So the major problem with this, is that only hens produce eggs. So what do you do with all the roosters? You really don't need that many roosters to breed hens. Since there is a roughly 50/50 split of roosters/hens, and only a couple roosters are used for breeding, what do you think happens to the rest of them? So the idea is that you can't buy or own hens without them being a product of a massive amount of roosters being murdered.
weastie
joined 2 years ago
I don't support egg or dairy. As I said in the post, my view on the "tier 2" animals is basically that I think it is possible to ethically keep them in captivity. That doesn't mean keeping them in captivity is ethical in general, but that if you really do it right I think it is okay. I think it's okay to keep a dog or a cow or a pig as a pet, but I think you really have to make sure you give them lots of space and enrichment. I don't believe you should be able to use them for resources though.
The difference being that tier 1 animals, even if you really try to give them a good life, I don't think should ever be kept as pets or in zoos. Like I don't care if you built the coolest ever whale terrarium, sorry, not allowed to put an animal like that in captivity.
I totally agree with the representation part. I understand I might not technically be 100% vegan, but calling myself vegan spreads awareness of veganism within my friend and family circle.
There's definitely an extent to which my conclusion of "it's okay to eat insects" stems from trying to cope with the fact that I have pet reptiles that need to eat insects.
I definitely believe that insects feel pain, which is why I try to give them a good life while they are alive. I guess I'm saying that if they are killed instantly, then they could potentially die a painless death, and maybe that's okay because they don't live that long in the first place.
Here's an actual scientific study where participants chose fake meat over beef burgers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996923003587)
While not a scientific study, we also have some funny events like:
Sausage expert, trying to prove that plant based sausage isn't as good as the real thing, accidentally praises it: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-11485203/Sausage-expert-tricked-praising-vegan-alternative.html
Professional chefs were often wrong about which meat was real and which wasn't in blind taste test: https://www.livekindly.com/professional-chefs-cant-tell-the-difference-between-vegan-and-animal-meat-in-blind-taste-test/
Actually, vegan meats have won multiple blind taste tests over real meat. Google it, it's happened on multiple occasions -- in actual studies as well as DIY tests.
Lots of open job positions is very healthy for the economy, it gives the worker the ability to choose, and it makes companies have to compete. A ton of companies are literally being forced to increase their wages in order to get enough employees.
Firstly, I think it completely aligns with libertarian principles to regulate environmental impact. If a company pollutes the airs and rivers, that physical affects everybody.
Secondly, yeah, it is sad that many consumers will turn a blind eye to poor working conditions and environmental impact ... but I do think there is a limit. And honestly, most of the big companies in our nation are making some attempt to improve environmental conditions, probably because they know that some people will stop buying their product if they don't. It's not a lot, but I think the fact that it's happening at all is some proof that companies can certainly be pressured into doing the right thing without legislation.
What I like about the free-ish markets is that it at least gives you a personal choice. If you don't want to support a business, you don't have to. It sucks if other people support it, but let's be honest, if like 50% of the country wants to support a business that you don't like, then what can you expect?
Buying out competitors isn't a sustainable long term business strategy. Think about it, if one company was trying really hard to be a monopoly and simply bought out all their competitors, then anyone could make a shit ton of money by just continuously opening new competing businesses and selling out.
Secondly, if the strategy is to price out competitors, then... What's the problem? If the so called "monopoly" has to keep prices literally so low that no one else can compete, then they aren't doing any real harm. If they do eventually decide to jack up their prices, then that opens the door for a new business to open.
I really hate this sentiment because if you actually look into the libertarian party platform and their recent candidates, they are nothing like Republicans. LP has supported LGBTQ+ rights for decades, they support open borders, support social freedom, don't like religion in govt, etc. I mean, the only real overlap between the LP and Republican party is like, guns. I know many people would argue that they have similar economic policies but they really don't, all Republicans have done in the last twenty years is spend more money and specifically only remove the regulations that are actually useful.
But at the same time, whenever I meet someone who calls themselves a "libertarian"... yeah 90% of the time they are just edgy Republicans.
I wish this was true. I have some pet lizards I got before I went vegan, two of them are omnivores (blue tongue skink and Argentine black and white tegu). They can't be vegan. I mean, honestly, if there was a large scale effort to research it, I bet we could come up with a suitable vegan diet for them, but I don't think anyone will put a bunch of resources into that.