The insect question for vegans

Hello, I would like to say a bit about myself first. I am a fairly new vegan. I started in January 2011 and before that I was a vegetarian for a little over a year. My main reasons for being vegan are environmental and also because I think it is wrong to kill and make animals suffer when you simply don't need to. Also, I'm very much motivated by the health part of being vegan.

That being said, I've always questionned myself about whether it is okay to kill/eat insects. Upon thinking about it, I've come up with a few arguments in favour of killing/eating insects. Before stating them, I want to clarify that I am 100% vegan at the moment, I do not eat insects. Also, my goal here is not to convince anyone to eat insects but rather to know about other people's view on the matter.

So, here are 2 arguments that I can think of at the moment that I would like to put forward, there may be more than 2. Firstly, like some of you I assume, I have read the book called Skinny Bitch. Not that this book is like the bible for vegans(or maybe it is, what do I know), but I've heard of a few vegans who became vegan after reading that book. One of the arguments for being vegan used by the author stuck to me because of its inconsistency. It goes something like "humans are not genetically equipped to hunt down and devour animals". Our teeth are not fit to tear through skin and flesh. Also, we don't have the running speed to hunt down an animal and our nails are not a suitable to kill our preys like claws would be for example. When you give it some thought, this is true for almost all the mammals, fish, bird on the planet I can think of(exceptions I can think of at the moment would be the snail and very small fish, I'm sure there are a few more), but this is not true for a lot of insects and for that matter, arachnids. Humans are well equipped to catch and eat insects. You can catch a fly or a mosquito with your hand, or just pick a non flying insect like and ant or a termite from the ground. And our teeth are just fine to eat insects.

Now for the second argument. There is the killing part of eating an insect, which would, without a doubt, make eating insect a non vegan thing. However, if you think about it, among all the animals on the planet, insects are pretty much the only ones that you regularly kill accidentally, in a natural fashion(excluding any use of human made tools, technology or machine). Yes, we vegans are killing insects in our everyday lives. For example, you can step on one by mistake and kill it while you're going for a walk. Also, if you're jogging outside and it's a little windy(or not at all) an insect could run directly into your eyes nose or mouth and eventually die from that. You would have killed it. Would you say you do the same to mammals birds and fish ? I don't think so.

Also, have you ever though about pest? What if you have a cockroach or termite problem in your house, how are you going to take care of that ?

Would like to hear what you guys think on that! :)

Personally I would probably kill termites if my house was in peril. I wouldn't feel good about it. I wouldn't eat an insect because I don't see somebody else's body as a food item, whoever it is, however they're killed.

Quote:

---

baanos

Humans are well equipped to catch and eat insects. You can catch a fly or a mosquito with your hand, or just pick a non flying insect like and ant or a termite from the ground. And our teeth are just fine to eat insects.

Now for the second argument.

---

Hi,

Humans are well equipped to do a lot of harmful and horrible things, including biting small animals, throwing stones on dogs or sticking needles in someone else's skin, but that doesn't mean that we should do it, need to do it, or serve as an argument for doing it...

Quote:

---

insects are pretty much the only ones that you regularly kill accidentally

---

Killing one living being accidentally isn't an argument for killing another living being intentionally.

So... the real question remains: what would be a reason to eat insects?

Besides, are you really interested in eating insects? ;-)

Quote:

---

Korn

Hi,

Humans are well equipped to do a lot of harmful and horrible things, including biting small animals, throwing stones on dogs or sticking needles in someone else's skin, but that doesn't mean that we should do it, need to do it, or serve as an argument for doing it...

---

Sorry, I mean't to say in a natural fashion, going back to the basics of our body. Not using any tools than our own body, just like animals in nature do(ok, a few exceptions there). This means, no traps no stones no needles no tools of any kind. The author of Skinny bitch mentionned this argument so I'm just questionning it.

Quote:

---

Korn

Killing one living being accidentally isn't an argument for killing another living being intentionally.

So... the real question remains: what would be a reason to eat insects?

---

No of course, it's no reason to kill them intentionally, but since we kill them accidentally, I'm just asking, why not then eat them. I haven't found a real reason to eat them, since there's plenty other food available which gives us our required nutriments.

Quote:

---

Korn

Besides, are you really interested in eating insects? ;-)

---

Well, I don't see why not really :P

Quote:

---

baanos

Sorry, I mean't to say in a natural fashion, going back to the basics of our body. Not using any tools than our own body, just like animals in nature do(ok, a few exceptions there). This means, no traps no stones no needles no tools of any kind. The author of Skinny bitch mentionned this argument so I'm just questionning it.

---

Hi again, I don't think that the author suggested that if we are capable of eg. biting someone, we should do it, but of we are not, we shouldn't. We certainly are capable of harming others without any cultivated tools, but that, as such isn't an argument in favor of eg. strangling someone or hitting someone. Humans may hit and yell at their kids all day as well, but that doesn't mean that we should do it, or that it's right to do it. "Capable of" simply isn't linked with "good" or "right".

I don't think there are any vegans who suggest that we shouldn't use clothes or build houses either, even if houses and clothes don't "appear in nature". All 'natural vs. unnatural' discussions have a tendency of ending up with a theoretical approach, as if anyone even suggested that everything which occurs naturally, exist 'in nature', is good (poisonous plants, anyone?), or if everything that humans have cultivated is 'bad'. Such an approach is certainly not a part of being vegan...

Quote:

---

No of course, it's no reason to kill them intentionally, but since we kill them accidentally, I'm just asking, why not then eat them.

---

With all due respect.... "why not" is the only question that IMHO has no value at all. :-)

Quote:

---

I haven't found a real reason to eat them, since there's plenty other food available which gives us our required nutriments.

[...]

Well, I don't see why not really :P

---

Insects which are killed in nature are sometimes eaten by birds (I guess?), or they (and the nutrients they contain) are recycled back into the soil. But if what you bring up is a general question about eating living beings that accidentally has been killed (eg. a deer killed by a car, or an ant killed by a human stepping on it), maybe these two threads will be of interest for you:


Roadkill, dogmatism and cannibalism
Road kill

Quote:

---

Korn

Hi again, I don't think that the author suggested that if we are capable of eg. biting someone, we should do it, but of we are not, we shouldn't.

---

Ok yes, I think the author brought up that argument against killing and eating animals to convince the readers that our body, our physiology is not fit to kill and consume animals, therefore we should not eat them. And by saying that, a direct link between what we eat and our physiology is made. And this argument, on it's own, is just inconsistent since it does not exclude insects. This is where it poses a problem. How can this argument then be convincing argument on it's own if it does not include all animals. In the same way, the unwillingness to kill an insect because it's an animal is also inconsistent since again, as much as don't intend to, we kill insects with our sheer physical abilities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying our diet should include insects, but I'm just trying to find solid arguments against eating them. I'm assuming they are a very good food source for our body. Also, obviously we don't even have think about whether we agree it is right to kill them or not since we do it anyway. I'm just still not convinced. So, I am asking... why shouldn't we ?

Quote:

---

Korn

We certainly are capable of harming others without any cultivated tools, but that, as such isn't an argument in favor of eg. strangling someone or hitting someone.

---

In this case however it is very easy to find good reasons not to harm or kill others of our kind, even though our physiology allows it.

Quote:

---

Korn

I don't think there are any vegans who suggest that we shouldn't use clothes or build houses either, even if houses and clothes don't "appear in nature". All 'natural vs. unnatural' discussions have a tendency of ending up with a theoretical approach, as if anyone even suggested that everything which occurs naturally, exist 'in nature', is good (poisonous plants, anyone?), or if everything that humans have cultivated is 'bad'. Such an approach is certainly not a part of being vegan...

---

This matter is a little different. Of course everything we produce and use does not appear in nature. We are human beings, we have developped needs to produce objects to which I believe there are no other alternatives. Our body is not adapted to certain climates like animals are. Correct, us vegans(me included), agree 100% with the fact that things which exist in nature as well as things that are human-made are good and should be used.

What I'm actually saying is that our physiology gives us hints on what we should not do, regardless of whether the product which fulfills our needs is taken directly from nature or human-made.

Our physiology is such that we should not be naked and without shelter because our lack of hair and fat just like we should not catch and kill animals because of our inability to do so. We could go on with this but I think you get the point.

why would you think that insects are a 'very good food source'?

Quote:

---

baanos

Ok yes, I think the author brought up that argument against killing and eating animals to convince the readers that our body, our physiology is not fit to kill and consume animals, therefore we should not eat them.

---

Hi again...

Prepare yourself for a long answer.... :)

I don't know that author - and haven't read the book. But if you look in our Human Evolution subforum, you'll see that this topic has been discussed many times already. I've also personally mentioned that when looking at the claim from meat eaters that it's more natural to eat meat than not to do it, or that it's "part of our nature to eat meat," that we need 'culture' (tools) to kill eg. cows, so the their arguments about natural is highly questionable.

There's a difference between saying that their "arguments" don't hold water and claiming that the reason we shouldn't kill animals is that it requires tools.

We shouldn't harm animals because they don't want to be harmed. I don't think anyone think that 'we should do something (eg. kill small living beings) because we are "well equipped to do so".

It's obvious that humans are equipped with what it takes to kill an insect. You seem to think or feel that because we may kill and eat insects, "why not just do that?". My response was that there's no reason to do that even if we are capable of it. Vegans are against harming/killing/eating (etc) other living beings; beings that are sentient, sapient... in short: beings that have a desire not to be killed, harmed, caught or be interfered with by us.

That's why we are against eating strawberry jam with that red color made of beetles. Beetles are small, they aren't our pets, and most humans may not have much empathy or respect for someone that small, but each living being's life is as important to itself as our lives are to us.

Would you have asked the question about insects if they were as large as us? Probably not...

Quote:

---

And by saying that, a direct link between what we eat and our physiology is made.

---

I think that link between physiology is made only to point out that when it comes to catching, killing, tearing apart and eating eg. a cows or sheep, our bodies certainly differs a lot from the bodies of natural meat eaters/natural killers like cats or lions. Our psyche is also different, in that most humans don't start to salivate if they see a mouse, rat or sparrow. Cats have been domesticated for a long time, and still catch birds and mice (even if they don't need to), because their killer instinct is intact.

Quote:

---

This is where it poses a problem. How can this argument then be convincing argument on it's own if it does not include all animals.

---

It's not an argument, so it doesn't pose a problem. ;-) It's a counter-'argument' against the view that humans are, from nature's side, equal to tigers or cats in terms of being naturally equipped to catch (etc) the cows, sheep etc. We are culturally equipped to kill animals - even thousands of them per day, using the machines they use in factory farms, but culture implies choice. A lion can't choose to live on vegan burritos or thai food: humans can. What matters is what we choose, not if we are capable of killing some poor small being.

Quote:

---

In the same way, the unwillingness to kill an insect because it's an animal is also inconsistent since again, as much as don't intend to, we kill insects with our sheer physical abilities.

---

If "we already kill some members of species X" means '"therefore we can can kill more members of species X" is a valid viewpoint, then humans - known for using cars, trains and airplanes - also would have a valid argument for killing birds, sheep, wild animals and everything that are being killed by the cars etc we use. Vegans don't see it that way. Humans are also killed in car accidents, but that doesn't include any free, ethical ticket to kill more humans.

Quote:

---

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying our diet should include insects, but I'm just trying to find solid arguments against eating them.

---

You don't need an argument against eating them, because you don't have an argument pro eating them. Small living beings don't want to be killed - so don't kill them. It's that simple!

We don't need to kill/eat insects. Vegans don't see other living beings as someone we can do what we want with. We should just let all animals live their own natural lives, on their own premises. The only reason insects come up as a topic now and then is because they are so small, but there's no Vegan Ethical Background Categorizing System saying that we shouldn't harm/stress/kill/disturb anyone "unless they're small"...

Quote:

---

I'm assuming they are a very good food source for our body.

---

Not long ago I saw some ants trying to rescue their eggs because they were about to be removed from where they lived. They seemed to be panicking, and just as eager to protect their eggs as eg. a bird would have been if a human did something with their nests. I had no desire to mess up their lives, kill them, step on them or stop them in the process of saving their eggs. Do you think we need them for nutrition? Do you simply want to kill them or find something in you saying that being small qualifies for being killed?

Quote:

---

Also, obviously we don't even have think about whether we agree it is right to kill them or not since we do it anyway.

---

If you see all worms as one, major, living being/entity, it would be easier to understand your reasoning. If you by accident have killed a cat when driving a car, you probably wouldn't say that it's OK to kill your neighbors' cat as well, would you? You simply don't see all cats as one 'thing'. Or all humans. So why do that with insects, and claim that it's OK to kill any insect you see because you've already killed some other insects?

Imagine that the size difference between you and an insect was the other way round; that eg. a bee was 200 times larger than you. Try the same reasoning then, and let me know what your conclusions are....

Due to the situation with disappearing bees, maybe humans - from a human-centric point of view, of course - will start to respect those small creatures more in the future. They would also do that with ants, if some future report claims that ants are very important for our ecosystem, or that the global disappearance or reduction of ants would have massive impact on human life.

One well-respected writer who has said many wise words about conflict and war, Johan Galtung, has said that almost all conflicts and wars are based on one problem only: that each of the parts in a conflict usually only focus on what's the best outcome from a subjective perspective. The moment two parts in a conflict are willing to add a empathy into the discussion, it's quite easy to solve these conflicts. They/we just have to look at both what's best for us personally and what's best for our opponents. That's where real communication starts. Animals have become our opponents, victims; the target of our egocentric and unnecessary behavior. Since we know now that we don't need them for food or other purposes, we simply don't have to treat them as targets in a war; a fight to survive any longer.

Quote:

---

I'm just still not convinced. So, I am asking... why shouldn't we ?

---

If you ask the question "why should we?", and can't come up with something useful, you've got an answer to that.

Quote:

---

What I'm actually saying is that our physiology gives us hints on what we should not do, regardless of whether the product which fulfills our needs is taken directly from nature or human-made.

---

If you feel that your physiology gives you a hint that it's OK til kill cats because humans already kill cats, or kill ants because we already kill ants, you need to explain that part better...

Quote:

---

Our physiology is such that we should not be naked and without shelter because our lack of hair and fat just like we should not catch and kill animals because of our inability to do so. We could go on with this but I think you get the point.

---

Not even close. :) If I freeze, I need to put on clothes, even if clothes don't grow on trees or 'occurs in nature'. That's simple. If I'm hungry, I need to make or find food, so I do that. Simple, and since I'm a human, I can choose food which means as little harm of other creatures as possible. But why should I kill an insect - an insect I have no desire to kill, which I don't want to - or need to - eat, and which certainly doesn't want to be killed?

Is this thread, in disguise, about how to avoid mosquito bites if we're 'supposed to' not kill mosquitos? ;-)


Now - the important part! Some people say that they can't become vegans because they eg. love sardines. The human mind is impressive, but not really impressive when it comes to some non-vegans' arguments for not being vegans. Here's how some of them think: "Since I can't become vegan because I won't let go of my desire to eat sardines, I'll skip everything else I have felt as valid reasons for becoming vegan as well: respect for other living beings, animal cruelty, environmental reasons, health, factory farming etc".

So they go "If I eat sardines, I might just as well support factory farms (read: eat beef and chicken)... and use all other kinds of animal products as well". That's where Homo Sapiens' unknown sister species reveals itself: Homo Silliness. There's no reason whatsoever to eat beef even if you eat fish, or to eat fish regularly even if you eat sardines occasionally, or to drink milk even if you sometimes crave cheese. Nada! So even if you have this problem with insects or with a page in Skinny Bitch, my humble advice would be to go vegan in as many aspects of life as you can, - and keep killing insects - both intentionally and accidentally - until you no longer have a intellectual desire to do so or defend such actions.

Some vegans (who I'm sure see no reasons to eat insects) bypass this topic by saying that "the jury is still out on insects". That's quite smart from a 'marketing' point of view. Or they state that they don't know if insects are sentient, and therefore don't have any opinions about eating insects. Also quite smart, because it prevents that members of Homo Silliness keep using a lot of animal products because they decide that they'll keep killing a mosquito now and then.

But they still don't eat insects.

I'm pretty sure these people's 'bypass' approach exists to quiet the busy minds of humans trying to find 'holes' in the vegan viewpoint, which basically only says that if you want to interfere with other living beings, do something good for them - or leave them alone.

It's the simplest message in the world, really.

^ what a great post, Korn

Quote:

---

Korn

We shouldn't harm animals because they don't want to be harmed. I don't think anyone think that 'we should do something (eg. kill small living beings) because we are "well equipped to do so".

---

This is an interesting way of putting it. To be sure, animals are most likely incapable of thinking that they'd like to be harmed or that they'd like not to be harmed. Their debatable consciousness does nothing to help them here. Animals are not aware of their lives in the way we are.

Your statement would seem more accurate to me in this form: animals don't want to be harmed nor to they want to be not harmed. Put this way, I'd say the weight of that particular argument is lost. In the same way, plants and inanimate objects share the same lack of ability that animals do to be truly "concerned" about their well-being. Even if you debate with me the extent of an animals self-awareness or consciousness, we must be reasonable and admit that most animals are probably quite far from appreciating their own lives.

Quote:

---

It's obvious that humans are equipped with what it takes to kill an insect. You seem to think or feel that because we may kill and eat insects, "why not just do that?". My response was that there's no reason to do that even if we are capable of it. Vegans are against harming/killing/eating (etc) other living beings; beings that are sentient, sapient... in short: beings that have a desire not to be killed, harmed, caught or be interfered with by us.

---

We've got a couple of components here. The first idea that because there is no reason to do something we shouldn't do it is completely invalid. Reasons for doing things are of debatable importance from one human being to the next, and just because you see no "reason" to do something does not mean there isn't a reason at all. There is also seemingly no immorality attached to doing something for no reason.

The other component is being against harming/killing/eating other living things. But then you make the jump into stating that animals have a desire not to be harmed, caught, etc. This is where things get highly debatable to say the least. Do you imagine animals thinking to themselves, "I'd like not to be killed and eaten"? I really find that hard to believe.

Quote:

---

That's why we are against eating strawberry jam with that red color made of beetles. Beetles are small, they aren't our pets, and most humans may not have much empathy or respect for someone that small, but each living being's life is as important to itself as our lives are to us.

---

Even if you were somehow able to prove that animals are capable of thinking they'd like not to be killed, it's entirely different animal (no pun intended) to prove that something like a beetle is at all aware of itself enough to be concerned about themselves. To me, it seems like the line is drawn between insects and plant life simply because insects seem more "alive" to the vegan than the plant. This is similar to the arbitrary decision-making omnivores make when we decide animals just don't seem as important as humans do.

Quote:

---

I think that link between physiology is made only to point out that when it comes to catching, killing, tearing apart and eating eg. a cows or sheep, our bodies certainly differs a lot from the bodies of natural meat eaters/natural killers like cats or lions. Our psyche is also different, in that most humans don't start to salivate if they see a mouse, rat or sparrow. Cats have been domesticated for a long time, and still catch birds and mice (even if they don't need to), because their killer instinct is intact.

---

The human psyche is different in a thousand ways to that of an animal, if it even has a "psyche" at all. Personally, I don't salivate walking through fields of grass and seeds or when I see lentils. Maybe you do, but saliva is hardly an argument for what we should or should not eat. Humans are also different in that we are bound much less by instincts than animals are. We're capable of rational thought, so if an instinct tried to get us to do something that made no sense, hopefully our better sense would prevail and stop us. Animals are governed by instincts many many times more than we are.

Quote:

---

You don't need an argument against eating them, because you don't have an argument pro eating them. Small living beings don't want to be killed - so don't kill them. It's that simple!

---

I'll stop with this since I'm not able to see all the quotes you're responding to below. Basically, I'll summarize my points: small living things are likely incapable of the thought you're attributing to them, and certainly insects are. You talked of looking at ants and seeing what looked like concern for an egg. Consciousness isn't as simple as that. Humans take consciousness for granted, but bugs and animals are far from having the sort we've got.

Quote:

---

streetwaves

To be sure, animals are most likely incapable of thinking that they'd like to be harmed or that they'd like not to be harmed.

---

It doesn't matter if they "think" that they like or don't like to be harmed. It's obvious even to the average meat eater that they don't like to be harmed.

Quote:

---

Your statement would seem more accurate to me in this form: animals don't want to be harmed nor to they want to be not harmed.

---

Have you ever seen documentaries about suffering animals? Have you seen anything which suggest that they are OK with being harmed, killed, or that they don't feel fear or pain?

Quote:

---

most animals are probably quite far from appreciating their own lives.

---

I disagree, but even if a human or animal would appear 'not appreciate' their own life, I have no desire or right to kill them. Do you feel that you have that right or desire?

Quote:

---

We've got a couple of components here. The first idea that because there is no reason to do something we shouldn't do it is completely invalid.

---

Sure.

Quote:

---

just because you see no "reason" to do something does not mean there isn't a reason at all.

---

That's a different topic. The are reasons who people eat meat. They like the taste of meat. There are also reasons why some people kill other humans. What vegans are talking about are valid reasons, not mere explanations of why something happens. But let's be concrete. Why do you eat meat (I assume you do)?

Quote:

---

Do you imagine animals thinking to themselves, "I'd like not to be killed and eaten"?

---

You know what? I'm not even interested in whether they 'think' that or not. First of all, I have no desire to kill r harm anyone, secondly, it's obvious - if you see an animal which is hurt in an accident, for instance, that it's in pain and stress. Thoughts are completely irrelvant in this context. Feelings are not irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Even if you were somehow able to prove that animals are capable of thinking they'd like not to be killed, it's entirely different animal (no pun intended) to prove that something like a beetle is at all aware of itself enough to be concerned about themselves.

---

Try to catch a fly with your hands - and think, for a second, about why it tries to escape.

Quote:

---

To me, it seems like the line is drawn between insects and plant life simply because insects seem more "alive" to the vegan than the plant.

---

Yes, because they are more 'alive' than plants, and spends lots of energy to avoid being caught/killed/harmed.

Quote:

---

This is similar to the arbitrary decision-making omnivores make when we decide animals just don't seem as important as humans do.

---

The principle behind almost every conflict between living beings is whether something is important/good/beneficial etc for themselves. Whether animals are important for us doesn't matter much. It's important that they are important for themselves.

Quote:

---

Personally, I don't salivate walking through fields of grass and seeds or when I see lentils.

---

No, but if you were hungry and saw a tree with a bird, some insects and some fruit, what would you - without theorizing about it - want to eat?

Quote:

---

Animals are governed by instincts many many times more than we are.

---

One of the main instincts they have are about survival; a desire to live. Your "instinct" to kill an animal or insect for food (do you feel that you have such an instinct?) may be non-existent, or close to non-existent. Your instinct, if hungry, to eat an apple, some strawberries or nuts is probably quite strong. So why even bother about all the theoretical stuff?

Quote:

---

small living things are likely incapable of the thought you're attributing to them, and certainly insects are.

---

I can't remember anyone introducing 'thought' into this... The interesting part isn't, the way I see it, the similarities between bugs and humans, it's that almost everybody who brings up and defends the right to kill insects also eat lamb and chicken and beef - but prefer to discuss insects - probably because it's more comfortable.

I don't agree with Jeremy Bentham about everything :) but I think he had a point when he wrote "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

Streetwaves, can you please explain why you think that the suggestion that animals have a different sort of consciousness to that of humans is relevant to whether it's OK to kill them?

Nevertheless, to me the question should not be reduced to suffering, as that would open the door to "ok, if we kill them painlessly, then what?".

It becomes more clear when you picture a brain-damaged human, who would not be able to reason in the same way as a "normal" person would be.
If s/he is not aware in the same way of their future, can we then take that future from them? Because regardless of the suffering, by killing a person (human or non-human) we are taking from that person their future, their dreams and plans and their ability to live their lives. If we do not see that it would be ok to painlessly kill ("euthanize") a brain-damaged human who has no concept of a future, no plans and no asperations, then how should we be be ok with doing the same thing to an animal, of which we do now know whether it has hopes and asperations?

Sorry if this comment is taking the thread off-topic, but I do not like the "can they suffer" argument mentioned - it often leads to reducing the argument to suffering and accepting use of animals if no suffering is involved (which is a theoretic concept, but the basis of all "humane killing" etc. legislation).

Best regards,
Andy

Good points, Andy, though I think it depends a bit on your definition of suffering. I would use it to cover more than just physical pain - not sure if Bentham was though.

My answers would be:

a. Just because we may accidentally kill an insect does not mean we should decide to eat them??? Strange logic....
b. What is the reason for even asking yourself about this? Is there a type of food you miss which contains insects?
c. How do you, I or anyone else know exactly what an insect thinks or feels in order to decide what can or can't be done to them?

This just goes against being vegan for me, I dont want to kill ANYTHING if I don't have to. Wouldn't you agree?

I admit that I still have a hard time to convince myself to ask mosquitos in my bedroom to leave me alone at night and not sting me instead of using more, ah, drastic measures. (Of course I use screens, but this is pertaining to those who manage to come inside nevertheless)

Best regards,
Andy

I'll probably read the whole of this thread later. I just scanned down it.

Obviously the definition of veganism rules out killing insects.

I would not be surprised if the use of "bugs" especially worms, tiny slugs and the like could solve many short term starvation problems around the world. I think that distribution of currently available vegetable food would be a better solution. Even more ideal would be moving the starving people to the growing food but we know why such distributions are too unlikely to happen.

I often use insect examples in discussions with omnivores to illustrate clearly to them that "protein" or "nutrition" are not really issues for them... they are insisting on the sacrifice of a large mammal.

I think the "insect question for vegans" is really an issue of identity. With food production, harvest, storage, and supply chain casualties and the like, I don't really doubt that there are 'lower net impact' meals available compared to vegan meals in many non urban locations. If one is going out of one's way to eat a meal of invertebrates, then one is not vegan, though potentially has caused less harm to animal life.

The identity issues are partly social, in that some people will struggle to understand why you do what you do... let alone understand what you say. Some people might understand more clearly though. One's own mental transactions might also need 'sophisticating'.

Quote:

---

harpy

Streetwaves, can you please explain why you think that the suggestion that animals have a different sort of consciousness to that of humans is relevant to whether it's OK to kill them?

---

I'm not sure it is, but at the same time, I would like to better understand why human beings (even vegan ones) seem to innately value certain types of life more than others. I'd say probably the majority of vegans would at least admit that while they disapprove of killing insects, they would care much less if they accidentally killed an insect than if they had accidentally killed a child. It seems to me that this innate sense of importance of the human race over other species is what is driving the whole debate in the first place.

You could perhaps make a decent argument that this innate sense of human value is an evolutionary trait whose 'purpose' (I'm using the term loosely here because I am a secularist and don't think we were 'designed') is to make sure we look after our own interests and continue living as a species. In the wild, it would do us little to no good to have a deep compassion for other species if they only saw us as food. Of course, that's in the wild, and perhaps even if we still have this trait it could still be argued that since the danger to us posed by animals is no longer the same and we have more access to plant sources of food, it would be morally virtuous to resist our 'selfish' instincts.

If I don't need to intentionally kill and/or eat insects to survive, or at least protect my health, then I won't.

Leedsveg

Quote:

---

leedsveg

If I don't need to intentionally kill and/or eat insects to survive, or at least protect my health, then I won't.

Leedsveg

---

Does something become morally acceptable to do if survival depends on it? Complicated world we live in, no?

Quote:

---

streetwaves

Of course, that's in the wild, and perhaps even if we still have this trait it could still be argued that since the danger to us posed by animals is no longer the same and we have more access to plant sources of food, it would be morally virtuous to resist our 'selfish' instincts.

---

Quite. Also, we can still favour our own species, and those that seem more like us, while trying to avoid unnecessarily harming the others.

Quote:

---

streetwaves

Does something become morally acceptable to do if survival depends on it? Complicated world we live in, no?

---

Yes, survival does tend to make things morally acceptable, but not always. Must admit that the preservation of my own existence does seem to have a strong importance for me, probably the way "I'm programmed". If I can recognise the same "programming" in insects, then it's not too surprising that empathy kicks in, and killing, just for the sake of killing is unappealing.

I think that the world is as complicated as we want to make it. Preserving and enhancing lives as a vegan, or just philosophising about preserving and enhancing lives? The former for me, so I'll get back to my simple life and let others resume the same discussions that the forum has seen many times before.

Leedsveg