Is it vegan to have children?

[EquALLity]

What is this chance? And how does the harm done by them if they don't stay vegan compare to the good done if they do and influence others?
Assuming it's a 75% chance they stop being vegan (which is unlikely, sine they grew up with it -- that's the adult recidivism rate), do you really think that does more harm than the 25% chance they stay vegan and influence others?

How many other people have you influenced so far? How many will you influence in your life?

I'd take an extra billion people on the planet any day if 250 million of them are well informed ethical vegans. That would put our odds of success MUCH higher than they are now.

Looking at the consequences, having kids is probably a very strong net good for vegans.

Again, the 75% is for adults.
What do you think the chances are for vegan kids growing up today?

Hm, good point. Ok, for vegans, I think it's probably good to have kids.

What do you think about non-vegans having kids?

That's four for four, and the next generation too. I think one of them quit temporarily as a rebellious teen, and then returned later on to a plant based diet. They're all influential in their communities, and Rip works with his father and promotes plant based for the next generation.

Well, that's just one family, so I don't think it really means much.

-Puppy and kitten mills are industries plagued with cruelty, having a child is not (it's a choice)

What is that supposed to mean, 'it's a choice'?
Ok, it's a choice. That's kind of meaningless, though. Punching someone in the face is a choice.

[brimstoneSalad]

Like Lomedin said, having a child, you always starts off at a big minus.

That, again, is purely speculative: you're just asserting it's a minus, but you don't know.

There are basically two ways antinatalists assert the harms:

1. That life is not worth living to begin with, because "life is suffering". That is, even for the child.
Which is profoundly arrogant bullshit, to decide for others that their lives are not worth living.

I thought you used to be at least half sensible:

https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... 848#p10848
"Who are we to decide if their lives are not worth living anyway."

Or did you decide it IS your job after all to decide for others that their lives are not worth living?

If you don't like living, and think life is not worth it for you, then you can kill yourself.
As for the rest of us, we mainly appreciate being alive, so antinatalists can fuck off with their "it would be better had you never been born" arguments.

2. The harm we cause others by living is greater than the good we do.

Societal:
Given that most other people seem to, on balance, prefer to live and generally enjoy the social interactions, love, and support their receive from each other, this is a patently absurd argument in a human context.
We make each other's lives happier than we make them miserable, and when we make them more miserable than happy we have a tendency to shuffle our social structures to change that -- this is why things like divorce and the ability to relocate are important (humans harming each other through normal social relationships is only a compelling argument against conservatism that bans separation).

There are socially bad people out there, but they are the exceptions, not the norm, and not the average.

You're accountable for the probable effects of your actions -- the average effect that would reasonably be expected -- not the rare chance of a catastrophe (and neither do you get credit for the rare saint). We never know the outcome of our actions perfectly, so we're only responsible for the probable results.

In this context, it is good (at least for intelligent and well off people) to have children due to the TYPICAL good they'll do for others in the social context, and the contribution they'll make to society.

Inter-Societal:
Most of the worst places on Earth aren't bad because of the actions of those in the developed world, so it's irrelevant to our acts of procreation.
Counter to the ignorant bleeding-heart position, sweat shops in developing countries actually infuse needed money and jobs into their economies in the safest and most sustainable way we know. We HELP these people by hiring them; the jobs aren't good by our standards, but they're better than the alternatives, they create upward mobility, and even reduce the excessive rates of procreation by increasing access to education and birth control in these countries (places that, unlike the developed world, NEED less procreation).

Now for two actual inter-societal harms:
1. Warfare is arguably harmful (although it is not pure harm, and the case that Western countries political actions on poorer countries are on balance more harmful than helpful is not a trivially simple one), and we have a tendency to war-monger (this is also something that is clearly changing). This is a political issue which needs to be overcome by political action. The connection to reproduction (particularly by liberal anti-war individuals) is weak.

2. Global warming is a serious problem, and it's caused by fossil fuel drilling and use, non-GMO rice, and animal agriculture.
It's something that could easily be averted and reversed by using GMO rice, ending animal agriculture, and switching to a nuclear economy: but it's something that's going to take social and political change to make it happen.

Harm to non-human animals
This is legitimate and relatively non-controversial; we all understand that this is a profound tragedy, and the vast majority of this harm comes down to animal agriculture.

Yes, some small number of animals are killed in plant agriculture, but it actually only amounts to 1-2 animals per year for vegans (small and marginally intelligent animals like mice, not large animals like cows, pigs, and chickens).
http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc
For those consuming animal products, we're looking at a harm footprint of more like a hundred and something a year, taking into account smaller animals that are eaten, even more.


NET HARM is still an open question.

Given all of this, even for a conventional carnist consumer, net harm is still an open question.
Comparing societal and inter-societal good against inter-societal harm and harm to non-human animals is not the trivial task you imply it is.

Is a carnist more harmful to the world than the good done?
It's very hard to say. And yet you say it so definitively and with no question.

you always starts off at a big minus.

So cocksure, aren't you? Always? This has yet to be demonstrated. It is conceivable, but not something you can just assume.
There is social scum in the world; there are certain parents in certain situations where this is easier to demonstrate (low IQ, uneducated, drug problems, criminal behavior, socially conservative, support bad politics). Many people shouldn't be having children, but you can't say always.

Your claims get much worse:

The hope is that this child will grow up to not only stay vegan (still at minus),

Really? Still a minus?
How exactly is this?

We've removed the vast majority of harm to non-human animals. We've probably also removed the inter-societal harm by bringing our children up not to support war mongering politics (this is already a change we see happening from the next generation of more liberal carnists). If we've raised them and educated them properly, they're also supporting the necessary social policies we need to avert global warming -- genetic modification, and a shift to nuclear power.

You think a couple hundred mice dying quick deaths after a relatively free and "natural" life in a field is a greater evil than all of the societal and inter-societal good a progressive human being does in a lifetime? And that's not even doing anything special: that's just existing, voting sometimes, having a sensible opinion, and being a good example and a conscientious consumer.

In terms of veganism, in the very least, vegans who stay vegan are likely to influence all of their significant others to reduce meat consumption just by introducing them to the alternatives and vegan perspectives -- zero activism required (bear in mind, I don't recommend that vegans activists or not date non-vegans, but they do and this is another matter).
And mere friend and colleague exposure to more vegans is going to make all of the people they meet in their lifetimes (as long as they aren't insane antinatalists or flat Earthers) see veganism as more normal and accessible.

We may not have solid statistics, but in most vegan-non-vegan couples I've seen, the family shares a vegan meal at least a few times a week: it is absurd to suggest that the harm reduction from this influence on carnists is of a lesser magnitude than the harm caused by the agriculture related deaths from the vegan's food.

Of course a vegan is a positive. Even one who isn't an activist.

From my perspective, it seems so obviously so (and to such a degree) that I'd gladly add another billion people to the planet if just a quarter of them would be vegan. With those numbers, the social normalcy that created would do a world of good.

but also become a vegan activist (still at a minus?)

Well, at least you added a question mark here -- but the fact that you even consider that this could possibly be a minus is asinine.

It takes very little actual activism to offset the total harm done by a vegan over a lifetime.
And this IS something we have statistics on.

http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/ ... alculator/

which I think the possibility of is low, since people have enough trouble just getting by, having a job and all other kinds of responsibilities, and social pressure to be carnist is very high. I tried to explain what I meant in my previous post by the example.

The probability that they'll leaflet a couple weekends in their lives, post animal rights stuff on facebook, or have occasional conversations about the issues is not low: it's pretty much guaranteed, particularly when they're younger.

If you teach your children to be activists, at least until they rebel in their teens, they probability of them being extremely involved activists on the weekends with you and their friends approaches 100% for an effective 5 or so years.

In any case, the better choice is clearly to not have a child if you can adopt,

No, it isn't. Instead, have your own kids and donate that $10,000+ in adoption fees to effective charities.
Adopting is NOT effective altruism, it's a waste of money that could go to other causes, and do much more good than the adoption itself.

And adopting a kid for free (or on the cheap) means an older child, who will likely be much more difficult and have behavioral issues. It's not the same.

Again, look at my post on the differences in adopting a pet from a shelter and adopting a child.
Particularly, if you want a child with an IQ over 95 who will be an effective activist, you have little choice other than having your own.

do more activism yourself,

If you're comparing to the optimal behavior, it's immoral for you to go to a movie, to watch youtube -- to do anything else in this life other than full time activism, and making money to donate to activism.

Not all sub-optimal behaviors are harmful. Having a child and devoting those resources to a child making a good human being for the next generation is a good thing. It may be a lesser good than spending all of those resources on activism instead. But if you condemn a lesser good as an evil, you have to condemn everything humans do that isn't activism as evil.

take care of orphans etc.

That doesn't sound like very effective altruism either. No. That would be extremely selfish, since you apparently reject any behavior that is sub-optimal.
The only thing you're permitted to do is effective activism every waking hour, which means leafleting, and working a high paying job to donate all of your income. You can eat plain beans, take a vitamin, and sleep six hours a night to stay alive to do activism. Except, you apparently think activists may be at a minus too, so really, you're only permitted to kill yourself in an environmentally conscientious way -- according to your reasoning.

I see it as an extremely selfish act to have kids, and if the kid end up doing good for the world, it's a mere coincidence.

It isn't a coincidence; it's probability, and an outcome of how you raised the child, and the child's genetics. It's the result of hard work, not a crap shoot.

We shouldn't encourage people to have kids, nor say it's okay, because of the big risk of ending at a minus. People who want to have kids will use any rationalization they can get and gamble with the lives of animals and the environment.

Again, bullshit. You have no evidence that it would be a minus. Overwhelmingly, it's likely to be a good thing, particularly for intelligent and well educated vegans.
It may be a lesser good than devoting every waking moment of your life to effective altruism, but that doesn't make it evil or harmful.
It's one of the best things most people will do in their lives.

People who don't want to have kids will use any rationalization they can get to shirk their social and moral responsibility to contribute to the next generation at the expense of our society and animals of the future who need those children there to speak for them when we're gone.

I think with the current technology level, if people live like they do today at least in the modern parts of the world, it would be better if we were extinct.

Of course you do. Typical misanthropist. Do you think this makes veganism look good?

[brimstoneSalad]

Hm, good point. Ok, for vegans, I think it's probably good to have kids.

What do you think about non-vegans having kids?

That's a tough question, and I think it depends on the family.

Intelligent carnist parents who are liberal, scientifically literate, and generally well off should probably still have kids. Many of them have a good chance of going vegan (something the parents may see more positively despite not doing it), and even of those who don't, they have a good chance of going into STEM and having a much better chance of doing enough good for the world to offset their harm.

It's one of those unknowns, though.

There are some families we can look at, and it's obvious they should have kids, but for the average middle class centrist family, I'm not sure.

I might have looked at your parents and said "they shouldn't have kids", and yet here you are; and you'll probably do so much good in your lifetime that you'll offset your parents harm and that of all of your siblings.

Well, that's just one family, so I don't think it really means much.

There are other examples. Look at the veg source twins, Nina and Randa.

It would be great if there was a study done on recidivism of people raised vegan. Lacking a study, all we have are public cases.
At least those I know of are compelling.

What is that supposed to mean, 'it's a choice'?

It's a choice of the woman to have children; she's not a breeding slave kept to manufacture babies and treated cruelly.
I mean the conditions of the "breeding"; one is a captive, in a puppy mill, the other is a free human being who has chosen to have children.
Unless we're talking about a Catholic who thinks she'll go to hell for making another choice... that's not cool.

[Anon0045]

No, why would you think that?

Because you're being rude to people who are optimistic, and dismissing arguments without any kind of counterargument beyond your assertion that you have faith that it's harmful.

If I did, that was not intentional. I assume you mean I was rude in this thread?

You're saying people DON'T have good arguments here; so apparently you think a 'bad' argument cancels out a good one.
Or did you misspeak, and do you owe the majority an apology, since there are actually good arguments?

Good and bad is relative and I was making the post out of frustration after watching popular youtube videos. You're really nitpicking here. I will explain myself case by case if need be. The main point I'm focusing on is whether having children will do more harm or less harm. Several arguments are more side-topics, like saying someone is selfish/unselfish, or assuming that the goal is to eradicate the human race or something like that. They don't address the main issue.

And those aren't even the half of them; did you read my post here? https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... 785#p20692

I am planning to respond to this actually. Should have let you know. I thought I'd do it sooner.

We don't have the numbers for the variables, so if you're positive, you'll assume the best, but if you're more of a pessimist like me, you don't.

Which is to say you have no argument whatsoever, and you are operating on faith; so you have no basis to criticize others who are doing the same.

I will respond to your criticism in your latest post regarding the "equation". The very basic idea is that it comes down to whether we should gamble or not. I think not gambling with the lives of others is the responsible thing to do.

You're being RUDE. Unless or until you have the numbers, you shouldn't advocate the kind of certainty (and insults to others who disagree with you) like you are here.
I can respect somebody who does the research and presents some hard data: that's useful. Making assertions is not.

I'm constantly seeing condescending remarks like it's being silly to find the antinatalist arguments compelling even though the counter arguments, as I've tried to epxress in previous post, isn't very compelling themselves.

Antinatalists aren't just making the personal decision not to have children; they claim it is morally wrong for others to have children, and try to guilt and shame others.

They do have a point. Anyone who is convinced that something is unethical may try spread that idea. That's just natural. Ethical vegans want other people to become ethical vegans as well. If they are being too pushy, that's one thing. If they are right or wrong, that's another.

You'd make a good Christian acting like this.
In my view, you owe the majority an apology: that behavior is unacceptable, and you won't make friends acting like that. It's a great way to drive yet another wedge in the vegan community, though: is that what you're trying to do?

How am I the villain for being frustrated by youtube arguments for having children? The frustration comes from for example condescending remarks that antinatalists are silly etc. My reaction wasn't in your face, loud, or anything like that. I expressed frustration, and now you blow it out of proportion, because apparently you strongly disagree with me, and that makes it okay apparently to make me seem like some kind of bully. No one had addressed the main points in this thread either, so it's not like I am dissing anyone on this forum.

Furthermore, and more importantly, you're harming veganism as a whole by promoting this alienating faith based anti-child garbage as a vegan position, because it pushes it more into the fringe and puts people off veganism.
You might as well promote the position that all vegans should just kill themselves, since they can't help but do harm and it's only theoretical that the good we can do while temporarily vegan will offset the harm (you don't have the numbers to prove otherwise, so you should kill yourself, right?).

Recidivism is around 75%. The safe assumption is that you will give up being vegan in a few years and start eating meat again, so you should kill yourself while you're still vegan and before you backslide and become another careless consumer again.

I'm merely bringing this topic up on a vegan forum. That is not the same as promoting antinatalism with veganism. I am all for effective activism.
Yes, people can kill themselves for the greater good, but realistically it's not going to happen because we have instincts to live. It doesn't seem like effective activism either. Would you be inspired by people killing themselves? Those who do not exist are not harmed by still not existing.

Is that a good message for vegans to promote?
Go vegan, then kill yourself.
Do you think that's helpful?

I think it's bullshit, just like antinatalism.

This is worse than the Flat Earth vegans:
https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... f=7&t=1829

I think you are riled up and make strawman arguments.

If you don't know, then just don't take a position on it (and keep your faith to yourself), and don't push people to follow your faith based anti-child agenda. Veganism needs to be about veganism, not piling all of this other speculative garbage on top and making it harder to spread. Veganism should remain primarily neutral on such controversial positions as this.

Don't want to have kids? Then don't have kids and shut up about it.
Want to adopt or foster? Then do that, and raise them vegan to the best of your ability.
Want to have kids? Then do that, and again raise them vegan to the best of your ability.

I support effective activism. It doesn't mean I need to shut about antinatalism and discuss what is ethical or not. Me bringing this up on a forum is not vegan activism. Everything I do is not vegan activism.

[EquALLity]

That's a tough question, and I think it depends on the family.

Intelligent carnist parents who are liberal, scientifically literate, and generally well off should probably still have kids. Many of them have a good chance of going vegan (something the parents may see more positively despite not doing it), and even of those who don't, they have a good chance of going into STEM and having a much better chance of doing enough good for the world to offset their harm.

It's one of those unknowns, though.

There are some families we can look at, and it's obvious they should have kids, but for the average middle class centrist family, I'm not sure.

I agree.

I still think it's better to be a foster parent, but I now agree that having kids as a vegan is a good thing, and that it's also good in many other situations.

I might have looked at your parents and said "they shouldn't have kids", and yet here you are; and you'll probably do so much good in your lifetime that you'll offset your parents harm and that of all of your siblings.

Well, of course, it wasn't likely for me to become a vegan liberal atheist being raised by crazy conservatives. I just got lucky with the Internet.

It's a choice of the woman to have children; she's not a breeding slave kept to manufacture babies and treated cruelly.
I mean the conditions of the "breeding"; one is a captive, in a puppy mill, the other is a free human being who has chosen to have children.
Unless we're talking about a Catholic who thinks she'll go to hell for making another choice... that's not cool.

Ahhh, I see what you're saying.

[Anon0045]

1) There is a good chance the kids won't stay vegan, and in that case, they would discount the good you do by being a vegan (discounting activism).

What is this chance? And how does the harm done by them if they don't stay vegan compare to the good done if they do and influence others?
Assuming it's a 75% chance they stop being vegan (which is unlikely, sine they grew up with it -- that's the adult recidivism rate), do you really think that does more harm than the 25% chance they stay vegan and influence others?

How many other people have you influenced so far? How many will you influence in your life?

I'd take an extra billion people on the planet any day if 250 million of them are well informed ethical vegans. That would put our odds of success MUCH higher than they are now.

Looking at the consequences, having kids is probably a very strong net good for vegans.

Again, the 75% is for adults.
What do you think the chances are for vegan kids growing up today?

We don't have statistics, but famous case studies show remarkable success:
http://www.happyhealthylonglife.com/hap ... styns.html

What's the acid test, here? Are the Esselstyn's adult kids on board with the plant-based diet?

Absolutely! That includes Jane, Ted, Zeb & Rip & the grandkids. And all of them great cooks, as well.

That's four for four, and the next generation too. I think one of them quit temporarily as a rebellious teen, and then returned later on to a plant based diet. They're all influential in their communities, and Rip works with his father and promotes plant based for the next generation.

The example of Eselstyn family seems to be to be a unique case, because there is fame, fortune and respect involved, which people are naturally attracted to. They are also not ethical vegans, right? So the motivations are selfish. I can live with that if it leads to better consequences.

Edit: I made a big embarrassing error in my calculation...
I used 1.75 to be 75% of 2... The rest was fine I think. This means not 0.35 vegan for vegan, but 1.02 or so would go vegan per lifetime vegan counting recidivism rate of 75% and each "life time vegan" (even the counting the those who end up not being vegan) would on average only convince two people to become vegan, which might seem low to begin with. I set the recidivism length to 1 year on average which I am not sure is high or low. According to http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/ ... ecidivism/, about 39% quit after 3 months, 19% 4-11 months (total 58% before a year, and this is about people going vegetarian not necessarily vegan). For this reason, it is reasonable to even lower the recidivism "time" which would lead to less people being vegan.

The formula: rxy + (1-r)x + (rxy)^2 + 2rxy(1-r)x + x^2(1-r)^2 + (rxy)^3 + 3(...) + 3(...) + ((1-r)x)^3 + ... = number of people convinced by 1 vegan and stay a lifetime vegan,
where x= amount of people convinced by veganism by a vegan, r = recidivism rate at 75%, y = 1/80, which is the lifetime divided by average lifespan. This is probably less than 1/80 since the the time for people to go back to their old habits is low. Someone please check the numbers, because apparently I keep making sloppy mistakes.

With this 1.02 number, it would require 50.5% of children to be vegan just to break even. Usually children follow their parents footstep, so it is reasonable to lower the 75% recidivism rate (which could be higher) and maybe have at least 50%?

The goal is less meat eaters. If we can have less meat eaters with more vegans in the long run, I would support that. If the expected value is less meat eaters, I would agree that having more kids is a good thing because I trust in probability theory. I just to know the value of each variable to feel confident.

2) Overpopulation is a major issue.

It isn't, actually. Overpopulation in undeveloped countries is a major issue, because they don't have the infrastructure or resources to provide for them (healthcare, education, etc.). Resource waste like eating meat is a major issue. The world can support a lot more conscientious consumers in developed countries.

We should easily be fine with well over 30 billion people if we start living more sustainably.

In fact, the faster our population grows, the sooner we will be forced to start being more sustainable, and the sooner meat will not be an option for anybody anymore. If the population fell, then meat eaters might excuse their now sustainable practices of cruelty -- which could continue indefinitely -- because the Earth is no longer burdened by their numbers.

It's a common carnist argument that meat isn't the problem, it's just the human population. There's no reason we should lend credibility to that argument. It's not the population that's the problem -- it's the meat eating.

I'll take ending the practice of animal agriculture over population reduction any day.

In theory, we could live in an utopia, where food was responsibly grown, people treated each other fairly, no animals would be harmed and so on, but is it realistic based on our history of wars and exploitation? We don't know what would happen, therefore it seems more responsible to not gamble. Sure if you don't take a risk, you won't win, but now there is a solution that allows us to win without taking much risk. We don't know what it's like to live with 30 billion people or what new problems would occur or which old problems that can be solved. What issues does veganism solve and what doesn't veganism solve? For example, pollution or deforestation; while being vegan does help a lot, it's not the only solution.

3) There are many people who are in orphanages or who need foster parents. It's similar to why you shouldn't buy pets when you can adopt- there are many dogs in shelters who need owners, so why create more dogs?

There are some parallels, and this is a good question to ask, but there are also a lot of differences.

-Unadopted children will not be euthanized, unadopted dogs and cats will be.

-Puppy and kitten mills are industries plagued with cruelty, having a child is not (it's a choice)

-Adoption of babies is unreasonably expensive and time consuming (tens of thousands of dollars), adopting a puppy or kitten from a shelter is cheaper than buying from a breeder.

-Adoption of older children is more dangerous, they can have developmental and behavioral problems that are hard for some parents to deal with; older cats and dogs are less likely to be maladjusted or mistreated (often the owner just got too old to take care of them)

-Adopted children (even babies) are likely to have lower IQs (well under the average, and even borderline retardation), which can pose long term problems in education, and limit the good they can do in the world -- they will not likely perform well in school, they won't go into STEM, they won't be effective advocates. A dog is a dog, his or her IQ is pretty much irrelevant since he or she doesn't need to grow up to perform in society.

What's the point? Is it because you think there is some extra special connection between you and your child just because you gave birth to that person? If so, it seems kind of selfish.

That would be silly. For some people that may be the case, but for reasonable people there are compelling reasons to procreate instead of adopting, both practical and financial.

Fostering as many children as you can may be the greatest of goods, but it's also much more difficult. Just because somebody isn't a saint, doesn't mean we should condemn a lesser good as an evil.

The way I see it, the answer to what is more ethical depends on the person and what they are willing to do/not do. For example, a person who is willing to do activism and is progressing, and not drained by the activism, would do more good not to adopt, because caring for another being requires time and energy invested into it. That could be time and energy need to do good activism. Adopting helps at least one person, which is good and the adopted person may even stay vegan and inspire others, which would be a big bonus, but not something you can really count on. I didn't know they had lower IQ on average, but that wouldn't make much of a difference based on the calculation above (and assumptions). The goal to have fewer non-vegans, not more vegans in the end. If more vegans means less non-vegans, that would be good too, but I don't see it. It is the percentage that matters.

[Anon0045]

brimstoneSalad, you made some good points in the other post, and you usually do. I admit to probably exaggerating regarding what harm we cause others. I don't agree with everything you wrote, and I don't feel like going through it point by point because you're being extremely RUDE, INTOLERANT and SNARKY. You accuse me of being rude, which I wasn't aware of, then you become 100 times worse yourself.
I don't see it as obvious that antinatalism is wrong, and a lot of people don't. It's not a common topic to discuss, but you treat it like it's obvious that everyone should be against antinatalist arguments (then attack a bunch of strawmans).

[EquALLity]

brimstoneSalad, you made some good points in the other post, and you usually do. I admit to probably exaggerating regarding what harm we cause others. I don't agree with everything you wrote, and I don't feel like going through it point by point because you're being extremely RUDE, INTOLERANT and SNARKY. You accuse me of being rude, which I wasn't aware of, then you become 100 times worse yourself.
I don't see it as obvious that antinatalism is wrong, and a lot of people don't. It's not a common topic to discuss, but you treat it like it's obvious that everyone should be against antinatalist arguments (then attack a bunch of strawmans).

"I don't see it as obvious that antinatalism is wrong, and a lot of people don't."
A lot more people think eating meat is acceptable. What's your point?

[Jaywalker]

Is a carnist more harmful to the world than the good done?
It's very hard to say. And yet you say it so definitively and with no question.

Really? I think you're vastly overrating the good normal people do. It's as if you're giving people credit just for not being purposefully harmful to each other. The companionship they provide is so great that it can actually offset the bad done by the animal industry?

What am I missing here?

[brimstoneSalad]

Is a carnist more harmful to the world than the good done?
It's very hard to say. And yet you say it so definitively and with no question.

Really? I think you're vastly overrating the good normal people do. It's as if you're giving people credit just for not being purposefully harmful to each other. The companionship they provide is so great that it can actually offset the bad done by the animal industry?

What am I missing here?

I said it's hard to say, and it is. Unless you can show me some more easily compared metrics I'm unaware of?

With something like quitting animal products, that's a win-win, it's obvious in all possible reasons that going vegan is less harmful.
With something like reducing the human population, there are pros and cons that must be considered, and it's not at all obvious in the way veganism is. Putting these in the same category is dangerous and it discredits veganism by association in the eyes of the public.

Antinatalism belongs along side more controversial topics like the death penalty (better to not be brought up right now), not non-controversial points of necessary advocacy like veganism.