soyftware

We should go as far with the definition of cruelty to animals as we do with the definition of cruelty to humans. Any less is ignorant anthropocentrism.

Like most things, just do it and you'll get used to it. The satisfaction might be due to culturally being raise in a place that eats meat.

I would literally pay double not to cause an animal to suffer ever again.

Think of it this way. It's not about _you_ it's about the _animals_ suffering. It's a selfless thing to do and fairly simple. Most foods are not animals they're plants! It gets easier.

Congrats on the 16 years veganniversary!

You basically go through this very traumatic learning experience to learn the truth about where food comes from and then you are isolated.

Definitely feels isolating, a special kind. Luckily there are subreddits to retreat to. The learning experience is not an easy one. Can't imagine not living in a big city. Happy cow plans my destinations now.

history of successful testing on animals that led to drugs that help reduce human suffering

By causing the suffering of living, sentient beings. There's a clear and obvious slippery slope here.

I like how the article starts with talking about software, because I find the case for ethical software, and ethical treatment of animals to be linked.

There should be no animal exploitation. If humans want human things they should test on humans which volunteer to be tested on. Everything else is exploitive to others.

https://www.peta.org/living/personal-care-fashion/whats-wron...

This?

You could also watch Dominion where the sheep section at 1 hour 11 minutes does not show happy sheep waiting to be sheered.

We raise and kill multiples of human population of animals a year, and already produce enough food for our entire population without raising livestock.

This means people care more about their tastebuds than ethics.

Humans have moral agency, and most importantly, do not need meat to survive in 2020. Which is different than wild coyotes.

Veganism according to the vegan society:

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

"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; ...

Most importantly to the point, animal agriculture causes more suffering because we still need to farm grains for feed, more than we would have to otherwise. Reducing animal agriculture will have a positive impact on wildlife, reducing deforestation, etc.

This paper:

https://clear.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7876/files/inl...

References:

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2018/g...

Which says on page 17:

Livestock emissions are almost entirely CH4 generated from enteric fermentation and manure management, and most of the livestock emissions are from dairy operations.

Enteric and manure management seem fairly close, both between 11-12 million tonnes with manure management being higher by some hundred thousand.

I'm not sure what manure management is, I'm sure part of it is transportation, etc, but that's not "almost all of livestock farming emissions."

In this paper (the errata):

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987

In total, the “no animal products” scenario delivers a 28% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the economy relative to 2010 emissions (table S17). The scenario of a 50% reduction in animal products targeting the highest-impact producers delivers a 20% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Any source of meat is not ethical to the animals.

Affordability almost doesn't matter. Staple foods like rice, grains, and beans are staple foods for a reason.

A few of the brighter bulbs in sustainable agriculture treat their animals more like you might an intern.

Except for the whole bad day at the end.

It's about animal exploitation as a whole. Any commoditization of sentient beings is a bad thing. We don't need to, when it comes to a choice (especially in this forum), we can choose to not be a part of that system.

Most of these fad diet folks have this stuff all wrong. We didn't eat all fruits and nuts. We didn't eat all meat. We ate a steady diet of opportunistic foods, and meat was a supplement to our nutrition.

Stopping exploitation isn't a diet fad. Some people might confuse it though. We don't need to be opportunistic now.

To be a vegan requires you to use a global supply system for your food, which has its own carbon footprint problems.

Sure, and we can do better on many fronts. But animal exploitation is one of the main contributors to climate change. We're already using a global supply chain for animals, which includes all the growth of food in other countries to ship to them.

It has been asserted, sometimes as a throwaway line, in a number of historical documentaries I've seen, that part of structural classism in the middle ages was denying meat to the working class, leading to developmental delays. Malnutrition made them dumber. Easier to control. 'Course, they gave themselves gout in the process...

Historically what we have done should not impact our current ability of choices. We can live on a healthy vegan diet. Structural classism also includes the current worker in the meat industry. https://www.livekindly.co/slaughterhouse-workers-victims-mea...

In terms of malnutrition people can live on a healthy diet while vegan.

https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/british-dietetic-association...

There's a lot of information here https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts

There are plenty of videos explaining stuff about exploitation. Dominion is free on youtube. In terms of youtubers Earthling Ed is a good watch.

Most importantly, it's easy and one of the single most impactful decisions we can individually make on a daily basis