Per the title. If an animal dies out in nature without any human involvement, shouldn’t it be considered vegan to harvest any of the useful parts from it (not nessicarily meat, think hide), since there was no human-caused suffering involved?
Similarly, is driving a car not vegan because of the roadkill issue?
Especially curious to hear a perspective from any practicing moral vegans.
Also: I am not vegan. That’s why I’m asking. I’m not planning on eating roadkill thank you. Just suggesting the existence of animal-based vegan leather.
Why don’t you eat humans if they’ve already died?
prion disease lol
I would totally try it if it was legally allowed and there wasn’t a risk of diesease from eating human flesh. 🤷♂️
And, if in a situation like the Donner Party: That’s generally what happens. They don’t kill someone just to eat 'em.
i hear children taste the best. maybe we should adopt a system of indefinitely milking mothers while eating their children like is done with cows. Double Bonus. Tastiest meat plus milk.
They have to die on their own tho. And I’m not sure it would be safe to eat unvaccinated children who died of preventable illnesses.
I’ve wondered about this myself since like age 7, when our otherwise perfectly healthy horse Sissy got struck by lightning while standing under a pine tree out in the field in a storm. 😢
Living out in deer hunting country, they could have given the neighbors a shout and basically be like hey the meat’s fresh, y’all come help cut it up and stock like 10-20 freezers for free…
🤷
If you don’t like broccoli, why don’t you eat it when it’s half rotten?
This. When I was a kid, I asked this same question and it took me years to fully wrap my head around it.
The ELI5 - When we pick food, we often pick it when it’s the most fresh. We want the freshest apples, the healthiest corn. That also applies to meat. We kill animals at their peak, and harvest them for meat.
When you die, it’s because something is rotten. Lung. Heart. Cancer. Its part of aging. If some part of your body was rotten enough to kill you, that means that was circulating through the rest of your body. Say that a rabbit was killed by poison gas. Would you eat it, if technically, the poison was mostly in its lungs?
I had a teacher in high school ask me to bring him a deer if I ever hit one on my way to school.
Really depends on which lens of veganism you view it through. I usually judge things by the economic lens, where veganism is the response to capitalism incentivising the exploitation of animals. It’s probably one of the easiest ways to think about it, but essentially it goes like “As long as you don’t pay money for exploitation, you’re fine”
So roadkill would be fine. Saving food that would be thrown out is fine. Shoplifting is fine. Served the wrong thing at the restaurant- Complain and get your money back. Second hand down jacket from a relative who would have thrown it away otherwise - gross but fine. Stealing chickens from a factory farm and eating some of their eggs- fine. Et cetera.I don’t think that sort of logical line can be applied to anything but individuals though. I still wouldn’t be buying leather from a company that claims to only use roadkill, as my money would still be a financial incentive to expand the operation.
Because animals that died naturally are animals
Veganism isn’t a hivemind. We’re all individuals that came to similar conclusions. And we will have different opinions on the details.
Some folks will say consuming those that died naturally is a-ok. Others will argue that it incentivizes creating conditions under which animals die “naturally” to harvest them.
Personally, I’m part of the group that is probably the largest by a long shot, whose opinion is: Why are we even thinking about that?The vast majority of vegans find corpses gross, much like anything you might derive from corpses.
It also seriously does not happen often, that animals drop dead in front of you. And there’s nothing on an animal’s body that you can’t find a different alternative for. So, it really just is not a relevant question in our lives…How about using birds’ discarded feathers for decorations? Discarded seashells? Pearls from clams that died naturally?
I find corspes yuck because it feels the same as cannibalism to me. I have no issues with touching human hair or fingernails, but I wouldn’t eat your arm, spleen or eye. Does this help?
Speaking for every single vegan on the whole world: If you fancy that stuff, go for it. We won’t deny you our universal seal of approval for that.
It’s true, I can’t deny that vegans approve of protecting the universe’s seals.
Hi, ive been vegan for a bit over 10 years. I don’t think animal parts are for us to use at all. I’m not really sure why you’d harvest animals at all, I don’t think normalizing the commodification of others’ bodies is a good thing to be doing. If you really can’t live without animal parts, that’s probably the least harmful way of acquiring them. I wouldn’t recommend eating anyone you find lying on the ground though, that sounds like a good way to contract horrible diseases.
Veganism is about doing the most that is possible and practicable. We probably kill insects just by walking, but it’s not reasonable to never move again to avoid that. Similarly, driving a car for many people is a necessity to be able to access goods and services, and its not at all practicable to avoid driving for them.
Ultimately, veganism is a moral stance about reducing harm to others as much as you can. It’s not a competition, so don’t feel like you have to be perfect at it to do good.
If you don’t make a moral distinction between humans and other animals, it seems difficult to justify scavenging with any logic that couldn’t also be used to justify grave robbing, cannibalism, or even necrophilia.
Thank you for your well rounded and ernest perspective. That final sentence really gave me pause. And it’s nice to find a corner of the internet where vegans aren’t vilified immediately for existing
We probably kill insects just by walking, but it’s not reasonable to never move again to avoid that.
There’s this Hindu sect whose adherents wear veils, sweep the floor before them, and/or tread very slowly and carefully to avoid injuring, killing or eating any small insects. As you said, it’s about doing as much as you can, but if it were a competition they’d win for sure.
I think you mean Jainism? It isn’t Hindu.
They also have a very strict vegetarian diet, they won’t even eat root vegetables so burrowing insects aren’t disturbed
I mean defining new religion is always tricky, Hinduism is such a large collection of beliefs, if you go too wide Jainism and Buddhism and Sikhism would unfold into Hinduism and if you go too narrow Hinduism is at best group of 12-13 separate religion.
The deeper you look the more confusing it is, while Jain texts acknowledge certain “Hindu” deities like Indra, other parts of universe building are entirely different, and if they are different where did Indra come from?
Anyway I like the distinction of dharmic religions and then defining sects such as Jain, Vaishnav, shaiva, Buddhism etc etc. They all have the concept of Dharma, Karma and Moksha. So they are all kind of interoperable in terms of lifestyle. There are sects of Hinduism that are more different than mainstream to the point it’d be hard to call them Hindu, but they self identify as Hindu, while there are sects of buddishm that are so similar to Hinduism, it’s unclear why they consider themselves a separate religion. I think at the end the distinctions between dharmic religion are always because of some geopolitical power game.
Yeah but if you ask a jain they’d say they’re not Hindu. So take it for it means.
I would argue Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism are as distinct as Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Which are the sects of Buddhism that are so similar to Hinduism? (Curiosity, not attack - i studied Buddhism in depth for my degree, but that was 20 years ago)
I would argue that Buddhism is as distinct from Hinduism as an agnostic is from the abrahamic faiths.
If you really look at Buddhism, it’s a critique of Hindu concepts such as Atman.
Of course it incorporates a lot of those concepts, because the Buddha was communicating his critique to folks who used those concepts.
For example, the four brahmavajara’s are framed in a Hindu understanding of the godhead. That doesn’t mean the Buddha believed in Brahma beyond it’s conceptualization by Hindus.
He was merely using it as a teaching device to point out the importance of the four immeasurable minds to a Brahmin who asked him what the mind of God is like.
Thank you for this perspective!
i saw a really interesting video about biking jackets and the design of them, the conclusion is that molecularly leather is the safest material for abrasion and there’s not really any synthetic replacement that comes close.
What does your perspective (in regard to veganism) have on this subject?
https://youtu.be/xwuRUcAGIEU
Btw this channel is REALLY entertaining and well written, I’d recommend watching this channel if you get bored sometimeI’d take the risk with synthetic materials, personally. I don’t think any amount of danger I put myself in would justify killing someone else for their skin. I have a synthetic jacket with elbow and shoulder reinforcement for when I ride, and that’s good enough for me.
I’ll definitely check out the video later when I have more downtime though.
For the western world motorbikes are largely a luxury. Don’t do the luxury thing AND don’t wear a dead animal seems like a reasonable position to take.
I don’t think you understand. Leather jackets are the best for safety, it’s not just a fashion choice
I don’t think you understand.
Not doing the activity that requires protective clothing is safer than doing the activity with protective clothing.
For westerners motorcycle riding and leather jackets are luxuries so it seems the vegan solution would be to not ride and not buy leather.
For the eastern world motorbikes and mopeds is all everyone has. Far from luxury
Back in the way way way way way way way day. Human used animal fur for warmth, and the meat to eat.
To me it’s not a matter of ethics but a matter of health. Unless you saw the animal die from something that clearly isn’t disease I wouldn’t trust meat I just found laying around.
It doesn’t have to be edible. Glue, gelatin for skin mimicry, clothing, and bones for weapons, etc are all non-edible uses of animals.
Good point. I forgot vegans included all that stuff and not just eating animal products.
For me personally: Veganism is also about signaling to the outside world. Suppose I were to skin an animal that died naturally and make a jacket out of it, this would probably be the most ethical way to produce a leather jacket. But I still wouldn’t wear it, because by doing so I would signal to the outside world that it’s okay to wear the skinned hide of animals. Outsiders can’t know under what circumstances I got the leather.
It might be a bit more radical, which is why I might face hostility, but I also throw away non-vegan foods that I unintentionally receive, instead of giving them to non-vegans. Simply because I don’t want to project to the outside: “Here you go. I would never eat it because I find it unethical, but if you eat it, then that’s okay.”
Neither would I but what about the hide?
This is something that has always bothered me about roadkill animals (esp deer which are particularly prevalent as roadkill in my area).
Its my understanding that the hide can remain in good and usable condition for days to weeks after the animal’s death. It seems that this could be a decent source of blankets and other light-medium cold weather gear.
I’d imagine it largely comes down to the skinning process. The internal organs of dead animals are supposed to get real gross real fast (and that’s in the best case scenario - if anything ruptured when they were hit, then the grossness increasing exponentially) and removing those is the first step towards skinning. Additionally, everything in harvesting the hide would need to be done by hand.
But boy, if we could build one of those Boston dynamics bots to do it…
I trust old meat I find lying around. It may be a different color, but it still spends the same.
I’m not vegan myself but I had asked a similar enough question to a vegan friend a while ago and liked his answer:
He said for him it’s 2 parts, 1 is that while the animal that died may not have been harmed by humans, the ecosystem that relies on scavenging carcasses will be hurt if humans effectively start removing their entire food source (same way we have driven species to extinction by hunting).
The 2nd part is that with humans everything with even the tiniest loop hole will get abused… Imagine that we say this is okay. Today it may be the odd naturally deceased animal, in a month it’ll start including animals “killed accidentally”, in a year it’ll be someone farming animals with some weird way of culling them so they can claim it’s still natural causes by some twisted logic… at the end of it we’d just not be able to trust any of it anyway so it’s easier to not even entertain the thought - the energy to figure it all out would be better spent on improving alternatives.
I think it would depend who you ask. I consider myself vegan and would have no major issue with someone using roadkill for parts. I mean, I would find it disgusting and could never myself, but if they want to and still call themselves vegan, I see no problem with it as the harm has already been done to the animal. Seems the same as harvesting bones from the forest - what’s dead is dead.
Seems the same as harvesting bones from the forest
Umm… Wut? Why are you being a bone harvester, what do you need them for??
Bone stuff, why are you asking so many questions?
Witchcraft
Whatever I want.
If you die in the woods I will find you.
Lots of people like to use things like antlers or skulls as decorations
They call themselves freegans
I have the same repulsive reaction to eating the body of a someone, of any species, as you probably do to eating insects or humans or literal fecal balls of steaming dung.
Oh so it’s a mental illness thing.
You can do pretty much whatever you want man…
Like “vegan” isn’t even a century old yet, it was made up in the 1940s by some guy who thought vegetarians weren’t good enough, and he set whatever rules he wanted to.
You can just keep using his word, but not care about his rules.
Or you can make up your own name and rules.
People searching for labels they like and then conforming to every fucking aspect of that label and nothing else, doesn’t work out well.
So please, if you want to eat roadkill just do it.
Like “vegan” isn’t even a century old yet, it was made up in the 1940s by some guy who thought vegetarians weren’t good enough, and he set whatever rules he wanted to.
[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism
Under “Term coined by”
The concept is much older than the word we use today.
One of the earliest known vegans was the Arab poet al-Ma’arri, famous for his poem “I No Longer Steal From Nature”. (c. 973 – c. 1057).
Removed by mod
but did you want to answer the question
I did…
it was made up in the 1940s by some guy who thought vegetarians weren’t good enough, and he set whatever rules he wanted to
Every reason why you can/can’t do something and be Vegan, is because the guy who made the word up ~80 years ago decided it should be like that
You’re acting like it’s a math or science, like it’s based on logic or something…
It’s not, so the answer to “why” is essentially “because the founder said that”?
Does that make sense now?
I’m not vegan and I’m here to tell you that your argument isn’t valid. Whoever invented a word doesn’t get to permanently declare exactly what it means down to the tiniest detail. Words change meaning over time. I would guess that especially new words change over time. The word “awful” originally meant full of awe. The word “terrible” originally meant a thing caused terror.
It doesn’t matter what the creator of the word thought.
It doesn’t matter what the creator of the word thought
Yeah…
That’s why I said:
You can just keep using his word, but not care about his rules.
Thanks for aggressively agreeing with me I guess?
Weird move, and I think it’s more likely you were just confused, it works better if you ask questions when you’re confused.
From my end, I’m a registered organ donor because I feel that I won’t need this body once I’m done with it, and if anything is useful off it for someone else, then hell, let them have my liver.
However, an animal can’t consent to that and yeah, an argument could be made that who gives a fuck, it’s a pig/chicken/cow, it’s not gonna give a shit, but death is unfortunate for anything and I’d feel more at ease that the carcus is either left for nature to do what it does than me harvesting it for food.
It is going to be eaten no matter what. The chance of it being eaten is essentially 100%. So i can’t see how that’s part of the equation.
Sure, but a person can choose to not be the one who does it.
I think i can understand what you’re saying. Unimportant sidenote, it’s spelled carcass
I’m aware. I’m not the one who misspelled it.
Ope you’re right
Interesting.
(Parent comment was edited)
And such is the circle of life right. I also feel that if we as a species can move beyond meat, then we should. I can live a perfectly normal life on my current vegan diet, and if that carcus is then left for other animals and fauna to have, thus leaving the cycle undisrupted.
I suppose what I’m getting at is that I’d rather let the animals that need those nutrients have it, as I’m already sorted.
