If we’re speaking in pure hypotheticals, then to me personally, if you raise the animal like you would a pet, then at the end of their life when they die naturally, if you butchered the remains, cooked it, and ate it, that would fall under my definition of vegan. But as you indicated, that’s going to depend on each vegan’s definition.

However, my point still stands that animals who die of natural causes are generally not healthy in the end. Think of elderly humans. They either die due to disease or cancer, or they are skin and bones, right?

There’s a reason animals are slaughtered earlier in their lives. Part of it is quicker turnaround on profit, but part of it is the quality of the meat.

Since I answered your question, I’d like to ask you one: what’s the difference between eating a pig and eating a dog?

If the pig dies naturally, you probably don’t want to eat it, right? Because it was either from disease, or it’ll be a really un-tasty pig 🤷‍♂️

Those scenarios fall under the “as far as possible and practical” clause. Plants and fungi need insects to pollinate them, and microorganisms for nutrients. Veganism isn’t a death-cult, so we have to eat something. Therefore, those insects and microorganisms are necessary.

Ditto for immune system and hand sanitizer. They are necessary parts of being human.

Another common one to ask about is animals killed in the process of farming, such as field mice that are caught in machinery. I also recognize those as necessary in the current system, but I do grow some of my own food as a small way to minimize those things, and I believe that if more people cared, we could eliminate that problem. But it’s not something in my power, so I must classify it under the “as far as possible and practical” clause.

Another is animals that die as a result of roads. My answer to that one is /c/fuckcars

Vegan here. Interesting question! I think you’re going to get a different answer depending on the vegan you talk to. Personally, this is the definition of veganism I subscribe to:

“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

By that definition, for me, it is not vegan. If the VFT has been grown by humans, and fed insects, then that is non-vegan, because there was a lot of animal suffering that went into growing that VFT. Furthermore, VFTs are not required for sustaining the human body, so the only reason to do this is for human pleasure or something.

Edit to add: if the VFT was found in nature, I probably still wouldn’t consume it, because 1) I don’t even know if VFTs are edible 2) if they are, I’ve got better food with me that probably caused less animal suffering, and are less morally ambiguous.

I think you made a typo in your first sentence. I think you meant to say it’s non-vegan in that scenario.

I also highly recommend the audibook

Not all Amish view technology as entirely something against their religion. Peter Santenello has a bunch of great videos where he interviews Amish people and understands their culture. This is a good one on that topic: https://youtu.be/EgY1SVXiBrU?si=E2zTNOhQxm6Qcgff

Whoa, this works on Android too. I had no idea you could do that! Thanks for the tip!

Look up to the skies and see