Vegans and Vegetarians butthurt over £5 note containing trace elements of tallow. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Marbalo;51450828]And no, by choosing to not consume animal products you are not reducing the load on slaughterhouses. Slaughterhouses dont supply meat based on individual demand, they supply it commercially based on quotas. The meat you chose not to buy for example is still processed and made regardless, except it's thrown in mass disposal dumps instead of actually going to good use afterwards. You are merely partaking in feel-good activism. [/QUOTE] Do you have no fucking idea of the concept of "supply and demand"?

[QUOTE=eldomtom2;51452181]Do you have no fucking idea of the concept of "supply and demand"?[/QUOTE] Do you have any idea of the concept of "economy of scale"?

[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;51451129]Would also be a shame to stop killing child rapists, serial killers, and terrorists tbh.[/QUOTE] In most parts of the world, we haul their asses into jail, throw a big reparation fine and never let them out. [I]Unless[/I] they resist arrest through violent means, and they are killed in a fight with law enforcement. Your point is moot. Child rapists, serial killers and terrorists are [B]not[/B] killed on purpose straight away. That is NOT how the justice system works

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51452226]Do you have any idea of the concept of "economy of scale"?[/QUOTE] It's kinda intuitively obvious though that if every vegan & vegetarian in the US started eating meat at the same time it would have an actual (large) effect on demand.

[QUOTE=GunFox;51449127]It will be cheaper too. Cattle are inefficient. Lab grown meat is about 50 percent more energy efficient. It also would produce about 95% less greenhouse gas. Now the reality is that you are still eating animal flesh though. The best printed meats are ones that are still using cultured animal cells. I don't generally imagine most people will have an issue with that though.[/QUOTE] we should just eat bugs

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51452909]we should just eat bugs[/QUOTE] I ate grilled grasshoppers once. It was alright, tastes like pistachios. It's kinda odd that insects don't play a bigger part in our diet, that's where our monkey cousins get most of their proteins in the first place.

[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;51446781]Yes, who would've thought that veg*ns have a problem with animal products being used in a product that they may be forced to use in the future. Maybe, just maybe, if you expanded your own narrow point of view, you would understand their perspective. And yes, this may be a first world problem, but guess what, that's the world they live in. So if it imposes something that goes against their beliefs, why in the world would they be happy with it? Unrelated rant: A wordly problem is climate change, none of you circle jerkers have gone plant-based, yet at least 14% of the greenhouse gas emissions come from animal agriculture. How about you get off your collective first world asses and do something about that. Or is not being able to eat your precious burger not a first world problem?[/QUOTE] My favorite part about your whining that nobody cares about the opinions of 5% of the global population is that I was eating a burger while reading it and enjoying my state of not being malnourished or having to eat soy.

[QUOTE=gk99;51453175]My favorite part about your whining that nobody cares about the opinions of 5% of the global population is that I was eating a burger while reading it and enjoying my state of not being malnourished or having to eat soy.[/QUOTE] Kinda needlessly aggressive

A question for Vegans here, if you're a Vegan for ethical reasons would you eat venison? Killing deer preserves the environment so the only ethical dilemma is that you're killing an animal.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51453270]A question for Vegans here, if you're a Vegan for ethical reasons would you eat venison? Killing deer preserves the environment so the only ethical dilemma is that you're killing an animal.[/QUOTE] the only ethical dilemma almost all ethical vegans care about is killing an animal.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51453270]A question for Vegans here, if you're a Vegan for ethical reasons would you eat venison? Killing deer preserves the environment so the only ethical dilemma is that you're killing an animal.[/QUOTE] No. The environment is a very important issue, but I stopped eating meat because I wanted to minimize harm done to animals, and that wouldn't change if the environment was not a factor.

[QUOTE=Aztec;51453292]the only ethical dilemma almost all ethical vegans care about is killing an animal.[/QUOTE] What we classify as animals is kind of arbitrary though isn't it? I think the capacity for suffering in conjunction with environmental effects of consumption is a more consistent model for ethical vegans. Killing a deer even if it produces a better environment would still be wrong under that framework because deer have the capacity to experience pain and a sufficiently complex neural anatomy to be aware of that pain. Beyond killing the deer, you could then argue that you shouldn't put the deer in a state of suffering via captivity, injury, or other mistreatment, and that would somewhat justify the general opposition to eggs and dairy products as well, as these other species also appear capable of suffering. If veganism was solely about killing then they probably wouldn't be vegans.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51453447]Killing a deer even if it produces a better environment would still be wrong under that framework because deer have the capacity to experience pain and a sufficiently complex neural anatomy to be aware of that pain.[/QUOTE] But not killing it would lead to deer overpopulation and the subsequent environmental collapse would cause even more pain and death for deers than hunting them to begin with. Why is it that people always believe inaction to be the more ethical way?

[QUOTE=BloodFox1222;51453425]No. The environment is a very important issue, but I stopped eating meat because I wanted to minimize harm done to animals, and that wouldn't change if the environment was not a factor.[/QUOTE] So what should we do with all the Deer we kill then? Leave the meat to rot? Or should we continue to let them completely ravage the environment? We killed off all the predators that eat deer in a large portion of the US, without them the only natural predators of deer are humans, it would be unethical to not kill the deer and it would be an unethical waste of meat to simply leave it to rot. I'd also consider it ethical to farm animals as well. A lot of the products we derive from livestock are medically necessary to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of humans (Insulin, for example). Why should we put the welfare of animals above that of humans? Hell a lot of the waste products derived from livestock are critically important to the continued sustainability of farms. The only other way to get a lot of the elements necessary for agriculture is to mine them. Doing so harms the environment far more then livestock ever will. Its also completely unsustainable as a lot of those materials are quite simply running out.

[QUOTE=BloodFox1222;51453425]No. The environment is a very important issue, but I stopped eating meat because I wanted to minimize harm done to animals, and that wouldn't change if the environment was not a factor.[/QUOTE] This scenario is a good example of a situation where acting directly [I]does[/I] minimize overall harm.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51453447]What we classify as animals is kind of arbitrary though isn't it? I think the capacity for suffering in conjunction with environmental effects of consumption is a more consistent model for ethical vegans.[/quote] No what we classify as animals is entirely concrete in nature. You could look in a dictionary to find that out. Furthermore ethical vegans almost always overlook the key fact that the livestock industry is a necessity for the continuation of life as we know it, as well as something necessary to keep a large portion of the human race alive. [quote] Killing a deer even if it produces a better environment would still be wrong under that framework because deer have the capacity to experience pain and a sufficiently complex neural anatomy to be aware of that pain.[/quote] By not killing the deer you are allowing greater suffering due to the destruction of the environment and the potential extinction of dozens of species. Furthermore i must posit this question to you. Is it unethical for a wolf to kill a deer? [quote] Beyond killing the deer, you could then argue that you shouldn't put the deer in a state of suffering via captivity, injury, or other mistreatment, and that would somewhat justify the general opposition to eggs and dairy products as well, as these other species also appear capable of suffering.[/quote] By not removing the deer from the environment you are killing it and by extension killing off entire species who rely on that environment. Being against killing deer because they experience pain is asinine. Not killing them would cause far greater devastation and by extension far more pain. [quote] If veganism was solely about killing then they probably wouldn't be vegans.[/QUOTE] You're right its not about killing. Its more often then not a severe case of feels before reals.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51453510]But not killing it would lead to deer overpopulation and the subsequent environmental collapse would cause even more pain and death for deers than hunting them to begin with. Why is it that people always believe inaction to be the more ethical way?[/QUOTE] Beats me. I'm mainly trying to play the devil's avocado. They might argue we caused that problem by killing off all of their predators like wolves, but saying that doesn't do anything to actually fix the problem. We're part of our environment. Damage has been done all of the place, and we've got to figure out how we fit now that we've changed up a lot of shit. A general reduction in the consumption of certain animal products might help, but there are clearly cases where animal products actually are a net benefit and have no real ethical dilemmas associated with them. I hate to keep harping on about mussels, but a paper came out in the past couple weeks suggesting that the accumulation of shellfish remains on land in the Pacific Northwest under native American stewardship actually [I]improved[/I] soil quality and biodiversity. That's one of the reasons we have the giant redwood forests now. They don't feel pain. They improve our oceans and land. They're pretty healthy. Supporting aquaculture would incentivise the protection of our oceans and combat climate change and acidification. I've met only a handful of vegans that actually bother to contemplate the implications of mussels though. What other metric do they have to meet to be ethical? They're animals sure, but a number of vegans seem ok with lab grown meat and that's still animal tissue.

I feel like this is similar to people who don't like vaccines because they contain traces of mercury.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51453574]No what we classify as animals is entirely concrete in nature. You could look in a dictionary to find that out.[/QUOTE] We've changed the definition in the past. Corals and sponges were thought to be plants or something else for a long time. Slime molds are also somewhat troublesome to classify even under our current definitions. They're pretty rad. [QUOTE] Furthermore ethical vegans almost always overlook the key fact that the livestock industry is a necessity for the continuation of life as we know it, as well as something necessary to keep a large portion of the human race alive.[/QUOTE] I think they and others would argue life as we know it is currently unsustainable. Our international CO2 emission targets aren't going to do shit about ocean acidification, and that's probably going to be more damaging than elevated global temperatures. [QUOTE] By not killing the deer you are allowing greater suffering due to the destruction of the environment and the potential extinction of dozens of species. Furthermore i must posit this question to you. Is it unethical for a wolf to kill a deer?[/QUOTE] The deer might very well turn to crops people need to eat in addition to destroying parts of their environment if they were left unchecked. As for predators killing things I personally have no problem with any of that shit. Predators can be dicks about what they kill sometimes, but herbivores are more than capable of killing themselves. Animals fight all the time over everything. Since I'm in a marine mood, several species of coral actively seek out gorgonian corals to grow on top of them and kill them for seemingly no reason. That makes me sad because gorgonians are my favorite, but there isn't really anything [I]wrong[/I] or [I]bad[/I] about that. It just is. I think it sucks because they're exceptionally beautiful, interesting, and maybe even useful, but that's life. [QUOTE] You're right its not about killing. Its more often then not a severe case of feels before reals.[/QUOTE] I think a lot of them honestly want to improve the way we interact with animals and the environment, but I don't think most really understand the nuance required. Simply choosing to avoid all animal products entirely seems like a good solution at first glance, but it's not a black and white sort of issue. They have at least come up with some pretty tasty food along the way. Native food's nachos are a guilty pleasure of mine. If you've never tried cashew 'cheese' it's probably worth it.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51453574]No what we classify as animals is entirely concrete in nature. You could look in a dictionary to find that out. Furthermore ethical vegans almost always overlook the key fact that the livestock industry is a necessity for the continuation of life as we know it, as well as something necessary to keep a large portion of the human race alive. By not killing the deer you are allowing greater suffering due to the destruction of the environment and the potential extinction of dozens of species. Furthermore i must posit this question to you. Is it unethical for a wolf to kill a deer? By not removing the deer from the environment you are killing it and by extension killing off entire species who rely on that environment. Being against killing deer because they experience pain is asinine. Not killing them would cause far greater devastation and by extension far more pain. You're right its not about killing. Its more often then not a severe case of feels before reals.[/QUOTE] Doesn't really matter if killing deer helps deer. Vegans care about deer as individuals. You're free to disagree with that but that is an individual's choice to not harm individual creatures. Also you could argue that the only reason deer populations are out of control is because we killed the apex predators that used to hunt them.

[QUOTE=Aztec;51453781]Doesn't really matter if killing deer helps deer. Vegans care about deer as individuals. You're free to disagree with that but that is an individual's choice to not harm individual creatures.[/QUOTE] How deer fare as populations will probably affect how deer fare as individuals though. [QUOTE] Also you could argue that the only reason deer populations are out of control is because we killed the apex predators that used to hunt them.[/QUOTE] Should we not kill animals that try to kill us though? We have some other tactics that we could employ now maybe, but we're still left with a situation where deer populations are out of control in a lot of areas and are eating too many things for the environment to sustain itself. Should we then breed wolves in captivity to counteract this problem? Would wolves suffer in captivity? Would killing animals to feed these captive bred wolves be immoral even if it advances the goal to restore balance to these environments in order to limit the number of animals that will die otherwise? And not to be a dick, but [B]WHAT ABOUT MUSSELS[/B]?

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51453840]How deer fare as populations will probably affect how deer fare as individuals though. Should we not kill animals that try to kill us though? We have some other tactics that we could employ now maybe, but we're still left with a situation where deer populations are out of control in a lot of areas and are eating too many things for the environment to sustain itself. Should we then breed wolves in captivity to counteract this problem? Would wolves suffer in captivity? Would killing animals to feed these captive bred wolves be immoral even if it advances the goal to restore balance to these environments in order to limit the number of animals that will die otherwise? And not to be a dick, but [B]WHAT ABOUT MUSSELS[/B]?[/QUOTE] I think the misconception here is viewing veganism as a social ideology and not as an individual choice. I'm a vegan because I live in a society where I don't have to worry about bears eating me. If I didn't live in this society I wouldn't be vegan. I don't eat deer meat because I don't want to consume animal products and I don't want to be morally responsible for the human killing of an animal. Anything beyond that is not something that I consider my moral responsibility.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51453514]So what should we do with all the Deer we kill then? Leave the meat to rot? Or should we continue to let them completely ravage the environment? We killed off all the predators that eat deer in a large portion of the US, without them the only natural predators of deer are humans, it would be unethical to not kill the deer and it would be an unethical waste of meat to simply leave it to rot. I'd also consider it ethical to farm animals as well. A lot of the products we derive from livestock are medically necessary to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of humans (Insulin, for example). Why should we put the welfare of animals above that of humans? Hell a lot of the waste products derived from livestock are critically important to the continued sustainability of farms. The only other way to get a lot of the elements necessary for agriculture is to mine them. Doing so harms the environment far more then livestock ever will. Its also completely unsustainable as a lot of those materials are quite simply running out.[/QUOTE] Killing deer to balance natural makes a small part of the animals harmed by humans. Whether vegans like it or not, humans are a part of the natural order. I may have a distaste for it, but I can understand if deer need to be hunted for the greater good. I don't have a problem with people eating meat from animals in that case, although I would personally abstain (because I've lost my taste for meat.) I do believe deer have a right to live, but I don't have a fix-all solution for this problem. Working to curb our hunting of natural predators and attempting to reintroduce them into nature could work, but logistics aside, can it really be called an ethical solution? I don't have an easy answer for that question. The medical and other necessities derived from animal products can't be ignored, not even by vegans. There may not be an easy answer for how to solve these problems in modern day. I think we may have to wait until a time comes when alternatives to these animal derivatives become available before we can cut them out entirely. I think insulin actually serves as a good example of this. "Human Insulin" is an alternative to insulin that sprouted up in the last few decades. It's made without animal pancreases and is a cheaper and a more sustainable form of insulin as far as I know. However, medical necessities aren't the primary reason for raising livestock. If we were only slaughtering animals for those reasons, I'd consider it a success for animal rights, and the environment. We raise most of our livestock for meat, leather and such. They might be luxuries, and important for the economy and way of life in modern america, but they aren't necessities the way insulin is. Could you explain the comment about the elements for agriculture from animals? I'm not sure what you are referring to.

[QUOTE=Aztec;51453859]I think the misconception here is viewing veganism as a social ideology and not an individual choice. I'm a vegan because I live in a society where I don't have to worry about bears eating me. If I didn't live in this society I wouldn't be vegan. I don't eat deer meat because I don't want to consume animal products and I don't want to be morally responsible for the human killing of an animal. Anything beyond that is not something that I consider my moral responsibility.[/QUOTE] What about killing an animal specifically is immoral though? That's the real question. Animals with developed neural systems I understand. Something like mussels I don't understand. They're animals by our definitions, and distantly related to some really cool and really developed organisms. Mytilus edulis doesn't appear to even remotely have the capacity to experience pain however. Farming them in our oceans is pretty objectively beneficial to the health of the oceans. EDIT: If you eat plants, you're inevitably contributing to the contamination and destruction of our waterways and oceans through agricultural runoff. Farming mussels directly combats these pollutants and others. These pollutants are severe enough to kill off whole reefs, starve coastal areas of oxygen, and in some case promote the growth of dinoflagellates that produce some of the most toxic substances known to man.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51453912]What about killing an animal specifically is immoral though? That's the real question. Animals with developed neural systems I understand. Something like mussels I don't understand. They're animals by our definitions, and distantly related to some really cool and really developed organisms. Mytilus edulis doesn't appear to even remotely have the capacity to experience pain however. Farming them in our oceans is pretty objectively beneficial to the health of the oceans. EDIT: If you eat plants, you're inevitably contributing to the contamination and destruction of our waterways and oceans through agricultural runoff. Farming mussels directly combats these pollutants and others. These pollutants are severe enough to kill off whole reefs, starve coastal areas of oxygen, and in some case promote the growth of dinoflagellates that produce some of the most toxic substances known to man.[/QUOTE] If mussels are a special case for eating animals without suffering and it can be proven to be a special case then that's good. It's still my individual choice not to consume them.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51450943]You really think cows are slaughtered for the express purpose of making £5 bills? They're being bred and killed for their meat in the first place, the government only put to use byproducts that wouldn't be used otherwise, they don't contribute to the demand. You think wasting animal materials would be more ethically sound? [/QUOTE] Wasting animal materials is not more ethically sound but the requirement of tarrow only adds to the demand. While it's a solid argument that "if the animal is dead, it's best not to waste any bit of it", but this is given that the cow is dead already and - guess what - vegans are against the raising/killing of the animal, not the use of the materials from a dead animal. [QUOTE=_Axel;51450943]You can't put animals and humans in the same moral framework. The reason killing humans is considered immoral is because empathy towards other humans is what helped build society to what it is now. Save for a handful of domesticated ones, that's not the case for animals, and in the wild there isn't any notion of morality, so why should we project our human notions on non-human beings? If you subscribe to the notion of morality being universal, then every being should not only benefit from the rights it grants but also be ascribed to the duties it requires. It means that if you consider killing an animal to eat it to be immoral, then you have to impose that rule to every animal, which includes predators (some of which even hunt just for fun, like cats). And no, not having sufficient intelligence to understand that something you do is wrong doesn't make it right. If that were the case we wouldn't consider mentally ill people who murder others to be in the wrong. We may not prosecute them, but we still commit them to mental health institutes to ensure they don't continue harming people. Do you think that's something we should enforce on natural predators? Isolate them from the rest because they don't have the mental capacity to overcome their instincts?[/quote] We don't prosecute the mentally ill though. An insanity plea is not an admission of guilt by any stretch of the imagination. Them being committed is not the same as them being killed and eaten. In addition, wild cows are not murderous and pose no harm to people - but even if they did, it's not like we can fault them. They're insane, from a human perspective. Once again, the reason for veganism is to imbue agency on those that cannot speak. The moral principle being ascribed to, by vegans, is to avoid causing pain. Here are some creatures that cannot ascribe to "moral duty" immediately: - Infants - People currently asleep - People in vegetative states or comas - People with developmental disorders (ie. Down's syndrome) - People with highly affective mental disorders (ie. schizoid disorders, memory disorders) But we still grant them moral decency. If they were to murder in their current state we don't charge them. This is because as humans we sympathize with receiving pain. All that veganism does is extend sympathy to all things that feel pain. [QUOTE=_Axel;51450943] Uuuh... Which is it? You criticize people for only caring about human genocide and you want to reduce animal genocide yet you don't care about animal genocide? You know what the point of pain is, right? To be able to detect and avoid dangerous situations and eventually propagate your genetic legacy. Same reason animals (and us) have a reproductive instinct. If you don't care about preserving the species you want to protect, what's the point of caring about their pain in the first place? That's like saying forcibly getting into a stranger's house isn't breaking and entering if you bypass the alarm. You say you act in the stead of animals who can't speak for themselves, yet you support their species' extinction. Do you really think that's to their benefit? Isn't forced sterilization considered a human rights abuse? If you think we should consider animals to be as or almost as morally deserving as we are, why do you support something that would basically have the same result? Your ethical reasoning is all over the place. I'm fine with people doing things based on their personal beliefs, and I have nothing against veganism and even agree with the environmentalist arguments for it, but don't go around saying people support animal genocide and concentration camps when the logic behind your saying so is inconsistent.[/QUOTE] It's not preservation that vegans want, it's a lack of pain. I truly believe that if cows could speak, they would want death in their current state. It's the exact same argument as euthanasia in that their death would be more pleasant than countless generations' deaths after them. I also believe that fetuses with horrible genetic abnormalities should be aborted, for their own sake, and this is in line with that. In a human-centric mindset, let's say you know of a person who would 100% definitely be abused by their parents and their parents would force them to have children and 100% abuse those children to the point of their death (but not before they had children ad infinitum). Assuming I can't alter the parent or arrest them etc., I condone killing that child, in the same way I condone killing factory farmed animals. It's a form of euthanasia. Euthanasia is not torture - the animals' existence is torture to them. By endorsing the products of factory farms, you are increasing demand, whether it's visible to you or not. [editline]30th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=1legmidget;51450717]What about mussels and oysters?[/QUOTE] It's a very interesting argument. I err on the side of caution when it comes to near-mindless creatures that do have a nervous system (mussels, oysters, scallops, jellyfish, worms, etc). For example, because we can split a worm in two and have both parts be separately sentient - is it a robot or an animal? Does it actually feel pain? Does it understand the signals its getting when it gets cut in half? Until it's clearly defined I won't eat them. If it gets clearly defined that they don't feel pain, of course I'd eat them!

[QUOTE=Aztec;51453946]If mussels are a special case for eating animals without suffering and it can be proven to be a special case then that's good. It's still my individual choice not to consume them.[/QUOTE] You can choose not to consume them if you so desire. If you simply didn't like the taste that would be reasonable enough. No one can really control what taste buds they're born with. Most of the arguments that dictate eating beef is unethical or immoral pretty well indicate that eating mussels is actually moral and ethical, and it may even be the case that refusing to eat them is immoral and unethical.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51451761]Personally I don't give a fuck what the next guy chooses to eat, why do most vegans come across as holier than thou whiny, preachy cunts?[/QUOTE] Because you get shit like this: [QUOTE=Exploders;51446795]Found the vegan[/QUOTE] With 194 stars, all it says is "i hate vegans" without actually defending any point. It's baseless hate for (from my perspective) a truly ethical action.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51453978]You can choose not to consume them if you so desire. If you simply didn't like the taste that would be reasonable enough. No one can really control what taste buds they're born with. Most of the arguments that dictate eating beef is unethical or immoral pretty well indicate that eating mussels is actually moral and ethical, and it may even be the case that refusing to eat them is immoral and unethical.[/QUOTE] Again you are thinking about veganism wrong. If my abstaining from eating an animal causes the overall animal population to suffer is beyond my responsibility. I was not the one who caused the ecological disasters that caused things like legal big game hunting, deer hunting, and population control to become a necessity. I don't consider myself an activist for making a dietary change, I simply don't want to be personally complicit in the killing of animals. Animals going extinct for environmental reasons is not my my moral responsibility because I did not cause the environmental changes that they are suffering from.

[QUOTE=Disseminate;51453964] It's a very interesting argument. I err on the side of caution when it comes to near-mindless creatures that do have a nervous system (mussels, oysters, scallops, jellyfish, worms, etc).[/QUOTE] A nervous system itself isn't indicative of a mind. It's a way for organized tissues to communicate and respond to stimuli, but a mind is far more complex than the three pairs of neural ganglia mussels posses. I've yet to see a single study indicating behavioral or neural response to tissue damage in mussels. They may have opioid receptors, but the genes involved are weird and it looks like the receptors function through their immune system rather than their neural network. Other bivalves might be more complex. [QUOTE] For example, because we can split a worm in two and have both parts be separately sentient - is it a robot or an animal? Does it actually feel pain? Does it understand the signals its getting when it gets cut in half?[/QUOTE] A lot of worms actually have brains, which is a sharp contrast to mussels. Without knowing which type of worm you're talking about things are hard to talk about. Some earthworms have the capacity to regenerate some parts of their body. I don't think both of the two halves in your example are probably capable of something like sentience, but sentience is a different question entirely from feeling pain or having the capacity to suffer. The half with the brain would be more capable than the half without by most metrics. Things get even weirder with organisms like octopuses, because they sort of have a 'distributed brain' if you will. That's one of the reasons they make terrible pets. neural ganglia will fail independently, leaving parts of the octopus neurally dead at different times, often over the span of months. Other organisms will often feed on these tentacles and eat the octopus alive with essentially no awareness or intervention on the octopus' part. They're truly fascinating creatures. [QUOTE] Until it's clearly defined I won't eat them. If it gets clearly defined that they don't feel pain, of course I'd eat them![/QUOTE] Mussels are damn near nature's lab meat from an ethical perspective. If you're cool with lab grown meat conceptually they're an excellent option. They might also help keep vegans and vegetarians pursuing the lifestyle, as the main reason people turn away from it all appears to be health concerns. Most of the main health needs people face can be met by mussels. B12, PUFAs, heme-bound iron, etc. etc. [QUOTE=Aztec;51454009]Again you are thinking about veganism wrong.[/QUOTE] There's no single interpretation of veganism. Maybe I'm thinking about [I]your[/I] veganism wrong, but as of yet I'm more convinced that your views, motivations, and actions are inconsistent. [QUOTE] If my abstaining from eating an animal causes the overall animal population to suffer is beyond my responsibility. I was not the one who caused the ecological disasters that caused things like legal big game hunting, deer hunting, and population control to become a necessity.[/QUOTE] You do choose to eat farmed plants though, and those farms do have problems with runoff, and that runoff is causing problems in the oceans as well as rivers, lakes, and streams. The same can be argued if you poop. [QUOTE]I don't consider myself an activist for making a dietary change, I simply don't want to be personally complicit in the killing of animals.[/QUOTE] Which animals and why though? How distant does your action have to be for you to feel personally absolved of killing an animal? [QUOTE]Animals going extinct for environmental reasons is not my my moral responsibility because I did not cause the environmental changes that they are suffering from.[/QUOTE] Are you not familiar with the Gulf of Mexico deadzone? You're contributing to that every time you eat food grown in the US. I didn't cause factory farming of animals. Should I absolve myself of all of their ills because I'm not the one doing the farming and killing?