Per the title. If an animal dies out in nature without any human involvement, shouldn’t it be considered vegan to harvest any of the useful parts from it (not nessicarily meat, think hide), since there was no human-caused suffering involved?
Similarly, is driving a car not vegan because of the roadkill issue?
Especially curious to hear a perspective from any practicing moral vegans.
Also: I am not vegan. That’s why I’m asking. I’m not planning on eating roadkill thank you. Just suggesting the existence of animal-based vegan leather.
seriously the graveyard is full of them
They call themselves freegans
Hi, ive been vegan for a bit over 10 years. I don’t think animal parts are for us to use at all. I’m not really sure why you’d harvest animals at all, I don’t think normalizing the commodification of others’ bodies is a good thing to be doing. If you really can’t live without animal parts, that’s probably the least harmful way of acquiring them. I wouldn’t recommend eating anyone you find lying on the ground though, that sounds like a good way to contract horrible diseases.
Veganism is about doing the most that is possible and practicable. We probably kill insects just by walking, but it’s not reasonable to never move again to avoid that. Similarly, driving a car for many people is a necessity to be able to access goods and services, and its not at all practicable to avoid driving for them.
Ultimately, veganism is a moral stance about reducing harm to others as much as you can. It’s not a competition, so don’t feel like you have to be perfect at it to do good.
We probably kill insects just by walking, but it’s not reasonable to never move again to avoid that.
There’s this Hindu sect whose adherents wear veils, sweep the floor before them, and/or tread very slowly and carefully to avoid injuring, killing or eating any small insects. As you said, it’s about doing as much as you can, but if it were a competition they’d win for sure.
I think you mean Jainism? It isn’t Hindu.
They also have a very strict vegetarian diet, they won’t even eat root vegetables so burrowing insects aren’t disturbed
I mean defining new religion is always tricky, Hinduism is such a large collection of beliefs, if you go too wide Jainism and Buddhism and Sikhism would unfold into Hinduism and if you go too narrow Hinduism is at best group of 12-13 separate religion.
The deeper you look the more confusing it is, while Jain texts acknowledge certain “Hindu” deities like Indra, other parts of universe building are entirely different, and if they are different where did Indra come from?
Anyway I like the distinction of dharmic religions and then defining sects such as Jain, Vaishnav, shaiva, Buddhism etc etc. They all have the concept of Dharma, Karma and Moksha. So they are all kind of interoperable in terms of lifestyle. There are sects of Hinduism that are more different than mainstream to the point it’d be hard to call them Hindu, but they self identify as Hindu, while there are sects of buddishm that are so similar to Hinduism, it’s unclear why they consider themselves a separate religion. I think at the end the distinctions between dharmic religion are always because of some geopolitical power game.
Yeah but if you ask a jain they’d say they’re not Hindu. So take it for it means.
Thank you for this perspective!
Back in the way way way way way way way day. Human used animal fur for warmth, and the meat to eat.
i saw a really interesting video about biking jackets and the design of them, the conclusion is that molecularly leather is the safest material for abrasion and there’s not really any synthetic replacement that comes close.
What does your perspective (in regard to veganism) have on this subject?
https://youtu.be/xwuRUcAGIEU
Btw this channel is REALLY entertaining and well written, I’d recommend watching this channel if you get bored sometimeFor the western world motorbikes are largely a luxury. Don’t do the luxury thing AND don’t wear a dead animal seems like a reasonable position to take.
I’d take the risk with synthetic materials, personally. I don’t think any amount of danger I put myself in would justify killing someone else for their skin. I have a synthetic jacket with elbow and shoulder reinforcement for when I ride, and that’s good enough for me.
I’ll definitely check out the video later when I have more downtime though.
I think it would depend who you ask. I consider myself vegan and would have no major issue with someone using roadkill for parts. I mean, I would find it disgusting and could never myself, but if they want to and still call themselves vegan, I see no problem with it as the harm has already been done to the animal. Seems the same as harvesting bones from the forest - what’s dead is dead.
Seems the same as harvesting bones from the forest
Umm… Wut? Why are you being a bone harvester, what do you need them for??
Lots of people like to use things like antlers or skulls as decorations
Whatever I want.
If you die in the woods I will find you.
Bone stuff, why are you asking so many questions?
I’m not vegan myself but I had asked a similar enough question to a vegan friend a while ago and liked his answer:
He said for him it’s 2 parts, 1 is that while the animal that died may not have been harmed by humans, the ecosystem that relies on scavenging carcasses will be hurt if humans effectively start removing their entire food source (same way we have driven species to extinction by hunting).
The 2nd part is that with humans everything with even the tiniest loop hole will get abused… Imagine that we say this is okay. Today it may be the odd naturally deceased animal, in a month it’ll start including animals “killed accidentally”, in a year it’ll be someone farming animals with some weird way of culling them so they can claim it’s still natural causes by some twisted logic… at the end of it we’d just not be able to trust any of it anyway so it’s easier to not even entertain the thought - the energy to figure it all out would be better spent on improving alternatives.
To me it’s not a matter of ethics but a matter of health. Unless you saw the animal die from something that clearly isn’t disease I wouldn’t trust meat I just found laying around.
It doesn’t have to be edible. Glue, gelatin for skin mimicry, clothing, and bones for weapons, etc are all non-edible uses of animals.
Good point. I forgot vegans included all that stuff and not just eating animal products.
For me personally: Veganism is also about signaling to the outside world. Suppose I were to skin an animal that died naturally and make a jacket out of it, this would probably be the most ethical way to produce a leather jacket. But I still wouldn’t wear it, because by doing so I would signal to the outside world that it’s okay to wear the skinned hide of animals. Outsiders can’t know under what circumstances I got the leather.
It might be a bit more radical, which is why I might face hostility, but I also throw away non-vegan foods that I unintentionally receive, instead of giving them to non-vegans. Simply because I don’t want to project to the outside: “Here you go. I would never eat it because I find it unethical, but if you eat it, then that’s okay.”
Neither would I but what about the hide?
I trust old meat I find lying around. It may be a different color, but it still spends the same.
From a materialist point of view, I can’t see any harm in harvesting the hide of an already dead animal. However, wearing a real fur coat and calling yourself a vegan is never going to be an easy thing to explain lmao
From my end, I’m a registered organ donor because I feel that I won’t need this body once I’m done with it, and if anything is useful off it for someone else, then hell, let them have my liver.
However, an animal can’t consent to that and yeah, an argument could be made that who gives a fuck, it’s a pig/chicken/cow, it’s not gonna give a shit, but death is unfortunate for anything and I’d feel more at ease that the carcus is either left for nature to do what it does than me harvesting it for food.
It is going to be eaten no matter what. The chance of it being eaten is essentially 100%. So i can’t see how that’s part of the equation.
Sure, but a person can choose to not be the one who does it.
I think i can understand what you’re saying. Unimportant sidenote, it’s spelled carcass
I’m aware. I’m not the one who misspelled it.
Ope you’re right
Interesting.
(Parent comment was edited)
And such is the circle of life right. I also feel that if we as a species can move beyond meat, then we should. I can live a perfectly normal life on my current vegan diet, and if that carcus is then left for other animals and fauna to have, thus leaving the cycle undisrupted.
I suppose what I’m getting at is that I’d rather let the animals that need those nutrients have it, as I’m already sorted.
You can do pretty much whatever you want man…
Like “vegan” isn’t even a century old yet, it was made up in the 1940s by some guy who thought vegetarians weren’t good enough, and he set whatever rules he wanted to.
You can just keep using his word, but not care about his rules.
Or you can make up your own name and rules.
People searching for labels they like and then conforming to every fucking aspect of that label and nothing else, doesn’t work out well.
So please, if you want to eat roadkill just do it.
Like “vegan” isn’t even a century old yet, it was made up in the 1940s by some guy who thought vegetarians weren’t good enough, and he set whatever rules he wanted to.
[citation needed]
Removed by mod
but did you want to answer the question
I did…
it was made up in the 1940s by some guy who thought vegetarians weren’t good enough, and he set whatever rules he wanted to
Every reason why you can/can’t do something and be Vegan, is because the guy who made the word up ~80 years ago decided it should be like that
You’re acting like it’s a math or science, like it’s based on logic or something…
It’s not, so the answer to “why” is essentially “because the founder said that”?
Does that make sense now?
I’m not vegan and I’m here to tell you that your argument isn’t valid. Whoever invented a word doesn’t get to permanently declare exactly what it means down to the tiniest detail. Words change meaning over time. I would guess that especially new words change over time. The word “awful” originally meant full of awe. The word “terrible” originally meant a thing caused terror.
It doesn’t matter what the creator of the word thought.
It doesn’t matter what the creator of the word thought
Yeah…
That’s why I said:
You can just keep using his word, but not care about his rules.
Thanks for aggressively agreeing with me I guess?
Weird move, and I think it’s more likely you were just confused, it works better if you ask questions when you’re confused.
Idk much about vegan philosophy and it is a philosophy not a diet to be clear. However, personally I see it as stealing from the vultures. The vegan solution is of course, to limit roadkill to negligable levels by making cars a redundant and antiquated form of transportation.
Also I wouldn’t trust roadkill to be safe for consumption
A see the issue as more about habit formation and incentives, rather than the act in isolation being a problem. Those that come to rely on animal products from roadkill will inevitably turn to more conventional methods when roadkill is not available since they have become habituated to using animal products (although this is likely worse with more regular habits like meat eating).
Additionally, if this method became widespread enough, there would be an incentive to increase the amount of roadkill (or at best, not decrease it) when in reality roadkill itself is a failure of transport design and land use.For the sake of argument I think you could say that you’re depriving a scavenger of a meal. I don’t know if that’s how veganism is usually framed.
Won’t someone think of the bacteria??
…and crows and vultures and eagles and bears and assorted rodents and foxes and beetles and many, many more. There is actually a rather robust eco system out there, you know. And when you gut part of it, you are just asking for trouble.
deleted by creator
shouldn’t it be considered vegan to harvest any of the useful parts from it, since there was no human-caused suffering involved?
What the fuck are you talking about? The corpse is still made up of animal parts. For the record I’m a vegetarian because I hate animals and I think they’re gross.
I’m agitated by this post not because of whatever morality question you’re trying to pull, but for linguistics sake.
Definition of Vegan from Merriam - Webster:
a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals
also : one who abstains from using animal products (such as leather)
People like you are the reason why the word “literally” doesn’t mean “literally” anymore and we literally don’t have a replacement word.
I’m referring to veganism the moral philosophy, not the diet.
That’s not the question you asked
shouldn’t it be considered vegan
The answer is no, because the definition of the word. I’m sick of “vibe” people. Words have meanings.
Buddy thinks the dictionary contains all the information he ever needs to know 😂
People don’t just wake up one day and decide they’re going to abstain from animal products for no reason.
Dude asks questions to people without doing the minimal effort of a Google search.
Maybe you forgot what community this is, chief.
…
Ahhh fuck you’re right. I thought this was regular Ask Lemmy.
Well I’m a complete jackass, but my point remains.
why the word “literally” doesn’t mean “literally” anymore and we literally don’t have a replacement word.
Literally still means literally, it just ironically also means figuratively now too.
But it’s literally always meant literally.
Literally used to mean literally. It still does. It just used to a well.
For the second question, one could argue driving a car isn’t vegan (unless it’s electric) because gas and oil are technically animal products, even if that animal was a dinosaur
I’m gonna be that “acktually…” guy for a sec here. Oil & gas (mostly) are not dinosaurs… the vast majority of petrochemicals are from compressed dead algae, plankton and plant matter long pre-dating the dinosaurs: https://www.chevron.com/newsroom/2024/q4/explainer-where-do-oil-and-gas-come-from
Where does this notion that oil&gas are dead dinosaurs come from? I know what you said is the truth, just as coal is the remainder of the huge forests that existed before bacteria could break down cellulose, but i would really like to know where this wrong factoid comes from - it’s literally everywhere
So veganism isn’t about not causing harm to animals? Or are you suggesting humans killed the dinosaurs? is it just about blindly refusing to use animal parts?
It’s mostly about consent. We can debate when and where sentience begins, but it begins somewhere and vegans hold a moral philosophy that says using another sentient being’s work product or body without their consent is immoral.
Note that I am not vegan myself but understand, if not agree with, their moral position.
And as another reply said, most vegans recognize it as a “best effort” philosophy, as they appreciate the impracticality of an absolutist stance. They are focused on “harm reduction”.
