• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    As for the exploitation, all living things have their own lives. Even plants seem to be able to communicate to some degree and can be stressed and stuff. Either you’re OK exploiting living things to some degree or you die. The level of exploitation is what should be discussed. Is beekeeping harmful to bees? I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem like it.

    As for it being sugar, sure. Sugar isn’t bad though. Sugar is bad when consumed in the quantities the average American consumes it. It also has other properties that make it pretty good for your health. For example, I think it’s good for preventing allergies because it contains pollen (I might be making this up, but it seems like I’ve read that somewhere).

    Plus, it’s just weird to want to eat the vomit of other species anyway.

    Do you realize that fruit is the ovary of a plant? Life is weird. Get over it. Weird is not a word that should come into a discussion of ethics.

    • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      The “what about plants” argument is such a thoroughly debunked joke argument that it’s amazing anyone would continue to make it. Eating animals and their secretions requires harming significantly more plants than eating the plants directly because animals need to be fed too, and animals as food is by far the least efficient and most environmentally destructive way to have a food system.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It’s not an argument. It was a consideration that should be weighed if you’re being consistent. Your response is not accurate though. You’re referring to most farmed animals. Bees do not require this and is what the post is about. There are many animal products that do less harm than plant products. Farming plants requires large areas of land to be cleared for farming and replaced with what is likely not a native species. This can’t be good for native animals. If you’re comparing the harm done by almonds and honey, honey is almost certainly better for harm reduction, yet it’s an animal product, not a plant product.

        • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          many animal products that do less harm than plant products

          Can you cite some other than honey? Animal products require animals which mostly require, well, plants. Plants that cause harm in the exact way you described. And more of them than just humans eating the crops directly. More than 60% of animal biomass on the planet right now is livestock, so bees seem practically irrelevant to the issue.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I would say probably free-range goat milk is pretty harm free, where the goats just eat grasses that are already there natively. Probably some other milks too. The quantities that this exists in is much lower than factory cows milk, or even milk alternatives, but they can exist. I can’t think of any other animal food item that doesn’t require butchering, which I’m sure you wouldn’t consider regardless of how well the animal is treated before death, but I’d consider comparing it to other sources of food.

            Bees are relevant because it’s what the thread is about. The conversation was about bees and honey. Sure, most other farmed livestock isn’t good. We aren’t in disagreement about that so I don’t know why you keep referencing that. My point was harm should be the consideration of vegans, not where it comes from. Who cares if it’s from an animal, plant, or fungus if the net harm is worse than other sources?

            • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Bee point taken, I should have said something like ‘a drop in the bucket’, the point I intended to convey is that they don’t really advance the argument that there are many such animal products. Nor does saying oh and some goat milk. That statement of yours is what I specifically disagreed with.

              The point about quantities, that’s my point too. Farmers in the Patagonia region may be able to sustainably eat meat, drink ethical milk, whatever. Not people in the US, not in most of Europe. Yeah, so I actually just bought a huge container of local honey from our local grocer, maybe two hours ago. I don’t cut honey out. But that’s not grounds for me to claim there are a bunch of other animal products that are also better than eating some nuts and beans for protein. Honey seems more like the exception that proves the rule.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Yeah, for sure I agree the quantities aren’t there to be a replacement, and it seems like we agree that harm is the thing to consider, not really the source.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              If you need to force impregnate the goats and then take their children away so you can take the milk instead, then its not harm free.

              How would you consistently get milk from wild goats who happen to be have given birth but somehow don’t have children that need it?

      • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Not with bees not.

        Eating plant based sugar will kill and harm more animals that bee produced sugar.

        Or do you think that agricultural process does not kill bugs?

        I would argue that eating honey instead of plant based sugar would be more vegan.

        In general drawing the line of veganism with bugs is… Complicated. As you really cannot have agriculture without killing bugs.

        You need pesticides, or some form of plage control. You need to harvest plants that surely will have animals in them. And you’ll need to clean the vegetables of bugs before consumption.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The answer they gave is the gotcha answer. The real answer is that vegans currently don’t consider plants worth moral consideration. Its a non-issue, although I’m sure you could find some vegans who are concerned they are harming plants.

          To put it another way, you can harm a plant as much as you can harm a rock. Of course our understanding might change as time goes on.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Eating animals and their secretions requires harming significantly more plants than eating the plants directly because animals need to be fed too,

        and they are mostly fed parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat. the same field that grows soybeans for human consumption is growing animal feed, it’s just different parts of the plant.