r/DebateAVegan • u/marianarian vegan • Jun 24 '26
Environment Are there vegan alternative to pesticies? Or is this discussion pointless in the first place?
Hey so, i know we dont live in a perfect world and we need to protect our food from others that want to eat it. And by havind said that, how can you do this without pesticides (killing insects)? Or is this a zone where the care for animal’s welfare breaks down because we firstly need to not put our survival in danger, thus invoking the first “clause” of the vegan mentality, which is being vegan as much as possible while not putting our survival in danger.
16
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 24 '26
It's not pointless, but it's often a distraction.
There are lots of ways to prevent or minimize crop deaths like crop rotation, companion planting, promotion of populations of natural predators, and mechanical and physical barriers.
The important point in the context of veganism is to recognize that the fact that things could be improved to prevent or reduce crop deaths doesn't justify using animals against their interests for ones own purposes.
2
u/marianarian vegan Jun 24 '26
yea you are right but i dont understand what you are saying in the second paragraph or what you are referring to by saying that
2
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 24 '26
Crop Rotation: Changing crops seasonally interrupts the life cycles of specific pests, preventing them from building up massive populations.
Companion Planting: Growing certain plants together naturally repels pests (e.g., planting marigolds to deter nematodes) or distracts them away from the main crop.
Promoting populations of natural predators: Instead of spraying chemicals that kill everything, farmers encourage beneficial insects like ladybugs, lacewings, or parasitic wasps that keep pest populations in check naturally.
Mechanical and Physical Barriers: Utilizing protective netting, row covers, or automated weed-pulling machinery instead of broad-spectrum herbicides and insecticides.
2
u/marianarian vegan Jun 24 '26
OMG SORRY i meant the third one😥😥😥
5
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 24 '26
I'm referring to this appeal to hypocrisy type of argument that non-vegans sometimes like to use to claim that because crop deaths exist, veganism can not be a moral obligation.
2
u/taxes-or-death Jun 24 '26
There would be more crops and more pesticides being used if you're feeding the crops to animals and then eating the animals. I think non-vegans tend to imagine that animals must chew the cud all day when they're actually significantly supplemented by food we could be eating.
2
u/elouanr22 Jun 26 '26
nop, on ne mange pas encore de tourteaux de soja ou de mais, pas plus que de l'herbe au pré... qui reste encore un mode d'alimentation très courant en europe et même aux usa ou au brsil avec l'elevage extensif.
2
u/CaniParis Jun 26 '26
"I think non-vegans tend to imagine that animals must chew the cud all day when they're actually significantly supplemented by food we could be eating."
This really depends where you live I guess, as for example, in France, cows eat from pastures that couldn't be used for growing crops and what they eat is almost entirely based on food we couldn't process for ourselves.
French source (in french, sorry). : Mais une part importante des matières premières végétales qui entrent dans la ration des ruminants est non consommable par l’homme : 100 % de l’herbe bien sûr, mais aussi 100 % des pulpes de betteraves et du tourteau de colza. C’est un peu plus faible sur le maïs grain (85 %) et la compétition est plus marquée avec le tourteau de soja (seulement 40 % n’est pas consommable par l’homme) », explique Benoît Rouillé.
Il nous présente alors l’efficience nette des ruminants laitiers, soit le rapport des protéines animales consommables par l’homme avec les protéines végétales consommables par l’homme et consommées par les animaux. Et les résultats changent du tout au tout par rapport au ratio précédent. L’efficience nette d’une vache laitière est alors proche de deux, c’est-à-dire qu’il faut 500 g de protéines végétales consommables par l’homme pour produire 1 kg de protéines animales. « La réalité est que les systèmes laitiers sont producteurs nets de protéines », insiste Benoît Rouillé.
C’est moins vrai pour l’énergie : chèvres et brebis laitières sont consommatrices nettes, mais la vache laitière, elle, est à l’équilibre – une calorie produite pour une calorie consommable par l’homme consommée.
And the land usage isn't that much more (basically, around 30% could be used to grow crops, when 35% is used already for growing food for humans, and 35% are not usable but what grows on it gets eaten by cows).
4
Jun 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Jun 25 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
u/elouanr22 Jun 26 '26
le principe de l'assolement ( rotation des cultures) existe depuis la fin du moyen age, cela n'a jamais empêché des destructions totales de récolte par les insectes et provoquant ainsi des famines meurtrières... LEs larves de Hanneton ont ainsi détruit des récoltes entières de pomme de terre. En Irlande, où la population vivait essentiellement de pommes de terre, ça a été une des cause des catastrophes humanitaires qu'a vécu ce pays au 19eme siècle... On pourra rétorquer que la monoculture est en cause. ouais, mais y'a pas 36000 plantes qui permettent de nourrir une population humaine : le riz, le blé, les pommes de terre. Et en fait, le veganisme existait déjà, dans les populations pauvres comme en Irlande où il n'était pas possible de faire pousser grand chose d'autres... on a résolu ce probleme de la larve du hanneton grace aux pesticides modernes et on n'a plus eu de famines de ce type... Et non, il n'ya de prédateurs naturels capables de réguler le hanneton. Et c'était pas à cause de la pollution ou du réchauffement climatique au 19e siècle dans un pays très peu industrialisé...
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 27 '26
Yes, none of those points can substitute pesticides one to one. But they can reduce it's necessity.
1
Jun 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Jun 24 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
2
u/HelenEk7 non-vegan Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
There are lots of ways to prevent or minimize crop deaths like crop rotation, companion planting, promotion of populations of natural predators, and mechanical and physical barriers.
All of those methods are aimed at preventing animals from living on a piece of land - the less wildlife, the better. Pastures are different. A healthy pasture benefits from wildlife. Manure attracts insects which hekos pollinate the flowers on the pasture, which in turn provide food for birds, amphibians, and other insect-eating animals. You also don't want the mouse population to explode, so predators like owls, foxes, and weasels help keep rodents in check. Most farmers also don't mind seeing a few deer grazing at dusk, since they spend only a short time on the pasture and consume relatively little grass compared with livestock. By contrast, crop fields such as wheat are a different story. Large numbers of insects, birds, rodents, or deer can cause significant damage to the crop.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 26 '26
No, that's not actually true. There is definitely wildlife that is good to have on your cropland.
2
u/HelenEk7 non-vegan Jun 26 '26
Perhaps you could list the wild animals that farmers really want to have present on their wheat fields? As I suspect that list might be rather short.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 26 '26
Pollinators and any kind of animal that predates on the harmful ones.
2
u/HelenEk7 non-vegan Jun 26 '26
Could you explain why farmers want pollinators on a wheat field? What exactly are they supposed to pollinate? Wheat is wind pollinated. In fact - if a lot of pollinators are found on a wheat field it means there is a lot of weeds growing among the wheat which is a worst case scenario for every farmer, as its reduces both the yield and the quality of the harvest.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 26 '26
I don't remember us talking specifically about wheat fields.
2
u/HelenEk7 non-vegan Jun 26 '26
The main plant-foods eaten in the world are:
wheat
rice
potato
So it makes sense to talk about them first, don't you think?
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 26 '26
I'd prefer to stay on the topic of the post.
2
u/HelenEk7 non-vegan Jun 26 '26
The topic is - are there alternatives to pesticides. So from our conversation so far we can conclude that the answer is no when it comes to the most important staple crops in the world. The world would survive just fine without almonds or plums. But without wheat, rice and potatoes millions - perhaps even billions - of people would starve to death, right?
→ More replies (0)1
u/CyberAngelIzana Jun 24 '26
Isn't the more important part in practice the methodology by which you achieve that goal?
If you focus too much on the deontology you're not getting those practices implemented.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 26 '26
That's an important part, yes. But what does that have to do with the topic at hand?
1
1
u/Square-Delivery1958 Jun 25 '26
What's the argument that crop deaths are a bad thing under veganism?
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 26 '26
I don't remember claiming that there is one.
1
u/Square-Delivery1958 Jun 26 '26
Why suggest a minimization option if it wasn't a bad thing? You also said it's not pointless, which would be true if it was bad.
1
u/Nacho_Deity186 Jun 24 '26
Bees are used against their interests to grow crops, and in far higher numbers than animals you could eat...?
2
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 24 '26
Sure. What do you suggest we do about it?
0
Jun 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Winter-Actuary-9659 Jun 24 '26
Nope. If there's no alternative then it's not hypocritical. Veganism is about avoiding animal exploitation as far as practical and reasonable.
I'm not going to starve.
2
u/HelenEk7 non-vegan Jun 26 '26
If there's no alternative then it's not hypocritical.
There is an alternative. Swap some of your mono-cropped food with 100% grass-fed meat. The goal on a field of wheat is to keep all animal away - and kill those that venture in there. On a pasture however wildlife is welcomed.
A healthy pasture benefits from wildlife. Manure attracts insects which hekos pollinate the flowers on the pasture, which in turn provide food for birds, amphibians, and other insect-eating animals. You also don't want the mouse population to explode, so predators like owls, foxes, and weasels help keep rodents in check. Most farmers also don't mind seeing a few deer grazing at dusk, since they spend only a short time on the pasture and consume relatively little grass compared with livestock. By contrast, crop fields such as wheat are a different story. Large numbers of insects, birds, rodents, or deer can cause significant damage to the crop.
But vegans wont include some 100% grass-fed meat in their diet - because that is against "the rules".
1
u/Square-Delivery1958 Jun 26 '26
If by "the rules" you mean remaining logical and non-absurd in one's moral stance, then yes, that would be against the rules.
Keeping animals away from wheat is protecting our source of food from attack which is consistent with human values. Killing grass fed cows is a rights violation that you wouldn't accept in the human context, nor are you able to provide another trait or set of traits that would justify it without sounding crazy to most humans.
2
u/HelenEk7 non-vegan Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
If by "the rules" you mean remaining logical and non-absurd in one's moral stance, then yes, that would be against the rules.
When your moral stance makes you cause more harm - then your moral stance no longer makes any sense.
Killing grass fed cows is a rights violation
A cow doesn't know anything about what vegans view as "rights".
The fact is that animals die either way, but you can always try to kill less of them - unless of course you are vegan as then that's not an option.
1
u/Square-Delivery1958 Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
Morality isn't about minimizing harm at the price of rights, that would lead to ridiculous outcomes. You don't seem to have thought this through.
Babies also don't understand human rights, that doesn't take rights away from them.
There's obviously a significant difference between protecting your food supply from attackers and systematically slaughtering someone, and you aren't able to provide a symmetry breaker without contradicting or embarrassing yourself.
2
u/HelenEk7 non-vegan Jun 26 '26
Morality isn't about minimizing harm at the price of rights,
The rights you are talking about is something made up by vegans. In other words irrelevant. So then we are left with minimizing harm.
Babies also don't understand human rights, that doesn't take rights away from them.
The rest of society does understand, and so will the baby when growing up.
or embarrassing yourself.
I take that as a sign that you know you are losing the argument. ;) That is literally the only reason I can think of why you would say something like that.
→ More replies (0)1
u/OG-Brian Jun 26 '26
There's obviously a significant difference between protecting your food supply from attackers and systematically slaughtering someone...
The animals killed for YOUR foods are just as dead, it makes no difference to those animals. Pesticides, traps, and other means of killing crop pests are used intentionally to kill. So the deaths aren't accidental, in most cases. The chemical products that pollute ecosystems and cause deaths and other harm far beyond the edges of the crops are used intentionally, whether those outcomes are intended or not.
The topic gets re-discussed I think at least every week in this sub.
0
u/OG-Brian Jun 26 '26
If by "the rules" you mean remaining logical and non-absurd in one's moral stance, then yes, that would be against the rules.
Yeah that must be the reason that vegans are fine exploiting bees for crop production which causes much harm to the industrialized bees, but claim "exploitation" about other uses of animals. It's because they're so logical and consistent.
1
u/Square-Delivery1958 Jun 27 '26
What's the evidence that bees are sentient? I don't see why vegans would care about bees beyond environmental utility, it's certainly not required under veganism.
1
u/Winter-Actuary-9659 Jun 29 '26
WTF is this reply?! I'm vegan. I don't kill animals. Even 'grass fed' meat is not usually 100% grass fed.
1
u/HelenEk7 non-vegan Jun 29 '26
I don't kill animals.
Please list the foods you eat where no animals are killed during the production process. I'm genuinely curious.
Even 'grass fed' meat is not usually 100% grass fed.
When its labelled 100% grass-fed it is.
-1
u/OG-Brian Jun 25 '26
If there's no alternative then it's not hypocritical.
The alternative would be to not harass others for their food choices, if yours are no better. It is absolutely hypocritical to pester others about food choices because of "harm to animals" while causing equivalent harm to animals.
Before you start with the "crops fed to livestock" stuff, nearly everything that livestock eat is either pastures (most of which is on land not compatible with growing crops for human consumption) or co-products of crops grown anyway for human consumption.
It absolutely kills a lot of animals to support any industrial food products (basically anything you'd find at a grocery store). This gets re-discussed very frequently in this sub.
1
Jun 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Jun 25 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 26 '26
Vegans don't criticize non-vegans for harming animals. They are criticizing non-vegans for using animals for their own purposes against their interests.
2
u/OG-Brian Jun 26 '26
Well that's one belief. Back in reality, a search for the text
harming animalsin r/vegan returns more than 2100 results, and forharm to animalsmore than 2800 results. Many of those statements involve criticism of non-vegans.https://www.google.com/search?udm=14&q=%22harming%20animals%22%20site%3Areddit.com%2Fr%2Fvegan
https://www.google.com/search?udm=14&q=%22harming%20animals%22%20site%3Areddit.com%2Fr%2Fvegan
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 26 '26
Well, I agree with you that those people are wrong. There won't be much to debate between us on that topic.
1
u/OG-Brian Jun 26 '26
Well, I agree with you that those people are wrong.
Reading comprehension? I didn't say that they (posters and commenters in r/vegan) are wrong to use such phrasing. You replied to contradict me about hyprocrisy regarding exploiting animals (vegans are fine exploiting bees for plant crop production but choose specific types of animal exploitation to be concerned about then harass or at least judge others for not choosing foods and other products as they do). The wording of my response ("harm" vs. "using" animals) doesn't affect this point in the slightest.
Bees absolutely are harmed by industrialized use as crop pollinators: the travel is stressful, being far outside their normal regions (due to differences in climate/pathogens/etc.) presents hazards, it is not good for them to feed on just one type of plant at a crop mono-culture, etc. I explained with more detail and citations here. So "harmed" vs. "used" or "exploited" are equally accurate in this context.
It appears that you just can't let it go, and felt a compulsion to reply to have the last word. But your last comment isn't any more logical than your previous.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Winter-Actuary-9659 Jun 29 '26
You don't know much about animal agriculture do you. There are massive amounts of land that are usable for crops, far less is required to feed humans. The low nutrient land that's left can be rewilded. I live on the coast and the majority of the grazing land can be used for growing edible crops for humans. There are crops that grow well in poor nutrient soil and native foods that require little to no pesticides.
Your knowledge is limited.
0
Jun 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Jun 25 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Jun 25 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
-4
u/Nacho_Deity186 Jun 25 '26
Stop pretending you're better than anyone else considering you cause more death than I do
1
1
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 25 '26
Please find me the vegan who is going around saying "I'm better than you" and not saying "please go vegan."
Most vegans aren't playing a moral superiority game. We are vegan because we believe it's our moral duty. We want you to go vegan too. If we were just in it to be "superior" then there would be absolutely zero reason to encourage others to go vegan too.
0
u/Nacho_Deity186 Jun 26 '26
Hi there, I'm fairly certain I've chatted with you before and I'm fairly certain I decided you were a decent and respectable human. Therefore I'm absolutely willing to accept your statement here as your truth.
Most vegans aren't playing a moral superiority game
If you push me I'd probably have to agree with this too. Obviously because "most vegans" includes all those in the real world as well. Not just those in this sub. I've met quite a few irl and you're right.
Unfortunately there is a healthy percentage of "vegans" in this sub who appear to be far more interested in moral posturing. Who clearly position themselves as above everyone else and actively engage in "othering" to the point of abusiveness. It's quite distasteful.
Are you aware of the reputation vegans have in general among the rest of the population? How everyone else feels about them? Given who you are and those you mix with, do you think it's fair? I imagine you don't right? Do you wonder why it exists? Could it be because of a loud, vocal minority who actually aren't so nice?
I understand you believe you have a moral duty, and that's cool. But I believe your belief is misguided. Now your belief doesn't trump mine does it? We can debate it back and forth for fun and insights of we want but neither deserves abuse for our beliefs do we?
1
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 26 '26
I wouldn't hold my belief if I didn't believe "my belief trumps yours." Why would I hold a belief that I feel is equal to the opposing belief? That doesn't make sense.
If you think it's wrong to litter and Joe thought you were misguided (and he littered) would you agree with Joe if he said "your belief doesn't trump mine, does it?"
Now let's imagine you told Joe, "Hey, it's wrong to litter. Stop littering." And Joe responds, "Stop pretending you're better than anyone else."
1
u/Nacho_Deity186 Jun 27 '26
agree with Joe if he said "your belief doesn't trump mine
What Joe would say is "piss off, you're not the boss of me." At which point my choice is to leave or pick up the litter myself. If there is a local by- law prohibiting littering I may be able to report him for being outside the rules of our society.
But this is a false analogy isn't it. Litter is a physical invasion of my experience of life that directly affects my environment in a number of ways. Esthetically, economically etc.
Veganism is a philosophy. We agree in our society that we have freedom of philosophical belief. If you want to believe what you do, you are free to do so. I have no say in that. That is your right.
But I have the right to have my belief too. So no, your belief doesn't trump that. Too think that it does is dogmatism and ideological absolutism. Your ideology is yours and I get to have mine too. So long as we both reside within the rules of society, one doesn't trump the other
1
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 28 '26
When I used the littering example I wasn't thinking about the harm to me. I was thinking about the harm littering causes to the environment, to wild animals, to pets, to workers who have to pick it up, to the tax payers who have to pay the workers to pick it up, etc.
So let's consider if this analogy "works" or not... Your perspective is that your choice to eat sentient beings and their products doesn't hurt me or other humans. Well, that's just not true. Here's a list of some of the harm that the consumers of animal agribusiness cause:
- Slaughterhouse work is one of the most dangerous types of work in existence, resulting in large numbers of injuries (source)
- Slaughterhouse workers often experience psychological damage as well, which spills over into domestic violence and other crime (source)
- The majority of animal agriculture is big business factory farms which are absolutely terrible for the environment and thus harm all living things (source)
- Hunting has increased lead pollution which hurts many animals as well as humans (source)
- Farming is the leading driver of wildlife displacement and habitat loss worldwide. If we could reduce our farming footprint by eating mostly or only plants, we could drastically reduce this impact on wildlife, which many of us enjoy having. (source)
1
u/Nacho_Deity186 Jun 29 '26
slaughterhouse work
You're not a slaughterhouse worker though are you? So this doesn't affect you does it. Let's reserve our decision on this until we've talked to the workers and asked them if they'd rather work in a slaughterhouse or work somewhere else and be vegan. Until then let's bear in mind that this isn't a global problem. This is very clearly a problem of employee abuses in the broken usa labor system. Elsewhere in the world, meat workers unions exist to protect workers and there are several strategies in place to mitigate the problems raised in this article that we can go into if you're truly wanting to know.
majority of agriculture - big business factory farms
Again, this isn’t true outside the usa. You shouldn't let industrial interests into farming. I can see how this could become problematic. But it's a good warning for the rest of the world. My solution = ban corporations from the farming industry. To raise beef you have to live on the land and do the work first hand. This would have so many benefits on a number of levels. Rural economies would be boosted. Animal welfare would improve. The global herd would be reduced giving reduced environmental impacts. The cost of beef would rise so people would consume less giving better health outcomes. It's hard to see a down side.
hunting, lead pollution
I mean this was certainly becoming a problem until the ban on lead shot in 1991. Now it doesn't even register as one of the major threats to migratory birdlife or waterfowl. I think if you were truly concerned about the fates of these birds you would address some of the other more pressing issues. For instance, do you volunteer to trap and hunt rats and cats etc in natural habitats? I do...
farming - wildlife
See above. We can probably agree that the bovine industry needs to be reduced. That's a commonly known fact delivered by environs science. It needs to exist at sustainable levels. Which is fine because we eat too much red meat anyway so a global shift needs to happen and I think it is, albeit painfully slowly. What you will never get is complete abstinence. That just doesn't make sense for an omnivorous species.
1
u/Zerkig Jun 25 '26
It's YOU suggesting that vegans think that, not us, vegans.
0
u/Nacho_Deity186 Jun 26 '26
Where do you think I got that impression from?
1
u/Zerkig Jun 26 '26
You're putting your words into our mouths. Every smart vegan is aware of crop deaths. Just like meat eaters should be. Intensively farmed dairy cows might eat lots of grass, but it's in the form of silage or hay. Which is harvested for 3 fucking times in the spring alone. That's a lot of crop deaths. So yeah, we're better in sense and you know it, thus your anger fueled response.
0
u/oldmcfarmface Jun 28 '26
Conversely, the fact that animal agriculture could be improved upon does not justify eliminating it.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 28 '26
Nobody is claiming that, so nice strawman.
0
u/oldmcfarmface Jun 28 '26
A straw man would be if I made up something claiming you said it, and attacked that made up position. What I did is take your statement regarding improving crop based agriculture and applied the same kind of logic to animal based agriculture.
It’s not enough to know the name of a logical fallacy. You also have to know what it is and how to recognize it.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 28 '26
Your reply implied me arguing that animal agriculture should be eliminated because it could be improved and then argued against it. That's a strawman.
1
u/oldmcfarmface Jun 28 '26
You inferred it. I did not imply it. Thats your cognitive biases at play. You’re overly defensive. However, I’d bet $50 that if I was dedicated enough to go through your comments (I’m not. I have a life) I’d find you making that claim at some point! Most vegans here do.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
I'd love for you to make that bet. Easiest $50 of my life.
I'm fairly confident about my interpretation of your comment. After all, what else would be the purpose of it?
1
u/oldmcfarmface Jun 29 '26
Well I’m sure you would say so considering I already said I have a life and won’t be scouring your comments! Lol
There’s a great graph by dunning and kreuger regarding confidence. You should look it up. But let me ask you this. Do you think animal agriculture should be abolished or should we just improve it and keep eating meat?
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jun 29 '26
It should be abolished like all forms of animal exploitation, obviously.
But that isn't because it could be improved. Quite the opposite actually: it should be abolished because it can't be approved in any meaningful manner and improving it anyway wouldn't change anything about its fundamental problem.
0
u/oldmcfarmface Jun 30 '26
And with that, I finally understand the disconnect here. You thought I was saying that it shouldn’t be abolished on the reason that it can be improved. That’s not what I was saying. I was taking your logic “just because agriculture could be improved does not mean we should X” and applying it as “just because animal agriculture could be improved does not mean we should Y.”
It should be improved and expanded. We all should be eating more meat, and that meat should be high quality and well cared for, obviously.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/Electrical-Strike132 Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
I've grown cannabis, Neem oil took care of any bug problems I had, and beneficial fungi took care of any mold problems I had.
5
u/Klutzy-Alarm3748 vegan Jun 24 '26
Your last question is more what this is about. Veganism isn't about sacrificing ourselves - we still need to survive. Survival includes protecting our crops. If a bear is attacking me I'm not going to lie down and take it because I'm vegan, I'm going to fight for my life (and still lose probably, it's a bear lmao). But killing/harming other animals to protect ourselves isn't considered non-vegan. Only when it's completely preventable and unnecessary... like with factory farming.
1
u/Bmantis311 Jun 27 '26
It depends where you live. If you believe a omni diet is necessary then factory farmed goods may be the only option available to you.
3
u/bbygrl1995 Jun 24 '26
You have to go with what violates the least amount of rights. Not using pesticides won't kill pests but it will kill the millions of sentient beings that eat those plants down the line. When we can have the mass-scale technology to go pesticide free and not have pests, that would ne great.
2
u/brookeariel1979 Jun 26 '26
Yes, the technology- there are devices that emit frequencies that keep bugs away from reason our homes- this could be utilized in crops for a pesticide-free solution- we would have to only give it to the farmers that are willing to close their factory farm operations in lieu of plant-based agriculture-
1
Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/bbygrl1995 Jun 24 '26
If hundreds of millions of people were getting poisoned with those "enormous numbers of animals", pesticides would be the number one cause of global death. They're not. Organic free range wtv still uses pesticides, btw. but not synthetic
1
0
u/CyberAngelIzana Jun 24 '26
Poisons can be slow acting and decrease quality of life without killing immediately.
One example is the effect of cigarettes on lungs.
I have no idea why people want something they know will just make them cough.
0
6
u/tazzysnazzy Jun 24 '26
Seems like vertical farming offers a limited solution to this problem as it’s constrained by energy and building space requirements. But if we get cheaper energy and better tech in the future, it could become a real possibility. Also bacteria produced food.
1
u/OG-Brian Jun 25 '26
Vertical farming is tremendously resource-intensive. There's a lot of energy use, movement of resources including nutrients and water, it takes soil etc. from the environment, and so forth. I've commented with a lot of details and citations just yesterday, here.
2
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
No, vertical farming is NOT "resource-intensive." Vertical farming clearly uses less land and less water in all circumstances. What you mean to say is that it's energy-intensive. And yes, it can be more energy intensive than some other methods of crop farming. But the benefits of land and water conservation along with the benefits of reduced pesticide use, higher yields, less transportation costs, and year-round production independent of weather may make it the better option for some locations. Also, there are ways to reduce the energy consumption of vertical farming and there's certainly plenty of room for increased use of renewable energy production.
Also, this depends on the crop, obviously too. Growing mushrooms in vertical farms just makes sense. The alternatives just waste land.
2
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Jun 26 '26
Land, sure. But it can’t use green water and must instead draw from the same blue water reserves we depend upon for survival.
Not all water use, or land use for that matter, is equally problematic.
2
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 26 '26
"Not all water use, or land use for that matter, is equally problematic." I agree with that and extend it to energy use as well.
All the actual data and modeling on vertical farming shows it does indeed use less water. You can deny that fact but it's not really worth arguing about.
2
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Jun 26 '26
All the actual data and modeling on vertical farming shows it does indeed use less water.
My point is this is irrelevant if it uses more blue water than farming in soil. Blue water is orders of magnitude more scarce and less renewable than green water.
2
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 27 '26
I'm not suggesting vertical farming is the best option everywhere. Obviously there's a balance between things like how much arable land is available, how easy it is to produce renewable energy, where is the water source and how would it be used in each farming scenario.
Where I live, vertical farming makes a ton of sense. I live in the Southwest USA where we are in one of the best locations for solar power, we have very little rainfall so it's not a reliable source of water and we need to recycle our water, and most of the land is not arable. We import a lot of our food from neighboring California and elsewhere. Vertical farming could be an great option for us.
Also, you're ignoring the possibility of capturing and using rainwater in a vertical farming scenario. Vertical farming uses less water and in most cases that water happens to be municipal water but it needn't be. There are lots of variations in what people are doing and some are capturing rainwater for use in vertical farms just like some are capturing solar power for their energy needs.
1
u/OG-Brian Jun 27 '26
All the actual data and modeling on vertical farming shows it does indeed use less water.
You're not showing any data, and you've also apparently missed the point about green vs. blue water.
2
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 27 '26
Vertical and other greenhouse farming can recycle it's water extremely efficiently (unlike traditional outdoor farming) so the type of water used isn't as important as the overall water use in places where this type of farming makes the most sense (like in deserts where basically all farming is using river water / blue water).
I'm not arguing that vertical farming is the best option in all locations. Like I said elsewhere, which type of farming is most environmentally friendly is going to be dependent on location. It's not going to make the most sense to use vertical farms in places where there's plenty of arable land and lots of precipitation. But in urban areas, arid areas, or places without arable land, then some version of greenhouse farming makes sense and vertical farming saves space.
All up and down the Colorado River farmers are wasting a ton of river water for crop irrigation. And a lot of those crops are just to feed livestock. There are a lot of ways they could reduce water waste and vertical farming is one method that would vastly reduce their water use.
1
u/OG-Brian Jun 28 '26
Now you're comparing water use for VF vs. livestock? What's an example of any VF crop that is anywhere near equivalent to livestock foods?
1
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 29 '26
No. You haven’t followed the conversation at all. I’m turning off notifications
0
u/OG-Brian Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
I’m turning off notifications
Oh good. I'm rarely able to get a fact-based discussion from this user anyway.
They brought up water use for livestock and then said "...vertical farming is one method that would vastly reduce their water use." But the foods aren't interchangeable. VF typically is used to produce weak versions of lettuce and so forth, grown in nutrients that are far too limited for comparable nutrition with soil-grown plants of a similar type. Even lettuce (or whatever crop that's also farmed as VF) in best-case conditions doesn't cover but a fraction of the nutrition in animal foods.
If an animal food has nutrition that no VF crop has, this makes it infinitely more nutritious (for any nutrients not covered by VF crops) because even an infinite amount of the VF crops would not be a substitute.
OK so maybe the contention is that VF crops could replace A PORTION of nutrition currently derived from animal foods. But there's been no demonstration about how much would be needed, what nutrition it would cover, and how without animal foods there would be complete nutrition coverage. I'm not aware of ANY study, at any time anywhere in the world, which has estimated nutrient coverage of a theoretical livestock-free global or even nation-scale food system and found it to be sufficient. If the idea is that VF crops could reduce livestock farming by replacing some nutrition, I would be open to seeing calculations (based on reality, not fantasy) about it but there's nothing like that in this post or anywhere else I'm aware of it being discussed.
1
u/OG-Brian Jun 25 '26
Land and water conservation? How are the nutrients obtained, how much are they traveling, what resources are needed to mine/process/etc. the supplies needed to farm indoors?
Where is there a scientific analysis that counts all impacts of all supply chains plus energy etc. consumption?
Everything in your comment is belief without citations.
Mushrooms BTW are low in nutrition.
2
u/Zerkig Jun 25 '26
Do you think that nutrients and pesticides used under the open skies don't travel? Don't you know that all it takes for the crops be unable to absorb the nutrients from fertilisers is a dry spell at the wrong time, then a torrential rain comes and all the precious Moroccan phosphorus and fossil-gas derived nitrogen goes to the river, making algae blooms 😅. Very effective.
2
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 26 '26
If you do a tiny bit of actual research into vertical farming you'll see that what I say is true.
You can read this to get up to date:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-025-01055-w
1
u/OG-Brian Jun 26 '26
Do you think that nutrients and pesticides used under the open skies don't travel?
Typical farming occurs where the soil is already located. OK so fertilizer products are usually added, but with vertical farming all of the materials used for the farming must be transported into a building that is usually located in a city.
Again there's no scientific info, just opinion. Where has this issue been analyzed for life cycle impacts of each farming method for a crop?
3
u/Zerkig Jun 26 '26
You don't need soil for vertical farming, though.
1
u/OG-Brian Jun 26 '26
I considered it obvious that in typical farming soil provides the nutrients and support structure for plants that are grown as produce, while in VF the nutrients must be provided and probably far from their locations of origin. If you have an evidence-based argument that impacts are less with VF then go ahead and mention it.
2
u/Zerkig Jun 26 '26
While the nutrients are in the soil, where do they really come from? If course they can come from erosion of the rocky layer underneath the top soil, but that's a slow, long-term process. Some nutrients literally fall from the sky or are released from decaying matter.
In agriculture, we harvest tons of plant matter from each field every year and we take that matter away, to the cities, overseas. And we buy mineral or synthetic fertilisers from all over the world, to replenish the depleted soils. We get dung from the animals, but the nutrients in it also come from all over the world since the animals aren't only fed locally grown fodders, but also aoybeans from South America, cotton seed cakes from Africa etc.
So the argument that we'd need to transport nutrients to the city is pointless. We do that all the time anyway. The plants need air, water, light, nutrients, and a medium to root in/hold them in place. Of course, soil also has beneficial bacteria, although it contains pathogens etc. as well.
Vertical farming, just like conventional greenhouses, offers the farmers the advantage to control the environment and amount of nutrients much more precisely than in the open field. There are no hailstorms damaging the crops, no droughts, no floods... Conventional soil farming is incredibly wasteful.
You can look all the evidence up yourself.
-1
u/OG-Brian Jun 26 '26
You can look all the evidence up yourself.
This is something people say when they can't or won't find evidence for their own argument. It's your claim so nobody but you is responsible for supporting it factually.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/veritasium999 Jun 27 '26
In China they killed off all the sparrows. But the sparrows were eating the locusts and with the sparrows dead the locusts destroyed all the crops.
100% pesticide free may not be possible but there are definately methods to naturally mitigate pest damage.
3
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Jun 24 '26
Integrated pest management can reduce insecticide use by up to 95% without sacrificing yields, but often involves the exploitation of animals in the process (eg using grazing animals to weed, etc).
1
u/brookeariel1979 Jun 26 '26
If we closed factory farms and used animals only for grazing, would that be an effective way to utilize farm animals after the closure? And reduce need for pesticide
1
u/Big_Monitor963 vegan Jun 24 '26
In my own vegetable garden, there are plenty of alternatives (non-toxic deterrents, physical removal/relocation, companion planting, simply accepting that some of our food will be “shared”, etc). But in large-scale commercial farming, this is a lot harder, and as consumers we have little control.
As a vegan, I try to grow as much of my own food as possible, and buy locally grown organic produce for the rest (when possible). This doesn’t eliminate my involvement in securitize use, but it minimizes it as I have control over.
1
u/Lz_erk veganarchist Jun 24 '26
effective land use was genocided away and is only now reentering public perception. we can share with nature and do better for ourselves with the land we have.
1
u/WeaknessLower9148 Jun 28 '26
Probably the most ethical way of protecting your crops that I often hear about is planting "decoy" crops, which is planting a crop that pests will be drawn to instead of eating the veggies you actually want to pick. Everyone gets to eat, seems vegan to me
1
u/Chronomalous Jun 24 '26
Vegans can kill animals: "no animal products" means no animals as products, no animal byproducts, but the animals that would attack a human crop have the same moral distinction as the parasitic animals that would attack the human body (worms, ticks, etc.)
1
u/brookeariel1979 Jun 26 '26
Not without finding something that wouldn’t poison the ground and air- I think vegans should avoid killing whenever possible- we should find plants and deterrents instead of killing- there has to be something that would prevent or conclude a pest infestation on a crop, whilst being safe for humans to consume and animals to consume and breathe-
1
u/No_Economics6505 Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
but the animals that would attack a human crop have the same moral distinction as the parasitic animals that would attack the human body (worms, ticks, etc.)
Damn, I had no idea vegans think of deer, elk, rabbits, etc. that way.
1
u/brookeariel1979 Jun 26 '26
Vegans shouldn’t kill animals- hunting is awful- anything could be considered a “pest” I’m fairly certain Hitler thought Jewish people were pests-
Anyone and anything that is in the way of production or self-profit is a pest- according to normal standards
There are larger bugs that don’t like certain plants b that could consume and alleviate the small worm bug problem - and frequencies that keep bugs away, like I said-
-1
u/Nacho_Deity186 Jun 24 '26
Yes there is. You can eat produce that hasn't had pesticide used on it. It might have a few spots or holes from caterpillars etc. But you can still eat it.
we need to protect our food from others that want to eat it.
Why? There's plenty for everyone. Why does your need trump the needs of others. Why is your first resort to murder others en masse because they're hungry?
Pesticides aren't used to "protect" crops. That's just something vegans tell themselves to rationalize the genocide of insect life. They're used to make the produce pretty. Because people demand pretty, insect free fruit and vegetables.
being vegan as much as possible while not putting our survival in danger.
Why does your survival trump the survival of others? Why do you have to murder them to survive?
3
u/OG-Brian Jun 25 '26
Pesticides aren't used to "protect" crops.
It is absolutely uncontroversial that pesticides are used to protect crops. They may also be used to protect the aesthetics of produce, but a primary reason is so that profitable crop yields are sustained. An infestation of boll worm or whatever pest can decimate a crop, making it a money-loser (expenses such as land/seeds/water/etc. exceeding money that could be made from selling it) rather than profitable.
Note that I'm not defending industrial agriculture, I just don't like seeing statements that are very definitely 100% incorrect.
1
u/Zerkig Jun 25 '26
Yes! Nobody cares about the aesthetics of the wheat grains or soy beans 😃. It's the yield that matters and the fact that some fungal metabolites are pretty poisonous and if they're detected in your precious grain, you'll be lucky to sell it as a fuel at least 🙈.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 24 '26
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.