Yes.
Rationale?
Venus fly traps are not animals.
/end thread.
That’s the whole debate, OP. It’s solved with this short exchange.
But they eat animals.
Fungi are more closely related to animals than plants. Are they vegan?
I think you need to look up the definition of of “vegan.” It’s not based on what your food eats: you can’t call eating a grass-fed cow “vegan.”
Fungi is also not animals.
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.
That’s not the definition of vegan. The definition of vegan is a person who abstains from animal products. Plants are not animal products.
Eating a venus flytrap is also removing a plant that eats animals.
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.
Veganism is about sentience
If you could operate a series of trolley problems regarding sentience for the average vegan, would a somewhat quantifiable hierarchy arise?
For example, would a vegan save one human over three pigs, or over 100 pigs?
If a vegan could use vegan means to prevent the death of all mosquitoes without upsetting the ecology of the planet Earth, but the mosquitoes would then start infecting more humans with hazardous but non-deadly diseases, should the vegan attempt those means?
I can’t speak for other vegans, but as a vegan, I’d pick an animal’s life over a human’s, so your trolly problem is easy for me. Fuck humans, there are over 8 billion of us and we don’t need any more; fewer there are, the better it is for this planet.
Ecofascism? That you?
deleted by creator
So what about mussels and other mollusks?
Is milk sentience, eggs? Or what about dead fish?
Specifically it’s about the consent of any sentient beings involved in the production.
Milk and eggs are fine as long as you’ve acquired them via free market exchange with the animal that produced them. n
Like, breast milk from a woman is okay for a vegan to eat as long as it wasn’t forcibly taken from her.
Which, to be clear, .00001% of human consumed milk doesn’t involve torturing cows and stealing their babies
Is this a joke or are you a moron? We forcibly impregnate cows and steal their children… and then do it over and over again until they die
I’m not vegan, but do you seriously not get how animal suffering works? Go watch Earthlings or Dominion if you’re curious
deleted by creator
Dead fish? Do yiu think most people are eating them alive?
Yes
Venus flytrap are plants. Simple as that.
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.
I’m in the road kill is vegan camp, so sure after Winnie croaks chow down.
Isn’t roadkill another symptom of human cruelty, i.e. building roads and cars, creating a death trap that cuts through eco systems? The only real difference is that roadkill exists because of carelessness rather than intention.
Roadkill is a side effect of our advancement as a civilization. Unfortunately there is no way to avoid using cars or transportation if you want to keep living in our society.
Roadkill is akin to crop deaths, a side effect of our advancements. No other way to keep our society, but animal farming can be completely avoided and it’s easy and cheap once you get to it.
At this point, the number of cars is about as disconnected from human progress as the consumption of animal products is. Much like we could easily remove the majority of animal product consumption, we could also remove the majority of cars and car miles.
Being vegan requires only to change your buying choices. What your’e suggesting requires one to plant/locally source everything you consume, work close to your home, and completely change your means of transportation.
Veganism is about not exploiting animals as practicable and possible. Which one do you recognize is practicable and possible for most humans?
I am saying reduce the number of cars, but not to zero. I’d guess that in developed nations, maybe 20% or 30% of cars are actually needed (obviously depending on the country and the local level of car use). Similarly, some percentage of animal products is actually useful even in developed nations (for now), e.g. for pregnant women or people with weird allergies.
And of course, society needs to support lifestyle choices for them to be viable. That’s the same for veganism and a life without a car.
I believe we should tackle the problems we can solve right now, if you can stop using cars and source locally, that’s great.
Most of us can already change to a vegan lifestyle and stop contributing to intentionally killing animals that don’t want to die. Once most people get onboard with that, then we should address accidental deaths.
Using fur instead of most plastic fabrics is the environmental choice. As an environmentalist, Fur/Leather are the best choices for clothing.
I’m all about human advancement, but nothing about cars is required. If it were trains, sure I’m with you.
Train networks good enough for people to travel wherever they want are difficult on the scale of large countries like Canada, the US, and Russia.
Incorrect. The US was built on passenger rail travel. It just wasn’t as profitable as freight and also once cars started becoming a thing then car interest groups started fucking things up to make more money.
We had a world class transcontinental rail system that was stunningly expansive. Much of it, especially the branch lines that went just about everywhere people built towns and cities, has been abandoned, sold, or converted to bike paths. Now we have basically a freight only system with near zero branch service, and some local and inter-city rail transit that is utterly shitty by developed world standards.
deleted by creator
“Nothing about cars is required”
ho boy you’ve obviously never lived anywhere super rural. When the nearest house is 15 miles away, you need some form of transportation better than a bike.
This is a very “never lived anywhere but the city” take
I guess rural living didn’t exist between 1900 and the beginning of human civilization did it? Because this is a very “ignorant of history and can’t imagine an alternative” take, which doesn’t reflect well upon you.
Lol and things took exponentially longer and had a massive time investment to go anywhere.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not big on car centric design, but pretending personal transportation isn’t and hasn’t been important is just ignoring the practicality of the world.
deleted by creator
If the pig dies naturally, you probably don’t want to eat it, right? Because it was either from disease, or it’ll be a really un-tasty pig 🤷♂️
If a human is part of nature… Isn’t being killed by a human a natural death?
It’s a hypothetical. Assume for the sake of the exercise that the pig is the tastiest to ever live by sheer unknowable chance.
If we’re speaking in pure hypotheticals, then to me personally, if you raise the animal like you would a pet, then at the end of their life when they die naturally, if you butchered the remains, cooked it, and ate it, that would fall under my definition of vegan. But as you indicated, that’s going to depend on each vegan’s definition.
However, my point still stands that animals who die of natural causes are generally not healthy in the end. Think of elderly humans. They either die due to disease or cancer, or they are skin and bones, right?
There’s a reason animals are slaughtered earlier in their lives. Part of it is quicker turnaround on profit, but part of it is the quality of the meat.
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.
But Scavengers feed off dead bodies too. Is Hyena vegan? What about crow?
They are animals so no
Yeah but what about robots, coffee cups, and tennis balls??
I think the average vegan response would be “no thanks but Godspeed to you”
Feeding off of dead bodies isn’t what makes it vegan or not. Plants are plants and animals are not, regardless of their diet.
Or are you trying to argue that grass isn’t vegan?
No, more that animals are harmed in the growth of a fly trap.
Animals are harmed in industrial farming as well. It sucks, but doesn’t make wheat not being vegan.
Your double negative is throwing me for a loop.
I also don’t get the jump from industrial Ag and wheat.
Can you word your point differently?
Wheat is vegan, even if animals are harmed in the process of growing and harvesting it (pesticides, rodents in combine harvesters).
Venus fly traps are vegan, even if they harmed flies.
What if the meat was harvested in a humane manner? Nitrogen asphyxiation, for instance, which is being trialed for use on humans wishing to commit suicide?
I’m not debating the merits current meat harvesting; on an industrial scale it’s abhorrent. I’m just mostly wanting to know where the line is drawn
In my case I point out above, the only real differences is that humans have a choice and animals would not (this is a big one, I will grant you) and what is ultimately consumed.
That’s an easy one: no, because they are animals.
And what’s a human being? A mineral?
Besides being cannibalism, I’m pretty sure all vegans would tell you that humans have sentience greater than, if not on par with, the average animal. So eating one would not be vegan
Humans overrate themselves.
deleted by creator
Then they overate veganism first and foremost
I’m replying here cos I can’t find the comment you posted: I see humans as worthwhile as any other species but boy do we overrate ourselves. We’re the most important creature, the animal that has to be better than all the rest. We’d go without eating if that were possible. In the end what we do doesn’t matter much. Life keeps on going where it can and the spheres keep turning around.
Vegan here. Interesting question! I think you’re going to get a different answer depending on the vegan you talk to. Personally, this is the definition of veganism I subscribe to:
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”
By that definition, for me, it is not vegan. If the VFT has been grown by humans, and fed insects, then that is non-vegan, because there was a lot of animal suffering that went into growing that VFT. Furthermore, VFTs are not required for sustaining the human body, so the only reason to do this is for human pleasure or something.
Edit to add: if the VFT was found in nature, I probably still wouldn’t consume it, because 1) I don’t even know if VFTs are edible 2) if they are, I’ve got better food with me that probably caused less animal suffering, and are less morally ambiguous.
Thanks! A legitimate answer, other than people calling me a moron.
I’ll admit, this was a ‘is a hotdog a sandwich’ kind of question.m, but I learned something too!
They’re also rare, not supposed to harvest, instead you should buy them from people who cultivate them as to not harm the “wild” population.
Not trying to sound pedantic or rude, by just generally curious; What about all the other microorganisms, bacteria,etc that are within any given plant you eat line up with this eh, philosophy? I know this may come across as a bit reductionist, but I guess when you see a lot of edge cases, it becomes a sword XD
Like, how would veganism feel about a person’s immune system killing off other things? Do you avoid hand sanitizer? I guess the crux of my questions boil down to where the line is drawn. Does it only apply to non plant/fungi?
Those scenarios fall under the “as far as possible and practical” clause. Plants and fungi need insects to pollinate them, and microorganisms for nutrients. Veganism isn’t a death-cult, so we have to eat something. Therefore, those insects and microorganisms are necessary.
Ditto for immune system and hand sanitizer. They are necessary parts of being human.
Another common one to ask about is animals killed in the process of farming, such as field mice that are caught in machinery. I also recognize those as necessary in the current system, but I do grow some of my own food as a small way to minimize those things, and I believe that if more people cared, we could eliminate that problem. But it’s not something in my power, so I must classify it under the “as far as possible and practical” clause.
Another is animals that die as a result of roads. My answer to that one is /c/fuckcars
That’s fair.
Since I answered your question, I’d like to ask you one: what’s the difference between eating a pig and eating a dog?
There’s a few ways to interpret that and answer. The why some animals and not others is more of a cultural divide. To my knowledge I’ve never consumed dog meat. I hear it taste…ok. I personally wouldn’t seek it out, and that’s an interesting question in of itself. Would I decline it in a survival situation, no. Would I decline if offered to me while in another country or something? Not sure.
The odd side effect of farmed animals is insurance of their survival as a species. Now, I’m not anti vegan. I don’t think it’s a bad idea. I’m omnivorous. Could we do better, ya. I’ve helped with the family farm before, growing a variety of produce. I’ve also hunted before. It would be nice to go back to a more primal way of eating. Having to work for the food beyond driving to a grocery store or having them delivered. Most of humanity has lost that connection to the land and life cycle.
I believe there are some vegans who won’t eat figs because they absorb the body of a certain type of wasp. I forget the details, but the point is - it probably depends on the vegan
One key detail of that is that the figs contain the bodies of that type of wasp, so you’re technically still eating an animal if you’re not extremely careful.
Is that not also true of the fly trap?
As far as I know, the vegan prerogative is to avoid harming any living creature, and avoiding eating animals comes downstream of that. I think other vegans believe eating any animal for any reason is immoral, but I’m not really sure of their rationale.
So on the one hand, you might be able to convince a vegan to eat roadkill…
There’s some debate over whether bivalves are vegan, because they don’t have a central nervous system and therefore can’t experience suffering.
deleted by creator
Yes. They aren’t digesting meat, they are absorbing potassium and fixed nitrogen. The plant cells are, well, plant cells.
If the plant is carnivorous are it’s cells not the product of animal suffering?
Nature’s metal. We can’t change that. However for the first time in history you have the opportunity to not eat the only companions we have in the universe.
I am in awe. I’ve been vegan for 26 years, but this still caught me off guard. Simple, profound, brilliant. Thank you.
https://phys.org/news/2023-09-human-driven-mass-extinction-entire-tree.html
Came from here. Sad noises.
Well, that was a nice way to start the day … thank you for sharing, though.
That doesn’t change how the plant made those cells though.
I mean, technically all plants are carnivorous. They all depend on soil which is organic matter made from all sorts of post-living organisms plants, bacteria, insects, and animals alike.
Then some plants would still be more carnivorous than others. When I hear someone talking about how clearing land for food kills lots of animal, the typical response I see is that Vegans know this, but try to avoid animal suffering whenever possible because its simply not always possible. I think that line of reasoning could easily be used to say well why eat a fly trap when theres other plants that don’t cause as much harm to animals. Imagine if everyone started eating flytraps then they would need to be mass farmed, and mass fed, and I’d imagine they’d look a lot less vegan in that situation.
If we were involved in the process, say 1m Venus traps in a shed and fed flies bred specifically then that’s not OK. But as its part of a natural plant process then it’s still wierd but OK. I think, who am I to say? The vegan judge?
Well the point of the post is to nit pick a hypothetical since I doubt many people, much less vegans are actually eating those plants, we’re all casing judgement here. Especially since not everyone definition of veganism is the same. To me if its dietary and chemical then obviously it doesn’t matter, but if the ‘product of animal suffering’ is someones black and white philosophy then to me Flytraps seem about as vegan as consuming the flies they eat (which is only like one month). While an insignificant amount, it is measurable is all I’m saying, literally a technicality but that’s why its a basically hypothetical post online I suppose. In reality, everyone draws their own line somewhere, from the jainists who breath through cheese cloths to protect any microorganisms they can to the carnivours.
I can’t breathe from laughing at this.
Yes. It’s a plant. Made of plant things. In the same way that plants that are fertilized by dead bodies would also be vegan. You aren’t eating meat. The plant is receiving sustenance from breaking down that organic material but you aren’t.
Meat is literally dead bodies, which we derive sustenance from.
Harvested plants would be considered dead (plant) bodies, so where is the difference?
The best argument I’ve heard so far is the one around sentience, but that gets confusing too, since plants react to stimuli and grass can signal other plants it’s being eaten.
But the question you asked was about a vegan diet.
The difference is complex chemical reactions. These complex reactions could be “sentience” but it’s the number of reactions and how they all work together to accomplish goals beyond their singular function.
Plants perceived communicating is due to adaptation and evolution to protect themselves from predators and fire. They did not develop communication skills like an animal would have to also protect itself. Perception and interaction are not communication.
No no. I mean if a plant is nourished by dead animals who have died near them. Or in some places where animal bodies are used in fertilizer.
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.
I think you made a typo in your first sentence. I think you meant to say it’s non-vegan in that scenario.
Thanks for letting me know, fixed.
In the same way as eating a cow is not considered vegan even though the cow only eats grass, yes eating a plant that eats flies would still be vegan.
I feel like whatever the answer is, it has to be the same as “is eating mushrooms vegan?”
Is murdering a murderer who plans to murder again murder?
I imagine there is gray in veganism, as with all philosophical life choices.
If you murder a murderer, the number of murderers in the world stays the same.
So you should murder at least two.Well I hope those plants taste as good as they smell to flies…
I’ve taken some high school algebra so let’s see how I can analyze this.
- Is murdering a murderer who plans to murder again murder?
- Is murdering X murder
- Murdering X = murder
- Is murder murder?
- Yes
Which side of the debate were you on, OP?
Both, but with a leaning towards ‘not vegan’
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
Well, the definition of being vegan is eating plants only. The part about animal sufffering is a justification of being vegan.
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.
Correct. If it’s not an animal product (as in, meat or an animal byproduct lile milk and eggs), it’s vegan.
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.
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.
Virgin salad nibbler vs Chad roadkill scavenger.
Wrong. Vegans can’t consume meat or animal products. This entire exploitation thing is only a justification.
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
Bro is arguing with the fucking dictionary, I can’t even… I don’t know what to say. I just want to say you’re kinda reaffirming some stereotypes about vegans and I’ll end it at that.
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”.
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.
Yeah, they can eat mushrooms and other fungi. I should have picked my words better.
Also, dictionary definition:
Or use is important here. Veganism isn’t a diet, the way vegan eat follows from vegan ethics, which apply to more then just what we put in our mouths.
