the line is drawn varies from one vegan to another, it's generally not enough that the animal wasn't directly harmed. For example the honey bees make honey for a reason, just as apple trees make apples for a reason and maple trees make a sugary sap for a reason. "So that humans can eat it" isn't the reason in either case. The apples and maple syrup are categorised differently by vegans because the trees aren't animals. That's still an arbitrary line, but so are most things.
- latexr 11mo ago
  > bees make honey for a reason For themselves. To eat. So it’s easy to understand the argument that you’re harming them directly by stealing their honey, which is the result of their labour. But surely there’s nuance there. I don’t doubt there are ethical growers who provide bees with an extra nice and controlled environment, plus care for them and help them fight pests, and thus feel like taking a share of the produced honey is a fair trade. The bees might agree. > "So that humans can eat it" isn't the reason in either case. But it is. In the case of many fruits, the goal is for an animal (humans included) to eat them, seeds and all, then poop them out (bonus fertiliser) somewhere else. > That's still an arbitrary line, but so are most things. No disagreement there, but I don’t see how any of that is relevant to my comment. I was correcting a misconception about mushrooms, not debating the nuances of vegan opinions. I don’t care for the label and don’t think it’s helpful to fight about what it means. It’s much more important to strive to be progressively better than to aim for perfection and fail. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46231187#46242623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46231187#46242623
  - tialaramex 11mo ago
    Essentially all modern honey farming is what you're calling "ethical". It's too expensive to replace the colony each year now that we have an alternative, and a winter - even a relatively mild winter in most parts of the world - will kill the bees if you've stolen all their food. Unlike the maple tree, we do know how to substitute the valuable honey for nutritionally similar but cheaper alternatives - you can buy suitable food commercially because this is a whole industry, nevertheless, vegans object to our intervention, the bees didn't make nutritionally equivalent bee food, they made honey. Even farmers who choose to calibrate and remove only some honey, judging what will be enough for their colony to survive, are considered not to meet vegan requirements for the same reason. To the extent there's a shared definition it really is as simple as originally explained, animal: not OK, non-animal: fine. One of my professors (who is now vegan) had an ethical rule prohibiting eating things which, like him, had backbones. Same idea, it's more similar to me, therefore don't eat it. All such lines in the sand are somewhat arbitrary.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - latexr 11mo ago
      > vegans object to our intervention Many might, but many don’t. This is a prime example of why fighting over the label is counterproductive. You’re putting a bunch of different people in the same sack and criticising them for something which the group is not consensual on. Again, I have no desire to nitpick over what makes one a vegan or not. That’s a waste of everyone’s time and only generates unnecessary conflict. It is not only detrimental but unbearably boring.
  - gbuk2013 11mo ago
    > For themselves. To eat. So it’s easy to understand the argument that you’re harming them directly by stealing their honey, which is the result of their labour. On the other hand the bee social structure (not sure what the right word to use here) is so brutal that taking their honey seems to be just keeping pace. :)
  - 11mo ago
- ddoeth 11mo ago
  Well the reason apple trees make apples is actually that someone can eat them, and then ideally poop out the seeds so that a new tree can grow. But that is literally their purpose.
littlestymaar 11mo ago
> Mushrooms are the fruiting bodies of fungus. Complaining about eating those is akin to complaining about eating apples; you’re not harming the tree. Why are eggs a problem for vegans then? They are quite literally the “fruit body” of birds. Milk and honey should be even less problematic, as it's not even made of parts of cow or bees.
- aziaziazi 11mo ago
  Each have his own reason, but I refer you to the definition of veganism by the Vegan Society (whose founder "invented" the world vegan): > [...] exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, [..] While ecology and health are cited by some vegans, many (if not most) of them are interested in avoiding unnecessary cruelty. That's why there's a discussion where some people define themselves as vegan but do eat musles and other "nerveless" animals they don't considered sentient. On the other hand bees, cows and chicken are sentient and most of they don't have a lot of fun at the farm. [1] https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism