What about insects?

[TheOmnivoreAtheist]

What's the difference between killing an ant vs. killing a cow? Do you guys avoid killing insects? What about microorganisms?

[EquALLity]

Hello and welcome- you should make an intro!

Cows are more sentient than ants, and cows don't invade homes, sneak into cabinets and get in all the food.

Microorganisms aren't sentient at all. Just like it doesn't make sense to say that picking fruit is as wrong as killing a cow (and abusing the cow his or her entire life), it doesn't make sense to equate cows to microorganisms.

Have you seen this?: http://www.peta.org/videos/meet-your-meat/

[miniboes]

To better understand EquALLity's points you might want to check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDHfp0YD3l0#t=325

Basically, sentience is not a yes-or-no thing: an ant is not of equal sentience as a cow, a cow is much more capable of suffering.

[brimstoneSalad]

As others have said, cows do not equal insects, insects do not equal humans, humans do not equal cows. All animals are not equal in sentience. Some are more or less sentient than others. Sentience is roughly proportional to brain size.

Who told you otherwise?

I avoid killing insects if they aren't causing me or others any trouble (why would you go out of your way to kill something for fun?).
I do not avoid killing mosquitoes and other disease vectors.

If you have an infestation, you can feel assured in protecting your health by eliminating them.
Just as if you had a bunch of human vagrants rummaging through your kitchen and eating all of your food and pooping everywhere and coughing on you to make you sick, you'd be within your "rights" to drive them from your home by whatever means you must employ.

It's wrong to kill, but sometimes it's a justified wrong.

[Katrik]

You will have to forgive me if I misrepresent your beliefs here, but I am not entirely certain where vegans stand on this, and am genuinely seeking to find out.

There was a story I had seen a while back about a vegan who was interested in finding a better source of protein. Of course he was recommended various vegan options for such, however he decided he had an issue with using this food since the very process of farming and transporting said food would result in the death of at least hundreds, if not thousands of insects due to pesticides used in agriculture. According to the story, he came up with the idea of perhaps cultivating meal worms in his back yard and cooking them. Of course this would be against vegan ideals as this is essentially keeping livestock for the purpose of food. His argument was that in the process of getting the protein he desired fewer net deaths would be required.

Of course this gets me wondering. Surely if the idea behind veganism is to cut back on what you see as unnecessary animal suffering, then shouldn't his idea of eating mealworms be good if it results in fewer deaths? If so, why is it wrong to cut the number of deaths down further by instead of killing a bunch of mealworms to simply kill 1 chicken? If not, then why is it better to cause more deaths just to avoid consuming an animal?

I see that some of you have said that animals such as cows are "more sentient" than insects, however I do not see how you have concluded this. How does one objectively measure how sentient something is?

[miniboes]

Of course this gets me wondering. Surely if the idea behind veganism is to cut back on what you see as unnecessary animal suffering, then shouldn't his idea of eating mealworms be good if it results in fewer deaths? If so, why is it wrong to cut the number of deaths down further by instead of killing a bunch of mealworms to simply kill 1 chicken? If not, then why is it better to cause more deaths just to avoid consuming an animal?

I will not respond to your first question, as I am not sure. I'm sure someone else can come up with a better answer. The hidden premise in your argument is that the ethical choice is the one that results in the fewest deaths. That, however, is untrue. The well-being of sentient creatures is what matters, not the length of their lives. Using deaths as a measurement is extremely lacking, as it leaves us with countless questions that we cannot answer.

Arguing from death:
Is it wrong to steal an old lady's purse? Not really, it doesn't kill her.
Is it wrong to rape a woman? Not really, it doesn't kill her.
What is worse, to torture someone for a hundred years or to kill them immediately? The second, killing is wrong!
Is it better to torture someone for fifty or a hundred years? It's equal, nobody dies.

Arguing from well-being:
Is it wrong to steal an old lady's purse? Yes, as she suffers from it.
Is it wrong to rape a woman? Yes, as she suffers from it.
What is worse, to torture someone for a hundred years or to kill them immediately? The first, as it causes far greater suffering.
Is it better to torture someone for 50 or a 100 years? A hundred years, more suffering.

The one chicken suffers way more than all the meal worms combined, and plants are required to feed it. Therefore, all the downsides of eating plants apply to eating animals. In fact, we need more grain for eating animals than we do for eating grain.

I see that some of you have said that animals such as cows are "more sentient" than insects, however I do not see how you have concluded this. How does one objectively measure how sentient something is?

Again, i'll leave this to someone else. I know quite little of biology.

[brimstoneSalad]

I see that some of you have said that animals such as cows are "more sentient" than insects, however I do not see how you have concluded this. How does one objectively measure how sentient something is?

Sentience can be measured in terms of operant conditioning, a form of associative learning which proves will and a basic understanding of the self and consequence.
Crudely, an organism that is smarter is more sentient. It's a matter of processing power in the brain. Sentience is roughly proportional to some sort of "IQ", although not necessarily IQ as we currently measure it.

As cognitive neuroscience advances, we will be able to determine more exactly these numbers. At current, we can only make broad generalizations.

We know that cows are more sentient than worms. This is not something that's controversial. But how does a cow and a dog compare? This is more of a grey area.

Do you understand the concept of margin or error, or "error bars"?

You have expressed a failure to understand the concept of gradation multiple times. This is a very important notion to understand.

His argument was that in the process of getting the protein he desired fewer net deaths would be required.

Only crazy vegans who have a dogmatic rights based mentality and irrationally believe that all animals are equal in moral value -- "a worm is an insect is a mouse is a cow is a pig is a human" -- go on about blindly counting deaths like that.

As miniboes explained, the issue is not simply death. Most death in plant cultivation are insects like aphids, or eggs that have been inhibited from developing.

If it's right for him to eat mealworms, it's right because they are only barely sentient, and it's causing less harm by doing so compared to the harm against sentient will caused by the best alternative.
However, this is not evident from your description.

What are the mealworms eating?
Did you even think of this?
Mealworms are not magical creatures that eat fresh air and sunlight and grow fat from the bountiful Qi flowing through the aether.
Do you have any concept of thermodynamics whatsoever?

The mealworms were fed plants. Very likely grains and beans which he purchased to feed them, and were grown on a farm where insects were killed to produce them.

Eating the mealworms instead of the plants that the mealworms ate provides less protein. It's more efficient to just eat the plants directly.

The only animal products I know of that may be more friendly in terms of "less deaths" are rope grown oysters. They are filter feeders (so do not need to be fed agricultural products), and also are probably not sentient.
See this article:
http://sentientist.org/2013/05/20/the-e ... d-mussels/

I would also ask about the ropes, but that's a minor issue and probably not of much consequence. If you want to eat rope grown oysters, go for it. This is called Bivalveganism, or oyster-vegan, or something along those lines.

If so, why is it wrong to cut the number of deaths down further by instead of killing a bunch of mealworms to simply kill 1 chicken? If not, then why is it better to cause more deaths just to avoid consuming an animal?

It isn't always; see oysters, above. There are no other exceptions I know of.

As mealworms do not compare favorably to oysters, chickens are even worse compared to mealworms.
Chickens are pretty much the worst thing you could possibly eat in terms of animal suffering.

In addition to the simple fact that animals are fed plants (except for rope grown oysters, which filter feed from the environment and are are harvested without significant bycatch), you need to learn about varying levels of efficiency.

Insects are much more efficient than chickens. Still wasteful, yes, but less so.

Insects have a higher feed conversion ratio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio
As well, a larger percentage of their body mass is considered "edible", and contains a high percentage of protein.

If you were a psychopath who thought all living beings were equal, you still shouldn't eat chicken over insects, because by doing so you'd be killing more insects. And you STILL shouldn't even eat insects over plants, because feeding the insects plants (and then killing them) kills more insects than killed in plant cultivation.

[Lightningman_42]

Only crazy vegans who have a dogmatic rights-based mentality and irrationally believe that all animals are equal in moral value -- "a worm is an insect is a mouse is a cow is a pig is a human" -- go on about blindly counting deaths like that.

Gary Francione has repeatedly insisted that all animals have equal moral worth, but I don't understand why anyone would even believe that this notion is necessary in order to promote veganism. If anything this does a disservice to the vegan movement by causing confusion about what the vegan movement is actually about (avoiding harm towards animals as much as possible while promoting alternatives to common animal-uses; not placing all animals on equal moral footing). I thought that Francione, oddly enough, made some pretty good logical arguments in favor of veganism in his book Eat Like You Care, that were based upon all sentient animals having at least some moral worth, without pushing the ridiculous notion that all animals have equal moral worth. It's almost like he realizes that some of his beliefs are irrational, and therefore are unwise to promote (in his book at least, but otherwise he does it anyways).

Why do any vegan advocates feel that this "worm=insect=mouse=cow=pig=human" concept is necessary to promote veganism? It's not. If anything it's problematic because it would make it more difficult to discern the proper courses of action in moral dilemmas that involve conflicts of interest between animals.

[riddler]

A simple and kind world is separated into animal, vegetable and mineral. Love the animals, eat the vegetables and wear the minerals. You are wasting your time to focus on the animal subset of insects. Just don't intentionally hurt them. I capture and carry spiders outside. I humanely trap rats and transport them to a park. I keep a natural landscape that does not require fertilizer. I let the moles build mounds. I don't bait for slugs. I am sure I inadvertently step on and run over small bugs, and for that I am ever sorry. I wish I had no harmful footprint, but, sadly, I do.

Be kind. Walk the talk. Examine your choices. Inspire others.

[stupidmeateater]

hi!
(english isnt my first language)
I watched a video of veganatheist on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6RkrbrCzbg .
I watched it several times, I read the posts here but I just dont understand his concept. I would really apprechiate if someone could answer my following questions, or give me a link (I guess my questions are asked quite often).
at 5:00 he says: "scentience is where we draw the line"
here someone posted this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDHfp0YD3l0#t=325 , basically saying that there is no line.
at 5:56 he says that animals with less scentience, should have the same "rights" as animals with higher sentience, which is the complete opposite of some posts made here (e.g. by brimstonesalate).
at: 2:36 he says that animals are not resources, but plants are.

1) What gives you the morale justification to draw a line, where do you draw it, and why are you excluding plants (are you certain that there is no plant, which has at least the same "amount" of scentience than an insect, and even if a plant has less sentience than a worm, why does 5:56 not apply to all living beings / why are plants resources)?
2) is there any justification to kill (or exploit) a scentient being?
3) if a find a dead cow, can i eat it; if a cow is pregnant, can i drink its milk, or is that exploiting the cow?

thanks!

p.s. my father was a beekeeper, so I worked a lot with bees (and i therefore i hate honey). Im really shocked about his comments on bees in this video. Every single claim is just plain wrong. He has absolutely no idea what hes talking about. His comments on varroa shellshocked me. He doesnt know anything about varroa. His arguments sounded to me like the anti vaccinations arguments. horrific!