• lalo ( lalo@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 years ago

    There is a difference between accidental deaths and intentional killing. Veganism is about stopping animal exploitation as far as possible and practicable.

    Accidentally killing an animal and eating their flesh is something completely different to deliberately killing an animal and eating them.

    If you happen to find a dead animal and eat it, you are not exploiting them for their life, just their dead remains.

            • If a plant has to eat animals to survive then that plant is a product of animal suffering. Thats why vegans don’t drink milk or eat eggs too. So if that’s the definition of vegan that someone subscibes to then the flytrap is not Vegan.

                • There are plenty of vegans who would tell you they abstain from any products of animal suffering, otherwise they would use products that were tested on animals. Just because you test lipstick on animals, doesn’t make the lipstick a product of animals, its a product of animal suffering. Your definition is not the only one and doesn’t exclude animal tested products, which many vegans go out of their way to avoid.

              • Vegans also don’t eat honey, which is not really a byproduct of animal suffering. And a vegan also wouldn’t eat eggs, even if they kept and raised their own free range chickens who were laying unfertilized eggs which were just going to rot if not consumed. Because veganism isn’t about the “suffering” of an animal. You could genetically engineer an animal that was incapable of feeling pain or fear and made it so that it felt ecstasy while being butchered, but killing and eating it would still be unethical for a person to do, and still be in violation of veganism’s core principles, because it’s about conscious beings exploiting the labor or nature of animals without their consent. An animal like a wolf or lion (or in this case a venus fly trap) eating meat is not “unethical” because it exists outside of ethics: it’s just a component of an ecosystem in which predation is a natural element. Humans have functionally removed themselves from whatever ecosystem they evolved to be a part of, so our exploitation of animals and their natural behaviors is just that: exploitative.

          • hallettj ( hallettj@beehaw.org ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 years ago

            Fungi are more closely related to animals than plants.

            I bring this up too. What my kid asks, “what is vegan?”, and my wife says, “someone who eats plants”, then I shout from across the room, “and fungi!” Tbh no one is amused but me.

            There’s nothing hypocritical about eating fungi! I just want recognition for the fungal contribution.

  • chaorace ( chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    3 years ago

    I’ll answer your question with another question: is it Vegan to eat bacon made from a pig you personally raised up from birth after it dies naturally having lived a full life?

    If you define Veganism as a diet, then bacon’s bacon. If you define Veganism as a personal reaction to the cruelty of industrial farms, then perhaps this is how you get Vegan bacon. If you define Veganism as something more spiritual, then perhaps desecrating your dear friend’s corpse by eating it is even worse.

  • Susaga ( Susaga@ttrpg.network ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 years ago

    I would say yes. Plants feed off of the bodies of dead lions according to this animated documentary I saw, and that doesn’t make them any less vegan. Then again, I’m not a vegan, so I might be entirely wrong.

  • hallettj ( hallettj@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 years ago

    Maybe a better case study would be figs since people actually eat those. From what I’m seeing in search results there is some difference of opinion, but maybe the prevailing opinion is that figs are fine for vegans because they are not intentionally exploitative or cruel to animals.

    • Kaijobu ( Kaijobu@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      Well, to be more precise, vegan stands for the lack of an animal’s influence in a product. This distinction is important as mushrooms/fungi are not categorised as simple plants, vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts and so on.

      • lalo ( lalo@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        Lack on animal exploitation*. If you find a dead animal while dumpster diving or a roadkill and you bring home to eat, it’s vegan because you’re not contributing to the exploitation of living sentient beings.

        • I would argue that roadkill is a product of human exploitation of the environment as a whole, so roadkill isn’t vegan.

          Also, if roadkill is vegan you know you’re going to get some psycho with a massive cow catcher on the front of his pickup who’s “vegan” because he only eats what he runs down in his truck.

          • lalo ( lalo@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 years ago

            By that definition, animal testing is vegan as long as the end result doesn’t contain an animal product, which is not. Veganism is about not exploiting animals as far as possible and practicable.

            Cultured meats will be vegan, accidental roadkill is vegan, as well as dumpster diving, because you’re not exploiting living sentient beings for that.

            You can check out more info on the history of veganism: https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/history

              • lalo ( lalo@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 years ago

                No need to be pedantic. I’m pointing you to the Vegan Society, who actually created the term vegan. I’m merely trying to educate you on the topic. The dictionary definition is simplifying an entire philosophy, otherwise vegans would also be okay with horse and dog races, horseback riding, using animals as labor and other forms of animal exploitation.

                Quote of the important part of the article (highlights by me):

                The word vegan was coined by Donald Watson from a suggestion by early members Mr George A. Henderson and his wife Fay K. Henderson that the society should be called Allvega and the magazine Allvegan.

                Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. This is later clarified as “to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man”.

    • Floey ( Floey@lemm.ee ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      That’s not the definition of veganism at all. It’s actually not even the definition of a plant based diet since plant based dieters eat fungi and yeast.

  • Floey ( Floey@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    If the VFT was grown for human purposes such as eating then no it would not be vegan, as they require a small but steady stream of bugs to grow. Though if you found a feed alternative like a nutrient pill then I guess it could be vegan. As for a VFT found in the wild then yes it would be vegan, anything it has consumed in the past wasn’t done so for your sake.

  • ITT: people misunderstanding the difference between vegetarianism and veganism

    Here’s the quick version: Vegetarians don’t eat animals. Vegans don’t eat stuff made of animal suffering.

    Fly traps are made of animal suffering.

  • anarchost ( anarchost@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    Edit: thank you for all the thoughtful replies from the people who downvoted but left an explanation!

    The more I think about this question, the more complexities it creates. I am not a vegan, so I can only guess what the average vegan would think…

    • If you eat a plant that causes harm to a living being like an insect, are you doing a moral good from a vegan perspective because you are reducing harm?
    • Would it be morally good for a vegan to use vegan means to prevent more harm to animals?
    • Would it be the ultimate moral good for vegans to hunt down every wild Venus flytrap and consume them?
    • What if the Venus flytrap only ate insects that significantly harmed animal or human populations by spreading diseases?
    • If vegans could alter the environment using non-vegan means, in such a way that bats stopped eating mosquitoes without upsetting the overall ecosystem, but these mosquitoes started spreading a terrible but non-deadly disease in humans, would it be moral for them to do so, or would it be immoral for them to avoid it?

    Unfortunately, I don’t know the calculus a vegan uses when placing value on the life of a human versus an animal, so the bat mosquito thing is entirely up in the air for me up in the air for me