i aggre with you if you’re talkin about mass capitalism version of veganism,
but the original activist movement of veganism, which is more direct and utopic, is in fact against vehicles itself, cos the production of everything involved causes harm to animals environment.
definitionally you aren’t vegan if environmental impact is your terminal goal. It would be like saying you’re Christian for the cathedrals or something.
Veganism is a philosophy and life practice of trying to minimise harm to other earthlings. It can involve environmentalism as an instrumental goal, that is protecting the environment to avoid mass suffering, but a world of perfect environmental preservation where all ants have depression would be unacceptable to a vegan but not to an environmentalist.
Many people with environmental goals adopt a plant based diet and/or lifestyle.
The definition privileges action, which is why vegan philosophy is generally fine with stuff like foxes hunting birds but not humans hunting foxes to save birds.
Taking action to depress ants to save others would go against the ethos as defined:
“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.”
Definitely should forsake technology and get back where we belong. Lions and dolphins have to rough it out, why are we acting like we have the right to just not die of sepsis?
A prey animal will try to fight off its predators, is this wrong of the prey animal? Should the prey animal lie down and accept its fate, because it doesn’t have the right to not get eaten? Why do you think nature has a “correct” state and that deviating from this is bad?
i aggre with you if you’re talkin about mass capitalism version of veganism, but the original activist movement of veganism, which is more direct and utopic, is in fact against vehicles itself, cos the production of everything involved causes harm to animals environment.
I’m down for fuckcars veganism
Yeah, these days, many people become vegan to combat climate change and are opposed to fossil fuels even before that…
definitionally you aren’t vegan if environmental impact is your terminal goal. It would be like saying you’re Christian for the cathedrals or something.
Veganism is a philosophy and life practice of trying to minimise harm to other earthlings. It can involve environmentalism as an instrumental goal, that is protecting the environment to avoid mass suffering, but a world of perfect environmental preservation where all ants have depression would be unacceptable to a vegan but not to an environmentalist.
Many people with environmental goals adopt a plant based diet and/or lifestyle.
veganism isn’t inherently utilitarian. some vegans would be fine with a world full of depressed ants.
The definition privileges action, which is why vegan philosophy is generally fine with stuff like foxes hunting birds but not humans hunting foxes to save birds.
Taking action to depress ants to save others would go against the ethos as defined:
Definitely should forsake technology and get back where we belong. Lions and dolphins have to rough it out, why are we acting like we have the right to just not die of sepsis?
A prey animal will try to fight off its predators, is this wrong of the prey animal? Should the prey animal lie down and accept its fate, because it doesn’t have the right to not get eaten? Why do you think nature has a “correct” state and that deviating from this is bad?