I would still be vegan even if it harmed the environment.
I would still be vegan even if it harmed the environment.
I'd still be vegan if it harmed the environment too
Go Vegan, stay Human
I would still be vegan because, in my eyes, the widespread suffering that 9 billion animals die for in the USA every year is a greater threat than maybe a few thousand humans dying per year because of global warming.
Do the Vegan Boogie!!
ugh.... harsh question.....
but i'll still be vegan. i guess i'd try to minimize my environmental impact (if i caused any)
i am stricly against taking anyone's life, so of course i would stay vegan, in the end it's not my fault that this world is overpopulated (it would be if i had a couple of kids myself), but if i supported the production of death, it would be my fault.
I would stay vegan- i can't eat animals- i just couldn't bring myself to do it. Like someone said early it would be like eating another human being. That's how wrong it is for me
it would be a choice between harming animals and harming the environment.
harming the environment harms animals indirectly, but it wouldn't be as bad as murdering them and eating their flesh.
so yes, i would still be vegan if it harmed the environment.
id imagine that it would be nothing compared to what factories etc. are doing.
The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool.
I'm a great believer in the value of small actions and a way of living which is best summarised by the well-known slogan "Think global, act local." It is this way of thinking that has surely inspired most of us to become vegan? Animal cruelty is a global problem, but we can make tangible - even if small - differences to the lives of animals because of our small actions. If not, why are we vegan? Collectively, vegans probably make a very big difference, not just because of their removing their support of a cruel industry that exploits animals, but because they act as sign posts which lead others to think about the same issues. Presumably this is where the "public action" you refer to must begin, in the thinking of issues?
I think it's a mistake to choose between small actions by individuals and big actions taken by governments. Both are essential and are linked together. I think we must remember this when thinking about responses to climate change. As we have already seen, governments are the last to act. This should inspire individuals to take more small actions, not less.
To respond to the original question, I have to admit I was slightly confused by it! I think the simple fact is that being vegan does harm the environment. Just being alive harms the environment in one way or another, which is the reason why environmentalists talk rather uncomfortably about the issue of our expanding global population. The point is being vegan harms it less, and imagining a world where it does not feels a bit like imagining a world where 1+1=3. I think the contribution earlier that said harming the environment was a method for harming animals was a really good example of how they are inextricably linked.
I rarely think that ethical action sets come in simple packages of only personal, local, community, or global. Most often, ethical values interact with many actions that go on all levels.
My concern is when people think that ONLY one way of doing things is enough. That goes for folks who focus ONLY on public policy, but don't do anything individual (ie. animal rights folks who focus on public policy but don't go vegan). Since this is a vegan forum, what I most often see is the opposite: folks who think that the local, or personal, or individual is the whole kit and kaboodle.
I think that the phrase "act local, think local" is often a cop out. I think that the phrase, while perhaps meaning something profound originally, now seems like an excuse to JUST buy fair trade coffee while ignoring the human rights issues that are involved in the coffee trade outside of Fair Trade. That phrase seems like an excuse to ONLY focus on the the individual while only THINKING (but not doing anything) about the global.
I'm not talking about changing institutions from the gov't level. That rarely works well. I'm not talking about waiting for politicians to move. That works even worse. What I'm talking about is along with our personal acts of veganism, that it should be tied to a demand for INSTITUTIONAL change of how animals are treated. Of course, it is easy to neglect the call for institutional change because the methods and actions to achieve it change every year and with every campaign, unlike veganism which is relatively constant.
But my call is still out there. We need to do BOTH.
context is everything
"if" it harmed the enviroment ... or my health ... well, i started refusing eating meat at very early age - as soon i was able to make a connection between what is on my plate and living beings i loved to cuddle and pet (although there were times i was forced to eat meat, because my father was very strict) and i didn't really think of enviroment and health back then ... i was informed (by my parents and other people that were my "world" at that time) it is unhealthy but still - couldn't force myself to eat dead animals (and never been able to understand how people can claim they love animals - eg. have a dog, that is almost like a family member, and eat meat at the same time). so, my answer is yes, i'd still be vegan.
I can't imagine any situation or argument that would change my being vegan.
'Spring will soon pounce [like a floppy kitten]'. Whalespace.
I think so, as I would say the amoutn of live lost each year due to farming (45 billion) is more than the lives affected by environment/world hunger.
I would just do everything in my power to be green in other ways.
My #1 reason for veganism is environment, although I first wanted to do it as I don't want things to die for me
Sheila, I understand where you are coming from. Working on stalls for animal activist groups here in Sydney, I often get approached by argumentative meat eaters with this same type of question, or the classic 'what if plants feel pain too?'. I usually just politely tell the protagonist that I deal in facts, not hypothetical questions, and ask them if they wold like to make thier time more productive by dealing with real issues.
Like everyone, I feel guilty at times when I think about how many resources I waste by driving a car/using electricity/taking hot showers etc etc, but the fact is we are all part of society and have to live within societies parameters. The only thing we can do is try to do everything possible to minimise our impact on the world, and being a vegan is definitely a good way of doing that.
And in answer to your original question, I could not imagine any reason that would make me stop being vegan. I believe becoming vegan is a lifetime commitment which I could never stop, for so many reasons.
I would definitely still be vegan if it were bad for the environment. I'm glad that it's better than eating meat for the environment, but the environment had nothing to do with why I went vegan.
Check out the Toronto Vegetarian Podcast at veg.ca/tvp !
Honestly? If it were unhealthy and bad for the environment, no, I don't think I would.
I'm a vegan for ethical reasons because it appeals to the logical side of me. It just isn't logically moral to me for someone to kill another sentient being, especially if their life did not depend on it. But, for example, if I accidentally eat non-meat animal products, I just go, "Whoops, better luck next time." If I accidentally eat meat (hasn't happened yet, but I'd imagine this is what would happen), I'd freak out a little because it disgusts me now... but it really wouldn't bother me that much.
In the event that veganism were bad for the environment, I'd probably just be in a group for better animal treatment. If we're going to eat it, we should at least treat it amazingly before hand... right? If I were going to be eaten, I'd prefer to be treated at least decently. I don't want to be put in a tiny cage and go mad with boredom and then get skinned alive. Ew.
I'll probably get flamed for those views, hah, but oh well. I'm a vegan because it's the path of least harm. If it were bad for the environment, then it would most likely not be the path of least harm. That means I would not interested.
The thing is, even if veganism were bad for the environment it doesn't follow that an omni diet would be good for the environment. It wouldn't. So, if there were no way to avoid serious environmental damage with my eating habits, I'd still go for not harming animals over harming them.
Check out the Toronto Vegetarian Podcast at veg.ca/tvp !
I'd still be vegan as well. I'm vegan #1 for the animals, #2 for the environment.
Either this wallpaper goes, or I do.
Bookmarks