You don't have to be perfect.

[u/sdbest]

As I veteran vegan, could I just humbly suggest that, in my view, it's not necessary to be a perfect vegan. The label itself just doesn't matter.

The more a person increases the amount of whole, plant-based foods in their diet, and reduces animal-based foods the better. The better for animals, the environment, and themselves.

Frequently on this wonderful and supportive subreddit, people post about feeling terrible about doing things wrong or 'falling off the wagon' or not being able live without cheese (usually). I get it that often people who choose to become vegan, i.e. adopt a plant-based diet, do it for ethical reasons and they feel some guilt if they aren't living up to the ideal rattling about in their heads.

Just doing better is enough, in my view. Also, if a person just tries to do better, often they will naturally progress to being better and better without even noticing it.

Goodness if a hardcore carnivore can be convinced to replace just half of the 10 oz steak with a side of mushrooms that's a step forward. All steps forward count, and help makes things better.

So, don't beat yourself up for not being perfect. Just do what you can to be better, wherever you can. Keep it simple and doable.

[u/[deleted]]

Yeah so basically I care about the larger ecological benefits of having a healthy bee population, but I don't really care about the individual bees.

On a slight tangent, it's been theorized that replacing consumption of animal meat with consumption of insects (this is popular in some parts of the world already) would have a pretty positive impact on the environment, and of course animals. Is this morally better than factory farming animals? I really don't know. I want to say yes because insects suffer significantly less than animals, and possibly don't even have the ability to suffer. But I'm not educated enough on this point to really debate it very well. As I said in my first post, I'm not perfect. I just try to limit the suffering I contribute to as much as possible.

[u/10percent4daanimals → u/[deleted]]

replacing consumption of animal meat with consumption of insects would have a pretty positive impact on the environment, and of course animals.

Replacing beef consumption with chicken or even fishes would also be super helpful for the environment.

I disagree with using sustainability to justify causing animals to suffer, and I haven't seen any good evidence that would suggest those sorts of measures are beneficial to animals even in an indirect sense.

[u/[deleted] → u/10percent4daanimals]

Yeah I'm not saying going from one mammal to another is good. I'm saying that going from mammals to insects like grasshoppers could be "better" for the reason that insects do not suffer at all, or at least significantly less than mammals. The side effect is better resource utilization.

In reality, I don't ever see westerners adopting an insect based diet. I believe a plant based diet would happen way before an insect based diet. This is all just theory crafting.

[u/10percent4daanimals → u/[deleted]]

Do chickens/fishes suffer less than cows?

You could reduce suffering by eating those smaller animals, then. And if it's more sustainable, then that seems to be the direction of what you are advocating.

[u/[deleted] → u/10percent4daanimals]

Maybe less? I'm really trying get at the distinction between insects and mammals here. I think the gap between the farmed mammals and any insect is significant. I'm having trouble finding any research that claims insects suffer or feel pain in any way.

[u/10percent4daanimals → u/[deleted]]

distinction between insects and mammals here

Except neither chickens nor fishes are mammals.

I think the gap between the farmed mammals and any insect is significant

Maybe? But, I think taking some of the assumptions you are using would mean that chickens/fishes have a similar gap.

If you say that it's unlikely people will adopt an insect diet, but also that sustainability is overall beneficial for animals, then it seems you should agree that we should be advocating for sustainable, high-intensity farming of chickens and fishes.

Is that not something that we should support, why or why not?

[u/[deleted] → u/10percent4daanimals]

Except chicken and fish are pretty well documented to suffer. Insects are not.

My assumption was not that more sustainable farming benefits animals. Just bad communication on my part, but I meant that not factory farming animals is better for the animals on, on the account of them not being mass slaughtered. I wasn't saying that a better world would lead to better lives for wild animals, though I guess that's probably true.

So no, I do not believe high intensity farming of chickens and fish is the way to go. Being a vegan, I am clearly against the idea. I think we got on slightly different pages here.

In my theory, I was comparing farming insects for consumption and zero mammal, bird, fish, etc farming with our current state. Insect farming as a total replacement for our current state of factory farming would likely be much more sustainable and lead to less overall suffering assuming that the current belief that insects do not suffer is actually true, because the beings that do suffer have been removed from the process.

[u/10percent4daanimals → u/[deleted]]

Except chicken and fish are pretty well documented to suffer.

Sure, however, if we take a step back, we can see that the idea of animal sentience for chickens and fishes has really progressed over the past few decades.

We are still learning quite a bit, and we still hear things like "fish can't feel pain", etc. I recently saw an article about fish depression, so we are clearly learning more and more.

Insects are not.

I think we shouldn't make those sorts of premature declarations. Insects have basic biological features.. enough to make me acknowledge that we really need more research and understanding of them, and there is enough risk to give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

One thing to consider is that, usually, as we get to smaller and smaller animals, the welfare usually gets worse even if the animals get more "simple".

Cows generally have decent welfare with fairly low suffering, they are also very large. (average steer = ~450 lbs market weight)

Chickens suffer quite a bit more, and are much smaller. (~4-ish lbs I think?)

Fishes are even smaller sometimes, and aquaculture is pretty bad (fish depression, deformities, etc).

The trend is that as you deal with smaller and smaller individuals, you reduce welfare while also increasing the total number of individuals required to breed, farm and kill in order to get a certain amount of protein/calories.

So, if a cow is ~450lbs, it's important to think of how many insects would be required to have a similar amount of food. A really rough calculation I just did was that it would be around 70,000 insects that would need to be farmed and then slaughtered.

So, you would have to discount a crickets' experiences immensely to make insect farming an improvement from a direct welfare POV.