• Cethin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    17
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It’s not an argument. It was a consideration that should be weighed if you’re being consistent. Your response is not accurate though. You’re referring to most farmed animals. Bees do not require this and is what the post is about. There are many animal products that do less harm than plant products. Farming plants requires large areas of land to be cleared for farming and replaced with what is likely not a native species. This can’t be good for native animals. If you’re comparing the harm done by almonds and honey, honey is almost certainly better for harm reduction, yet it’s an animal product, not a plant product.

    • @Jtotheb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      many animal products that do less harm than plant products

      Can you cite some other than honey? Animal products require animals which mostly require, well, plants. Plants that cause harm in the exact way you described. And more of them than just humans eating the crops directly. More than 60% of animal biomass on the planet right now is livestock, so bees seem practically irrelevant to the issue.

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 month ago

        I would say probably free-range goat milk is pretty harm free, where the goats just eat grasses that are already there natively. Probably some other milks too. The quantities that this exists in is much lower than factory cows milk, or even milk alternatives, but they can exist. I can’t think of any other animal food item that doesn’t require butchering, which I’m sure you wouldn’t consider regardless of how well the animal is treated before death, but I’d consider comparing it to other sources of food.

        Bees are relevant because it’s what the thread is about. The conversation was about bees and honey. Sure, most other farmed livestock isn’t good. We aren’t in disagreement about that so I don’t know why you keep referencing that. My point was harm should be the consideration of vegans, not where it comes from. Who cares if it’s from an animal, plant, or fungus if the net harm is worse than other sources?

        • @Jtotheb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Bee point taken, I should have said something like ‘a drop in the bucket’, the point I intended to convey is that they don’t really advance the argument that there are many such animal products. Nor does saying oh and some goat milk. That statement of yours is what I specifically disagreed with.

          The point about quantities, that’s my point too. Farmers in the Patagonia region may be able to sustainably eat meat, drink ethical milk, whatever. Not people in the US, not in most of Europe. Yeah, so I actually just bought a huge container of local honey from our local grocer, maybe two hours ago. I don’t cut honey out. But that’s not grounds for me to claim there are a bunch of other animal products that are also better than eating some nuts and beans for protein. Honey seems more like the exception that proves the rule.

          • Cethin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 month ago

            Yeah, for sure I agree the quantities aren’t there to be a replacement, and it seems like we agree that harm is the thing to consider, not really the source.

        • @Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 month ago

          If you need to force impregnate the goats and then take their children away so you can take the milk instead, then its not harm free.

          How would you consistently get milk from wild goats who happen to be have given birth but somehow don’t have children that need it?