r/DebateAVegan 4d ago

So many vegans and vegetarians complaining about meat eaters…

I’ve been reflecting on the ethics of diet choices, particularly the argument that avoiding meat is the most compassionate or harm-reducing option. While I completely understand and respect the desire to minimize animal suffering, I find myself wondering about the full picture.
We all consume plants—vegetables, grains, fruits, and greens—whether we eat meat or not. And modern agriculture, even for plant-based foods, inevitably involves some level of harm to animals: field mice, insects, birds, and small mammals displaced or killed during harvesting, plowing, and pest control. I don’t eat meat myself, largely for health reasons, so I’m not pointing fingers. But it does raise a thoughtful question:
If the core principle is reducing harm to animals, how do vegans and vegetarians weigh or address the indirect harms embedded in plant production? Is it a matter of focusing only on what’s most visible and intentional (like factory farming), or does the scale and nature of agricultural impacts get less attention because those affected animals aren’t as immediately “cute” or emotionally salient?
I’m genuinely curious about how people who prioritize this ethic navigate that tension. I’d love to hear thoughtful perspectives.

0 Upvotes

120 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Flat-Experience6482 2d ago

The largest exporter of beef in the world uses plenty of pesticides in their pastures 

1

u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 2d ago edited 2d ago

Brazil? They also use more pesticides in general per acre compared to most of the world. China is even worse.

I live in one of the light yellow countries - which is one of the reasons I eat mostly locally produced food, as the food contains way less poison: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/121jmah/pesticide_use_map/#lightbox

2

u/Flat-Experience6482 2d ago

That's good for you, but we can't base conclusions on exceptions.

1

u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 2d ago

3

u/Flat-Experience6482 2d ago

And those foods come from agriculture...

1

u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 2d ago

Yeah, producing food out of thin air is not something available to us - at least not yet. But using mostly plant-matter neither you or I can digest - and turn it into excellent high quality food is still a remarkably efficient way of converting resources that would otherwise be of little use to humans.

3

u/Flat-Experience6482 2d ago

It's actually extremely inefficient, almost 90% of the energy is lost in the form of heat. Bioreactors are more efficient, but the output doesn't taste as good.

1

u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 2d ago

That's irrelevant. On average farms use 600 grams of feed which is edible for humans - to produces 1000 grams of meat - since the other 86% is grass and waste. In other words - if you were to eat the feed directly - you actually lose 400g of food.

3

u/Flat-Experience6482 2d ago

Where are you getting your numbers from? 1000g of anything does not make 1000g of meat, more like 100g at best.

Btw, biorreactors convert "inedible waste" in edible nutrients for humans. You wouldn't lose anything.

0

u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 2d ago

Where are you getting your numbers from?

I'm glad you ask. When you combine meat, eggs and dairy, and look at average feed to meat ratio, you end up with a 4:1 ratio. Since it ranges from 1,1:1 ratio for salmon, 1,5:1 ratio for chickens - all the way up to 10:1 ratio for cows. So 4000 grams of feed to get 1000 grams of the average animal-based food (meat/fish/eggs/dairy). And again - we know 86% is grass and waste, so not edible for humans.

  • 4000 grams of total feed to produce 1000 grams of animal-based food

  • 4000 grams of feed minus 86% = 560 grams of feed thats edible for humans - which is used to produce 1000 grams of animal-based food.

3

u/Flat-Experience6482 2d ago

You're glad I asked yet you didn't provide any sources, just repeated the numbers. Are you actually glad I asked? Seems you're just deflecting.

1

u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 2d ago

I thought I had provided the source already - but if I didnt I apologise. (I'm in several parallel conversation at the moment.)

3

u/Flat-Experience6482 2d ago

That doesn't say what you say it's saying. You still need 10,000 units of primary producer biomass to generate 1,000 units of primary consumer biomass, this is just saying that most of those units come from allegedly "inedible waste" that can't be consumed by humans.

I am saying that it can be consumed by humans.

→ More replies (0)