Discussion Title: All Humans Should Be Vegan.

1. All humans should be vegan.
1.1. Con: An individual should be free to choose any food they want to eat \(without interference\).
1.1.1. Con: Choices are and will always be limited.
1.1.1.1. Con: Limiting choices available to others without a clear moral reason is immoral since it undermines their free will. Stating that "Oh well, choices are limited" is not a good reason for example to discourage abortions.
1.1.1.2. Con: It's not the choices, but the practicality of them that's limited. People can be free in opening their mind to any food choice they desire, but not every choice can someone follow through with actually eating it.
1.1.1.2.1. Pro: We should limit actions of humans which have negative effects on other humans. For example, the environmental impacts of animal agriculture.
1.1.1.2.1.1. Pro: A vegan society would be better for the environment.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1. Pro: A vegan society would be the most effective at combating climate change.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: Less fields to grow crops results in [more](https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching) [area](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/deforestation.php) with forests, which [reduce carbon emissions](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1433831915000463).
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1. Con: Livestock feed, including grass for pasture based livestock, are carbon sinks. Removing those crops \(especially in areas that have no plants normally, like deserts\) would be worse for the planet.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2. Con: Monoculture forestry can cause more environmental issues than they solve, because they cut down more forest that is absorbs more carbon than the plants put there instead.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1. Con: Soy cultivation \(used in meat-alternatives\) is carried out in areas previously cleared for animal agriculture \(which is the actual main driver of deforestation, especially in the Amazon \(see [Table 2](http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889/pdf/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf)\)\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2. Pro: A vegan diet [would](https://www.culinaryschools.org/yum/vegetables/) create less greenhouse gas emissions, require less water, and use less land for its food production.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1. Pro: It could reduce by two-thirds the greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 according to [Oxford University](http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-03-22-veggie-based-diets-could-save-8-million-lives-2050-and-cut-global-warming) and here is the [scientific publication](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/03/16/1523119113.full) with figures.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.2. Con: The biggest water burden in California  is from high water demand crops such as almonds
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.3. Pro: The meat industry [contributes](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/eat-less-meat-vegetarianism-dangerous-global-warming) to global warming.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.4. Con: Making farming practices holistic will [reduce emissions leading to sustainability](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI).
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.5. Con: Water-resource is never wasted, that would be against the laws of nature, but the Money to bring the water to the animals/plants now that is wasted.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.6. Pro: Methane from the gas output of grazing and dairy cows, along with other processing, constitutes [4%](http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/41348/icode/) of green house gases that affect the entire world.  Excrement runoff from pig farms, no less, [pollutes waterways](http://www.earthtimes.org/business/environmental-impact-disposal-waste-large-scale-pig-production/433/) to a measurable ecological detriment.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.6.1. Con: All that could be easily managed by setting regulations to use that methane from cows themselves and digested from their manure for energy production.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.7. Pro: Over [18%](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment) of greenhouse gases are due to animal agriculture.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.7.1. Con: Without using ruminant animals to mimic the herds we will [create deserts](https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change).  Far more carbon is sequestered by the natural cycle of life then you ever will have gobal warming with cow farts.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.7.1.1. Pro: Properly managed regenerative farming of livestock in brittle environments \(those prone to desertification\) is crucial for improving ecological systems and sequestering carbon. So even if we don't eat the livestock we need them on the land. [Holistic Management](https://holisticmanagement.org/)
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.7.2. Pro: A vegan's diet's [carbon footprint](http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet) is estimated to be less than half that of a high meat diet.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.3. Con: Even though most people eat too much meat, the world doesn't need to go vegan to reduce the environmental impact.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.3.1. Pro: Given the resistance to veganism by the majority of the population, it would be more beneficial for the environment to suggest cutting down on meat and dairy, rather than promote being vegan and have them reject it altogether.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.3.2. Pro: People can focus on other parts of their lifestyle that also contribute heavily to climate change first before needing to give up meat, like flying less \(for instance, [one flight](https://utopia.de/ratgeber/co2-ausstoss-beim-flugzeug-so-viel-emissionen-verursachen-flugreisen/) from Munich to Vancouver expel more than 2300 kilogram CO2\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.3.2.1. Con: A decrease in one component of a lifestyle doesn't justify keeping the other; both have to go if they're equally bad. A person, for instance, can't say that it's ok to continue smoking if they stop drinking alcohol as smoking is also a problem that should be removed.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.3.3. Con: If billions of people eat "just a little amount of meat" system is not sustainable.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.4. Con: People might drive around more on a vegan diet to find vegan options \(due to living in a [food desert](https://www.cdc.gov/features/FoodDeserts/index.html)\). This contributes to global warming more if the vehicle is not fuel efficient.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.4.1. Pro: Since processed vegan food \(like substitutes\) are [more expensive](https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/the-challenge-of-going-vegan/) than animal products, people might drive around more looking for cheaper, more affordable options to satisfy their cravings.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.4.2. Con: The extra fuel an individual may use initially to find vegan products is minuscule compared to the emissions from the animal agriculture industry.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.4.3. Con: This claim makes no sense - when the demand for vegan products rise, the supply for them also rises. Thus, driving around would not be an issue if everyone goes vegan.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.4.4. Con: People who live in food deserts can get innovative with their vegan options. They may grow their own food, order online, or just buy foods that are not fresh but still healthy \(like dried fruit\). Thus, driving around will not be an issue as it will decrease as people get adjusted to their new diet.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.4.5. Pro: This is significant, as driving is another major contributor of greenhouse gases towards climate change.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.4.6. Pro: [Travel](https://www.popsci.com/g00/3_c-6bbb.utux78hn.htr_/c-6RTWJUMJZX77x24myyux78x3ax2fx2fbbb.utux78hn.htrx2fx78nyjx78x2futux78hn.htrx2fknqjx78x2fx78ydqjx78x2f100_6c_x2fuzgqnhx2fnrfljx78x2f7562x2f52x2fhqnrfyj-hmfslj-htsywngzynts_6.oulx3fnytpx3dwTvq4BNnx26khx3d05x2c05x26n65h.rfwpx3dnrflj_$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$) creates more greenhouse gases than the vegan diet prevents, which could increase when people change their behaviors to go vegan.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.5. Con: A vegan society would be more dependent on imported foods, thus making the emissions made by the worlds fleet of cargo ships even worse.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.5.1. Con: The emissions that would come from increased transport would still [pale](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions) in comparison to emissions saved from the animal agriculture sector.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.5.1.1. Con: Some of the numbers do not include [all of the steps](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/19/climatechange.climatechange) in the animal agriculture process, making the numbers inaccurate.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.5.1.2. Con: Even though there are more emissions from transportation, the ones in animal agriculture are much worse, due to its type. If greenhouse gas effects were compared instead, the clear winner is animal agriculture. Methane from animals is [~35x](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/19/climatechange.climatechange) worse than CO2 from cars.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.5.2. Con: The few % of the population that will rely more on imported food is insignificant. Only a few small or poorly populated countries without capabilities to grow food \(due to land size or geographic region\) will rely more on imported foods.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.5.3. Con: If people go vegan, they tend to make [healthier and ethical choices](https://qz.com/91123/vegetarians-live-longer-but-its-not-because-they-dont-eat-meat/). In doing so, they will more likely pick local foods \(like at farmers markets\), because of their perceived eco and health value.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.5.4. Pro: In the short-term, meat-heavy countries would rely on imports until the country can figure out how to grow its own produce.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.5.5. Pro: Some countries that cannot grow crops easily \(such as political conflict regions that rely on mobile food like livestock\) will need imported food to survive.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.6. Pro: One of these transitions towards reducing climate change is moving away from oil \(sourced from [plant and animal remains](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oil/), which is not really vegan\) and towards renewable energy like [solar](http://solargaines.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/How-Solar-Works-v2.png) and [wind](https://images.ecosia.org/XugO8KszOUN4TXxQML90yYkvRrM=/0x390/smart/https%3A%2F%2Fclaesjohnsonmathscience.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Fwindturbine1.jpg) \(their energy comes from vegan sources\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.7. Con: The high demand for kelp and seaweed based products is putting a lot of our oceans under threat from people that want to [farm these using unsustainable and seriously damaging farming methods such as dredging](https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2018/09/16/msps-urged-to-ban-mechanical-dredging-for-kelp/?guccounter=1). Research while in its early days is showing the positive effect that kelp beds and other fragile ocean based environments have on the [absorption of greenhouse gases](https://oceana.org/blog/seaweed-could-be-scrubbing-way-more-carbon-atmosphere-we-expected).
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.7.1. Con: While taking native kelp is a detrimental practice, kelp farming that does is a [minimally-invasive, sustainable methods, replaces](https://akua.co/pages/about) the actual unsustainable industry that put the oceans under threat: [fishing](https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/5MKZvLu1Fa8vgxqjf58ZivfR4_J8peVS/seaweed-farming-and-its-surprising-benefits/). It helps in reversing climate change rather than be a cause for it.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.8. Con: Through agriculture we released as much carbon to atmosphere as from burning fossile fuels by eroding the top soil.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.9. Con: Building soil back in grasslands with grassing animals is an essential pillar to combat climate change and restoring soil by [placing the carbon](https://youtu.be/wgmssrVInP0) where it belongs.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.10. Con: The fertilizer used in agriculture is made from fossile fuels. Agriculture is heavily depending on fossile fuels.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.11. Pro: The plants grown for food [absorb CO2](https://sciencing.com/carbon-dioxide-absorbed-during-photosynthesis-3196.html), so they help to decrease this and [other greenhouse gases](https://www.answers.com/Q/Plants_absorb_the_greenhouse_gas_carbon_dioxide_during_the_process) in the air.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.11.1. Con: This is true, but the net absorption of CO2 is so low, that it doesn't contribute much to greenhouse gas reduction, and [even less so with climate change](http://eco-weekly.com/featured/as-climate-warms-plants-will-absorb-less-co%E2%82%82-study-finds/).
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.11.1.1. Pro: In all, [90%](https://theconversation.com/plants-absorb-more-co2-than-we-thought-but-32945) of what a plant absorbs goes back at the end of its life \(due to microbial decomposition or fire\), with [about half](https://theconversation.com/plants-absorb-more-co2-than-we-thought-but-32945) of CO2 being released immediately through plant respiration following photosynthesis. Since only 10% of CO2 absorption stays with the plant throughout its life, and at most 50% when it's alive, it's not much to be that significant.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.11.1.2. Con: Algae acts as a [carbon sink](https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lowering-carbon-with-algae-40725) when plants start to fail \(due to climate change\). Chlorella, which is [edible](https://blog.radiantlifecatalog.com/bid/59541/Chlorella-vs-Alga-Spirulina-which-algae-is-best), can survive in extreme CO2 conditions - from under [10-100%](http://www.oilgae.com/ref/downloads/Analysis_of_CO2_Capture_Using_Algae.pdf).
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.11.1.2.1. Con: Current production methods are [not viable](https://phys.org/news/2013-03-algae-capture-co2.html) for mass production at this time.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.11.1.2.2. Pro: Additionally, they can be [turned into fuel](http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/3786/examining-co2-sources-for-algae/), thus reducing the source of CO2 emissions too.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.11.1.2.3. Pro: Algae is great for [absorbing CO2 from power plants](http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/3786/examining-co2-sources-for-algae/), as they can handle it in pure form, making them a solution to reducing greenhouse gases.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.11.1.2.4. Pro: Marine algae already accounts for [half of the world's CO2 absorption](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268331728_Marine_Algae_as_Carbon_Sinks_and_Allies_to_Combat_Global_Warming), so it's proven to be successful.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1.12. Con: Animals breathe out CO2, which contributes to climate change. Eating them would prevent them from doing so.
1.1.1.2.1.1.2. Pro: A vegan society would create the least pollution, which damages the environment.
1.1.1.2.1.1.2.1. Pro: Meat production [poisons the air](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment). Nearly 40% of pesticides \(US\) and nearly two thirds of ammonia \(a major contributor to acid rain\) are used or produced in animal farming.
1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2. Con: A vegan society would increase the use of pesticides. In order to meet the demand \(and make money\), farmers and the firms behind them will be forced to use more and more pesticides and exceed the critical treshold we already reached in the use of chemicals in agricultural exploitation.
1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1. Con: A vegan world would not use more pesticides because we are already produce enough to feed the whole planet. But all this is used to feed animals, that make less food than what they eat \(and drink\). As you can see, a 60kg human has eaten way more than 60kg of food in his whole life.
1.1.1.2.1.1.2.3. Pro: Meat industry produces more pollution than all transportation and power plants [combined](http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf).
1.1.1.2.1.1.2.4. Pro: Leather is [biodegradable](http://www.truthaboutfur.com/blog/5-reasons-must-wear-leather-fur/), which is better for the environment \(less trash\) than plastic clothing.
1.1.1.2.1.1.2.5. Pro: Livestock is the most significant contributor to [nitrogen and phosphorus pollution](https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture) of streams, rivers and coastal waters worldwide.
1.1.1.2.1.1.2.5.1. Pro: This is really harmful to the underwater ecosystems, as [toxic algae blooms](https://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/toxic-algae-blooms-spreading/) grow \(and are getting worse\) from the runoff from farms that grow animals for meat.
1.1.1.2.1.1.2.5.2. Pro: [Cover crops](https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture) are a solution to the problem, showing that vegan food production is the way to go to resolve the nitrogen/phosphorus pollution in waterways.
1.1.1.2.1.1.2.5.3. Con: Due to intensive farming required to produce agricultural produce for human consumption - while there are other alternatives silage is the cheapest way of fertilising the land and if used properly can reduce the leaching effect. Previously we had more trees, bushes and plants in buffer or runoff areas which absorbed a lot of the excess and acted as filters. Yet mans need for housing and infrastructures has meant that these have been greatly reduced.
1.1.1.2.1.1.2.6. Pro: The streams rivers lakes and waterways would be rejuvenated from removing feces sources as at the moment many waterways in America and possibly other countries are polluted with pig, cow and other animal feces making water unsafe to use and consume by humans. This is a human right issue and an environmental issue. A vegan society wouldn't need to accommodate for so many animals and therefore feces would be less.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3. Pro: A vegan society offers the best way to manage resources.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.1. Pro: There are and will be too many people on earth for everyone to eat meat.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.1. Con: There is scarcity for essentially all resources, doesn't mean everyone should go without.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.2. Con: There are other factors in world hunger other than not eating meat, such as access to and waste of food. Addressing these could potentially allow more people to live on Earth, even by eating meat.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3. Pro: Even though veganism is increasing rapidly in [multiple countries](https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/5-surprising-studies-that-prove-veganism-is-growing-around-the-world), the demand for meat worldwide is expected to [go up](http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf) too as the population grows. All humans to being vegan would prevent this trend from happening before overpopulation effects due to eating meat cause the world population to peak and then decline.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.4. Pro: We could stop world hunger or make food cheaper if we stopped eating meat. "We are currently growing enough food to feed 10 billion people." - [Cowspiracy](http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts)
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.4.1. Pro: A vegan society would use less productivity on nutrition because nutrients found in meat can be obtained from plants more economically.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.4.2. Pro: A vegan diet is the [most efficient](http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts) way to use land. A vegan requires 1/6th of an acre for a year of food, a vegetarian needs three times that much, and a meat eater needs 18-fold more land than a vegan.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.4.2.1. Pro: It is possible to cultivate [15 times more](http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts) protein on any given area of land with soybeans rather than grazing cows.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2. Pro: Meat production strains scarce natural resources and environments.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.1. Con: A vegan diet would strain the plant populations and most likely lead to surges in current animal populations, which we'd have nothing to do with and would be forced to compete with us for many plants, possibly causing starvation.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.2. Con: This claim is an argument that less people should eat meat, or that people who eat meat should eat less, it does not in any way support the argument that "All" humans should be vegan.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.3. Pro: Meat production uses large amounts of scarce water.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.3.1. Pro: [70%](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment) of the earth's fresh water is used for farming, and producing meat is far less water efficient than producing plants.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.3.1.1. Con: In terms of water use, chicken is more efficient than most legumes and even broccoli when considering the value of protein in each food. Chicken is also more efficient than nuts as a measure of land area per unit protein produced.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.3.1.1.1. Con: "The Water Footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat \(around 30 L g−1 protein\) is 1.5 times larger than for pulses \(20 L g−1 protein\)." [Arjen Y Hoekstra](http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Hoekstra-2014-Water-for-animal-products_1.pdf)
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.3.2. Pro: Between one and two thirds of fresh water resources are being used for animal agriculture. In the USA [30%](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/water-in-water-out/) of these resources are used on animal farming.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.3.3. Pro: A vegan diet has a smaller [water footprint](http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/) allowing more food to be produced given a constant amount of rainfall.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4. Pro: Meat production wastes food which could be used elsewhere.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.1. Pro: 36% of all crops grown are used to feed animals, which then we eat. There is a huge loss of energy in this system \(which is something basic we have all learned in middle school Biology\)[vox.com](https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed)
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.2. Pro: Producing 1 kg of grain-fed beef requires [7 kg of grain](https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/03/it-does-not-take-7-kg-of-grain-to-make-1-kg-of-beef-be-very-careful-with-your-statistics/#2430e94b5f0d).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.2.1. Con: Cherry picking the one worst possible source of animal protein is an oversimplification.  Looking at greenhouse gas emissions per 1000 calories of food item, while beef requires 19.18 lbs of emissions, head lettuce requires 18.67 lbs, cucumbers 12.34, tomatoes 8.29, and poultry only 4.86.  [washingtonpost.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/18/being-a-vegetarian-might-make-you-feel-environmentally-superior-why-that-may-be-wrong/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a84dace56239)
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.2.2. Con: This is an oversimplification, even in the strict case of beef, this figure is only representative of a sample of all beef production, namely [only in US, or US style feed lots.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/03/it-does-not-take-7-kg-of-grain-to-make-1-kg-of-beef-be-very-careful-with-your-statistics/#173258605f0d)
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.3. Pro: If all humans were vegan, we would be more able to feed the population as it is and as it grows. Food grown for meat production would go to the people, as would water.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.3.1. Pro: In the United States, replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed [350 million additional people](http://www.pnas.org/content/115/15/3804) from food loss alone.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.3.2. Pro: On top of grazing land, around 40% of the worlds grain is fed to cattle to top up their diets. Therefore reducing meat production would also reduce grain use without reducing the number of calories produced.[U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.3.2.1. Con: The land use argument is assuming that humans can just survive by eating grains. If someone would try, he would die very soon because essential nutrients are missing. In reality a vegan diet is relying on an extreme variety of low quality food. Vegetables and fruits have low nutritional value but use huge amount of land.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.3.3. Con: We already produce [more food](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html) than we actually need, we could simply share it better. There is no need for veganism to do that.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.4. Pro: If we don't feed animals to then kill them or exploit for milk and eggs we can use the same amount of cereals and water to feed and give to people that are starving in the world.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.5. Pro: Meat wastes resources. According to [pyramid of biomass](http://web.archive.org/web/20170706004523/https://biology.tutorvista.com/ecology/ecological-pyramid.html), it takes 10x the amount of food for animals to consume than it creates for humans \(for example, 200kg of feed makes 20kg of meat\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.5.1. Pro: Too much fertile land is used to feed animals \(like grain grown for cattle\). This could be used to feed more humans \(or be left to nature\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.5.2. Pro: The [pyramid of biomass](http://web.archive.org/web/20170706004523/https://biology.tutorvista.com/ecology/ecological-pyramid.html) makes sense, as eating an herbivore takes three extra, measurable steps: Firstly, the plants' chemical energy has been digested into usable form. Secondly, some energy is used by the animal. Finally, the energy is transformed/stored within the animal \(which we would then eat\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.5. Pro: Domesticated animals that get released into the wild could become invasive and devastate ecosystems. One such example is [feral swine](http://www.vainvasivespecies.org/species/feral-swine).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.6. Con: The real issue is not about being vegan/omnivorous: it's about intensive breeding and industries of junk food. The Alps are full of farms and little companies that produce salame, cheese, etc. This it is 100  times more environmentally friendly and animal-life respectful than bigger industries that produce vegetable products. If the whole world became vegan it would just penalize little farms like these ones.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.6.1. Con: Land used to facilitate animal agriculture \(pasture, grain etc\) currently takes up around 30% of the earth's landmass. That's including all the horrific, high concentration meat factories that produce 100x more than these utopian farms per year. The space needed to produce 'enough' meat in these apparently Utopian farms to feed even a tenth of the world population would be [more land mass](http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM) than we have. The space would be better utilised on vegetables.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.7. Con: Having no humans is good for the environment.  While it may be technically true, it's not realistic; nor is it realistic to expect the world to be vegan.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.8. Con: Extensive plant farming damages natural fauna by reclaiming its territory.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9. Pro: [Land use is lowest with a vegan diet](https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.12952/journal.elementa.000116/elementa.000116.f002.png/). We could decrease the amount of land we need for food production drastically; allowing for more areas to be taken over by nature, increasing biodiversity in the long run.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.1. Pro: Even with ideas for lowering the environmental impact for animal products through animal-based substitutions instead of elimination, like [insects and cultured meat](https://ac.els-cdn.com/S2211912417300056/1-s2.0-S2211912417300056-main.pdf?_tid=529a71bc-046c-4d5a-b53e-b52e252af156&acdnat=1543277335_7cfe943dc4706ed6122323fe4cb09300), the vegan diet still uses the least amount of land.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.2. Pro: Meat production wastes land which could be used for other purposes.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.2.1. Pro: Free-range, grass-fed beef would require even more land \([30% more](http://web.archive.org/web/20150320015635/http://extension.psu.edu/animals/beef/grass-fed-beef/articles/telling-the-grass-fed-beef-story)\) than grain-fed. If the switch occurred in the US, the gain in land would be size of [3/4 of Texas](http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/127/htm). This take more land away from wildlife, which would be a detriment to their livable space.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.2.1.1. Pro: [Grazing also has many other negative effects on ecosystems when cattle are raised in them](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7439/94722c6326433a10044898eabd0bcab3f4b3.pdf).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.2.1.2. Pro: Following the articles, grass-fed beef creates 500% more greenhouse gases and uses 35% more water than grain-fed.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.2.1.3. Pro: What makes this is worse is that grass-fed beef is [trending](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/grass-fed-beef-is-just-as-bad-for-the-environment-as-grain-fed/) over grain-fed due to people wanting to eat healthier foods.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.2.1.4. Pro: "Free-range, grassfed" cattle is "responsible for [80 percent](https://foodrevolution.org/blog/the-truth-about-grassfed-beef/) of Amazonian deforestation".
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.2.2. Pro: Currently the rate of raising lifestock on more and more land is not sustainable but more people could be fed in a sustainable fashion if the land used for raising life stock were instead used for growing nutrient dense edible plants.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.2.3. Pro: As civilization grows, people will need more space and meat will need to be squeezed out for accommodate them, because meat takes up too much space that people need.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.2.3.1. Pro: This is especially true for when people move to cities, as meat will be much harder to grow near or in cities than crops \(which can easily grow in buildings, like apartments or vertical farms\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.2.4. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.3.2.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.3. Pro: Meat production leads to deforestation.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.3.1. Pro: [6 million hectares](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment) of forest, twice the size of Belgium, and the same amount of wetlands, are lost every year due to farming. The majority of this farming is to directly support animals or grow their feed.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.3.2. Pro: [91%](http://www.rainforestfoundation.org/agriculture/) of deforestation in rainforests is due to animal agriculture \(clearing land and growing food for livestock\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.3.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.2.1.4.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.3. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.3.1.1.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.4. Con: A vegan diet is [less sustainable](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.4.1. Con: A vegan diet is [more](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/infographic-veganism-and-the-environment/) [sustainable](https://www.veganismbythenumbers.com) [than](https://greenerideal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/vegan-environment.jpg) our current diet, though it is not absolutely ideal.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.5. Con: Only if people eat the foods that use [little water and resources to grow \(such as fruits, vegetables, and sweeteners like lettuce, tomatoes, and cane sugar\) instead of ones that use more than meat \(such as seeds like chocolate, coffee, and vanilla\)](http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2011-WaterFootprintCrops.pdf).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6. Pro: Animal products going to waste are [much worse](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150814091148.htm) and [more likely](http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/) than vegan foods to go to waste.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.1. Pro: Animal product waste does not stop when [resources are strained](https://www.truthordrought.com/single-post/2016/08/30/Drought-Stricken-California-Water-Contributes-to-US-Dairy-Cheese-%E2%80%9CSurplus%E2%80%9D), such as [during a drought](https://www.truthordrought.com/single-post/2016/10/13/Guess-Who-Dumped-13200-Olympic-Pools-Worth-of-California-Water), when they should be conserved instead. Vegan foods would lessen the cause of and recovery from natural disasters easier.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.2. Pro: The difference \(between vegan and non-vegan foods\) really separates when foods are processed \(more waste occurs then\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.3. Pro: Biochar could avoid the inadequacies of decomposing \(such as a [lack of breaking down without nitrogen](https://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/gardening-techniques/building-garden-soil-wood-mulch-zmaz10onzraw)\), because it allows [unusable plant material to be utilized by the soil](https://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/biochar-how-build-soil-lock-carbon-build-fertility-farm).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.4. Con: Eventually all food breaks down into fertilizer, but animal products and plants have equally difficult byproducts that require more processing and take longer to break down, from [bones](https://ekko.world/how-to-recycle-bones/177451) to [nut shells](http://thegreenhome.co.uk/feature/uses-for-pistachio-shells/).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.5. Pro: Whole, minimally-processed vegan foods require [less refrigeration](https://imgur.com/a/kZKCVDB) than animal products, which spoil quickly. The less food waste and refrigeration, combined with a long shelf life, makes vegan food much cheaper and more feasible for less privileged individuals/societies too than animal products do.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.5.1. Con: There are exceptions to this, such as powdered milk and jerky, which have long shelf-lives.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.5.1.1. Con: Cholesterol is oxidised when [making powdered milk](https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/health-fitness/healthy-eating/is-powdered-milk-bad-for-you). [Oxidised cholesterol](https://www.healthline.com/health/heart-disease/oxidized-cholesterol-what-you-should-know#oxidized-ldl) is more likely to clog up arteries and can oxidise other cholesterol molecules inside the body.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.5.2. Con: To create a "well-planned" vegan diet, vegan rely on many produce that are extremely fragile and need extensive cooling. Many fruits need to be ripened in cool-house for several weeks.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.5.2.1. Con: By the same token many animal products are fragile, needing to be aged in coolers just right to be perfected, like [meat](https://www.allenbrothers.com/dry-aged-beef.html).
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.7. Pro: Vegan products are more energy efficient.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.7.1. Pro: Fur coats are [unnecessary](http://www.haveyoupackedthecamera.com/blog/articles/antarctica/antarcticaClothingOuterLayer.htm) for warm in all conditions, and it is also requires [15x](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1366983/How-ethical-fur-fashion-industrys-cynical-yet.html) as much energy to produce than non-fur equivalents.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.7.2. Pro: Growing and producing meat consumes more [fossil fuel energy](http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549) than plant-based food.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.8. Pro: Non-traditional farming methods \(like vertical farming \([1](http://www.verticalfarm.nl/), [2](https://www.wur.nl/nl/Dossiers/dossier/Verticale-landbouw.htm)\)\) developing in modern society will be best accomplished with crops instead of livestock.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.9. Con: Not all land is fertile enough to grow crops with high enough vitamin and mineral levels to sustain humans.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.9.1. Pro: If people don't get enough nutrients from their food, they may need to eat more, which in turn uses up more resources.
1.1.1.2.1.1.3.10. Pro: Fish and other ocean wildlife populations are [greatly reduced](https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/bp434-e.htm#THE%20STATE%20OF%20THE%20WORLD'S%20FISHERIES\(txt\)) compared to a century ago, and a vegan society would allow those populations to rebuild and restore balance in the ocean.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4. Con: Though it may seem that ethical veganism would be beneficial to the environment, a vegan lifestyle for all humans is not sustainable.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.1. Pro: [Food waste](http://veganzinga.com/going-vegan-wont-end-world-hunger/) and a lack of production would still occur, which means that a vegan diet would not sustain the world's population.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.1.1. Pro: Starving people would still not get access \(due to lack of money\) to food they need.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.1.2. Pro: The fruits and vegetables has the highest percentage of food loss within its category \([pg 5](https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf)\) and overall \([pg 13](https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf)\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.2. Pro: Although a vegan diet can extend the maximum world population, it still has a cap \(at most adding [4 billion](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/meta) more people to the 10-11 billion people cap of an omnivore diet\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3. Pro: If most of the population became vegan we would need to use chemical fertilizers instead of raising animals for fertilizer \(manure\). This switch is not a sustainable or eco-friendly option.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.1. Pro: This benefits already large and unethical agrochemical companies like [Monsanto](https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=monsanto+unethical+issues).
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.2. Con: Meat requires more fertilizer \([50x](http://theconversation.com/how-the-great-phosphorus-shortage-could-leave-us-all-hungry-54432)\) than vegan foods. So vegan diets will actually use less chemical fertilizers than meat, making it the more sustainable choice.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.2.1. Con: For most species, that may be the case, but pastoral-based livestock systems use vastly less fertilizer than cropping systems, due to greater spacing out of growing food that allows for less phosphorus to be taken away from the land they're grown on \(a pasture may have 2-3 animals/hectare that would be about [6,000-9,000kg](https://www.dairymoos.com/how-much-do-cows-weigh/) taken away, whereas a wheat field could be 25,000kg on the same land space\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.3. Pro: Chemicals that are mined for fertilizer have a limited quantity \(such as [phosphorus](http://theconversation.com/how-the-great-phosphorus-shortage-could-leave-us-all-hungry-54432), which is highly unsustainable\), and relying on them will eventually lead to food shortages.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.3.1. Pro: Manure provides a ['closed loop](http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/problems/phosphorus.html)' of recycling chemicals, like phosphorus, in the ecosystem, whereas mining does not. Manure is sustainable, whereas mining is not.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.3.2. Con: [Manure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus) does not sustain civilizations anymore, so phosphorus rock from mining and chemical reactions is the main source of fertilizer now.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.4. Con: Technology, like [software](http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/phosphorus.html), can slow fertilizer use.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.5. Con: Chemical fertilizers are safer for human health, as manure carries a host of diseases \([1](https://www.gardenguides.com/99768-diseases-found-cow-manure.html), [2](https://homeguides.sfgate.com/health-risks-chicken-manure-98289.html)\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6. Con: There are alternatives to manure that would be sustainable/eco-friendly too.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.1. Pro: Reversing the effects of soil degradation could be achieved through vegan means, such as [biochar](https://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/making-biochar-improve-soil-zmaz09fmzraw), [compost](https://www.bhg.com/gardening/yard/compost/how-to-compost/), [no-till farming](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/09/no-till-farming-is-on-the-rise-thats-actually-a-big-deal/?noredirect=on), and [crop rotation](https://www.britannica.com/topic/crop-rotation). So pasture animals are not necessary.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.1.1. Pro: These and other vegan tactics \("planted trees, dug ditches and built reservoirs", "irrigation, crop diversity and no-till farming" \([1](https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/dust-bowl-cause1.htm)\)\) were solutions to the Dust Bowl, practically the largest soil degradation event in history. Animals were likely one of the lowest solutions on the government's list at the time, making it not a great or as suitable of an option for soil degradation as vegan methods.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.1.2. Pro: The [high amounts of crop residue](https://heritagelandbank.com/announcements/news-events/how-prevent-soil-erosion) that isn't eaten or decomposed should be left on the farm for crop rotation \(instead of removed or fed to animals\) to help keep the soil fertile and thus prevent soil erosion for future crops.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.2. Pro: Instead of animals, [human waste](https://www.planetnatural.com/phosphorous-fertilizer/) could be a replacement.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.2.1. Pro: Although this is not vegan \(humans are animals\), because this is really eco and sustainable, vegans should make an exception for this to help their crops grow.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.3. Pro: If people stop killing animals, due to going vegan, then wildlife could roam fields and provide some of the manure to counteract the manure shortage from farm animals.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.3.1. Con: There is nowhere near enough wildlife to provide enough manure to counteract the loss of farm animals.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.3.2. Con: The number of wild animals roaming the field would be more random and thus harder to manage accurately to predict/control yields, which is a less efficient method than using manure.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.3.2.1. Pro: There would be inefficiencies that would lead to more expenses/higher prices than usual due to a lack of prediction about them due to unpredictable yields.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.3.3. Con: Not everyone would want to encourage wildlife near them \(due to potential unwanted conflicts with them\), so it would not be a great option for them.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.4. Con: Chemical fertilizers are not good for the environment, causing ['dead zones'](http://theconversation.com/how-the-great-phosphorus-shortage-could-leave-us-all-hungry-54432) in the ocean.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.4. Pro: Vegan foods might travel more food miles than meat \([tropical, packaged, fresh, and store bought are the biggest contenders currently](https://cuesa.org/learn/how-far-does-your-food-travel-get-your-plate)\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.4.1. Con: The majority of food-related greenhouse gas emissions occur during production, with final transport to retail only contributing [4% of the total emissions](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702969f). Food choices have far more impact on GHG emissions than distance travelled.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.4.1.1. Con: This does not take into account any other polluting factors. Especially in the northern parts of the world, vegetables are not available for long periods of times during the year. A switch off from meat completely would necessitate large scale transportation of food from other areas, which would need new planes, ships, trains etc. Infrastructure would need to be enlarged \(ports, airports etc\). All of this would increase the need for raw building materials, mines are great polluters for example.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.4.2. Pro: According to the [article](https://cuesa.org/learn/how-far-does-your-food-travel-get-your-plate), local food vendors try to be more environmentally friendly in their approaches than ones further out.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.4.3. Pro: Depending on the location, some vegans may have more food miles for their food than if they lived elsewhere [\(like living in Sweden versus the UK\), which could cause their food to have more miles traveled than a meat eater \(such as one living in Iowa\)](http://ngfn.org/resources/ngfn-database/knowledge/food_mil.pdf).
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.4.4. Pro: Foods that travel more miles use [more energy \(14% of the food system is transport-related\), and packaging uses even more](https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/viewhtml.php?id=281).
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.4.5. Pro: Increase in emissions \(like [CO2](http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/04/how-green-is-local-food/)\) can come from transportation of heavily exported foods, like quinoa \([1](https://www.pri.org/stories/2010-06-21/quinoa-bolivias-nutty-tasting-export-success), [2](https://foodfirst.org/bolivian-quinoa-to-eat-or-to-export/)\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.5. Con: We don't have enough resources to allow every person to live on the same diet as the average US or European citizen. We already keep billions of farmed animals \(more than the number of all humans who have ever lived so far\); yet we are not able to provide everyone with enough food. We already use a third of all available land on this planet for animal agriculture. We cannot continue this unless we clear even more rainforests and other natural habitats.
1.1.1.2.1.1.4.6. Con: Since everyone becoming vegan is a step forward in a positive, eco direction, we can continue that momentum by working on this theme \(like food waste education, selling 'ugly' produce, growing food...\). However, without going vegan, these steps cannot be made. So even though veganism might not be sustainable, it is the foundation and start for our sustainability.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5. Pro: A vegan society would cause the least harm to wildlife.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1. Pro: In a vegan world, species would not be as endangered anymore, some species would not go extinct.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.10.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.2. Con: If everyone chose to be vegan, then it is a possible violation of the [food chain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_chain). Animals might overwhelm us.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.3. Con: In order to grow crops we already mass extinct certain lifeforms. Middle Europe for instance is almost insect free leading to a mass starvation of birds and other animals living of those insects. Germany has lost [75%](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insektensterben) of its insect biomass due to modern agriculture.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.4. Con: Domestic animals were bred by humans throughout history. They are not capable of living in the wilderness now and will go extinct if they had to.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.5. Pro: "[Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction](http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts)."
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.6. Con: Animals are not threatened if they are provided legal protections from mass exploitation or extinction.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.6.1. Con: Individual animal lives are endangered in any slaughterhouse, by definition, however restrictive and well applied the laws may be. The focus of veganism is not only the preservation of species as a whole, but the reduction of suffering inflicted upon animals as sentient individuals.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.7. Con: [Cowspiracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowspiracy) is not a credible source.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.7.1. Con: Cowspiracy is not a source on its own, it is an aggregator. Its sources can be found at: [cowspiracy.com](http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/)
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.8. Pro: Because people eat meat, they threaten endangered species, even when they're protected legally.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.8.1. Pro: One example is when [Bear Grylls ate a protected frog in Bulgaria](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/22/uk/bear-grylls-bulgaria-fine-intl-scli-gbr/index.html). He didn't know it was protected, but since he ate meat, disregarded the laws and put the species of frogs at risk \(due to its limited population size\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.9. Pro: Over [100,000 species](http://www.worldanimalfoundation.org/articles/article/8949042/186425.htm) per year go extinct in large part due to animal agriculture.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.2. Con: Consuming plants, in fact, can sometimes lead to man-animal conflict.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.2.1. Con: Raising animals for human use does in fact [require more](https://www.culinaryschools.org/yum/vegetables/) crops and farmland than not using animals.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.2.2. Pro: For instance, the clearing of forests for producing crops in some states of India have led to fragmentation of the habitat for animals like [elephants](http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/elephants/asian_elephants/areas/issues/elephant_human_conflict/). As a result, when they enter these areas, the crops get destroyed and people tend to burst crackers or use fire to shoo them away. Fragmentation of habitat means no migration which means lack of food and hence loss of life.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.3. Con: [Monocrop](https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/plant-problems/environmental/monoculture-gardening.htm) agriculture to service vegan demand is an environmental catastrophe.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.3.1. Pro: Vegan foods affect the wildlife of insects, such as [bumblebees and bees](https://www.kialo.com/should-all-bee-products-be-banned-1233/1233.0=1233.1+1233.387).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.3.2. Pro: The least-harm alternatives are mentioned in the [cons here along their children claims](https://www.kialo.com/the-ethics-of-eating-animals-is-eating-meat-wrong-1229/1229.0=1229.1-1229.2000+1229.2117). They include utilizing hydroponics/aeroponics/vertical gardens \(to increase space for wildlife and also avoid conflicts with them\), and hand picking crops instead of using machines.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.3.3. Pro: Pests and diseases could be introduced and spread over non-native parts of the world due to globalization of the food system, where it could cause damage there. The extent of damage goes past lost crops towards infecting wild lands \(impacting [biodiversity](http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1118322/icode/) there\). One example of this is [chestnut blight from Asia wiping out American chestnut trees](https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2016/05/12/invasive-pests-no-1-threat-wnc-forests/84189454/).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.3.4. Con: Following a vegan, plant-based diet [causes the least harm to animals](https://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/comparing-animal-deaths-production-plant-animal-foods/).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.3.4.1. Con: Many species of wild animals have been almost hunted to extinction by farmers that felt threatened by their presence or the animals eating their crops, causing significant disruptions in natural habitats.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.3.4.2. Pro: Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many [more plants](http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too) are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food. A plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.3.5. Con: The idea of perfect veganism is a non-vegan one. The [actual ethics](http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too) of veganism are focused on causing the least possible harm to the fewest number of others.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.3.5.1. Con: This is a "[No True Scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)" fallacy, creating a washed-out definition of Veganism to avoid the contradictions that it faces off, until it eventually might just as well become "Conscientious Omnivore Diet", defeating the purpose of Veganism itself.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.3.6. Con: The [accidental deaths](http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too) from growing and harvesting plants are ethically different to the intentional deaths caused by slaughtering animals for food.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.3.6.1. Con: Unfortunately, the outcome is the same for those animals.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.4. Pro: The [fishing industry is especially deleterious to the ocean's biota](http://www.pelagicos.net/MARS6400/readings/Dayton_et_al._1995.pdf).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.4.1. Pro: According to the article, some fish cannot reproduce faster than they are caught \(due to long life stages and low reproduction rates\), leading to a decline in their population.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.4.2. Pro: Trawling and bycatch severely reduces fish \(especially demersal, or bottom-feeding fish\) populations, which negatively affect fisheries.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.4.3. Pro: Modern shrimp trawling operations generates more oceanic waste due to high levels of discards/bycatch in its processes.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.5. Pro: In addition to being not harmful, vegan foods can be very symbiotic with and beneficial to wildlife.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.5.1. Pro: Some foods that are eaten rely on animals to distribute the plant to allow it to flourish elsewhere, such as [elephant bush](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portulacaria_afra). So eating the plant helps the plant out too.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.5.2. Pro: Allowing vegan foods to grow allows wildlife to grow it. When the plants flower, it helps native insects have food to support their populations.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.5.3. Pro: Fruitarian diets help native plants out \(where food is taken from the plant without harming the plant itself\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.5.4. Con: Beekeeping is [beneficial to the environment](http://science.time.com/2013/09/12/honeybees-are-still-hurting-but-backyard-and-rooftop-beekeepers-can-help/), yet bee products \(like [honey](https://www.livescience.com/37611-what-is-honey-honeybees.html) and [bee pollen](https://carolinahoneybees.com/why-pollen-is -vital-for-honeybee-survival/)\) are not vegan. Bee populations [are declining globally](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/beekeeping/9790465/Why-natural-beekeeping-could-save-our-honey-making-friends.html).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.5.4.1. Con: Beekeeping could be inherent to the farming of plants without having to steal the honey and making starve the bees with a glucosic substitute.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.5.4.2. Con: The most commonly kept honeybee \(apis mellifera\) [evolved in Europe](http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/42463639/1#sectionRange) and are a [non-native species](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5198217/) in many areas where they are kept as pollinators and honey producers.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.5.4.3. Con: Honeybees compete with native bee species for pollen and nectar, thus putting pressure on native populations of bees in places where honeybee hives are kept.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.5.4.4. Con: Using honeybees as pollinators [results from](https://www.lexiconoffood.com/video/bees-and-monoculture) \(and reinforces\) large scale monocultural crop plantations which are [harmful to honeybees](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/honey-bees-and-monoculture-nothing-to-dance-about/) and [to the environment](https://theconversation.com/single-crop-farming-is-leaving-wildlife-with-no-room-to-turn-38991).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.6. Pro: Infrastructure could be made more vegan. Efforts made by the [Boring Company](https://www.boringcompany.com/faq/) to make car traffic go underground could reduce injuries to wildlife on Earth's surface.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.6.1. Pro: The wildlife could be affected by cars coming from suburban areas to cities or within the cities themselves.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.6.2. Pro: As cities start growing their population and people encroach on nature, this issue will become more of a reality than now.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.6.3. Pro: Vehicles reportedly hit [1-2 million animals](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/roadkill-endangers-endangered-wildlife/) a year.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.6.3.1. Con: Most of these accidents take place outside of cities where animals tend to live. In a study of multiple US states, [more than 95%](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/humanfac/94156.cfm) of all wildlife crashes took place on rural roads.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.6.3.2. Pro: Comparing [population](http://images.slideplayer.com/35/10395779/slides/slide_9.jpg) to [roadkill](https://www.vox.com/2015/4/4/8341263/roadkill-maps) on a map, the trend shows that roadkill overlaps with densely populated areas \(a.k.a. cities\)
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.6.4. Pro: Global warming is bringing [more animals to cities](https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/why-wild-animals-are-moving-cities-and-what-do-about-it), making it more important than ever to protect them there.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.6.5. Pro: Removing roads could condense cities to provide more space for wildlife.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.6.5.1. Pro: Then wildlife would have less need to go to cities due to more roaming space
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.6.6. Con: There isn't a lot of wildlife in most cities.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.6.6.1. Pro: [Certain species of wildlife is increasing in urban areas](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/20/urban-beasts-how-wild-animals-have-moved-into-cities). Cities create an unbalance of species, leading the food chain to fall apart. That process makes it possible for some species to overgrow and others to falter
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7. Con: Hunting for population control is better for the ecosystem and creates more protections for such species and populations than the vegan approach of not harming animals.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1. Pro: Hunting is a viable method to control overpopulation and invasive animals. This is more environmentally sustainable and ethical for wildlife than not interfering with their population status.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.1. Pro: Keeping species' populations in check decreases the risk of them going extinct.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.2. Con: There are methods that vegans can take care of overpopulation and invasions without killing animals, as these problems do not always occur due to natural events.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.2.1. Pro: Fish kills, which are caused by [overpopulation](https://www.sancoind.com/news/fish-stocking-and-overpopulation) \(too many fish breathing dissolved oxygen\), are also caused by human activities \(like [driving, eating meat, and growing crops](https://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-chemical-fishkills.html)\). If vegans drive less or do not grow crops near waterways, then they can prevent fish kills without hunting.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.2.2. Pro: Vegans can try to decrease the capability of a population from getting to big by removing environmental factors that allow them to survive \(like food sources or habitats\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.2.2.1. Con: You cannot remove food sources or habitats without leading to population decline in other species that rely on them.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.2.3. Pro: Vegans can relocate animals through careful monitoring programs to prevent animal populations from expanding too much.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.2.4. Pro: Vegans can try to support existing wildlife and make their conditions favorable, so that they can overcome any species with the potential to cause overpopulation or invasions.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.2.5. Con: The cause of the invasion is often irrelevant once it already occurs, and can only be remedied by dramatic intervention to prevent further ecosystem imbalance.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.3. Pro: If there are massive [die-offs](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/die-off), then the animals' meat would go to waste.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.3.1. Pro: This also saves resources, because farmers would not have to grow crops to feed people if people just eat the animals from die-offs instead.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.4. Con: Not being vegan is one of the major reasons why the environment has overpopulation and invasive animals to begin with.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.4.1. Pro: Using animals for pest management \(like [ferrets to remove rabbits](https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/animal-pests/ferrets/)\) can make them become invasive.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.4.2. Pro: The desire for hunting caused overpopulation for game animals, like deer \([1](http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=icwdm_usdanwrc), [2](https://www.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Hunting-has-increased-deer-population-not-643259.php)\), through regulated hunting practices and disrupt native species \(like [songbirds](https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/) with deer increases\)
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.4.3. Pro: [Fish stocking](https://www.sancoind.com/news/fish-stocking-and-overpopulation) for fishing can cause overpopulation of species as well \(although they may not affect nearby environments if the water body is artificial\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.4.4. Pro: Pets \(like [cats](http://www.thegardenisland.com/2018/03/18/hawaii-news/feral-cats-make-invasive-species-list/) and [fish](http://www.saltwatersmarts.com/why-never-release-marine-aquarium-livestock-into-wild-2792/)\) can cause damage to the environment \(especially wildlife\) by becoming invasive. Not having them would decrease this issue.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.5. Pro: Not interacting with wildlife does not mean we will be helping it. In Oregon, when driving across the Santiam Pass, you'll see forests of dead trees that burnt in a forest fire. People thought if we left it, it would grow back. This was not the case, and now there is a forest of dead trees. \(The trees burnt in a forest fire.\)
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2. Pro: Without a top predator \(like humans\) to [selectively cull](https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/game-handling/selective-culling.htm) the old and sick, entire populations \(species grouping \(like a herd\) or the total population of ecosystems\) might not survive \(due to starvation, etc.\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.1. Pro: If Texans didn't cull boars, they would overrun farms and destroy the livelihood of hardworking people.  Boars also kill people.  [A Plague of Pigs in Texas](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pigs-in-texas-73769069/)
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.2. Pro: Selective culling keeps populations healthy and reduces the spread of disease \(including inter-species ones like mad cow disease \([1](https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/game-handling/selective-culling1.htm), [2](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/science/17obprey.html)\)\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3. Con: Selective culling causes issues too.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.1. Pro: Once the weak are all hunted, people will resort to other forms of hunting \(like trophy hunting\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.1.1. Pro: In trophy hunting, the best-looking animals are hunted \(a.k.a. selected\) for a collection, which could unbalance the natural population \(by cutting out the best and worst, only the middle is left\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.1.2. Pro: This transition can become unethical.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.1.2.1. Pro: People can start hunting healthy animals out of desperation \(because all the animals that a weak, old, and ill are hunted out by selective culling and people are still in the habit of hunting\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.1.2.2. Pro: Once people transition, they might like trophy hunting more than selective culling \(especially if they used "selective culling" as an [excuse](https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/game-handling/selective-culling.htm) to trophy hunt\). Then they would trophy hunt more than selective culling, which would decrease the positive benefits that selective culling provides.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.2. Pro: One example is that the more people hunt, the more that errors emerge due to recklessness and carelessness. This could damage culled and non-culled populations.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.3. Pro: Sometimes hunters selectively cull on purpose to cultivate [better breeds](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227324276_Selective_culling_of_Iberian_red_deer_stags_Cervus_elaphus_hispanicus_by_selective_monteria_in_Spain) for trophy hunting.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4. Pro: Selective culling does not leave nature alone, but instead [takes the place of natural selection](https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/game-handling/selective-culling.htm). [Artificial selection](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227324276_Selective_culling_of_Iberian_red_deer_stags_Cervus_elaphus_hispanicus_by_selective_monteria_in_Spain) has no purpose \(as nature already does selecting\) but contains plenty of negative consequences.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.1. Pro: When this happens, there are negative consequences with no benefit \(just doing an activity with no purpose, like helping someone \(nature\) who already has a job that they can perform without help \(from hunters\)\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.2. Pro: People place the value of one species over another \(by supporting the growth of a population through weeding out the weak\), which can disrupt the balance within the ecosystem.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.2.1. Pro: Then less predatory species can thrive to the point they [overpopulate and cause threats](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140305-culling-badgers-deer-bison-swans-ethics-conservation/) to their own and other species' populations.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.2.2. Pro: Humans may selectively cull species for cultivation rather than environmentalism, which potentially disrupts the ecosystem.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.2.2.1. Pro: If people spend money on their hunting gear \(camo clothing, guns...\), then the opportunity cost is not donating to saving endangered species \(like fighting poaching\). Endangered species suffer in this regard
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.2.3. Pro: The action of placing value of one species over another can negatively impact endangered species.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.2.3.1. Pro: When humans opt to selectively cull they can usurp a natural predator. This competition, with humans, can endanger predating species, as humans remove the predators' main food source \(weak, old, and ill prey\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.2.3.2. Pro: People get rid of wildlife they believe are nuisances through culling \(without regards to whether they are endangered or not\). Through this process, they might unintentionally cull endangered species, and harm their population in the process.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.2.3.3. Pro: Even though selective culling may strengthen an endangered species' population by weeding out the bad, people may unknowingly reduce a population to virtual extinction, [numerically and functionally](https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/not-yet-gone-but-effectively-extinct/).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.3. Pro: The negative effects are: promoting hunting, wasting resources \(such as materials to make guns\), and polluting the environment \(like with gun shells\). Thus, the benefits outweigh the risks. Selective culling should not take place.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.4. Con: There are benefits to selective culling, such as improving the ecosystem around a person.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.5. Con: Some people may actually eat the meat from the animals they selectively cull. So while there is no ecological purpose, selective culling has an individualistic one.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.5.1. Con: The bad part about this is that the animal selectively culled may have had a purpose within the ecosystem that they cannot provide when taken out. Possibly, the animal would have been food for a predator or still provided protection to a population, even though it was at a disadvantage.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.6. Pro: Humans might have poor judgment on which animals should thrive within a population or not compared to nature and their assumptions can negatively impact populations.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.6.1. Pro: It is possible that some animals deemed as inferior really are at an advantage that can save the population. One example is that if people were selected for positive traits, then the ones that are [sickle cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease) disease carriers would be selected out. However, this trait protects them from malaria and thus are more advantageous than those without. Thus, removing them weaken's the capabilities of a population to survive.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.6.2. Pro: People might not be aware that removing one animal that is inferior might negatively alter the genetic pool of the population.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.6.2.1. Pro: Decreasing the genetic diversity of a population makes them more susceptible to getting wiped out.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.3.4.6.2.2. Pro: It might be possible that the animal with inferior traits also carry beneficial ones on the same gene, but may not always be obvious, like [obesity and hair color in mice](https://speakingofresearch.com/2012/11/14/bbc-science-club-puts-animal-research-in-the-spotlight/)\). Wiping them out \(called [differential selection](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jwmg.21337)\) may remove unknown/not obvious essential traits crucial to a population's survival and may cause them to suffer or go extinct as a result.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.4. Con: If everybody went vegan, the practice of forced reproduction would come to an end and the number of animals of species which today are "exploited" by non vegans, which today is artificially pumped up, would be drastically reduced, to a point that the "starvation of the herd" would not be an issue at all. Thus, culling is not necessary.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.5. Pro: For the majority to go vegan, a [select few would likely selectively cull pests](https://www.quora.com/How-is-veganism-bad-for-the-environment) to keep the vegans from possibly breaking their philosophy to do that themselves.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.5.1. Con: PETA has a list of human pest control methods \([1](https://www.peta.org/living/humane-home/humane-bug-prevention/), [2](https://www.peta.org/living/humane-home/insects-may-bug-us/)\)
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.5.1.1. Con: Those sources only reference invertebrates, which are not generally hunted for food and thus does not refute entirely the original claim.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.5.2. Con: [Vector control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_control) uses [biological](http://www.placermosquito.org/programs/biological-and-physical-control/), [cultural](http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-8893/L-429.pdf), [physical/mechanical](http://www.placermosquito.org/programs/biological-and-physical-control/), and [legislative](http://www.mvcac.org/advocacy-and-legislation/legislative-and-regulatory-issues/) methods to prevent wildlife from becoming a threat. These methods can assist vegans in handling wildlife through either indirectly or not killing them.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.5.2.1. Con: This claim and the sources linked are more viable for invertebrates than larger animals. Viable population control varies from species to species and many of these methods would not work for larger animals that are hunted for meat.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.5.3. Pro: Citizen science-based monitoring projects \(through [mobile apps](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/8-apps-that-turn-citizens-into-scientists/)\) is a great way for vegans to [surveil \(like mapping\)](https://www.rentokil-pestcontrolindia.com/vector-control/mosquito-vector-control-methods/) populations and [respond](https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/testimony/Info_Testimony_AEN-WTL-EEP-AGR-WAL_01-24-18_VCB.pdf) to issues \(in a vegan manner\) before they become a large threat.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.5.3.1. Con: Threats may still need selective culling, but at least this process can keep the extent that it's carried through minimized.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.3. Con: There could be other ways to control animal population than killing them.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.3.1. Pro: Vegans can do [research](http://www.mvcac.org/advocacy-and-legislation/legislative-and-regulatory-issues/) and brainstorm new methods to handle wildlife once everyone goes vegan.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.3.1.1. Con: A plan needs to be in place before such a dramatic change happens to curtail further ecological damage.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.3.2. Pro: Public education can help to encourage everyone \(especially once vegan\) can take part in the preventative actions for wildlife control.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.3.3. Pro: Technology can help to control animal population ethically.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.3.3.1. Pro: New technologies, like [drones](http://www.mvcac.org/advocacy-and-legislation/legislative-and-regulatory-issues/), can provide surveillance instead of people being in wildlife areas.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.3.3.1.1. Pro: People would not be possibly create damage while they walk in delicate ecosystems with endangered species.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.3.3.1.2. Pro: People would be at less risk of being attacked by wildlife. Drones are a safer surveillance option for humans than previous methods of monitoring \(like going in-person to locations\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.3.3.2. Pro: [Genetic engineering \(GE\)](https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/06/16/482279851/are-genetically-engineered-mice-the-answer-to-combating-lyme-disease) of mice and deer may help with preventing the spread of Lyme disease instead of [killing them](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/science/ticks-lyme-disease-mice-nantucket.html).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.3.3.3. Con: This is more costly than allowing citizens to do the animal control, and makes it even more costly when you consider it draws no revenue to conservation efforts unlike hunting does in the U.S.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.3.4. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.5.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.4. Pro: Hunting is more eco-friendly than growing crops, as it uses less resources \(land, water, nutrients...\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.8. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.4.4.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.9. Con: Vegans are no better than omnivores at competing with other wild animals for the same food source \(birds go after apples and wolves go after sheep\). Thus, vegans are not better off, but create the same harm to wildlife as before from this standpoint.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.10. Con: A vegan society may not last in the long-term. Between when they start and end, they may remove all animal agriculture. So if the majority of people decide to not be vegan again, without livestock available, people may resort to eating wildlife, when they normally do not.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.11. Con: The risk of [death of wildlife](https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/viewhtml.php?id=281) increases during the transport of food, especially when the vegan food travels for thousands of miles by land. Local meat would cause less harm to wildlife during its transport.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.11.1. Pro: According to a [scientific study](https://www.treehugger.com/cars/trillions-of-insects-killed-by-cars-every-year-says-study.html), 2 bugs are killed \(by striking the license plate alone\) for every 6.2 miles  driven.  This would equate to 32.5 trillion dead insects in the US alone for a given year.  A utilitarian that believed this argument would likewise argue against cars and other forms of massive insect slaughter.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.11.2. Con: Feed needs to be transported to livestock to eat before their meat is shuttled to the consumer. Vegan food cuts out the middleman \(livestock\) by shuttling the crops directly to the consumer.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.12. Con: If people eat [lake-grown algae](http://www.klamathafa.com/afa.html) for example, they are eating more lives in one bite than how many are lost to make a steak.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.13. Pro: People would less likely and less unknowingly eat illegal "[bushmeat](https://www.fws.gov/international/wildlife-without-borders/global-program/bushmeat.html)" \(which is wildlife\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.13.1. Pro: Even though laws and enforcement \(like in the [US](http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/29/smuggled-bushmeat-ebolas-back-door-america-265668.html) and [Europe](https://news.mongabay.com/2017/03/endangered-species-to-declare-europes-understudied-bushmeat-trade/)\) try to keep out this type of meat, it still works its way into the food system there. People might eat it thinking they are eating something approved of \(that would be "ethical"\), but in reality are not.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.13.1.1. Con: This used to happen before DNA testing \([pg 22](https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/articles/13SummerQ-FinalWeb.pdf)\), when poachers to remove all identifiable parts, like skin, to hide it until companies bought it or mixed it with beef to confuse the taste.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.13.2. Pro: Not only is this bad for the animals, but the diseases that travel with the meat cause [epidemiological](https://qz.com/795294/will-illegal-bushmeat-bring-the-next-global-outbreak/) issues as well. People could get ill with diseases that are rare in their part of the world, which make them more difficult to treat.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.14. Con: Livestock are used to [mimic](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/12/ranchers-environmentalists-cooperate-to-save-birds-prairies/) native animals' roles that are no longer in their regions anymore to keep the ecosystem going there where crops took away from it.
1.1.1.2.1.1.5.14.1. Con: Mimicking native animals is a short-term solution, as what really should be done is bring back the native animals instead to create a true match with the environment/ecosystem to have the best success at preserving it there.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6. Pro: Vegan lifestyles add beauty and removes destruction from the environment.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.1. Pro: Plants that are grown add colors that people make wallpapers out of and are a point of pride for an area: such as the[lavender fields of the French Provence](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pqaNZRauoRU/UeoNq_K9jFI/AAAAAAAABVM/LqTxNcd18x4/s1600/Lavender+fields+Provence+-+France+%284%29.jpg).
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.1.1. Pro: Much easier than creating wallpaper featuring a [factory farm](https://www.naturalblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/factory-farms.jpg).
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.2. Pro: Vegan lifestyles allow for more freedom, as people most likely feel better after going to a farm and learning about what plants look like to pull crops rather than walking around a dairy or factory farm.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.2.1. Con: There is no all too visible difference between vegan and non-vegan landscapes, as many animal farms are built in rural areas and most of the land there is employed to grow plant crops, produced in particular to accommodate the animal's food demands.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.2.2. Con: Livestock grazing on the free fields is described as a [pastoral landscape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral) and was highly regarded aesthetically for millennia. Visual benefits of vegan landscapes over non-vegan ones are thus highly questionable.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.2.3. Con: Visiting certain kinds of fields at certain periods of work cycle may be [dangerous for the health](https://theheartysoul.com/mcdonalds-fries-pesticides/).
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.2.4. Con: People may go to the fields with freely grazing animals and feel good after learning about the animal's way of life.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.2.5. Pro: Many people do not know what a plant looks like when it's grown and before/while it produces food. To see that at a farm is an educational experience, especially when comparing different plants to each other to see patterns.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.3. Con: Deforestation for growing crops is not a pretty sight.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.4. Pro: Some vegan foods \(especially trees such as [maple syrup](https://www.massmaple.org/about-maple-syrup/how-sugar-maple-trees-work/) and fruit\) allow the native environment to be preserved while benefiting the plant that the food is taken from.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.4.1. Pro: Tapping maple trees when the sap is flowing down to match air pressure alleviates the trees from too much pressure \(that reaches [40psi](https://www.berkshiresweetgold.com/science--heritage.html)\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.4.2. Pro: The damage to maple trees is minimal and could be just as much as a [woodpecker's hole](http://www.caryinstitute.org/newsroom/learn-about-science-maple-syrup) \(especially if the spout's placed in one\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.4.3. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.4.4. Con: Vegan foods decrease biodiversity through monocultures and growing in biodiverse regions, so ability of the vegan diet to protect biodiversity is questionable.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5. Con: Hunting \(which is not vegan\) is often done to preserve nature, or to finance preserving nature.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.1. Con: Hunting is a very ugly sport involving the death of animals in nature \(which leads to extinctions\) and manipulating nature to accommodate hunters and by the act of hunting alone.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.2. Pro: Hunting, if done ethically, will give an animal a far quicker and cleaner death than in nature. Old animals often freeze, starve, or get brutally killed by predators.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.2.1. Pro: Hunting makes an animal's death more peaceful and humane.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.3. Con: Hunting messes up nature's circle of life. When animals die naturally, they provide food for an entire ecosystem at times \(depending on how large the animal is\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.3.1. Con: The fact that an animal that dies in the wild feeds many other animals, plants, etc. doesn't make its death any less painful.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.3.1.1. Con: These animals die after having a long and fulfilling life naturally and when it is time to \(instead of being killed through hunting before the animals' life's maximum length is reached\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.3.1.2. Pro: Many animals die in the wild under cruel circumstances, such as disease and injury. For instance, they can die very young, and often without even leaving any \(living\) offspring.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.3.2. Pro: Humans manipulated life to the point that they disrupt the natural circle of life. Many humans are not really part of the circle of life anymore.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.3.2.1. Pro: Humans have a double standard where they do not want to be hunted \(as die peacefully\) but do not allow the same respect for animals to die a natural death.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.3.2.2. Pro: Human remains do not become part of the environment these days with [modern burial practices](http://www.businessinsider.com/burying-dead-bodies-environment-funeral-conservation-2015-10?op=1&r=UK&IR=T#eco-friendly-alternatives-do-exist-6) \(intended to preserve the human body after death instead of decompose, especially with embalming, like Egyptian mummies\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.3.3. Pro: Human-style hunting gives humans an unfair advantage that breaks the circle of life. Humans can potentially kill all life, as seen with overfishing. Any other animal on Earth is not capable of this.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.4. Pro: Hunting is part of the circle of life. Animals hunt and use tools for it. Humans are animals and just made this form of hunting more advanced \(through better tools like guns\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.4.1. Pro: The better tools makes humans higher in the food chain \(just like how animals who use tools allow them to be higher in the food chain\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.4.2. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.6.5.3.3.
1.1.1.2.1.1.6.6. Pro: Life is hard enough and there's no reason to make it harder for others. Veganism does the opposite, where others care for and help each other, which is beautiful on its own. The outcomes from this eventually visually appear, but even better is the mode of the continuous motion that people and society will flow through that's less destructive and more collaborative/unifying through time.
1.1.1.2.1.1.7. Pro: One [study](http://tier-im-fokus.ch/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/baroni07.pdf) revealed that the vegan diet has the lowest total environmental impact compared to Italian, omnivore, and vegetarian diets, especially when organically grown.
1.1.1.2.1.1.8. Con: The production of vegetables, fruits and nuts uses huge amount of land for basically no nutritional value.
1.1.1.2.1.1.9. Con: Research suggests that herding livestock in the right way could help deserts to become greener, increase food production, and \(partially\) reverse climate change. The ideas presented by Allan Savory in "[How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI)" are brilliant and should not be discarded. The conclusion points out that a non-vegan diet can be sustainable too. So worldwide veganism is not the only dietary option to benefit the environment, as others can help out too.
1.1.1.2.1.1.10. Con: The [backyard chicken movement](https://www.bookbrowse.com/mag/btb/index.cfm/book_number/3173/why-did-the-chicken-cross-the-world) has many people converting lawn which produces no nutrients, into a source of nutrients for a family.
1.1.1.2.1.1.10.1. Pro: From personal experience, chickens only take minutes a day to care for properly.
1.1.1.2.1.1.10.2. Con: The backyard chicken movement is too riddled with issues to adopt, from [legislative restrictions to public health concerns](http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5900), and scaling \(wouldn't be possible for those who do not have backyards, as with those who live in apartments\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.11. Con: Veganism is not the cause of environmental problems, something else is. That is why even if globalized veganism is implemented, it will make a small dent, but still not be enough to fight against environmentally devastating factors that can't in against. In this case, the environment still gets worse over time without getting better.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.1. Pro: Becoming vegan is not the necessary solution to the environmental problems caused by feeding humans. Simply turning vegan is often presented as a simple solution to the environmental issues, but If humanity was to go vegan without addressing a culture of excess, greed, waste and instant gratification, the environmental damage will continue and unforeseen consequences will occur.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2. Pro: Eating/drinking less or not at all is much better \(environmentally, ethically, socially...\) than a vegan diet, as excessive consumption is a core cause for environmental damage.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.1. Pro: There are a few tricks to get in this direction of eating less right now before better technologies come along \(like a [food replacement pill](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a8787/why-dont-we-have-food-replacement-pills-15248871/)\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.1.1. Pro: People who weigh less require a lower caloric intake to maintain their body weight than those who weigh more.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.1.2. Pro: Getting ill and injured less often will allow the body to not need as much resources to recover from those events.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.1.3. Pro: Sedentary lifestyles require less calories than high level activity ones.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.1.4. Pro: Nutrient-rich foods allow people to be full and get adequate nutrition from lower food quantities.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.1.5. Pro: Humans could live for some periods without eating, due to [autophagy](https://www.dietdoctor.com/renew-body-fasting-autophagy) \(although what is lost would need to be replaced if autophagy goes too far and is detrimental to health\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.2. Pro: Maybe people could become autotrophs instead of heterotrophs through various methods \(like using [chloroplasts](https://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/photosyntheti-people/)\). Then getting food from only sunlight and water would be possible \(compared to now\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.2.1. Pro: Maybe the genetic design could be based on [these animals](http://www.viralnova.com/animals-dont-eat/).
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.2.2. Pro: With genetic editing, the genes that code for synthesizing vitamins that are only possible in other animals, such as [Vitamin C](https://blog.livonlabs.com/goat-vitamin-c-production/), could be placed in humans to make them closer to autotrophic than before.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.2.3. Pro: [Kleptoplasty](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uvs9W1334o) \(putting chloroplasts into the body where they're still intact and functioning to use\) is one method that's [already achieved by some animals](https://www.boredpanda.com/leaf-sheep-sea-slug-costasiella-kuroshimae/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic) and could possibly work for humans.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.2.4. Pro: Some biohackers are trying out implants to photosynthesize their own food, so it may be possible in the future.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.2.5. Con: Chloroplasts help with [getting glucose but not protein and definitely not enough for nutritional needs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3RGwdJGzOo) \(especially since most people spend most of their indoors\), so it may not be enough to allow us to be autotrophs.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.2.5.1. Con: Chloroplasts don't absorb every wavelength of sunlight. So if we create an organelle that is more efficient than chloroplasts, then it could work.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.3. Pro: If people are in suspended animation \(such as for long voyages in space\), then people might survive on little caloric intake.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.4. Con: This is not a realistic possibility for humans, as biologically we need food to survive.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.4.1. Con: As of now, no, but maybe one day in the future it might become a reality.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.5. Con: There are no hypothetical studies to show that not eating would be best for our physical health and well-being.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.6. Pro: The main reason is that agriculture contributes to global warming and depletes natural resources.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.6.1. Con: Maybe we do not need to eat less, but instead make sure our food comes takes little resources. In [Finland](https://futurism.com/a-team-of-scientists-just-made-food-from-electricity-and-it-could-be-the-solution-to-world-hunger/), food is grown using electricity \(from renewable sources\), water, carbon dioxide, and microbes. This is a lot better than most crop and meat production currently.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.7. Pro: If people's minds get digitally uploaded and then downloaded into robotic bodies, then people's food supply could be [electricity instead of food](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g).
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3. Pro: Selfishness, especially towards materialism and consumerism truly tarnishes the environment. Vegans may engage in other behaviours that are more harmful to the environment than any benefit they create, as they're being justified through the psychological phenomenon known as [moral self-licensing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing).
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.1. Pro: Other behaviors \(such as travel\) emit more than veganism, so priorities should be to prioritize these detrimental behaviors over diet. This change would lead to a greater environmental benefit than just everyone going vegan.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.1.1. Con: Livestock produce 14.5% off all CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses \([Gerber et al, 2013](http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf)\), while all transportation produces 14% of all CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses \([epa.gov](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data)\). Therefor becoming vegan is just as effective as never transport yourself or any goods that you may use.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.1.2. Con: Greenhouse gas emissions are not the only environmental impact from the animal industries. Producing meat and dairies also requires much more water and land use compared to simply producing crops. All in all, a[huge recent study](https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth) found that the single best way to reduce ones environmental impact is to go vegan.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.1.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.1.4.6.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.1.4. Pro: One of these options is to prioritize educating people about eco-traveling more than veganism, as it creates more environmental damage
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.2. Con: Since being vegan is often the result of a general interest in protecting the environment and sentient life-forms from unnecessary harm, vegan lifestyle is often accompanied by other lifestyle decisions that aim to reduce harm done to the environment. Vegans are thus more likely to show a broad spectrum of behaviour that aims to protect the environment.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.2.1. Pro: Being vegan creates a guideline on how to be eco. Thus, if anything is worse, then people are more likely to recognize and do something about it \(like raise awareness\).
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.3. Con: Just because vegans "may" engage in other destructive activities does not mean they necessarily will. It certainly does not mean people should not go vegan, since some might perfectly fine transition without falling into moral self-licensing.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.3.1. Pro: Most likely when people go vegan, they will not engage in moral self-licensing, because humans are creatures of habit will stick to the same routine they have except for one change.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.3.2. Con: The major life change from the vegan lifestyle may trigger other life-changing behaviors as well, some of which may be moral self-licensing.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.4. Con: People may engage as much in these behaviors anyway if they are not vegan. If they are vegan, they are providing an overall greater benefit, even when engaging in these activities.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.5. Con: If going vegan makes one more prone to moral self-licensing, then transitioning to veganism should be consciously paired with other eco-friendly lifestyle choices, such as avoiding flight and fossile fuel car travel.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.6. Con: When everyone goes vegan, then new laws may come about to discourage people from engaging in worse activities to prevent climate change from affecting their region \(like a country\) anyway. Thus, this should not be a worry.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.4. Pro: Global over-population is a real problem: people should be allowed to choose a diet that shortens their lifespan.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.4.1. Con: There are better and more effective ways to reduce world population than by shortening their life, for example through widespread availability of family planning, spreading awareness on the causes and effects of overpopulation, providing easier access to birth control devices and implementing social norms to educate the public.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.4.2. Con: Many people do not realise that by eating a diet of animal products they are more likely to contract diseases / risk early death as a result.  Since assisted death is often illegal and suicide is always discouraged the argument to “let people choose to live unhealthily and die sooner” seems weak. You would also have to change the ‘official’ guidance on nutrition to ensure people understand the health risks associated with consuming animal products.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.4.3. Con: The cost to health services would be too great - they are already struggling with funding and lack of resources - unless you refused treatment to anyone not following a vegan diet
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.4.4. Pro: Shorter lifespans in an age of explosive and ever-increasing population growth with people living longer is a really detrimental situation with an inconclusive outcome as to who perishes. At least with shorter lifespans, the population remains stable and we know the outcome of humanity, due to predictability of shorter lifespans.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.4.5. Pro: Allowing for shorter lifespans allows for control over the fate of humanity, instead of being dictated and ruled by nature.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.4.6. Pro: With shorter lifespans, the case of "a shorter life is better than no life at all" comes into play. With short lifespans, everyone gets a chance to live, even though it is short. If everyone lives longer, especially on an animal-based diet, then future generations much shorter, if any life at all than if people die at a predictable lifespan and rate.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.5. Con: The savings in environmental healthcare from fewer diseases would decrease environmental damage more than not transitioning over.
1.1.1.2.1.1.11.5.1. Con: If vegans live longer, then they may live with morbidity \(outside of the vegan diet, like accidents or aging\) for longer than with a shortened lifespan. These would keep healthcare costs high, along with the environmental damage that comes with it.
1.1.1.2.1.1.12. Con: The natural ecosystem from which we originally acquired these animals no longer exists as we have used it for farmland and urban development. To release these animals would cause devastation to whatever ecological niche they ended up in- or would lead to their extinction.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13. Con: Transitioning to a vegan diet may be worse for the environment than just keeping their original diet, as that would involve [switching to higher resource-intensive meats or vegetarian products](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284712516_Energy_use_blue_water_footprint_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions_for_current_food_consumption_patterns_and_dietary_recommendations_in_the_US) during that time.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.1. Pro: Properly managed animal farming can have huge benefits to biodiversity.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.1.1. Con: Quite the opposite. As a matter of fact, industrial farming is a [major cause](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/meat-eaters-may-speed-worldwide-species-extinction-study-warns) of loss of biodiversity.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.1.2. Con: The vast majority of animal agriculture at the moment is not properly managed.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.1.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.7.1.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.2. Con: A [systematic review](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165797) found that a vegan diet tended to be better for the environment \(tables 2, 3, and 4\). The majority of evidence points to a vegan diet being good for the environment.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.2.1. Con: Correlation is not causation.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.3. Pro: Shifting to the diets recommended the USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans \(less red meat and poultry; more seafood/fish, fruits, vegetables, and dairy\) would increase energy use by 38%, water use by 10%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 6% according to researchers at [Carnegie Mellon University](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284712516_Energy_use_blue_water_footprint_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions_for_current_food_consumption_patterns_and_dietary_recommendations_in_the_US).
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.3.1. Con: The article mentions a study of vegetarianism, where they actually include fish \(so it's in fact pescetarianism\), not veganism.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.3.2. Con: The article builds up on an unreliably small and divergent sample of data - as stated by the article itself - and is thus not able to make a conclusive statement regarding veganism applied on the entire human population.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.3.3. Con: The evidence provided discusses a vegetarian diet, one which includes the consumption of dairy products and fish as well as fruits and vegetables. As such, this piece of research is irrelevant to this conversation.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.3.4. Con: The actual content on this article is actually that research results vary greatly and are not easy to interpret.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.3.4.1. Con: The research is scientifically conclusive, however. Variety is comprehended in the study because it is expected.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.3.5. Con: The authors published a [letter](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-016-9585-6) stressing that this analysis "did not compare vegetarian to non-vegetarian diets". In addition, the authors recommended [several](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/vegetarian-bad-for-environment-debunked_us_567072d7e4b0e292150f95a4) [media](https://news.vice.com/article/no-bacon-isnt-better-for-the-environment-than-lettuce) [articles](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/18/being-a-vegetarian-might-make-you-feel-environmentally-superior-why-that-may-be-wrong/?noredirect=on) which more accurately reflect their research.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.3.6. Con: These conclusions were based on an overall increase in animal products.

"Although this scenario modeled a 33 percent decrease in meat consumption \(beef, pork, and poultry\), it also modeled a 78 percent increase in dairy consumption and a tripling in seafood consumption—leading to an overall 13 percent increase in animal‐based food consumption \(as measured by calories\)"
[www.wri.org](http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Memo_on_CMU_study.pdf)
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.4. Pro: [Continuous cropping destroys soil structure](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ldr.3378) and causes massive erosion \(think dust-bowl 1930s\) while pasture animals can [improve](https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2011/grazing-of-cattle-pastures-can-improve-soil-quality/) soil [degradation](https://onpasture.com/2018/01/22/grazing-your-cover-crops-can-build-good-soil/).
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.4.1. Con: [Overgrazing](http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm) could create soil degradation as well as a host of other environmental issues.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.4.2. Pro: [Reserving lands for grazing instead of crops](http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y8344e/y8344e0j.htm) can prevent soil degradation from crops from happening.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.4.3. Con: If vegan farming utilizes practices that [prevent soil erosion](https://www.wikihow.com/Prevent-Soil-Erosion), soil degradation does not happen. Pasture animals are not needed then.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.4.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.1.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.4.4. Pro: Improving soil degradation can lead to [more nutritious](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/) crops.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.4.4.1. Pro: Growing such large amount of crops for vegans would [deplete the soil](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/), so we would need more chemical fertilisers for that.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.4.4.1.1. Pro: [Deforestation](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/) to grow crops will just increase as well, increasing the risk of soil depletion, and thus increasing the need for use of chemicals too.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.4.5. Pro: Improving soil quality can [improve crop yields](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/?cid=nrcs142p2_054028) as well, as soil erosion costs the world around [$400 billion per year](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/?cid=nrcs142p2_054028) in losses.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.4.6. Pro: Since we may only have [60 years](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/) left to farm if we continue our rates of soil depletion, any method to reverse this would be beneficial, even if it includes animals, at least in the short-term until the soil's restored.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.4.7. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.1.9.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.5. Pro: Another [recent study](https://iris.unito.it/retrieve/handle/2318/1645474/353092/Rosi_et_al-2017-Scientific_Reports.pdf) measures the environmental impact from the recorded diet of three groups; Omnivore, Lacto-Ovo-Vegetarian and Vegan. Not necessarily an argument against veganism, but the study shows that the largest impact comes from cutting out meat, LO-vegetarians and vegans are relatively equal. Allowing for dairy/eggs enables utilization of grass/rotational agriculture, feed not fit for humans and is appropriate for more bioregional conditions than strict veganism.
1.1.1.2.1.1.13.6. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.
1.1.1.2.1.1.14. Con: A vegan world would create new environmental harms.
1.1.1.2.1.1.14.1. Pro: In a vegan world, farmers may be economically motivated to maintain the same profit margins as they had with animal farming. Due to cost driving the replacement choices rather than environmental effects, vegan farms may be equally profitable but actually potentially worse for the environment than the current animal agriculture that takes place.
1.1.1.2.1.1.14.2. Pro: Animal agriculture had time to develop ecological practices like overlaying with the environment and being resource efficient. Vegan replacements won't have these advantages. Their placement will likely be abrupt, which could disrupt the current dynamics and create imbalances in the environment that aren't there now.
1.1.1.2.1.1.14.2.1. Pro: Animal agriculturalists will likely lack the time and transferable skills to properly think through a plan with the best vegan alternatives and management techniques, so they could quite likely damage the environment from these shortfalls.
1.1.1.2.1.1.14.2.1.1. Con: These farmers could be given support through sources like other farmers, the government, self-help \(like the internet and books\), etc. and a grace period to make the best decisions they can before delving in.
1.1.1.2.1.1.14.2.1.2. Pro: Farmers could make costly mistakes where they put something in and realize it's not a great match for the environment, where either the fix is unaffordable \(and so it continues to incur damage\) or does happen, but not without irreversible damage and less funding capabilities for future issues.
1.1.1.2.1.1.14.2.2. Pro: Increasing efficiency in animal production methods would be a better option to introducing something new, like veganism, that may potentially add new environmental to what already exists instead of just working on what's currently there.
1.1.1.2.1.1.15. Pro: Veganism would limit ocean levels from rising to where they can damage the infrastructure of cities.
1.1.1.2.1.1.16. Con: Due to a lack of knowledge and time in figuring out what works and doesn't, vegan replacements added in could be less compatible with the native environment than livestock that is already known to work. This could be worse for the ecosystem than now, which is why it'll be better to leave the agricultural processes as-is.
1.1.1.2.1.1.16.1. Pro: The replacements for animal products may have a different symbiosis with the environment that could be more destructive to it if not planned out properly.
1.1.1.2.1.1.16.2. Pro: Some crops require intermediary steps that can remove native vegetation, like plowing, that pasture animals don't \(as they just interlay with the pre-existing environment, creating a kind of symbiosis with it\). Since these procedures are more harmful to an ecosystem's biodiversity, they aren't better than grazers in this sense.
1.1.1.2.1.1.16.3. Pro: The livestock that exist in a location are non-invasive in terms of either being native or over time adapted and adjusted to fit into its surroundings. However, crop cultivation, especially if prior research or proper care isn't done, may entail introducing species is invasive or doesn't display a harmonic balance with the environment like the livestock do.
1.1.1.2.1.1.16.3.1. Pro: Indigenous animals may get displaced if their surroundings are being displaced by crops that they don't know how to live in.
1.1.1.2.2. Pro: It is acceptable to limit the freedom when the freedom infringes on the rights of others. By the same notion, you would not be allowed to eat another person, as that limits their right to exist.
1.1.1.2.2.1. Con: Animals do not share human rights.
1.1.1.2.2.1.1. Pro: Rights are artificial constructs created to order our behavior. Nonhumans may not have "human rights," but that should not stop them from having "animal rights." Neither is less artificial than the other, but that does not mean they would not both serve important moral purposes.
1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1. Pro: Giving animals just animal rights allows human rights to not be degraded to those of animals or vice versa \(where human rights apply to animals, but cause harm to them instead of protection\).
1.1.1.2.2.1.1.2. Con: Giving animals just animal rights may make animals more susceptible to laws to reduce their rights, while humans are not affected. Animals need extra protection right now, if giving animals human rights serve them better, then extending those rights to them has merit.
1.1.1.2.2.1.2. Con: This does not mean they shouldn't have the right to be needlessly exploited.
1.1.1.2.2.1.3. Con: In the past humans have failed to grant other groups of humans rights, we may be as wrong now about not granting rights to animals as we were then.
1.1.1.2.2.2. Pro: Violence and non-violence / invasiveness and non-invasiveness are never morally equivalent choices, no matter the topic.
1.1.1.2.2.3. Pro: Individual freedom should be limited by the suffering of other sentient beings.
1.1.1.2.2.3.1. Con: Animals are not moral actors and as such their abuse, exploitation and life are not subject to a question of morals.
1.1.1.2.2.3.1.1. Pro: To be a moral actor one must be capable of making moral decisions.  Animals do not have this ability.
1.1.1.2.2.3.1.2. Pro: Plants are identical to animals in their inability to make moral decisions, yet humans must eat to survive.
1.1.1.2.2.3.1.3. Con: Entities do not need to be moral actors to be included in the moral calculus of other entities. For example [utilitarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) is concerned with suffering, irrespective of the moral ability of those that suffer.
1.1.1.2.2.3.1.3.1. Con: This form of utilitarianism equates animal suffering with human suffering.  This will lead to a society that minimizes the total aggregate suffering of animals and people.  Seeing as this argument is about what people should do, this is not germane.
1.1.1.2.2.3.1.3.2. Con: Utilitarianism is not the only school of philosophical thought.  For example here is a [list.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies)
1.1.1.2.2.3.1.3.3. Con: Utilitarianism does not concern itself with motives only outcomes and as such the "[moral luck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck)" problem is one that it can't escape.
1.1.1.2.2.3.1.3.4. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.5.11.1.
1.1.1.2.2.3.2. Pro: People do not need animal products either and it's improper to speak about individual freedom when there are sentient victims.
1.1.1.2.2.3.3. Con: There is [research](https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm) to suggest that plants too can feel pain.
1.1.1.2.2.3.3.1. Con: Plants neither feel pain, nor any emotions, that is not how they have been naturally selected to evolve.
1.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1. Pro: They have neither [nervous system nor pain receptors](https://www.vice.com/sv/article/xd74nd/we-asked-a-botanist-how-sure-science-is-that-plants-cant-feel-pain-302). Plus, although plants have neurotransmitters \(even the same as ones found in [humans](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/acetylcholine)\), they do not use it for thinking but instead as [protection](https://phys.org/news/2014-02-human-brain-humans-insects.html) \(by changing their predators' brain chemistry to prevent their attacks\).
1.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.2. Pro: Fruits, for example, are deliberately tasty, so that other organisms consume them and thereby involuntarily distribute the fruits' seeds, as they are not digested, or left on the floor.
1.1.1.2.2.3.3.2. Pro: To not eat meat or any other animal product for the reason of an evolutionary adaptation \(pain\) while still eating plants whom have also shown the "will" to survive through many adaptations \(poison,...\), because of the ease to empathise with one but not with the other is merely a form of tribalism. Not a virtue.
1.1.1.2.2.4. Pro: Humans shouldn't have the right to choose the life and death of others if they do not depend on doing so for survival.
1.1.1.2.2.4.1. Con: Saying we don't need to do something is not a compelling reason why we should not do it.  There are many unnecessary things that people do every day, and most likely should, unless one would like humankind to return to subsistence living.
1.1.1.2.2.4.1.1. Con: Eating meat is not simply unnecessary but also harmful, causing pain to animals and damaging the environment. While it is perfectly reasonable to accept and even encourage unnecessary practices that are neutral or beneficial, practices that are both unnecessary and harmful should be reevaluated.
1.1.1.2.2.4.2. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.2.1.
1.1.1.2.2.4.3. Con: Plants are alive too.
1.1.1.2.2.4.4. Con: Currently not all people abide by the rule a diet must be vegan.  This claim is self defeating.
1.1.1.2.2.5. Pro: Living beings are not comparable to simple "food items" as this is not a matter of taste, but a choice of life or death.
1.1.1.2.3. Pro: Humans should be able to choose to eat anything they like, like dogs, cats, apes, other humans etc, but can't because they aren't allowed to. In meat eating societies, they have bans on these, because these actions are offensive to others or problematic.
1.1.1.2.3.1. Con: There is nothing inherently wrong with eating dogs, cats, or apes. Some cultures already do, and it presents no genuine problems for them.
1.1.1.2.3.2. Con: If people can eat meat from livestock, then it is no different than consuming these other animals. People just have moral/ethical instead logical conflicts with eating meat from these sources.
1.1.1.2.3.3. Con: There are no problems inherent with eating any of those animals, but they cannot be lumped together with cannibalism, which is a completely different thing. Humans should, in fact, be able to choose to eat anything they like, short of committing a crime.
1.1.1.2.3.4. Pro: [Eating pets](https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/man-bites-dog-its-legal-to-eat-dogs-and-cats-in-44-states-101714.html), [endangered species](https://www.alternet.org/story/145668/endangered_species_on_the_grill%3A_the_black_market_in_illegal_meat_flourishes_in_the_us) like apes, and [cannibalism](https://www.businessinsider.com/most-ridiculous-law-in-every-state-2014-2) are banned in some US states and due to their dangers.
1.1.1.2.3.4.1. Pro: People eating endangered animals, such as apes, could be devastating to the environment if they go extinct.
1.1.1.3. Pro: Humans have a [moral obligation/duty](https://www.abolitionistapproach.com/after-30-years-morrissey-goes-vegan-but-calls-veganism-purist/) to be responsible for what we eat. So even though we can choose any food we want to eat, we need to also act within our principles to do the right thing within our choices.
1.1.1.3.1. Pro: Veganism allows us to fulfill our moral obligation \(in what humans agree is immoral\) through refraining from supporting animal food and entertainment industries \(due to their immoral practices\).
1.1.1.3.1.1. Pro: Examples of their practices are profiting from killing innocents, sexual abuse, torture, and all other forms of exploitation on an unwilling individual.
1.1.1.3.1.2. Pro: Once people start these practices, these industries will vanish. This will improve the morality of the economy as a whole.
1.1.1.3.1.2.1. Pro: People can inspire and feed off each other to achieve this.
1.1.1.3.1.2.1.1. Pro: When one person has a better idea of how to improve their morality, they can apply it to other industries. Then the net morality of all the industries combined goes up around them.
1.1.1.3.2. Pro: Humans have a responsibility for managing the food chain/web through what we eat, due to our privileged position at the top of all of them worldwide.
1.1.1.3.2.1. Pro: We are higher than carnivores and thus need to make a more elevated decision in our role than them. Instead of just [managing one ecosystem to keep it healthy](https://www.earth.com/news/carnivores-healthy-ecosystem/), we would need to achieve that for the entire world's environment altogether. Veganism is one option to help us carry this task out.
1.1.1.4. Pro: Our circumstances dictate what foods we eat, even if we are free to choose anything we want.
1.1.1.4.1. Pro: Humans can't eat metal or grass, they can't consume certain drugs.
1.1.1.4.1.1. Con: Some drugs are regulated due to the harm and psychological effects they cause. Meat doesn't have the psychological altering effects as those drugs.
1.1.1.4.1.2. Con: Metal is not food and humans can consume grass.
1.1.1.4.1.2.1. Pro: [Wheatgrass](https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/wheatgrass#1) is an edible type of grass.
1.1.1.4.2. Pro: Freedom of choice is framed in particular circumstances, such as a capitalist society in which you can choose among what you can pay, or a deprivided society with little options. Under some particular circumstances and through a rationalization process, one may conclude that [it may be beneficial to Humanity to become Vegan.](https://www.sciencealert.com/what-if-the-whole-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian)
1.1.1.4.2.1. Pro: People aren't completely free to choose what to eat since [advertising](https://www.mnn.com/money/sustainable-business-practices/stories/the-marketing-of-meat-why-beef-and-pork-producers-are) is prominent in our culture, [affecting the decision making process](https://lifehacker.com/5824328/how-advertising-manipulates-your-choices-and-spending-habits-and-what-to-do-about-it).
1.1.1.4.3. Pro: Every culture limits the freedom of choice regarding meat consumption, with some animals being considered improper for consumption.
1.1.1.4.3.1. Con: Unless you count cannibalism, Western culture doesn't really care what you eat.
1.1.1.4.3.1.1. Con: Eating dogs or cats would cause a massive outcry in most Western countries.
1.1.1.4.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.3.
1.1.1.4.3.3. Pro: With all humans being vegan, we would create worldwide limits on the freedom of choice for meat consumption, because all animals would be considered improper.
1.1.1.4.3.4. Con: The amount of people who support/oppose certain actions does not speak for or against the action.
1.1.1.4.3.5. Con: Cultural limitations on human freedoms are sometimes wrong.
1.1.1.4.4. Pro: Humans will not be able to have a choice when meat runs out anyway \(such as when every fish gets caught in the ocean, when a species goes extinct, or [resource scarcity forces it](https://www.livescience.com/22814-meat-eating-vegetarianism.html)\).
1.1.1.4.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.5.1.
1.1.1.4.4.2. Con: Animals reproduce, some very quickly. Sustainable farming practices realistically preclude the possibility of a livestock species going extinct, [including fish](https://grist.org/food/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-fish-farming-but-were-afraid-to-ask/).
1.1.1.4.4.2.1. Con: Industrial farming is driving the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth, [says leading academic](https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/mass-extinction-life-on-earth-farming-industrial-agriculture-professor-raj-patel-a7914616.html) at the "the [Extinction and Livestock Conference](http://www.extinctionconference.com)"
1.1.1.4.4.2.1.1. Con: Sustainable farming practices do not have these problems. This fails as a criticism of farming as a whole.
1.1.1.4.4.2.1.2. Pro: This will lead to a lonely, isolated world for humans in which we're one of the few species to survive.
1.1.1.4.4.2.1.2.1. Con: More than likely the few species that are left are the ones we most interact with \(like cats, dogs, etc.\), so that's not going to much of an issue in the future.
1.1.1.5. Con: In our current surplus of abundance, humans already have too many options to choose from for food and can't possibly eat every option available for every meal. Because of this, humans will not be restricted in options of choice when going vegan, as they'll still have more options to choose from than they could possibly eat.
1.1.2. Con: That's speciesist. What about the choice of the non-human animal being chosen as "food"? Certainly they would much rather be free and not raised and slaughtered for a sandwich.
1.1.2.1. Con: Livestock animals don't have the [necessary intelligence](https://speakingofresearch.com/2016/12/06/not-just-intelligence-why-humans-deserve-to-be-treated-better-than-animals/) to understand that \(i.e. freedom, agriculture, speciesism\) to make that choice.
1.1.2.1.1. Pro: Animals lack the [processing ability](https://i.insider.com/5564fd84eab8ea433ec13811?width=992&format=jpeg) that humans at a certain level for making decisions on what should and shouldn't be considered food. Humans have that capability and thus would need to make that decision on thier behalf, even if it is speciesist.
1.1.2.1.1.1. Con: It's speciesist to go above an animal's right to live with the justification of intelligence, as then some animals would have more suffering than others on the basis of intelligence alone \(as each animal had a different type and level of intelligence\).
1.1.2.1.2. Con: The livestock's intelligence doesn't matter, as they're not part of the final decision-making. We are ultimately responsible for them and with our intellect conscious enough about our decisions to know what we're doing, even if the livestock don't understand. So what livestock think or do won't discount our actions/thoughts from being speciesist if they truly are.
1.1.2.1.3. Pro: Our best estimates of animal intelligence may be rough, but effectively demonstrate that even the smartest animal only compares to an adult with mental [retardation](https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-considered-a-low-iq-2795282). Most are more comparable to children between the ages of [2](https://www.livescience.com/5613-dogs-smart-2-year-kids.html) and [5](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-highest-IQ-of-the-smartest-monkey), if not worse. Since children at that age require parental guidance to make decisions on their behalf, so would animals with that level of intelligence.
1.1.2.1.3.1. Con: Just because livestock lack intellectual capabilities doesn't automatically invalidate [their](http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/19568/1/Publication%20Review%20Animals%20Welfare%20and%20the%20Law%20Fundamental%20Principles%20for%20Critical%20Assessment%20Ian%20A%20RobertsonFinalDR12Nov2015.pdf) [right to life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life) \(especially if [provided](http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=363480&p=2455777)\), as they are [inalienable](http://www.animalethics.org.uk/animal-rights.html).
1.1.2.1.3.1.1. Pro: By this logic, all animals below a certain level of intelligence should be automatically exterminated, as they don't fit the mold for their environment in making choices. That really doesn't make sense, as if they're pulled out of where they don't match, maybe they would be smart enough to live. Because it's not universally applicable, it's not an adequate or worthwhile measurement for living to go by.
1.1.2.1.3.1.1.1. Con: The issue is that in nature, not being able to find a niche or survive in an environment is already a reason for animals to not be able to survive \(as that's evolution\). So it would be a waste not to eat them if they're not going to survive anyway.
1.1.2.1.3.1.1.2. Con: That is not how decision-making works in reality, it involves [survival of the fittest](https://www.thoughtco.com/survival-of-the-fittest-1224578). Because we do live in our environment and compete with other animals for survival, it is acceptable to use the traits of prey, like intelligence, for decision-making in terms of natural selection.
1.1.2.1.4. Con: The reason livestock don't have the necessary intelligence is not because of a lack of crucial skills, but knowledge\) because humans withhold necessary information that they themselves know about\). If the facts are presented properly to livestock, likely they could make a reasonable decision about what to do.
1.1.2.2. Con: There is nothing wrong with speciesism. Discrimination is a naturally occurring phenomenon.
1.1.2.3. Con: Speciesism occurs when there is interference in individualism, where one species believes they're above other species in making these decisions and manipulating their circumstances towards carrying them out \(like with factory farming\). Hence "without interference", because individualism in general isn't speciesist, as the opportunity is equally applied to all for eating and being eaten to survive freely.
1.1.2.4. Con: It's actually speciesist for humans to not be able to participate in eating other animals when other animals get to do so, not vice versa.
1.1.3. Con: It's a loaded statement, a ["begging the question" fallacy](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question) where the word 'food' is used to make the statement seem reasonable. So, yes humans should be free to choose any food they wish, but not animals \(which in reality are not food\).
1.1.3.1. Pro: Prizing animals over other sources for protein is a man-made decision, not a natural one, especially with the [discovery of fire](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes-us-human-72989884/).
1.1.3.2. Con: As animals are frequently eaten by carnivores and omnivores alike, including humans, it is factually inaccurate to say that animals are not food.
1.1.3.2.1. Pro: Humans shouldn't be treated differently \(i.e. with a double-standard\) than other animals, as humans are animals too and tend to eat other animals.
1.1.3.2.1.1. Con: There is a difference between humans and other carnivores and omnivores, as humans act like an invasive species, but for all ecosystems. In fact, we're considered "[the most dangerous](https://www.theodysseyonline.com/humans-dangerous-invasive-species)" of them all. So we should be treated differently, because we act differently, worse than any other animal in existence.
1.1.3.2.1.2. Pro: The double standard for humans to not be able to eat meat, but animals can is a biased opinion; the self-hate for one's species should not be a contribution towards humanity.
1.1.3.3. Pro: If a higher developed, more intelligent species were to invade our planet and develop a taste for human flesh, no human would advertise the invaders' rights to eat what they want. We would want them to recognize our will to live and find something else to eat. If we put ourselves above animals because of our higher intellect, that intellect also compels us to treat those who are dependent on us with their best interests in mind.
1.1.3.4. Con: Plants can be regarded as very intelligent existent beings and therefore as non-human food. They can communicate, they can develop [social structures](https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/), they can have [sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_reproductive_morphology), they can even "[walk](http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20151207-ecuadors-mysterious-walking-trees)" or eat "[animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivorous_plant)".
1.1.3.5. Pro: If there is no difference between the cost, taste, nutrients, etc. between synthetic meat and natural meat. Preferring the latter is simply hateful and nonsensical, as it implies being content with contributing to animal deaths.
1.1.3.5.1. Con: Killing does not necessarily involve suffering. It is, in fact, a natural part of life, and is not innately immoral.
1.1.3.5.1.1. Con: Animals in the wild act based on instinct, not morality, and are therefore not suited as role models for our modern society. Rape, cannibalism, coprophagy and infanticide are prevalent in the animal kingdom, yet we humans reject such acts.
1.1.3.5.1.1.1. Con: As well as eating other forms of life, animals also drink water, breathe air, and defend themselves when threatened. Just because animals instinctively partake in a particular behavior does not implicitly make it an amoral act.
1.1.3.5.1.2. Con: Even if killing was without suffering, it does not make it OK or morally valid.
1.1.3.5.1.2.1. Con: It doesn't make it immoral, either. There is no morality inherent to the act itself, without context; it is neutral.
1.1.3.5.2. Con: If advancements in the field of cellular agriculture / in vitro meat will lead to people choosing the cruelty-free option anyways, one could argue that there is no reason to go vegan now while these alternatives do not exist.
1.1.3.5.3. Pro: When we reach that point, animal suffering \(a.k.a. killing animals for no purpose, so they die in vain\) should naturally be abandoned and maybe enforced. Some movements already support banning hunting and fishing as "fun" to avoid having animals be cooked after a horrible death.
1.1.3.6. Pro: It's unnecessary killing of animals.
1.1.3.6.1. Pro: Animals have a life of their own to live, which does not rely of serving humans. Instead, it's for their own survival or that of its species. It's just humans use the word 'food' to justify unjustifiable actions.
1.1.4. Pro: As the only more or less commonly agreed benefit of veganism is morality, and even this is [not undisputed](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/pop-psych/201311/curious-case-vegan-moral-hypocrisy), the claim that all humans should become vegan as justified as that all people are to follow a single religious teaching.
1.1.5. Pro: Since coercion is not justified there is no way to make all humans stop eating meat.
1.1.5.1. Con: Coercion is not justified against animals either given their suffering and, ultimately, death from it.
1.1.5.2. Con: The claim does not suggest that people should be stripped of their right to consume meat. It suggests that the world would be greatly improved if they did not consume animal products.
1.1.5.2.1. Pro: Humans will not be coerced into becoming vegan, as everyone will decide together to be vegan on their own free will.
1.1.5.3. Pro: Forcing all of humanity to be vegan on ethical grounds would presume impossible levels of moral and logical infallibility, empirical knowledge, and total certainty.
1.1.5.4. Con: Unjustified coercion \(towards pressuring people to eat meat\) already exists in the meat-dominated world. Thus, unjustified coercion will not stop a vegan society from existing, as it already found success in getting humans to eat meat.
1.1.5.5. Con: Coercion can be justified at times if requested by people. Sometimes it's the push that people need to get people in the right direction. So if the coercion is justified, then it will provide motivation in getting people to stop eating meat.
1.1.6. Pro: It is a personal choice to choose the food someone eats, as morality is personal and people are free to decide what is the right and wrong food after listening to their conscience. To uphold an ethic, that freedom of choice of a human may never be allowed to be infringed upon.
1.1.6.1. Pro: While there are more merits to being vegan, the proper statement should be "all humans ought to be vegan" as ultimately, what one eats is entirely their choice.
1.1.6.1.1. Con: It is not. This "choice" is a not only a result of education but also one of massive propaganda through tens of millions in Lobbying and 24/7 advertising. It is an industry after all defending its own interests. It is also a result of quasi complete ignorance, judgement mechanisms and consent fabrication operated on self, since childhood.
1.1.6.1.1.1. Pro: People tend to be selfish, and the propaganda just feeds into this individualism without either side looking at the consequences of such decisions.
1.1.6.1.2. Con: People getting to eat what they want would make sense if meat is sustainable. However, being unsustainable, not everything that people eat will be their choice. If we run out of meat, then the first person that picked meat got their way for their choice, whereas the next person doesn't. Thus, what one eats is not entirely their choice, but instead dictated by their environment \(a.k.a. what's available\).
1.1.6.1.3. Con: Choice only makes sense if people's actions do not affect anyone else's. Once it affects others, people's choices do not get to be entirely their own.
1.1.6.1.3.1. Pro: Meat gets treated like a [public good](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp), because everyone needs to eat food and most people eat meat. However, it cannot support everyone. Vegan foods are more of public goods than meat is, so they should replace meat.
1.1.6.1.3.1.1. Pro: Meat is more of a [quasi-public good](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp), because it is unsustainable \(a.k.a. one person's food choices depletes another's\), whereas veganism is more sustainable and acceptable by the public, making it more of a public good. Thus, veganism is what the public should strive towards.
1.1.6.1.3.1.2. Pro: Meat is more likely to run into the free rider problem \([1](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp), [2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Free_rider_problem)\) than veganism. Meat takes more resources to accomplish, which makes it harder to contribute to than veganism.
1.1.6.1.3.1.2.1. Pro: This leads to the issue where people starve in an omnivore world. When one person takes more than they contribute, another person has nothing to take, because they did not give enough either or gave enough, but the resource is already taken by the free rider.
1.1.6.1.3.1.2.1.1. Pro: In a vegan world, this is less of a worry. Efficiency is greater, which lowers the bar for contributing to the public good. This allows for more access for all and less of one person taking from another.
1.1.6.1.3.1.2.2. Pro: The free rider problem is an example of a market failure. Veganism is the way to go, because it is less likely to run into this type of market failure, making it better for the economy's functioning and sustainability.
1.1.6.1.3.2. Pro: Veganism is more beneficial to the [common good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good) than meat is, because it is more beneficial for all and better achieved through citizenship than meat.
1.1.6.1.3.2.1. Pro: Vegan foods are easier to make [common goods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_%28economics%29) than meat is, because their lower prices makes the non-exclusivity part of creating them as common goods more feasible to accomplish.
1.1.6.1.4. Pro: Some people feel the need to eat meat \(both for health or for their body asking for it\). It's unfair to prohibit it.
1.1.6.1.4.1. Con: If the world's vegan transition is gradual, then people can adapt to prohibitions along the way without getting offended.
1.1.6.1.4.1.1. Pro: Even though it is unfair to prohibit animal products now \(as people still crave them\), the opposite would be true after being in a vegan world for a while \(as people will repulse non-vegan items with their cravings eventually\).
1.1.6.1.4.1.1.1. Pro: People's taste buds change to their diet \([1](https://plantproof.com/taste-buds-will-they-change/), [2](https://nutritionfacts.org/2014/06/24/want-to-be-healthier-change-your-taste-buds/)\), so one day their body \(i.e. their tongue and brain\) will stop asking for meat.
1.1.6.1.4.2. Con: Fairness is subjective.
1.1.6.1.4.2.1. Pro: Unfairness requires differences, where one side gets mistreated \(like our current situation of multiple diets existing\). However, since everyone has the same diet in a vegan world, then fairness would not be a worry.
1.1.6.1.4.2.2. Pro: If one argues that it is unfair to force another into doing something they don't want, the logical conclusion is that forcing animals into captivity and untimely deaths is also unfair. Prioritizing people's needs above animals causes animal needs to be neglected in the process.
1.1.6.1.4.3. Con: Prohibitions may be a necessity to get the world to be vegan, in which case it is very fair to prohibit animal products instead of vice versa.
1.1.6.1.4.3.1. Pro: Society eventually removes what is repulsive, as people evade their dislikes. Hence, if everyone wants to be vegan, no one will mind or notice laws banning animal products, but instead encourage it.
1.1.6.1.4.4. Con: Prohibiting animal products is very fair, even beneficial.
1.1.6.1.4.4.1. Pro: People's unhealthy diets are causing their bodies to get unbalanced \(such as [becoming obese](https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2018/03/21/Obesity-linked-to-death-of-taste-buds-change-in-diet/9291521638015/), which [meat causes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697260/)\). If we remove what is causing people to become ill, then people will be healthier and society will be better off.
1.1.6.1.4.4.1.1. Pro: People do not need to eat meat, because they tend to be healthier on a vegan diet. If they are lacking healthy choices in their new vegan diet, they can find ways to make it healthier \(like not eat junk food and supplement what they are missing\).
1.1.6.1.4.4.2. Pro: Once people finds vegan methods to address the health and craving concerns, then the need for animal products will stop being there. Prohibiting would make sense then, as keeping something around that no one wants would just be offensive and repulsive.
1.1.6.1.4.4.3. Pro: Meat \(and other animal products\) has drug-like [chemicals](https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-14423/6-foods-that-behave-like-addictive-drugs-in-your-body.html) that cause people to be addicted. Banning animal products will release people from addictions that are not in their best interest.
1.1.6.1.5. Pro: Being able to make a vegan choice or non vegan choice is an important freedom. When we can engage in a balanced decision process, we are more likely to see diverse outcomes \(that move towards total veganism\) e.g. eating much less meat/ only eating meat at traditional festivities
1.1.7. Pro: Veganism is a choice and should not be forced on children until they are old enough to decide for themselves.
1.1.7.1. Con: The same goes for animal products, where they should not be forced onto children until they're old enough to decide for themselves.
1.1.7.2. Con: It's really meat that's forced onto children rather than the other way around, as everyone starts off with eating vegan foods when they are young and only start to eat meat later when their bodies can handle it.
1.1.7.3. Con: The parent should be able to act as a moral compass and mediate their child’s behaviour to act in accordance with their virtues \(including not choosing veganism for the negative reasons\), at least until they're old enough to make their own, better decisions.
1.1.7.3.1. Pro: If a child’s behaviour is unseemly to the parent \(like doing something unethical, in this case choosing to eat meat\), they are justified to reprimand the child accordingly \(to follow what they deem is proper behavior and avoid what's not\).
1.1.7.4. Pro: A child will look up to the parents for guidance \(like when they lie, can't forgive someone, steal, or when they choose to or not to eat meat\). So parents can provide their advice to them when they are ready for it, so their children can make decisions for themselves based on what they hear.
1.1.8. Con: This rationale only furthers the capability to create a vegan world. If everyone wants to eat vegan, then they will \(out of free will\), thus making worldwide veganism exist.
1.1.9. Pro: A vegan society would restrict people's individual liberties, which would make society worse off overall.
1.1.9.1. Con: Nobody in any society can eat what he/she wants, so nobody has completely free individual liberties. A\) Some consumables are illegal B\) Some consumables are toxic or dangerous C\) we are already restricted in our consumption because we can't digest many things.
1.1.9.2. Con: Individuals don't have the liberty to own slaves, rape, kill others, defecate in public transport, drive while under influence, etc. Does that make the society worse off? Societies are not worse off when they restrict what people can do to other conscious beings.
1.1.9.3. Con: It's inappropriate to speak of personal choice or exercise of individual freedom when there are [victims](http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/eating-meat-is-personal-choice).
1.1.9.4. Pro: People should not be forced into being vegan, because then it would block their freedom to think independently.
1.1.9.4.1. Pro: This is unethical, because it limits people's autonomy and capability of pursuing life, liberty, and happiness.
1.1.9.4.2. Pro: When people cannot think independently, then they are more dependent on whomever thinks for them \(in this case, the government\). Thus, the world being vegan would turn countries into [nanny states](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/nanny+state), so citizens become more reliant on the government for decisions.
1.1.9.4.2.1. Pro: The movement countries towards nanny states could set its citizens up for failure. When the government stops being there for its people, then people will not be able to take care of themselves anymore \(because their thought capabilities were taken away\), which limits their capability of surviving in the world.
1.1.9.4.3. Con: Veganism doesn't limit freedom of thought, but rather limits actions, similar to laws against violence.
1.1.9.4.3.1. Con: This would be the exact reason why worldwide veganism might not work though, because people will choose not to participate in it \(i.e. rebel\), as their thought does not have limits of freedom.
1.1.9.5. Con: If we restricted animal product consumption, the amount of damage a human can do to the environment would also be reduced, which in turn benefits the whole human population since climate change and pollution affect us all. Restricting an individual liberty for the protection of humanity would not make society worse off.
1.1.9.6. Pro: A government should not have the ability to enforce changes in our current habits, as it is a massive invasion into personal/everyday lives and privacy. This is not something that exists in current day, but could be inevitable in a vegan world. That is why we should not should not make the world vegan.
1.1.9.7. Pro: Killing some animals for food is an example of a human liberty.
1.1.9.7.1. Con: Liberty ends where needless suffering begins.
1.1.9.7.2. Con: Vegans want non-vegans to want to, of their own volition, become vegan.
1.1.9.7.2.1. Pro: And that in a similar manner as parents want their children to do what is right as they know this is for their own benefit and also best for others.
1.1.9.7.2.2. Con: The [same](https://www.theflamingvegan.com/view-post/Pressure-to-Eat-Meat-How-To-Stick-To-Your-Vegan-Guns) could be said about non-vegans too.
1.1.9.7.2.3. Con: Some vegans want to restrict human rights from killing animals.
1.1.9.7.2.3.1. Con: This is not a [mainstream view](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) of veganism.
1.1.10. Pro: Many people gain substantial happiness from their non-vegan diet.
1.1.10.1. Pro: The demand for meat [increases](https://ourworldindata.org/meat-and-seafood-production-consumption). This shows its popularity.
1.1.10.1.1. Con: This could be tied to the [subsidization](https://meatonomics.com/2013/08/22/meatonomics-index/) of meat products, resulting in them being cheaper than plant based food, not necessarily to their popularity.
1.1.10.1.2. Con: The demand of meat increases because 3rd world countries follow the most developed ones which don't necessarily show the right example. Doing so they mimic the practices, which we can clearly see are usually [reversing](https://ensia.com/articles/these-maps-show-changes-in-global-meat-consumption-by-2024-heres-why-that-matters/) in the 1st world countries. Tendencies reverse because obvious reasons have been claimed and confirmed with scientific data and moral basis that explain and inform people on verifiable facts that will make them decide and hopefully make the right choice.
1.1.10.1.3. Con: The increase is made by economic and political interests coming together, and making a business without people's consent. Obesity in the world is increasing, should we boost the increase?
1.1.10.2. Pro: There would be severely less dishes that have meat as a key ingredient and thus would lead to a loss of dishes that have evolved over thousands of years, even those that are part of the culture of countries.
1.1.10.2.1. Con: Human cuisine has always evolved, especially in recent years with the wider availability of different foods. The void that losing some traditional dishes creates can easily be filled.
1.1.10.3. Con: Something feeling good to do does not mean that it is morally justified.
1.1.10.3.1. Pro: That does not justify causing animal suffering when it can be avoided.
1.1.10.3.1.1. Con: Suffering \(like being unhappy\) should not transition onto humans just because we do not want to create suffering in others \(like animals\). This just makes net suffering as equal as before, not different.
1.1.10.3.1.1.1. Pro: Humans should think of themselves first before helping others. Without humans being well-off in a transition, then it is not worthwhile. This extends to veganism.
1.1.10.3.1.1.2. Con: Veganism does not cause humans significant suffering.
1.1.10.3.1.1.3. Con: While veganism might cause short term unhappiness in some people during the transition period, it has long-term benefits for the whole planet. Sacrificing short-lived pleasures for a greater goal is the basis of many of our human endeavours \(e.g. saving for retirement\).
1.1.10.3.1.2. Pro: Compassion is more morally and ethically important than taste.
1.1.10.3.2. Pro: Human meat can taste good, violence can feel good. Because it comes at the expense of another conscious being, it's not a good enough reason to do it.
1.1.10.3.3. Pro: This argument assumes a position that people should do whatever pleases them regardless of consequences.
1.1.10.3.4. Pro: The argument that something tastes good has no moral value, it in no ways can be valid. Some may say anything tastes good, but if it has no health benefits so one limits his consumption of the produce, and if there is no valid point to continue to use such product then the person totally avoids it. Most of all because it harms the products environment in many ways.
1.1.10.4. Con: Happiness from good food is not limited to meals containing animal products. Most of the time, it's about interesting textures, umami and the social aspect of eating together. By focusing on those essential aspects of eating out / eating together, people can gain comparable happiness on a vegan diet.
1.1.10.5. Con: Many people gain substantial happiness from their vegan diets too. This isn't a reason not to go vegan.
1.1.10.5.1. Pro: If so many people are happy with eating meat, then so many people \(namely [millennials](https://munchies.vice.com/en_uk/article/9a8gve/this-is-why-millennials-are-all-turning-vegan)\) would not be trending away from it. Apparently people are not happy with the omnivore diet as they become more aware of the downsides of it, and are taking action to avoid it for better alternatives \(like veganism\).
1.1.10.5.2. Pro: As the technology improves, synthetic meat substitutes will inevitably become more economical, more nutritious, and better tasting than natural meat products.
1.1.10.5.2.1. Con: The specific diet and lifestyle of an animal has a [dramatic effect](https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/will-chicken-thats-fed-lemons-taste-lemons) on its flavour, this would not be easy to replicate in a laboratory.
1.1.10.5.2.2. Con: Laboratory produced food means that some laboratories will have food monopolies. Thus poor countries will have to pay extortionate amounts to buy food that they won't be able to produce by themselves, because their production of it is not vegan.
1.1.10.5.2.2.1. Pro: If lab food is produced at a rate that exceeds consumption, post-scarcity would be achieved. The technology to produce meat in this way should be public knowledge for the world to use. It should be a public service, first provided by the government, and private entities can sell their own product to attempt to compete with the government's free product. If they fail, capitalism will have taken one more step toward its demise.
1.1.10.5.2.3. Pro: Many vegan products already taste good, it's just that many people don't know it.
1.1.10.5.2.3.1. Con: Just because broccoli tastes good doesn't mean we can't have ice cream.
1.1.10.5.2.4. Con: While synthetic meat substitutes may be feasible, these means won't be economical for a long time. To get truly nutritionally equivalent meat at a similar price could take decades, as this start-up [discusses](https://www.wsj.com/articles/startup-to-serve-up-chicken-strips-cultivated-from-cells-in-lab-1489570202) by describing their meat substitute and their pricing projections for the future.
1.1.10.5.2.5. Con: We may, one day, create synthetic meat that has more flavour, more nutrients and requires 0 animal deaths. But we are not there yet \(all experimental artificial meats are less nutrient and have different taste\), so we are still justified to seek the best nutrition possible, given how nutrition is important in to biology.
1.1.10.5.3. Pro: People can also gain substantial happiness from aligning their morals \(not wanting to hurt animals\) with their actions - by not eating animals. A clear\(er\) conscience can be a great source of happiness.
1.1.10.6. Pro: If all humans were vegan, all restaurants would be vegan, which would make society worse off overall.
1.1.10.6.1. Con: If everybody were vegan, all restaurant owners and clients would be vegan: nobody would ever complain about all restaurants being vegan, so the claim that it would make society worse off overall is false.
1.1.10.6.2. Pro: Most people dislike vegan food.
1.1.10.6.2.1. Con: Many people would like vegan food if they tried and were used to it.
1.1.10.6.2.2. Con: People might not like the idea of eating only vegan, but most non-vegan foods have vegan ingredients. For instance, the meat most people eat tastes so good because it's been seasoned with vegan spices.
1.1.10.7. Con: The happiness is just a mask for the addiction to non-animal products.
1.1.10.7.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.6.1.4.4.3.
1.1.10.8. Pro: Cooked meats have powerful [stimulating effects](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/what-makes-a-hamburger-and-other-cooked-meat-so-enticing-to-humans/2013/08/12/8f8e1d72-ff73-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html?utm_term=.570f6f6d1816) on human sensory pleasure.
1.1.11. Pro: Because we've been eating animal products for so long, we should not change to something different than the omnivore tendencies that worked for millennia.
1.1.11.1. Con: The length of our digestive system is just like of many other herbivores. Without fire we couldn't eat meat too, so it can't be natural.
1.1.11.1.1. Con: Humans can eat and digest raw meat, but often cooking makes it more flavorful.
1.1.11.1.2. Con: Our digestive system is actually of a length and structure similar to that of many other omnivore and opportunistic species, and many people worldwide survive well with a diet that includes raw meat \(but not only raw meat, in most cases\).
1.1.11.1.3. Con: Actually, we could eat meat raw.  It's just that it's not as safe to do so; after all, cooking meat kills the bacteria that could find us a tasty host... and cooking improves the flavor quite a bit \(especially with a nice white wine and some oregano\).  In fact, there are relatively few animals that cannot be safely eaten by humans.  The same cannot be said for plants.
1.1.11.1.4. Con: Animals like humans [cannot eat](https://www.geek.com/science/geek-answers-why-can-animals-eat-raw-meat-but-we-cant-1593883/) raw meat without the possibility of health issues. However humans can still and do eat raw meat.
1.1.11.2. Con: Nature does not offer all the right choices and answers.
1.1.11.3. Pro: There is [much evidence](https://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter) in paleoanthropological science that the size of human brains \(i.e. large in relation to body size\) is related to the subsistence strategy adaptation of meat and seafood eating in the Old World, as far back with our genetic ancestors as Austrolopithecus \(perhaps the first stone tool user, as some have reasonably argued\).  We cannot foresee the neurophysiological consequences of resorting to centuries of veganism \(reverting to a more primate-like dietary strategy\).
1.1.11.4. Pro: While this [Scientific American article](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-humans-eat-meat-excerpt/) primarily is focusing on mass-scale livestock ranching issues, it makes it clear that humans are biologically omnivores, and that this omnivorous nature is part of what allowed humans to develop the way they had.
1.1.11.5. Con: There is no preference to eating meat, we are socially conditioned to prefer eating meat, which isn't exactly the same thing.
1.1.11.6. Con: This argument is an example of the [is–ought problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem). What *is* doesn't justify what ought to be.
1.1.11.6.1. Con: If we don't base "oughts" on existing context, then what should we base them on?  One could argue that a human ought to take their dietary requirements from water, soil, and the sun, thus no longer needing to kill animal or plant life, but that's hardly a realistic context.
1.1.11.6.2. Pro: We don't require eating animal products, as we're [obligate omnivores](https://soycrates.tumblr.com/post/15263698627/humans-are-not-obligate-omnivores), due to modern options like taking supplements.
1.1.11.7. Con: Humans belong to the great apes \(hominids\) - which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, bonobos - all of which eat plant based diets.
1.1.11.8. Con: We live in a modern society, were we take medicine and eat preservatives. Nothing is natural.
1.1.11.9. Pro: "There is evidence that hominids were making tools and [eating meat](https://www.sapiens.org/body/early-humans-and-raw-meat/) as far back as 3.3 million years ago—and that they increased their meat consumption around 2.6 million years ago—yet evidence for cooking doesn't turn up until about 500,000 years ago."
1.1.11.9.1. Con: Humans also managed to create nukes, weapons and bombs, is there any evidence we should pursue in this way. If we do something it doesn't mean we should pursue it.
1.1.11.9.1.1. Con: Not relevant to the origins of people eating meat. Though, these tools have already adapted make the killing of animals more humane.
1.1.11.9.1.1.1. Con: In some cases regulations for 'humane' slaughter is ignored and there is evidence of abuse in many abattoirs which claim to follow those standards.
1.1.11.10. Con: [Humans are omnivorous](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/omnivore/). They evolved to be able to eat a lot of different things, including meat and dairy products. But there are actually still [a lot of humans that are not able to process lactose](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/539wy5/it-took-humans-5000-years-to-evolve-the-capability-to-digest-dairy). Humans also evolved into compassionate beings that can decide what to eat and what not. Evolution is, therefore, not a good argument.
1.1.11.10.1. Con: The human body is designed for a herbivorous diet \([1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wG3b3ql34A), [2](http://meatyourfuture.com/2015/09/herbivores-carnivores/), [3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmXynDLkbXY)\): teeth, jaw movability, digestive colon & saliva properties
1.1.11.10.1.1. Con: Apes \(which humans evolved from\) all are mostly plant-based with some animal supplementation. This makes them omnivores \(or "mostly herbivore"\), not [herbivores](https://www.livescience.com/53452-herbivores.html). This is seen in [gorillas](https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-do-gorillas-eat-and-other-gorilla-facts), [chimpanzees, bonobos](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/c/chimpanzee/), [monkeys](https://animalcorner.co.uk/animals/old-world-monkeys/) \(Old World - for human taxonomy\) humans. Only [55 million years ago](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diet-and-primate-evolution-2006-06/) was there a carnivorous primate \(insectivore\).
1.1.11.10.1.2. Con: Not all humans are truly herbivorous in their anatomy. Some humans [evolved to consume milk](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose), due to genes allowing them to digest lactose.
1.1.11.10.1.3. Pro: Most ancient civilizations were built on a plant\(s\) as a staple crop \(like [corn](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs141p2_015559.pdf) for the Hopi, [three sisters](https://www.thoughtco.com/three-sisters-american-farming-173034) of Native Americans, and [mongongo nuts](http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-3g.shtml) for the !Kung Bushmen\).
1.1.11.10.1.4. Con: Humans are actually omnivores \(anatomically\). There are two types of mammalian herbivore GI tracts, one with multiple stomachs \(like ruminants: [cows](http://slideplayer.com/slide/4687656/)\) or one stomach but large cecums \(like lagormorpha: [rabbits](https://oercommons.s3.amazonaws.com/media/courseware/openstax/m44736/Figure_34_01_05ab.jpg) or rodents: [mice](https://giorgiafiorio.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Rat-Anatomy-Organs-diagram-ideas-Diagrammatic-representation-of-the-internal-organs-of-a-rat.jpg)\). Humans are like the latter, but have small cecums \(vestigial appendix\). Thus, the human GI tract does not resemble those of herbivores, but instead omnivores like [bears](https://blackbearsofnorthamerica.weebly.com/anatomy.html).
1.1.11.11. Pro: -> See 1.1.10.
1.1.11.12. Pro: -> See 1.1.11.10.1.4.
1.1.11.13. Con: Just because we have done something for a long time does not mean it is good.
1.1.11.13.1. Pro: Just because something is natural does not mean that it is good. This is the [appeal to nature fallacy](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/36/Appeal-to-Nature).
1.1.11.13.1.1. Con: A diet that fits human’s metabolism is guaranteed to provide all the nutrients we need.
1.1.12. Con: Free humans who are adequately informed and supported would make the correct choice, whatever that may be. This conversation is intended to find what that correct choice is, not decide top-down what we should force on individuals.
1.1.12.1. Pro: Educating about veganism and creating the right conditions for people to choose vegan options more often is not equal to paternalism.
1.1.12.2. Pro: -> See discussion #31640: People should go vegan if they can.
1.1.13. Pro: Society should protect, and not get in the way of, an individual's freedom of choice.
1.1.13.1. Pro: Society should be able to be set up any way deemed fit to allow for the individual's freedom of choice.
1.1.13.2. Con: Society must always place limits on freedom of choice, otherwise individuals could make decisions that would harm others within the society.
1.1.13.2.1. Pro: There will always be a point where one person's choices will limit the ability of another to access their rights, or limit their choices. This is why we value certain rights above our freedom of choice \(e.g. right to life, liberty etc.\).
1.1.14. Pro: It is immoral to restrict the rights of other humans to eat animals, so long as in doing so they do not infringe on the rights of other humans.
1.1.14.1. Con: Humans should not be given special treatment solely out of morality as humans are animals too. They should be allowed to be eaten if they are weak, because morality is subjective and has no function in my quest for survival through nourishment.
1.1.14.2. Pro: True, that is why veganism works, because people's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is infringed due to the few people that want to eat meat.
1.1.14.2.1. Pro: With global warming threatening human existence, many people will not have the capability to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, not being vegan infringes on the rights of everyone just trying to exist.
1.1.14.3. Con: It is immoral to restrict the rights of animals in order to give humans more rights \(especially when humans do not need animals to live\).
1.1.14.4. Pro: The well-being of men has more value than the well-being of animals.
1.1.14.4.1. Con: The well-being of humans and the well-being of animals are not mutually exclusive.
1.1.14.4.2. Con: Every individual values his personal well-being the highest; human as well as animal. We should not justify imposing our will upon others because of this, human or animal.
1.1.14.4.3. Pro: Causing animals suffering, while regrettable, is not reason enough to deprive people of an entire category of food.
1.1.14.4.4. Pro: Animals dominating other animals is natural, thus humans using animals to their own ends is not unethical.
1.1.14.4.4.1. Pro: Animals are killed in inhumane ways by predators like lions, eagles, and so on in nature. What humans do is much more ethical than their methods.
1.1.14.4.4.1.1. Con: Humans don't always kill in the most humane way possible. There are many examples of animals being killed in extremely inhumane ways, even when better alternatives are the norm. [1](http://www.flanderstoday.eu/business/tielt-slaughterhouse-closed-after-graphic-video-footage-released), [2](https://nltimes.nl/2018/06/20/animals-boiled-alive-dutch-slaughterhouses)
1.1.14.4.4.1.2. Con: Comparing humans to animals that dont have the option other than to kill doesn't excuse humans killing. We have the higher thinking to understand we are taking a life and that we have other food options, that is what makes it morally wrong.
1.1.14.4.4.1.2.1. Pro: Carnivores have bodies that require them to eat meat. If these types of animals were capable of not eating meat \(especially when meat's not around\), they may choose not to at times.
1.1.14.4.4.1.3. Con: The reason why humans kill less animals is because there is a proportionally smaller population of humans to all the animals who eat meat in the world, not because humans are more moral in killing animals.
1.1.14.4.4.1.4. Con: Some methods that carnivores have for eating are actually beneficial for an ecosystem.
1.1.14.4.4.1.4.1. Pro: Carnivores are sometimes a [cleanup crew](https://blog.explore.org/the-death-of-a-hippo-and-the-circle-of-life/) for an ecosystem.
1.1.14.4.4.1.4.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.
1.1.14.4.4.1.4.3. Pro: Carcasses left over by carnivores [provide food sources](https://cheetah.org/2011/05/why-are-predators-important/) for other animals, like scavengers, in an ecosystem.
1.1.14.4.4.1.4.3.1. Pro: Scavengers eat animals in more humanitarian ways that most humans do, as they do not kill an animal in order to eat it.
1.1.14.4.4.1.5. Con: What goes on in nature is irrelevant in this case because veganism is about reducing the harm caused by humans.
1.1.14.4.4.1.6. Con: With regard to the definition \([1st one](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/humane)\) of humane, killing perfectly healthy animals just because of preference or taste is neither tender nor compassionate and shows no sympathy for the animal. There is no way to kill a human humanely, nor an animal.
1.1.14.4.4.1.7. Pro: Predators often [wound prey and let it die for hours or days](https://io9.gizmodo.com/9-predators-with-the-most-brutal-hunting-techniques-510100768) to get an easy prey in the wild, so humans eating an animal through killing it quickly and with as little pain as possible would be more ethical than this.
1.1.14.4.4.1.8. Pro: The amount of animals killed by humans are way smaller than the "natural" biosystem altogether, so these minor amounts are marginal in the overall larger picture.
1.1.14.4.4.1.9. Pro: Humans have technology to kill animals more ethically than we our any animal could in nature to the point it creates such minimal harm that it's not unethical at that point.
1.1.14.4.4.2. Con: -> See 1.1.11.13.1.
1.1.14.4.4.3. Pro: Animals such as [cats](https://www.cuteness.com/blog/content/why-do-cats-torture-their-prey) and dolphins hunt and torture their prey.
1.1.14.4.4.3.1. Con: Veganism is a statement of ethical nature, and humans are the only species capable of ethics and of the notion of morality. It is therefore irrelevant to veganism that non-human animals display traits of cruel behaviour towards other animals.
1.1.14.4.4.4. Pro: Animals would still be killed by other animals.
1.1.14.4.4.4.1. Con: Only to survive, not as much as we kill animals.
1.1.14.4.4.4.1.1. Pro: This is more natural in comparison with intensive factory farming and slaughter.
1.1.14.4.4.4.2. Con: The fact that people are still raped and murdered in Syria doesn't relieve us of the ethical obligation to not rape and kill.
1.1.14.4.4.4.3. Con: Veganism is an ethical statement, and ethics only apply to humans \(as they are the only species capable of the very notion of ethics\). Veganism does not apply to animals, and the fact that wild animals would keep on predating is therefore irrelevant.
1.1.14.4.4.4.4. Pro: Therefore, animals would still needlessly die, regardless of whether or not they were killed by humans, as other animals would still kill other animals.
1.1.14.4.4.5. Con: Nearly all widely held principles of ethics with humans [diverge](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/reclaiming-childhood/201106/only-humans-have-morality-not-animals) from what happens in the natural, animal world.
1.1.14.4.4.6. Con: Simply because an authority such as nature does some action that does not make the action morally correct.
1.1.14.4.4.7. Con: Humans, unlike other animals, do not need to harm animals to live and thrive, which makes it unethical.
1.1.14.4.5. Con: Animal lives are of sufficient value that we should not just kill them when non-animal alternatives exist.
1.1.14.4.5.1. Pro: Veganism is a moral imperative. Since nonhuman animals are sentient, can suffer, and have a will to live, critics of animal rights would have to explain why those traits are not sufficient to grant animals such rights given they are the basis for moral treatment of fellow humans. Critics need to name what trait humans have that other animals don't have that justify such differential treatment, such that a human lacking this trait can be killed for food without it being immoral.
1.1.14.4.5.1.1. Con: Critics could, alternatively, argue that 'rights' are not the ideal system for making moral decisions, but that they are in place because they simplify moral problems and their solutions.
1.1.14.4.5.2. Con: If one is concerned with numbers of deaths of living organisms, then this argument is actually in support of voluntary suicide via starvation, as many plants must be killed or aborted to support the life of one human being.
1.1.14.4.5.2.1. Con: When considering morality, it is necessary to draw a line. It is unlikely that most humans would adopt a moral position that requires them to starve themselves to death, therefore it is necessary to strike a balance between surviving and acting ethically.
1.1.14.4.5.3. Pro: Fur coats [not needed](http://www.haveyoupackedthecamera.com/blog/articles/antarctica/antarcticaClothingOuterLayer.htm) for warmth in any weather condition, thus they lead to the pointless and [cruel](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1366983/How-ethical-fur-fashion-industrys-cynical-yet.html) death of many animals.
1.1.14.4.5.4. Con: Animals only have value because they give value to humans.
1.1.14.4.5.4.1. Pro: They taste good.
1.1.14.4.5.5. Con: The proposition at hand relates to veganism, which goes substantially beyond simply not killing animals. Any discussion of the ethics of killing animals is an argument in favor of vegetarianism, but not veganism per se.
1.1.14.4.5.6. Pro: Animals are [sentient](https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare_en), which relates to having moral value.
1.1.14.4.5.6.1. Pro: Sentience \(rather than appearance, intelligence, ability, etc.\) is generally the only morally relevant criterion we require in the human context to protect one's right not to be treated exclusively as a resource by another. Thus, we need only sentience as a moral justification to believe they are of sufficient enough value to not be killed.
1.1.14.4.5.7. Con: The life of an animal does not have enough value to outweigh the benefits of killing and consuming them.
1.1.14.4.5.8. Pro: Since we really have no purpose to make animals suffer \(unlike in the past\), it's no longer morally conscionable of us to continue to do so anymore.
1.1.14.4.5.8.1. Pro: We now know the futility of killing animals \(like [wolves for farming](https://www.thedodo.com/wolf-hunts-backfire-863508247.html)\), so to continue to do so, when it doesn't help \(but instead causes harm\) doesn't make conscionable sense.
1.1.14.4.5.9. Con: Animals do not have similar levels of [emotional comprehension](https://www.thoughtco.com/do-insects-feel-pain-1968409) or intelligence \([1](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KtMisEcJcwc/TFTVGEG6zhI/AAAAAAAABRo/namNhbv_brM/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/moravec+-+1900-2030+machine+intelligence.jpg), [2](http://www.archure.net/p/bbbGIFxx.GIF)\) to humans. Therefore they are of less value.
1.1.14.4.5.9.1. Con: 'Chattel animals' are not one species or group of species. There is a lot of variety. For example, [pigs](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/201506/pigs-are-intelligent-emotional-and-cognitively-complex) are a lot more intelligent than most animals.
1.1.14.4.5.9.2. Con: The [ability to suffer](https://boingboing.net/2011/06/30/richard-dawkins-on-v.html) on a physical or even psychological level is not related or correlated to comprehension/intelligence.
1.1.14.4.5.9.2.1. Pro: Many mammals can get the same or at least very [similar mental conditions as humans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_psychopathology), including depression, OCD, anxiety disorders, etc.
1.1.14.4.5.9.3. Con: There are [difficulties in measuring emotional and general intelligence](https://www.smh.com.au/national/scientific-studies-of-animal-intelligence-and-emotion-reveal-surprising-traits-20150703-gi4nbh.html). To base a life's value on subjective ranking does not make sense.
1.1.14.4.5.9.3.1. Pro: Many times intelligence and emotion look substandard to humans because there are different types and humans might not be able to recognize the other types in other animals. For instance, fish feel pain, but people don't believe that they do, because [fish emotionally react differently to pain than humans do](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm).
1.1.14.4.5.9.4. Con: Humans are not [unique with abilities and skills, and if anything, worse than other animals](https://visual.ly/community/infographic/science/difference-between-humans-and-animals). That does make humans less valuable. Basing value on criteria does not make sense in regard to abilities and skill.
1.1.14.4.5.9.5. Con: Some humans are born with disorders that greatly reduce their cognitive / physical abilities, yet we do not deem it ethical to kill humans of much lesser intelligence. We currently base the value of an animal on its species, not its abilities, intelligence or sentience.
1.1.14.4.5.9.6. Con: Intelligence and emotional comprehension are hard to measure and all such measurements are taken from a human point of view, so it's only natural that humans come out on top in such comparisons. Vegans base their moral considerations on empathy \(recognizing that non-human animals have many of the same needs as humans as well as the capability to suffer\) instead of pseudo-objective measurements of intelligence.
1.1.14.4.5.9.6.1. Con: Even vegans are humans, so they have biases too. Vegans vary widely in their beliefs as to what is considered 'sentient' \(from those believing [bivalves](https://sentientist.org/2013/05/20/the-ethical-case-for-eating-oysters-and-mussels/) are not sentient to vegans to think [insects](https://www.ourhenhouse.org/2013/10/a-vegan-angel-of-death/) are fine to kill\). The best method is to treat all life with respect and dignity and have science create a universal standard for all to follow.
1.1.14.4.5.9.6.2. Pro: Animals, with their variety, react differently to stimuli \(such as [fish feeling pain and respond differently than humans](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm), but still emotionally\). Because they react differently, humans do not take it seriously or say their responses even exist or have merit. That is why people do not believe animals are intelligent or smart \(or at the same level\), when it reality they are, just differently \(but at times equally\).
1.1.14.4.5.9.6.3. Pro: Many meat supporters believe that when animals react to a stimuli, it is just a reaction rather than emotion. However, emotion is also a reaction. Thus, humans do not look at everything equally, or display a bias just because it is convenient \(even when it does not make sense\).
1.1.14.4.5.9.7. Con: Emotional comprehension's just one factor. The benefit that they bring to the world and others has value too. When every type of value is summed up, the net value would be adequate for comparison, not just one facet.
1.1.14.4.5.9.7.1. Pro: Plants and insects \(like bees and worms\) may not have the emotion we have \(or they might, we don't really know\), but they help us survive. This has value.
1.1.14.5. Con: Whether or not humans are "restricted" from eating meat does change that they morally should not do so. As an analogy, in a society with free speech you are not restricted from saying horrible things about other people or lies, but it does not change that you should not do so.
1.1.14.6. Con: There is no right that allows us inflict unnecessary suffering on anyone. Not on animals, not on humans. While restricting the rights of other humans to eat animals is immoral, what is truly immoral here is mass murder of animals that is happening at the moment. Thus, the right of the animal to live trumps the right of humans to eat animals, due to a greater morality priority.
1.1.14.7. Con: It is immoral to restrict the rights of other humans to eat anything \(including vegan food\), yet it still happens. If humans weren't restricted in what they eat, then there may be more vegans.
1.1.14.8. Con: No one's stopped from making their own decisions when going vegan, as they'll come to it through their own free will. They'll still eat what they want, but through a vegan framework.
1.1.15. Pro: This will allow for more creativity, which would make the world less boring and creepy - where everyone's the similar to each other in how they act.
1.1.15.1. Con: People will find creative outlets to differentiate themselves, just not with foods they pick.
1.1.15.2. Con: If anything, being able to survive and thrive with the benefits veganism provides would opportunities to be creative where they wouldn't normally have the chance to without it.
1.1.15.2.1. Pro: With climate change, people may become much more limited in their capabilities. However, being vegan will get people to think more about the limitations and use it as a challenge to create better and live their life out in their new environment. With an omnivore diet, people may not thrive like this as much.
1.1.16. Pro: Saying that everybody should do something because somebody thinks this is good is the mix of arrogance and ignorance. The premise that all people should do something because it is wrong is just the version of the utilitarian utility. We can not say for sure whether eating meat is good or not. In such blurry case where moral standards cannot be applied the best thing to do is to let people act according to their needs and see what good will come out of their actions.
1.2. Pro: A vegan diet is healthier for humans.
1.2.1. Pro: People might be more aware of their impacts on their health and environment if they go vegan, which can help them get towards a healthier lifestyle \(due to giving their health more scrutiny, research, and educational insights\).
1.2.1.1. Con: People care about their health or not. Choosing a certain diet is part of a health choice. Forcing someone to adopt a certain diet is not making people more health conscious.
1.2.2. Pro: The [World Health Organisation](http://www.who.int/elena/titles/fruit_vegetables_ncds/en/) and national health ministries encourage adding more fruits and veggies to the plate and the vegan diet would allow for the greatest opportunity for that.
1.2.3. Con: It is possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet.
1.2.3.1. Pro: People can still eat junk food and be unhealthy, as many junk foods are vegan \(fries, condiments, soda, candy...\). The world going vegan does not stop people's consumption of junk food and its negative health consequences too.
1.2.3.1.1. Con: While people will always be unhealthy, we should still try and limit foods we know cause preventable health issues when we can to limit the harm that we can avoid.
1.2.3.2. Pro: People can still eat components that are unhealthy on an omnivore diet in a vegan one \(such as excessive saturated fats, sugars, and salt\). A healthier diet would be a modified diet not only eliminating animal products, but also sources in excess of disease-triggering \(like [heart disease](https://www.mdedge.com/sites/default/files/Document/September-2017/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf)\) nutrients.
1.2.3.3. Pro: [Pesticide intakes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27588700) are higher on a vegan diet, which makes an organic vegan diet healthier.
1.2.3.4. Pro: Many vegan options have significant amounts of sodium to compensate for the lack of taste
1.2.3.5. Con: It is also possible to eat an unhealthy omnivorous diet.
1.2.3.6. Pro: While there is nutrition of all forms available to the vegan, bioavailability and difficulty in acquisition/cost is much greater, reducing the probability of a successful healthful vegan diet.
1.2.3.6.1. Con: Cost is dependent also on demand. This argument thus relies on the fact that most people are not vegan to justify non-veganism. This argument therefore includes an appeal to the [bandwagon fallacy](https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-bandwagon-fallacy-1689158).
1.2.3.6.2. Pro: In the United States, fruits and vegetables are [more expensive than meat](https://depts.washington.edu/uwcphn/news/presentations/Drewnowski%20cost%20of%20healthy%20foods%20051612%20\[Compatibility%20Mode\].pdf) when considered [isocalorically](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/isocaloric).
1.2.3.6.3. Con: It's easier, as the body makes the nutrients itself \(Creatine, Carnosine, Taurine, etc\) instead of actively trying to find the foods with it and adding them into the diet.
1.2.3.6.4. Con: The absorption of some nutrients, like [calcium](https://www.theveganrd.com/vegan-nutrition-101/vegan-nutrition-primers/protecting-bone-health-on-a-vegan-diet/), is better than milk for some vegan foods.
1.2.3.6.4.1. Pro: Vegan foods have [Vitamin C](https://www.livestrong.com/article/445365-can-vitamin-c-calcium-be-taken-together/), which helps out even more with absorption.
1.2.4. Con: A vegan diet might not be healthier for those with medical conditions, so animal products would still need to be around to keep these people alive.
1.2.4.1. Con: Many of these individuals could still be on a vegan diet if they modify their food choices. They may have more restrictions than the general population, but will still maintain the possibility for going in the same direction as everyone.
1.2.4.2. Pro: Many people with eating and nutritional-based disabilities may be unable to remove animal products from their diets.
1.2.4.2.1. Pro: For those who previously suffered from an eating disorder, going vegan may increase their risk of a relapse, due to the ease with which their old eating disorder may [become](http://www.thebalancedblonde.com/2014/06/23/why-im-transitioning-away-from-veganism/) a [restriction-based eating disorder](https://spoonuniversity.com/lifestyle/the-problem-with-going-vegan-after-recovering-from-an-eating-disorder).
1.2.4.2.1.1. Con: Restricting certain foods can reinforce unhealthy eating behaviors. However, if meat is no longer considered food culturally, then it would not seem restrictive \(as one can't restrict oneself from something that one's already shied away from\).
1.2.4.2.1.2. Con: A non-vegan diet could be so far away from what's a seemingly healthy diet, that a drastic diet change towards veganism can trigger eating disorders, like [orthorexia](https://www.snhu.edu/about-us/newsroom/2019/02/types-of-eating-disorders). Without taking such extremes to be healthy \(by being vegan in a vegan world\), eating disorders can be prevented and thus relapses are avoided.
1.2.4.2.2. Pro: Some [medications](https://www.livestrong.com/article/484289-medications-that-inhibit-iron-absorption/) and medical conditions \(e.g. [menorrhagia](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/blooddisorders/women/menorrhagia.html)\) can create predispositions for chronic anaemia. This can impact the effort/costs associated with going vegan \(being easier to get an iron deficiency with it\), and may even make it medically ill-advised.
1.2.4.2.2.1. Pro: Plant sources of iron only contain non-heme forms of iron, while meat sources contain both heme and non-heme. This source makes the iron content [more available for absorption and use in the body](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/) \(known as the bioavailability of a nutrient\). Vegans/vegetarians are expected to have almost 2x the recommended intake of iron to get sufficient iron absorption. This can be very difficult for someone with anaemia to build up their iron levels on a vegan diet, and even worse with a medical condition.
1.2.4.2.2.2. Con: There are simple ways to [increase absorption](http://\(https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.nu.01.070181.001011\)) and actually make it more efficient than heme iron.
1.2.4.2.2.2.1. Pro: This is especially true, as the latter is associated with [cancer](http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/canprevres/4/2/177.full.pdf).
1.2.4.2.2.3. Con: [American Journal of Clinical Nutrition](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.full): "Vegans generally have an adequate iron intake and do not experience anemia more frequently than others."
1.2.4.2.3. Con: With the [definition](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism), in the \(unlikely\) case of survival or health concerns, the "as far as possible and practicable" clause makes it possible for such persons to be considered vegan as they would have no alternative options.
1.2.4.2.3.1. Con: While this is the definition as listed in the description, the full definition in the link provided continues: "... and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.". In other words, our working definition excludes all animal products from ones diet, even in survival situations.
1.2.4.2.3.2. Con: That definition is too vague. There are [different definitions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#cite_note-13) of veganism, many of which are not compatible with using animals in any circumstances. In a way we are all vegan depending on how easy you believe it is to reach all the necessary nutrition in your city harming as few animals as possible.
1.2.4.2.3.3. Pro: Veganism is not solely about diet. A person can still choose to live in accordance with vegan values, such as by avoiding animal circuses and leather/fur products.
1.2.4.2.4. Pro: If someone is stranded \(which is a temporary eating disability\), eating meat would help a person survive their circumstances.
1.2.4.2.4.1. Con: There are methods to surviving when stranded on a vegan diet, such as eating vegetation and not exerting oneself too much to conserve energy and nutrients.
1.2.4.2.4.1.1. Pro: If people learn about what they can forage in the wild, they may find great success in their dire situation
1.2.4.2.4.1.2. Con: If vegetation is not around \(such as in the middle of the ocean\), meat would be the only sensible food option there.
1.2.4.2.4.2. Pro: People who are vegan may still choose to not eat meat even then, but to impose that decision onto others \(like making the world vegan\) would not be ethical.
1.2.4.2.5. Pro: Genetic conditions that cause nutritional deficiencies can prevent a person from removing meat from their diet.
1.2.4.2.5.1. Pro: [Retinol deficiency](https://www.healwithfood.org/vitamin-retinol/genetic-deficiency.php) is a genetically pre-disposed condition that prevents conversion beta-carotene to Vitamin A \(retinol\) in humans. Since plants have no retinol \(only beta-carotene\), humans with this condition cannot have a vegan diet, only one with animal products.
1.2.4.2.5.2. Con: People with [hemochromatosis](https://hemochromatosishelp.com/heme-iron-vs-non-heme-iron/) \(a [genetic condition](https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/hereditary-hemochromatosis)\) can benefit greatly from a vegan diet, due to the lower absorbing non-heme iron in plants \(compared to heme iron in meat\).
1.2.4.2.6. Con: Rare disorders should not stop the world from becoming vegan, as more people will benefit than be negatively impacted. [Top diseases](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm) would be reduced so much with a vegan diet, that more individuals globally would benefit from going vegan than the reverse, just to prevent rare vegan-related and -specific medical conditions from occurring.
1.2.4.2.6.1. Pro: More eating and nutritional-based disabilities are caused by meat rather than the other way around \(the largest cause of death in the US is [heart disease](http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/557851c26da8114d1474389d-800-800/causes-of-death2.png), which meat contributes to, yet benefits from a [vegan diet](https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-right-plant-based-diet-for-you)\).
1.2.4.2.6.1.1. Con: We should make exceptions for the rare diseases that require meat if the world goes vegan.
1.2.4.2.6.1.2. Pro: A vegan world will find solutions to issues so they would not be a problem. Society may opt for genetic modification to prevent rare genetic conditions that require meat from existing. Without rare disorders existing, they would not get in the way of the world being vegan.
1.2.4.2.6.2. Pro: People who eat meat can create their own nutrition-based disabilities that require them to eat meat once they have it \(like [kidney disease](http://jacknorrisrd.com/are-there-medical-conditions-requiring-animal-foods/)\). If people stop eating meat to begin with, they would not damage their bodies to create their limited food options and preventable diseases.
1.2.4.2.6.2.1. Pro: The reason why people go towards meat, is because their nutritional-based disability comes from eating meat and makes eating plant-based foods difficult \(like diabetes \(eating fruit\) and Chron's disease - [1](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jul/16/health.food), [2](https://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20560523,00.html)\). If people just avoid meat, they would not be forced to eat it later in life.
1.2.4.2.6.2.2. Pro: Also, if people stop creating their own preventable diseases from eating meat \(like [thyroid conditions from mercury in fish](https://www.amymyersmd.com/2015/07/the-toxin-heavy-metal-and-thyroid-connection/)\), they would not require [animal-based](https://fpnotebook.com/Pharm/Adverse/AnmlDrvdPhrmctcls.htm) \(including from meat\) and -tested medications.
1.2.4.2.7. Pro: Not everybody can be vegan. Some may encounter difficulties when eating too many fibers or vegetal proteine, and may be forced to resort to meat for their diet
1.2.4.2.8. Pro: Those with [IBS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irritable_bowel_syndrome) often cannot tolerate [gluten](https://www.ibsdiets.org/fodmap-diet/fodmap-food-list/), most nuts, [beans and legumes](https://areyoutheresoy.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/low-fodmap.jpg), foods [high in insoluble fiber](https://www.webmd.com/ibs/ibs-triggers-prevention-strategies), or even at times [soy](https://www.ibsdiets.org/fodmap-diet/fodmap-food-list/) products. This makes it nearly impossible to consume the daily protein requirement. A vegan diet would simply cause further health complications for individuals who require animal products to survive.
1.2.4.2.8.1. Con: Requiring animal products with IBS is an exaggeration, as people can be vegan on this diet. Even though some websites say to stay away from these foods and eat animal products instead, other [websites](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-health/ibs-ibd-and-the-role-of-diet/) say that animal products are the triggers and the stated vegan foods are possible to have with IBS.
1.2.4.2.8.2. Con: Some vegan foods, like [quinoa](http://www.theveganrd.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fodmap-handouts-1.pdf), are a [complete protein](https://www.livestrong.com/article/378479-is-quinoa-a-complete-protein-food/) source and can be eaten in replace of animal products to get an equal nutrient exchange.
1.2.4.2.9. Pro: There are essential proteins and minerals which cannot be given to a child naturally with a vegan diet.
1.2.4.2.9.1. Pro: While children are developing, if they do not receive adequate nutrition due to not paying close enough attention to their diet \(as vegan diets require extra planning\), then they may not reach their potential and develop correctly and to normal levels.
1.2.4.2.10. Pro: There is a large proportion of people with \[[g6pd](https://nutritionadventures.com/wellness/g6pd-deficiency-foods-to-avoid/)\] deficiency which may prohibit the consumption of legumes, e.g. beans, peas, lentils and soya beans or fava beans. Carbohydrates that can cause problems include white flour, refined sugars and high fructose corn syrup. In addition, problems can cause tonic water, blue food coloring and products containing sulphites such as wine and dried fruit.
1.2.4.2.11. Pro: If vegans take iron supplements \(due to anemia\), they aren't easily absorbed \(including liquid supplements\), provoking over time digestion problems and may be not absorbed at all \(thus incrementing the condition\).
1.2.4.2.11.1. Pro: This is especially true if the supplement does not contain or is not taken with vitamins that help absorb it, like Vitamin C \(which is crucial for non-heme iron absorption\)
1.2.4.2.12. Pro: People with Celiac disease cannot eat wheat, which is a major source of [protein](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods/wheat) for vegan diets.
1.2.4.3. Con: A vegan diet prevents many medical conditions from forming, including some that require someone to take up or keep animal products in their diet. So we wouldn't need to keep animal products around if we can prevent it.
1.2.4.3.1. Pro: Diets including [meat, dairy](https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/heart-failure/news/20180529/too-much-meat-dairy-tied-to-heart-failure-risk), and [eggs](https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/health-concerns-with-eggs) increase the risk of heart disease among other conditions.
1.2.4.3.1.1. Pro: For those looking to eat a healthy diet, keeping intake of eggs [moderate to low](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/eggs/) will be best for most, emphasizing plant-based protein options when possible.
1.2.4.3.1.2. Pro: When [dairy fat](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/) was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively.
1.2.4.3.1.3. Pro: If people eat vegan, they can prevent deadly complications at the hospital from their meat-induced illness treatments.
1.2.4.3.1.3.1. Pro: If people are less likely to get medical conditions with a vegan diet, they should be less likely to get [drug overdoses](http://www.drugwarfacts.org/node/2003) \(with leads to death\) from treating their preventable diseases too.
1.2.4.3.1.3.2. Pro: Medical errors are the [3rd leading cause of death in the US](https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/medical-errors-are-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us). People who follow a vegan lifestyle to avoid preventable diseases would less likely get and require treatment for them \(which increases their risk of medical errors\).
1.2.4.3.1.4. Con: Scientific stances for animal products causing health issues end up weak at best, as biased, low-quality papers prove it to be true only to have high-quality studies [debunk](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070611113729.htm) them.
1.2.4.3.1.5. Con: The mortality risk of vegans is 22.5% higher than of meat eater according to the EPIC study, Oxford \(see [Table 4](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4691673/)\).
1.2.4.3.1.5.1. Con: [Respondents](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/) \(n=6,381\) aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer and diabetes mortality during an 18 year follow up period. These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the source of proteins was plant-based.
1.2.4.3.1.5.1.1. Con: The issue is not a high- or plant vs animal intake, but the [bioavailability](http://www.ijkd.org/index.php/ijkd/article/viewFile/345/176) of proteins due to other chemicals in the food sources. Amino acids, protein, and phosphate levels might be the same, but since plants contain anti-nutrients, like phytates, they lower the potential for phosphates to be absorbed, thus lowering their impact on the kidneys.
1.2.4.3.1.5.1.1.1. Pro: This is confirmed when people take in pure phosphoric acid, like in [soda](http://www.ijkd.org/index.php/ijkd/article/viewFile/345/176). It does not matter if someone is vegan or not, when people fully absorb phosphorus, it damages their kidneys.
1.2.4.3.1.6. Pro: A vegan diet may not reverse heart disease \(especially if it's all junk food\), but a [modified vegan diet](https://mdedge-files-live.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/files/s3fs-public/Document/September-2017/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf) has scientifically been proven to treat and reverse coronary artery disease \(CAD\).
1.2.4.3.1.7. Pro: Eating vegan can help prevent Alzheimer's \([1](https://www.veganseatwhat.com/alzheimers-disease-vegan-diets/), [2](https://www.cbsnews.com/media/mind-diet-foods-avoid-alzheimers-boost-brain-health/)\).
1.2.4.3.1.7.1. Pro: Avoiding having cats can prevent people from getting infected from Toxoplasma gondii, which can [lead to](https://www.beingpatient.com/cat-parasite-alzheimers/) Alzheimer's.
1.2.4.3.1.8. Pro: It's unhealthy for those without Lactose tolerance, which is traceable as a [gene mutation](https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/lactose-intolerance#statistics), and some [tribes](https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html) of early sapiens flourished with it. In Sapiens terms it's very recent addition and 'paleo' diets don't need it.
1.2.4.3.1.9. Pro: [Anecdotal evidence](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeating/10868428/Give-up-dairy-products-to-beat-cancer.html) has associated dairy consumption with breast cancer.
1.2.4.3.1.9.1. Con: The UK Cancer Society suggests that, on a synthesis of the evidence, while it is not conclusive, dairy may in fact [be protective](http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/breast-cancer/risks-causes/diet) from breast cancer.
1.2.4.3.1.10. Pro: It is argued that IGF-1 in dairy may be unhealthy.
1.2.4.3.1.10.1. Pro: Some argue it [may lead](https://chestsculpting.com/milk-and-dairy-for-guys-with-man-boobs/) to men developing breast tissue.
1.2.4.3.1.10.2. Con: While drinking milk may raise IGF-1 levels there is [some evidence](https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/93/17/1330/2519487) that overall it is protective from colorectal cancer.
1.2.4.3.1.11. Pro: Excess dairy consumption is associated with lower bone density as a result of the nuances in calcium metabolism.
1.2.4.3.1.12. Con: Access to and consumption of dairy is [associated with](http://blog.usdec.org/usdairyexporter/dairy-makes-a-case-as-a-remedy-for-malnutrition) a reduction in vitamin deficiencies in communities at risk of malnutrition.
1.2.4.3.1.13. Con: Dairy over the last few thousand years has given it's users resilient food sources and contributed to increased survival rates of humans and population growth... for those who can stomach it.
1.2.4.3.2. Pro: A vegan diet clears the conscience \(with ideas like knowing it is less cruel and more eco-friendly\), which could lead to [less stress](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/1476830514Y.0000000164) \(about health\) in life.
1.2.4.3.2.1. Con: Vegetarian diets are [connected](https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-9-67) to an increased incidence of mental health disorders including depression, anxiety and OCD.
1.2.4.3.2.1.1. Con: This is an association finding, with no proven causal link. [Quote](https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1479-5868-9-67?site=ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com) from the authors: "there was no evidence for a causal role of vegetarian diet in the etiology of mental disorders."
1.2.4.3.2.1.2. Con: This paper is 18 years old. Society's response to veganism is different now, and so is the average vegan.
1.2.4.3.2.1.3. Con: This paper only studies responses to one particular group - German respondents to a German national survey.
1.2.4.3.2.1.4. Con: The results favour a psychological [explanation](https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1479-5868-9-67?site=ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com): "For depressive disorders, anxiety
disorders, and somatoform disorders and syndromes we found that on average the adoption of the vegetarian diet follows the onset of mental disorders."
1.2.4.3.2.1.5. Con: "The experience of a mental disorder may [sensitize](https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1479-5868-9-67?site=ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com) individuals to the suffering of other living beings, including animals".
1.2.4.3.2.1.6. Con: This [paper](https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1479-5868-9-67?site=ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com) conflates people who eat plant-based diets for health reasons with those who do it for ethical reasons \(vegans\).
1.2.4.3.2.1.6.1. Pro: "Elevated levels of health-related anxiety [may lead](https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1479-5868-9-67?site=ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com) individuals with mental disorders to choose a vegetarian diet as a form of safety or self-protective behavior, because a meat free diet is perceived as more healthy".
1.2.4.3.2.1.6.2. Pro: "Individuals with a history of a mental disorder [may exhibit](https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1479-5868-9-67?site=ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com) more perceived health-oriented behavior in order to positively influence the course of their disease."
1.2.4.3.2.1.7. Con: The presented paper investigates vegetarians in a society \(German\) not welcoming to vegetarians. Research in societies positively valuing vegetarianism \(Seventh Day Adventists\) showed an [association](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20515497) with positive mood.
1.2.4.3.2.1.8. Pro: The quest for better health and with a greater amount of health consciousness in a world of vegans could trigger mental health issues in the population, like [modern health worries \(MHW\)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22729981), [health anxieties](https://www.news-medical.net/health/Self-Diagnosis-Test-for-Health-Anxiety-Hypochondria.aspx), [orthorexia](https://greatist.com/health/orthorexia-when-healthy-eating-turns-obsessive#1), [eco-anxiety](https://www.shondaland.com/live/body/a30470585/recognizing-eco-anxiety-what-it-is-and-ways-you-might-be-affected/), etc. and even [compound already existing ones](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fighting-fear/201305/the-treatment-health-anxiety).
1.2.4.3.2.2. Pro: People claim they love animals and would rather not see footage of animals being killed, yet they eat them. Refraining from eating animals would resolve this cognitive dissonance.
1.2.4.4. Pro: Those who cannot synthesize nutrients only found in animals, especially due to genetics, would not be able to go vegan.
1.2.4.4.1. Pro: People genetically not able to convert beta-carotene to Vitamin A would not be recommended for a vegan diet. The double whammy comes to them when beta-carotene buildup in the body presents [health problems](https://www.mygenefood.com/can-vegans-get-enough-vitamin-answer-may-genetic/) of its own.
1.2.4.4.1.1. Pro: Vitamin A \(retinol \([1](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/retinol#section=Top), 2\) - because it is in "[retinas](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Vitamin_A2#section=Top)"\) is [only found](http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/topics/vitamina.html) in animal sources. The body can only acquire it on a vegan diet by converting beta-carotene to this, so without being able to convert it, one would need to get it from animal products.
1.2.4.4.2. Pro: People who have [Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome](https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/smith-lemli-opitz-syndrome#genes) cannot synthesize cholesterol. A vegan diet would not be suitable for them, as it doesn't contain cholesterol and instead relies on the body to make it.
1.2.4.4.3. Con: If we find a way to synthesize nutrients \(that are not in vegan foods\) in a lab veganically, then they can go vegan as well.
1.2.4.4.4. Con: With modern technology, people could get tested for genetic diseases that prevent someone from going vegan, so they don't pass it down to their children. With this approach, eventually these diseases could be eradicated, so the world could go vegan.
1.2.4.5. Pro: People who are more sensitive to vegan foods would do better to eat animal products to avoiding risking getting sick through accidental contact with them.
1.2.4.5.1. Pro: A vegan world would lead people allergic to vegan foods more at-risk of coming into contact with and eating them accidentally.
1.2.4.5.1.1. Pro: In the [top 8 food allergens](https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm079311.htm), vegan foods rank among them \(soy, tree nuts, peanuts, and wheat\).
1.2.4.5.1.1.1. Con: The top 8 food allergens list leads with milk, eggs, fish, crustaceans. [Milk allergies are the most common on the list.](http://www.stormsallergy.com/control/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FoodAllergies.png)
1.2.4.5.1.1.2. Con: There are many vegan alternatives to soy, tree nuts, and peanuts for [lysine content](https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/report?nutrient1=505&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&fg=20&fg=9&fg=16&fg=12&fg=2&fg=11&max=25&subset=0&offset=0&sort=c&totCount=1276&measureby=g) \(not many are allergic to parsley\), and [methionine/cysteine](https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/report/nutrientsfrm?max=25&offset=0&totCount=0&nutrient1=506&nutrient2=507&nutrient3=&fg=20&fg=9&fg=16&fg=12&fg=2&fg=11&subset=0&sort=c&measureby=g) for wheat \(sunflower seeds are pretty hypoallergenic\).
1.2.4.5.1.2. Pro: Some people have dietary restrictions like [oral allergy syndrome](https://www.webmd.com/allergies/features/oral-allergy-syndrome-foods), where they can't eat a host of produce at all.
1.2.5. Pro: A vegan diet requires a lot less time to consume healthy and delicious food. The convenience would help more people to stick to a healthy diet.
1.2.5.1. Con: A vegan diet is far more inconvenient than an omnivorous diet.
1.2.5.1.1. Pro: 'Quick food' options, like fast food restaurants and convenience stores, have very few \(if any\) vegan choices. Most of a vegan's diet realistically must be made rather than bought. For people with particularly busy lifestyles, this inconvenience can be a deal-breaker.
1.2.5.1.2. Pro: The vegan diet ranks abysmally on the [top 40 most popular diets](https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-easy-diets) when ranking by convenience, tying for 36th place. The vast majority of popular diets are far more convenient than veganism.
1.2.6. Con: Vegan foods might have negative health consequences not seen with animal sources.
1.2.6.1. Pro: Vegan foods can contain toxins deleterious to human health.
1.2.6.1.1. Pro: Many vegan foods are not healthy for humans due to their [anti-nutrients](https://draxe.com/antinutrients/), such as oxalates and solanine. This can prevent people from absorbing nutrients they typically absorb in meat.
1.2.6.1.1.1. Pro: Legumes in general, and soybeans in particular negatively impact the thyroid and create issues with it's function \(like goiter - [1](https://academic.oup.com/endo/article-abstract/61/5/570/2775031), [2](https://search.proquest.com/openview/20a517f8041e1e1dc3a567d9a481eec3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1056336)\). Legumes is a [primary source](http://www.dietplanlist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/raw-vegan-diet-eating-plan-2d4605cd97bf2361445530e34ef140b8-PLYanB.jpg) of protein in the vegan diet.
1.2.6.1.2. Pro: Many people fall ill \(or die\) from [mushroom poisoning](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2882543/).
1.2.6.1.3. Pro: Plants contain [phytotoxins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytotoxin) \(that they use to defend themselves with\) but have a negative effect on human health.
1.2.6.1.3.1. Pro: One example is handling [cashews](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/11577928/Blood-cashews-the-toxic-truth-about-your-favourite-nut.html), due to their toxins.
1.2.6.2. Pro: Pathogens that grow on vegan foods can be unsafe.
1.2.6.2.1. Pro: Bread mold should not be eaten, as it's [unsafe](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/can-you-eat-bread-mold#recommendation) to do so.
1.2.7. Con: A restrictive diet has harmful long-term consequences.
1.2.7.1. Pro: Choosing to follow a restrictive diet can make it harder to engage with social events, as eating in restaurants is [more difficult](http://ohsheglows.com/2013/02/06/10-tips-for-eating-out-as-a-vegan/).
1.2.7.1.1. Con: Many restaurants, cafes etc. are widely expanding the variety and range of vegan foods that are available. Choosing a vegan dish when at a social event is becoming easier, and even if you have to bring your own or modify a dish, often the venue owners are quite open minded to the idea of expanding their menu to meet the needs of potential customers.
1.2.7.1.2. Con: If everyone was vegan then eating in social groups would no longer be problematic. Meat eaters expecting vegans to tolerate and participate in a death ritual is not equal to vegans expecting meat eaters to stop performing death rituals. No meat eater is harmed by having veganism forced upon them.
1.2.7.1.3. Pro: Sharing food is a [fundamental part](https://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/512998465/why-eating-the-same-food-increases-peoples-trust-and-cooperation) of human bonding, being vegan makes this [difficult](https://cadryskitchen.com/2015/04/23/vegan-party-etiquette/).
1.2.7.1.3.1. Con: The main claim is that all humans should become vegan, thus this claim is not valid. If all humans became vegan, then vegan food would be the food shared by people and it would again have the positive effects that this claim proposes.
1.2.7.1.3.2. Con: Vegan food is actually easier to share, because there is more abundance due to less resources needed to grow vegan food.
1.2.7.1.3.3. Con: Vegan food is meant to be shared, especially with fruit. Some fruit are so big \(like watermelon, jackfruit, and breadfruit\) that it would be extremely difficult for one person to eat it alone.
1.2.7.1.3.4. Con: A cornucopia \(a basket overflowing with fruit and vegetables\) is symbolic of a [plentiful harvest](https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cornucopia). That [abundance](https://www.brighthubeducation.com/history-homework-help/126590-what-is-a-cornucopia/) historically gets shared around Thanksgiving, when everyone feasts well. [Turkeys](http://time.com/4120730/thanksgiving-turkey-history/) are only a later, American addition to Thanksgiving.
1.2.7.2. Pro: This type of diet may be hard to follow, and thus bad on the psyche \(such as guilt\) when veering from it.
1.2.7.2.1. Con: Yet, if the entire world would be vegan, this would not be an issue.
1.2.7.3. Con: Veganism is not restrictive in the sense that there is a lot of vegetal foods. Usually, [vegans tend to actually have a more diversified diet](http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/2138656446/does-going-vegan-increase-dietary-variety). This claim is uninformed.
1.2.7.4. Con: Restrictive diets in general are actually associated with helpful long-term consequences, as they're associated with longevity \(like [calorie restriction](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hunger-gains-extreme-calorie-restriction-diet-shows-anti-aging-results/)\), which veganism [displays](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789600). It's usually the non-restrictive ones that lead to a shorter life \(for instance: [unlimited eating](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-finds-extreme-obesity-may-shorten-life-expectancy-14-years)\).
1.2.7.4.1. Pro: Many [longevity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies) and [disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study) studies conclude there's an increased risk of many 'old-age' diseases such as heart disease, dementia, cancer, diabetes, etc. with unrestricted food intake, as it would include animal products.
1.2.7.5. Pro: [Dietary diversity](https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/133/11/3911S/4818042) is very important for people's nutritional health. Without any animal products \(to add greater choice of food\), vegans face serious barriers to achieving an adequately diverse diet.
1.2.7.5.1. Con: The *contribution* in terms of more choices to nutrition may be indisputable, but that does not mean removing animals \(like with a vegan diet\) leaves a diet with inadequate nutrition.
1.2.7.5.2. Pro: Most people have preferences \(e.g. someone who won't eat broccoli\) based on taste, texture and other factors. These preferences naturally restrict our choices: making serious restrictions \(e.g. veganism\) beyond these only compounds the limiting of options.
1.2.7.5.3. Pro: There is [positive correlation](https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/134/10/2579/4688437) between diet diversity and Height for Age Z-scores \(HAZ\).
1.2.8. Con: A vegan diet would cause more health issues at times than benefits, which makes it less desirable than just not switching to it.
1.2.8.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.6.1.1.
1.2.8.2. Pro: Vegan-specific diseases will increase when everyone goes vegan.
1.2.8.2.1. Pro: One such example is [phytophotodermatitis](https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1119566-overview), which comes from citrus.
1.2.8.2.2. Pro: ["Trans-kingdom" pathogens](http://epi.ufl.edu/pathogens/plant-pathogens/) could make those with weak immune systems fall ill.
1.2.8.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.2.
1.2.9. Con: New unhealthy habits/lifestyles might come with a vegan diet and outweigh its benefits.
1.2.9.1. Con: People might not go out to restaurants as much \(due to a lack of options\), which is healthier.
1.2.9.2. Pro: People might buy processed food more on a vegan diet, because they do not know how to cook their own.
1.2.9.2.1. Pro: Combining vegan foods properly \(eg. form a complete protein source from incomplete ones\) to allow for better absorption \(eg. nutrients to compensate for low bioavailability\) and avoidance of dangers \(eg. antinutrients\) are pitfalls omnivore diets typically don't have. Due to the difficulties in getting these right, people may either give up or get it wrong in their efforts and resort to processed food more often than on their simpler omnivore diet.
1.2.9.2.1.1. Pro: One would need almost expert-level knowledge of nutrition and skills to apply those concepts on a daily basis to themselves on to maintain a vegan diet. Not everyone has these these abilities and as such could fail to get adequate nutrition levels to truly sustain themselves on it.
1.2.9.2.1.1.1. Pro: In some sense, individuals on a vegan diet would, in a sense, be their own guinea pigs in experimenting on their own bodies at the expert-level when they aren't experts. This makes them put their put their health at stake if they fail, which is a risk they can't normally protect themselves against. Until they have capabilities or access to someone who does to monitor/protect them against these risks, which is unlikely for the unskilled to safely pursue veganism in reality.
1.2.9.2.1.1.2. Con: Just like how children are taught life skills \(like how to eat, dress, etc.\) when growing up, either by school, parents, or life, they could be taught how to properly balance their nutritional levels and have enough practice that they'll be at an expert-level quick and early enough to not incur potential damage.
1.2.9.2.2. Con: Non-vegan diets will also contain large quantities of processed foods if the person does not know how to cook. In some ways, being on a vegan diet forces you to cook with more basic ingredients as there fewer convenience vegan foods and unhealthy alternatives are less accessible.
1.2.9.2.3. Pro: Increasingly multinational corporations and industrialised food giants are cashing in on the vegan movement with greater availability of vegan processed foods. Processed foods are neither good for our health, nor for the planet. A vegan diet consisting of processed foods far outweighs any health or environmental benefits.
1.2.9.3. Con: If vegans grow their own food \(especially hydroponic - [cleaner/less water usage, lower emissions...](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/0b/37/7d/0b377d6f9c09d918ca60828c2ee0b6e8.jpg)\), their diet would be healthier yet on the planet/people.
1.2.9.4. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.5.
1.2.9.5. Pro: These habits are unhealthy for these types of vegans, but also those around them \(through a negative influence\).
1.2.10. Con: Food from animal origins contain nutritional values that vegan food lacks. These cannot be supplemented on a vegan diet.
1.2.10.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.4.1.1.
1.2.10.2. Con: This is a positive, as the nutrition from animal origins that cannot be supplemented on a vegan diet, is not healthy anyway. [Cholesterol](https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/about-cholesterol) is one of those nutrients.
1.2.10.3. Con: What cannot come from animal products \(due to a vegan diet\) nor vegan supplements \(due to the nutrients missing in the vegan diet\) can be made within the body. [Cholesterol](https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/about-cholesterol) and [collagen](https://thedermreview.com/collagen-supplements/) are examples.
1.2.11. Con: Each year, health experts rank the [40 most popular diets](https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-diets-overall) to determine which are the best overall. Veganism ties with two others for 19th. When the list is adjusted to focus exclusively on the healthiest diets without regard to other factors, veganism does [even worse](https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-healthy-eating-diets), tying for 27th. Out of the 40 most popular diets, it is clear that veganism is one of the least healthy choices.
1.2.11.1. Pro: The two diets tied for first place in both the rankings of [healthiest](https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-healthy-eating-diets) and [best overall](https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-diets-overall), the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet, both require the consumption of meat and animal products, particularly fish, eggs, and fat-free dairy. Veganism's ranking is abysmal on both scales, indicating that animal products are necessary for the healthiest diets.
1.2.11.2. Con: The article referenced shows a low score for accessibility which drags the overall score down. However, as more people choose veganism the industry will respond to increased demand by offering more vegan-friendly offerings therefore increasing the overall dietary score.
1.2.12. Pro: Improving the health behavior of individuals through veganism is a health factor that increases their health outcome \([1](https://www.healthcatalyst.com/population-health/)\) individually.
1.2.12.1. Pro: Veganism promotes other healthier life choices which can impact [diabetes](https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy-food/eating-with-diabetes/veganism-and-diabetes), [heart disease](https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-right-plant-based-diet-for-you), [arthritis](https://www.arthritis.org/living-with-arthritis/arthritis-diet/anti-inflammatory/vegan-and-vegetarian-diets.php), [cancer](http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/), and more, for the positive.
1.2.13. Con: A vegan diet is based on starch and sugar that is extremely unhealthy.
1.2.14. Pro: As we evolve as a species, we learn more about what we need in order to maintain optimum health. Advances in our intelligence has both allowed us to produce more types of vegan food and discovered how unhealthy a non vegan diet is.
1.2.14.1. Con: The evidence for eating a carnivorous diet being healthy is mounting. To say that non vegan diets are unhealthy is somewhat unfounded considering the low quality of nutritional science found today.[Nina Teicholz - 'Red Meat and Health'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rz-8H_i1wA)
1.2.15. Con: Human digestive tract is evolved to eat meat as a primary food source. While we did evolve from herbivores and can survive on plants, carnivory is what evolutionary biology suggests humans are primarily optimised for. [Amber O'Hearn The Carnivorous Human](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WJBHEhmXqc)
1.2.16. Con: Breastfeeding is best for babies. Human babies should not be expected to go vegan. It would be cruel, unnatural, and nutritionally quite sub-optimal.
1.2.17. Pro: By not consuming animal products we are not consuming the [fear, stress](http://sciencenordic.com/meat-stressed-animals-unhealthy) and [hormones](https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/09/13/estrogen-animal-products/) that these creatures hold. There by potentially increasing positive [health](https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/hormones-food-supply-affect-human-body-2194.html).
1.2.18. Pro: There is [mounting evidence](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/health) that humans can not only survive, but thrive on plant-based diet.
1.2.18.1. Pro: Vegan diets provide more fibre, a nutrient that [97% of Americans are short on](https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/142/7/1390S/4630933).
1.2.18.1.1. Con: Nutrients like fibre can also be provided by non-vegan diets.
1.2.18.2. Pro: 58% of omnivores were deficient in [folic acid](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26502280) according to a 2017 study in Switzerland.
1.2.18.3. Pro: Vegan populations have, on average, a [lower body mass index](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26853923) \(closer to center of healthy range\) than people following an omnivorous diet.
1.2.18.3.1. Con: A lower body mass index doesn't necessarily mean that someone is healthy. BMI actually has some [limitations](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/obesity/bmi-limitations.php) as it is only a measure of excess weight not of imbalances in healthy levels \(such as that of protein, fat, bone, and more\).
1.2.18.3.1.1. Con: Vegans have a lower BMI due to being healthier \([less fat](http://www.vegkitchen.com/nutrition/do-vegans-have-a-weight-loss-advantage/)\).
1.2.18.3.1.2. Pro: Vegans tend to have a lower BMI with [less bone density \(due to less calcium intake\)](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9edd/5f5979f74cfdd9778722dc4a74bac1ca7894.pdf).
1.2.18.3.1.2.1. Con: According to the [article](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9edd/5f5979f74cfdd9778722dc4a74bac1ca7894.pdf), if vegans eat the same amount of calcium as omnivores, their bone density becomes the same. Thus, bone density has nothing to do with protein, but instead with calcium.
1.2.18.3.1.2.2. Pro: This is compounded by the fact that people lose bone density [as they age.](https://www.bones.nih.gov/health-info/bone/osteoporosis/bone-mass)
1.2.18.3.1.3. Con: There is [no difference](http://veggieprotein.com.br/artigos/cacao-amendoa/5.pdf) between vegans and non-vegetarians in terms of muscle mass.
1.2.18.3.1.3.1. Pro: Muscle mass increases and decreases with factors outside of diet, such as [creatine supplementation](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/13d9/247db5b39254ee6a786176c7eed63d04b2c2.pdf) and [age](https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/guide/sarcopenia-with-aging).
1.2.18.3.2. Con: The lower BMI has nothing to do with not consuming animal products. Vegans are simply guided to healthier food as there are fewer unhealthy vegan options. If non-vegans also ate healthier options, the same effect \(a lower BMI\) could be achieved without following a vegan diet.
1.2.18.4. Pro: Vegan and vegetarian diets have been [associated](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/) with a lower risk of many chronic diseases, including heart disease, cancer and type two diabetes. Lowering chronic disease burden would have a net positive impact on society \(by decreasing health care spending for instance\) while benefiting individuals.
1.2.18.4.1. Pro: LDL Cholesterol caused diseases are killing millions of people every year in the western world, and a vegan diet would have prevented them.
1.2.18.4.1.1. Pro: Saturated fats [raise LDL cholesterol](http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/PreventionTreatmentofHighCholesterol/The-Skinny-on-Fats_UCM_305628_Article.jsp#.WtV9mNP49E5) and the majority of saturated fat comes from animal sources.
1.2.18.4.1.2. Pro: Vegans have significantly [reduced risk of ischemic heart disease](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26853923) compared to people following an omnivorous diet.
1.2.18.4.1.3. Con: Any specialized diet would prevent cholesterol caused diseases. Most people have very bad diets and having any dietary lifestyle would be beneficial.
1.2.18.4.1.4. Con: Healthy diet can prevent cholesterol-caused diseases, so they don't need to be vegan to accomplish this.
1.2.18.4.2. Pro: A whole-food plant-based diet that excludes animal products and refined foods is [beneficial](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/) for preventing and treating type 2 diabetes.
1.2.18.4.2.1. Con: Recent [research](http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085%2816%2935229-5/abstract) is controversially showing that [diets](https://www.diabetes.co.uk/keto/) high in animal protein and fat and severely limiting carbohydrates are long term a better option for type II diabetics than diets high in complex carbohydrates and low in fats.
1.2.18.4.3. Con: It is likely that people choosing vegan diet are more aware of dietetics than ordinary people \(and thus act accordingly to protect their health\). The majority of our society do not think about healthy food and diseases and thus are not aware enough to act \(protect their health\) on this information.
1.2.18.4.3.1. Con: Since that is true, it is much better to have a society more aware of their health than less. Thus, this only emphasizes the realization more towards veganism.
1.2.19. Con: It is possible to eat a healthy diet that includes meat and animal products.
1.2.19.1. Con: While diets that include meat and animal products may be healthy, often their "healthiness" comes from reducing animal products.
1.2.19.1.1. Pro: Animal-based diets only appear healthy in the short term, until the long-term consequences are seen: compromise \(taking medications, surgery, etc.\) and shortened lifespan \(heart disease is the #1 killer, the living represents the whole population when it's not a 'complete picture', etc.\).
1.2.19.1.2. Pro: It's no wonder that study of [blue zones](https://www.bluezones.com/recipes/food-guidelines/) shows that plant-based \(or very near it\) is the healthy way to go.
1.2.19.2. Pro: Consuming animal products is healthy.
1.2.19.2.1. Con: It's [not obvious](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201610/do-humans-need-meat) that there's anything specifically beneficial about eating meat, and a healthy person with modest financial resources in an industrialized country can easily meet all normal dietary requirements on a vegan diet.
1.2.19.2.2. Con: Meat contains the essential vitamin [B12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12), yet this B12 is often [supplemented](http://www.theglowingfridge.com/vitamin-b12-not-just-vegans/) into the [animal's food](http://www.farmhealthonline.com/disease-management/cattle-diseases/cobalt-deficiency/). Therefore when supplementing B12 yourself and eating healthy, 'intermediary' meat' becomes obsolete.
1.2.19.2.3. Pro: Animal products have [benefits](http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/meat-food-group-body-4118.html) for [appetite](https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060904/full/news060904-3.html), [metabolism](https://www.medicaldaily.com/3-benefits-eating-meat-234798), iron absorption and the health of your muscles. While you may find these in vegetables it doesn't change that they can be gained from a healthy meat diet. Just because vegetables are healthy doesn't mean meat isn't.
1.2.19.2.4. Con: As vegans tend to [make healthier lifestyle choices](https://qz.com/91123/vegetarians-live-longer-but-its-not-because-they-dont-eat-meat/), consuming animal products should be less healthy than going vegan by association alone.
1.2.19.2.5. Con: WHO \(World Health Organisation\) deems processed meat [carcinogenic](http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/) and red meat a probable carcinogen.
1.2.19.2.6. Pro: Meat is an excellent source of iron [\(Pereira & Vicente, 2013\)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174012003385), while milk-based products are an excellent source of calcium and fatty acids \([Pereira, 2014](https://www.lbs.co.il/data/attachment-files/2015/08/26529_milk.pdf)\).
1.2.19.3. Con: When compared side by side a plant based diet will be connected to less diseases than a meat/dairy based diet. 
If you want to eat a healthy diet including animal products you have to have a very limited consumption of it, and be super choosy about their quality and origin.
1.2.19.3.1. Pro: Dairy or meat nowadays, unless you are able source locally and organically \(which is like not the case most of the times\), is going to be filled with a lot of extra nasty products related to industrial farming, antibiotics for example.
1.2.19.4. Pro: A vegan diet is a subset of an omnivorous diet. Therefore the claim above would imply that any amount, however small, of non-vegan food would always decrease the healthiness of a diet.
1.2.19.5. Con: If that were true, then the top killer wouldn't be animal-based \(heart disease\), but it is. It can't be healthy and the top killer simultaneously, as that's a contradiction. So it can't be healthy to eat animal products.
1.2.20. Pro: People likely go vegan to not get affected by food-borne illnesses from livestock.
1.2.20.1. Pro: The way [meat is produced](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment) spreads disease, and promotes antibiotic resistance. Going vegan will drastically lower the chances of getting ill from antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
1.2.20.1.1. Con: Some chickens do not contain any antibiotics. They run all day long around the park to stay healthy. Meat mass productions' unhealthy methods may not be confused with meat's own properties.
1.2.20.1.2. Con: This is a problem no matter the crop - plant based agriculture creates the same problems for pest resistance in the form of insects, weeds and moulds.
1.2.20.1.2.1. Con: While this may be true the resistance occurs in organisms which are not a direct threat to humans, whereas animal pathogens can [jump to](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis) humans carrying with them their resistances.
1.2.20.1.3. Pro: [80%](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638249/) of antibiotics sold go to animal agriculture, with most \([70%](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638249/)\) of them also used by humans. Thus, livestock increases the likelihood of antibiotic resistance to diseases people get.
1.2.20.2. Pro: The spread of disease in animals is more likely to [pass to humans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis) than [disease in plant crops](https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/plant-problems/disease/plant-disease-transmission.htm) due to genetic and biochemical similarities.
1.2.20.3. Con: [Wildlife](http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/09/co-management-of-food-safety-risks-from-wildlife-the-environment/#.W0tkAdUzrIU) may still be a source of food-borne illnesses in vegan food.
1.2.20.4. Pro: Even food-borne illnesses in crops come from livestock through [water](https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/other/agricultural/contamination.html) and [soil](http://www.backwoodshome.com/prevent-foodborne-illness-with-safe-gardening-methods-by-donna-insco/) contamination.
1.2.20.5. Pro: Livestock are the cause for over half of all deaths from food-borne illnesses \(see [Table 3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3647642/)\).
1.2.21. Pro: A vegan diet leads to [equal](https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/12/3029/htm)/better [infant brain development](http://www.medicosadventistas.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/A-cross-sectional-study-of-fatty-acids-and-brain-derived-neurotrophic-factor-in-human-milk-from-lactating-women-following-vegan-vegetarian-and-omnivore-diets.pdf), due to providing more [nutrients](https://knightscholar.geneseo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=sustainability-curriculum-student) to help the brain grow, i.e. more [brain-derived neurotrophic factor \(BDNF\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-derived_neurotrophic_factor) .
1.2.22. Con: When becoming vegan, people may want to be better in various ways \(like healthier, nicer, etc.\) that they overdo it where it causes issues \(i.e. too much of a good thing isn't\).
1.2.22.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.3.2.1.8.
1.3. Pro: If all humans were vegan, animals would not be killed or made to suffer needlessly, which is the moral thing to do.
1.3.1. Pro: A vegan society would recognize that every animal has a right to live.
1.3.1.1. Con: A vegan society would need to choose if they prefer predators to live, and grow plant-eaters to feed them, or let predators starve \(or kill all predators\) to let plant-eaters live well. The same amount of animals would be killed in both options. The most humane way is to reduce predators to an amount that can sustain in small population, and kill plant-eaters in humane way \(and use them as food\) instead of allowing them to be a killed in an inhumane way by predators.
1.3.1.2. Con: Rights are an explicit human construct that only humans can understand and, above all, consider in relation to other beings. Animals have naturally no right to live. We could give it to them, but rights can not be exercised without assuming duties. Animals are not guilty because they know no morality, so they are indeed in need of protection, but not legal subjects. For example: You can't react properly to an animal that violates another animal.
1.3.2. Con: Many animals are [killed in the production](https://www.morehouse.edu/facstaff/nnobis/papers/Davis-LeastHarm.htm) of plant-based food. Rabbits, mice, hamsters and other rodents, groundnesting birds, deer fawn, snakes, etc.
1.3.2.1. Con: It's true than many animals are killed in the production of plant-based food but not compared with the billions of lives that are sacrificed in the business of livestock. And if more investment in production of plant-based food could be made, allied to cellular agriculture and the notion that animal life is as valuable, we as a global society would learn effective ways to produce animal products without slaughtering farmed livestock and sacrificing the animals that die in plant-based cultures.
1.3.2.1.1. Con: The production of plant-based food kills not only some animals, but often the plants themselves. The total number of lives lost through vegan agriculture is exponentially worse than the current number for animal agriculture once you consider all the plant lives that must be sacrificed.
1.3.2.2. Con: For raising animals, you need plants and while producing this you also kill the mice and snakes that live there.
1.3.2.2.1. Pro: Feeding animals and then eating those animals requires more crops than simply eating plants directly, which results in more mice, hares, snakes, insects etc. being killed.
1.3.2.3. Con: A balanced, responsible, ethical and sustainable agriculture where no animal is killed exists.
1.3.2.3.1. Con: Agriculture on the scale needed to feed entire countries is not possible without doing it in the open air, where any wild animal and countless insects can wander into the cultivated area and be effectively hidden and, subsequently, killed during the farming process. Indeed, pollination requires animals as part of the process.
1.3.2.3.2. Pro: If people grow crops indoors hydroponically or aeroponically plus vertically, then they can avoid killing most, if any, animals.
1.3.2.4. Con: Morally speaking, there is a huge difference between accidentally killing and killing on purpose. Not to mention the imprisonment, forced insemination, robbing their offspring, painfully living, etc, to which farm animals are submitted unlike collateral victims of agriculture.
1.3.2.5. Pro: Veganism [kills more animals](http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659) than it saves.
1.3.2.6. Pro: Vegan agriculture most likely will not stop its heavy use of [pesticides, insecticides, and more animal-killing chemicals](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/), because they make vegan products viable for consumer markets.
1.3.2.6.1. Pro: As the [article](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/) mentions, such pesticides cause more harm than the target pest, affecting other animals and possibly humans. This causes a lot of damage for animals that people do not even think of when envisioning vegan food.
1.3.2.6.2. Pro: Vegan food production, with these chemicals, may cause more net deaths to the ecosystem \(especially wildlife\) in an open loop compared to buying farmed natural predators \(like larger insects, such as praying mantises and ladybugs, to eat the smaller insects, like aphids\).
1.3.2.6.2.1. Pro: Buying farmed insects as natural pesticides decreases the death toll \(as insects cannot breed as easily\) as well as create a closed loop \(the insects eat other ones instead of just dying, so their bodily material goes back to the environment through the circle-of-life\).
1.3.2.7. Pro: The public will not likely see how their food is made, thus making regulation less likely upon the process than the final consumer product.
1.3.2.8. Pro: For a vegan diet more animals have to die than for a carnivore diet. Agriculture is by definition the killing of any living being on a piece of land to grow just one plant.
1.3.3. Con: In a vegan world, many animals that are currently farmed and subsequently eaten would either live in worse conditions or never get the chance to live at all. For a significant number of animals, a vegan world would be a worse outcome for them.
1.3.3.1. Pro: Some [forms of farming](https://foodanimalconcernstrust.org/what-is-a-humane-farm/) treat animals extremely well, euthanize painlessly and help them live longer and healthier lives than in nature. Humans actually help more than take by protecting, curing, feeding, nurturing, and prolonging them/their offspring's lives in exchange for meat that they won't need or use after their death.
1.3.3.1.1. Con: The fraction of the lifespan of farm animals compared to their maximum lifespan in captivity is much smaller than the lifespan of wild animals compared to their lifespan in captivity, e.g. the red deer lives 10 years in the wild and 20 in captivity [\(Red deer\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_deer), which result in a fraction of 0.5. For dairy cows this fraction is ~0.25 and for chickens raised for meat 0.02 \([hsi.org.au](https://hsi.org.au/go/to/70/farm-animal-welfare.html#.WtTolIhuaM8)\).
1.3.3.1.1.1. Con: The second source \(the one about actual livestock animal\) is not a scientific peer reviewed research, but a simple infographics. Secondly, it talks about "expected" life expectancy \(meaning how long can the body hold ideally\), not the realistic one. Between sickness, predators, natural agents and all of the sorts, they would not realistically live as long. In nature being elder is rare, humanity is exceptional. Furthermore, most mammals live longer, [healthier, and less stressed](http://ecology.com/2011/10/20/bambi-bessie-wild-animals-happier/) in captivity.
1.3.3.1.1.1.1. Con: Even though domesticated dogs do have a better life being cared for by humans than they would have as wolves in the wild, you wouldn't advocate killing dogs in their early adolescence to be eaten like cows or pigs are. Caring for an animal doesn't automatically make it morally permissible to kill it, it is perfectly possible and beneficial to both parties to let the animal live, as is the case with pets.
1.3.3.1.2. Con: Farming practices should not be described as "protecting" animals and "taking care of offspring" when it inevitably leads to the death of the animals and their offspring for the financial gain of the producer.
1.3.3.1.2.1. Con: Animals are protected and taken care, so those are the right terms to use, describing what is actually happening.
Death is inevitable anyway. Why should the meat go to waste?
1.3.3.1.2.1.1. Con: Breeding animals for the sole purpose of killing them is entirely avoidable. It's not like they just pop up out of nowhere, we're bringing them to this world in order to kill and eat them. This is not like making use of naturally occuring "meat sources" like roadkill.
1.3.3.1.3. Con: There's no such thing as ethical killing. If animals are taken care only for the purpose of killing them that is ethically wrong when there is an alternative.
1.3.3.1.4. Pro: The non-industrialized production and use of dairy products \(milk and eggs\) is not innately exploitative or unethical because domesticated animals do not suffer, but are are rather fed, nurtured, and protected by the humans that raise them in a mutually beneficial process.
1.3.3.1.4.1. Con: Just because it might be possible, in theory, to raise animals ethically, does not mean it is ethical to consume animal products right now, as we are far away from widespread implementation of these "humane" practices.
1.3.3.1.4.2. Con: If we swap the highly optimized conventional animal agriculture \(which relies on animals being treated like commodities in order to maximize profits\) for non-exploitative, "symbiotic" ways of raising and keeping animals, we would have to live on mostly vegan diets anyway, since these methods of obtaining animal products have much lower yields and take up even more resources.
1.3.3.1.5. Con: Even if a farmed animal is treated well, the amount of lives negatively impacted by its existence is still very high. Species who are going extinct because of deforestation to make room for farmland, animals killed in the harvesting of the many crops you need to feed a single animal. Even cats have become a burden on many ecosystems, threatening rodent and bird populations. You're exchanging one arguably good life for dozens of others.
1.3.3.1.6. Con: Caring for an animal and eating its flesh after it has died from natural causes would be ethical.
1.3.3.1.6.1. Pro: Since we actively kill the animals, animal agriculture is not kind or caring. You would not describe a person who breeds and raises dogs for food as an animal-loving person.
1.3.3.1.6.2. Pro: Since farmers take animals' lives well before their death, they take the animals' meat when they still need it \(rather than when they do not\). The statement about taking the meat when it is no longer needed by the animal is thus false.
1.3.3.1.7. Con: Humane farming is only marginally better than traditional animal agriculture, yet notoriously hard to implement because of backlash from the industry and consumers who fear rising prices.
1.3.3.2. Pro: All animals are eventually killed, whether by humans or other animals or nature. Meat producers [usually want](http://www.grass-fed-solutions.com/cattle-stress.html) animals to die quickly to prevent pain-associated chemicals from forming, as they spoil the meat. Thus, they use the most humane means possible.
1.3.3.2.1. Pro: If comparing humane methods of dying to being eaten alive by a wolf or starving to death after you break your leg, or the other 1000 ways to die in the wild, eating farmed animals makes sense.
1.3.3.2.2. Con: Meat spoils anyway. Keeping meat fresher longer does not prevent people disposing it due to spoilage \(or assuming it is\). Meat preservation might be more humane than before, but not entirely \(as animals still get killed fruitlessly\)
1.3.3.2.3. Pro: A vegan society would be obligated morally to protect all animals from harm to/from others, as we already do this for humans.
1.3.3.2.3.1. Con: Humans are able to make moral decisions, animals aren't. That make us responsible of our own actions, but not for the actions of wild animals. We don't enforce other moral standards on animals as we do with people in general \(e.g. we do not stop animals from raping each other, while it is illegal in most justice systems\), so there's no need to start now.
1.3.3.2.3.2. Con: This is a slippery slope. The only moral obligation humans would have is to protect animals from other humans. Animals killing each other doesn't factor in this discussion.
1.3.3.2.3.3. Pro: It would not be consistent to expect humans to be vegan but leave the poor sheep to be slowly eaten alive by a wolf, or an omnivore animal \(like humans are\). We would eventually have to enforce "veganism" on all of the animal kingdom. What about carnivores in that case? This isn't a slippery slope, nor a reductio ad absurdum, it's consequence.
1.3.3.2.3.4. Pro: There are just too many animals in the animal kingdom to be able to enforce this enough to allow worldwide veganism to occur at all levels.
1.3.3.2.3.4.1. Con: This is a [Reductio ad absurdum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) argument, as not every animal is able to go vegan, while we are.
1.3.3.2.3.4.1.1. Con: Animals that are even carnivores can be fed a diet that would be acceptable for vegans. So it's not impossible.
1.3.3.2.3.4.2. Pro: The closest to veganism on an animal kingdom level is to follow the practices seen in Tibet: instead of burying people, they feed [scavengers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial), so that they're full and don't eat small animals. Since there are so many people in this world \(deaths/yr: [56 mil](https://www.medindia.net/patients/calculators/world-death-clock.asp)\), there's likely enough people to feed non-vegan animals so they can avoid the unnecessary consumption of others too.
1.3.3.2.3.4.2.1. Con: In the future, we're likely to live longer and have less children. So it may not work when we get to that point.
1.3.3.2.3.4.2.2. Pro: This number is only when we have a population of around 7.5 billion. The population keeps growing, so it'll only get easier to accomplish feeding all the animals that are carnivores, so they don't eat other animals.
1.3.3.2.3.4.2.3. Pro: Buddhists believe it's a moral duty to prevent suffering, and they intervene in nature to limit animal suffering to follow their principles. If they \(since they follow moral principles\) believe this is the way to go, then if the rest of the world wants to reduce suffering, then we should learn from and possibly follow what they do too.
1.3.3.2.3.4.2.4. Con: The shortcoming here is that it only applies to scavengers. We would need to find other methods to help out predators too.
1.3.3.3. Pro: It's better for an animal to live a short life than no life at all, assuming any amount of life to be a net positive.
1.3.3.3.1. Con: A life in a factory farm is [worse](https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare) than no life at all.
1.3.3.3.1.1. Con: Factory farms are not the only farming practices which exist.
1.3.3.3.1.2. Pro: Factory farms make up a [majority](https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare) of the farming industry in the US and Canada.
1.3.3.3.1.3. Pro: The assumption of net positivity is really based on perspective. The net is positive for some, not for all. From the farmer's perspective, that short life might be worthwhile, whether for food, job, or increased quality-of-life from interacting with animals. However, the short life is not worthwhile for the animal who has a quality-of-life that people would never want.
1.3.3.3.1.4. Con: Vegans generally look at the net suffering, not existence versus non-existence. An animal that never gets to live cannot suffer; while an animal raised for food will experience a lot of suffering despite the small joy it might feel from being alive at all.
1.3.3.3.2. Pro: A farmed animal is given life, allocated land resources and food resources to support it.
1.3.3.3.3. Pro: A farmed animal does not have to live in constant fear of predation as it does in the wild.
1.3.3.3.3.1. Pro: This is true, because farms try to remove that fear. The process involves coaxing farm animals to not worry or not showing them their death until the end, if at all \(leading the animals to believe that people are just raising and not killing them\).
1.3.3.3.3.1.1. Con: There is lots of footage around that demonstrates how the killing is not always clean and painless. Animals fighting back, animals being insufficiently stunned and noticing how they're being lowered into a scalding tub alive, pigs who are suffocated in CO2 chambers and go into panic as they realize they're not able to breathe. The methods are far from perfect.
1.3.3.3.3.2. Con: Farm animals do live in fear, they just have been bred to not react to their predation. Domestic animals have aggression and other genetic traits taken out of them to prevent them from struggle and fighting their predators \(a.k.a. humans\).
1.3.3.3.3.2.1. Con: While animals might not be aggressive towards humans, their reaction to the conditions of being raised and bred by humans is still aggression and nervousness. That's why chickens get their claws and beaks cut off, so they don't start attacking each other.
1.3.3.3.4. Pro: A farmed animal can be provided with a life that is worth living. Free-range farming with an enhanced environment to stimulate the animals is possible, so that the animals' life is worth living.
1.3.3.3.4.1. Con: We are in no position to decide whether an animal's life has been "good enough already" for it to be killed as we can't measure happiness. This highly subjective criteria of happiness is not sufficient for deciding when to end an animal's life until we have a better understanding of how and what animals feel.
1.3.3.3.4.1.1. Pro: We wouldn't kill a dog that had a happy childhood at two years of age just because that happiness ought to suffice for a lifetime. We instead try to maximize the amount of happy years our pets can spend on this planet. We don't do this with livestock, we set an arbitrary limit on how much happiness they deserve so that it fits our needs \(eating them\).
1.3.3.3.4.2. Con: If we allow animals to live long and fulfilled lives before eating them, raising and killing them for food would be a lot less economically feasible, leading to a major drop in the availability of animal products \(or extremely increased prices\), which would in turn lead to an almost-vegan diet anyways.
1.3.3.3.4.3. Con: Free-range is an [elastic term](https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg?t=5m4s), meaning that the definition is arbitrary and can be changed. Likely free-range will not be [much better or more ethical](https://youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg?t=5m4s) than conventional farming \(if we don't account for the environment\).
1.3.3.3.4.4. Con: From the animal's perspective, there is no purpose to their existence. Even if they had the cushiest, nicest life, it would not be worth living for them \(unless they want to be meat for people, which would only happen in rare instances\). The only value that the animal's life is worth living for is for humans \(like the farmer\). The farmer only thinks the life is valuable to an animal because of their anthropocentric, predatory-perspective biases.
1.3.3.3.4.4.1. Pro: Animals wanting to be meat goes against biology. Biologically, animals want to survive and reproduce, not be some predator's meal.
1.3.3.3.5. Con: This statement assumes that adding livestock is net positive life. However, in reality, it is not. Adding their lives come at the sacrifice of others \(namely wildlife and humans - due to climate change\). This makes adding farm life net negative when factoring in all variables.
1.3.3.3.5.1. Pro: Since there are people starving currently, it makes sense to help those who exist now instead of adding other mouths to feed that have yet to come into existence.
1.3.3.3.5.2. Pro: The breeds humans "created" are optimized for putting on weight quickly \(so much so that many of them have severe mobility issues\) and have many of their natural instincts removed. Most of them would not stand a chance in the wild so it would not make sense to keep them around if we decided not to eat meat anymore.
1.3.3.3.5.3. Pro: Because of this reality, we need to make sacrifices and value one life over another. If we choose farm animals, then we are creating net negative life for wildlife and people. Because of this net negativity, livestock should not be added to this world, just based on the numbers of life added to this world alone.
1.3.3.3.5.3.1. Pro: Humans and wildlife are better choices to keep than livestock.
1.3.3.3.5.4. Pro: With climate change, even if we keep adding animals to this world to increase the number of lives on Earth, the end would leave to a net life of 0. If temperatures go high enough, no animal, including the farm animals added, will survive. That is why adding livestock does not make sense now, and most definitely does not in the future.
1.3.3.3.6. Con: If the livestock do not take up land, then it would get filled by other lifeforms \(plants, fungi, wild animals, and maybe even humans\). One lifeform's loss is another one's gain. Thus the addition of livestock is net neutral at most, but most likely net negative.
1.3.3.3.6.1. Pro: Because nature does not like voids \(such as a lack of life\), we do not need to make effort to bring lives into the world \(as nature will take of that for us\).
1.3.3.3.6.1.1. Pro: Thus, it is a waste of resources to raise livestock just to keep them around when resources are not required to achieve the same effect.
1.3.3.3.6.1.2. Con: Nature is not concerned with the maximisation of positive conscious experience \(for humans and overall on Earth\), while raising animals could be considered a noble human endeavour \(by purposefully and artificially elevating total Earthly consciousness to a level that provides benefits\).
1.3.3.3.6.1.3. Con: There is arguably no such thing as "nature" which has any kind of intentions.
1.3.3.3.6.2. Pro: That short life is not worth the life lost on others affected by it. That means there is an overall net negative when factoring everyone in \(the life lost due to health conditions in humans and workers\).
1.3.3.3.6.3. Con: The opportunity for moral good is maximised where life with the emotional capacity for joy/pleasure/fulfillment is allowed to thrive. Livestock should therefore take priority over plant and fungal life.
1.3.3.3.6.3.1. Con: This would be valid if animal agriculture created joy and fulfillment, but it mainly creates suffering.
1.3.3.3.6.3.2. Con: Plants can have joy/pleasure/fulfillment when allowed to thrive too. We should not let our quest for 'emotional capacity' get in the way of giving as much life freedom and quality-of-life they deserve, no matter how they enjoy it. Instead we should embrace and bring life that comes our way into this world unbiased \(a.k.a. no priority\) if we can bring them happiness.
1.3.3.3.6.3.3. Con: Just because we do not know at this moment that plants do not have an emotional capacity for enjoyment, does not mean that such enjoyment does not exist within them. We just do not know about it. We should err on the side of caution \(instead of assuming they don't and be wrong\) until we know better \(research is still in its [infancy](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant) in the plant neurobiology field\).
1.3.3.3.6.4. Pro: An increasing world population increases our spatial demands, so cities and villages could also expand if less farmland was needed. This is especially true for regions which suffer from severe lack of affordable housing.
1.3.3.3.7. Con: Putting animals in a [catch-22](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catch-22), where they lose either way \(having no life, or have a bad life and dying early\) are equally terrible and not worth it. Neither are good options nor real choices, as the chance for a good life is too small. The best option is a good, long life with a natural, uninfluenced death if we choose to breed them, not a short life.
1.3.3.4. Pro: Domesticated animals, livestock and other animals that depend on humans would starve to death.
1.3.3.4.1. Con: A cow's typical life-span is 25 years. Cows used in dairy production are [exhausted](http://www.ad-international.org/farm_animals/go.php?id=120) and for most part killed after 4-5 years.
1.3.3.4.2. Con: Animals can fend for themselves. Human existence occurred after the first animals.
1.3.3.4.3. Con: Most of the animals dependent on humans are in that situation because humans put them in it. When all humans will be vegan there won't be any more animals bred for farms. All animals dependent on humans should be prevented from breeding.
1.3.3.4.4. Con: This is simply untrue. The number of domesticated animals would gradually but drastically diminish \(probably of several orders of magnitude\) as the practice of forced, artificial reproduction would be dismissed; the remaining "domesticated" animals would be taken care of by their owners.
1.3.3.4.5. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.
1.3.3.4.6. Pro: Alternatively, if all humans became vegan, then all the animals on farms would be killed anyway as no-one is going to pay to look after them.
1.3.3.5. Con: There is no reason to believe that these animals would live in worse conditions in a vegan world. As for not getting the chance to live, it is arguably better than living a short and unpleasant life. Besides, not being born is not usually seen as a harm - on the contrary, we often practice birth control on ourselves and other animals because overpopulation is a concern.
1.3.3.6. Con: Breeding and raising animals for no purpose \(since we wouldn't eat them in a vegan world\) would come at some expense. So it's a worse condition overall than if we don't add more animals to the world that don't need to be here.
1.3.3.6.1. Pro: Going out of the way to raise lifeforms \(in this case, farm animals\) should not take place, as it comes at the expense of other lifeforms \(that are more valuable to this world than farm animals\).
1.3.3.6.1.1. Pro: Much of wildlife live in worse conditions or never get the chance at all to live due to animal agriculture. Thus, giving farm animals a chance at life should not be a justification for them, when we sacrifice another's life to make their living possible.
1.3.3.6.1.1.1. Pro: Biodiversity loss is well documented and will only get worse as people eat more meat.
1.3.3.6.1.2. Pro: If we keep farm animals around, we live in worse conditions or not at all, because they contribute to climate change. Humans should not raise animals at the cost of human life.
1.3.3.6.1.2.1. Pro: Climate change due to eating meat will make it much more difficult for humans to live \(by lowering their carrying capacity\). Thus, raising animals to make their lives better is not a worthy endeavor.
1.3.3.6.1.3. Pro: Whether or not we raise animals, the total number of animals on Earth should remain about the same. The only difference is that the animals are a different species.
1.3.3.6.2. Pro: It's not economic for us to do so.
1.3.3.6.3. Pro: The animals may still have a miserable life, even if we do this.
1.3.3.6.4. Pro: Breeding animals for no purpose just for them to live is kind of pointless for humans for doing so. Unless it's in the best interest for humans to do something, it'll be inefficient to do something for no reason.
1.3.3.7. Con: That's only a temporary situation, the 'worse conditions', as when those animals are gone, then there are no animals around to have a chance to live in poor conditions.
1.3.3.8. Pro: The reproductive strategy that farmers evolutionarily chosen for livestock \(a.k.a. [artificial selection](http://www.innovateus.net/innopedia/what-are-benefits-artificial-selection)\) that these animals obliged to made them more successful than their predecessors \(outliving them, with like [cattle](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/130401_beef) and [chicken/turkeys](https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/science/3384/chickens-closer-to-dinosaurs-than-other-birds)\) and perhaps any animal within their [taxonomic class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_%28biology%29) on Earth. This [mutualistic](https://sciencing.com/symbiotic-relationship-8794702.html) symbiotic relationship is beautiful, benefits both humans and farm animals, and there is no reason to destroy it.
1.3.3.8.1. Con: The relationship that has been created between humans and some species of animals has come at a cost to other animals.
1.3.3.8.1.1. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.13.1.
1.3.3.8.1.2. Pro: Non-livestock animals [die](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/wildlife-services-04-23-2018.php) or [go extinct](http://www.worldanimalfoundation.org/articles/article/8949042/186425.htm) just to keep the few remaining livestock species alive rather than vice versa.
1.3.3.8.2. Pro: Humans realize which genes and traits keep an animal alive and which do not. Without humans, the livestock's evolutionary line might not be here today.
1.3.3.8.2.1. Con: This evolutionary line is optimized for human needs, not for the animals', for example chickens that can't support their own body weight because of their disproportionately large chests \(due to high demand for chicken breast\). We are not doing them a favor.
1.3.3.8.2.2. Pro: Since we have control over the reproductive processes of animals, then we can modify them to help them survive in conditions they never could without us.
1.3.3.8.2.3. Pro: [99.9%](https://curiosity.com/topics/99-percent-of-the-earths-species-are-extinctbut-thats-not-the-worst-of-it-curiosity/) of all animal species in history have gone extinct \(with or without human intervention\). Humans have done a great justice and performed such a feat in preserving species to the modern age \(which would be extremely rare for the animals to accomplish on their own\). Animals' fate rests in 'human hands' and without consuming animal products, they would likely be gone by now. So it's up to us to display kindness to preserve species if and when possible.
1.3.3.8.3. Pro: Since animals and humans conflict for the same food source, it is more ethical to keep animals around than kill them in order to eat the single source of food. Humans might've realized that early on and went with this decision, which is why livestock breeding is present today.
1.3.3.8.4. Con: Selective breeding methods in farming did not come without its issues, some of which [negatively impacts the welfare of farm animals](https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3816969/modern-breeding-technologies-and-farm-animal-welfare.pdf).
1.3.3.8.4.1. Pro: Some of these practices were so bad that they lead to emergence of veganism to begin with as well as the whole reason for this debate.
1.3.3.8.4.2. Pro: Male chicks and calves are not beneficial to the industry \(they can't lay eggs or produce milk\), so most of them are killed \([1](https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-happens-with-male-chicks-in-the-egg-industry/), [2](https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/veal-byproduct-cruel-dairy-industry/)\), sometimes immediately after birth. We selectively keep the animals that are useful to us instead of allowing them to thrive and reproduce.
1.3.3.8.4.2.1. Con: This wouldn't need to happen if male chicks are given to chicken farms to raise them for meat. Then chicken farms don't need to raise their own chickens for meat, thus saving lives without needing to go vegan.
1.3.3.8.5. Con: This is not an example of [mutualism](https://sciencing.com/symbiotic-relationship-8794702.html), since animals do not benefit from it.
1.3.3.8.5.1. Con: Animals benefit from being alive for a short period of time.
1.3.3.8.5.1.1. Con: Giving life to an individual in order to kill him soon after it is not beneficial.
1.3.3.8.5.2. Pro: The longer animals are around humans, the more they lose the traits that comprise them.
1.3.3.8.5.2.1. Pro: Humans will manipulate and alter animals to humanize and personify them, which makes the animals different than who they originally were. This is not beneficial, as they should keep their features.
1.3.3.8.5.2.1.1. Pro: If animals keep their features, humans can learn from their uniqueness. If changed, that may not happen.
1.3.3.8.5.2.2. Pro: Animals and humans are not supposed to interact with each other, as animals have survival instincts to stay away from animals to not get eaten. Forcing this unnatural interaction breeds out an animal's fleeing survival instinct to not get eaten, which isn't beneficial to the animal - as they get eaten more easily then.
1.3.3.8.5.2.2.1. Con: Trying to eat animals keeps their instincts to not get eaten around, as these animals become aware that if humans can eat then, they should watch out for that in other animals too.
1.3.3.8.5.3. Con: Animals get experiences that would never occur had humans never taken animals into their lives to begin with.
1.3.3.8.5.3.1. Pro: Animals get to [go into space](https://history.nasa.gov/animals.html) because of humans. Animals would never have that chance be it without humans assisting them in that opportunity.
1.3.3.8.5.4. Con: Humans benefiting from the symbiotic relationship matter more than the problems animals get if the pros outweigh the cons. In this case, it does.
1.3.3.8.5.4.1. Pro: If we worry about every little detail and 'stepping on everyone's' shoes, nothing would get done. It's just a price that gets paid to get the benefits we wouldn't have if we kept an animal's needs in mind.
1.3.3.8.5.4.2. Pro: Since humans benefited from the exchange, even if it took away from animals, at least it was not a waste.
1.3.3.8.5.5. Con: If we cannot have mutualism, which is a dually-positive [symbiotic relationship](https://sciencing.com/symbiotic-relationship-8794702.html), at least we can have a unilaterally positive commensalistic relationship where humans benefit without it harming animals.
1.3.3.8.5.6. Pro: The human-animal relationship seen in animal agriculture today is parasitism at the least and parasitoidism at its worst \([1](https://sciencing.com/symbiotic-relationship-8794702.html)\).
1.3.3.8.5.7. Pro: Animals did not choose to have the relationship, but are forced into it anyway, which already makes it not mutualism.
1.3.3.8.5.7.1. Con: Even if an animal species is forced into something, doesn't make it bad.
1.3.3.8.5.8. Con: Animals are given food, drink and shelter, which benefits them.
1.3.3.8.6. Con: There is little purpose for humans to evolve other animals, so it's questionable for why humans should have that role.
1.3.3.8.6.1. Pro: For the food chain, there are already more successful and evolved animals made by nature without human interference. Human impact does not do as much as purportedly claimed.
1.3.3.8.6.2. Pro: There is no reason to evolve the other animal rationality because we are already much more evolved.
1.3.3.8.7. Pro: Both humans and animals get unique experiences \(especially shared ones\) from animal agriculture and wouldn't if the process didn't exist.
1.3.3.8.7.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.8.5.3.1.
1.3.3.8.8. Con: The same could be said about plants. If we abandon animals, we can dedicate our time more to the reproductive strategy of plants.
1.3.3.8.9. Con: This is like playing god with other living beings. This isn't our role, so we shouldn't be doing it.
1.3.3.8.10. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.8.2.3.
1.3.3.9. Con: For the animals we bring into this world, many others don't get the chance to be born because of it. So we're not really helping more lives be born insomuch as deciding who gets to be born.
1.3.3.9.1. Pro: If we try to birth animals just for the sake of giving them life, then we are [playing god](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/play+God) in a way. However, humans shouldn't be in that position of responsibility, as we're not capable of that level of it.
1.3.3.9.1.1. Pro: If we raise farm animals, then we are messing with nature, as we are artificially breeding species that should not exist instead of letting their natural evolutionary path take place.
1.3.3.9.1.2. Pro: In an unlimited world, it may be true that if we don't raise them then they won't be given a life. However, in reality, there are tradeoffs and choosing help out one animal species would take our attention away from another, which is [speciesist](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/speciesist): a position we never really want to put ourselves in.
1.3.3.9.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.4.4.2.1.
1.3.3.9.3. Pro: Farmers tend to kill wildlife in order to protect their livestock.
1.3.3.9.3.1. Pro: Vegans can care for animals in existence, like wildlife \(especially endangered species\), and allow them to live longer lives than before. People would just need to refocus their nurturing efforts on wildlife rather than farm animals.
1.3.3.9.3.2. Pro: Since farming negatively affects wildlife, it is better to be vegan to take care of the life already in existence \(aka wildlife\) than to create new life just to take care of at the cost of another.
1.3.3.9.4. Pro: If we choose to breed animals to give them life, then it'll come at the cost of human life, due to the [carrying capacity of this planet](https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/earth-carrying-capacity1.htm). So a world with livestock is a worse outcome for many humans that don't get to be born or live in worse conditions as an outcome of it.
1.3.3.9.4.1. Pro: Computer modelling indicates that the United States could support the largest human population on domestic production if everybody followed a [lacto-ovo vegetarian diet](https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.12952/journal.elementa.000116/). A vegan diet came close, and provided much higher carrying capacity than the current baseline diet, but it did not maximize carrying capacity.
1.3.3.9.4.1.1. Con: While the vegetarian diet can maximize the use of all available land in the US, it is not necessary to use up every inch of land if you don't need it in order to sustain the population. This is like saying a school bus is better suited for transporting a family of six than a minivan.
1.3.3.9.4.1.2. Con: Many areas that can only be used as grazing land are barren because they have been exploited and overworked by human agriculture. Allowing these areas to be taken over by natural plants and forests again would benefit soil quality and biodiversity, there is no need to put animals on them for grazing.
1.3.3.9.4.1.3. Pro: Farming benefits from including [temporary grass leys in the rotation](https://www.adas.uk/News/grass-leys-in-arable-rotations), and the way to get the most return in useable protein from this grass is through dairy \([beef is another ballgame with abysmal amounts of protein/hectare produced](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-gram-of-protein-by-food-type)\).
1.3.4. Pro: All humans should be vegan because it should reduce modern cannibalism \([1](https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/587503/Cannibals-North-Korea-Kim-Jong-Un-map-Stefano-Brizzi-flakka-murder-crime-Breaking-Bad), [2](https://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/29/places-where-modern-day-cannibalism-still-exists/21421203/)\).
1.3.4.1. Con: Cannibalism isn't a widespread issue and it's not socially acceptable or legal as it is so any veganism would have absolutely no effect.
1.3.4.2. Con: The places where cannibalism happens probably don't have vegetables available either.
1.3.5. Con: -> See 1.1.14.4.
1.3.6. Con: The falling cost of [laboratory grown meat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_agriculture) will make the choice to not eat animals easier.
1.3.6.1. Pro: Lab-grown meat also has a massively reduced environmental impact due to not needing to expend energy and water to grow an entire living animal, will be healthier to consume than natural meat because it will be grown in fully controlled conditions without toxins or need to give drugs to the animal, and due to it being more sustainable, it might actually be cheaper than natural meat.
1.3.6.2. Con: In vitro meat can be considered vegan as long as there is no exploitation or harm inflicted to animals.
1.3.6.2.1. Con: In vitro meat can't be considered vegan, as it is made out of animal cells.
1.3.6.2.1.1. Pro: If veganism "is a 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", then in-vitro meat cannot be vegan. In-vitro meat's still derived from animals, which we exploited to gain food from.
1.3.6.2.1.1.1. Pro: Even if no animal dies from this process, that is not a reason for it to not be vegan, as many non-vegan products do not involve animal lives being lost.
1.3.6.2.2. Con: Many animals get exploited/harmed in the quest for lab-grown meat.
1.3.6.2.2.1. Pro: Experiments to perfect lab-grown meat require many animal lives and animal products. Lab-grown meat requires more animal products than a cell of an animal \(like [fetal bovine serum, or FBS](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/07/why_is_fetal_cow_blood_used_to_grow_fake_meat.html) and [collagen](https://sentientist.org/2013/08/05/will-in-vitro-meat-become-cruelty-free/)\).
1.3.6.2.2.1.1. Con: One day, lab-grown meat will find a replacement for these materials. Then it will live up to its potential and reputation of being more ethical than meat.
1.3.6.2.2.1.2. Pro: There is no current vegan replacements for these in the near future. Until then, the world should avoid lab-grown meat if it turns vegan.
1.3.6.2.2.1.3. Pro: Unless the stem cells used to grow the meat are routinely derived from some sort of self-replicating base and do not require continued exploitation of animals to acquire them, it cannot receive the full support of the vegan community.
1.3.6.2.2.2. Pro: In-vitro meat is a by-product of the meat industry. Animals had to be exploited for us to come up with the idea and get a benefit out of it through an animal. To think that no exploitation was ever involved does not make sense or take into account the 'entire picture'.
1.3.6.2.2.2.1. Pro: To acquire the cells to make the lab-grown meat, one animal would need be raised to get the cells from them. Most likely this animal \(or its parent\) would come from the meat industry \(which its exploitation/harm's [well-documented](https://www.kialo.com/all-humans-should-be-vegan-2762/2762.0=2762.1+2762.495)\) to get lab-grown meat started.
1.3.6.2.3. Con: -> See 1.3.6.2.2.1.3.
1.3.6.2.4. Con: People are vegan for ethical reasons, but people are also vegan for health reasons. Lab-grown meat does not address the health issues. It is still a net-positive \(environmental/ethical\) and while supported by vegans for that reason, it is still not, technically "vegan food".
1.3.6.2.4.1. Pro: When the age of mass produced lab grown meat arrives, then vegans will continue to avoid it because of the carcinogenic effects of [heme iron](http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/2/177).
1.3.6.2.4.1.1. Con: There are other methods of avoiding mass produced lab grown meat contaminated with heme iron than simply choosing a vegan diet.
1.3.6.2.5. Pro: In vitro meat requires less land use, water, and animal suffering. This would support the harm-reduction philosophy of veganism.
1.3.6.3. Con: In-vitro meat might bring back [cannibalism](http://listverse.com/2018/09/02/10-facts-about-human-cannibalism-from-modern-science/), because we would be able to grow human meat for consumption. Since many people are repulsed by cannibalism, it will make switching away from livestock to lab-grown meat hard.
1.3.6.4. Con: If we wait for this before making a change, many animals will suffer in that time.
1.3.6.4.1. Con: Veganism is a difficult lifestyle to realistically be adopted by the majority before the lab-grown meats take over, making the effort largely ineffectual at noticeably reducing violence overall. The effort and resources should instead be directed at the promotion of lab-grown meats.
1.3.6.5. Pro: This will require very little habit change for most people.
1.3.7. Con: Humans probably should eat less meat, but this isn't an reason to stop eating meat altogether, especially if animals are raised and treated ethically \(like free-range\).
1.3.7.1. Con: There is a moral argument to stop eating meat altogether \(as well as fish and animal derived products\): animals are sentient beings with a will to live, and it is therefore more ethical to avoid inflicting suffering to other animals, for the same reason as it is more ethical to avoid inflicting suffering to other human beings.
1.3.7.2. Con: Free range chickens are still slaughtered, selectively bred for rapid growth to a point where for some, their legs can't support them, and kept in overcrowded barns. Free Range doesn't equal a happy life for the animal.
1.3.7.3. Pro: Certain forms of privately maintained animal rearing are not harmful, for instance [keeping chickens in backyards](https://backyardpoultry.iamcountryside.com/chickens-101/how-to-raise-free-range-chickens/).
1.3.7.3.1. Con: Not all people can have a backyard chicken, as they can conflict with laws \(especially zoning\). Going against the laws could get people into legal trouble.
1.3.7.3.1.1. Pro: Other animals would be much harder yet to raise by their size alone. They would be harder to conceal, making owners much more likely to get into trouble.
1.3.7.3.2. Con: Many chickens have been bred to produce more eggs than is healthy for them to do so. This is because their calcium can become [severely depleted](https://mikethechickenvet.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/bones-shells-and-hen-health/), and it is difficult to feed them enough to overcome this.
1.3.7.3.3. Con: Most backyard chickens are hens \(females\). Most of the cocks \(males\) will have been killed at hatching.
1.3.7.3.4. Con: Most backyard chickens are still killed for food once they stop laying frequently.
1.3.7.3.4.1. Con: Get your eggs from another yard.
1.3.7.3.5. Con: While keeping a single chicken may well not be cruel the demand for meat far outstrips that. It is not feasible to support the world on this small scale farming, thus by not being vegan humans are forced to turn to crueler methods.
1.3.7.3.6. Con: Even in supposedly ethical free-range backyard farming where chickens are not harmed, other animals might be: chickens are omnivores so may consume or otherwise impact insects and other wildlife where they are kept, and thereby disrupt the native ecosystem/food chain there.
1.3.7.3.6.1. Pro: Chickens are also non-native, as they're domesticated and only is semi-part of the ecosystem. So every time they enter it, they could disrupt its natural life cycles \(like food chains, but also resources, like nitrogen\).
1.3.7.4. Pro: Scientific advancements are making ethical alternatives increasingly possible for those wishing to taste meat without creating moral harms.
1.3.7.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.6.
1.3.7.5. Con: Bans on eating certain meats to treat animals fairly \(like protecting endangered species\) create a new ethical issue in themselves: a legal justification for eating meat \(by sideswiping its ethical problems\) through [carnism](https://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/carnism-why-eating-animals-is-a-social-justice-issue/). This would make oppressive speciesism \(as it favors one species over another\) socially acceptable, which is avoidable if we go vegan.
1.3.7.5.1. Pro: Children are often not educated on the source of their food and distracted from their natural empathy for animals. The artificial divide between animals which are okay to eat and those that are not begins with parenting.
1.3.7.5.2. Pro: There is [no clear boundary](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/#MoraSignAnimMoraClai) between human and animal suffering, so humans should aim to reduce suffering for animals as they would for humans.
1.3.7.5.3. Pro: Carnism should not be legal, as it pushes for a social norm with a ['paradoxical mentality' that hinders justice in our food system](https://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/carnism-why-eating-animals-is-a-social-justice-issue/). Laws should work to serve justice, not hinder it, which is why just eating less meat is not enough.
1.3.7.6. Pro: Unethical production methods can be changed to ethical ones.
1.3.7.6.1. Con: The argument that the meat industry could be more ethical is greatly a weak one because we al know that there is a big difference between 'could be' and 'will be'. Money making is the driving factor behind all this and that should be the target.
1.3.7.6.2. Pro: Animal product consumption is not inherently unethical, only causing undue or excessive suffering is. If the industry can be improved to minimise/eliminate suffering, then there is no ethical basis behind condemning it.
1.3.7.7. Pro: One can eat local meat and animal products without patronizing any products from the industrial meat production industry.
1.3.7.7.1. Pro: There are multiple forms of agriculture and organic farming with animal welfare in mind. [Biodynamic agriculture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture) is one example.
1.3.7.7.2. Con: The majority of consumers prioritize the cost and ease of meat rather than the ethics of production. Just because a minority choose to carefully select their produce, does not compensate for a majority who do not.
1.3.7.7.3. Con: Some situations make that impractical. For instance, industrial meat from developed countries is cheaper than local meat in developing countries, hindering its local meat production if sold there. Economic imbalances can then happen, forcing markets to resort to selling factory over local meat and consumers no choice but to buy factory meat instead.
1.3.7.7.4. Con: It would not be possible for everyone to eat as much meat as they want without using the meat processing industry.
1.3.7.7.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.2.1.
1.3.7.7.4.2. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.2.
1.3.8. Pro: -> See 1.1.14.4.5.
1.3.9. Pro: Animals have innate, individual rights, which are taken away when they are killed or made to suffer.
1.3.9.1. Pro: Animals have a desire to live.
1.3.9.1.1. Con: Something's desire to live does not imply its right to live. This is the cornerstone of Darwinian survival - everything wants to survive but only the fittest will.
1.3.9.1.2. Pro: Animals have a concept of what it's like to be free vs being held in captivity.
1.3.9.2. Pro: Animals have the capacity to suffer.
1.3.9.2.1. Con: Undue suffering makes no economic sense. it is in a farmers interest to minimise stress.
1.3.9.2.2. Con: If cruelty/suffering is the argument, then acquiring meat from a hunter \(or similar instant killing method\) should be acceptable. In other words, you do not have to go vegan to avoid animal suffering - you just must be certain that your source of meat is cruelty-free.
1.3.9.2.2.1. Con: Killing an animal is not cruelty-free. The cruelty of killing extends to their family if they are part of raising it, as well as dying by having a short life and another being deciding their fate in life for them. Veganism does not create these abuses.
1.3.9.2.3. Pro: Animals are actually capable of suffering, and are aware and articulated about that. This is now beyond scientific debate. The most simple argument to prove this is to consider that suffering would not have any [evolutionary value](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4SnBCPzBl0&feature=youtu.be) if it were not perceived and felt in animals similarly to how it is perceived and felt in humans.
1.3.9.2.4. Pro: Some people believe animals see themselves as unique individuals.
1.3.9.2.4.1. Con: Some people do not agree that animals see themselves as unique individuals.
1.3.9.2.4.2. Con: Many animals [do not pass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test) the mirror test as a measure of self awareness.
1.3.9.2.4.2.1. Con: The mirror test is likely a [very unreliable](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/what-do-animals-see-in-the-mirror/516348/) test of self awareness.
1.3.9.2.4.3. Con: This is an unsupported claim. "Seeing oneself as a unique individual" is vaguely defined and the fact that animals do so must be proved.
1.3.9.2.4.3.1. Pro: The opinions of some people should not be treated as a fact or a reason to ban everyone from eating meat.
1.3.9.2.4.3.2. Con: [Many](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_fish#Experiencing_pain) [animals](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/expanim/62/2/62_12-0070/_article) were thought to not feel or be able to experience pain in the past, where we now know they can. It is better to err on the side of safety in this matter. It may be a bit off topic, but it was believed deep into the 80s and 90s that human babies can't feel pain either. This is another example of how it's better to err on the safe side.
1.3.9.2.5. Pro: We should assume that animals are conscious.
1.3.9.2.5.1. Pro: When we compare the human reactions signalling pain to reactions often [expressed by animals](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/do-animals-feel-pain-in-the-same-way-as-humans-do-10371800.html) when they possibly would feel pain, they are very similar.
1.3.9.2.5.2. Pro: Consciousness is a [barely understood](https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/consciousness/) concept, even in humans, but this does not mean there is no consciousness. Humans act on the assumption consciousness exists for themselves and others.
1.3.9.2.5.2.1. Con: Humans assume what we interpret from data and evidence. We cannot suppose animals are conscious if they don't show any evidence of it. So we shouldn't act on it until we know for sure.
1.3.9.2.5.3. Con: We can also assume that farmed animals have no concept of life outside the farm, and since they've never experienced anything but farm life, they would have no reason not to be happy with life on the farm.
1.3.9.2.6. Con: Animals do not have souls and so do not perceive anything. Many credible thinkers have believed animals to be [automatons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_machine).
1.3.9.2.7. Con: Captive animals only suffer when they are aware of their wild counterparts.
1.3.9.3. Con: Since animals have no liberty to begin with \([they're regulated by nature](https://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-animals-dont-have-rights.html)\), they can't have any rights: as rights are just higher-level liberties. They just can't have something taken away that they already don't have.
1.3.9.4. Pro: We wouldn't like to be enslaved or killed by a more advanced alien civilization or a much more biologically complex alien species. So we shouldn't do this to animals.
1.3.9.4.1. Con: It is not the fact that humans are more advanced than animals, but the fact that humans are capable of rational thought and moral behavior while animals are not that is important.
1.3.9.5. Pro: -> See 1.3.9.2.4.
1.3.9.6. Con: It is immoral to equate "animal rights" with human rights.
1.3.9.6.1. Con: -> See 1.1.14.4.5.
1.3.9.6.2. Con: The distinction between humans and animals from the [biological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_psychopathology) and [psychological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness) perspective is small.
1.3.9.6.3. Pro: A vegan society would equate humans rights with animal rights, which would make society worse off overall.
1.3.9.6.3.1. Pro: Animals cannot have the same rights as humans since that will cause you to be sentenced for involuntary manslaughter when accidentally stepping on an ant.
1.3.9.6.3.1.1. Con: Ants are insignificant and value-less in comparison to a e.g. cow. Therefore humans should go vegan in order to protect cows and similar larger animals from being slaughtered, while there is no need to have focus on smaller creatures such as insects
1.3.9.6.3.1.1.1. Con: An animal's 'value' should not be based on size, but on its ability to suffer.
1.3.9.6.3.1.2. Con: That is an '[Appeal to consequence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)' fallacy.
1.3.9.6.3.2. Pro: If humans are equaled to animals, then it may lead to humans at some points deeming animals as more valuable to them at times to equal out/make up for the times that they were given less rights. Placing animals above us could lead to conflicts in priorities and social structure that are larger and more than we already have.
1.3.9.6.4. Con: A vegan world would simply mean that animals are worth more than to be killed for taste.
1.3.9.6.5. Pro: When we elevate the rights of animals with respect to human rights we are also by corollary demoting human rights with respect to those of animals.
1.3.9.6.5.1. Con: This argument uses a measure of relative respect of humans and animals. It is similar to the statement "When we clean tables we are also by corollary demoting the cleanliness of human teeth with respect to tables". While the intended point may or may not be valid, the argument is not.
1.3.9.6.6. Pro: Veganism claims to be willing to grant more rights to non human animals than the rights they are currently acknowledged. This does not mean to equate human rights to animal rights. Vegans do recognize the specificity of the human species.
1.3.9.6.6.1. Pro: Humans are the only species capable of ethics \(which is why it is irrelevant for veganism that wild animals predate on each other\).
1.3.9.6.6.2. Pro: Humans are the only species capable of politics \(which is why no mentally healthy vegan ever asked for animals to have the right to vote!\).
1.3.9.7. Con: We should strive to avoid killing animals and allow them a right to live, but this will be difficult to achieve in reality, or even if not impractical, where people could accidentally kill animals easily without noticing it, like insects, or intentionally to prevent themselves from getting harmed \(like animals carrying illnesses to not get sick\).
1.3.9.8. Con: We should strive to avoid killing animals and allow them a right to live, but is impractical to achieve those ideals in their entirety in reality.
1.3.9.8.1. Pro: People could accidentally kill animals easily without noticing it, like insects, or intentionally to prevent themselves from getting harmed \(like animals carrying illnesses to not get sick\).
1.3.9.8.2. Pro: Even with attempts to preserve the rights to life and not suffering of animals, there an extent where suffering becomes unavoidable if it conflict with/come at the expense of others. At that point, animal rights don't have applicable rights anymore, just like how criminals get their rights stripped, as protecting them may cause worse overall suffering and is less more moral to do.
1.3.9.8.3. Pro: To be legitimate, rights should be based on a real understanding of the thing to which they are given. Since many humans cannot empathise with animals, it cannot be said that they have rights.
1.3.9.8.3.1. Con: Animal rights should not be sacrificed just because of our own ignorance. Humans should become better people taking care of themselves to avoiding becoming an expense to innocent lives.
1.3.9.8.3.1.1. Pro: Even if humans lack the empathy needed to co-exist with animals right now, they could be [taught](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-couch/201810/can-empathy-be-taught) to empathize at a high enough level to never need to get to a point where the lack of it comes at the cost to animal rights.
1.3.9.8.3.2. Con: Many humans also cannot empathise with other humans, which does in no way mean that some humans dont deserve rights.
1.3.9.8.4. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.11.3.6.
1.3.9.9. Con: Animals may have innate rights, but they're not protected by laws at all times \(especially with [Prima facie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Prima_facie_rights_theory)\) if ever. So in the moments they don't have legal rights, then they can't have rights taken away from them if they never had them to begin with.
1.3.10. Con: Morality does not matter so much for animal lives, as animals will be killed and suffer needlessly either way \(i.e. whether we are vegan or not\). Prioritizing what's least damaging makes more sense than morality when making decisions, as morality is not encompassing enough in protecting animals from harm.
1.3.10.1. Pro: Veganism just removes human-caused suffering, not what already exists \(as just being moral is not enough\). So while we can help protect and prevent animal harm in non-vegan industries, animals outside of that realm may be neglected when they need our help, as we feel it's outside the need to follow a moral standard set by veganism.
1.3.10.2. Pro: Not all life should survive, as we should keep around what is best for the world to make it the most optimal it can be. Luckily humans are capable of \(and thus responsible for\) that decision \(figuring out what stays and what goes\). Without utilizing our privilege and take action on the imperfect situation, then the world would not reach its potential of perfection, which is immoral \(i.e. negligent\) to let happen.
1.3.10.2.1. Pro: Removing humans from a strong predatory position would disrupt the current ecosystem. The weaker species would become overpopulated, unable to care for their volume and potentially spread disease to land used for plant growth.
1.3.10.2.1.1. Con: If the overpopulation becomes an issue \(pushing a species to extinction\), then humans could find vegan methods to manage wildlife populations.
1.3.10.2.1.1.1. Pro: One method to cull is relocating a species \(checked for potential issues\). The benefits are two-fold: 1\) the population decreases in the original location and 2\) the population can survive and thrive in the new place
1.3.10.2.1.2. Con: [Natural selection](https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/game-handling/selective-culling2.htm) will correct for species' overpopulation eventually.
1.3.10.2.1.2.1. Pro: Humans for the most part removed the top predator from ecosystems \(such as [killing sharks for soup](http://www.stopsharkfinning.net/shark-fin-soup-whats-the-scoop/)\). Once humans become vegan, the top predators \(that are not extinct\) will probably come back and replace humans' top position \(as we have done with them\), as there could only be one predator present in an ecosystem at one time.
1.3.10.2.1.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.2.
1.3.10.2.1.4. Pro: This is similar to the effect caused by the decrease in wolf numbers \(due to [human activity](https://animals.mom.me/wolves-affect-farmers-7538.html)\) [increased the deer population](http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20081023/SPORTS/810230378).
1.3.10.2.1.4.1. Con: -> See 1.3.10.2.1.2.1.
1.3.10.2.1.5. Con: Humans being the strongest predator in the ecosystem, in reality, cause, rather than prevent, damage to it that this discussion needed to be created in the first place. So removing them would lead to less disruption and imbalance \(like overpopulation of weaker species\), not more.
1.3.10.2.1.5.1. Pro: Most of the human-style culling \(removing a predator that is a threat to humans through hunting\) causes the exact problems that top predators supposedly prevent.
1.3.10.2.1.5.1.1. Pro: Humans removing a top predator \(like [sharks](https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/sharks-how-a-cull-could-ruin-an-ecosystem)\) disrupts the ecosystem.
1.3.10.2.1.5.1.2. Pro: Removing the top predators prevents those animals from keeping other species populations in check. Then those species get overpopulated anyway \(such as [sea urchin populations due to overfishing](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110114164516.htm)\).
1.3.10.2.1.5.1.2.1. Pro: These overpopulated species [wreak havoc](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110114164516.htm) on the ecosystem.
1.3.10.2.1.5.1.3. Pro: Hunting is generally not a good mechanism for regulating animal populations. In some cases it causes [species extinctions](https://www.britannica.com/list/6-animals-we-ate-into-extinction).
1.3.10.2.1.5.1.3.1. Con: Are there any examples of hunting to extinction from within the last century? We have learned a bit since then and understand about sustainable yields.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2. Pro: Humans artificially created domestic breeds for their purpose only \(not for the environment\). If humans lost their top predatory position, domestic species would cease to exist eventually \(through natural selection\). Although this transition is a disruption to the ecosystem, it is a positive and necessary action to make the environment better than its current condition.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1. Pro: Most of the meat eaten is not from hunting, but from industrial farming. Industrial farming is now disrupting the ecosystem.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.1. Pro: [Factory farming](http://visionlaunch.com/factory-farming-pros-and-cons/) is unsustainable, which is bad for the environment.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.1.2. Con: Factory farming of vegetables, for example done in form of  [vertical farming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMzL92bRgEY) is actually really good for everybody, especially for nature. Bill Nye's helper visits the 808 factory in[s3e4, check it on Netflix](https://www.google.fi/search?client=opera&hs=ZqX&ei=f-MYW8nnONHOwAKdmoxw&q=bill+nye+saves+the+world+season+3+episode+4&oq=bill&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.35i39k1l2j0i67k1l8.2957.3537.0.4750.4.4.0.0.0.0.82.317.4.4.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.317...0j0i20i263k1.0.8jc9xKxg1XU)
Also [cultured meat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat)-technique is just as sustainable as 808 factory, for Factory farming practices.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.2. Pro: Farming is not an example of normal predation, but rather mutualism, as farm animals live longer and can breed more successfully than in the wild to where it causes issues for the environment.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.2.1. Pro: Most land animals killed for meat consumption are raised specifically for that purpose. Livestock farming does not help regulate animal population.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.2.1.1. Con: Arguments against livestock farming do not make arguments for blanket veganism.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.2.2. Pro: This is true when the only predator is homo sapiens. A wild herd is not comparable to an intentionally bred one, as most habitats have multiple natural predators.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.2.2.1. Pro: A farmer is a predator that both breeds and kills you, which is not comparable to a predator killing already existing animals in the wild for food, for its survival.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.2.2.2. Con: For some animals, such as [deer in the UK](http://www.countryfile.com/explore-countryside/wildlife/deer-culling-britain-facts-and-statistics), humans do act as the top predator and are needed to control numbers.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.2.2.3. Pro: Farming is not normal predatory behaviour because it exceeds and replaces natural predator activity.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.2.3. Pro: While referring to predators in nature \(e.g. a lion or a wolf\) this claim "might" have its sense. When this claim is referring to humans as the "predator" then it doesn't make sense. There is no "selective predator role" in intensive animal farming \(e.g. chickens or pigs\). Every "product" is produced, genetically selected, and killed to be eventually sold on the supermarket shelves.
1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.2.4. Pro: The top predator is always present in the animal kingdom, in accordance with the ecosystem. Humans have built systems outside of ecosystem, so outside of natural predators.
1.3.10.2.1.5.3. Pro: It's the human desire for animal agriculture that [introduces](https://modernfarmer.com/2014/09/dangerous-hunt-stalking-wild-rainforest-cattle-hawaii/) non-native animal species to the wild to [overpopulate](https://modernfarmer.com/2014/09/dangerous-hunt-stalking-wild-rainforest-cattle-hawaii/) it. If everyone goes vegan, this desire goes away, along with the potential for invasiveness that comes with it too.
1.3.10.2.1.5.4. Pro: Humans do not make good top predators, as they mainly destroy environments more than maintain them. We may even not be meant for this position we put ourselves into \(as we'd be prey were it not for our minds powering creative thinking\). So we should go vegan to artificially place ourselves where we really belong in the ecosystem to restore its balance to where it should be again.
1.3.10.2.1.5.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.10.2.1.2.1.
1.3.10.2.1.6. Pro: The remaining livestock on farms if everyone became vegan right now would pose a serious issue. The reproduction of the herd wouldn't stop and the excess of animals would be very harmful to nature if they are released into the wild.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1. Con: Government stipends towards meat can be shifted to funding sanctuaries for remaining livestock, so they can live out the rest of their lives peacefully and under surveillance to prevent them from harming nature.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.1. Pro: In combination with stopping further breeding of livestock, sanctuaries will prevent livestock from harming nature while maintaining peaceful lives.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.2. Pro: The stipends/subsidies could the temporarily pay for farmland until the livestock live out their lives completely instead of being released into nature.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.3. Con: If somehow the funds become corrupted in some way \(mishandled, dwindling amounts, etc.\), there is a likely potential that this venture would not work and animals may get released by the caregivers when they run out of funds.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4. Con: For governments with tight budgets, this could force them to choose between ensuring adequate nutrition for all citizens under veganism and ensuring the best possible care for 'retired' livestock.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4.1. Con: If the funding for sanctuaries are not part of and don't take away from the funding towards providing nutrition for citizens, then this conflict would not happen.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4.2. Con: Veganism [provides more affordable food for citizens](https://www.kialo.com/a-balanced-vegan-diet-is-cheaper-than-a-balanced-diet-that-includes-meat-2762.1342?path=2762.0~2762.1-2762.407-2762.1342) to where both [hunger is eradicated](https://www.kialo.com/veganism-as-a-worldwide-behavioral-public-health-intervention-strategy-improves-communitypopulation-health-outcomes-2762.3176?active=_2762.1690&action=locations) and still have enough of a [cost savings](http://www.investorwords.com/16295/cost_saving.html) to fund sanctuaries without going over budget. So governments don't have to choose, but [have it both ways](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+it+both+ways) instead.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4.3. Pro: Taking care of livestock could be expensive for the government and would likely take away [subsidies towards vegan foods](https://www.kialo.com/if-everyone-eats-vegan-then-the-subsidies-from-meat-could-go-into-vegan-products-to-make-them-cheaper-2762.1358?path=2762.0~2762.1-2762.407_2762.2385_2762.2358-2762.1358) that would make them cheaper, so people would not able to afford vegan food as much as they could.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4.3.1. Con: If everyone eats vegan, then the subsidies from meat could go into vegan products to make them cheaper.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4.3.1.1. Pro: If the [$38 billion of subsidies that went to meat](https://meatonomics.com/tag/meat/) goes to fruit and vegetables \(which are already cheap\), then there would be multiple benefits.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4.3.1.1.1. Pro: Creating produce would become more efficient, because the money could go to innovations that could make produce even cheaper yet.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4.3.1.1.1.1. Pro: This could help save resources even more on top of the resources saved from switching away from meat.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4.3.1.1.2. Pro: The price of produce would go to zero \(the already low cost is less than the high subsidy\), which could make healthy food free and potentially end hunger.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4.4. Pro: Governments are unlikely to choose animal sanctuaries over feeding their people, as this would be politically unpopular.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4.5. Pro: The government's main focus is on people and these stipends take away from their livelihood if the budget doesn't allow for both.
1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4.6. Con: This could happen if the government doesn't account for the added expense in their budget. However, if they do account for it, then the funding would likely not have to come out of feeding people.
1.3.10.2.1.6.2. Pro: Some livestock cannot be released into the wild. For example, large numbers of feral pigs have threatened [historical sites](https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/06/14/rooting-history-feral-swine-damage-archaeological-sites) in Florida.
1.3.10.2.1.6.2.1. Con: Some livestock could be released into the wild. This could actually be a positive \(like restoring [wild horse populations](https://rtfitchauthor.com/2009/10/03/1216/)\) rather than a negative.
1.3.10.2.1.6.3. Pro: Current livestock would not be killed and instead live [longer](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/33/13/943313e0f11805e1cbc4cecacfc1ed10.jpg) and more fruitful lives. While this is a benefit to the livestock, their lives add to the population when reproduction continues. This can make livestock populations continue its pace \(even without human intervention it could still reach its projected [100 billion](https://youtu.be/7gXq1ml6B1E?t=1m16s) mark\), which could cause difficulties in managing them.
1.3.10.2.1.6.4. Con: The lives of livestock would be threatened, as [their food source would go towards humans to live](http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat). This will negatively impact the reproduction of herds.
1.3.10.2.1.6.4.1. Pro: Adding to this, since more people will thrive in this transition, the surplus could lead to more people with jobs of controlling the remaining herds.
1.3.10.2.1.6.5. Con: In nature, livestock's populations will be at the whim of natural selection. This will control any overpopulation issues.
1.3.10.2.1.6.6. Con: The transition of a vegan planet might not happen overnight, which prevents these issues from arising.
1.3.10.2.1.6.6.1. Con: Even in small numbers, an animal like a pig that doesn't produce any product beneficial to humans \(or make a good pet\) will have difficulty surviving.
1.3.10.2.1.6.6.1.1. Pro: In Texas, wild pigs were not prevalent until [1980ish](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pigs-in-texas-73769069/).  Considering the idea of wild is simply an escaped domestic pig, the numbers have grown so large that the pigs cause problems for the Texans- eating the crops, destroying property.  Pigs populate quickly even in nature.
1.3.10.2.1.6.6.1.2. Pro: Wild pigs are destructive, costing the U.S. an estimated [$1.5 billion](http://blogs.plos.org/ecology/2017/02/01/invasive-wild-pigs-leave-a-swath-of-destruction-across-u-s-and-they-keep-spreading/) each year in damages and control costs.
1.3.10.2.1.6.6.1.3. Pro: In 2014, reports showed the USDA is spending [$20 million](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-wild-pigs-ravaging-the-u-s-be-stopped/) to solve a pig problem that has spread to 39 states and counting.
1.3.10.2.1.6.6.1.4. Pro: -> See 1.3.10.2.1.6.2.
1.3.10.2.1.6.6.2. Pro: Even though reproduction would not stop, it would slow down dramatically \(since human intervention artificially inflates populations: through artificial breeding\).
1.3.10.2.1.6.6.3. Pro: Over time, the livestock will decline \(farmers will just sell what they have and not grow more\) until a lack of supply and demand cause them to cease existence. Thus, no livestock would be left to place into the wild and would not be an issue.
1.3.10.2.1.6.6.4. Pro: Overpopulation would not be an issue if we just consume all livestock before the world transitions to veganism.
1.3.10.2.1.6.6.4.1. Pro: People would naturally want to have their 'last taste' of their favourite meat dishes before transitioning to veganism. This would likely create a surge in demand and consumption to facilitate this transition.
1.3.10.2.1.6.6.4.2. Pro: If breeding was stopped at staggered intervals, then a controlled transition would be easily achieved by slowly retiring out adult animals and not replacing consumed animals/ offspring.
1.3.10.2.1.6.7. Con: If we leave \(and [manage](https://www.kialo.com/the-stipendssubsidies-could-the-temporarily-pay-for-farmland-until-the-livestock-live-out-their-lives-completely-instead-2762.2592?path=2762.0~2762.1-2762.3429_2762.503_2762.1483_2762.408-2762.2129_2762.2592)\) the livestock animals where the currently are when we go vegan instead of releasing them into the wild, invasiveness won't be an issue.
1.3.10.2.1.6.7.1. Pro: Livestock already exist in nature \(like grazing cattle\). Farmers will just need to keep managing the population \(like preventing overgrazing\) to not impact the ecosystem.
1.3.10.2.1.6.8. Con: If animals get released into the wild, then there are vegan methods towards removing them, like transferring them back to where they originally come from. This reduces the need to continue eating animals solely to avoid this issue.
1.3.10.2.1.6.9. Con: We could just let animals roam cities freely instead, as is done in [India](http://mayapurvoice.com/svagatam/cows-allowed-roam-indian-roads/), instead of releasing them into the wild.
1.3.10.2.1.7. Con: We eat the meat of farmed animals, not wild animals. So if we stop eating meat and stop animal farming, it won't affect wildlife because we do not take from their population to begin with.
1.3.10.2.1.7.1. Pro: Except for rare and highly-regulated hunting and eating roadkill for food, people are not the top of wildlife's food chain.
1.3.10.2.1.7.2. Con: If the [30%](https://greenerideal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/vegan-environment.jpg) of land that goes to farm animals gets returned to wildlife, they might have a chance of overtaking us. Eating farm animals decreases the risk of humans getting removed from its top predatory position.
1.3.10.2.1.7.3. Con: Millions of people in the U.S. and abroad eat hunted meat.
1.3.10.2.1.8. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.3.
1.3.10.2.2. Pro: More animals would suffer than not if we allow sub-par animals to be in this world.
1.3.10.2.2.1. Pro: If one animal is suffering due to genetics, then removing it would mean only one animal's affected. But if it breeds, it'll pass it down to future generations, where now both the first animal and all of its progeny suffer in the same way. Then the total suffering is worse than to prevent this suffering by not letting the first animal to continue it.
1.3.10.2.2.2. Pro: There is only a limited amount of space on this planet. If we let all life survive, then life that should be on this planet would not have a chance to come into this world, as there would be no room for them.
1.3.10.2.2.2.1. Pro: The scarcity of space creates an unfair balance that left unchecked fulfills its unfairness by transferring it into reality. Life that is more deserving than what currently exists might not get the chance that they should get, while the vice versa \(life that is less deserving enjoys its existence on Earth\) occurs.
1.3.10.3. Pro: Earth will eventually become [uninhabitable](https://www.livescience.com/39775-how-long-can-earth-support-life.html). Unless we continuously terraform it to keep it manageable or export animals off this planet \(assuming we're even able to get off this planet ourselves\), then suffering of all animals is inevitable. The least we could do is utilize them the best we can in the meantime, before they become of no use at all.
1.3.10.4. Pro: Morality is just an indicator that humans need to be responsible for taking care of what they have. Recognizing this responsibility and utilizing it in the best way possible should be our real goal/focus, not morality \(as morality's not the end goal, just the warning sign saying that something's wrong here\).
1.3.10.5. Pro: The world is going to face the [Earth’s sixth mass extinction](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/climate-change-will-accelerate-earths-sixth-mass-extinction-180955138/), where even the human species is [at risk](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/06/150623-sixth-extinction-kolbert-animals-conservation-science-world/). While we could try to prevent it now by going vegan, as time goes on, the need to go vegan to save animals will be less and less as more animals go extinct from climate change.
1.3.11. Pro: Being vegan is [admirable](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-character/#StoVieCha), being virtuous.
1.3.11.1. Pro: People can look to each other with awe and inspiration with its admirability characteristic.
1.3.11.2. Con: Eating animals elevates their lives, which is a ['godly deed'](https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2941/jewish/Meat.htm) in religion \(at least in Jewish religion\). Not eating them is what truly causes them to suffer and is less moral, because then the animal cannot be elevated spiritually.
1.3.12. Pro: Animal-based industries are unethical, so it not would be morally conscionable for humans to keep them around.
1.3.12.1. Pro: The meat production industry is itself unethical.
1.3.12.1.1. Pro: If you eat meat, you should be the one to perform the killing. This is simply the highest form of taking responsibility for your own actions.
1.3.12.1.1.1. Con: Outsourcing tasks can be efficient and cost effective. By having different professions we are able to excel in our own area, be it butcher or farmer.
1.3.12.1.1.2. Con: Using that flawed logic, if you want to drive a car you should have to build the car yourself, since by your logic you can't consume a product unless you created it. In this case, the product would be meat.
1.3.12.1.1.3. Con: Being responsible doesn't mean doing everything oneself. It means thinking about the consequences, doing what is right, and avoiding doing what is wrong.
1.3.12.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.10.2.1.5.2.1.1.
1.3.12.1.3. Pro: The meat industry affects more lives in an unethical manner than those just being slaughtered.
1.3.12.1.3.1. Pro: The agricultural industry is dangerous as there is political corruption leading to environmental defenders and activists being [regularly killed](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/02/almost-four-environmental-defenders-a-week-killed-in-2017).
1.3.12.1.3.1.1. Con: This holds for the whole agricultural production, not only of meat and diary, and includes potential vegan foods.
1.3.12.1.3.2. Pro: [PTSD](https://www.texasobserver.org/ptsd-in-the-slaughterhouse/) is very widespread in slaughterhouses.
1.3.12.1.3.2.1. Con: It is possible to eat meat that does not come from a slaughterhouse.
1.3.12.1.3.2.1.1. Con: If you're talking about 'free to roam' 'organic' "happy" animals, then space would be an issue. We're [already using](http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/ar591e/ar591e.pdf) about 30% of the earth's landmass for animal agriculture, and most meat comes from tightly packed, super efficient slaughterhouses. If everyone ate 'ethical meat' it'd have to be grown on the moon.
1.3.12.1.3.2.1.2. Con: This is a small proportion of the meat consumed.
1.3.12.1.3.2.1.3. Con: It is difficult for most people to know how or where their meat was slaughtered.
1.3.12.1.3.2.1.3.1. Con: They should make more effort to find out.
1.3.12.1.3.2.2. Con: This is a systemic problem that, while heavily linked to the current system of animal agriculture, is not an inherent part of it.
1.3.12.1.3.2.2.1. Con: Reducing demand for meat will, in the long run, lead to fewer slaughterhouses and less trauma for the workers, whether or not slaughterhouses are a truly necessary part of the system.
1.3.12.1.3.3. Pro: Wildlife gets killed in order to protect the meat industry.
1.3.12.1.3.3.1. Pro: In [Poland](https://www.sfgate.com/news/medical/article/EU-OKs-Poland-s-wild-boar-slaughter-to-fight-13526384.php), wild boars get approval to be killed to prevent swine flu from entering meat production, no other use or purpose \(like not for food, clothing\).
1.3.12.1.3.4. Pro: The Health and Safety Executive said in 2018 that the slaughter industry was at the “top end” of its “concern level” for [injury rates](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/christmas-crisis-kill-dinner-work-abattoir-industry-psychological-physical-damage), finding that in 6 years, 800 UK abattoir workers suffered serious injuries, 78 required amputations and 4 died while at work.
1.3.12.1.3.4.1. Pro: Slaughterhouse employees are not only exposed to a battery of physical dangers on the cut floor, but the psychological weight of their work erodes their well being. Read "Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry" and other numerous literature on this matter.
1.3.12.1.3.5. Pro: According to a [2018 report](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/christmas-crisis-kill-dinner-work-abattoir-industry-psychological-physical-damage), staff shortages at UK slaughterhouses are great and increasing. The reason is that “people simply do not want to do this work any more”; this suggests that those who do still work in the industry suffer the inevitable negative effects of filling undesirable and unenjoyable jobs.
1.3.12.1.3.6. Pro: Towns hosting slaughterhouses have higher criminality rates \([1](http://www.animalstudies.msu.edu/Slaughterhouses_and_Increased_Crime_Rates.pdf), [2](https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2010/05/14/probing_the_link_between_slaughterhouses_and_violent_crime.html), [3](http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15685306-12341284)\), especially "due to workers bring exposed to the killing of large numbers of animals on a regular basis become disturbed and appear to lose empathy."
1.3.12.1.3.6.1. Pro: In a study using analysis of 1994-2002 crime data, findings indicated that slaughterhouse employment [increased](http://www.animalstudies.msu.edu/Slaughterhouses_and_Increased_Crime_Rates.pdf) total arrest rates, arrests for violent crimes, rape, and other sex offenses in comparison with other industries.
1.3.12.1.4. Pro: It's not humans that you have to enforce the law on, it's the meat production industry. It could be made more ethical.
1.3.12.1.5. Con: The meat production industry being unethical might imply that all humans should become vegetarian, but it does not imply that all humans should become vegan. The ethics of the meat production industry are only relevant to the ethics of eating meat, not the ethics of eating other animal products.
1.3.12.1.5.1. Con: Calves are [removed](https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/why-are-calves-separated-from-their-mother-in-the-dairy-industry/) from the mothers at birth in the dairy industry, which is cruel to both calf and mother.
1.3.12.1.6. Con: -> See 1.3.3.8.
1.3.12.1.7. Con: The vegan agricultural industry is itself unethical too.
1.3.12.1.7.1. Pro: Vegan food production utilizes animals to grow crops.
1.3.12.1.7.1.1. Pro: [Insects, such as bees and bumblebees, are consumed by the agriculture industry to grow crops.](https://www.kialo.com/should-all-bee-products-be-banned-1233/1233.0=1233.1+1233.387)
1.3.12.1.7.1.2. Pro: People sometimes use animals for fertilizer, such as [fish](https://groundtoground.org/2011/09/09/fertilizing-your-garden-with-fish/).
1.3.12.1.7.1.3. Pro: It is impossible to separate agricultural production from the use of [animal manures](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5fJeCC3N9g), insect intrusion, and other interactions with animals. Keeping animal products off our plates is an artificial distinction.
1.3.12.1.7.1.3.1. Con: Veganism does not claim to be about "keeping animal products off our plates". It strives to reduce suffering where possible.
1.3.12.1.7.2. Pro: Vegan food production is unethical for workers.
1.3.12.1.7.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.6.1.3.1.
1.3.12.1.7.2.2. Pro: [70%](http://www.fao.org/rural-employment/resources/detail/en/c/1073931/) of child labor is in agriculture.
1.3.12.1.7.2.2.1. Con: This is not inherently an agriculture-related problem. Child labor disappears when poverty disappears and when there are alternatives \(like education\). Taking away the employment will only make things worse.
1.3.12.1.7.2.3. Pro: Many popular vegan crops are picked by migrant farmers that face sexual, verbal, and physical abuse, as well as low pay. The production of vegan products is also not “cruelty free".
1.3.12.1.7.2.3.1. Con: Most crops \(especially in richer areas on the globe\) are [produced for animal feed](https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/agriculture-food-vs-feed/). Changing to a plant-based diet would mean that less farmers would be needed to produce crops, thus less farmers needs to be checked on employer welfare standards with the same amount of resources.
1.3.12.1.7.2.3.2. Con: There are no exclusively vegan crops. Food and products consumed by vegans are also eaten/used by non-vegans directly, and indirectly via the livestock they consume.
1.3.12.1.7.2.3.3. Con: Welfare standards of farmers are a separate issue from the issues veganism tries to solve. You can just as easily be a vegan checking welfare standards \(or enforcing them through your government, depending on the level of democracy of your government\) as being a non-vegan checking those standards of the products you buy.
1.3.12.1.7.2.4. Con: Once people go vegan, they may want to reduce their negative social impact by buying local foods \(or even growing their own\).
1.3.12.1.7.2.4.1. Pro: Local and growing food industries might grow when everyone goes vegan, which will make it easier to avoid worker exploitation.
1.3.12.1.7.2.5. Pro: Many fair trade items are vegan products \(like [coffee, chocolate, sugar, bananas, tea, and cotton](http://www.fairtradeamerica.org/en-us/fairtrade-products)\) due to [worker inequality and poor working conditions](http://fairtradeamerica.org/What-is-Fairtrade/What-Fairtrade-does) necessitating their spot on the list.
1.3.12.1.7.2.6. Con: Most of the western Europe people consume food from all around the world. This is not vegan related. Local & ethical is possible with vegan as well.
1.3.12.1.7.2.7. Pro: Vegan consumers who do not grow their own vegan food often put more money in the pockets of corporate crop farms such as [Monsanto](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents) and [Chiquita](https://www.historychannel.com.au/this-day-in-history/banana-massacre/) \(formerly the [United Fruit Company](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-significance-of-the-united-fruit-company.html)\), who interfere with the lives of developing world indigenous farmers by patenting their crops and abusing labour rights.
1.3.12.1.7.3. Pro: Farmers may take land away from wildlife to farm crops, which is why some species become threatened.  One crop of particular concern is [palm oil](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18775582).
1.3.12.1.7.3.1. Pro: Even the [greenhouse gases rising from the deforestation](https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/drivers-of-deforestation-2016-palm-oil#.WtQJHPkbPIU) contributes to animal suffering.
1.3.12.1.7.3.2. Pro: Even though these farmers are not profiting off of animal products \(which is not vegan\), they are profiting at the cost of animals by contributing to their suffering. This way, vegan crops contradict the vegan definition by contributing to the "cruelty of, animals for food"
1.3.12.1.7.4. Con: If the production of plant based foods is unethical, then veganism is still the better choice because much more of those plant based products are required to feed livestock than humans.
1.3.12.1.7.5. Con: If we act under capitalism, most of our actions will be unethical. Killing another living form for no real need is an unethical thing by itself.
1.3.12.1.8. Pro: Meat production is very often cruel.
1.3.12.1.8.1. Con: Farmed livestock are protected from threats such as exposure, starvation, disease and predators. Protections that they would not have in the wild.
1.3.12.1.8.2. Con: -> See 1.3.9.2.2.
1.3.12.1.8.3. Pro: Safety standards in the meat industry are particularly low. The [meatpacking industry](https://www.hrw.org/news/2005/01/24/abuses-against-workers-taint-us-meat-and-poultry) is particularly dangerous.
1.3.12.1.8.3.1. Con: Safety standards can be raised and enforced. Banning something outright because the standards are currently lax is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
1.3.12.1.8.3.2. Con: [Safety standards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_food_safety_organisations) differ between countries, some may be better than the United States \(which the article above discusses\).
1.3.12.1.8.3.3. Pro: Even though the numbers are low, meatpacking is still a pretty dangerous industry due to [under-reporting](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meat-and-poultry-work-is-dangerous-but-not-all-injuries-counted/).
1.3.12.1.8.4. Pro: In the eyes of [Paul McCartney](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/44596-if-slaughterhouses-had-glass-walls-everyone-would-be-a-vegetarian): "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.”
1.3.12.1.8.4.1. Pro: [Cowspiracy](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/apr/01/vegans-are-coming-millennials-health-climate-change-animal-welfare), which shows what happens in slaughterhouses, helped popularize and increase veganism.
1.3.12.1.8.4.2. Con: I have been working at an animal farm, and didn't become a vegetarian.
1.3.12.1.8.5. Con: Many meat animals in the third world are part of the family and protected from surrounding predators and only killed when there is need. Animals can be killed individually with minimum pain.
1.3.12.1.8.6. Pro: This cruelty reflects poorly on humanity \(like treating animals poorly is part of what encompasses being a human is\). We should not represent this cruelty and should avoid it to not be associated with it.
1.3.12.1.8.6.1. Pro: Cruelty should not be on a meal plate or part of keeping us alive.
1.3.12.1.8.6.2. Pro: Meat production is [barbaric](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34541077) in its cruelty. We live in the 21st century and should not have such uncivilized tendencies in society today.
1.3.12.1.8.7. Pro: -> See 1.3.12.1.3.2.
1.3.12.1.8.8. Pro: Animals would not live in captivity or under unappropriate conditions.
1.3.12.1.8.8.1. Pro: Animals at farms are treated with the lowest priority when it comes to keeping lives safe during natural disasters. With [Hurricane Florence](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/hurricane-florence-millions-animals-condemned-drown-factory-farms/), millions of animals died in factory farms.
1.3.12.1.8.8.2. Con: If animals have individual rights they should not be enslaved, which means pets would have to be abolished.
1.3.12.1.8.8.2.1. Pro: People can find ways to cope without a pet, such as having more social interaction with each other.
1.3.12.1.8.8.2.1.1. Con: People may miss out of people \<-\> animal interactions without a pet.
1.3.12.1.8.8.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.5.7.1.4.4.
1.3.12.1.8.8.2.3. Pro: Pets are not needed for health, as they can cause [illness](https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html), trigger [allergic reactions](http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/general-health/air/air-quality-pet-dander.php), and create overall [health risks](https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/pets/advice/g595/pet-health-risks/?slide=1) to people in general \(especially owners\).
1.3.12.1.8.8.2.3.1. Con: Pets can actually help to [improve your immune system](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex5y6OVVHe0).
1.3.12.1.8.9. Con: This is an overly broad generalization. There is even [a list](https://certifiedhumane.org/whos-certified/) of humane producers.
1.3.12.1.8.9.1. Pro: One can have sympathy for animals and treat them accordingly despite the fact that they are consigned to produce milk, eggs, or meat for human consumption.
1.3.12.1.8.9.2. Con: -> See 1.1.14.4.4.1.6.
1.3.12.1.8.9.3. Con: The abuse, exploitation, and killing of a sentient being is never ethical.
1.3.12.1.8.9.3.1. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.2.3.1.
1.3.12.1.8.9.3.2. Con: You can eat many animal products without killing the animal in question, such as milk, eggs, and cheese.
1.3.12.1.8.9.3.2.1. Con: The vast majority of [egg](https://vegetarianism.stackexchange.com/q/1256/1236) and [dairy](https://vegetarianism.stackexchange.com/a/1370/1236) production also depends on slaughter.
1.3.12.1.8.9.3.2.2. Con: To produce milk a cow is impregnated by force, made to carry young for 9 months, and their babies are taken away at birth. If male he is killed for veal, if female the cycle repeats. The cow goes through this process over and over until she is "spent" \(usually only a few years as opposed to a long 20 year life\) and then sent to slaughter.
1.3.12.1.8.9.3.3. Con: Plants may be [sentient](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-green-mind/201412/are-plants-entering-the-realm-the-sentient) as well.
1.3.12.1.8.9.3.3.1. Pro: True. There have been studies that show that plants can react to pain, [as this website shows](http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/15/do-plants-respond-to-pain-scientists-conduct-an-experiment-to-find-out/). Furthermore, [they also have been proven to have memory](https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants).
1.3.12.1.8.9.3.4. Pro: Killing an animal should be considered murder.
1.3.12.1.8.9.3.5. Con: There is no abuse in those farms. There is no exploitation if we are giving them everything they need for free in exchange for their meat after a paniless death. Killing a sentient being can be ethical in case of Self Defence, Research \(without lab rats we would all die\) and finally Nutrition, given how important it is for Biology and given that a human baby and a Sponge are not on the same level. A Sponge can't even feel pain. So Animal life is not on the same level.
1.3.12.1.9. Con: It's not a profit motive for companies to be unethical \(higher quality meat leads to more profits, and mistreating cattle results in lower qualities/profits\), so demand naturally 'weeds out' unethical suppliers.
1.3.12.1.9.1. Pro: Even the slaughter areas are designed to keep the cattle calm so they don't pump adrenaline through their veins souring the meat, which is hard to sell and would even be wasted, by being thrown away.
1.3.12.1.9.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.7.7.
1.3.12.1.10. Con: -> See 1.3.7.
1.3.12.2. Con: -> See 1.3.12.1.7.
1.3.12.3. Pro: The dairy industry is often more cruel than the meat industry.
1.3.12.3.1. Pro: The [male calves, considered 'waste', are killed](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/dairy-dirty-secret-its-still-cheaper-to-kill-male-calves-than-to-rear-them), as they can't produce milk, which is cruel.
1.3.12.3.2. Con: It is more feasible to regulate the dairy industry than it is to force people to be vegan.
1.3.12.3.2.1. Con: "Regulating" the dairy industry would be to decouple it from the meat industry would create its downfall, as the dairy industry = the meat industry. Making milk means impregnating cows which produces calves, some of which are male and sent to slaughter. There is no alternative to not killing calves and spending money to care for them with no commodity return.. Vegetarianism wouldn't be enough to stop the meat industry in this sense.
1.3.12.3.3. Pro: Dairy cows are often [artificially impregnated](https://freefromharm.org/animal-cruelty-investigation/the-sexual-violation-of-dairy-cows-14-step-process-of-artificial-insemination/) in order to ensure a continuous supply of milk from the cows.
1.3.12.3.4. Pro: -> See 1.3.12.1.5.1.
1.3.12.3.5. Pro: Some dairy cows are not [adequately treated](https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/technical-information/animal-health-welfare/mastitis/working-arena-prevention-of-infection/) \(due to saving [costs](http://www.milkproduction.com/Library/Editorial-articles/Treating-mastitis-Balancing-cure-money-welfare-and-resistance/) or bad practice\), which creates [antibiotic resistance](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4092948/) in the herd.
1.3.12.3.5.1. Pro: Dairy cows regularly get [infections](https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/cows/dairy-industry/), such as mastitis, from their treatment on dairy farms.
1.3.12.3.5.1.1. Pro: This is in addition to the cruelty of cows being sick because farms create the environment that cause such infections.
1.3.12.3.5.2. Con: Issues with antibiotic resistance aren't exclusive to dairy farms, as it happens with growing crops \(like [apples](https://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/0209288-antibiotic-resistance-genes-in-soil-on-apple-and-dairy-farms.html)\) too.
1.3.13. Con: Without the cycle of life, [nature dies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q&feature=youtu.be). All life ends in the mouth of another.
1.3.13.1. Con: There are various ways that bodies stay away from being eaten, like being [preserved](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2124991/Siberian-mammoth-Yuka-Ice-Age-creatur-perfectly-preserved-10-000-years.html) for instance.
1.3.13.2. Con: When we kill life \(including for food\) is when nature dies \(like killing life to eat it or causing extinction\), not the opposite.
1.3.13.2.1. Pro: If we eat from trees without harming them for instance, they could live for [thousands of years](https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Trees-That-Thousand-Years/dp/1849940584) and generate a forest, producing oxygen for us to survive, a place for other life to live \(like tree-dwelling animals\), and a constant food supply of nuts, seeds, and fruit for us.
1.3.13.3. Con: Even if this is the case, it wouldn't cause harm to wildlife. There are other lives that could end up in our mouths that is less detrimental, like plants.
1.3.13.4. Pro: Even if farm animals became wild or feral animals, killing will still happen, as a bigger animal would simply do it instead. That's how nature is: indiscriminate to killing and not caring about it taking place.
1.3.13.5. Pro: We can't prevent all deaths as they'll still continue in nature. So becoming vegan won't prevent this process from continuing, although we'll contribute to it less \(and maybe even help nature out with that too\).
1.3.13.6. Pro: Nature doesn't follow the morals of vegans, so even if we follow vegan morals, not all creatures will. So we can only go so far with improving the morals of everyone in this world.
1.3.13.6.1. Con: In nature, animals kill each other without considering the life they end's significance. Nature's unethical in this regard, and we can't change how it is. However, if we don't want this to continue, then we shouldn't act like this \(as we can do something about ourselves\) to make it acceptable, just because it is in nature.
1.3.13.7. Con: Not all [species' diets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotroph) are based on killing other beings.
1.3.14. Con: Morality is subjective.
1.3.14.1. Pro: Morality can be measured in relation to anything a person decides to base their morality on. As such it is subjective.
1.3.14.2. Con: Immanuel Kant's [1st categorical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative) imperative \(morality base\): would it be good if this action were applied to all within the class of things? If we don't think a pet deserves to die \(animal\), then any other animal doesn't deserve to die.
1.3.14.2.1. Con: A pet is an animal to which a person assigns value.
You don't want your pet killed, has you don't want your car destroyed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't destroy any car.
1.3.14.2.2. Con: Kant's moral imperative is a flawed one. There are many things that can be applied to all within the class of things that would have vastly destructive results if applied so, yet these things are not necessarily immoral. For example, homosexuality would be destructive if applied to the entirety of the human race yet it's not inherently immoral or harmful.
1.3.14.2.3. Con: Many omnivorous humans don't have the cognitive dissonance that makes them treat pets and farm animals differently. Pigs can be just as great pets and companions as they are a great food source, and horses can be a food source as great as they are companions. Pets are not usually eaten because of an emotional bond with the owner, not because their entire species is considered more undeserving of violence compared to others.
1.3.14.3. Con: This does not mean that morality is arbitrary: even in the most relativistic of all the possible ethical frameworks, consensus can be achieved on basic norms such as "unnecessarily harming of sentient beings is morally wrong" \(which is actually already a largely shared view point across vastly different cultures\).
1.3.14.4. Pro: The ethics of eating meat is highly subjective.
1.3.14.5. Pro: People can and will debate morality all day, but it will not make the issues of this world go away \(just delays working on them\). Instead of thinking about whether veganism is moral or not, it is better to just make a decision that is best accommodating for animals \(including humans\) as whole and move forward with following a plan.
1.3.14.6. Pro: Vegan morality is inconsistent and hypocritical in valuing one life \(animals\) over another \(plants, fungi, and microbes\).
1.3.14.6.1. Con: Plants are not the same as humans, as they are autotrophs, and thus do not require the destruction of life in their consumption practices \(unless it's a carnivorous exception\).
1.3.14.6.2. Con: Beyond a vegan diet, a non-living diet is more ethical yet \(in terms of not harming life\).
1.3.14.6.2.1. Pro: Humans can lower this capability by eating lower on the food chain \(like not eating animals that ate other animals before a human eats it\).
1.3.14.6.2.2. Pro: People could source their diet more from nonliving sources, like rocks \(salt, clay, baking soda, [mineral supplements](http://www.doctorsresearch.com/articles3.html)\), water, and sunlight \(Vitamin D\).
1.3.14.6.2.2.1. Pro: Even though these sources have no calories, people could get nutrients from these sources instead of going to living sources for the nutrients these contain.
1.3.14.6.2.2.2. Con: These have no calories, so people cannot sustain themselves solely on them.
1.3.14.6.2.3. Pro: People have the technological capabilities to [create food from chemicals](http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/2516259/evonik-siemens-to-make-chemicals-from-co2-eco-electricity) \(through electrolysis\), so in the future, they may not require life to survive.
1.3.14.6.2.3.1. Pro: Another option might be [artificial photosynthesis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2lPQWL3o0U), such as making [glucose](https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0310).
1.3.14.6.2.3.2. Pro: Chemical reactions are possible to make essential amino acids from nonliving sources \(like [methionine](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf60172a033) and [cysteine](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Amino%20Acid%203%20TR.pdf)\).
1.3.14.6.2.3.3. Con: Some people worry about the health issues associated with consuming the materials used \(like metals\) to make the food.
1.3.14.6.3. Pro: Valuing animals above plants depends on their similarity to us and is therefore based on an anthropocentric bias. This defeats the implicit aim of veganism by assuming that humans are superior, which gives us reign to harm non-humans for our own benefit. A less anthropocentric veganism would value all life in parallel to human and animal life, rendering all human behaviour immoral by virtue of the way in which we treat bacteria, plants etc. in order to sustain ourselves.
1.3.14.6.3.1. Con: The different treatment of different beings can be explained by the level of harm that can be done to that being. Sentient beings can suffer more than non-sentient beings, because they can experience pain and certain emotions \([Dawkins, 2000](https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/40/6/883/187667)\).
1.3.14.6.3.1.1. Con: Certain simpler forms of fauna \(including many species of insects, [fish](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/faf.12010) and invertebrates\) cannot consciously experience pain, but merely a reflexive response to physical damage that they don't have the cognitive ability to perceive as distressful. By this definition of non-violence, an ethical omnivorous diet can still rely on consumption of such animals that cannot consciously feel pain or distress.
1.3.14.6.3.1.1.1. Con: "Only very recently have neuroanatomical studies revealed that teleost fish possess similar pain-processing receptors to higher vertebrates. Research has also shown that fish neurophysiology and behaviour are altered in response to noxious stimulation. . . . .  Whilst we agree with the author that fish are unlikely to perceive pain in the same way that humans do, we believe that currently available evidence indicates that fish have the capacity for pain perception and suffering."[Braithwaite2004](http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2004/00000013/A00101s1/art00012).
1.3.14.6.3.1.2. Con: Our understanding of "suffering" is also informed by how similar something is to us - the more similar to us, the more likely we are to recognize suffering when we see it. Morally consistent veganism must assume that a life can suffer whether we recognize the form of that suffering or not. As it is impossible to prove a negative, i.e. that plants *don't* suffer, then we cannot assume we have the ability to effectively limit harm.
1.3.14.6.3.2. Con: Vegans avoid eating sentient beings. Eating some life, like plants, is necessary as it is not possible to create a complete nutritional menu from inanimate sources without the inclusion of some kind of life form.
1.3.14.6.3.3. Con: Meat industry "kills" more plants than if people were to all go vegans. See [Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/660S/4690010), [Protein efficiency per unit energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions: Potential contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030691921100090X) and [Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/100/suppl_1/476S/4576675?searchresult=1#110601922) for details.
1.3.14.6.3.4. Con: While it is true that we tend to value more what is perceived as more evolved, and more [similar to us](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3336375/We-prefer-people-we-think-are-similar-to-ourselves.html). This claim seems to assume that anthropocentrism is antonym to veganism, which is not, [veganism is](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) just and only against explotation and cruelty towards animals, not against the evolution theory, biological categorizations or other scientific findings. Also seems to confuse Veganism with [Jainism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) which would fit as a "less anthropocentric veganism".
1.3.14.6.4. Con: This should be framed relative to the cruelty of raising and harvesting plants for food. While plants do not \(that we know of\) perform central pain processing, they are still responsive to nociception in ways that reflect aversion, and often die due to our use of their bodies. We consider animal pain more important only because of their proximity to our lived experience - an anthropocentric bias.
1.3.14.6.4.1. Pro: Help has to go where is most needed. The pain and suffering caused by [animal exploitation](http://thevegancalculator.com/animal-slaughter/), qualitatively and quantitatively, is nowhere near that of [plants](https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf), fungi, and microbes.
1.3.14.6.4.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.2.3.3.
1.3.14.6.4.3. Con: Plants lack a central nervous system, and a brain to register the experience, and thus true awareness or sentience. The 'pain' response of plants could be equated to an autonomic response to stimuli. Suffering does not occur in the limbs, even if they are cut. [Suffering occurs, and is translated into suffering, in the brain](https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-pain-and-what-is-happening-when-we-feel-it-49040).
1.3.14.6.4.4. Con: This claim is actually support for the vegan position. [Since raising animals requires killing more plants](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/vast-animal-feed-crops-meat-needs-destroying-planet) than if we ate them ourselves, reducing our animal use would necessarily lead to a significant reduction in the killing of plants, too.
1.3.14.6.4.4.1. Con: -> See 1.1.14.4.5.2.
1.3.14.6.5. Con: An "all or nothing" approach [is logically fallacious](http://www.academia.edu/21565174/Fallacy_All_or_Nothing) and hinders progression in the field of animal rights and ethics. Nowadays, social and political change is achieved through reforms, not revolutions. This means we don't need to have everything figured out before we can start working on improving and protecting animals' lives.
1.3.14.6.6. Con: Whether or not plants feel pain, veganism results in fewer plant deaths as fewer plant calories are used as animal feed.
1.3.14.6.6.1. Con: "According to researchers at the Institute for Applied Physics at the University of Bonn in Germany, plants release gases that are the equivalent of crying out in pain. Using a laser-powered microphone, researchers have picked up sound waves produced by plants releasing gases when cut or injured. Although not audible to the human ear, the secret voices of plants have revealed that cucumbers scream when they are sick, and flowers whine when their leaves are cut \[source: Deutsche Welle\]." \[ [link](https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm) \]
1.3.14.6.6.2. Con: In a recent experiment, Heidi Appel, a chemical ecologist at the University of Missouri, found that, when she played a recording of a caterpillar chomping a leaf for a plant that hadn’t been touched, the sound primed the plant’s genetic machinery to produce defense chemicals. \[ [link](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant) \]
1.3.14.6.6.3. Con: "An experiment, done in Mancuso’s lab and not yet published, found that plant roots would seek out a buried pipe through which water was flowing even if the exterior of the pipe was dry, which suggested that plants somehow “hear” the sound of flowing water." \[ [link](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant) \]
1.3.14.6.6.4. Con: People can eat only fruits in order to protect plants' lives
1.3.14.6.6.5. Con: "Perhaps the cleverest instance of plant signalling involves two insect species, the first in the role of pest and the second as its exterminator. Several species, including corn and lima beans, emit a chemical distress call when attacked by caterpillars. Parasitic wasps some distance away lock in on that scent, follow it to the afflicted plant, and proceed to slowly destroy the caterpillars. Scientists call these insects “plant bodyguards.”" \[ [link](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant) \]
1.3.14.6.6.6. Con: "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." \[ [link](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/04/06/fish-climb/) \]
1.3.14.6.6.7. Con: How long does it take animals to recognize that a stimulus is “rubbish” & how long will it remember what it has learned? Mimosa pudica has a speedy behavior. When the leaves of mimosa are touched, they instantly fold up to frighten insects.Gagliano drop them from a height of 15cm every 5sec.Some mimosas started to reopen their leaves after 4, 5, or 6 drops. By the end, they were completely open,”. Was it just fatigue? Apparently not: when the plants were shaken, they again closed up.“ \[ [link](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant) \]
1.3.14.6.6.8. Con: Most definitions of intelligence fall into one of two categories. The first is worded so that intelligence requires a brain; the definition refers to intrinsic mental qualities such as reason, judgment, and abstract thought. The 2nd category stresses behavior, defining intelligence as the ability to respond in optimal ways to the challenges presented by one’s environment and circumstances. Not surprisingly, the plant neurobiologists jump into this second camp. \[ [link](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant) \]
1.3.14.6.6.9. Pro: Animals consume more plants to produce x amount of calories than if we got the calories directly from plants. Therefore even if eating plants is removing life, less plants are consumed by only eating plants.
1.3.14.6.7. Con: In reality, everyone has different moral standards for different species, not just vegans. The vast majority of people do not consider plants to be as morally significant as animals. If given the choice between cutting the stems of a dozen daisies or cutting off a dog's head, the average person will choose to kill the daisies without hesitation.
1.3.14.6.8. Pro: This is consistent with [Indigenous teachings](https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/what-is-the-relationship-between-indigenous-peoples-and-animals) which value the lives of humans, animals, bugs, and plants equally.
1.3.14.6.9. Pro: Studies around plants' feelings and senses, and our [understanding of such topics is extremely limited](http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/062208/do-plants-have-brains); and our current point of view seems to be based on the complexity \([1](http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/plants-use-neurotransmitter-signal-stress/), [2](https://www.crcpress.com/Neurotransmitters-in-Plant-Life/Roshchina/p/book/9781578081424), [3](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-28516-8_10)\) or non-existence of a typical nervous system despite there still being stimuli in plants.
1.3.14.6.9.1. Con: There is no moral equivalence between the harm of killing an animal with a nervous system, which is capable of feeling pain and fear, and eating celery.
1.3.14.6.9.2. Pro: Plants are more susceptible to abuse by humans than animals, as they have lesser capabilities in defending themselves and people not recognizing the harm that is occurring, yet might have similar reactions to harm. This concept is analogous to what happens to [vulnerable humans](https://psychcentral.com/blog/abuse-of-vulnerable-adults-why-does-it-happen/).
1.3.14.6.10. Pro: Life eats life, it is only natural for humans to eat animals, everything dies and their death is part of life.
1.3.14.6.10.1. Con: That would make sense if one life is taken for another life, in which case it would not matter as much if it's a plant, animal, microbe...However, when [animals are raised, more life dies than crops](https://vegeteers.com/2014/03/29/how-many-animals/). That is why this claim is invalid, because eating meat is numerically worse than eating plants.
1.3.14.6.10.1.1. Pro: Only an equivalent of lives lost from eating animals would make sense here. However, since another alternative \(plants\) beats that, then we need to make choices.
1.3.14.7. Con: [Morality is objective.](https://www.kialo.com/morality-is-objective-2649/2649.0=2649.1/=2649.1)
1.3.14.7.1. Pro: Sam Harris details how we can attain an objective morality in his TED talk '[Can Science Answer Moral Questions?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww)' and book [The Moral Landscape](https://www.skepdic.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The_Moral_Landscape__How_Science_Can_Determine_Human_Values.pdf).
1.3.14.8. Pro: What is moral relates to consensus.
1.3.15. Con: With ethical farming practices one can be [vegetarian](http://animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc) and still prevent needless harm and death of animals too. One doesn't need to go vegan for that to occur.
1.3.15.1. Con: With vegetarianism, animals still suffer needlessly, even if it does do a lot of prevention in reducing it, which is why veganism is the way to go.
1.3.16. Pro: Because humans can thrive on a well planned vegan diet, there is no necessity for eating animal products. Lack of necessity makes the animal exploitation unethical.
1.3.16.1. Con: What is unethical according to one culture, can be ethical according to another. There is no such a thing as a "right decision" in this question what is fits for all. For example, Christianity teaches that God allowed mankind to eat animals, and there are even Biblical verses, when God suggest to eat animals. Therefore, for a confessional Christian, eating animals is completely ethical.
1.3.16.1.1. Con: Religion shows otherwise, that eating animals makes humans worse off \(as we are not above them\), not better. "Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags" [Proverbs 23:20-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+23:20-21).
1.3.16.1.2. Con: Humans are not inherently better than other animals \(an idea propped up by religion: [Genesis 1:26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A26&version=NIV) [Genesis 1:27](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A27&version=NIV)\), only evidently more cruel, subjecting animals to [confinement from birth, mutilation, and imbalanced diet to manipulate growth.](https://www.ciwf.org.uk/factory-farming/animal-cruelty/) These aren't practiced by carnivorous animals in nature.
1.3.16.1.2.1. Con: -> See 1.3.16.1.1.
1.3.16.2. Con: If everybody went vegan there would not be enough food for everybody or we would have to exploit soil, which would lead a mass extinction and starvation pretty soon \(a.k.a. [60 years](http://theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/topsoil-farming-agriculture-food-toxic-america)\). Eating meat is necessary for survival for a lot of people and countries.
1.3.16.2.1. Pro: Much of the crops are [already decreasing in nutritional value](http://theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/topsoil-farming-agriculture-food-toxic-america), so it won't be a nutritious source for food in the future. Meat may be what's left, as they can generate some of the nutrients lost in the soil in their bodies.
1.3.16.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.13.4.6.
1.3.16.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.18.
1.3.17. Pro: When most humans eat animals they do not consider the death that was required for their meal. If people had to consider the actual consequences of their diet far more would be vegan.
1.3.17.1. Con: This claim makes an assumption that is certainly false as many people eat the animals they themselves kill.
1.3.17.1.1. Con: Only 35% of hunters consider meat being the \(main?\) reason for hunting according to [Responsive Management](http://www.responsivemanagement.com/index.php) \(["Motivations behind hunting"](https://www.fieldandstream.com/sites/fieldandstream.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/import/2014/import/BlogPost/embed/meatstudy.JPG?itok=aCZxl-DC)\)
1.3.17.1.2. Con: Proportionnally speaking, this is not valuable. All people are not killers because some love to kill other humans.
1.3.17.2. Con: In a modern society there are many jobs that some find distasteful, while animal butchery is one, so for example are sewage processing and construction of high-rise buildings, both jobs others would likely not dare to perform.  If this argument has merit, it should apply to all fields of human endeavor which would have disastrous effects to human civilization.
1.3.17.3. Pro: Many people try not to think about what happened before eating their meal, partially because they do not want to consider the consequences. If those people were forced to see the process \(without blocking the thoughts in their mind\), they probably would eat less meat.
1.3.17.4. Pro: -> See 1.3.12.1.8.4.
1.3.17.5. Con: Given the choice of starving or killing an animal, ALL people would kill.  There are only a few traits that a species must possess, but self preservation is one of them.  Humans are just another type of animal, like wolves, or lions.  No one has a problem with them killing herbivores to feed their young.
1.3.17.5.1. Con: This is true in a survival context. Which is not the case anymore for the majority of humanity.
1.3.17.5.2. Con: Some people would prefer not to kill animals, even in extreme situations of survival.
1.3.17.5.2.1. Pro: If people need to survive, killing animals might not be a great route to go, as it could take more energy to hunt \(including when making tools to hunt\) than to just rest and conserve energy.
1.3.17.5.2.2. Pro: If there are not enough animals to survive on and someone will die regardless, there is no need to harm animals if it does not make the situation any better.
1.3.17.5.2.3. Pro: Sometimes not killing an animal could provide benefits to finding the way to replenishment: like seeing which plants insects eat \(to know what's edible\) or looking at where animals go to find water or food.
1.3.17.5.3. Pro: Eating an animal might give a person just enough energy \(and time\) to survive and escape the horrible situation they are in.
1.3.17.5.4. Pro: As vegans lack Vitamin B12 \(and deficient in others\), people would need to eat meat to prevent being deficient in it \(as there are no vitamin pills in nature\).
1.3.17.5.4.1. Pro: In nature, animals are not the only source of food. Plants and sunlight \(for Vitamin D\) are also available. Having a good reserve of edible plant knowledge would help greatly for survival to where meat is not needed as much. However, it does not replace meat for nutrition.
1.3.17.5.4.2. Con: Vitamin B12 deficiency takes [many years](https://www.b12-vitamin.com/symptoms/) to develop, due to recycling and storage in the liver. As most survival situations are much shorter than this, a plant-based diet is ample for survival way before any meat is needed.
1.3.17.5.4.3. Con: Vitamin B12 deficiencies are sometimes caused by [industrialization](https://www.b12-vitamin.com/vegan/). In nature, people do not need to take in as much B12, so it is less of an issue.
1.3.17.5.4.3.1. Con: Because of industrialization, it might be harder to get Vitamin B12 in nature than in the past. Survival without eating meat would be difficult if people are near resource-exploited or -depleted areas.
1.3.17.5.4.4. Con: As Vitamin B12 is found in [soil, especially with plant roots](http://news.mit.edu/2007/b12), people could get the vitamin by eating roots without washing them thoroughly.
1.3.17.5.4.5. Con: A [bioavailable version](https://www.realsourcefoods.com/blogs/wellness/water-lentils-for-vitamin-b12) of Vitamin B12 \(the main vitamin that vegans supplement\) is found in one plant so far: [duckweed](https://www.newhope.com/vitamins-and-supplements/naturally-occurring-vitamin-b12-discovered-plant-based-protein).
1.3.17.5.5. Con: Eating meat is just one of many [skills](http://survivenature.com/forest.php) for surviving in the wild. A combination of other skills might help people survive situations better than just eating meat alone.
1.3.17.5.5.1. Pro: Eating meat could be pointless if one doesn't know how make themselves available for rescue, like making smoke signals or not getting lost.
1.4. Pro: A world of veganism would be a more ethical world: its morals would bring benefits to human society.
1.4.1. Con: Veganism is not as ethical as other lifestyles.
1.4.1.1. Pro: Veganism accepts valuing humans/animals over other lifeforms, which is almost as bad as omnivores accepting valuing humans over animal/other lifeforms.
1.4.1.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.14.6.3.
1.4.1.1.2. Pro: Vegans' morality/ethics is always linked to animals we have empathy with, where we recognize ourselves as similar in the line of evolution, like mammals, fishes, birds, etc. It is acceptable to kill other kinds of lifelike non-pathogenic microbes or even vegetables, when no empathic sense is developed. Then, moral discourse just protects part of life, not life itself.
1.4.1.1.2.1. Pro: Veganism is based on the false superiority of animals against plants, while we already know about plant life \(like Pando\) that is much more complex than sponges \(animals\). It doesn't make sense for Pando to be considered 'just' food and sponge considered comparatively sacred.
1.4.1.1.3. Pro: Veganism's morality is detrimental and exploitative to lifeforms outside of animals.
1.4.1.1.3.1. Pro: Killing wild plants affects entire ecosystems \(including wildlife and native cultures\), especially to the point that a major food source goes away. An example of this is cutting down trees that take a long time if ever to bear fruit if replanted \(such as [acorn trees in a drought-prone environment](https://www.kcet.org/shows/tending-the-wild/episodes/tending-the-wild)\).
1.4.1.1.3.2. Pro: Many plant species go extinct or endangered due to exploiting plants, especially in the essential oil industry with rare plants like [sandalwood](http://www.tambela.com/articles/sandalwood.php).
1.4.1.1.3.2.1. Con: The use of essential oils is not part of a vegan or non-vegan diet.
1.4.1.1.3.3. Pro: This impacts all life on Earth. For example, if a plant is not preserved in the Amazon due to deforestation for a crop, that plant cannot be examined to find it to be a[pharmaceutical breakthrough](http://rain-tree.com/) for a major disease.
1.4.1.1.3.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.9.3.
1.4.1.1.3.4. Pro: Vegan ethics provide no protection for organisms outside the animal kingdom, such as unicellular and non-animal multi-cellular organisms.
1.4.1.1.3.4.1. Con: Non vegan ethics also provides no protection for organisms outside the animal kingdom.
1.4.1.1.3.4.2. Con: Unlike animals unicellular organisms do not have a central nervous system and cannot feel pain or suffering.
1.4.1.1.3.5. Con: Giving animals moral consideration is still better than not respecting the needs of other living beings at all. No one said veganism was the end all be all, we will still need to adapt and evolve our ethics continuously as science gives us more insight on what it means to be alive and sentient.
1.4.1.1.3.6. Con: "Murdering" a carrot and murdering a dog are different acts. The argument that these are morally different hinges on sentience. It's the same reason turning off the life support machine sustaining a brain-dead patient is considered more acceptable than not treating a mentally alive person who would otherwise die from an illness. A body without consciousness doesn't care about what is done to it and has no sense of itself to lose, so its moral claim can't be equated with a sentient life's claim.
1.4.1.1.4. Pro: -> See 1.3.14.6.
1.4.1.1.5. Con: Animals are not held under the same moral standards as human beings when it comes to moral culpability. Thus, animals get more leeway \(i.e. less restrictions\) in living their life, which values them over humans \(just like, as an analogy, royalty get more privileges in leading their life than those below them in a feudalistic society\).
1.4.1.1.6. Pro: Without plants, humans would not be able to survive. Just about everything comes from them. To think of them poorly is degrading, as they provide more value at times than people and animals do.
1.4.1.1.7. Pro: Plants are our ancestors \(we share [half our DNA with bananas](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/humans-share-50-dna-bananas-2482139)\). If we're supposed to respect our ancestors, then we should respect them and value their lives too, instead of below us.
1.4.1.2. Pro: Some diets are more ethical than veganism
1.4.1.2.1. Pro: A raw vegan is more ethical than a vegan one.
1.4.1.2.1.1. Pro: Raw vegan diets are better for the environment.
1.4.1.2.1.1.1. Pro: Cooking creates air pollution, by releasing pollutants into the air, which are bad for the environment, such as [VOCs and CO2](http://www.organicauthority.com/gas-or-charcoal-grilling-which-barbecue-is-better-for-the-environment/).
1.4.1.2.1.1.2. Pro: Raw vegan diets use less resources to eat food, as cooking requires resources \(like kitchen equipment, stoves, fuel/electricity...\).
1.4.1.2.1.2. Pro: Raw vegan diets are better for personal health and safety.
1.4.1.2.1.2.1. Pro: Cooked food creates cancer-causing chemicals, such as [acrylamide](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-fried-foods-are-bad#section4),[HCAs, PAHs, and AGEs](https://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-cooking-carcinogens).
1.4.1.2.1.2.2. Pro: Not cooking is safer and less destructive than cooking, especially when thinking of [cooking fires](https://www.nfpa.org/public-education/by-topic/top-causes-of-fire/cooking).
1.4.1.2.2. Pro: One diet that's more ethical to life than veganism is [Jain](https://pinkispalate.com/jainism/jain-diet/) [veganism](http://clovegarden.com/diet/jain.html). This diet tries to extend non-violence beyond animals to microorganisms and [plants](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-shah/jain-food-struggles-in-am_b_8961854.html).
1.4.1.2.3. Pro: -> See 1.3.14.6.2.
1.4.1.2.4. Pro: A vegan [freegan](https://freegan.info/) diet may be more ethical than veganism.
1.4.1.2.4.1. Pro: [Freegan](https://freegan.info/) diets are better for the environment
1.4.1.2.4.1.1. Pro: [Freegans](https://freegan.info/) use less resources for their food, because they are eating food that would go to waste, instead of food that is grown for their purposes.
1.4.1.2.4.1.2. Pro: They reduce food and other, general waste through repurposing.
1.4.1.2.4.2. Pro: Vegan [freegan](https://freegan.info/) diets sometimes try to advocate for social issues \(boycotting the economical system\) on top of animal/environmental ones, while veganism focuses mostly on animal/environmental ones.
1.4.1.2.5. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.5.5.3.
1.4.1.2.6. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.11.2.
1.4.1.3. Pro: There are some lifestyles that may be better than veganism.
1.4.1.3.1. Pro: [Freegans](https://www.happycow.net/blog/veganism-vs-freeganism/) \(the vegan ones\) might be more ethical than regular vegans, due to their negative waste habits.
1.4.1.3.2. Pro: Being an [environmentally-conscious](https://www.happycow.net/blog/have-you-greened-your-diet-yet/) vegan \(eco-vegan\) is more ethical to the [environment](https://www.happycow.net/vegtopics/environment) than just being vegan.
1.4.1.4. Con: Lifestyles with a lot of focus in purity \(such as [Jainism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism), [Straight Edge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_edge), [Raw-Veganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_veganism) or [Breatharianism](https://raymaor.com/breatharian-life-faq/)\) may never be mainstream, because "mainstream" by definition -in our culture- [appeals to the lowest common denominator](https://www.theonion.com/lowest-common-denominator-continues-to-plummet-1819566022), in order to reach [the most people possible](https://www.rapidtvnews.com/201011038613/ccr-forces-itv-to-chase-lowest-common-denominator-audiences.html#axzz5QDdSGIHA) without any scope at all.
1.4.2. Pro: When people become vegan, they often keep up with their decision to do so for a greater amount of time if they are influenced and motivated for a wide [variety of reasons](https://faunalytics.org/how-many-former-vegetarians-and-vegans-are-there/), and as such they consider their impact upon environmentalism, ethic, health, peace, equality, water, oceans and their quality, wildlife and so on. This makes people more thoughtful and thus more likely to make other ethical decisions.
1.4.3. Con: -> See 1.4.1.1.2.
1.4.4. Con: At present human demand for meat outweighs our ethical concerns surrounding the eating of meat. We should consider a global adoption of veganism only when we collectively feel that the ethical considerations outweigh our global demand for meat consumption.
1.4.4.1. Pro: Even if people try, they might revert back to eating meat out of habit or subconscious actions that people are unaware of \(like still going to a favorite steakhouse without remembering that they are vegan now\). Thus, without taking motivation into consideration \(making sure people want to be vegan\) first, the worldwide vegan change would not last permanently.
1.4.4.2. Con: Demand for veganism will follow action if everyone goes vegan and the right motivators are in place \(like advertisements and convenience\). Thus, demand for meat shouldn't stop the world from trying to go vegan.
1.4.5. Con: The habitual, [instinctive](http://www.dana.org/News/Details.aspx?id=43484), natural behavior of killing/eating animals is not inherently immoral or unethical. It is a fundamental part of nature \(predators kill prey for food, and we are a top predator\) and modern human existence. People cannot be blamed for notions they are born with or the means they use to survive in an environment out of their control.
1.4.5.1. Con: Most humans do not simply walk by a meadow with grazing cows and develop a sudden bloodlust. Our instinct to kill has been weakened severely and most people would only kill as a last resort.
1.4.5.1.1. Pro: In the age of supermarkets, hunting is not necessary for survival, which decreases a person's use of their instincts to kill animals for food.
1.4.5.1.1.1. Con: Much of the world's population does not have access to a supermarket. Hunting is still absolutely necessary for them.
1.4.5.2. Con: Early modern humans were more prey than predator then, evolving instincts to repulse animals \(like [phobias](https://hubpages.com/health/list-of-animal-phobias), [fight-or-flight](https://psychcentral.com/blog/whats-the-purpose-of-the-fight-or-flight-response/), [patternicity](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/), and [anxiety](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/evolution_of_anxiety_humans_were_prey_for_predators_such_as_hyenas_snakes.html)\), not those to kill them. People's current animal-killing desire is [unnatural](https://www.peta.org/living/food/really-natural-truth-humans-eating-meat/) and [rare](https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2011/01/06/132708321/human-killing-instinct-really), associated with [sociopaths](https://prime.peta.org/2010/04/only-sociopaths-intentionally-hurt-animals-a-professional-view), and stems from [trauma in life](http://www.humanesociety.org/parents_educators/childhood_cruelty_breaking_cycle_abuse.html), not at birth, as we have choices now not to kill animals for food. This and its [habitual progression](https://www.animallaw.info/article/link-cruelty-animals-and-violence-towards-people) make humans killing animals [immoral and unethical](http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/AnimalCrueltyLaws.pdf).
1.4.5.2.1. Pro: Even our [most common instinct](http://listverse.com/2018/09/02/10-facts-about-human-cannibalism-from-modern-science/) of animal-killing, intraspecies predation \([killing](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/human-violence-evolution-animals-nature-science/) and [eating humans](http://listverse.com/2018/09/02/10-facts-about-human-cannibalism-from-modern-science/), which are animals\), is [frowned upon](https://www.businessinsider.com/most-ridiculous-law-in-every-state-2014-2). In fact, it is so natural, some humans are [genetically resistant](http://listverse.com/2018/09/02/10-facts-about-human-cannibalism-from-modern-science/) to cannibalism-related diseases, like prions.
1.4.5.2.1.1. Con: If certain people evolved to be cannibals, that proves that [predation](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predation) is in fact a natural instinct in humans.
1.4.5.2.2. Pro: Our bodies match our lack of predatory instincts and never really evolved them, because we outsourced our hunting capabilities to tools instead of our bodies \(except using our minds to hunt\). Without [tools](http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/tools-food), getting meat would be very difficult, whereas it would be no issue for a carnivore or omnivore. They even [started to be used](http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/tools-food) around when humans started eating meat.
1.4.5.2.3. Pro: Even when humans take on the role of being a predator, they act differently than most real predators by being a '[super-predator](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34011026)'. The behavior is so irregular, it is even [unsustainable](http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-superpredator-unique-predator-carnivore-fishing-hunting-unsustainable-20150820-story.html) and devastates ecosystems. Humans are not meant to be predators and kill animals, our poor judgment and behavior illustrates it is not a natural instinct, even for nature.
1.4.5.2.4. Pro: -> See 1.3.12.1.3.2.
1.4.5.2.5. Con: Contrary to popular assumptions, there is evidence that humans have [specific hunting traits](https://www.livescience.com/4631-modern-humans-retain-caveman-survival-instincts.html), and often express a natural [hunting instinct](https://www.depauw.edu/humanimalia/issue%2015/dinets.html), which has a 'thrilling' effect that has been replicated by [hunting-based video games and sport \(rather than subsistence\) hunting, such as safari hunting and catch-and-release fishing.](http://www.utdailybeacon.com/news/professor-studies-hunter-instinct-within-humans/article_4c7e14f8-9f69-11e6-b59e-d391da16db17.html)
1.4.5.2.6. Con: A misleading statement in the parent claim is the animal-killing desire. It isn't natural to want to kill, but the desire for food is greater than the repulsiveness for killing that leads animals to it. The second inaccuracy is the wrong consecvence that we cannot be pray and predator at the same time. A lot animal is more prey than predator, but it not means that they do not kill smaller animals. They eat what they can. They are fighting for nutrition as they can. Fox is a good example.
1.4.5.3. Con: One cannot be blamed for being born with or not knowing any better, but that does not make wrongdoing any more acceptable. However, instinctive behavior becomes immoral and unethical when we know better, as at that point we can choose.
1.4.5.3.1. Con: Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because animals do something, doesn't make it right for humans to do. They are in a different position, and so are we. Humans should customize their behaviors to what the best mode is for them, as should animals. One can emulate animals though, only if it enhances one's behavior towards being more respectful when surviving.
1.4.5.4. Con: Instinctive, natural behavior is counterproductive can create problems, both for the individual and society, and both might want it removed. If both deem it immoral and unethical, then it is it as such and the unwanted behaviors should be shied away from and hopefully removed if possible.
1.4.5.5. Con: Just because we cannot change what a current status is, doesn't mean we cannot learn from and change our circumstances for a better future. People might not deserve blame for being immoral or unethical, but their actions can. Luckily actions can be changed.
1.4.5.5.1. Pro: People can eventually modify their outcomes even with their circumstances that they are born into and have. They could reduce their personal, yet immoral/unethical behaviors consciously and/or avoid situations that their behaviors come out in.
1.4.5.5.2. Pro: People may eventually breed out unwanted behaviors, whether consciously \(or unconsciously\) through evolution. Anything unwanted does not have to stick around if undesired.
1.4.5.6. Con: -> See 1.1.11.13.1.
1.4.5.7. Pro: -> See 1.3.13.6.1.
1.4.6. Pro: Being vegan is the least we can do to leave the world a better place than it was when we got here.
1.4.7. Pro: [Teaching children empathy for animals will likely create a more empathetic and kinder society.](http://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/resources/humaneeducation)There is a strong correlation between cruel behavior toward animals and lack of empathy for human beings.
1.4.8. Con: -> See 1.1.16.
1.4.9. Pro: Because a vegan world would have less violence and cruelty than our world today where animals are killed and eaten, the [knock-on effects](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knock-on%20effect) are something inconceivable to us currently. The possibilities for future moral benefits are virtually endless.
1.4.10. Pro: A [vegan approach](http://www.vegansociety.com) to the world tends to support the rights of humans, as well as benefiting animals.
1.4.10.1. Pro: The theory of [intersectional veganism](https://veganvoicesofcolor.org/2017/01/29/intersectional-veganism/) studies animal rights and how they fit into the context of oppression of various historic groups. The goal of intersectional veganism is to redefine society in a way that reduces oppression of all groups, not just animals.
1.4.10.1.1. Con: Intersectional veganism relies on the troubling premise that because some people treat human beings that look different from them akin to animals, we can improve the situation by treating animals better.  The more enlightened perspective would be to treat all humans regardless of racial differences as equally deserving of human rights.  Elevating the status of animals to is in no way required to believe that all humans possess individual rights.
1.4.10.2. Pro: Although the idea of everyone following a vegan diet is apparently ludicrous, it has been explored before, in the BBC Docu-comedy [Carnage](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/carnage-review-bbc-iplayer-simon-amstell-vegan-comedy-actually-funny-a7636871.html), showing how a society could function with veganism.
1.4.10.2.1. Pro: The comedy [effectively satirises](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/fran-carruthers/carnage_b_15560476.html) unethical parts of our society that we currently take for granted, indicating how considering the world from a vegan perspective can improve our moral clarity
1.4.10.3. Pro: If humans stopped treating animals as commodities \(like being objectified for consumption\), they would less likely utilize [dehumanization](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dehumanization) as a justification for making decisions.
1.4.10.3.1. Pro: The dehumanization could be a pretext for war.
1.4.10.3.1.1. Con: There is no scholarly research that shows a link between diet or veganism and a propensity to warfare.
1.4.10.3.1.2. Con: Lack of resources is what causes war.  If everyone goes to a vegan diet, there will be more competition for food, not less, leading to more desperation and starvation, and therefore, more war.
1.4.10.3.1.2.1. Pro: During a transition away from meat the upset to the existing food production network is very likely to cause shortages and increased competition.
1.4.10.3.1.2.1.1. Con: This is only short-term. In the long-term, these tensions will go away as non-vegan farms convert to vegan ones.
1.4.10.3.1.3. Pro: This is due to [demonizing the enemy to the point of thinking of them as subhuman](https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization) to not treat them humanely, just like with commodifying animals.
1.4.10.3.1.4. Pro: Favoring one species over another might lead to people thinking about favoring one group of humans over another.
1.4.10.3.2. Pro: People might apply and transfer the principles of [speciesism](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/speciesism) to humans if the habit of eating meat is so ingrained into their lives that they see how the concept could apply to other lifestyle activities \(such as shopping, entertainment, travel...\).
1.4.10.3.2.1. Pro: People who eat meat might be more okay with people being exploited to make products on market, such as clothing.
1.4.10.3.3. Pro: People might apply their objectification tendencies to humans \(as humans are animals too\). This mindset could let people feel more justified in violating others rights.
1.4.10.3.4. Con: Since people have more rights and protections than animals, dehumanization is not likely to get enacted from this influence.
1.4.10.3.5. Con: People might likely be more dehumanized, as people who bother animals might find people as an alternative source to treat poorly when they go vegan.
1.4.10.4. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.3.1.
1.4.10.5. Pro: If humanity turned vegan or vegetarian world hunger could be [eradicated](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/meta).
1.4.10.5.1. Pro: Freezing and canning vegetables further increases their shelf life. This means food waste from spoilage could be greatly reduced.
1.4.10.5.1.1. Con: Freezing, canning, even drying meat increases their shelf life too. Food waste can be reduced, no matter what the food product is, animal or non-animal.
1.4.10.5.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.5.
1.4.10.5.3. Pro: Vegan food discards in developing countries could generously feed developing countries.
1.4.10.5.3.1. Pro: One of these is ugly produce. This equates to [70 billion pounds](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ugly-fruit-the-20-billion_b_10331570) of food wasted. That is enough to feed over 950,000 people, based on the amount that [Americans eat over a lifetime](http://web.archive.org/web/20171121195516/https://www.inverse.com/article/38623-pounds-of-food-united-states-calories).
1.4.10.5.4. Pro: In a vegan world, crops typically given to livestock could go instead to the workers grow who them, as they are usually poor and can afford crops, not animal products. Cutting out the animal intermediary would be a significant step towards eradicating world hunger.
1.4.10.5.4.1. Con: The setup of our modern food system prevents livestock feed from becoming food for humans \(hence its current existing status\).
1.4.10.5.4.1.1. Pro: World hunger is caused by politics and not by lack of food nor by lack of arable land.
1.4.10.5.4.1.1.1. Pro: Starvation does not happen because of a lack of food. It happens because the people can either not pay for that food or through war or disaster it is not reaching the local communities. A vegan society will not change those reasons.
1.4.10.5.4.1.1.1.1. Pro: Veganism will [not solve hunger](http://veganzinga.com/going-vegan-wont-end-world-hunger/), because if there are no paying customers for the grain that is grown for livestock, then farmers will not grow it, or if they have it, give it to those in need.
1.4.10.5.4.1.1.2. Pro: Logically speaking, all humans cannot be vegan because societies and corporations use millions of acres of land to process animal meat. These corporations run the government of many countries they have more power and influence onto morality than a small group of individuals.
1.4.10.5.4.1.2. Pro: Even if that where the case, this statement is implying that first world countries that CAN do such large scale farming would be willing to offer huge amounts of food for pennies, or rather charity, [which they are notoriously bad at doing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors). This could only happen if the cost of cultivating crops is lower than the cost of exporting it halfway around the globe.
1.4.10.5.4.2. Con: That may be true for some livestock feed, but the rest isn't consumable by humans. Animals to repurpose plant/food waste \([pg 10](http://www.foodwastealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/FWRA_BSR_Tier3_FINAL.pdf)\) from ending up lower on the hierarchy of recovery options or in a landfill \([pg 9](http://www.foodwastealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/FWRA_BSR_Tier3_FINAL.pdf)\) and instead as a new source of food that we have thanks to this process.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1. Pro: These include [grass, leaves and twigs](https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/resourcesforyou/animalhealthliteracy/ucm255500.htm) that many free grazing animals consume cannot be digested by humans.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.1. Con: Although maybe not all foods that animals eat can be eaten by humans, but we can reduce food waste by eating parts of food not traditionally eaten to reduce food waste.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.2. Con: Farmers do not need to grow foods \(like [hay](http://www.johnnyseeds.com/farm-seed/grasses-millets-and-sorghums/)\) that humans cannot eat once everyone goes vegan.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.2.1. Pro: [Grain-fed animals](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/grass-fed-vs-grain-fed-beef#section1) eat the same foods as humans.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.3. Con: This is beneficial, because livestock damage the environment through grazing. Without grazing the living parts of plants, plants and ecosystems will be restored.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.3.1. Pro: Also, the grazing destruction will not continue, because humans cannot consume previously-grazed plants, as they are inedible to them \(like [certain grasses](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_PLANTMATERIALS/publications/mdpmcbr8095.pdf)\).
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.4. Pro: A lot of food available to us now through meat will not be available to vegans, due to the lack of converting these plant products to food. [86%](http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2017_More_Fuel_for_the_Food_Feed.html) of livestock feed's inedible for human consumption.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.5. Pro: Without getting rid of the [residue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_residue) \(if grown as crops\) through animal grazing, it would build up as trash with no use.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.5.1. Con: There are other, non-food uses with greater efficiency and direct help for humans than giving waste to animals \(like [compost](http://gentleworld.org/beginners-guide-to-organic-composting/), grass as [biomass energy](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053255.pdf), leaves as food plates, twigs as food utensils, etc.\).
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.5.2. Pro: Just leaving it on a farm would [create damage](https://www.lgseeds.com/agronomy/corn/agronomy-blog/2019/10/29/importance-of-managing-excess-corn-residue) to future crops, so animal [foraging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_feed) is a better option than this.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.5.2.1. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.3.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.5.2.2. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.4.3.6.1.2.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.5.3. Pro: It's a lot more wasteful to put in resources \(water, chemicals, etc.\) to a crop with preventable waste when there's options for mostly or completely edible ones \(like, but not limited to, [celery](https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/edible/vegetables/vgen/secondary-edible-parts.htm)\).
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.5.4. Pro: Residue management by removal requires [effort and resources](https://www.lgseeds.com/agronomy/corn/agronomy-blog/2019/10/29/importance-of-managing-excess-corn-residue) and still no use, so it still ends up as unused trash. This process is inefficient and can be avoided with [animal foraging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_feed).
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.6. Con: We don't need to bring back grazing animals in order to process undigestible plants. [Mushrooms](https://www.mushroom-appreciation.com/types_of_mushrooms.html#materials) can perform that task just fine.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.7. Pro: Animals are fed easy to grow vegetable food whose main carbohydrate is cellulose, which [we cannot digest but they can](https://silverlakefarms.com/how-can-cows-digest-cellulose/).
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.7.1. Con: The continuous progress in the field of genetic modification will allow more resilient crops to be produced which can then grow under less-than-ideal conditions where only inedible foods could be grown previously.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.7.2. Con: Sustaining a vegan diet needs dramatically less land, so we wouldn't have to use those areas where only inedible food like grass can grow.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.7.2.1. Con: To grow all the variety of different plants, vegetables and fruits and nuts to make a vegan diet possible, you need much more land. And this land has to be all over the world \(tropical fruits\).
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.7.3. Con: This is partly a circular argument, because many of these areas can only sustain "inedible" plants because they were once forests specifically cleared to make room for grazing land, or because years of monocropping has removed most nutrients from the soil. Animal agriculture is therefore also a cause of barren land, not just an answer to it.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.7.4. Pro: Some food is too perishable to be able to reach/feed a developing nation, which is why it's better for it to become [animal feed instead of trash](https://huffpost.com/entry/food-waste-livestock-feed_n_57e947bbe4b0e80b1ba32213).
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.7.5. Pro: Animals then convert this indigestible food to useful nutrient that can fertilize food crops.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.7.5.1. Pro: Many of the important nutrients found in animals are often not found in plants. And when they are, they are not in the same quantities, and then we need to grow more of them \(defeating the purpose of planting on the basis that it consumes less resources than animals\). And even when we can, it's not metabolically the same as the one we get from animals, which is better suited for our Gastro-Enteric apparatus, see how B12 is less bio-aviable from "alternative sourches" [and it is discouraged](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2000824).
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.7.6. Pro: Areas where crop feed is grown often cannot support foods that are edible to humans, and is thus more useful for this purpose than otherwise.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.8. Con: Technology may be able to resolve this problem.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.8.1. Pro: Researchers are trying to [convert cellulose to starch](https://mappingignorance.org/2013/05/02/cellulose-conversion-to-starch-a-promising-strategy-for-future-global-food-demand/) to make inedible foods edible for humans.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.8.2. Pro: Instead of focusing on what we can't eat, increasing the percentage of edibility of a crop and [yield](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crop-yield.asp) would prevent inedible parts from being grown and needing to be eaten by livestock instead, while simultaneously creating more food for humans too.
1.4.10.5.4.2.1.8.3. Con: Technology brought higher yields, which lead to the generation of [higher residue levels](https://www.lgseeds.com/agronomy/corn/agronomy-blog/2019/10/29/importance-of-managing-excess-corn-residue). So more technology may just make the need for animals greater, not less.
1.4.10.5.4.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.4.10.5.4.2.1.7.4.
1.4.10.5.4.2.3. Pro: Grains grown for human consumption that is inferior or 'distinctly low quality' to not meet food standards \(like the [USDA](https://www.gipsa.usda.gov/fgis/standards/general_provisions.pdf)\) end up [tossed](http://www.amdsorter.com/color-sorting-process.html), but an alternative is repurposing it as [animal feed](https://books.google.com/books?id=UzlNAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA20&lpg=RA1-PA20&dq=food+waste+as+animal+feed+%22low+quality+grains%22&source=bl&ots=tzROptnG-4&sig=ACfU3U064NdHiIePx-JGyaqUfme0gxXelw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDrPfvlfXmAhWCMX0KHWbfDJQQ6AEwDHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q='low%20quality%20grains%22&f=false). This provides the impoverished a new, [cheap](https://www.bookstore.ksre.ksu.edu/pubs/MF2034.pdf) food source \(i.e. animal products\) and more option for meeting nutritional needs to counteract world hunger.
1.4.10.5.4.2.3.1. Con: If byproducts from vegan food processing are not being utilized by animals anymore, people will find another, vegan way to incorporate them back into the food system.
1.4.10.5.4.2.3.2. Con: Upcycling \(as done with [bananas](https://barnana.com/pages/sustainability)\) is a more direct way of bringing rejects back into the food system than feeding it to animals.
1.4.10.5.4.2.3.3. Con: Animals are not required in the solution, as growing low quality grains is preventable if we just grow better grains. So it isn't a essential issue that will stop the transition of the food system towards veganism.
1.4.10.5.4.2.3.4. Pro: [Byproducts from industries](https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/400/400-230/400-230.html) where the food is already extracted [become animal feed](https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43894177/PDF). Without giving it to animals, it would be difficult to find another use for them and may end up tossed instead of reprocessed into more food.
1.4.10.5.4.2.3.4.1. Con: [Byproducts from the bakery industry](https://extension.psu.edu/byproduct-feeds-and-precision-feeding) seem cheap, but could end up really expensive to meet the needs for nutritional consistency for animal products.
1.4.10.5.4.2.3.5. Con: Feeding livestock low quality feed grains doesn't really work to supply adequate nutrition \(like [protein and vitamins](https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/winterstorm/winter-storm-information-farm-and-ranch-information1/farm-and-ranch-information-cattle-nutrition/feeding-grain-to-stock-cows)\) and just sets them up for [malnutrition](https://www.feednavigator.com/Article/2019/11/15/Low-quality-forage-prompts-concerns-about-cattle-malnutrition). They could take supplements, but in the end, it may not a viable path.
1.4.10.5.4.2.3.6. Pro: Grains that get overproduced may end up [becoming low quality and trashed](https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/food-grains-rot-india-while-millions-live-empty-stomachs) \(from [spoilage](http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/inpho/docs/Post_Harvest_Compendium_-_BARLEY.pdf)\) if it's not consumed by humans. Since these won't get eaten, animals are able to consume them instead.
1.4.10.5.4.2.3.7. Pro: As humans gain higher incomes, they're [less interested](https://books.google.com/books?id=AFHRM0JBvPgC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=human+consumption+%22low+quality+grains%22+livestock+feed+-pet&source=bl&ots=LXNwVE8Mqw&sig=ACfU3U0O9OlqXEasqJgnKCP-RZHjL7Rzeg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiy7JG8mPXmAhX0IDQIHWsCBasQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=human%20consumption%20%22low%20quality%20grains%22%20livestock%20feed%20-pet&f=false) with eating low quality grains. These would go to waste if animals don't repurpose it.
1.4.10.5.4.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.2.4.5.
1.4.10.5.4.4. Pro: The crops are located right where the growers are, which cuts out transportation costs to eat them, making it really affordable for growers to afford the food compared to expensive, distant animal products.
1.4.10.5.4.5. Con: Even in developed countries, the farmworkers [cannot afford or want to eat the vegan crops they grow](https://www.natividad.com/news_press_release/in-a-california-valley-healthy-food-everywhere-but-on-the-table/). So just because the food won't go to livestock anymore, doesn't automatically make mean it'll solve world hunger.
1.4.10.5.5. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.4.
1.4.10.5.6. Pro: There are [under 800 million](http://foodaidfoundation.org/world-hunger-statistics.html) people in the world that are starving. Livestock feed grain could [feed them all alone](http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat) and still have some left over.
1.4.10.5.7. Con: Elimination of the option of animal products does not improve their ability to obtain a balanced and sufficient diet.
1.4.11. Con: The morals would not be justified if it comes at a cost or conflict with other important or grander values or people \(lives, societies, etc.\).
1.4.11.1. Pro: If people can't manage the vegan diet properly and get malnourished or starves oneself for the sake of keeping with one's vegan beliefs, then it's not worth it.
1.4.11.2. Pro: Veganism is incompatible with some cultural beliefs and practices.
1.4.11.2.1. Con: The current meat industry is incompatible with cultural beliefs and traditions. It is incompatible with [Islam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhabihah), [Judaism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita), [Christianity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_dietary_laws), and [Hinduism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_in_Hinduism)
1.4.11.2.1.1. Con: The meat industry being incompatible with cultural, or religious, values is not an argument to justify veganism. Instead it is a justification for making the meat industry more religion-friendly.
1.4.11.2.1.2. Con: There are plenty of options for people of various faiths. Halal groceries, hunting, back yard farming are all reasonable options.
1.4.11.2.1.3. Con: Ethical slaughter has very little to do with being vegan. Ethical slaughter is a different discussion, which is where this argument belongs.
1.4.11.2.2. Pro: In Christianity and Jewish religion [eating a lamb at Easter/Pesach](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12&version=NIV) is a several thousands years old tradition which symbolises the saving power of God.
1.4.11.2.2.1. Con: Just because some cultures in the bronze age used to do something does not make it a "good" or "helpful" practice thousands of years later. There are other ways to remember religious events.
1.4.11.2.2.2. Con: There is no reason this couldn't be a symbolical lamb if the nature of this act is already symbolical.
1.4.11.2.2.3. Con: Substitutions can be made so people can still carry out their traditions. Faux lamb could be used instead of lamb to keep the traditions going.
1.4.11.2.2.3.1. Pro: Many religions already make substitutions in their practices \([pg 3](https://books.google.com/books?id=XKrjyQTlJWsC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=substitutions+of+religious+rituals&source=bl&ots=VvirFGHL28&sig=VHEWPWQ6sYqBQimolOgCmyfwyVs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigoIeA9v_dAhUnzoMKHcs3AQwQ6AEwA3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)\), which the religion allows for. With such flexibility, vegan substitutions should be possible and accepted, because of such commonplace that already takes place. If nobody can notice the difference in the substitution, then there is no reason not to use it.
1.4.11.2.2.4. Con: If we need to ditch religions to go vegan, then it is a worthwhile venture. These religions will still be around for people to study academically, so we can move forward by eliminating the practice of it.
1.4.11.2.2.4.1. Pro: By then, people most likely will not practice religion anyway, as religious participation is declining [worldwide](http://By then, people most likely will not practice religion anyway, as religious participation is declining worldwide.). So an academic setting in the future will be best after all to preserve the past without losing it, but also having a 'happy medium' where people do not participate in it if they do not want to.
1.4.11.2.3. Pro: If all humans would become vegan the humanity would lose a big part of its culture. In the same way that some people e.g. engage in medieval practises it would be desirable e.g. for historians that at least a small group of humans would keep these animal-based culture alive.
1.4.11.2.3.1. Con: Perfomative art and studying cultural heritage is possible without actually continuing to kill and eat animals. Just like people don't actually wage war or keep slaves for the sake of historical reenactment.
1.4.11.2.4. Con: Cultures can preserve their practices by making substitutions with vegan ones without compromising its practices.
1.4.11.2.5. Con: Veganism is not the largest threat to culture. Cultural beliefs and practices are getting lost anyway to modernism, so the veganism conflict with cultures would not happen anyway in the future.
1.4.11.2.5.1. Pro: Globalization is a bigger threat to the loss of cultural practice than veganism is.
1.4.11.2.5.2. Pro: Many younger people do not want to pick up cultures and traditions, because they want to be a part of modern civilization. Thus, people actually want to be a part of veganism more than their cultural traditions.
1.4.11.2.5.3. Pro: There will come a time when the only way to learn about a culture is through documentation \(like in textbooks and museums, just like how many ancient civilizations are known these days\) rather than the people in it. Thus, we should focus on these forms of documenting while cultures are still around instead of their inevitable threats.
1.4.11.2.5.4. Con: Just because cultures are threatened, doesn't mean veganism should help them out. If anything, it's the opposite. Cultures would benefit more from being protected by external influences to avoid being threatened and using it as a reason to further it more.
1.4.11.2.6. Con: Even if cultural practices are lost from veganism, the cultures can be documented and preserved to practice the vegan parts when desired. This process allows cultures to progress freely in the positive direction without losing the cultures themselves \(outside of the practice of them\).
1.4.11.2.7. Pro: Academic and laboratory research, some fields more than others, like biology, rely on [animal testing and experimentation](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/peta-study-finds-animal-testing-in-federal-labs-on-the-increase/) to write research papers. Many academics, scientists, and industries would lose grants, funding, and jobs if everyone went vegan.
1.4.11.2.7.1. Con: The public does not favor animal testing, so the majority of people will be happier with the world going vegan, especially when there are [alternatives](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096).
1.4.11.2.7.2. Pro: The pharmaceutical industry in the US would not exist right now without animal testing, as it is part of [drug research process](https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143475.htm).
1.4.11.2.7.2.1. Con: If people stay healthy through participating in a vegan diet, then they could [avoid consuming medications](http://www.americanvegan.org/howtobevegan.html) made from animal products or involved animals in their research and testing.
1.4.11.2.7.3. Con: While veganism strives to reduce animal suffering wherever possible, it would be a gradual development and not an overnight shock. We can start with food, where we already have many satisfactory alternatives, and worry about animal testing when we have more efficient ways \(e.g. better computer models\) for testing in biology.
1.4.11.2.7.3.1. Pro: Also, in a vegan world, animal testing might not exist due to its ineffectiveness. Instead, drugs would just be given to humans and weeded out based on how the public reacts \(known through doctor visits and such\).
1.4.11.2.7.4. Con: The pharmaceutical industry would decrease anyway in a vegan world. The population would be healthier due to the new diet, needing less medications than ever before.
1.4.11.2.7.5. Con: In-vivo/observational academic/research fields may increase due to veganism, rather than decrease, due to the lack of disruption that veganism causes to the world.
1.4.11.2.7.5.1. Pro: If wildlife can survive and thrive, there will be opportunities in studying it that are not possible before. This can range from learning about the wildlife itself to the tourism trends it creates.
1.4.11.2.8. Con: Preventing veganism is incompatible with some cultural beliefs and practices, so if we do not want to limit culture, we should not limit veganism.
1.4.11.2.8.1. Pro: Trying to keep one culture around just prevents other cultures from emerging and growing, like the vegan, or partially vegan, one\(s\).
1.4.11.2.8.2. Pro: Practicing veganism prevents cultural loss. The level of being part of a culture and allowing it to exist depends on the amount of participate people have in it. If people are not allowed to participate, then the culture gets lost. so we should allow veganism to occur for preservation of vegan-associated cultures.
1.4.11.2.9. Con: Progressing for the benefit of humanity supersedes the priority of preserving culture.
1.4.11.2.9.1. Pro: We should not try to keep the bad and prevent the good aspects from coming into this world because culture is stopping us from that. That just allows people to get away with negative behaviors while not embracing positive ones, which deteriorates the fabric of society instead of strengthening it.
1.4.11.2.9.2. Pro: Some cultural practices are unlikable by even the people within the culture, that they try to get away from it \([1](http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_do_young_people_not_follow_certain_family_traditions), [2](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/why-nobody-wants-to-go-to_b_4086016.html)\). Keeping around something that even people in the culture do not want anymore and preventing something that people do want does not make logical sense.
1.4.11.2.10. Pro: Veganism is [incompatible with Inuit Culture](https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/01/animal-rights-activists-inuit-clash-canada-indigenous-food-traditions), where \(sustainable and respectful\) seal hunting has been a part of their lives for centuries. If they were to switch to a vegan diet they would become sick and possibly die. Additionally, seal hunting bans put in place by colonizers have created economic scarcity for Inuit people and forced them into multigenerational poverty.
1.4.11.2.11. Pro: "Thou shalt not eat meat" is not one of the 10 commandments.
1.4.11.2.12. Pro: Many cultures have deeply rooted, specific traditions with respect to foods and animal products. Imposing veganism imposes a western/dominant interpretation of animal wellbeing, ethical perspective, and relationship to food. This would worsen trends towards suppressing or eliminating nonwestern/nondominant cultures.
1.4.11.2.12.1. Con: Non-western cultures eat way less animal products, which is the main problem with western civilization.
1.4.11.2.12.2. Con: This discussion is not about forcing people to act, but the best way to act. Tradition is [not a reason](http://yvfi.ca/tradition) to perpetuate actions if they are morally wrong. For example, slavery and considering women inferior to men have been traditional views for millennia in many cultures. It is obviously unrealistic to expect a sudden change, but it is not unreasonable to think it can happen.
1.4.11.2.12.3. Pro: In [Mi’kmaq culture](https://humanrightsareanimalrights.com/2015/04/03/margaret-robinson-indigenous-veganism-feminist-natives-do-eat-tofu/), the killing of a moose symbolized a boy’s entry into manhood. So when you challenge the hunting traditions, you’re challenging how Mi’kmaq men understand their masculinity.
1.4.11.2.12.3.1. Con: There's nothing wrong with challenging cultural beliefs.
1.4.11.2.12.3.2. Con: Challenging cultures that are unethical is more important than preserving traditions.  For instance tiger body parts and elephant tusks are a common ingredient in Traditional Chinese Medicine but have been outlawed.  Other cultural traditions include owning people as slaves.
1.4.11.2.12.4. Con: Cultural traditions centered around meat \(like hunting, ritual slaughter for certain spiritual / religious events\) are not the main focus of veganism. Although vegan ethics would dictate the abolishment of such practices, the vegan movement is currently more concerned with animal agriculture on a large, global scale. A small native tribe owning a herd of goats is a relatively small problem and vegans are not trying to take away animals from people who actually depend on them.
1.4.11.2.12.5. Pro: Some specific religious activities are incompatible with veganism.
1.4.11.2.12.5.1. Pro: [Animal sacrifice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice) is a component of some current religious practice.
1.4.11.2.12.6. Con: Many non-Western cultures are vegan or vegetarian.
1.4.11.2.12.6.1. Pro: Veganism need not be seen as a Western cultural trait. Similar ideas can be found in non-Western countries, notably [India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#India).
1.4.11.2.12.6.2. Pro: Veganism is not strictly a western dominant interpretation. For example, followers of [Buddhism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism), [Hinduism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_in_Hinduism), and [Jainism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism) advocate vegetarianism in their culture, believing that humans should not inflict pain on animals.
1.4.11.2.12.6.3. Pro: Many non-Western cultures, such as the Okinawans and Hunza, eat plant-based diet.
1.4.11.2.12.6.4. Con: In South Korea, for example, it is quite difficult to stay on a vegan diet as meat, fish and egg is very prevalent. For example, the stock for any Korean soup consists of dried anchovies.
1.4.11.2.12.6.4.1. Con: As our understanding of umami \("meaty taste"\) and which compounds it's made of is constantly growing, we can develop good-tasting ways for making broth, condiments and sauces that don't require the use of animal flesh.
1.4.11.2.12.7. Pro: -> See 1.4.11.2.12.6.4.
1.4.11.2.13. Con: Just because something is a cultural practice or deeply believed doesn't make it right or ethical. Ethics should always be more important than culture, tradition or beliefs.
1.4.11.2.13.1. Con: Ethics are made by cultures, they aren't just hanging in the air. Each cultures have theirs own ethics, and they are different. It's possible that something is ethical in one culture but unethical in an other. Even in the West, liberal ethics are opposing with conservative-Christian ethics in many questions \(e.g. marriage, abortion, war, etc.\), these are two different cultures coexisting, and when one tries to force its ethics to the other, it's something against human rights.
1.4.11.2.14. Con: [Appeal to tradition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition) is a logical fallacy.
1.4.11.2.14.1. Pro: Appeal to tradition does not make logical sense, and the people of the past knew it. That is why slavery is not practiced in the West. If they didn't go towards freedom, because it was incompatible with the slave culture, then slavery, a highly unethical practice, might still exist today.
1.4.11.2.14.2. Con: This is not an appeal to tradition, because it simply states the fact, without asserting that this should be the standard.
1.4.11.2.14.3. Pro: Tradition is superseded by logic and scientific discovery.
1.4.11.2.15. Pro: Veganism is [more associated with liberals than conservatives or moderates](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/without-prejudice/201809/meat-eating-and-political-ideology). This may equate to, if non-liberals go vegan, associating with liberals more. This would take them away from their identity, beliefs, and ultimately participation in affiliated groups.
1.4.11.2.15.1. Con: If everyone went vegan, since political ideologies are separated by more than one category, they would still exist, just with fewer lines of separation.
1.4.11.2.15.2. Con: If veganism takes away political distinctions, then other categories could be created to create polarizing views to replace the vegan category that they lost.
1.4.11.3. Pro: Not all people share the same ethical principles, so vegan lifestyle doesn't bring moral benefits to all humans.
1.4.11.3.1. Pro: Veganism, unlike vegetarianism, stems from 20th century cultural movement in the West, i.e., [Lebensreform](https://www.ic.org/wiki/lebensreform/), which in itself is not necessarily illegitimate. Nevertheless, forcing non-Western societies to adopt it \(i.e. [Westernization](https://www.reference.com/world-view/westernization-af8f44660d958357)\) is a form of [neocolonialism](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Neocolonialism) and cultural imperialism.
1.4.11.3.1.1. Con: Non-Western societies are forced into Westernization indirectly \(like through climate change\) or directly \(an example is media\) at some point. The least they can do is pick up a positive ideal that may help them out, rather than from the many negative ones.
1.4.11.3.1.2. Con: If veganism is already a part of their lifestyle \(like with Buddhism and Jainism\), then the Westernization's not a worry, as they're already adjusted to it.
1.4.11.3.2. Pro: Culture can influence lawmaking. If most people become vegan out of their own free will, then laws may follow to extend it to everyone.
1.4.11.3.2.1. Pro: Veganism imposes the will of the masses onto the few that do not comply, which is [groupthink](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groupthink).
1.4.11.3.2.2. Pro: The restrictions could have short-term implications on businesses, economies, and individuals. restaurants would have to change their menus to vegan food in order to comply with laws. This could run up costs for them in the short-term.
1.4.11.3.2.3. Pro: The lack of freedom from the enforcement of vegan laws could have long-term individualistic implications. The laws could impact health, and could lead to increasing mental health issues.
1.4.11.3.2.3.1. Pro: The controlling tendencies of society to conform to veganism could lead to stress in a person's life, especially impactful during the formative years.
1.4.11.3.2.4. Pro: Law enforcement might get more severe under a vegan world, especially within the transition phase.
1.4.11.3.2.4.1. Pro: This could cost governments more money.
1.4.11.3.2.4.2. Pro: Law enforcement might take a more big brother omnipresence to counteract any betrayers of veganism.
1.4.11.3.2.4.2.1. Pro: People might get into trouble with law enforcement by deviating from vegan principles.
1.4.11.3.2.4.2.1.1. Con: This already happens, as people do go to jail and get fined for animal abuse, fishing in protected waters, and cutting down plants in protected zones.
1.4.11.3.3. Con: All people do share the same ethical principles: unnecessary murder is immoral, abusing someone is immoral, causing intentional pain or suffering to anyone for no necessary reason is immoral. If that weren’t true then there would be no such thing as good or bad as all behaviour would be completely acceptable: murder, rape, theft, etc. would be by default moral and acceptable. Therefore veganism brings moral benefits to all humans.
1.4.11.4. Pro: -> See 1.3.9.6.3.
1.4.11.5. Pro: -> See 1.3.12.1.7.2.
1.4.11.6. Pro: Following the ethical logic of veganism creates a high moral standard that humans would struggle to adapt to.
1.4.11.6.1. Pro: A vegan world is not possible. Vegan food is sometimes prepared using indirectly animal-derived products. Even if all products are animal-free, they might be produced using other tools that derive from animals and so on. You are never 100% vegan. Even just by living in this society, using its benefits, you are living off the usage of animals. The only way to be totally free is to live in nature.
1.4.11.6.1.1. Con: The [definition](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism), in the circumstances of little capabilities to express one's vegan lifestyle, it would certainly be impossible and impracticable to avoid animal products. Eating animal products in such circumstances is therefore not in conflict with the definition of veganism.
1.4.11.6.1.2. Con: The point of veganism is to reduce the amount of contribution to unnecessary suffering and death of animals, when there are many similar alternatives that constitute a healthier diet.
1.4.11.6.1.3. Pro: Many [non-food](https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.html) [products](http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/06/07/8-items-animal-byproducts/) [rely](https://www.peta.org/living/food/animal-ingredients-list/) on [animal](https://www.businessinsider.com.au/15-surprising-things-that-contain-animal-products-2014-3) [products](http://roogirl.com/20-everyday-items-that-contain-animal-ingredients/) in their production chain. We do not live in a Star-Trek world where complex organic chemicals can simply be synthesized.
1.4.11.6.1.3.1. Con: The production of complex chemicals is work in process, but is certainly possible with genetically manipulated bacteria and yeasts. E.g. [insulin](https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/fromdnatobeer/exhibition-interactive/recombinant-DNA/recombinant-dna-technology-alternative.html); and even [milk](https://qz.com/1161955/perfect-day-is-making-convincing-cow-free-milk-by-genetically-engineering-yeast/).
1.4.11.6.1.3.2. Con: We could research substitutes to these products, currently, for some of these cases, substitutes exist but we simply don't use them as they're more expensive.
1.4.11.6.1.4. Pro: There is no such thing as ["vegan"](https://www.kialo.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-vegan-10281/10281.0=10281.1).
1.4.11.6.2. Pro: Ethics won't work for making everyone vegan, because people are driven by money. Economics is so heavily ingrained with humans that it impacts their daily lives, and a change like worldwide veganism would be so large that the economic changes would be unethical.
1.4.11.6.2.1. Pro: If everyone in the world were to become vegan, it would be an economical disaster destroying multi-trillion dollar industries.
1.4.11.6.2.1.1. Pro: The [lack of crop diversity](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26382067) in the food marketplace could lead to serious food shortages due to crop failure, which could further lead to malnutrition and ultimately plagues.
1.4.11.7. Pro: Global adoption of the vegan diet would restrict the growth of human civilization.
1.4.11.7.1. Pro: Livestock farming can take place across a range of diverse climatic and environmental regions meaning that this type of agriculture is potentially [less geographically-constrained](https://ourworldindata.org/yields-and-land-use-in-agriculture#global-agricultural-land-use-today) than arable farming.
1.4.11.7.1.1. Con: This can only work if the farmed animals are fed with by-products or scrap material, otherwise the fodder require arable farmlands.
1.4.11.7.1.1.1. Pro: Countries that don't have a lot of arable farmland available to them still need to import fodder from other places of the world.
1.4.11.7.2. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.
1.4.11.7.3. Pro: None of us would be here without meat. The abundance we have now to make vegan choices may not be around in the future. It may save our lives yet in case in times of famine/ration \(such as a natural or nuclear disaster\). People will not have choices then, just like they did not in the past.
1.4.11.7.3.1. Pro: All [hominin](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hominin)s in genus [Australopithecus](http://slideplayer.com/slide/4892880/16/images/19/A+hominid+evolutionary+tree.jpg) went extinct, and many were vegan \([1](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120717084813.htm), [2](http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/whats-hot-human-origins/australopithecus-sediba-was-vegetarian)\). We survived and eat meat. Since going vegan did not work in the past, we should not repeat history by devolving to a trait with an unsuccessful outcome.
1.4.11.7.3.2. Con: However, none of us would be here without our ancestors \(both [primate](http://animalia.bio/bonobo) and [human](https://www.calacademy.org/explore-science/early-human-diets) \(pre-3.5 million years ago\)\) having a predominantly plant-based diet either.
1.4.11.7.4. Con: Not in every way does it restrict societal growth in terms of productivity and size, just redirects it in a different direction \(that provides benefits not currently seen\).
1.4.11.7.4.1. Pro: The word civilisation now means more than living in cities, it entails ideas of moral progress and codes of conduct. Someone who is uncivilised is regarded as brutish and lacking compassion.
1.4.11.7.4.2. Pro: Since [17%](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/) of a diet's calories typically come from dairy and meat, and [obesity](https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html) affects a significant portion of the population, plus is on the rise in [certain age groups](https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/health/childhood-obesity-in-the-us-study/index.html), losing the calories from dairy and meat seems a logical choice in keeping a healthy weight. This will benefit civilization growth rather than harming it.
1.4.11.7.4.3. Pro: The world population growth is expected to stop at between [8 and 11 billion people](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/IFsWorldPopulationHistoryForecastII.jpg) within [this century](https://phys.org/news/2014-10-world-population-peak.html). With veganism, population will end up closer to the top of the range \([1](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160926-what-would-happen-if-the-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian), [2](https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html)\).
1.4.11.7.4.3.1. Con: Maximizing the number of humans alive on this planet is not necessarily a good thing.
1.4.11.7.4.3.1.1. Pro: Even if maximized, there will be a limit to the earth's carrying capacity somewhere down the road. This means population control should be considered sooner or later. Changing to an \(arguably\) less optimal diet is just a way of kicking the can down the road.
1.4.11.7.4.4. Pro: Eating meat reflects poorly on humanity; it is a [barbaric](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34541077) and primitive practice that incorporates into the definition of what being a human is. Veganism is more civilized and will allow civilizations to grow through its positivity instead of being held back by the negative attributes of producing and eating meat.
1.4.11.7.4.4.1. Pro: The compassion that veganism brings allows for more openness that allows civilization to grow. With the openness, more lives can exist \(human and non-human\). The bigger the population, the greater the success of a civilization \(which is one of its purposes\).
1.4.11.7.5. Pro: -> See 1.4.11.3.1.
1.4.11.7.6. Pro: To date, no \(entirely\) vegan civilizations have been able to sustain themselves across a long period of time.
1.4.11.7.6.1. Pro: There was the start of a vegan civilization before, called the [Fruitlands](http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/louisa-may-alcott-10-child-laborer-fruitlands-commune/), although it didn't last.
1.4.11.7.6.2. Con: There are [villages and communities](http://ecosalon.com/10-intentional-communities-we-want-to-live-in/) that are entirely vegan.
1.4.11.7.6.3. Pro: There were vegetarian [Tolstoy colonies/groups](https://www.ic.org/wiki/tolstoy-farm/#The_end_of_the_campaign:) that didn't make it \(although its purpose was intentionally designed that way\).
1.4.11.7.7. Pro: People learn about animals through non-vegan activities, like eating meat, having pets, visiting zoos, and hunting. Taking those activities away would make vegans less aware of animals due to less interactions with them.
1.4.11.7.7.1. Con: These are artificial interactions. Vegans will create a better learning experience for understanding animals, because they will see them with natural behavior and form. This process will create a better understanding and appreciation than forced animal encounters.
1.4.11.7.7.2. Con: Non-vegan practices make learning about animals harder, because such practices cause extinctions and dangers to the learning process that can make learning about animals almost impossible at times.
1.4.11.7.7.2.1. Pro: People might get traumatized over learning about an animal if they think about the ethics of it dying to study it \(such as with biology dissections\).
1.4.11.7.7.3. Con: People do not need to partake in non-vegan activities to learn about animals when the information is available in books and technology \(which gets better each year\).
1.4.11.7.7.4. Pro: Being up close and personal with animals can foster compassion and sympathy towards more animals than not being near them.
1.4.11.7.7.5. Pro: Being near animals can help organizations bring animal-related issues to the public's attention, especially at zoos.
1.4.11.7.8. Con: Population growth is not a goal in itself to strive for. Quality of life is a better goal. This might require a lower population
1.4.11.7.8.1. Pro: The word ['civilisation'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization) has a far broader meaning than just population numbers.
1.4.11.7.9. Con: Not all growth of human civilization is positive, sustainable, or desired, so we shouldn't keep those around. What's better is civilization taking the action needed to be where it should be to reach its potential \(and if that means veganism, so be it\), even if it does come at the cost of growth.
1.4.11.7.9.1. Pro: Civilizations with animal consumption grow too quickly that it overshoots sustainability to where it comes at the cost of the individual and society. Veganism fixes that by prioritizing the individual to care for their needs and slow society down to the right pace enough for them to keep up to contribute to and grow with it.
1.4.11.7.9.1.1. Pro: Compassion is the highest form of living. Through a vegan lifestyle, we can align our actions with our morals to elevate our selves and existence. We can be better off than we are now, increasing the collective well-being of society.
1.4.11.7.9.1.2. Pro: Being vegan and collaborating with everyone worldwide on this claim would give people purpose and meaning in their lives as moral benefits attained by individuals that human society collectively gains.
1.4.11.7.9.1.2.1. Con: People gain purpose and meaning through participating in animal agriculture and consuming animal products. These moral benefits enhance human society too.
1.4.11.7.9.1.2.2. Pro: Vegan food is a sharing food. Crops come in such large quantities \(like at harvest or the produce itself, like watermelon and pumpkin\), that one person alone cannot eat it. Through learning to give and share, people can start to collectively work together, which provides moral benefits.
1.4.11.7.9.1.2.2.1. Con: Animal products come in large quantities too \(such as cattle\), so sharing does not only exist in a vegan world.
1.4.11.7.9.2. Con: -> See 1.3.3.9.4.1.
1.4.11.7.10. Con: Many of our achievements as a civilization have relied on controlling our violent and destructive tendencies and being compassionate instead. Choosing non-violence \(or minimal violence\) when it comes to our food is the next logical step in the development of a civilized population that grows beyond its biological instincts.
1.4.11.7.10.1. Pro: [Geniuses](https://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/02/the-worlds-greatest-geniuses-are-vegetarians/) \(from ancient to modern times and East to West\) form from practicing non-violence, which includes their [diets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vegetarians): Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, da Vinci, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Tesla, Edison, Tolstoy, Franklin, Luther King, Van Gogh, Kafka, Henry Ford, Stephen Hawkins, Gaudí, Alan Calverd, Edward Witten, Brian Greene, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Carl Lewis, Matt Groening, etc.
1.4.11.7.11. Con: Animal consumption \(or anything for that matter\) restricts civilization growth too. So it's not a reason for civilization not to go vegan. Instead, if the benefits outweigh the costs, then that's what will matter in knowing what to decide upon.
1.4.11.7.11.1. Pro: Eating meat restricts civilizations due to the costs on society with health care \(as meat causes many chronic diseases that are expensive whether they get treated or not\). The cost savings from transitioning to veganism will be worth the switch.
1.4.11.7.12. Con: Veganism restricts growth less than animal consumption does \(especially in the long run\), so it's worth implementing.
1.4.11.7.12.1. Pro: Eating meat will restrict where human civilization can go and grow, due to it being a major contributory factor in [climate change](http://meatclimatechange.org/).
1.4.11.7.12.1.1. Pro: Climate change causes [mass migrations, which in turn threatens food security](https://www.kcet.org/shows/earth-focus/episodes/climate-migration), which in turn impacts the growth of civilization.
1.4.11.7.12.1.2. Pro: The [sea level rise](https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/File/SS6M_SLR_Population_PercentCroppedScaled_650_425_s_c1_c_c.jpg) that comes with global warming will definitely impact the growth of human civilization. What was once land would not be available for building on and populating anymore.
1.4.11.8. Con: Since veganism is a polarizing issue, if everyone's vegan, there'd be less conflict. Fewer conflicts would be more moral \(in terms of behavior\) for humans to achieve. Less fighting creates a more ethical world overall too.
1.4.11.8.1. Con: By this logic, the same goal of less conflict could also be achieved by having nobody be vegan.
1.4.11.8.1.1. Pro: It's much easier to make the few people who are vegan not vegan than the opposite: practically the entire population follow the practicees of a few.
1.4.11.9. Con: We cannot achieve peace, if we are not peaceful. Murdering animals is not an act of peace. So long as we treat animals as if their lives do not matter, we will not be at peace. Veganism helps the world become peaceful.
1.5. Con: Humanity becoming vegan does not resolve all the issues it tries to fix.
1.5.1. Con: If a vegan diet were to resolve more problems than it causes, even if it fails to solve all problems, it would be better that everyone were vegan.
1.5.1.1. Pro: The current levels of suffering \(due to having a complex neural network and production methodology\) in such number maybe the greatest tragedy the earth has witnessed: over [50 billion animals/year](https://animalclock.org/). Eliminating this is better than not doing so.
1.5.2. Con: Many of the issues that veganism currently creates would be worked out once the world transitions.
1.5.2.1. Pro: People are more likely to work on vegan-specific issues when living the lifestyle, because they are more "woke" to them.
1.5.2.2. Pro: Since the battle is over about whether people should eat meat or not, people will now transition their focus onto vegan-only battles.
1.5.2.3. Pro: Once everyone becomes vegan. vegan issues will become more pronounced and happen more often. This visibility will cause people to react and objectify to them, which will lead them to action.
1.5.2.4. Pro: Once everyone becomes vegan, more people could collaborate together to tackle the larger-scale vegan issues that cannot be achieved with the current vegan population status.
1.5.3. Pro: -> See 1.4.1.1.3.
1.5.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.8.
1.5.5. Con: Taxing the suffering is most likely the best way to improve the lot of factory-farmed animals. Taxing on plastic bags and CO2 has worked well in making markets adjust. So focusing on a workable tax system on animal suffering would fix the vegan mission statement in the quickest manner.
1.5.6. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.1.
1.5.7. Con: Assuming your point, this is a [Nirvana fallacy](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/134/Nirvana_Fallacy) \(perfect-solution fallacy\) – solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect
1.5.7.1. Pro: Veganism is not about fixing all issues. It is about improving the "ethical footprint" of humans on nature. Even if not ALL humans would become vegan it would be an improvement.
1.5.7.1.1. Con: -> See 1.3.14.6.
1.5.7.1.2. Pro: A vegan world would massively reduce animal suffering, massively reduce land use and rain forest depletion, and massively reduce related health issues such as heart disease. That is enough.
1.5.7.2. Pro: Trying to be perfect diverts the focus from the reality \(aka animal industries' critical issues\) that is happening, so no progress is made and problems already occurring continue to do so unchecked \(until they stop when the damage is so bad, even their practices are not possible to continue\).
1.5.7.2.1. Pro: The tendency to focus on an ideal rather than try to remove problems in reality can spill over or divert efforts away from other areas in need of help too, like poverty and education. This action \(which turns into a habit\) becomes a waste of time, because it is inefficient.
1.5.7.3. Pro: Not implementing something groundbreaking that solves many problems because it doesn't solve every problem it tries to fix is irrational.
1.5.7.4. Pro: There is no quick fix for humanity's largest challenges. Abandoning progress altogether because of that would not make sense.
1.5.7.4.1. Pro: The change doesn't need to be all at once. Just eating less meat an starting to go vegetarian is a lot of [progress](https://s3.amazonaws.com/spoonuniversi-wpengine/spoonuniversi/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/foods-carbon-footprint-7-670x509.gif) in itself, so that everyone can get used to eat adjustment along the way until we all get there.
1.5.8. Con: Abstinence from animal products may be an ethical choice not necessarily intended to fix any problems.
1.5.9. Pro: -> See 1.3.13.
1.5.10. Con: There is nothing about being vegan that prevents action on any other environmental or social issue. We can walk and sing at the same time.
1.5.11. Pro: If we are to ascribe moral blame to our consumptive practices, it seems strange to unduly focus on one of those particular practices when so many others are so much more harmful and require a less fundamental restructuring of society to address.
1.5.11.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.10.
1.5.11.2. Con: Being vegan is often linked a more respectful philosophy. Empathy can guide us though all society's issues.
1.5.12. Pro: Even if all humans go vegan, its principles may still not be fully carried out in reality.
1.5.12.1. Pro: Not everything that's not vegan will disappear, as we'll likely hold onto something that's not vegan to not waste resources in building something new. So we can't have a true vegan lifestyle, as the remnants from the past will still linger for a while.
1.5.12.2. Pro: If the world instantly became vegan, not everyone will suddenly form a vegan mindset.
1.5.12.2.1. Pro: Being a vegan does not necessarily equate to being an animal/nature lover.
1.5.12.2.2. Pro: People may still not want to be vegan or believe in veganism, even if the world and they go vegan.
1.5.12.2.2.1. Pro: If too many people do not believe in veganism, even when the world turns vegan, the world turning vegan may only end up a short run instead of sustaining through the long-term.
1.5.12.2.3. Pro: People need to be taught how to think and not what to think. If everyone went vegan due to their setting \(say because the infrastructure prevents non-vegan living from existing\) rather than their own will \(because the original people who built the vegan world are gone and only their descendants are left over\), then they won't have a vegan mindset. Only when they're educated enough to come to their own conclusions would they actually be vegan.
1.5.12.2.3.1. Pro: Without being taught how to think, people will be dependent on the food system to get them to be vegan without knowing how to be vegan themselves.
1.5.12.2.3.2. Pro: Mainly those self-determination \(about [0.5%](https://www.vegetariantimes.com/uncategorized/vegetarianism-in-america) of the US\) would have vegan intuition. The rest, without education and direction, cannot inherently make vegan decisions and would revert to not being vegan if the opportunity arises.
1.5.12.2.3.3. Pro: People should think about being conscious about their world, because veganism is just the start, not the whole picture. Without being taught what else there is to do, or the next steps in making the world better, then people will not move forward nor accomplish as much as they can if taught.
1.5.12.3. Pro: Large-scale veganism may be difficult to enforce \(especially in private settings\). Thus, while the world implements the practice, non-vegan occurrences may still happen in secret.
1.5.12.3.1. Pro: People may still poach, as that is really [difficult to enforce](http://www.africanindaba.com/2014/04/poaching-in-africa-facts-causes-and-solutions-april-2014-volume-12-3/).
1.5.12.3.1.1. Con: When people become vegan, they are less likely to buy animal products from poaching. Going vegan would definitely lessen its extent.
1.5.12.3.1.2. Pro: The products from poaching may make its way into consumer markets and vegans may buy animal products unknowingly if the vendors lie, hide sales from enforcement, or not label clearly and accurately.
1.5.12.3.1.3. Con: With a vegan world, people may take more actions and increase enforcement, due to the practice not fitting in with the new vegan world.
1.5.12.3.2. Pro: Human beings have an inherent right to privacy. Veganism cannot be adopted fully without infringing upon that right since it would have to be state mandated and enforced.
1.5.12.3.3. Con: This is true of any morally or legally forbidden activity. "Some humans still murder" is not a counterargument against murder.
1.5.12.3.4. Pro: Supposedly vegan foods might have hidden non-vegan components on them, even though the end product is vegan itself, like [shellac and gelatin on bananas](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713516306089),
1.5.12.3.4.1. Pro: If people grow their own food when vegan, then they can make more informed choices about what is in their food and not resort to eating non-vegan food unintentionally.
1.5.12.3.4.2. Pro: These non-vegan components can become a health risk, especially if a person is avoiding non-vegan foods due to allergies \(such as the [gelatin](https://www.foodallergy.org/common-allergens/other-food-allergens) and possibly shellac \([1](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Or%20Shellac%20Technical%20Evaluation%20Report%20%282014%29.pdf), [2](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Or%20Shellac%20Technical%20Advisory%20Panel%20Report%20%282002%29.pdf)\) on bananas\).
1.5.12.3.5. Con: Enforcement is not required if the behaviors to necessitate it are not possible to achieve to begin with.
1.5.12.3.5.1. Pro: If suppliers stop selling animal products because of better technology or a lack of subsidies, then most people won't be able to consume animal products, due to a lack availability. Without being able to consume animal products, enforcement for staying vegan is not needed.
1.5.12.3.6. Pro: Although impossible to enforce in all settings, efforts should be made to limit animal consumption publicly as much as possible, as an individual's environmental and health impacts affect everyone. As such, much like [smoking](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/protection/improve_health/index.htm), [public health policies](https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/about/index.html) should be implemented to protect the public from the risk of being negatively impacted by each other's unhealthy consumptive behaviors.
1.5.12.3.6.1. Pro: People can still eat animal products if they want to, but it's not going to be in a public place where other people might eat \(like a restaurant\) that would expect vegan products but get cross contamination that could make them unwell, just like how cigarettes can make others unwell too.
1.5.12.3.7. Pro: -> See 1.3.9.8.
1.5.12.4. Pro: Veganism still may negatively impact animals and cause them harm.
1.5.12.4.1. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.5.
1.5.12.4.2. Con: -> See 1.3.
1.5.12.4.3. Pro: -> See 1.3.12.1.7.1.
1.5.12.4.4. Pro: -> See 1.3.2.
1.5.12.4.5. Pro: Veganism tries to prevent exploitation to animals, but still impacts humans \(which are animals\).
1.5.12.4.5.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.12.1.7.2.
1.5.12.4.5.2. Pro: With deforestation \(exploitation of animals' land for crops/timber\), [indigenous](http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/16/indigenous-people-in-brazil-facing-deforestation-joblessness-seek-out-cities.html) cultures get lost and the people of them get a lower quality of life.
1.5.12.4.5.3. Pro: -> See 1.4.10.5.4.1.1.1.1.
1.5.12.4.6. Con: A modified vegan diet, that takes into account the production methods as well as the final product, would reduce this issue.
1.5.12.4.6.1. Pro: Veganic farming eliminate animal products and intentional harm to animals \(as with pesticides\) \([1](http://gentleworld.org/beginners-guide-to-veganic-gardening/), [2](https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/veganic-farming.html)\) in its production.
1.5.12.4.7. Pro: While humans are capable of living on a vegan diet, we have many domesticated animals and pets who are not. We need to keep some production active for the sake of feeding dogs, cats and various zoo animals.
1.5.12.4.8. Pro: -> See discussion #10281: There is no such thing as "vegan"
1.5.12.4.9. Con: Just because there may still some harm to animals on a vegan diet, does not mean we should not try and limit the pain we cause to them altogether.
1.5.12.4.10. Con: This is true, but a vegan diet impacts animals much less than an omnivore diet does - which is why it's worth investing in going forward on the vegan path.
1.5.12.5. Pro: Even if the food is vegan, its [supply chain](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JonT6FZYgbQ/maxresdefault.jpg) may not be, as it'll be difficult to tell if a manufacturer has non-[veganic](https://veganic.world/) practices enough to prevent them from happening.
1.5.12.6. Pro: The definition of veganism used in this discussion is arbitrary and has no end, as it asks adherents to reduce the exploitation of animals as much as possible. This makes the cutoffs \(of what veganism is/is not\) difficult to define and thus hard to follow.
1.5.12.6.1. Pro: The vegetarian diet is easier to follow, as the definition is more concrete and objective. Foods can be scientifically analyzed to decide what is vegetarian or not. This compares to the definition of veganism, which is looser and more subjective in its interpretation.
1.5.12.6.1.1. Con: The vegetarian diet is rather morally arbitrary. E.g. killing a chicken is wrong, but killing a young rooster because it can't lay eggs is alright;  Killing cows is wrong, but killing young bulls that the milk industry can't use is alright.
1.5.12.6.1.2. Pro: For certain foods, like [oyster mushrooms](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/comments/3ck3tp/are_oyster_mushrooms_vegan/), the [debates](http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/207104195/but-is-it-vegan-oyster-mushrooms) clustered around it [shape](http://www.organicauthority.com/oysters-vegan-food-or-not) the list of what is vegan and what is not.
1.5.12.6.1.3. Pro: The definition of vegetarian is "no meat", so if one follows the definition line: meat -\> flesh -\> tissues \(groups of cells and cell parts with the same function\), then one could figure out how to be a vegetarian just by avoiding eating animal tissue.
1.5.12.6.1.4. Pro: The definition of vegan has a looser interpretation, because it talks about "reducing" animal exploitation/harm. This can translate to going vegan as far as the dieter wants to go rather than everyone on the diet following the same regimen.
1.5.12.6.1.5. Con: Just because an action is easier to follow, does not mean it is the better course for humans to take.
1.5.12.6.2. Pro: The definition is centered around animals and not people's health, which makes it more difficult for people to stick to it.
1.5.12.6.2.1. Pro: This is especially true when people get sick from it, because they did not focus on their health and instead ate junk food on it \(many junk foods are vegan, such as chips, fries, donuts, candy, soda...\)
1.5.12.6.3. Pro: For some, veganism means abstaining from all products from animals, including those that lived and died naturally.
1.5.12.6.3.1. Pro: Just because an animal died before the concept of veganism came about, does not mean that utilizing those animals for exploitative means is not vegan. In the end, animal remains are still animal products if consumed.
1.5.12.6.3.2. Con: Animals that died naturally and peacefully are fine for vegans, as no cruelty was involved in their deaths.
1.5.12.6.3.2.1. Pro: The very roots of the vegan movement are [premised](https://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Ripened%20by%20human%20determination.pdf) on reducing suffering: "\[t\]he suffering and slaughter of animals was the starting point for the creation of The Vegan Society."
1.5.12.6.3.2.2. Con: Not every vegan agrees. The American Vegan Society, for instance, believes becoming vegan involves "[discontinuing use of all animal products](http://www.americanvegan.org/howtobevegan.html)", which includes those that died naturally.
1.5.12.6.3.2.3. Con: This claim has faulty logic, as the Vegan Society's definition involves exploitation and cruelty, while this claim only talks about cruelty while neglecting the other parts of the definition.
1.5.12.6.3.2.4. Con: Looking at only the cruelty at the time of death does not compensate for the cruelty within an entire animal's life \(the end does not justify the means\). If this was the case, then milk would be an acceptable food if the cow died naturally.
1.5.12.6.3.3. Con: [Avoiding animal products is impossible](https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching), as every atom on Earth got circulated by an animal on Earth. Thus, avoiding animal products, and thus being a vegan, is not possible on Earth.
1.5.12.6.3.4. Pro: Abstaining from all animal products sends the message that animal consumption is fundamentally unnecessary. If a vegan were to consume animals that died from natural causes it would be an implicit admission that a life without consuming animals is a worse life.
1.5.12.6.4. Con: The cutoff \(of what veganism is and is not\) might be definitive after all.
1.5.12.6.4.1. Pro: The cutoff could stop at the naturally-created molecular level for it to be vegan. An example is if an animal's products become molecular naturally \(like breathing out CO2\) and not an exploitative source \(like growing animals for CO2 production\) and becomes indistinguishable from the same molecules not from animals \(like CO2 from volcanoes\), it is vegan. If animal remains are intact \(like non-decomposed bones\), then those are not vegan.
1.5.12.6.4.1.1. Pro: This is a definition that is workable, as some animal-specific molecules are distinguishable from non-living sources, such as collagen. This means that a manufacturer cannot break down an animal into molecular components and call it vegan.
1.5.12.6.4.1.2. Con: The definition of intact vs. not intact remains is anthropocentric. Thus this prioritizes our own interests over the interests of animals, which is counter to the core tenets of veganism.
1.5.12.6.4.1.2.1. Pro: The distinction \(between intact/non-intact remains\) probably does not impact the quality of life of animals in general. Thus, humans should not make man-made decisions that would not happen in nature.
1.5.12.6.4.1.2.2. Con: There is no easy way of consulting animals before making decisions, so animals are not part of the decision-making process for humans \(with the exception of animals getting negatively impacted by such decisions\).
1.5.12.6.4.1.2.3. Con: There are difficulties in knowing the thoughts of animals, so it is faulty to make assumptions on them.
1.5.12.6.4.1.2.4. Con: Just because the definition is anthropocentric, does not mean we should not take it into consideration. To think about everything, veganism in general seems to be anthropocentric, as animals probably do not think about the animal they eat before they eat it.
1.5.12.6.4.1.2.5. Pro: These animals lived and died practically billions of years before any humans set foot on this planet, let come up with the idea of veganism. Thus, to those animals, their remains are questionable as to whether they are vegan or not.
1.5.12.6.4.1.2.5.1. Con: Just because an event happened before a definition came about, does not mean that the definition does not apply to the condition. If that were the case, then dinosaurs would not be reptiles, because that classification only existed from the [1730s](https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/birds-dinosaurs-reptiles), only after more reptiles emerged from them to connect the dots for scientists. Thus, believing dinosaurs are reptiles are relevant, even though there were no capabilities to really label them such when they were around.
1.5.12.6.4.1.2.5.2. Con: This type of circular thinking does not further the idea of whether people should go vegan or not, but only creates a logical dead-end. If humans make definitions for their use, there is no reason for humans not to use them.
1.5.12.6.4.2. Pro: Taxonomic classifications can help to determine whether a biological cell \(to eat\) is vegan or not.
1.5.12.6.4.2.1. Pro: If the cell comes from an animal source, it is not vegan.
1.5.12.6.4.2.1.1. Pro: [Eggs](http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-largest-biological-cell.htm) are a cell, but are not vegan because they are an animal product.
1.5.12.6.4.2.1.2. Pro: If the cell comes from an animal, like [cultured meat](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/06/article-2384715-1B298543000005DC-270_634x267.jpg), it is not vegan.
1.5.12.6.4.2.2. Pro: Determining cells individually is really helpful in the definition of veganism. This is helpful especially in difficult situations like [protist colonies](https://study.com/academy/lesson/colonial-protists-definition-examples.html) and [chromists](http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chromista/chromista.html). They do not seem vegan when just looking at them \(looks like one organism\). But, at the cellular level, they turn out to be vegan single-celled organisms after all.
1.5.12.6.4.2.2.1. Con: A cell that does not come from an animal source, like [spirulina \(a cyanobacteria\)](http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanolh.html), then it is [vegan](https://www.znaturalfoods.com/spirulina-organic-tablets).
1.5.12.6.4.2.2.1.1. Pro: Unicellular organisms are vegan.
1.5.12.6.4.3. Con: A stated goal of veganism is to reduce animal suffering. However, "suffering" is too vaguely defined.
1.5.12.6.4.4. Pro: Veganism is [defined](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) as "a 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." "As far as is possible and practicable" means that as long as replacements are not available it is alright to use the animal product.
1.5.12.6.4.4.1. Con: Possible and practical are non-interchangeable words.  Further if the standard is practicable, there is no objective standard for determining the practicability of something.  It is possibly for something to be available but expensive, but it is unclear at what point it is impractically expensive.  According to this claim, perhaps one is expected you to use something because it is available, even if it isn't affordable.
1.5.12.6.4.4.2. Pro: This definition is not [arbitrary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary) as it is neither defined randomly nor defined by individual preference or convenience.
1.5.12.6.5. Con: The definition used here is [pragmatic](http://www.flanderstoday.eu/living/vegan-visionary-preaches-pragmatism-instead-moralising), rather than dogmatic, and thus is actually easier to follow then other forms of veganism.
1.5.12.6.6. Con: [Veganism](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) is taken on an individual basis \("as far as possible and practicable"\) This premeditated flexibility makes Veganism feasible for most people and circumstances.
1.5.12.6.6.1. Pro: This flexibility of Veganism allows us to understand and practice it from different approaches. For instance, there's no moral inconsistency for a vegan to kill a mosquito, bugs, or exterminate pests, if they choose to do so in self-defense. Veganism is also practiced by some [Freegans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism#Veganism_and_food_waste) who don't eat animal products but may redistribute leftovers so the needlessly suffering of animals don't go to the trash. Or some may even make exceptions at invitations or gifts.
1.5.12.6.7. Pro: The obscurity and lack of understanding the definition \(through its vagueness\) creates enough confusion to prevent people from having viability in making the decisions required for being vegan.
1.5.12.6.7.1. Pro: If someone finds veganism a mystery to them, their confusion will lead them to not know how and never be able to achieve what it is requiring of them to do.
1.5.12.6.8. Con: Arbitrary definitions should not stop the world from going vegan, as their nature allows them to be reformed. Thus, we can change the definition of what veganism is so that the word can actually adhere to it without conflict and confusion.
1.5.12.6.8.1. Con: Eating unicellular organisms wipes out there life and gives preferential treatment to multicellular organisms. A better idea would be to eat only non-animal multicellular organisms without severely injuring or killing them.
1.5.12.6.8.2. Pro: Unicellular organisms do not matter much in preservation of life to humans, because unicellular organisms at times attack humans. This makes humans accepting of defending themselves, such as killing bacteria through antibiotics. So if humans kill bacteria to preserve themselves, there is no worries about killing them for other purposes for self-preservation, such as eating them.
1.5.12.6.8.2.1. Pro: Even if a person did not want to kill bacteria that makes them ill, so they do not harm them, their bodies unconsciously do it anyway \(through the immune system\). Killing unicellular organisms is unavoidable by humans, so there is no moral dilemma associated with it.
1.5.12.6.8.2.1.1. Con: People could stay healthy, so their bodies don't get sick to the point their bodies generate immune cells to kill unicellular organisms
1.5.12.6.8.2.2. Con: Just because one set of unicellular organisms are bad, doesn't make them all bad. The unicellular organisms that do not harm us do not deserve to die.
1.5.12.6.8.2.3. Con: Just because unicellular organisms attack humans, does not justify killing them. We should extend protections to all lifeforms, no matter how bad they are.
1.5.12.6.8.2.4. Con: Just because other lifeforms are harming us, does not mean we should go on a 'killing spree' because of it. Two wrongs do not make a right.
1.5.12.6.8.2.4.1. Pro: Animals can kill us, does not mean we should take revenge on them.
1.5.12.6.8.3. Pro: This definition includes anything that is not an animal: fungi, plants, cyanobacteria, etc.
1.5.12.6.8.4. Pro: If veganism can be concretely defined as a 'no animal lifestyle', rather than one that seeks reduction of animal exploitation, then a layout is set up in a way that people can follow.
1.5.12.6.8.5. Pro: The word 'vegan' is just an ambiguous label for a one person's concept of a philosophy, not a concrete definition. Thus, it can be redefined \(just like the word 'organic'\) by others to solidify the concept.
1.5.12.6.8.5.1. Pro: The word vegan may be confusing, only because it is possibly a half-baked idea by someone just trying to introduce it to the world. It's up to the world to advance the term into something usable, as one person can only go so far with an idea.
1.5.12.6.9. Pro: Having an arbitrary definition creates issues that push veganism into being short-lived or prevent it from emerging. We should not waste our time until the issues are resolved and the vegan movement can sustain itself into the long-term.
1.5.12.6.9.1. Pro: One of these issues is endless debates, in which people might decide not to be vegan since they would not know how to or see injustice in some people not following it as much as others. This would make everyone being vegan a greater issue than now, as it'll take people away from focusing on how to be or stay vegan.
1.5.12.6.9.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.12.6.3.3.
1.5.12.6.9.2. Pro: If people try to be vegan and find out they are doing it incorrectly, they will have a disliking and distrust towards the idea and decide not to follow it \(not to mention telling others about their bad experience, so they decide not to either\). This makes the world going vegan really difficult to accomplish.
1.5.12.6.9.3. Pro: If sources try to provide their own idea of what the arbitrary definition entails and people realize that each source has conflicting information with each other, then people may never figure out how to become vegan, even if they want to, solely out of distrust of information and lack of support.
1.5.12.6.10. Pro: Because the definition's focus is on reduction and not elimination, animal exploitation could still take place.
1.5.12.6.10.1. Con: This approach might be detrimental to the animal cause. In terms of consumption levels, 10% [reducetarians](https://reducetarian.org/faq) would deprive of more profits to the meat industry than 1% vegans. Especially when taking into account for how long. Portraying Veganism as something difficult or purity-related may cause that Vegans [abandon their diet](https://faunalytics.org/a-summary-of-faunalytics-study-of-current-and-former-vegetarians-and-vegans/) or label and most to not even consider it. If everyone would do the best they could \(whatever that is\) there would be no animal abuse.
1.5.12.6.10.2. Pro: For example, the part "as far and is possible and practical" could loosely be interpreted to get someone to eat less meat than before, without getting rid of it completely. Thus, they still contribute to cruelty/exploitation even when following the diet/lifestyle.
1.5.12.6.10.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.11.6.1.1.
1.5.12.6.10.3. Pro: People can justify calling themselves vegan and get away with exploitation animals, just by saying that they are trying to reduce exploitation rather than actually doing it.
1.5.12.6.10.4. Con: The issue with complete elimination of animal exploitation is that it would be incredibly restricting and difficult to accomplish, making reduction a better method than complete elimination.
1.5.12.6.10.4.1. Pro: Today's definition of veganism typically involves avoiding animal products that directly come from it, such as [meat, eggs, dairy, honey, wool, etc](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/vegvsnonveg-130123001435-phpapp01-160909190908/95/vegetarian-and-non-vegetarian-food-4-638.jpg?cb=1473448497). Elimination would mean indirect products too, such as crops pollinated by [artificially populated](https://ocba.wildapricot.org/Bees/Resources) or [farmed bees](https://homeguides.sfgate.com/plants-pollinate-greenhouse-48465.html) too. Removing those from a person's life would be difficult and too limiting than the typical idea of what veganism is.
1.5.12.6.11. Pro: -> See 1.5.12.4.8.
1.5.12.7. Pro: Just proclaiming everyone being vegan would get a lot of people to agree, but that's woefully under-specified as to how exactly that would be achieved. Without a direction on how to proceed and make worldwide veganism actually possible, it'll be difficult to realistically accomplish.
1.5.12.7.1. Pro: People may mistake something as vegan when it is not, so that could lead to an emergence of non-vegan components in a society that would consider themselves vegan.
1.6. Pro: Individuals who follow a vegan lifestyle are better off than those who don't.
1.6.1. Pro: Societal advancements towards veganism improve everyone's lives. Through intellect, any substitution and improvement is possible.
1.6.1.1. Pro: [Consumer demand](https://www.amazon.com/Growing-Up-Green-Child-Bestselling/dp/1416541241) could drive veganism advancements through changing and removing industries. One pivotal event displaying this is the replacement of [whale oil with kerosene](http://www.petroleumhistory.org/OilHistory/pages/Whale/whale.html).
1.6.1.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.11.2.7.2.1.
1.6.1.2. Pro: Since people eat more varieties of plants on a vegan diet than an omnivorous one, people can learn about, appreciate, and have a desire to protect biodiversity more.
1.6.1.2.1. Pro: Their habits also naturally protect biodiversity, because of the safeguarding of species out of consumer demand.
1.6.1.2.1.1. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.6.4.4.
1.6.1.2.2. Pro: More uncultured land \(from fewer livestock\) means more biodiversity - different species and other plant foods with different nutritional values. Combined, the variety of food and nutritional options increases for the vegan consumer.
1.6.2. Pro: People can have vegan activities that fill their time just as well as non-vegan ones.
1.6.2.1. Pro: People do not need to create art \(for health, like art therapy\) with non-vegan materials \(like [chalk](http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Chalk.html) or [animal products in paint](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/vegan-art-supplies-1039508)\) in the digital age \(like electronics to create digital art\).
1.6.2.1.1. Con: In order to produce digital devices, much of environment downgraded and much pollution is produced.
1.6.2.2. Pro: People could replace non-vegan [hobbies](http://www.notsoboringlife.com/list-of-hobbies/), like hunting, fishing, beach-combing, and building aquariums, with vegan ones like kayaking, yoga, genealogy, and robotics.
1.6.2.3. Pro: People can have an active life with activities that are vegan and have the same health benefits as those that are not. For instance, one could experience anywhere from fun to winning competitions doing mechanical bull rides as much as horseback riding.
1.6.2.4. Pro: People could swim in the ocean instead of pools \(which use [diatomaceous earth \(DE\) filters](http://www.poolcenter.com/dePoolFilter)\).
1.6.2.4.1. Pro: If a person owns a swimming pool, then they could switch to a [plant-based filter](https://www.poolsupplies.com/product/fiber-clear-filter-media), which is an an alternative to DE ones.
1.6.2.5. Pro: Instead of going to zoos and animal circuses, one could be around animals by visiting nature \(like a [national park, sanctuary, or preserve](http://www.americanvegan.org/howtobevegan.html)\) or viewing it through a [webcam](http://explore.org/).
1.6.3. Con: Plant fabrics, like [cotton](https://rodaleinstitute.org/chemical-cotton/), might contain pesticides, which are bad for health.
1.6.3.1. Con: This can be prevented by buying [organic cotton](http://web.archive.org/web/20180126184950/https://www.organiccotton.org/oc/Organic-cotton/Agronomic-practice/Pest-management.php).
1.6.4. Pro: People's wellbeing is improved by leading a vegan lifestyle.
1.6.5. Pro: Veganism sets life up for efficiency, as it is both [utilitarianistic](https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080708064040AAuo70s) and [minimalistic](https://www.vegansociety.com/whats-new/blog/minimalism-and-veganism-crossover).
1.6.5.1. Pro: Veganism is a total liberation attitude. Not depending/relying on animals \(human or non-human\) for survival/existence is freeing to a person, because that level of independence allows people to have greater freedom \(and sense of it\).
1.6.6. Con: Inability to share and fully experience the traditional food of one's own and others' cultures is a deprivation.
1.6.6.1. Pro: Being unable to share or accept food from others prevents the social bonding and cultural enrichment which is based in such sharing and experiences of food culture.
1.6.7. Con: The alienation of being vegan in an overwhelmingly non-vegan world could have detrimental mental health consequences.
1.6.7.1. Pro: Although this wouldn't be a problem if all humans were vegan, the period of the world's transition to veganism could be seriously damaging to people vulnerable to the psychological harmfulness of alienation.
1.6.7.2. Pro: If all of humanity were forced to be vegan, then the world would be divided between those who do and don't agree with the ban on animal products, again causing harmful division and alienation.
1.6.8. Con: Being vegan would limit people's opportunities for experiences important to one's development and life.
1.6.8.1. Pro: Humans would not be able to interact with nature in a fulfilling and exciting way, which would make society worse off overall.
1.6.8.1.1. Con: The notion that a fulfilling and/or exciting way to interact with nature must imply restraining, exploiting or killing animals is unfounded. There is no reason to think \(and certainly there is no evidence\) that vegans, on average, interact with nature in a less fulfilling and/or exciting way compared to non vegans.
1.6.8.1.1.1. Pro: There are many possibilites of interacting with or learning about nature that do not require killing or exploiting animals - like going visiting wildlife parks, hiking / mountain climbing, photography, visting museums, watching nature documentaries, working at animal shelters.
1.6.8.1.2. Pro: Hunting and fishing are examples of interacting with nature in a fulfilling and exciting way.
1.6.8.1.2.1. Con: Hunting could still be allowed under more restrictive circumstances \(e.g. where population control is actually needed\).
1.6.8.1.2.2. Con: Virtual hunting and fishing could be a sufficient replacement.
1.6.8.1.2.2.1. Con: There is something uniquely satisfying about killing an animal for food and eating it that is lost when hunting or fishing virtually.
1.6.8.1.2.2.1.1. Con: Killing an animal and eating it is not necessary for a happy life.
1.6.8.1.2.3. Con: -> See 1.1.3.6.
1.6.8.1.3. Pro: -> See 1.4.11.7.7.
1.6.8.1.4. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.8.7.
1.6.8.1.5. Pro: -> See 1.3.12.1.8.8.2.1.1.
1.6.8.1.6. Pro: If people never ate meat, they would be deprived of a fulfilling experience.
1.6.8.1.6.1. Con: Often, people don't know about many other foods and are therefore deprived of a fulfilling experience.
1.6.8.1.6.2. Con: Choosing to remain abstinent from something that is \(potentially\) harmful is not the same as deprivation.
1.6.8.1.6.3. Con: If someone never ate meat, they wouldn't miss it.
1.6.8.1.6.3.1. Pro: Refraining from an activity because you recognize its harmful impact is not the same as "missing out". Some people choose to never drink or smoke because of that reason.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2. Pro: Meat does not necessarily taste good. People would not be fulfilled from eating it if they never have before. They also benefit from being deprived of a negative \(potentially traumatizing\) situation.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.1. Pro: Many children will remember being coaxed or forced to eat certain things even if they didn't like them, including some meats and meat products, causing them to dislike the taste.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.2. Con: Many people are conditioned to like the taste of meat, so many people like it. This conditioning is difficult to change.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.2.1. Con: This does not count or mean we should eat meat, as people can be conditioned to like the taste of vegan foods as well.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.2.1.1. Pro: A few generations ago, people were conditioned to be skeptical of homosexuality and still we have legalized gay marriage today. It is possible to change social conditioning.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.2.2. Pro: People might get angry if something they are used to for long and is ingrained into their lives so well suddenly gets taken away from them.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.2.2.1. Con: Meat would not be taken away overnight.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.3. Pro: Getting everyone vegan will allow the many people who do not like the taste of meat to enjoy the great taste of vegan foods.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.3.1. Con: We should not transition to vegan foods if they do not taste better than meat \(as some vegan foods taste worse than meat\).
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.3.1.1. Con: This a false equivalency. You do not have to replace steak by a perfect vegan copy, you can find meals that you like just as much and that happen to be vegan.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.4. Pro: Taste is subjective.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.6.1.4.1.1.1.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.4.2. Pro: Many vegans do not experience cravings for animal products after some months / years of being vegan.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.5. Pro: It's the spices, i.e. plants, and thermic processing make meat taste good. Raw meat is inedible for most.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.6. Pro: Many people dislike the taste of meat, eggs, milk or cheese. It's subjective.
1.6.8.1.6.3.2.7. Con: Meat's taste is not a valid argument because vegetables also taste bad. Yet, nobody tries to ban them
1.6.8.2. Pro: No human should be denied the experience of feeling like an apex predator after feasting on the flesh of a conquered beast.
1.6.8.3. Pro: If people went vegan, they may not gain the same level of happiness as if they weren't vegan. That would make them miss out on living life to their greatest potential.
1.6.8.4. Con: People can only have one experience at a time, and thus can only prioritize seeing best \(instead of being able to\). If they choose poorly, they will miss out on the best experiences, vegan or non-vegan. Thus, it should not matter whether or not we go vegan, because we miss out either way.
1.6.8.4.1. Con: If people miss out, it can be replayed for them through media \(like photo and video\), as long as one person experiences and shares it. If everyone is vegan however, no one will be able to see non-vegan experiences, because they can never happen and thus never shared.
1.6.8.5. Con: Vegan experiences might even trump non-vegan ones in precedence and insights.
1.6.8.6. Con: People could learn about non-vegan lifestyles and ways in school without actually participating in it.
1.6.8.6.1. Pro: This is true of many tendencies of the past that we just learn about instead of actively participate in.
1.6.8.6.2. Pro: Non-vegan modes could be recreated through vegan means to learn from them without actually participating.
1.6.8.7. Con: If people aren't vegan, then animals would miss out on important experiences when they are eaten.
1.6.8.7.1. Con: Animals get to have experiences when they are bred as livestock and wouldn't have experiences if they aren't born.
1.6.8.8. Con: Many non-vegan experiences are negative, even potentially traumatizing, whereas vegan experiences are not as much. Thus, people will have more positive influences on their experiences and live towards a happier, more moral life with their vegan experiences instead.
1.7. Pro: Veganism as a worldwide behavioral [public health intervention strategy](http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/faculty/detels/PH150/Detels_Intervention.pdf) improves community/[population health](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690307/) outcomes.
1.7.1. Con: Veganism can lead to depopulation, which is detrimental to humankind.
1.7.1.1. Pro: Some agendas within the vegan population encourage depopulation, such as [antinatalism](https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a14751412/antinatalism/).
1.7.1.2. Con: Depopulation is beneficial to the humanity's survival, as it will help sustain the human population at a steady rate.
1.7.1.2.1. Pro: The world is overpopulated for various reasons, and animal agriculture is a main contributor. Veganism can protect against overpopulation and its effects through depopulation \(if it is mild\) to make the worldwide quality-of-living higher than now.
1.7.1.3. Con: Vegans, with their healthier diet and lifestyles, will [tend to live longer](https://prime.peta.org/2012/11/longer). Depopulation is fine then, because the slower birth rate will even out with the longer ages.
1.7.1.3.1. Pro: Without depopulation accommodating longer lifespans, overpopulation's effects, like overcrowding, would most likely occur \(evident by today's similar situation\).
1.7.1.4. Con: Depopulation with veganism is beneficial to humankind, because the longer people live, the more resources they use. Lower population numbers allows the vegans alive to better utilize the resources around them, as they would not have to compete with newer people for the same resources.
1.7.1.4.1. Pro: This is especially true, as everyone would be going after and needing to share the same resources, as everyone would be eating the same food and having the same lifestyles as each other worldwide.
1.7.1.5. Pro: A vegan diet has been shown to [lower fertility](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11172519/Vegetarians-have-much-lower-sperm-counts.html), making a task of reproduction \(one of the [key functions of any living organism](http://www.web-formulas.com/Biology_Topics/Living_Organism_and_Its_Functions.aspx)\) more difficult to achieve. Therefore, it cannot be an optimal, or even healthy, diet for humans as species.
1.7.1.6. Con: Since veganism would increase the [carrying capacity](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/carrying-capacity) of the planet, the greater population size would then need to spend more resources on [infrastructure](https://blueprint.cbre.com/more-people-more-infrastructure-the-big-city-challenge/) \(housing, transportation, etc.\), undermining the resource savings that it creates.
1.7.1.6.1. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.1.5.1.2.
1.7.1.6.2. Con: This shouldn't be much of a worry, as even though cement contributes to [5%](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/cement-soaks-greenhouse-gases) of the greenhouse gases worldwide, it does [absorb CO2](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/cement-soaks-greenhouse-gases), thereby reducing its contribution by [almost half](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/cement-soaks-greenhouse-gases) \(and is a [better absorber](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/cement-soaks-greenhouse-gases) than even forests, by over double\).
1.7.2. Pro: According to this [study](http://www.pnas.org/content/113/15/4146), the healthcare savings are greatest on a vegan diet. Its lowest greenhouse gas emissions avoids common preventable diseases from occurring, like "coronary heart disease \(CHD\), stroke, type 2 diabetes \(T2DM\), and cancer".
1.7.2.1. Pro: Red meats are linked to certain types of cancers which become very costly from a medical standpoint. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality \(AHRQ\), cancer related treatment cost the U.S. [$80.2 billion](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/economic-impact-of-cancer.html) in 2015 alone.
1.7.3. Pro: Veganism will be feasible for everyone to adopt once it is normalized and made accessible for everyone.
1.7.4. Con: A better strategy to improve the population health outcome is faster technological/scientific advancement \(from more minds in a larger population\), which can have a bigger effect on survival than limiting resource consumption does.
1.7.4.1. Pro: More people alive means more chances for humans to survive.
1.7.4.1.1. Pro: People could spread out more with more people, increasing the diversity of environments to decrease the risk of everyone getting affected by the same issue at the same time.
1.7.4.2. Pro: With more technology and science, we could find ways to utilize resources better and find more resources to be able to consumer more without issue \(rather than less\).
1.7.4.3. Pro: Resource consumption is difficult to manage, as people find a way around regulation to tap into and take pristine, scarce resources and deplete it until it's gone \(as they're not under a 'watchful eye' then\).
1.7.4.4. Con: Technological/scientific advancement in reality is not fast enough, because we don't prioritize it much \(financially, politically, socially, etc.\), even though we need to.
1.7.4.5. Con: Even if we develop more technologies and science, if we don't implement it, it's practically useless.
1.7.5. Pro: -> See 1.4.10.5.
1.7.6. Pro: Veganism can help stop the spread of [communicable](https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/communicable%20disease) \(i.e. infectious\) diseases that become contagious to other humans due to: raising \(ex: [swine flu](https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/flu-guide/h1n1-flu-virus-swine-flu)\) and eating animal products \(ex: [e. coli](https://stopfoodborneillness.org/pathogen/escherichia-coli-e-coli/)\) for consumable purposes \(ex: [toxoplasmosis](https://stopfoodborneillness.org/pathogen/toxoplasmosis/)\), which'll to increase the health of human populations overall.
1.7.6.1. Pro: Communicable, contagious diseases that are associated with produce come from [animal sources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114507/), so there's a reduction in contamination from vegan foods when animal products are eliminated too to prevent secondary sources from infecting and transmitting between humans too to cause issues for the health of populations.
1.7.6.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.20.4.
1.7.6.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.20.2.
1.7.6.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.20.1.
1.7.7. Pro: This would make the world [one big blue zone](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/blue-zones)! Good for all in terms of life extension.
1.7.8. Con: -> See 1.2.4.3.2.1.8.
1.7.9. Pro: -> See 1.5.12.3.6.
1.7.10. Con: If pesticides are used on crops \(especially greater use with GMO crops resistant to pesticides\), then a vegan diet might not be healthier for [populations nearby growing areas](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/23/hawaii-birth-defects-pesticides-gmo).
1.8. Con: Veganism is not feasible for less privileged societies or individuals.
1.8.1. Con: A balanced vegan diet is cheaper than a balanced diet that includes meat.
1.8.1.1. Pro: [A study](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19320248.2015.1045675?journalCode=when20) comparing a healthy diet that included meat, and a healthy diet that did not, found that the non-meat diet saved over $700 a year.
1.8.1.1.1. Con: -> See 1.2.3.6.2.
1.8.1.1.2. Con: This study is geographically constrained to the USA, so it cannot be used to support the claim that a vegan diet is cheaper everywhere.
1.8.1.2. Pro: Some [NGOs](https://ffl.org/food-yoga/why-vegan/) who fight hunger across the world only provide vegetal foods. Main reason is the lower cost.
1.8.1.3. Con: Real life experience, including all supplements and so on, shows that a vegan diet is far more expensive.
1.8.1.4. Con: Replacing all non-food animal products is extremely expensive.
1.8.1.4.1. Pro: Experimenting to find the right vegan foods can be expensive, as it is inefficient and wasteful in finding what to eat \(for instance, the cost of throwing out food that does not taste nice or turns out not to be vegan is pricier than just buying what is known to work\).
1.8.1.5. Pro: Staple vegan foods, like rice and beans are [very cheap](https://greatist.com/health/44-healthy-foods-under-1), and in fact are a staple for much of the 'less privileged' societies in the world.
1.8.1.5.1. Pro: China's demand for meat [has increased as it got richer](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/may/30/food.china1). [This trend follows in other developing countries](https://www.voanews.com/a/decapua-farm-animals-29mar12-144898655/179917.html). The poor still eat rice and vegetables, [which even the WHO knows is a more efficient use of resources](http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index4.html)
1.8.1.6. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.5.
1.8.1.7. Pro: Veganism is more economically feasible for less privileged societies than feeding, raising, butchering, and refrigerating livestock.
1.8.1.7.1. Pro: Rice and beans can be grown in some of the worst arable agriculture conditions imaginable \([USDA Hardiness Zones](https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/) 9b-10a\) and is a staple food in poorer parts of developing nations including [China](http://adoptionnutrition.org/nutrition-by-country/china/). [Meat dependence increases with a nations wealth, not decreases.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Per-capita-gross-domestic-product-GDP-and-meat-consumption-by-country-2005-source_fig2_273483292)
1.8.1.7.2. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.5.1.
1.8.1.7.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.3.6.5.
1.8.2. Con: This statement is true but it also affirms that for most humans veganism should be adopted as a norm.
1.8.3. Pro: Many consumers and producers would suffer economically without animal agriculture.
1.8.3.1. Pro: The move to veganism would cause mass unemployment as farming, beekeeping, meat processing, and many other jobs would end. This would cause massive poverty, much as the [deindustrialisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindustrialization) has done already but on a larger scale.
1.8.3.1.1. Pro: Meat is not the only product from meat-industry, going vegan will affect farming practices, since meat [by-products](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_product) are also used as fertilizers as well as in other chemical production utilizing [bones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_char), [fat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallow), [hair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_fiber) and [hooves](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5792a41a59cc68d6c93ced4f/t/5a78e0f4652deabd9163410b/1517871349410/Industrial_Application.pdf) + [horns](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23410124) \(last 3 are major source of keratin\) to mention a few.  This will have a dramatic impact on many economies.
1.8.3.1.2. Con: The [demand](https://healthcaretrends24.com/106826/vegan-mayonnaise-market-higher-mortality-rates-by-2025/) for more vegan products \([plant milks](https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/22/why-im-switching-from-milk-to-silk.aspx), meat substitutes, etc\) is already causing a [shift in businesses](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/soy-milks-popularity-a-headache-for-dairy-industry-2014-07-19). Animal-based companies worldwide are already profiting in the production more vegan-friendly products \([Unilever](http://www.grubstreet.com/2016/02/hellmanns-very-ironic-vegan-mayo.html), [McDonald's](https://www.mcdonalds.co.za/menuItem/veggie-burger-meal)\) and [new vegan companies are on the rise](http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=6471&catId=8).
1.8.3.1.2.1. Pro: This could allow the people that lose employment in non-vegan industries could gain them in the vegan ones. It could possibly lead to more jobs than ever before!
1.8.3.1.2.1.1. Pro: Non-vegan industries might not have as much automation as older industries, which would at least lead to a temporary job boom. One example of an industry switch could be from [coal to renewable energy](https://www.fromtheashesfilm.com/).
1.8.3.1.2.1.2. Pro: Biofuel is so new and advanced, that this vegan industry can generate skilled jobs.
1.8.3.1.2.1.3. Con: Workers would have trouble applying their meat-processing skills in other \(i.e. vegan\) industries, because they aren't transferable.
1.8.3.1.3. Con: Business will adapt as they always do. This move to veganism would come on several generations so there is time for market to adapt and to do the transition.
1.8.3.1.4. Con: One can argue for keeping every industry alive for the sake of jobs, no matter how harmful. Under this premise, we could never achieve progress and change.
1.8.3.1.5. Con: This would be a short term effect and would not \(in and of itself\) make society worse off in the longer term, especially if replaced by other industries which may require more or less labour inputs.
1.8.3.1.5.1. Pro: Ultimately the same amount of food would need to be produced. As such demand for workers in non animal based farming would increase. Varieties of non-animal products would also increase to account for the diversity of products desired by consumers \(think about the variety of crisps or candy currently in the market place\) this would result in emergence of various niche non animal products and related industry. A good example is faux leather made from mycelium.
1.8.3.2. Pro: Countries would be less self sufficient, and thus more vulnerable to global market and diplomatic volatility, in a vegan society because they would depend more on imports.
1.8.3.2.1. Pro: Many vegan staples are [imported from across the globe](https://goodfoodcentre.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/where-veganism-gets-food-security-wrong/). Items such as quinoa, coconut products, palm oil products, avocados, and tropical super foods are yearlong staples for many vegans.
1.8.3.2.1.1. Con: 'Super foods' is not a term specifically used for vegans. The Dutch dietary association gives fat fish as example of a super food, in their critique on super foods, which is obviously not vegan. Vegans can easily live without a fad called super foods.
1.8.3.2.1.2. Con: Quinoa, coconut products, palm oil products, avocados and tropical super foods are not necessary in a vegan diet, they are used for variation and their taste, but that is how they are used by any demographic.
1.8.3.2.1.3. Pro: People would have less choices if food only grows in their country, as not every part of the country might be suited for growing vegan food.
1.8.3.2.1.4. Con: Imported food tends to be less ethical than local food.
1.8.3.2.1.4.1. Pro: People are more likely able to know, see, and act on local food if there are ethical issues with it \(such as cutting into endangered species' land\).
1.8.3.2.1.4.2. Pro: Foods imported to the US tend to utilize animals more in the process \(such as [monkeys to get coconuts](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/19/448960760/monkeys-pick-coconuts-in-thailand-are-they-abused-or-working-animals)\).
1.8.3.2.1.4.3. Pro: Many vegan foods have a fair trade label, because one was needed due to the exploits necessitating one for those foods.
1.8.3.2.1.4.4. Pro: Foods imported could have negative associations, such as ['blood avocados' and their relations to drug trafficking](https://www.thefix.com/blood-avocados-and-their-ties-drug-trafficking).
1.8.3.2.1.4.4.1. Pro: This means that money that could go towards peaceful local foods with community end up in the hands of corrupt individuals and organizations \(such as cartels in the article\).
1.8.3.2.1.5. Con: The vegan society is very critical toward the use of palm oil \([vegansociety.com](https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/general-faqs)\), so calling it a vegan staple is dishonest as many vegans try to avoid palm oil.
1.8.3.2.1.6. Con: Imported foods tend to be less healthy than local foods.
1.8.3.2.1.6.1. Pro: Imported foods to the US contain more [pesticides](https://are.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/emeriti/roberta-cook/articles-and-presentations/imported-vs-domestically-produced-fruits-and-vegetables-there-di/).
1.8.3.2.1.6.1.1. Pro: Countries with [less restrictions](http://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/pesticides-in-imported-produce/) create greater pesticide issues.
1.8.3.2.1.6.2. Pro: Imported foods contain or grown around chemicals that are banned in the country taking in the imports.
1.8.3.2.1.6.2.1. Pro: One example is US importing foods from China \([1](https://www.davidwolfe.com/10-foods-china-plastic-pesticides-cancer-causing-chemicals/), [2](http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2014/04/09/truth-about-tilapia.html), [3](http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38957549)\).
1.8.3.2.1.6.3. Pro: Imported foods use more food miles, which means those foods are not allowed to ripen on the plant as much as local foods.
1.8.3.2.1.7. Pro: These imported foods, such as [quinoa](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jul/17/quinoa-threat-food-security-improving-peruvian-farmers-lives-superfood), tend to keep alive ancient cultural foods around in the ever-changing globalized world.
1.8.3.2.2. Con: Living sustainably and in an environmentally-friendly way is not specific to the vegan or non-vegan life-style. Buying more seasonal and local produce is possible for vegans and non-vegans.
1.8.3.2.3. Con: A pressurised economy is a benefit as it can lead to a more positive change in society.
1.8.3.2.3.1. Pro: People would need to get innovative, both on the grower side \(figuring out which vegan foods can be grown locally that people can eat\) and the consumer end \(choosing foods that are not imported\).
1.8.3.2.4. Con: This will not be an issue, as vegan food is grown in [practically every country](https://static.secure.website/wscfus/1897311/uploads/crops_map_fao.png) \(even [similar crops](https://www.targetmap.com/ThumbnailsReports/17660_THUMB_IPAD.jpg) are grown worldwide, so there are no worries about nutritional imbalances\).
1.8.3.2.5. Con: As people become vegan, their new values align with making more local choices in the process.
1.8.3.2.5.1. Pro: One of them is eco-friendly choices. This means that vegans will make countries more self-sufficient by choosing local produce \(like at farmers markets\).
1.8.3.2.5.1.1. Con: Non-vegan options are also available at farmers markets too.
1.8.3.2.5.2. Pro: To avoid cheap labor for goods, people might seek out local artists for innovative faux products \(like clothing and accessories\).
1.8.3.2.5.3. Pro: People within countries benefit for a less globalized economy, because their wages will not be cut by a lower competitor of a country with impoverishing wages.
1.8.3.2.6. Con: In the future, countries are going to be more self-sufficient, as the trends are heading towards there anyway \(mostly independent of veganism\). This means that a vegan society will be more local than the previous one regardless.
1.8.3.2.6.1. Pro: All foods are going to get harder to grow due to climate change. This should not stop people from going vegan. If anything, this pressure will push people to be more vegan, as vegan foods will be easier to grow then than meat.
1.8.3.2.6.1.1. Pro: People are going to want vegan food instead of meat, because people realize meat is a great contributor to climate change.
1.8.3.2.6.1.2. Pro: Vegan food has more options during climate change, because their supply will be less hit-and-miss with the unpredictability of climate change.
1.8.3.2.6.1.2.1. Pro: On [60 minutes](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/seaweed-farming-and-its-surprising-benefits/), a fisherman turned to kelp farming, because the fishing is hard to find \(especially when ocean animals move to seek colder waters\).
1.8.3.2.6.1.3. Pro: Vegan food takes less resources to grow, which will be easier to choose in scarce times \(like low water reserves\)
1.8.3.2.6.1.4. Pro: Plants will be able to [handle](https://www.southernliving.com/home-garden/gardens/drought-tolerant-plants) the hotter weather more than livestock, which will make vegan food a sound decision over meat as the planet warms up.
1.8.3.2.6.1.5. Pro: If vegan foods are grown in vertical farms, they'll help with surviving the new conditions \(as they can be placed anywhere and uses much less resources than current agricultural practices\).
1.8.3.2.6.2. Pro: Local food will be easier to implement when [megacities](http://parisinnovationreview.com/articles-en/agriculture-future-technologies-light) emerge, as farm innovations \(vertical, indoor, and rooftop\) could feed the masses more better than current production methods than the suburban/rural demographics of today.
1.8.3.2.6.3. Pro: The US under the Trump era, advocate and have their goal to reach for emphasizing a local economy.
1.8.3.2.6.4. Pro: Rewilding is a [movement](https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/rewilding/human-rewilding1.htm) that could lead to foraging for food \(extremely local\) as lands gain wild plants again.
1.8.3.2.7. Pro: Not every country has favorable [cropland](https://cropmonitor.org/img/about/Synthesis_Crops.jpg) for vegan crops to grow on.
1.8.3.2.8. Con: Importing soy fed beef makes countries more dependent than importing [only a portion](https://www.simply-live-consciously.com/english/food-resources/food-consumption-of-animals/) of the soy for human consumption \(same also with the grain\), because soy fed beef requires more soy than human consumption alone. The greater absolute total for soy-fed beef creates a greater dependence on soy, if soy is a factor in creating that.
1.8.3.3. Pro: Animal rights organizations go north to Arctic communities and tell the Inuit populations that hunting seal is unethical and morally wrong. These same communities are then expected to [rely on imports from southern regions](https://goodfoodcentre.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/where-veganism-gets-food-security-wrong/) that are outrageously expensive.
1.8.3.3.1. Pro: Veganism is too hard for people to follow and adopt, making a vegan world nearly impossible.
1.8.3.3.1.1. Con: Veganism, unlike what most people believe, is super [easy to adopt](http://features.peta.org/how-to-go-vegan/) and absolutely [feasible](https://www.vegansociety.com/whats-new/blog/cost-vegan-diet-international-perspective).
1.8.3.3.1.1.1. Pro: The level of difficulty people may have in adopting veganism is not fixed. Certain factors can make it more or less difficult.
1.8.3.3.1.1.1.1. Pro: Witnessing the suffering of animals farmed and slaughtered for food can decrease a person's motivation to eat animal products.
1.8.3.3.1.1.1.2. Pro: Greater availability of high-quality cheap vegan foods makes it easier to adopt and adhere to a vegan diet.
1.8.3.3.1.1.2. Pro: If veganism were "too hard" no one could go vegan. Yet, [tens of millions](https://nichehacks.com/vegan-niche/) of people are vegan already and millions more will in just [2019](https://www.livekindly.co/nearly-3-million-people-vegan-2019-survey-finds/) alone. So with this possibility, the argument for the world going vegan isn't fallacious, nor irrelevant.
1.8.3.3.1.1.2.1. Con: Thousands of people are professional athletes but most people lack the desire or dedication to train to that level. So it is with veganism. Claiming that "some" can do it therefore "everyone" can do is it fallacious.
1.8.3.3.1.1.3. Pro: While it is hard to follow at first and takes a while to adjust, once one starts to notice [feeling better](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/natural-health/health-benefits-within-one-week-of-eating-a-plant-based-diet/) from it, it will get easier.
1.8.3.3.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.2.
1.8.3.3.1.3. Con: The most difficult part of being vegan is breaking non-vegan habits because taste is habitual. Once these habits are broken, veganism is cheaper, easier and \(in most cases\) healthier
1.8.3.3.1.4. Pro: -> See 1.5.12.6.
1.8.3.3.1.5. Con: When "the world" is defined to be the Indian subcontinent, a large fraction of society became largely vegetarian [a long time ago](https://www.indianchild.com/vegetarianism_in_india.htm), before free communication at scale as we have today. Evidently, the claim that it's so hard that it'll never happen is false - it has already happened in one society.
1.8.3.3.1.5.1. Pro: The number of vegetarians in India is so large, that it would be the [third largest country](https://www.quora.com/Why-are-most-Indians-vegetarian) in the world today.
1.8.3.3.1.6. Pro: There are many psychopaths that can never go vegan because they don't have any compassion and, hence, don't care about the morality of veganism.
1.8.3.3.1.6.1. Pro: In order to say that humans should be vegan, humans need to be able to become vegan. This is known as [Ought Implies Can](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ought_implies_can).
1.8.3.3.1.6.1.1. Con: The "Ought Implies Can" argument is widely debated, and is challenged by the "[Is-Ought Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem)" argument.
1.8.3.3.1.6.2. Con: Given that lack of compassion would interfere with following many of the moral codes we use to structure society \(e.g. prohibiting violence\), we should not base our view of what society to strive for based on whether it would work for a small group that is already at odds with our social norms.
1.8.3.3.1.6.3. Con: Psychopaths are likely to be under someone else's care that would be responsible for their intakes. So this isn't an issue, as they'd be vegan in this circumstance.
1.8.3.3.1.7. Pro: Converting to veganism is like converting to a religion. Its strict adherence requirements to its beliefs and practices would be deemed too extreme by some.
1.8.3.3.1.7.1. Pro: Vegetarianism is still ethical and gives more choice.
1.8.3.3.1.7.2. Pro: A vegan diet means having to read absolutely everything on the ingredient list of absolutely everything that is not marked as vegan. This means also doing a research to find out if some unfamiliar ingredients are vegan or not. All this requires lots of effort and time.
1.8.3.3.1.7.2.1. Con: This is no different than any other diet. An omnivore reads labels thoroughly too, otherwise people wouldn't be so worried about issues like pesticides and grain/grass fed that it would need to be on the label.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3. Pro: True veganism \("vegan purity"\) is nearly impossible to achieve and persist with for a long time. That would make the chances of global adoption pretty slim.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.1. Pro: The extension of [animal exploitation and by-products](https://www.thoughtco.com/is-there-no-such-thing-as-vegan-127588) in seemingly vegan items makes it almost unreachable.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2. Con: People can make minimal, practically unnoticeable vegan substitutions to their non-vegan lifestyle; so they won't notice enough to worry or miss out on its favorable aspects.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.1. Pro: This is a benefit, because when people who consume non-vegan products switch to vegan ones, they will not miss/crave them anymore.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.2. Con: Vegan substitutes help solve the problem of animal cruelty. But the increase of its consumption is not regulated and generates other sustainability related issues

.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.2.1. Pro: Market pressures on local prices reduces affordability for local populations for which it is a staple food for 4,000 years. In [Bolivia and Peru, quinoa](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/01/quinoa_bad_for_bolivian_and_peruvian_farmers_ignore_the_media_hand_wringing.html) causes this issue.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.2.2. Pro: Fair Trade programs are [outdated and sometimes inefficient](https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_problem_with_fair_trade_coffee)
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.2.3. Pro: Quinoa is very thirsty to grow, especially in with monoculture/industrial methods. Local water resources are getting depleted.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.2.3.1. Pro: Monoculture crops can also lead to a [drop in the local biodiversity](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/food-system-monocultures-gm-un-diversity-day).
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.2.4. Pro: Market regulation for superfoods are too relaxed, pressured by the boom of the demand. This causes issues at times, like in the [supply chain and with sustainability](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/magazine/the-superfood-gold-rush.html).
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.3. Pro: Not only are vegan changes minimal, but an enhancement to a previous animal-inclusive life.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.3.1. Pro: Vegan food requires less processing than animal products.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.3.1.1. Pro: Vegans do not need to kill their food to eat it, whereas meat eaters do. Vegans can pick foliage and fruit from a plant without killing it. However, animals need to die in order to eat their flesh.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.3.1.2. Pro: Vegans are able to avoid cooking that animal products require to avoid food-borne illnesses.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.3.1.2.1. Pro: Raw milk is known for a host of [pathogens](https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html) if not cooked.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.3.1.2.2. Pro: Some animal products can avoid cooking, especially freshly-killed animals. However, it is a rarity for omnivores to avoid cooking, whereas the opposite occurs with vegans.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.4. Con: People who enjoy hunting will miss killing animals.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.4.1. Con: There are substitutes for hunting, such as video games, VR, and target practice in national forests. Better ones may also come along when people forgo hunting for veganism.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.4.2. Con: Trophy hunting is, in itself, completely unethical and wasteful. Hunting for the mere thrill of taking a life is diabolical. There is little difference between taking an animal or human life.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.5. Pro: If the majority of humans became vegan, science would focus on creating more and better vegan food, which would convince the other part of humanity to also become vegan.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.6. Con: Many of these vegan/vegetarian alternatives are [more processed](http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food/article/fake-meat-gets-real) than their meat counterparts. More processing is definitely less healthy than less.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.6.1. Con: If one makes meat alternatives at home \(like a raw veggie patty\), then it would require less processing than a meat patty \(which requires packaging and cooking\)
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.6.2. Con: "Processed = not healthy" is a [false implication](http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson12.html) and a [naturalistic fallacy](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/131/Naturalistic-Fallacy). Some forms of processing actually increase the availability of certain nutrients in foods, others simply improve texture or shelf life and don't harm the end product at all.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.6.2.1. Pro: Processing doesn't determine how healthy an item of food is. Meat can carry far more, and often worse, diseases which is infinitely more unhealthy than just "processed" food.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.6.2.1.1. Pro: If meat is raw and uncooked, then it is even less healthy than cooked, because of the diseases it carries that get 'removed' in the cooking process.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.6.3. Con: How processed a food is is not easily measurable, because criteria is difficult to determine \(Is it number of production steps? What is classified as a single step?\), If you include the effort you need to raise, keep, transport, medicate and slaughter animals, the steps increase dramatically for meat products than vegan ones.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.6.3.1. Con: Looking at all the steps, vegan foods tend to have a lot too \(except if picked yb the one eating it\), from buying seeds, to planting, watering, picking, packing, shipping, shelving, buying, processing, cooking, serving, and eating.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.7. Con: The difficulty of following and maintaining a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle almost exclusively stems from the prominent place of animal based products in society and culture; it has everything to do with the fact that it is - in today's society - hard to find good vegan ingredients, recipes, restaurants, street food, etc. and is in no way inherent to the diet itself.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.8. Pro: It's not an inconvenience to make these few substitutions for businesses, as many [seemingly vegan products](https://spoonuniversity.com/lifestyle/10-supposedly-vegan-foods-that-contain-animal-products) that are not there yet could easily be made vegan and customers will likely not notice.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.8.1. Pro: [Beer](https://www.vegan.com/beer/), [whiskey](https://veganvalor.com/is-whiskey-vegan/), and [french fries](https://veganfoodlover.com/are-french-fries-vegan/) are able to be vegan. So they're good enough that they don't need a change.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.8.1.1. Con: These vegan products are also made not vegan, so the ones with animal products would need to change to be vegan.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9. Pro: Switching out consumer products to vegan ones are possible to accomplish and easier than ever.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.1. Pro: People do not need to wear clothing from animal products to stay healthy, even in extreme weather.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.1.1. Pro: Leather is an inessential clothing material that can be replaced by [plant fibers](https://www.trustedclothes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/fiber-plants.png) if everyone went vegan.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.1.1.1. Pro: Because leather is a [byproduct of the meat industry](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/27/ethicalfashion.leather), it is a waste not to use it. However, if everyone went vegan, there would be no worries of wasting resources \(because the meat industry would not exist to create such byproduct\).
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.2. Pro: There are [vegan cosmetics](https://theaspiringvegans.com/how-to-identify-vegan-cosmetics/#more-356) that people can learn about and [buy](https://www.vegan.com/guides/makeup/) these days.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.3. Pro: Vegan jewelry, like gemstones \(excluding [amber](http://www.ambericawest.com/baltic/)\), bamboo beads, twine, [seeds](https://jennyhoople.com/shop/jobs-tears-seeds-ready-for-beading-andor-viable-for-growing/), and porcelain could replace [non-vegan ones](http://www.americanvegan.org/howtobevegan.html).
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.4. Pro: People can by soap bars without [tallowates](https://www.sharecare.com/health/skin-cleansing-products/what-is-sodium-tallowate), such as castille soap bars.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.5. Pro: People can find vegan options with pets.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.5.1. Pro: Vegan pets would be a better option than/replacement for human children in terms of veganism, as the kids might not have respect for animals or choose to consume animal products at some point in their life and with vegan pets, and one can insure that doesn't happen when having a pet.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.5.2. Pro: Pet foods with meat is not necessary to buy if people's pets are herbivores, such as [hamsters and rabbits](http://www.vegansouls.com/pets-for-vegan).
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.5.3. Pro: People can have [virtual](https://onlineclock.net/bg/aquarium/) or [robotic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKt29IqmOUs) aquariums instead of real ones.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.5.4. Pro: One could maintain wildlife's surrounding \(such as through cleaning up trash\), so they could be 'pets' that take care of themselves in their native habitat.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.5.5. Con: Veganism should not involve changing the diet of animals who require animal products, like cats, to a diet unnatural to them.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.5.5.1. Pro: Meat production cannot be stopped unless we stop keeping pets that require this food source altogether, which is unlikely to happen \(as people like and want pets\).
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.5.6. Con: -> See 1.3.12.1.8.8.2.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.6. Pro: People can make vegan choices for spaces they occupy without compromising quality and integrity.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.6.1. Pro: [Faux fur](https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/house-garden/furniture/best-faux-fur-rug-sheepskin-white-black-large-a7529266.html) rugs can replace traditional fur rugs.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.6.2. Pro: People do not need to make homes sourced with once-living materials \(like [marble](https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/acidrain/4.html) counter-tops\) to make it livable, safe, and healthy to live in when non-living materials work just as well \(like [granite](http://solidsurface.com/ideas-guides/materials/granite) counter-tops\)
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7. Con: Most of the vegan "alternatives" [taste horrible](https://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/best-fake-meat-vegetarian-substitutes).
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.1. Con: If it were true that vegan alternatives taste horrible, we wouldn't see an [increasing number](https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-opinion/rise-rise-veganism-global-market-14199168) of vegan shops, brands and alternatives.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.1.1. Pro: The demand for vegan alternatives are [growing faster](https://vegnews.com/2019/7/vegan-food-industry-now-worth-45-billion) than animal products are, so people do want more, regardless of taste.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.2. Con: It would be safe to assume that most omnivores have also had their share of bad animal-containing meals. Just because people might have had bad luck with some vegan products, that doesn't mean rest of the entire \(very diverse\) food group of animal alternatives outside of these would taste bad.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.3. Con: Meat can taste horrible too, yet we don't see that abandoned. We shouldn't abandon vegan alternatives either, just because they taste bad \(especially when they're always improving, unlike meat\).
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.4. Con: If people do not like the taste of vegan alternatives, they do not need to eat it when going vegan. This should not be a determinant in deciding whether the world goes vegan or not, because it is not a requirement.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.5. Pro: The reason that vegan alternatives don't taste great is because they have [extra chemicals \(like gums, stabilizers...\) and sometimes packaging](https://www.meghantelpner.com/blog/veggie-nightmares-the-horror-of-faux-meat/) that take away from the genuine taste that animals have.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.6. Pro: In addition to tasting bad, they also are more expensive and less nutritious.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.7. Pro: Most people are accustomed to meat and since the human palate is very fine-tuned to taste nuances, any little change would make an alternative not taste the same at best and horrible at worst.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.7.1. Con: They taste horrible with an omnivore palate \(or even a vegan's\). However, vegan alternatives are the 'lesser of two evils', because they taste slightly better than meat. This gets found out once people eat vegan alternatives and try to go back to eating meat. The meat tastes horrible in comparison and forces them, by default, back to the vegan alternatives.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.8. Pro: There are a lot of products on the market, and unfortunately vegans would have to taste many horrible vegan foods just to find the one rare one that does taste great, fi it even exists.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.9. Pro: Due to consumers being unwilling to sort through all the horrible products to get to the good ones, they would avoid the foods altogether. This prevents the industry from growing quickly to where it needs to be for taste, so vegans will have to endure not great tasting foods for a long time.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.9.1. Pro: The lack of innovation from a lack of demand creates an industry of not great tasting foods that take a long time for superstars to come out \(it took from [1896](https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/12/history-fake-meat/) to get to [Beyond Meat](https://populartimelines.com/timeline/Beyond-Meat)\), as not every faux animal product has gotten them yet. So the market still has a lot of room to improve in terms of taste.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.9.2. Pro: Unfortunately, many great tasting products would not survive in the current consumer market of people not buying faux animal foods, which hinders innovation and makes for an industry that won't be able to grow to satisfy the needs for vegans.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.9.3. Con: If there are more vegans, then there are more people tasting vegan alternatives. This will drive the growth and innovation of them to where they need to be.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.9.4. Con: Like with any new industry, there is a certain trial and error period. As more customer feedback is coming in and production methods are refined, meat alternatives get better and better.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.7.10. Pro: Unfortunately, it's really difficult to replicate animal products with vegan alternatives. It takes lots of [money, research, and effort](https://www.npr.org/2015/04/02/397097036/the-fake-meat-industrys-quest-to-make-faux-taste-real) to do so. Because of the high upfront costs associated, it's really difficult to find products that succeed.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.8. Con: Many non-food items [contain](https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.html) irreplaceable animal products, for example [personal computers](https://www.deliciousliving.com/special-diets/vegetarian-vegan/10-things-you-thought-were-vegan-arent/). Animal products are used in multitude of products nobody really thinks of.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.9.8.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.12.3.4.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.10. Pro: People currently working in the meat industry as labourers could switch to a 'vegan' job that makes an equal amount of money and is similar to their mode of work and industry so they don't notice the difference: like a janitor and floor sweeper of a slaughterhouse could be one for a fruit packer, a butcher of animals turn into one for produce chopper in a grocery store, etc.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.10.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.12.1.3.5.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.10.2. Con: If a person already has a job, they would have difficulty switching to another one if they just got the one they have recently, there aren't many other jobs in their area, or they lack the time to search or go on interviews.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.10.2.1. Pro: If people get let go from a job, then they'll be able to have enough motivation too. However, because people are disincentivized from letting go of a job they have and avoid getting fired, the chances of that happening are slim.
1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.10.3. Con: To switch jobs would mean losing out on wages temporarily, which would be a loss of money altogether, even if the wages are equal.
1.8.3.3.1.7.4. Con: The egg and dairy industry routinely kills and mistreats male animals at a very young age, and in the case of dairy, often causes severe distress to the mother as they're separated permanently. There is nothing ethical about any of this.
1.8.3.3.1.7.5. Pro: -> See discussion #30238: Veganism is a religion, not a philosophy \(definitions are in the info section of the discussion\).
1.8.3.3.1.8. Pro: We evolved into being omnivores, so we can't change, because it's ingrained into our nature.
1.8.3.3.1.8.1. Con: The fact that there are many people alive today that don't eat meat should refute the claim that we cannot change.
1.8.3.3.1.8.2. Con: Just because it is in our nature, does not make it healthy. We developed a [craving for sugars, because it was scarce in the past](http://theconversation.com/how-the-diets-of-early-humans-explain-our-eating-habits-46481). We should not cater to our nature, just because it is innate, because it can cause us harm instead.
1.8.3.3.1.8.2.1. Pro: Since our meat-eating tendencies are different today \(we used to hunt for food\), we set ourselves up for disease \(like heart disease\) if we continue what is in our nature.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3. Con: This is a contradiction: evolving to eat meat means that humans did change. Saying we cannot change does not make sense, as the only reason why humans eat meat is because we changed. If that statement were true, then we would still have the largely plant-based diets of our ancestors \([1](http://www.becominghuman.org/node/news/diet-australopithecus-sediba), [2](http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-paranthropus-boisei-tiger-nut-diet-01680.html)\), before they evolved to eat meat.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.1. Con: Eating meat is not in our nature. Everyone is born a vegetarian, but get into eating meat is through parental choosing \(around [4-6 mths old](https://www.babycenter.com/404_when-can-my-baby-eat-meat_1368509.bc)\) and cultural conditioning reinforcement later \(see TV advertisements for [fast food](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsX2PGi5IY) and [lunch meals](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrWtXvI1kaU)\).
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.7.5.1.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.1.2. Pro: Young children are born with a natural aversion towards harming animals \(except in [rare circumstances](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-equation/201104/children-who-are-cruel-animals-when-worry)\), including due to [fearfulness](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080227121840.htm). They get [conditioned](https://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/is-it-normal-for-your-preschooler-to-hurt-animals/) by people around them later on to act differently towards animals. Having less sympathy towards animals probably prepares them to be less cautious towards eating meat \(even though animal aversion is in our nature\).
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.1.3. Con: As humans are conscious beings for the sake of argument, no one can be technically be called vegetarian at birth. This is because babies cannot decide what they eat. One could make the argument that kids shouldn't eat vegetables because they don't naturally like them, but that wouldn't make much sense. In any case babies only gravitate "naturally" towards breast milk but that's about it, any other claims are completely subjective.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2. Pro: The whole point of evolution is to change. If we evolved to eat meat, then we can sure can evolve to eat a vegan diet as well.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.1. Con: In an ecosystem, [survival of the fittest](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/survival+of+the+fittest) involves not only evolution, but also [adaptation](http://www.differencebetween.net/science/nature/difference-between-adaptation-and-evolution/). Because evolution will not be fast enough for human survival, adaptation is the other option to use. Thus, even though veganism is not in our nature, we need to achieve it behaviorally to adapt to climate change.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.2. Pro: In the past, humans evolved to eat meat due to dietary gaps. Now we have the opposite problem. We need to evolve away from eating meat due to dietary abundance \(as with obesity and health conditions from too much meat\).
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.2.1. Pro: As we no longer live in a survival state, we don't need to eat meat to have an healthy diet respectful of other living creatures. Moreover, high-protein diets such as the one followed by [Inuits](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-barnard-md/eskimo-myth_b_5268420.html) exposes them to heart diseases issues and a short life expectancy contrary to diets using less meat such as the [Okinawan](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/19/japanese-diet-live-to-100) diet which enables people to live over 100. \([www.youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc23vYwPihU)\)
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.3. Pro: Evolution predates humanity and civilisation. Jainism \([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism)\) and other beliefs offer different perspectives. Humans evolved in caves, yet very few people want us to go back and live in them.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.4. Pro: Changing diet is not hard for humans, since we are the most adaptable species on the [planet](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-may-be-most-adaptive-species/).
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.4.1. Pro: We are rational beings that are able to make wiser and more conscious decisions than in the past, considering all the nutritional, sociological and ecological benefits of a plant based lifestyle.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.5. Con: Humans as a species do not direct our evolution. Evolution is not a choice. We do not experience evolution per se in our lifetimes, so that makes consciously evolving into a vegan diet near impossible. Only a change in the environment \(along with our adaptations to it\) would cause such a change.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.5.1. Con: Even if we cannot currently direct our own evolution, we have the capabilities to do so and even may be able to do so immediately if we all decide or soon anyway with the current pace of progress.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.5.1.1. Pro: We manipulate the entire global environment to the point that we alter our own bodies \(like [body temperature](https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=227239)\). It'll only be a matter of time before people harness that to be able to direct our own evolution on a mass scale towards adapting to a vegan diet if we put enough conscientious effort into it.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.5.1.2. Pro: Transhumanism allows people to create a world that they want to live in, not limited by or reactive to the pre-setup environment they are born/placed in. People would then not be limited by nature \(including predetermined capabilities\), but rather their own imagination and location.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.5.2. Con: Even though most of our decisions are outside of our capabilities \(like the environment and the bodies we're born with\), humans do make decisions do that influence our evolution \(like manipulating the environment or deciding when and how many kids to have\). So with the little influence we have, we could do something in our evolutionary path to infuse veganism into it.
1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.5.3. Con: Consciously evolving into a vegan diet is possible from an evolutionary standpoint, because [memory is passed down through genes](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-25156510). So if we are vegan for much of life, then these memories could be passed down to future generations \([14](https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/ancestors-genetic-memories-passed-on-14-generations/) to be exact\) and may possibly lead them to act more and be vegan.
1.8.3.3.1.8.4. Pro: We [evolved to eat meat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2qdyKxU0YU&t=715s) and our body [processes meat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIRurLnQ8oo&t=105s) a lot better than vegetables or other fats, which makes us sick
1.8.3.3.1.8.4.1. Pro: It's not wrong for an individual who experience health benefits from meat to act in his/her own interest and eat meat.
1.8.3.3.1.8.5. Con: Because this is an [appeal to nature fallacy](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/36/Appeal-to-Nature), it should not be used to refute whether all humans should go vegan or not.
1.8.3.3.1.8.6. Pro: -> See 1.3.10.2.1.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7. Pro: Without animal protein, we wouldn’t even have [become human](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16990)—at least not the modern, verbal, intelligent humans we are.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.1. Pro: Both the teeth and intestinal tract of humans are similar to other omnivores.  Human teeth are similar to pig teeth, for example, and very different from both herbivore and carnivore teeth.

Humans and pigs both have incisors, canines, and \(bunodont\) molars. Herbivore molars are usually a lot less rounded, and full of ridges for grinding plants. Carnivores have sharp teeth that work together like scissors to cut meat.

[en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_\(tooth)\)

[www.quora.com](https://www.quora.com/What-type-of-teeth-do-omnivores-have)
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.2. Pro: Evolution clearly shows that the more we evolved, the more meat we ate, and the correlation between brain evolution and meat intake is well known in science.
More primitive primates will be more frugivurous. More evolved primates will preferr meat. This switch is verified from Habilis to Erectus
[abc.net.au](http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/11/22/1514032.htm)
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.2.1. Con: Correlation is not causation though and this is no argument to keep eating meat nowadays when our brains are evolved already and even if it would evolve it more, this does not justify the continuation of the killing of other beings and harming them.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.3. Con: There's no reason to believe that meat made us intelligent, since the process of both aquiring and making meat edible through cooking required a high degree of intelligence in the first place.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.3.1. Con: Earliest [evidence](http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/09-archaeologists-find-earliest-evidence-of-humans-cooking-with-fire) of cooking dates back 1 million years, where [meat consumption](https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273) dates back more than 2.5 million years. Most of our [brain growth](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-has-human-brain-evolved/) has happened in the past 2 million years.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.3.1.1. Con: The link between brain growth, intelligence, and eating meat is [questionable](http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking) at most. Correlation does not equal causation. Meat-eating lacks proof of causation for intelligence.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.3.1.1.1. Pro: Although the brain growth from meat might be why humans became intelligent, brain growth could also come from a larger muscular structure from hunting \(as seen with [Neanderthals](http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking)\), which we do not have now \(even though we still eat meat\).
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.3.1.1.2. Pro: Human brains have been shrinking for the [past 20,000 years](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-have-our-brains-started-to-shrink/), even though we are becoming more intelligent and probably eating more meat than ever. It is just that we do not need to hunt for meat and intelligence comes externally rather than internally now with computers and the internet.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.3.1.1.3. Pro: The climb of intelligence started [10M yrs ago](http://www.rupestreweb.info/mimesis.html), long before we ate meat. Intelligence is often mistakenly attributed to meat-eating, since their co-occurrence could be coincidental \(meat-eating started when intelligence exponentially exploded, around [2.6M yrs ago](http://nmnh.typepad.com/100years/2015/03/early-humans-could-have-scavenged-from-lions-lunches.html)\).
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.3.1.1.3.1. Pro: Intelligence really took off when we started walking upright, around [6M yrs ago](http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/brains). After [2M years](http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/brains), new environments and climate change intellectually stimulated our brains, which caused further growth. So it's abrupt lifestyle changes, not meat itself, that is the driver for brain growth, .
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.3.2. Pro: Humans first ate meat [using tools](http://nmnh.typepad.com/100years/2015/03/early-humans-could-have-scavenged-from-lions-lunches.html). The intelligence to make tools did not originate from eating meat.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.3.3. Con: The acquiring of meat at this time has no relation to how meat made us intelligent. Humans likely ate leftover carcasses that other animals killed themselves, which requires, but not much intelligence. It was only after eating meat that our brains grew larger, fostered later by cooking.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.4. Pro: The development of human cognition and brain was [greatly advanced](https://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html) in evolution as meat consumption increased \(especially when [cooked and pounded](https://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter)\).
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.4.1. Pro: Eating meat caused humans to evolve smaller guts to send energy to the brain faster. This was great, because our larger brains now use [20%](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/) of our body's total energy intake.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.4.2. Con: [With cooking, digestible starches](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280735260_The_Importance_of_Dietary_Carbohydrate_in_Human_Evolution) \(pg 253\) continued the rise of brain growth when meat could not. This accelerated our brain size increases faster than meat did \(during the Mid-to-Late Pleistocene\).
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.5. Pro: -> See 1.4.11.7.3.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.6. Con: That is not the entire story. In fact, without plants, we would not be the modern humans we are.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.6.1. Pro: We evolved [smaller jaws and saliva to break down starches](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/) to eat plants.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.6.2. Pro: One hominid, paranthropus boisei, had around an [80%](https://www.ibtimes.com/nutcracker-man-diet-extinct-species-early-human-survived-tiger-nuts-not-meat-1535834) diet of tiger nuts \(not meat\), which supported a large brain around [2.4-1.4M years ago](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2536015/Ancient-ancestors-ate-diet-tiger-nuts-worms-grasshoppers.html).
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.6.2.1. Pro: Even though it went extinct, so did all hominid species except the homo sapiens of today. It was not due to their plant diet being insufficient for them.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.6.2.2. Pro: Tiger nuts allowed humans to survive for [1M years](https://www.ibtimes.com/nutcracker-man-diet-extinct-species-early-human-survived-tiger-nuts-not-meat-1535834) of climate change.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.7. Con: Since [meat remains survive better than plant ones](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280735260_The_Importance_of_Dietary_Carbohydrate_in_Human_Evolution) \(pg 255\), it is difficult to really know what diet made us human without the complete picture.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.8. Con: While it is true that being able to digest a variety of foods has been an evolutionary advantage; many of our closest relatives \(primates\) are entirely herbivorous. If meat was the only driving factor of evolution, other omnivorous or carniverous animals would be ahead of us. It is more likely that the use of tools and fire allowed humans to surpass other animals.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.9. Con: Our history should not determine our future and while we were in need of meat in the past, this doesn't justify a need in the present.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.10. Con: Whether or not that is true, we do not need it now.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.10.1. Pro: People who don't live in regions where food is scarce don't have a problem getting enough calories and protein. In fact, most people easily take in too much, as is shown by increasing rates of obesity in the developed world.
1.8.3.3.1.8.7.11. Con: With modern knowledge of what humans require for a healthy diet, there is no longer a dietary argument for the consumption of meat. The fact that humans historically have benefited from it is irrelevant to the question of how we should live today, and there is no proof that consumption of meat will lead to a better or healthier humanity in the future: quite the opposite.
1.8.3.3.1.8.8. Pro: The simple truth is that human nature will never allow this to happen - too many people enjoy eating meat and animal by-produce and too many people survive on it for this to be a serious proposition whether it is scientifically sound or not.
1.8.3.3.1.8.8.1. Pro: Regarding the reduction of violence towards animals, veganism can never become the mainstream solution for the majority of humans because it simply conflicts too strongly with our omnivorous nature. Other solutions \(such as cultured meats\) are more viable since they don't require the same unintuitive changes in dietary behavior, thus reducing animal violence while also allowing the majority of humans to actually adopt it.
1.8.3.3.1.8.8.2. Con: Whether or whether not making all humans vegan is possible is irrelevant. The important part is, *should* all humans be vegan.
1.8.3.3.1.8.8.2.1. Con: Ethic is, by definition, the practical part of Philosophy. It can't just be theoretical. You have to decide what is right and wrong based on what can be done. Yes, theoretically everyone \(including children\) should have fought a dictatorship, but this is impractical and thus suggesting it would be unethical. Thus if human nature prevents humans from being vegan it is unethical to suggest they should be.
1.8.3.3.1.8.8.3. Con: Before slavery was abolished "too many" people enjoyed the luxuries of cheap labour for it ever to be removed. Veganism is a social movement. The whole premise of a social movement is that things can be changed.
1.8.3.3.1.8.8.4. Pro: Perhaps ideally all humans should be vegan. But it is akin to asking "should humans stop being jealous?" Some conduct- because it is sociobiological, or innate-is beyond our capacity to change through an authoritarian measure.
1.8.3.3.1.8.9. Con: We are not bound to do what we did in the past.
1.8.3.3.1.8.9.1. Pro: -> See 1.8.3.3.1.8.3.2.
1.8.3.3.1.8.9.2. Pro: Early modern humans ate mostly [mammoth, along with antelope, horses, and deer](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170804082912.htm). The meat we eat is different today, as some of these animals are extinct. To say we cannot and should not change does not make sense, as we had to evolve even our meat-eating tendencies to keep it in our nature.
1.8.3.3.1.8.9.3. Pro: There are no need to use animals, as we are at a higher level technologically.
1.8.3.3.1.8.9.3.1. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.2.4.1.
1.8.3.3.1.8.9.3.2. Pro: Humans have the potential to bypass evolution through genetic editing. Thus, we can genetically edit our DNA for us to become vegan to not worry about the pitfalls of our meat-eating nature not letting us change.
1.8.3.3.1.8.9.3.3. Pro: Following our nature would make sense if the meat created today is natural. However, meat today is unnatural in production and processing \(with colouring, flavouring, and GMOs\).
1.8.3.3.1.8.9.3.3.1. Pro: Unfortunately, the world we live in is not natural, so adaptation to the new, modern environment is better than not changing at all \(even if that is most people's preference\).
1.8.3.3.1.8.9.3.4. Pro: -> See 1.3.6.
1.8.3.3.1.8.9.3.5. Pro: Numerous substitutes already exist for traditionally animal-derived products.
1.8.3.3.1.9. Con: -> See 1.8.3.3.1.7.3.2.
1.8.3.3.1.10. Pro: In America, there are many law makers who hold personal stakes in the meat industry, making it difficult to pass laws limiting livestock production and promoting veganism.
1.8.3.3.1.10.1. Pro: For example, former Chief of Staff at the USDA, [Dale Moore](https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/70108783), was also former Chief Lobbyist to the Beef Industry in Washington. [Lester Crawford](https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/70108783), former Head of the FDA was the former Executive Vice President of the National Food Processors Association.
1.8.3.3.1.10.2. Con: With enough people that create enough demand, laws could be passed in favor of citizens. This could happen with worldwide veganism, as there would be enough people to override those in the meat industry.
1.8.3.3.1.11. Con: -> See 1.5.7.4.
1.8.3.3.1.12. Con: Even if the vegan diet isn't attainable for everyone, if we strive towards it when we can, then at least some \(albeit imperfect\) progress can be made and have more of an impact than if we do nothing.
1.8.3.3.1.12.1. Pro: A vegan world may be impossible, but a large majority is close \(like 95+%\) and would have close enough to the same effects as a completely vegan world - that it's close enough that we don't really have to do the impossible and be 100% vegan to attain the benefits we're looking for.
1.8.3.3.1.13. Pro: Veganism is [not just](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) abstaining from eating meat but also not using anything which uses animal products. This is an unrealistic standard as animal based products are unavoidable.
1.8.3.3.1.13.1. Con: Animal based products are not unavoidable: from food to clothes, we can get everything we need without exploiting animals. With the increasing number of vegans, vegan products are becoming increasingly available as well. A proof of this is the very fact that thousands of vegans around the world live their life without buying animal products.
1.8.3.3.1.13.1.1. Con: Animal products aren't just used in everyday life but also in [construction](https://www.networx.com/article/animal-ingredients-in-home-improvement-p) and mass production.
1.8.3.3.1.13.2. Pro: Many products people cannot go without contain [animal products](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/products-you-didnt-know-contain-animal-ingredients/) \(including [money](https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/11/vegans-are-pissed-that-britains-new-money-contains-meat/) in the UK\), and harming animals is almost [unavoidable](https://www.thoughtco.com/is-there-no-such-thing-as-vegan-127588).
1.8.3.3.1.13.2.1. Con: Vegans understand that 100% animal free living is currently impossible, but reasonable effort to remove impact on animals, within necessity, is still considered living vegan.
1.8.3.3.1.13.3. Con: Even if animal products were unavoidable, veganism advocates [the reduction](https://www.thoughtco.com/is-there-no-such-thing-as-vegan-127588) 'as far as is possible and practicable'.
1.8.3.3.1.13.4. Pro: Veganism is a radical solution to the issues surrounding over-consumption of animal products in privileged societies. Human's should rather aim for moderation instead to make veganism more feasible to less privileged societies \(which is more difficult to do\).
1.8.3.3.1.13.5. Pro: Many humans, especially those in poverty, live in [food deserts](http://www.foodispower.org/food-deserts/). They do not have easy access to the variety of vegetables, fruits, grains and supplements required to sustain a vegan diet as more privileged individuals do distance-wise. Vegan access will still be difficult logistically to work around if the world goes vegan.
1.8.3.3.1.13.5.1. Pro: Lesser privileged individuals living in food deserts would need to [pay more](https://sendthewholebattalion.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/cost-difference.jpg) for their vegan products, which would become a hardship than those living near them.
1.8.3.3.1.13.5.2. Pro: Due to the inconvenience, people in food deserts get more [health issues](http://www.foodispower.org/food-deserts/). People there may still go for unhealthy items \(like alcohol and fast food\), even if those options are suddenly veganized, which makes removing these issues difficult.
1.8.3.3.1.13.5.3. Con: Most individuals that live in poverty are currently eating a majority vegan diet because it's all they can afford. [Look at figure 3 here, and others as a resource](http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8079e/w8079e0g.htm).
1.8.3.3.1.13.5.4. Con: Starches grow in practically any climate, and it's [known](http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/economic/faodef/fdef02e.htm) which types cultivate well in each region. Being such a universal crop, they're a solution for providing nutrition and variety to food deserts.
1.8.3.3.1.13.5.4.1. Pro: Although most people feel that crops can't grow near the poles, people who lived in the Russian taiga \(in Siberia, considered one of the most inhospitable places on Earth\) managed to grow their own [potatoes and rye](https://youtu.be/Gc-B-a5FrvU?t=485). So it's possible to grow crops virtually anywhere if looked into thoroughly enough.
1.8.3.3.1.13.5.5. Con: Access, logistically or economically, \(e.g. in deserts or in poor urban areas\) can change. These arguments focus on "All humans" in the current, non-permanent, conditions that some human beings happen to live in. We should rather focus on "should", we should still go vegan and strive for the technological or other changes that will make this possible due to the enormous benefits.
1.8.3.3.1.13.6. Con: The [Jainists](http://softschools.com/facts/religion/jainism_facts/2730/) have lived for [millennia](http://www.religionfacts.com/jainism/history) on a vegan diet. They were hardly privileged \(as they believe "[possessions are an obstacle to liberation](http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/living/aparigraha.shtml)"\). So in reality, it is the lesser-privileged societies that are more vegan, rather than the other way around.
1.8.3.3.1.13.7. Con: Eating meat continuously is even more difficult to attain, due to their ability to create crises \(economic, politically, socially, etc., like in [China](https://youtu.be/rLR9TEUMgM8?t=273)\). This is why the majority of individuals in developing countries \(like China and India\) would like plant-based alternatives instead.
1.8.3.3.1.13.8. Pro: What vegans typically consume may not be [truly vegan](https://www.kialo.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-vegan-2762.2204) and to be at that level would require removing so much or making such a large change that it would be nearly impossible to accomplish.
1.8.3.3.1.14. Pro: -> See 1.2.9.2.1.1.
1.8.3.3.1.15. Con: Since everyone is vegan, those who find it difficult will have an infrastructure and support system to help them through the ups and downs of a vegan diet. So it may be impossible in this world, but not so much in a vegan society.
1.8.3.3.1.16. Pro: The idea of *everyone* going vegan is too radical and conditional to keep up with.
1.8.3.3.1.17. Pro: -> See 1.4.11.6.
1.8.3.3.1.18. Pro: Real personal experiences and preferences in allowing veganism in their lives reveal that it's unrealistic and impractical for everyone in reality.
1.8.3.4. Con: If all of society was vegan then the cost of specialist vegan food would go down. Vegan food as a whole such as beans, grains and vegetables are already extremely affordable. B12 supplements and fortified foods are also extremely cheap.
1.8.3.5. Pro: [1/7](http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM) of the world population's income depends directly or indirectly on livestock. Without alternative production methods a vegan world would result in more poverty of the rural areas.
1.8.3.5.1. Con: The world population still needs to eat, the 1/7th of the world population will work on crop production/distribution.
1.8.3.5.1.1. Con: Not every arable land of the world is suitable for crop production and [a lot of byproducts of the human food production are not edible](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013) for humans, but for ruminants.
1.8.3.5.1.1.1. Con: Arable land unsuitable for crop production is ideal for reserving as natural ecosystems, which are critically needed in most regions.
1.8.3.5.1.2. Con: They do this already to produce the feed for livestock, so they won't lose their jobs. It's the ones who rely on the next steps and work with the animals that'll be at the most risk. Those skills may not be transferable enough to attain this ideal.
1.8.3.5.2. Pro: In Catholicism, fish is exempt from the "no meat during lent" rule because of communities that relied on fishing for food.
1.8.3.5.3. Con: "more poverty of the rural areas" - as you have described an area to be in poverty then that should include all living species within that area, of which include thousands of animals. The argumentation here is based on animal life having no value but commodity, and human life is the only one of importance. 'Poverty' can come in many forms and be applies to many lives.
1.8.3.5.3.1. Con: Human life in human societies is still closely linked to animal life of all kinds. The less poor people are, the better they can treat all kind of animals. In addition, the evidence is not provided whether animals in nature or in human custody are able to better meet their needs. It varies from case to case.
1.8.3.5.4. Con: Raising livestock makes poverty worse in rural areas than crops do, because livestock is less sustainable, ruining the land quicker until there is not much left, leaving people with no other means to keep their jobs going. It forces them to leave where they live, forcing them into more poverty yet. So a vegan world would result in less poverty than more.
1.8.3.5.4.1. Con: Livestock is a crucial part of farming and even the indirect role for food security and income should not be underestimated. E. g. the provision of manure for fertilization + draught power plays an important role in producing crops for human nutrition. Especially for small farms \(\> 2 ha\) - [which operate up to 12 % of agricultural land worldwide](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X15002703) - the access to the market for crops, arable land, fertilizer and crop protection would be a main requirement to convert into exclusive crop production.
1.8.3.5.4.2. Con: Livestock farming is not fundamentally unsustainable, the [diversity in production systems and feed materials](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013) is high.
1.8.3.5.4.3. Con: -> See 1.8.3.5.1.1.
1.8.3.5.5. Pro: -> See 1.8.3.5.1.1.
1.8.3.5.6. Pro: [Livestock products provide one-third of humanity’s protein intake​](http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf). In addition, the [protein quality](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013) of animal products is high. The [biological value](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013) due to the amino acid pattern is advantageous. These benefits are difficult to replace globally.
1.8.3.6. Con: Affordability does not determine whether something is good or desirable. If the thesis was "All humans should have access to clean water" nobody would dispute that on the basis of economic feasibility.
1.8.3.6.1. Con: Economics bars access.  The thesis is not 'All humans should have access to food', but that they should only consume certain kinds of food.  There are many geographic areas where meat and fish is cheaper, more abundant and easily attainable than fruits and vegetables.
1.8.3.6.1.1. Con: There are a rare few exceptional places which hunt for their food, but that is not all humans. All humans with a number of potential exceptions could have cheaper vegan food by making educated choices or if governments subsidised the food in the [same](https://plenteousveg.com/cost-vegan-protein-vs-animal-protein/) ways as meat, dairy and eggs are [subsidised](https://meatonomics.com/tag/meat/).
1.8.3.6.2. Pro: It's not about privilege but about environment. There are locations where is unfeasible to cultivate the land \(such as desserts or rocky areas\) and to import plant-based foods \([countries with sanctions](https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/countries-sanctioned-by-the-u.s.---and-why.aspx)\). Only in the case of regions where the land is unworkable and where they import plant-based food, this diet would be more expensive and just for those privileged. Most countries don't face those problems and their populations are or aren't vegans for another set of reasons.
1.8.3.7. Con: As countries become more developed, the issue of lesser privileged societies not being able to go vegan \(due to economic hardship\) will become less and less of an issue.
1.8.3.8. Con: For extremely isolating places where all food is imported \(like Antarctica\), whether it's vegan or animal food won't matter much to their economy, as long as high quality/quantity/durability food comes in.
1.8.3.9. Pro: A vegan society would be less economically efficient for the lesser privileged.
1.8.3.9.1. Pro: Animal produce is cheap in light of the government [subsidization](https://www.verantwoordeveehouderij.nl/nl/Verantwoorde-Veehouderij-2/show-5/Subsidie-belangrijke-inkomensbron-voor-veehouder-in-Europa.htm). That makes a food system with animal products work, because it allows for food that's cheap enough for people to eat, thus allowing more people to be fed.
1.8.3.9.2. Con: Technological innovations could take place to advance a vegan society.
1.8.3.9.2.1. Pro: [Biofuel](http://www.digitalrefining.com/news/1003742,Axens____Vegan____technology_selected_by_Total_for_its_first_Biorefinery_in_France.html#.Ww7tA-6UvIV) is a great technology that a could improve a vegan society's current fuel resources.
1.8.3.9.2.1.1. Pro: Biofuel is better than other fuels, as it does not contain [sulfur/aromatic compounds](http://www.digitalrefining.com/news/1003742,Axens____Vegan____technology_selected_by_Total_for_its_first_Biorefinery_in_France.html#.Ww7tA-6UvIV) that other fuels contain.
1.8.3.9.2.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.8.3.1.2.1.2.
1.8.3.9.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.8.3.1.2.1.
1.8.3.9.2.3. Pro: Veganism is ideal for [space travel](https://inhabitat.com/nasa-astronauts-on-mars-mission-will-eat-100-vegan-menu/), exploring other planets, and growing civilizations through colonization in the long-term, as it optimizes better with technologies, like hydroponics, than animal products do.
1.8.3.9.3. Pro: In a globalized free market, if more people go vegan, it'll drive demand up, and that would cause oversupplies to happen more frequently. Then prices would go down so much that it could create [food shortages among other problems \(like monopolization\)](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:80ygqHsrZwQJ:https://learn.mesaprogram.org/module/distribution-access-equity/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us).
1.8.3.9.4. Pro: Even in India, where it's deemed as a vegetarian country, more and more people are turning to meat and vegetarianism is really propped up forced- or non-economic factors: [wealthy](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43581122), [politics](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43581122), [patriarchy](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43581122), [religion](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/07/14/422592127/egg-wars-india-s-vegetarian-elite-are-accused-of-keeping-kids-hungry), or get a privileged status that gives them [economic benefits](https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-14/only-one-five-indians-really-vegetarian).
1.8.3.9.5. Con: -> See 1.3.10.2.1.6.1.4.3.1.
1.8.3.9.6. Pro: [Government intervention is a sign of market failure](https://www.educba.com/market-failure-and-the-role-of-government/), of which happens with [dairy](https://www.history.com/news/government-cheese-dairy-farmers-reagan). However, since vegan foods don't get or require [as many subsidies](https://medium.com/\@laletur/should-governments-subsidy-the-meat-and-dairy-industries-6ce59e68d26), their costs are more accurately reflected in prices, which is a sign of [market efficiency](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketefficiency.asp).
1.8.4. Con: Vegan foods are either the most expensive or the cheapest foods in the world per lb, whereas animal products fall into the middle zone. This makes vegan food more beneficial for everyone: more expensive for privileged individuals and cheaper for less privileged ones.
1.8.4.1. Pro: The [Italian White Alba Truffle](http://most-expensive.com/foods) is the most expensive food in the world at over $48,600 per lb.
1.8.4.2. Con: Even though vegan foods are the most and least expensive foods, some animal products are also really expensive and cheap, thus allowing everyone to enjoy it. Thus, expense should not be an indicator in deciding whether the world should go vegan or not.
1.8.4.3. Pro: The cheapest nutrient/source of sustenance is [water](https://greatist.com/health/44-healthy-foods-under-1), which is vegan and practically free.
1.8.4.3.1. Con: Water alone is not enough to sustain the human body for long periods of time, which would not be an adequate substitute for animal products.
1.8.4.4. Pro: The cheapest food, salt, is vegan, at under [12 cents/lb](https://www.webstaurantstore.com/morton-50-lb-bulk-non-iodized-table-salt/102SALT50.html).
1.8.4.4.1. Con: Salt is very unhealthy
1.8.4.5. Pro: The cheapest food with protein is soft wheat pastry flour, at a little over [21 cents/lb](https://www.webstaurantstore.com/soft-wheat-premium-pastry-flour-50-lb/104SWAN.html).
1.8.4.6. Con: It is unethical to buy expensive vegan products.
1.8.4.6.1. Pro: Buying expensive vegan products encourages inflated prices which is unfair to people on lower incomes who cannot afford them.
1.8.4.6.2. Pro: The money wasted on overly expensive vegan products should be rather used to achieve far greater good, such as preventing unnecessary human suffering and death by purchasing cheap mosquito nets to prevent malaria, diarrhoea treatment, or restoring eyesight in cases of preventable blindness.
1.8.4.6.2.1. Pro: People dying of preventable diseases and living with curable blindness because wealthy vegans choose the tainted and relatively negligible good of buying overpriced vegan foods, rather than the greater good their wasted money could have achieved.
1.8.4.6.3. Pro: Buying overpriced vegan products promotes a harmful self-satisfied illusion of virtue.
1.8.5. Pro: Animal agriculture allows societies and individuals to use their resources more efficiently and thrive as a result. In a vegan world, they may not.
1.8.5.1. Pro: If you were born in a agriculturally hostile territory you couldn't rely on food other than meat to sustain yourself.
1.8.5.1.1. Con: -> See 1.4.11.6.1.1.
1.8.5.1.2. Con: Dedicated efforts for self sufficiency are possible even in hostile environments. Regional specialties can arise in this way.
1.8.5.1.2.1. Con: The link is more or less a propaganda of the government there. It might be true, but there is no hard data presented. Also, it is worth taking note that the country is self sufficient only in the current distribution of food, which includes animal nutrition sources. It is not suggested anywhere that it might have the same self sufficiency and could ensure a proper diet with a population which would eat only vegan food.
1.8.5.1.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.8.3.3.1.13.5.4.1.
1.8.5.1.2.3. Pro: One of the most densely populated locations in the world, as 710 square km and a population of 5 million, [Singapore is difficult place to grow food.](https://permaculturenews.org/2014/07/25/vertical-farming-singapores-solution-feed-local-urban-population/) Yet, they found a way to grow crops using vertical farming. Where there's a challenge, humans manage and seem to find a way. We will just need to use innovation if we apply these principles to the entire world.
1.8.5.1.2.4. Pro: Kurdistan is [self sufficient in fruit and vegetables](http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/070820172), meaning it would be likely to be able to support itself in a vegan world.
1.8.5.1.3. Pro: The Inuit Population solely relies on fish, since they live in the harsh conditions of the Arctic lands. It is obvious that diets should be adapted to the different environments. Exceptions will always persist.
1.8.5.1.3.1. Con: With climate change, the exception will come true. By then, there should be enough fertile land and melted water for Inuits to grow crops.
1.8.5.1.3.2. Con: Inuits also eat [roots and berries in the summer](https://www.reference.com/world-view/inuit-eat-2644379260f2c387), but could save them for the wintertime if they go vegan.
1.8.5.1.3.3. Con: Greenland \(which does comprise of Inuits\) is [owned and subsidized by Denmark](https://youtu.be/tBd-1PnqagE?t=133), so to get the population there to go vegan, it would just get further assistance from Denmark to do so, which should be feasible, since they already help out.
1.8.5.1.4. Pro: Farming animals is often the only means available for farmers, e.g. farmers use animals to store energy for harsh winters or where the terrain doesn't allow for intensive crop farming.
1.8.5.1.4.1. Con: Intensive farming is a particular case. This way of doing agriculture is not even tenable. Its not the only way to produce crops.
1.8.5.1.4.2. Con: Storing energy for winters is possible without livestock, by using a granary.
1.8.5.1.5. Con: If people move to where it is possible to eat vegan, then they wouldn't rely on meat to do so.
1.8.5.1.5.1. Con: Moving isn't feasible for everyone \(too costly, incompatible with cultures, people are used to where they live, etc.\).
1.8.5.2. Pro: Crops' co-products and plants that [cannot be eaten by humans](http://www.cast-science.org/download.cfm?PublicationID=278268&File=1e30d1bf7a7156ce24b3154cc313b587d97bTR) can convert to animal feed.
1.8.5.2.1. Con: Inedible \(to humans\) feed is not a viable option. Livestock [cannot compete with energy](http://www.globalharvestinitiative.org/2013/10/livestock-and-feed-conversion-food-producers-or-food-thieves/) for inedible food, which forces them to compete with humans for their edible food supply.
1.8.5.2.2. Pro: The benefits to the conversion are valorizing and preserving certain environments \(such as [grassland](http://w3.marietta.edu/~biol/biomes/grass.htm)\) that crops cannot and allowing more diverse crop rotation \(which resolves [tillage damage](https://www.agweb.com/article/cover-crops-and-cattle-are-cash-naa-chris-bennett/)\).
1.8.5.2.2.1. Pro: This can provide a double benefit, as less grains would need to be grown for livestock, which preserves grasslands even more \(by not cutting them down for crops\).
1.8.5.2.2.2. Con: In the real world, this is not the case. [Overgrazing](https://www.desertusa.com/desert-food-chain/food-chain-6.html) due to population gains of cattle in grasslands is a real threat to the land's decline.
1.8.5.2.2.3. Con: Vegan food have the same capabilities as livestock to achieve these goals.
1.8.5.2.2.3.1. Pro: If people ate foods that they normally are not accustomed to \(such as native plants\), then they could preserve environments to without resorting to livestock \(just like how Native Americans acquire [chia seeds and acorns](https://www.kcet.org/shows/tending-the-wild) while the preserving the wild\)
1.8.5.2.2.3.2. Pro: Plants \(like [oats](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/crop-rotation-and-the-future-of-farming.html)\) can reverse damage caused by livestock with crop rotation.
1.8.5.3. Pro: Use of animals in farming initially made use of underutilized fibres, indigestible to humans, and still does so \([1](https://qknowbooks.gitbooks.io/jhs_1_science-farming-systems/mixed_farming.html)\). Use of animals saves human labour \(and therefore nutritional requirements, fuel use etc\) and produces edible food by fertilizing arable land, simultaneously consuming unwanted and underutilized resources in locations where crops useful for humans cannot be readily grown \([2](http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/rural_environments/farming_rural_areas_rev2.shtml)\). Thus, the use of animals is not only more cost effective for agrarian communities, but often necessary.
1.8.5.3.1. Con: This argument is not valid for the present time as ecosystems such as rainforests that hold vast nutrition for humans is cut down to make space for animal farming. [rainforests.mongabay.com](https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_destruction.html)
1.8.5.3.2. Con: Our demand for meat requires us to then grow these crops, which then takes land and resources to do. Wild animals graze and consume these resources, so they do not go unutilized, they support an ecological cycle.
1.8.5.4. Con: The conversion of crops into meat is in fact a very inefficient process \(both time and resources\) compared to the direct consumption of plant matter.[\(Eschel, et al. 2016\)](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.6b01006)
1.8.5.4.1. Pro: Meat accounts for 17% of global calorific intake, while using twice the amount of resources including land, water and feed. [economist.com](https://www.economist.com/feast-and-famine/2013/12/31/meat-and-greens)
1.8.5.5. Pro: Nomadic people grow livestock instead of crops, because of their traveling lifestyle. Livestock provides more resource efficiency than vegan foods do for them.
1.8.6. Con: -> See 1.4.10.5.
1.8.7. Con: If there is an issue of lesser-privileged societies not being able to go vegan, it's up to the more-privileged societies to use their privilege to help them out.
1.8.7.1. Con: It'll be really difficult to let [uncontacted tribes](https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/there-are-more-than-100-uncontacted-tribes-in-the-world-who-are-they) know what veganism is, as likely they won't go vegan on their own.
1.8.7.1.1. Pro: Contacting them would disrupt their culture.
1.8.7.1.2. Pro: Trying to understand their language to communicate with them would be difficult.
1.8.7.1.3. Pro: Contacting them wouldn't work, as it may introduce [disease](https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/there-are-more-than-100-uncontacted-tribes-in-the-world-who-are-they) to them, which would lead to them not going vegan anyway if they're wiped out.
1.8.7.2. Con: Even if a vegan diet could theoretically contain all needed nutrients, it would be wrong to deprive people in poverty the option of potentially richer sources of protein and nutrients.
1.8.7.3. Pro: The more privileged societies \(being in a role model position with more attention placed on them\) go vegan, the more feasible going vegan will be to less privileged societies/individuals.
1.8.7.3.1. Pro: Veganism is seen as a status symbol and a sign of privilege, due to its difficulty in attaining it. If everyone's vegan, it'll no longer be that way, which will make eating it more socially feasible.
1.8.7.3.2. Pro: Privileged individuals have a responsibility to fulfill their duty/obligation as a role model for the rest of the world to show that it's possible \(so they could know how to get there too\).
1.8.7.4. Pro: Due to globalization, the more people go vegan worldwide, the cheaper vegan products \(due to greater availability\) will become to the consumer until lesser privileged societies overall would be able to afford it.
1.8.7.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.8.3.4.
1.8.7.5. Pro: More privileged societies could provide aid to make vegan food cheaper and funding to make crops easier to grow, so they can become capable to go vegan.
1.8.8. Con: The [poorer people are, the more vegan they are](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/may/30/food.china1), rather than the opposite.
1.8.8.1. Pro: This is revealed in 'vegetarian' India, where the average poor diet is vegan: [70% millet, 20% rice, 10% wheat](http://everydayutilitarian.com/essays/how-do-the-extremely-poor-live/), where the [wealthier South](https://scroll.in/article/810717/india-is-slowly-cleaving-into-two-countries-a-richer-older-south-and-a-poorer-younger-north) is up to almost [99% meat-eating](https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/06/14/how-india-eats_n_10434374.html).
1.8.8.2. Con: Poverty is also [strongly linked](http://www.uniteforsight.org/nutrition/module5) to malnutrition suggesting that linking poverty to eating vegan may not prove that a vegan world would be beneficial for the world's poorest people.
1.8.8.2.1. Pro: If many poor people already eat vegan, yet many poor people also struggle to get adequate nutrition, this raises questions about how well their vegan diets \(in light of their limited resources\) are capable of meeting their nutritional needs.
1.8.8.2.2. Pro: The extremely poor tend in [India](http://everydayutilitarian.com/essays/how-do-the-extremely-poor-live/) to be heavily malnourished on a vegan diet, as what's affordable doesn't give them adequate nutrients to survive. So vegan diets aren't adequate for everyone to live on.
1.8.8.3. Pro: India has a vegetarian population of [~30%](https://www.dawn.com/news/1206096), of which the majority of this group is the most impoverished \(as most are in the [North](https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/06/14/how-india-eats_n_10434374.html), where it tends to be [poorer](https://scroll.in/article/810717/india-is-slowly-cleaving-into-two-countries-a-richer-older-south-and-a-poorer-younger-north)\). This suggests that veganism can be an affordable diet for societies. It is a myth that an omnivore diet is cheaper.
1.8.8.3.1. Pro: Grains and legumes make up the majority of a vegan diet's protein and calorie content. Those are very inexpensive food items that are often available in bulk \(reducing the price further\), making them better suited for people with instable income.
1.8.8.3.1.1. Con: Meat can be bought in bulk too, making meat cheap too. Buying in bulk to save on price is not food-specific. Buying meat in bulk \(reduces its subsidized price further\) helps those with an unstable income buy it.
1.8.8.3.1.2. Con: Grains and legumes contain huge amounts of anti-nutrients and plant poison.
1.8.9. Pro: The [supply chain is corrupt in developing countries](https://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/09/veganism-is-a-privilege-not-a-cure/), so even if the world goes vegan, the vegan food [might not reach them](https://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/09/veganism-is-a-privilege-not-a-cure/). The corruption may prevent vegan food delivery to poorer individuals, so they'd either get less nutrients than now \(with animal products\) or none at all, which is worse than now.
1.8.9.1. Pro: With a corrupt supply chain, vegan food may reach out mainly to those who are privileged there geographically or those who can afford it, making veganism a privilege in those places.
1.8.10. Pro: [Diarrheal diseases](https://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/09/veganism-is-a-privilege-not-a-cure/), like [norovirus](https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/trends-outbreaks/worldwide.html), ultimately lead to [undernutrition](https://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/09/veganism-is-a-privilege-not-a-cure/) and [commonly death](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death) in developing countries with a lack of sanitation. Animals products have a [high bioavailability](https://foodguru802.blogspot.com/2012/01/protein-bioavailability-list.html) for quickly absorbing nutrients before they're leached from the body, of which vegan food can't do, thus making veganism impractical for survival here.
1.8.11. Con: If veganism was treated like a [right rather than privilege](https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-right-and-vs-privilege/), it would be possible to extend to everyone.
1.9. Con: -> See 1.8.3.3.1.
1.10. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.1.1.
1.11. Con: A vegan diet lacks specific essential nutrients.
1.11.1. Con: In the same way that vegan diets need to be careful about getting the correct nutrients, non-vegan diets also need careful structuring to avoid health complications.
1.11.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.3.1.
1.11.1.2. Con: -> See 1.2.1.
1.11.1.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.
1.11.1.4. Pro: A balanced diet is not dependent on the inclusion or exclusion of animal products or other specific food groups, but on the nutrients it provides - carbs \(energy\), protein, minerals, vitamins and healthy fats. These can be obtained from plant or animal sources.
1.11.1.5. Pro: A vegan diet, if not well planned, does lack some nutrients, but the same can happen with a non-vegan diet too \(as well as too rich in cholesterol\). Basically, any diet, if taken lightly, can lack some nutrients, not vegan exclusively. Due to its non-exclusivity, lacking nutrients should not be a factor in deciding whether we all go vegan or not.
1.11.1.5.1. Con: While this is true, in reality, the vegan diet is more likely to lack nutrients when adopted, which at the global scale would have quite a measurable impact.
1.11.2. Con: Many expert organizations agree that a vegan diet can be as healthy as an omnivorous diet.
1.11.2.1. Pro: [According to AND](http://www.eatrightpro.org/~/media/eatrightpro%20files/practice/position%20and%20practice%20papers/position%20papers/vegetarian-diet.ashx), "\[vegetarian/vegan\] diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes."
1.11.2.1.1. Con: That same document \(which is [disputed](https://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/16/inaccuracies-and-omissions-force-nutrition-society-to-pulls-its-position-statement-on-vegetarian-diets/) within the scientific community\) also claims that vegans will often have to use supplements, and does not deny how sickness is more frequent in them.
1.11.2.1.1.1. Con: The [article](https://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/16/inaccuracies-and-omissions-force-nutrition-society-to-pulls-its-position-statement-on-vegetarian-diets/) also does not say that sickness is more frequent in vegans. Raising bacteria in labs to produce B12 vitamin or algae to produce Omega 3 is as natural as raising cows in industrial farms to produce milk and meat, or raise olive trees to produce olive oil; as for the claim that intakes make a healthy diet more costly, it is unfounded. Finally, any healthy diets require planning.
1.11.2.1.2. Con: A vegan diet might provide all essential nutrients when well planned, but requiring all humans to go vegan \(as the top-level claim states\) will include people who are unable \(skillwise or timewise or from simple forgetfulness and lack of priority\) to plan all meals well. These people will experience malnutrition.
1.11.2.1.2.1. Con: This is just a conjecture.  The opposite scenario is at least as probable: if everybody were vegan, information about healthy 100% plant based diets would be more widespread and even available in schools; vegans would be at least as healthy and informed as they are now. Furthermore, research suggests that lack of vitamins and minerals is not more common among vegans than in non vegans, see for example [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26502280)
1.11.2.2. Pro: A [properly planned vegan diet](https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/the-vegan-diet/) is considered to be [healthy and nutritionally complete](https://www.eatrightpro.org/~/media/eatrightpro%20files/practice/position%20and%20practice%20papers/position%20papers/vegetarian-diet.ashx) by many dietary \([1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704), [2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028)\) and medical \([1](https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/plant-based-diets), [2](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eat-more-plants-fewer-animals-2018112915198), [3](https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/discover-health/health-benefits-vegan-diet)\) entities.
1.11.2.3. Con: An omnivorous diet in and of itself is not necessarily an optimal one. Comparing the health of the vegan diet to the unhealthy \(on average\) omnivore one means that the vegan diet, at most, will not be that healthy if followed.
1.11.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.7.
1.11.4. Pro: Certain essential nutrients, when missing/too low in the diet, creating deficiencies that are harmful.
1.11.4.1. Pro: Vegan diets are at an increase risk of B12 deficiency among other vitamin deficiencies. B12 deficiency alone [can lead to](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/vitamin-b12-deficiency-can-be-sneaky-harmful-201301105780) sensory neuropathy and possible permanent neurological damage if untreated. Vegan diets need to be carefully structured or supplemented with vitamins.
1.11.4.1.1. Con: [Vitamin B12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Synthesis_and_industrial_production) is naturally made by bacteria, not animals. For this reason, vegan B12 supplements can be produced easily and cheaply.
1.11.4.1.1.1. Pro: B12 is easy to supplement in various vitamin dense shakes and meals. Also, there exists pill in which a person can intake the essential amount of B12.
1.11.4.1.2. Con: B12 deficiency is not a vegan issue. [The Framingham Offspring study](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/71/2/514/4729184) found that 39% of the general population may be in the low normal and deficient B12 blood level range, and it was not just vegetarians or older people. Most interestingly there was no difference between those ate meat and those who did not. The people with the highest B12 blood levels were those who were taking B12 supplements and eating B12 fortified cereals.
1.11.4.1.3. Con: B12 deficiency is not an issue for informed vegans. Recent [research](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26502280) results suggest that no significant vitamins or minerals deficiencies affect the vegan population compared to non vegans.
1.11.4.1.4. Pro: The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns about the risk of [vitamin B12 deficiencies](https://www.eatright.org/food/nutrition/vegetarian-and-special-diets/food-sources-of-important-nutrients-for-vegetarians) in vegans. While these can be safely gained from supplements, they are at greater risk.
1.11.4.1.5. Pro: There is a [study that shows that low Vitamin B12 levels during pregnancy](http://newsroom.wiley.com/press-release/alcoholism-clinical-and-experimental-research/avoiding-meat-during-pregnancy-linked-la) set up a worse life \(more prone to drugs\) for their progeny.
1.11.4.1.6. Pro: Without taking synthetically produced goods it is impossible to obtain [sufficient Vitamin B12](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/219822.php) on a vegan diet. The human body cannot source B12 from the sources that herbivores utilise, including bacterial sources. Vitamin B12 is [synthesized](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-001-0902-7) from bacterial sources. It is a reasonably technological enterprise, with a moderate level of industrialisation required.
1.11.4.1.6.1. Con: -> See 1.3.17.5.4.5.
1.11.4.1.7. Con: -> See 1.2.19.2.2.
1.11.4.1.8. Pro: Without adequate Vitamin B12 supplements on a vegan diet, people can get [pernicious anemia](https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/pernicious-anemia).
1.11.4.1.8.1. Con: Pernicious anemia could happen to those with [medical and genetic risk factors](https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/pernicious-anemia) \(vegans are only a small %\). They need to take Vitamin B12 shots, regardless of where the B12 comes from in the diet if their digestive system cannot absorb B12 anymore.
1.11.4.1.9. Con: B12 deficiency is not an issue in the vegan community, as B12 can be easily and efficiently [produced by bacteria](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00253-001-0902-7) in controlled laboratory conditions, B12 is cheap and available, and increasingly present in fortified products \(like vegetable milk\). Raising bacteria in lab cultures to produce B12 vitamins is as natural as raising cattle to produce milk and meat - but surely more efficient and environment friendly than industrial farms.
1.11.4.2. Pro: Vegans are more [deficient](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/2/327/4862944) than meat-eaters in the omega 3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. Supplements for these nutrients are usually animal-derived \(the omega 3 fatty acid is found in fish\).
1.11.4.2.1. Con: [Walnuts](http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3138/2), [Chia](http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3061/2) seeds and [flaxseeds](http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3163/2) are are plant sources that are very high in Omega-3. Omega-3 is also present in most vegetables in varying amounts, some good sources are listed [here](https://plenteousveg.com/vegan-sources-omega-3/). And if you want to take a vegan DHA supplement then there are algae derived [options](https://plenteousveg.com/vegan-vitamins/#omega3).
1.11.4.2.2. Con: The Omega-3 acids EPA and DHA are found in algae. This is where fish get theirs. We can eat algae extract which is widely available in pill form.
1.11.4.2.3. Con: Our bodies are able to produce Vitamin D when exposed to the sun. "Vitamin" D is a hormone, not really a vitamin. It's [produced by the kidneys.](https://www.kidney.org/news/kidneyCare/spring10/VitaminD) Making this technically yet another cruelty-free source of "vitamin" D3.
1.11.4.3. Pro: Vitamin D3 is [rarely found in plants](https://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health/Nutrition-A-Z/Vitamins/Vitamin-D--What-you-need-to-know.aspx) and will be inadequate in a vegan diet unless supplemented.
1.11.4.3.1. Con: All diets are poor in vitamin D3: " The paradox with ‘vitamin D’ is that diet per se is usually poor in vitamin D" \([Norman, 2001](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4642156/)\). "The most well-known source of vitamin D is via synthesis in the skin induced by sun exposure." [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4642156/)
1.11.4.3.2. Pro: D3 is inadequate in vegan diets, that is why meat is a good source of D3 \(the livestock gets its source from microbes that produce it\).
1.11.4.3.3. Con: People produce their own Vitamin D from the sun \([1](https://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/cholesterol.php#utilization), [2](https://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/vitamins.php#d), [3](http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Vitamin-D.html#figure1)\) and do not need supplementation with this method.
1.11.4.3.3.1. Pro: This source prevents overdosing on Vitamin D \(as seen in the third article\), as the body produces only what it needs.
1.11.4.3.4. Con: There are multiple vegan sources of Vitamin D3.
1.11.4.3.4.1. Pro: [Vegan vitamin D3](https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/nutrients/vitamin-d) supplements are sourced from lichens. They are especially beneficial for vegans who stay too long indoors.
1.11.4.4. Pro: Getting enough protein on a vegan diet can be challenging.
1.11.4.4.1. Con: Even in developing countries and for all ages, sources of protein and amino acids and their protein quantity is [shown](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10466163) not to be an issue.
1.11.4.4.2. Con: The difficulty of an action is never an ethical justification. It may have been "challenging" for societies to free their slaves, however, we know that it is still the ethical thing to do.
1.11.4.4.3. Con: Plant-based proteins are actually higher-quality than animal-based, because their [lower phosphorus levels](http://www.ijkd.org/index.php/ijkd/article/viewFile/345/176) are healthier for the body than higher levels.
1.11.4.4.4. Con: Most people get [too much protein](https://www.medicaldaily.com/high-protein-foods-are-all-rage-america-how-much-too-much-320306) and since vegans typically get [less](https://repository.cardiffmet.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10369/9922/Sophie%20Brown.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y), they're going to be at the more ideal level: too much protein's associated with a host of [chronic diseases](http://nature.webvpn.ustc.edu.cn/articles/s41574-019-0274-7?error=cookies_not_supported&code=2a307b9f-28e5-40ba-85eb-3cba42e1f3ec#Sec23).
1.11.4.4.5. Pro: Vegan protein sources are not as high-quality as animal ones.
1.11.4.4.5.1. Pro: The absorption of proteins from vegan sources are lower than from animal sources.
1.11.4.4.5.1.1. Pro: For example the [digestibility](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905294/) \(PDCAAS\) of whey is 100%, whereas the digestibility of black beans is 75%.
1.11.4.4.5.1.1.1. Con: Vegans just eat more protein to compensate for the lack of absorption. At the end of the day, following and compensating with the percentages, vegans can absorb the same amount of protein as non-vegans. For instance, if the absorption is 25% less than a non-vegan food, then someone needs to eat 25% more of the protein to compensate.
1.11.4.4.5.1.2. Pro: The protein-rich foods also contain fibres and anti-nutrients like lectins that [lower](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905294/) the absorption \(i.e. bioavailability \(BV\)\) of the amino acids.
1.11.4.4.5.1.2.1. Con: Anti-nutrients in plants are actually healthy for the body when they lower absorption of proteins, as [lower phosphorus levels](http://www.ijkd.org/index.php/ijkd/article/viewFile/345/176) help keep kidneys healthy.
1.11.4.4.5.1.2.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.3.1.5.1.1.
1.11.4.4.5.2. Pro: Animals provide a [complete protein source](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322827#plant-vs-animal-protein), whereas most vegan foods [do not](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322827#plant-vs-animal-protein).
1.11.4.4.5.2.1. Con: People do not need to eat a complete amino acid profile [for every meal](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/196279). So even if it's not high quality, as long as it's a balance at the end of the day, the intake will be adequate.
1.11.4.4.5.2.2. Con: -> See 1.2.4.2.8.2.
1.11.4.4.5.2.3. Con: Most vegan food is low in some essential amino acids, but not completely devoid of them. So if consumed at a high enough volume, they [would become a complete protein source](https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/myth-complete-protein.html).
1.11.4.4.5.3. Con: -> See 1.11.4.4.1.
1.11.4.4.6. Con: Contrary to popular belief, [any legume](https://vegetarianism.stackexchange.com/a/1404/1236) can completely satisfy human amino acid requirements, either eaten alone or with other whole plant foods. The necessity of protein combining is a myth.
1.11.4.5. Con: Omnivore diets are not as nutritious anymore as they used to because livestock's food is sanitized, which prevent microbes from creating nutrients that adds to livestocks' meat \(such as [B12](http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/carnivores-need-vitamin-b12-supplements/2013/10/30)\).
1.11.4.5.1. Con: Farmed meat is not the only meat available. Free-range and hunted animals are still an option.
1.11.4.6. Pro: Iodine is [not consistently available](https://veganhealth.org/iodine/) from plant foods.
1.11.4.6.1. Pro: A study of [Boston-area vegetarians and vegans](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21613354/) found that U.S. vegans may be at risk for low iodine intake.
1.11.4.6.2. Pro: A study of [London-area vegans](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/iodine-intake-and-iodine-deficiency-in-vegans-as-assessed-by-the-duplicateportion-technique-and-urinary-iodine-excretion/546E13105E5CFF1D9A01C116658B09C4) found the probability of iodine deficiency disorder was moderate to severe among vegans who were not consuming seaweed.
1.11.4.6.3. Con: Table salt is [iodized in many countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodised_salt) because iodine deficiency is recognized as a public health concern among many people, not just vegans.
1.11.4.6.4. Pro: Dairy is a consistent source of iodine, partly because dairy cattle [are given iodine feed supplements](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iodine-HealthProfessional/) and iodine solutions are used to clean the teats of milking cows.
1.11.4.6.5. Con: Iodine is available in supplements, such as the [VEG 1](https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/nutrients/veg-1-frequently-asked-questions-faqs) multivitamin sold by The Vegan Society UK.
1.11.4.6.6. Con: In countries like the Netherlands iodine shortage in all food is simply solved by supplementing bread. This could also be done to other countries and with other food types [\(Voedingscentrum: Iodine Netherlands\)](http://\(http://www.voedingscentrum.nl/encyclopedie/jodium.aspx\)).
1.11.4.6.7. Con: High amounts of Iodine are naturally present in seaweed, which can be [cultivated](https://www.wur.nl/en/article/Sustainable-seaweed-cultivation.htm) in nearly every country with a coastline. Seaweed could simultaneously a provide a good source of protein for large populations.
1.11.4.6.8. Con: A normal Western Diet often also lacks essential nutrients like [jodium](http://www.voedingscentrum.nl/nl/service/vraag-en-antwoord/gezonde-voeding-en-voedingsstoffen/hoe-krijg-ik-voldoende-jodium-binnen-.aspx) \(iodine\).
1.11.4.7. Con: Animal products lack specific essential nutrients too, like [Vitamin C](https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/report?nutrient1=401&nutrient2=&nutrient3=&&max=25&subset=0&offset=7100&sort=c&totCount=7123&measureby=g). This is no reason then not to go vegan.
1.11.4.7.1. Con: Omnivores can eat any sources, so they do not worry about deficiencies from food limitations. Whatever they cannot get from animal sources, they can just get it from plants, like Vitamin C. However, a vegan diet is limited and does have to worry about deficiencies from the limitations. Vitamin B12 does not have an adequate substitute in vegan sources, because it is not [bioavailable](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3181/0703-MR-67), even with microbial food sources like algae.
1.11.4.7.2. Con: The negation of veganism is not a diet made exclusively of animal products, but a diet not excluding animal products. The fact that a diet consisting exclusively of animal products is not nutritionally adequate, bears no relevance in this discussion.
1.11.4.8. Con: A vegan diet also lacks unnecessary and harmful nutrients that animal products contain. So it evens out and is no more of an issue than before.
1.11.4.8.1. Pro: Vegan diets also contain a lot less heavy metals and pollutants.
1.11.4.8.2. Con: -> See 1.2.6.1.1.
1.11.4.8.3. Pro: It is better to lack nutrients and be able to supplement them than place dangerous ones in the body and try to remove them before it is too late to.
1.11.4.8.4. Pro: A vegan diet [lacks dietary cholesterol](http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/diet/vegan-diets/) - the main cause of [heart disease](https://www.pcrm.org/health/medNews/cholesterol-levels-lower-in-vegans): the [#1 killer](http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death) worldwide.
1.11.4.9. Con: What can be low can be compensated by just eating more food until the recommended amount is reached.
1.11.4.10. Con: Some [professional athletes](http://www.greatveganathletes.com/) have shown that it is possible to adopt a vegan diet without sacrificing their athletic abilities or taking too many dietary supplements.
1.11.4.10.1. Pro: Matt Frazier is an endurance runner who has successfully completed ultramarathons. He does take [supplements](https://www.nomeatathlete.com/supplements/) for Vitamin B12, trace minerals, and EPA/DHA.
1.11.4.10.2. Pro: [Nancy Clark](http://www.nancyclarkrd.com/), a professional nutritionist, argues that vegan athletes don't always require [supplements](https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/can-athletes-perform-well-on-a-vegan-diet/), so long as they adopt a strict training habits.
1.11.4.10.3. Con: If a vegan athlete is successful, this does not mean that their dietary limitations haven't diminished their athletic abilities to some extent.
1.11.4.10.4. Con: Taking suplements indicates there is something missing from the diet and therefore, it is not optimal.
1.11.5. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.2.
1.11.6. Con: Every single essential nutrient can be obtained by a vegan diet. It's just that some are only available in a few food sources.
1.11.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.17.5.4.5.
1.11.6.2. Pro: Vitamin K2, found in soy-based [natto](https://veganhealth.org/vitamin-k/), but also inconsistently in fermented foods like [saurkraut, tempeh, and kombucha](https://nutritionstudies.org/6-facts-vitamin-k-plant-based-diet/).
1.11.6.3. Pro: Calcium is hard to come by, available naturally the most in [poppy seeds](https://www.livekindly.co/vegan-foods-highest-in-calcium/) \(but smaller amounts in figs, sesame seeds, greens, and some legumes like chickpeas\).
1.11.6.4. Pro: Outside of aquatic [algae, seaweed, and spirulina](https://sunwarrior.com/blogs/health-hub/vegan-dha-omega-3-sources), there aren't many other sources of DHA omega-3.
1.11.6.5. Pro: -> See 1.2.10.3.
1.11.7. Con: Most of these 'essential' nutrients not found in foods are converted in the body from vegan [precursors](https://healthfully.com/301855-nutrients-that-are-precursors-to-vitamins.html) \(except for those that can't - genetically, etc.\), so this isn't an issue.
1.11.7.1. Pro: -> See 1.11.4.2.3.
1.11.7.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.6.3.
1.11.7.3. Pro: EPA and DHA omega 3 fatty acids could be created from converting plant-based [ALA and SDA](https://livinginnaturalharmony.com/blog/2018/01/12/omega-3-conversion-ala-epa-dha/) in the body, albeit at a slow rate.
1.11.7.4. Pro: It's much better for the body to make nutrients than to take it in via a diet \(such as food or supplements\), as people can over-consume them easily \(if they're not careful\) - which isn't healthy.
1.11.7.5. Pro: -> See 1.2.10.3.
1.11.7.6. Pro: People can convert plant-based [K1 into K2](https://nutritionstudies.org/6-facts-vitamin-k-plant-based-diet/) via gut bacteria.
1.11.7.7. Con: Some nutrients may be inconsistent in acquiring if relying on the body to synthesize them.
1.11.7.7.1. Pro: Vitamin K2 would be difficult to come by for people if they don't have the right gut bacteria in them to produce it.
1.11.7.8. Con: Vegan diets would be incompatible with aging populations and individuals.
1.11.7.8.1. Con: Aging produces a range of changes in the body that make micronutrient \(i.e. vitamins/minerals\) needs increase, but calorie intake decrease. Since vegan foods tend to be more nutrient dense, they'll actually work better for an aging body than animal products.
1.11.7.8.2. Pro: As we age, our body finds it harder to synthesize and absorb nutrients. Since vegan foods tend to have a lower bioavailability than animal products \(like protein\) and rely on individuals to produce what they don't take in \(like DHA omega 3\), older people may not get the nutrition that they need and be worse off than if they consume animals.
1.11.7.8.3. Pro: Worldwide aging populations \(due to Baby Boomers, longer lifespans, etc.\) combined with incompatible diets to elderly bodies could lead to a worldwide public health crisis.
1.11.7.8.3.1. Pro: Youth and society are already struggling to handle aging populations and will do so even more in the future. Adding onto that a public health issue that's preventable would only make matters worse than they already are.
1.11.7.8.4. Pro: As a demographic, many elderly people already struggle with health complications. Malnutrition, if formed, could only make it worse or add onto what they already have.
1.11.7.8.4.1. Pro: These health complications are already expensive to treat, so malnutrition on top of that could be unaffordable. This could lead to individuals untreated and potentially affected severely or permanently by it.
1.11.8. Con: These can be supplemented.
1.11.8.1. Con: Supplements cost money, which may not be affordable to the less privileged.
1.11.8.1.1. Con: The [money saved from healthcare expenses/loss of life](http://time.com/4266874/vegetarian-diet-climate-change/) could go towards paying for supplements.
1.11.8.1.2. Con: Most people pay for supplements anyway when eating meat, so this should not be an issue.
1.11.8.1.3. Con: Since meat is [generally more expensive](https://plenteousveg.com/cost-vegan-protein-vs-animal-protein/) than vegan food \(outside of processing\), the savings could be transferred towards buying supplements.
1.11.8.1.3.1. Pro: Savings could be even greater without cooking, as vegan foods can be eaten raw, whereas meat needs to be cooked \(outside of rare instances like pre-cooked meat, jerky, and meat just taken out of an animal\). The savings come from no cookware, fuel to cook with, or safety issues from mistakes.
1.11.8.1.4. Con: Vegans might not need too many supplements if they eat a nutritious diet.
1.11.8.1.5. Con: If people eat cheaper vegan food, then they can budget their money towards supplements.
1.11.8.1.6. Con: Vegan foods and supplements will get cheaper with more people buying them, so this will not be an issue.
1.11.8.1.7. Pro: Supplements cost money and without being able to pay for them, vegans could run into costly health issues
1.11.8.1.8. Pro: Supplements require educating the public about what to use. If this is not provided in school, then only the more privileged can afford to educate themselves on what supplements to buy instead of experimenting \(which is costly\).
1.11.8.2. Con: A diet requiring supplementation, that does not supply essential nutrients is not a complete and healthy diet.
1.11.8.2.1. Pro: Omnivores do not have the struggle to supplement their diet everyday. People will not want to have this extra step/hardship when they go vegan, just to survive/thrive on it.
1.11.8.2.2. Pro: The nutrients of supplements may not be absorbed during digestion as effectively as those in whole foods.
1.11.8.2.3. Con: If a diet contains all the nutrients in it that a person needs to survive and it helps them stay healthy, even if it's through supplementation, then it is complete and healthy.
1.11.8.3. Pro: Modern society provides the means to supplement these nutrients via cruelty-free production methods based on lab-bred bacteria.
1.11.8.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.11.4.1.1.
1.11.8.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.11.4.3.4.
1.11.8.3.3. Con: Robust scientific evidence based research is virtually non-existent to prove that these alternatives and supplements can be correctly absorbed by the human body and what effect do they have on people using them in the short and long term. There is a huge difference between in-vitro testing, long term scientific studies, and reality.
1.11.8.3.3.1. Con: Science has identified the exact chemicals vitamins and minerals are made of, and many of them can be synthesized in a lab. They are thus chemically identical to their naturally-occuring counterparts.
1.11.8.3.3.2. Con: Supplementation to combat common nutritional deficiencies \(which are by far not exclusive to vegans\) has long been a standard practice in medicine and even food science \(for example, iodized table salt has greatly reduced iodine deficiency\). There is no reason to believe that supplementation is not an effective treatment for deficiencies.
1.11.8.3.4. Pro: The vitamins that vegans miss \(Vitamin B12, D3, and K2, plus DHA\) but is in meat are actually vegan themselves \(produced by microbes\). Animals just do the work for us by absorb these vitamins into their flesh \(that becomes meat later on\) from the microbes instead of us. Thus, it is not the vegan diet that lacks vitamins and need supplements, but vegans that make poor \(i.e. microbe-deficient\) food choices on the diet \(omnivores have less of this worry\).
1.11.8.3.4.1. Pro: Vegans can take in the microbes \(that produce these missing nutrients\) to stay in the gut, so that they [produce them there](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144392/#vitamins).
1.11.8.3.4.1.1. Pro: Then, they would not worry about deficiencies or finding the right foods anymore, just like omnivores. Whatever's missing will already be in the vegans' bodies, regardless of what they eat.
1.11.8.4. Con: Supplements are unnatural.
1.11.8.4.1. Con: Unnatural is needed, as humans created and live in an unnatural world that necessitates unnatural behaviors
1.11.8.4.2. Con: Just because they are unnatural does not make them bad or not necessary.
1.11.8.4.2.1. Pro: The world population is growing, meaning we need to create new methods, possibly unnatural ones, to sustain our unnatural levels \(as we are the only top predator on Earth\). Supplements may not be natural, but are necessary to keep our growth momentum going.
1.11.8.4.3. Con: Pretty much any diet these days is unnatural, due to living in a post-agricultural revolutionary era
1.11.8.4.4. Con: Salt is supplemented with iodine in some countries by law, yet no one is complaining about it being unnatural.
1.11.8.4.5. Con: Some supplements are better than natural sources, because they are not attached to food, as with [B12](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional/).
1.11.8.4.6. Pro: Acknowledging that nutrient supplements are readily available for vegans, raises the point that they are merely supplements and not completely authentic substitutes for natural sources of nutrients.
1.11.8.4.6.1. Pro: Some pills make uptake of supplement nutrients more difficult than getting it from food sources.
1.11.8.4.6.2. Con: Some supplements are a better source of a nutrient \(due to a higher bioavailability or correct balance of nutrients\), so it is better to supplement, no matter what diet a person's on.
1.11.8.4.6.3. Con: People are not always able to balance their food intake to make sure they get enough of everything and take a multivitamin because of that, regardless of diet.
1.11.8.5. Pro: A vegan diet contains pretty much all of the nutrients required, the small few \(if not already provided\) can be easily supplemented.
1.11.8.5.1. Con: -> See 1.2.10.
1.11.8.6. Con: Supplements are not available in all countries and not accessible to all humans.
1.11.8.7. Con: Some people have mental health issues based around food. It is wrong to require such people to micromanage their nutrient intake, as opposed to just having a balanced diet.
1.11.8.8. Con: Supplements could allow the whole of the human race to be at ransom by the companies that make them.
1.11.8.8.1. Pro: Vitamin B12 is required to stay alive on a vegan diet, so companies can increase their prices to unreasonable levels \(as with [life-saving pharmaceuticals](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epipen-price-hike-controversy-mylan-ceo-heather-bresch-speaks-out/)\), because people are forced to buy them to live.
1.11.8.8.1.1. Con: There are other sources, like [fermented plants and certain algae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Bacteria_and_archaea) too.
1.11.8.8.2. Con: Humans tend to find a way to innovate when given an extreme challenge, of which this is one of them.
1.11.8.8.3. Con: Not every company is going to deliberately hold people for ransom. When an instance like this takes place, there may be companies that fight against it by selling their own low-priced versions and alternatives to provide more choice versions of the scarce resource.
1.11.8.8.4. Pro: Like [Big Pharma](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drug-prices-oxycontin-predaxa-purdue-pharmaceuticals-boehringer-ingelheim/), there may will be companies that will keep prices up and sourcing difficult through cornering the market to monopolize a product, along with [heavy lobbying](https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/23/health/phrma-lobbying-costs-bn/index.html).
1.12. Pro: -> See 1.3.12.1.