Does eating only plants actually result in fewer animal deaths?
This is a clip from a presentation delivered in my private Skool community, in this presentation, I look beyond the animals directly consumed for food and explore the wider consequences of producing our food — including crop deaths, harvesting, pesticides, habitat disruption and livestock production.
The question isn’t simply “Did an animal appear on my plate?” but “How many animals died to produce the food on my plate?”
generated summary
Animal welfare and shared goals
- Carnivore eating is connected to caring about animals, personal health, and the environment, with avoidance of caged or indoor-kept animals and active use of grass-fed, regenerative, locally sourced meat.
- The meat comes from a farm about five miles away; foods such as avocados are not, being flown in from the other side of the world.
- Vegans and carnivores have the same three basic motivations: animal welfare, personal health, and the environment. Both are trying to achieve the same things through different approaches.
- Most carnivores seek animals that are not confined to cages and food aligned with nature, ethics, and animal welfare.
- Gratitude toward animals eaten is compatible with caring about their welfare.
- This material was heavily researched and formed part of the presentation that led to a second social-media ban.
Crop farming and hidden animal deaths
- Crop farming also kills animals. A Smithsonian source gives roughly 672 million birds exposed annually to pesticides on U.S. agricultural lands, with about 10%, or 67 million birds, killed. [1]
- Over 50% of gray-tailed voles perish during alfalfa mowing. [2]
- About 52% of field mice die during field activities. [3]
- About 77% of rats perish during field activities. [4]
- Rats, snakes, worms, slugs, mice, insects, and other small animals have just as much right to live as cows, so their deaths should not be valued less.
- Every time a combine harvester goes through a field, animals are caught in machinery and habitat and ecosystems are destroyed.
- These deaths go largely unnoticed because people eating crops are not directly eating the animals, but avoiding meat does not mean avoiding animal deaths.
Soil and ecosystems
- Repeatedly plowing and turning over fields releases carbon, microbes die, and the soil eventually becomes desertified.
- Animals are needed on the land to urinate and defecate, allowing microbes and grass to thrive and supporting insects, birds, and the rest of the ecosystem.
- Once the microbes in the ground are destroyed, worms and other insects disappear, birds lose their food, and the wider ecosystem dies off.
- The evidence is heavily tilted toward the idea that not eating meat means not causing death, but crop farming also causes deaths.
The 23-deaths comparison
- For the hidden cost of crop farming, 1 hectare is 2.47 acres, the given figure is 274 animal deaths per acre, one acre will feed somebody for a year, and the stated total is 23 animal deaths per vegan per year.
- The calculation uses what is regarded as the lowest possible figure through organic and pesticide-free production and does not add animal harm from glyphosate.
- An average vegan therefore indirectly causes 23 animal deaths per year under this calculation.
- Not directly eating an animal does not remove responsibility for a predictable death caused by producing the food.
- Accidentally hitting a deer while driving is an accident; knowing that every drive on the road will kill a deer creates responsibility even without an intention to kill it and while trying to avoid it.
- Once these crop deaths are known, the same principle creates responsibility for those predictable deaths.
One cow per year
- One cow is more than enough to feed one person for an entire year, with the calculation giving about 378 days of food from one cow.
- A beef-based carnivore therefore directly causes about one animal death per person per year.
- Using the figures given here, that is 23 times fewer deaths than the stated 23 animal deaths per vegan per year.
- Eating chicken, lamb, or other animals could raise the carnivore total to several deaths per year, but it remains considerably below the stated vegan total.
Why I am carnivore
- Caring about animals includes not killing even a spider; it is either left in the house or put back outside.
- Animal welfare, personal health, and the environment are the three reasons for carnivore eating, and they are also the three reasons people become vegan.
- The conclusion is: “A true vegan is a carnivore.”
References
- [03:43] When it Comes to Pesticides, Birds are Sitting Ducks — Smithsonian National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute
- [04:39] Density-Dependent Responses of Gray-Tailed Voles to Mowing — DOI 10.2307/3808937
- [04:49] The effects of harvest on arable wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus — DOI 10.1016/0006-3207(93)90060-E
- [04:52] Fate of Polynesian Rats in Hawaiian Sugarcane Fields during Harvest — DOI 10.2307/3799612
You must log in or register to comment.
Let’s say that the number of deaths is the correct model of morality. (We discussed it before. I didn’t agree.)
To have a fair comparison, you should pit an average plant meal vs an average meat meal in the world today. Then the plant meal wins because the animal eats a lot of crops during its lifetime and gets slaughtered too in the end.
Or you should compare the ideal case scenarios for both. The vegan version will be growing plants in sterile, isolated environments without animal deaths. And the best case for carnivores is to kill a large wild animal once a year. Plants still win.
But you have compared plant agriculture as it is today to an ideal case carnivore diet to make it look good. That’s what makes this argument fallacious. (imo)
To have a fair comparison, you should pit an average plant meal vs an average meat meal in the world today. Then the plant meal wins because the animal eats a lot of crops during its lifetime and gets slaughtered too in the end.
Zero carb people are not average, they only need a single cow for a family for a year. That is one life. Animals should not be eating human raised crops, that is not optimal and zero carb people try to avoid it if they can afford it.
Or you should compare the ideal case scenarios for both. The vegan version will be growing plants in sterile, isolated environments without animal deaths. And the best case for carnivores is to kill a large wild animal once a year. Plants still win.
Where do the inputs of your sterile, isolated environments come from? You can’t claim sustainable solutions unless you look at the cost of the entire cycle, not one element in isolation. Those inputs are not free from death. One intentional death a year still wins.
But you have compared plant agriculture as it is today to an ideal case carnivore diet to make it look good.
You can buy whole grass fed, grass finished cows today - you can get to know your local rancher, its doable, and practical.
this argument fallacious. (imo)
Right back at you buddy.
Animals should not be eating human raised crops
You can buy whole grass fed, grass finished cows today - you can get to know your local rancher, its doable, and practical.
Most meat in the world is produced by animal farms. Only a privileged few can eat like you describe.
Where do the inputs of your sterile, isolated environments come from?
What inputs are you talking about exactly? You just need nutrients, plant parts to clone or seeds or unicellular organisms, air, water, and sunlight. You can have a self sustaining biosphere without animals. We bootstrap such an environment and keep taking a little for humans to eat.
Most meat in the world is produced by animal farms. Only a privileged few can eat like you describe.
I’m not sure how that changes the ethical statement this post is making; If you want to minimize animal deaths zero carb does it most efficiently.
What inputs are you talking about exactly? You just need nutrients, plant parts to clone or seeds or unicellular organisms, air, water, and sunlight. You can have a self sustaining biosphere without animals. We bootstrap such an environment and keep taking a little for humans to eat.
Fertilizer, nitrogen, top soil (if you use it) comes from somewhere.
You can have a self sustaining biosphere without animals.
Show me, please, I want to see this isolated biosphere - remember “self sustaining” no external inputs.
I dunno if my original post is clear enough. The main argument I was trying to make is to compare within the right categories to make a moral judgement. Otherwise it’s a category error.
One category is how things are today for the majority of people. Animal agriculture vs plant agriculture for food.
The 2nd category is what is possible and needs to be scaled. This is where I put your 1 large animal killed per person per year (because most people can’t eat this way) and compared it against growing plants without killing animals.
Show me, please, I want to see this isolated biosphere - remember “self sustaining” no external inputs
There are regions on earth with only plants or single celled organisms. I can get algae or yeasts from the wild, grow them as food in water and eat them.
You can forage food from the wild and remove insects carefully before eating them.
One category is how things are today for the majority of people. Animal agriculture vs plant agriculture for food.
The majority of people are not zero carb, I reject the basis of your argument. We are already talking about the most niche of niche communities already.
The 2nd category is what is possible and needs to be scaled.
This is just a fancy way of framing your biases. It’s not a good faith discussion position.
compared it against growing plants without killing animals.
This is impossible when you take into account the inputs of plant only agriculture. So we are back at effect vs intent, which is what the entire post is about. If you value life, you should look at your effective footprint not your intended footprint.
I can get algae or yeasts from the wild, grow them as food in water and eat them.
Great, show me your farming setup to do this with zero inputs and zero deaths please.
You can forage food from the wild and remove insects carefully before eating them.
Sure - if you live in a forgeable area that always has plant based foods in bloom (so tropics) and you have enough range land where you can walk amongst all the plants without having to farm, reap, sow, harvest or touch the land… it’s theoretically possible… but I haven’t not seen any human community do this. These areas would be very dense with life, i.e. the rain forest, so just walking around will require huge effort and you will have to fend off animals without killing them. Not that it’s scientific at all but all the naked survival shows demonstrate how well that works out.
The majority of people are not zero carb, I reject the basis of your argument.
This is just a fancy way of framing your biases. It’s not a good faith discussion position.
I will think about it.
Great, show me your farming setup to do this with zero inputs and zero deaths please.
I don’t have one. I was just alluding to its possibility by pointing to regions of the earth with only plants and single celled organisms.
I need funding to research it and set it up. 😅
Sure - if you live in a forgeable area that always has plant based foods in bloom. it’s theoretically possible
yep. You need blooms for a few months of the year. You can dry and preserve plants for the rest of the year.
farm, reap, sow, harvest or touch the land
Interesting thoughts. These issues exist on a cattle ranch too. Cows trample small animals, eat them unintentionally throughout their life. What about all the parasites in the cow’s body that you kill when you kill the cow? I’ve seen cows bully, kill smaller animals and themselves.
Cattle ranchers shoot animals that might threaten their cows. So it seems raising cows for humans to eat isn’t just one kill per year as it seems initially.
you will have to fend off animals without killing them
I think self defense is a separate topic. Sometimes you have to fend off humans too.
Cows trample small animals, eat them unintentionally throughout their life.
If you want to police all animal behaviors the only way to ensure no animals are killed by other animals is a mass extinction event.
Cattle ranchers shoot animals that might threaten their cows.
I think self defense is a separate topic. Sometimes you have to fend off humans too.
You can have one what-about-ism or the other, having both isn’t consistent.
But the eaten animals also need food which is crop farmed. And carnivores won’t eat only meat. They will eat additional crops. It doesn’t seem to me this is accounted for or is it? (I only read the summary)
But the eaten animals also need food which is crop farmed.
Not necessarily, animals eating their natural diet’s don’t need humans to grow crops, cut crops, and then hand feed the crops to the animals. In fact cows should not eat human crops at all.
And carnivores won’t eat only meat.
Not the carnivore’s in this community, its a zero carb community.
deleted by creator
No indeed, that’s only necessary when the animals are kept in captivity, such as for farming them.
70% of agricultural land is range land - the exact place ruminants need to be to eat their natural diet. They should not be kept in a box.
Unfortunately due to the economics of farming animals for food, they will be fed whatever is cheapest and easiest.
Vote with your money, buy food that is sustainably grown. Get to know your LOCAL farmer / rancher.
I don’t know what you’re trying to argue here.
Zero carb is maximally ethical because it can be done with minimal loss of life, more so then other plant based diets. It’s the post title.
That eating meat is fine because it’s less harmful than farming crops (which is only true if you take the numbers in a vacuum)?
Eating zero carb (no plants) is not only fine, its optimal for health and ethics.
That we shouldn’t way anything and all starve to death?
Live with intention, realize you have a impact, and be mindful of the consequences of your decisions - don’t deny them. Live well, live ethically, live sustainably.
And what about other kinds of farming Permaculture, vertical farming, hydroponics - how do those stack up?
Sure - Let’s talk about them, where do the inputs come from? You need regenerative farming if you want to get away from industrial fertilizer inputs, depleting top soil, etc… A sustainable biocycle necessitates the use of ruminant animals to regenerate the top soil - any the other options require non-renewable industrial inputs - they are not sustainable.
Not necessarily, animals eating their natural diet’s don’t need humans to grow crops, cut crops, and then hand feed the crops to the animals. In fact cows should not eat human crops at all.
But that’s not happening. Even in the most ecological animal friendliest farms.
Not the carnivore’s in this community, its a zero carb community
And this is supposed to be healthy? How do they get their vitamins?
Even in the most ecological animal friendliest farms.
70% of agricultural land is range land, that is where ruminants are supposed to live. spend your money at regenerative farms. They exist. Or if you want to have full control just go hunting and store your meat - a deep freezer is a game changer.
And this is supposed to be healthy? How do they get their vitamins?
Very healthy, zero carb is a type of elimination diet - removing all the variables down the the essential set to sustain human life. As it happens thanks to millions of years existing as pre-agricultural humans we are well adapted to eating exclusively meat (inuit are the famous example). There are no demonstrated deficiencies on a zero carb diet, there are lots of whataboutisms, but no ability to cite actual cases of it… and again the Inuit exist as a race, so obviously it is sustainable.
Do you seriously think this is sustainable for the whole of humanity? I highly doubt that. The sheer amount of meat needed would just be too high.
Do you seriously think this is sustainable for the whole of humanity?
Sick people are very unsustainable. There are almost a billion type 2 diabetes globally, they are very expensive
I highly doubt that.
We can do better improving people’s metabolic health, we shouldn’t just give up on people because perfection isn’t simplistic.
The sheer amount of meat needed would just be too high.
Oceans, Land, and insects
You didn’t answer my question. Vitamins are necessary molecules that humans need but our bodies can’t built themselves. A lot of them can only be found in plants.
A quick Internet search revealed that Inuits ate seaweed and other plants as well and that a zero carb diet is not recommended long term because of these nutrient deficiencies.
It’s reasonable to be incredulous. Please see the paper below for the details. Yes, by definition essential nutrients are required for human life - all of which are found in abundance in a zero-carb diet. The inuit have access to seaweed in small % and occasionally not all the time, the Stefansson journal of their pre-western lifestyle attests to it.
I see the old post on this very topic has fallen off due to some instances going down - i’ve reposted it - https://discuss.online/post/44897799 https://feddit.org/post/34896822
that a zero carb diet is not recommended long term because of these nutrient deficiencies.
What deficiencies exactly?
How long term is long term? I’ve been on this diet more than a year. All the vitamins we need are found in meat and the associated fat. I get the minerals I need from salt, and eat oily fish two times a week.
Jet did answer your question: “There are no demonstrated deficiencies on a zero carb diet”
Which vitamins are only found in plants? B12 is only found in animals.
Interesting. Hard to believe. Have I have been brainwashed? Of course there is always a lot of dogma and little evidence when it comes to nutrition because it is almost impossible to scientifically sound prove or disprove claims.
Have I have been brainwashed?
Not brainwashed, humans have a tendency to trust the first thing they learn, and be distrustful of new information. You have been exposed to one dietary approach and lifestyle that works for you, but we are just letting you know there are other sustainable paths available too.
Of course there is always a lot of dogma and little evidence when it comes to nutrition because it is almost impossible to scientifically sound prove or disprove claims.
Nutritional RCTs are expensive, and nobody wants to spend money to disprove their pet diet, so we never see head to head RCTs on different diets. However there is an abundance of evidence : pre-westernization diet lifestyle surveys (i.e. Westin Price) of different cultures, case reports, individuals demonstrating cause and effect for themselves… Happily keto is so useful that there are more published interventional papers on keto then any other single diet, so we are building robust data.
What is absent are any demonstrated deficiencies of a zero-carb diet, no case reports… which is telling. If the brainwashed dogma holds then the literature should be abundant with clinics seeing nutrient deficiencies of people living on zero carb.
Bad AI summary in part - it misunderstood “my food comes from 5 miles away, not like an avocado from half a world away” as avocados don’t come from far away
I don’t see it… do you mean this?
The meat comes from a farm about five miles away; foods such as avocados are not being flown in from the other side of the world.
I think that parses correctly Richard isn’t flying in avocados and exotic plants to fill a deficient diet with out of season non-local foods.
Yes, that bit. The clause “foods such as avocados are not being flown from the other side of the world”
It’s unambiguous and wrong. A comma would fix it if placed after “are not”
Pretty good presentation, and an argument I have made myself. The deaths per hectare in best managed farms is a massacre; vegans have so much more blood on their hands than carnivores, only chicken or fish eaters can beat them - no mammal eater can
the rebuttal will be that unintended deaths don’t count because the motivation is pure, and but richard has already made the counter argument that once you know about the consequences intention is no longer morally superior to effect
i.e. drink drivers don’t intend to hurt anyone, but when they do hurt people they are still responsible.
Did you intend the deaths? -> becomes -> Did you knowingly choose an action whose consequences included predictable deaths?
