Sadly too many are. I think the vegan community should come together and provide homes for these people. They need support.

Another fact is plant based food is generally cheaper so its possible homeless people find it easier to become vegan if theyre already used to eating that way

I guess I’m just noticing a trend of a lot of vegans being homeless. I have theories but nothing solid. I think maybe people who face hardship like homelessness are more likely to empathize with other unfortunate individuals like the nonhuman animals that humans kill & exploit. In that case I guess it would be a matter of “why are so many homeless people vegan” rather than vice versa. But I think it’s also unfortunately possible that ethical vegans can end up isolated or struggling socially given how people around us don’t tend to understand our view and it can lead to conflicts or in some cases parting ways with family & friends who we can’t get along with anymore. Luckily that hasn’t been the case for me but I know several vegans for whom that has happened. Also, it’s a counterculture movement of sorts so I think it can tend to attract people who don’t fit into mainstream society and some live unconventional lives or career choices in general. Another real consideration is that some vegans try to pursue a career in animal rights and fail to find proper employment given the limited options, or don’t want to work anywhere that serves animals which rules out a lot of food & hospitality jobs.

Just personal experience. I know a lot of homeless vegans. Maybe the proportion isn’t higher than that of non vegans, but I feel like it might be given how few of us there are and how many seem to be homeless or end up homeless.

We would decrease plant cultivation as a result of decreasing animal exploitation within the agricultural sector. Far more plants are needed, and land cleared, in an animal based system than a plant based one. There would be no offset. Plant agriculture is, in part, a downstream effect of animal “agriculture”.

Don’t forget the wildlife issue is multifactorial. You have the impact of animal agriculture on the climate & Earth’s natural ecosystems, ghgs, pollution, land/water/crop/resource use, deforestation, habitat destruction, species extinction, etc (all of which harms and threatens most life on Earth including humans)… but more directly not only do humans wipe out wild animal populations in order to protect “livestock” farming operations (that disturbing irony of “farmers heroically saving the animals from danger so that they can kill them later”…) but then also use that to vindicate the killing of the other animals that become more densely populated as a result of humans’ prior disruption to the balance of the various species within the ecosystem. So it’s literally… killing animals to kill animals to kill animals. E.g. killing the deers in order to kill the foxes/bears in order to kill the cows/pigs/chickens …violence begets violence

Excellent. https://tv.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/c003c5c2-db6f-457b-90a5-7ee499cb17fb/gif

I like that. “Accustomed to a taste” is so true as well and hits the nail on the head. Rather than “because it’s tasty to eat animal products” it’s more acknowledging that it’s just a habit they’re used to and they could just as easily develop a taste for many plant-based foods.

Someone who worked at a sanctuary: “Animals are so much cooler when they’re alive and chilling, you should see them.” 😭

Pretty much entirely my intuitions and limited anecdotal experience with testing out these responses lol. I should clarify I’m definitely not suggesting I know for certain which ways to answer the question would cause less abrasive reactions on average; that’s what I’m trying to find out. Usually I just say something vague like “It’s something… that I kind of fell into over a period of time.” which I feel disappointed in myself about and like I’m letting the animals down for not saying how I really feel or my true reasoning (in an as polite and nonconfrontational way as possible).

This is a good one. I’ve heard also “Vegan because I’m trying to reduce the disutility I cause” or “harm reduction” etc. I think it can be effective because it doesn’t specify anything and lets them interpret it for themselves so they can’t really blame you for what comes to mind for them. If you want to be more specific you can say toward animals & the environment etc. The only problem is that I’m not really a utilitarian (lean more toward deontology) and my reasons for being vegan are less to do with that and more about an intention of respect for animals to not participate in actions or systems which I deem to be unethical/in disagreement with my values, rather than necessarily the benefit it causes or harm it reduces - so for me to say this is kind of dishonest as to my real values in relation to veganism, even if it can be a convincing argument for it. And while most probably won’t, some could take advantage of this and make an attempt at a counter-argument against veganism using a utilitarian calculus at some kind (which is probably misguided, but then prompts you to defend your stance anyway - and can get very protracted). Or they can make the causal inefficacy claim, which is pretty much an argument that being vegan doesn’t actually make a difference or reduce disutility/lower the amount of animal agriculture/exploitation & slaughter that happens because of nebulous market forces (or because they don’t understand supply & demand). Again one can argue against this but that’s not what I want to do if I’m just trying to enjoy the social setting peacefully. I really like this response though and maybe I misinterpreted what you meant by it, either way the unprompted acknowledgment that you’re not perfect like everyone (far from it) but you just want to be less shitty in this one way or you’re trying to be more principled or whatever, could be very successful at disarming them/lowering their guard down by making them feel less personally attacked or inadequate by comparison or whatever they’re feeling that makes them so hostile sometimes.

Wow that is a strange coincidence 🤔🧐

Lol, yeah Eisel is a bit of a mixed bag. Quite a controversial figure in the vegan community who many disagree with on a lot of things. But I think the actions he advocates for are probably positive for the most part (not destroying nature, not exploiting animals etc, even extending that further than a lot of vegans will by saying we shouldn’t own pets etc), even if his views, ideas and expressions can be problematic. I agree that part especially at the end about saying non-human animals are “mindless” didn’t sit well with me, and the implication that their lives aren’t very meaningful. It also continually surprises me that he actually cares about not harming/using animals given how lowly he sometimes speaks of them in comparison to humans and how focused he is on the supposed greatness/potential of humanity and civilisation. For him, veganism/animal rights is a “civilising mission” for humanity to stop doing barbaric things for the good of our own evolution, as much as or perhaps even more than it is for the good of the animals themselves. I think you’re right that it’s a more than slightly egoistic and anthropocentric perspective for sure. But again, at least he seems to place some value on non-human animals sufficiently to the degree that he maintains it’s not acceptable to abuse them, and holds fairly high standards for that comparably to his standards for human rights. I primarily mention him in the topic of this post as one of the only people I’m aware of actively speaking out about the concept of petism / pet ownership and why vegans/animal liberationists shouldn’t support it, rather than for his other musings. He rarely focuses on one point at a time and usually drags in multiple other topics into the discussion, lol, so it’s hard to find him talking exclusively on that issue for reference. Like you said his book quotes are pretty eloquent.

I would generally agree plastic = bad in most cases, though it’s probably an unavoidable necessity for our modern world. It should be reduced where possible. However, plastic = bad doesn’t change the fact that animal farming is usually far worse for the environment.

There are 2 “organic” alternatives to synthetic leather (aside from not buying any of them) : plant-based leather or animal-based leather (which is not exactly completely organic or natural considering the plastic coating and chemicals used to preserve and produce it). 1 is better than synthetic leather and 1 is worse. I’ll let you work out which is which :) Spoiler: plant-based comes out on top

Also, leather uses plastic coating. A fact many people don’t know. It’s also dead flesh that’s been heavily preserved with chemicals in order to not decompose and to remain usable. It’s far from the natural product people would have us believe. Keep in mind the massive size of the industry and propaganda similar to the meat and dairy industries which it’s directly connected to.

Setting aside plant-based leather which is definitely more eco friendly than animal leather (and the fact most of the ways in which leather are used are wholly unnecessary to begin with), I don’t agree that synthetic leather is worse for the environment. In fact it seems like it’s still a lot better than leather products.

A 2017 report entitled “The Pulse of the Fashion Industry” went into some detail on this subject. Real leather is regarded as being much worse for the environment than faux leather, primarily due to the massive water requirements, fossil fuel usage and contribution to the eutrophication of waterways. The report concluded that synthetic leather has less than half the environmental impact of cow leather and rated cow leather as the least environmentally friendly of the commonly used raw materials in the fashion industry.

This video also goes into some of the reasons why animal leather is so damaging to the environment and why not only plant based leather but even synthetic leather is a lot better: https://youtu.be/x-UGgf7i0qM?si=tcnfiT8wVOj4ii4_

All that aside, veganism is about not exploiting animals, and buying leather definitely does that. By supporting leather you’re supporting beef. There are even some cattle farmers that raise animals specifically for leather. It’s a highly profitable industry and can probably be considered a co-product rather than a byproduct. The ethical thing to do both for animals and the environment is to boycott leather and either avoid any kind if you want to or use plant based or even synthetic leather.

Sorry and I hope we can set this issue to rest since it was not the purpose of my post at all. I’m here to talk about fuggs

This is the true animal rights mindset. Reject petism / mascotism. Animals are not living toys or playthings, they are individuals. They are ends in and of themselves and not merely means to our ends. The pet industry is horrific along with pet ownership itself and all the rights violations, sufferings and deprivations it causes, many of which are overlooked or dismissed by “pet owners” or petists.

Have you listened to or read anything by Eisel Mazard by any chance? His newest livestream touched on the topic (don’t be thrown off by the title, he does talk about petism) https://www.youtube.com/live/SSiVZ0UIwbM .

Lucie Munson also has a good podcast on “pet ownership” and veganism. https://youtu.be/GD-6XJfkF2I

One thing I would say though, I think animals should be referred to as “they” or he/she, rather than “it”. This helps to individualise them and see them as someones and not somethings, individuals vs objects. “The dog was restrained and we chained them/he/her (rather than it).” I believe language can have a powerful effect in how we view other animals leading to how they’re treated societally. For the same reason I reject the use of animals as insults, such as calling a human a pig derogatorily.

Happens on lemmy world too.

In my opinion, lots of posts get removed here which would fall under reasonable (and even important) / valid free speech. So I do think the mods are abusing their censorship ability.

I kind of agree with your last sentence… but that’s why I think this platform doesn’t serve that purpose unfortunately lol. Interesting or radical liberal posts seem to get removed a lot.