Discussion Title: There is no such thing as "vegan"

1. There is no such thing as "vegan"
1.1. Pro: There is hardly a way to avoid exposure to animal products. Even if we leave Earth \(where animals seem to not exist\), if we bring anything from here with us, then we risk bringing products that involve animal influences and products/exploitation.
1.2. Con: Even though there is no such thing as "vegan", there are ways to get as close to "vegan" as possible.
1.2.1. Pro: This might include growing food in hydroponic or aeroponic environments to use as little resources as possible to grow food.
1.2.2. Pro: Waterways can be cleaned up and removed of contaminants from animals.
1.3. Con: The accusation that vegans fail to be vegan because they cannot be perfect [is an external one](http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/you-cannot-be-100-percent-vegan) imposed by people who do not understand veganism.
1.4. Con: Veganism in its truest sense is against the exploitation of animals and living beings. Natural processes and those that animals undertake by their own free will without interference or exploitation are in fact vegan. This includes breathing, pollination, defecating and dying from natural causes.
1.5. Con: The vegan society defines veganism as "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.". It's impossible to only buy things that have never touched an animal product but that is not the definition of veganism.
1.6. Pro: Many vegan products contain and/or utilize animals/animal products in its production process.
1.6.1. Pro: Vegan foods [\(especially mushrooms\) might be grown using manure](http://themushroomlady.blogspot.com/2006/12/where-to-start-how-about-how-mushrooms.html).
1.6.2. Pro: [Many produce are pollinated by bees](http://pollinator.org/list-of-pollinated-food).
1.6.2.1. Con: As bees naturally pollinate they are not being exploited in the act of pollination. Bees are not being forced unnaturally to pollinate, nor to pollinate at an increased rate that affects their wellbeing. Therefore, pollination by bees is natural and vegan.
1.6.2.1.1. Con: People should not consume pollinated crops \(even if bees flew randomly onto them unintentionally\).
1.6.2.1.1.1. Pro: Those bees might have come from farms that buy bees from bees farms with inhumane practices \(such as [using antibiotics](https://www.back40bees.com/about.html)\) and eating foods pollinated by them indirectly supports the inhumane bee farms.
1.6.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: [European bees can be hybridized with Killer bees on purpose for farming honey](https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in790), and the random bees could come from there.
1.6.2.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Hybrid bees are [an invasive species](http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1958657_1958656_1958665,00.html). Not only bad for wildlife, the invasiveness is also bad for people.
1.6.2.1.1.1.2. Pro: [Bred bees designed to pollinate farms get agitated during travel](https://www.buglogical.com/bumble-bees-natural-pollination/), which is harmful to those bees.
1.6.2.1.1.2. Con: If bees come from nature, then those bees benefit from pollinating the farm by feeding their hive.
1.6.2.1.1.2.1. Con: Even those bees are not ethical, as [bees in the wild are unnatural: they might be mixed/accidentally hybridized with bees that came from an inhumane farm if bees are accidentally released from those farms.](https://honeybeesuite.com/monday-morning-myth-africanized-honey-bees-are-apis-mellifera-scutellata/)
1.6.2.1.1.2.1.1. Con: An accidentally mixed or hybridized bee which has been growing up in the wild has not been subject to unethical treatment.
1.6.2.1.1.2.1.1.1. Con: No, but its ancestor could have been. Supporting the bee's descendant could somehow support inhumane treatment as the mixed/hybridized bee would not be alive without its parent.
1.6.2.1.1.3. Pro: Bees could be killed by machinery in the agricultural process.
1.6.2.1.1.3.1. Pro: An example is mechanically plowing the fields when bees are pollinating those crops.
1.6.2.1.1.3.2. Pro: Trucks transporting the finished product could hit bees along the road.
1.6.2.1.1.4. Pro: If the farm uses pesticides unintentionally because they did not expect bees, any bees flying over \(and [their hive](https://www.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/colony-collapse-disorder)\) could be [affected by them](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/neonicotinoid-pesticides-slowly-killing-bees).
1.6.2.1.1.5. Pro: There are alternatives to pollinated crops \(where bees are not part of the pollination process\), such as self- or wind-pollinated crops as well as crops pollinated without bees \(using machines or humans\)
1.6.2.1.1.5.1. Con: If bees are not allowed onto a farm to pollinate, then those bees could lose a potential food source \(the crops\).
1.6.2.1.1.6. Con: Bees and other insect pollinators are so prolific that in order not to eat a bee pollinated crop we would need to exterminate or starve bees in order to eat non-bee pollinated crops.
1.6.2.1.2. Con: Even though the pollinating act by bees in natural \(and non-exploitative\), the conditions surrounding it are exploitative. Bees are forced to pollinate in specific locations under human control \(such as [intentionally bringing honeybees to the US for agriculture](http://www.safechemicalpolicy.org/honeybees-are-are-not-native-to-the-united-states/)\) and also [artificially bred](http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoff-burg/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/Apis_mellifera_scutellata.htm), throwing off their natural evolutionary path.
1.6.3. Pro: Many vegan products \(such as [sweeteners, oils,](https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/400/400-230/400-230.html) and [ethanol](https://beef.unl.edu/byproducts.shtml)\) have [co-products](https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/livestock/feeding-coproducts-of-the-ethanol-industry-to-beef-cattle) \(products produced at the same time\) that go to feeding livestock, thus partially contributing to the livestock industry.
1.6.4. Pro: [Deforestation for growing crops](https://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html) cuts out land that animals call home to use for human purposes \(a.k.a. eating\).
1.6.4.1. Con: Our current levels of deforestation are caused due to growing crops for the consumption of animals used for the meat and dairy industry. Were to stop consuming these products we would no longer require as much land. In fact, much farmland would be returned to the wild. Therefore, this statement is not a statement against veganism but rather against the consumption of animals and their byproducts.
1.6.5. Pro: [Fruits/vegetables, fertilizer, and household products might contain "lac resin" or shellac on them](http://www.vrg.org/blog/2010/11/30/q-a-on-shellac/).
1.6.6. Pro: [Some plants/fungi are carnivorous](http://veganscientist.blogspot.com/2011/10/partial-list-of-edible-carnivorous.html), so they consumed animals to grow. Eating them would be equivalent to eating all of the animals it ate as well.
1.6.7. Pro: Transportation uses energy \(if it is gasoline\) from the remains of animals as well as plants.
1.6.8. Pro: Crops take in CO2 that animals breathe out.
1.6.8.1. Con: C02 exists in our atmosphere and is simply utilised. Were all animals to be removed from the planet plants would continue to breathe.
1.6.8.2. Con: Plants also take in oxygen and expel C02 during different times of the day. Plants in a sealed system do not need animals to breathe.
1.6.9. Pro: Products that should be vegan, such as water and produce, may not be all the time, especially if they are [contaminated by animals](https://kimberlysnyder.com/blog/2012/04/10/why-high-animal-protein-diets-age-you-faster/).
1.6.9.1. Con: Contamination by animals is not the same as deriving the product from animals.
1.6.9.2. Pro: If animals on a farm contaminate crops, then the vegan food is no longer vegan.
1.6.10. Pro: The atoms and molecules in vegan foods most likely could come from an animal source.
1.6.11. Pro: Inventions for harvesting crops are not vegan per se, as they [require animals](http://www.iptv.org/iowapathways/mypath/plowing-past-look-early-farm-machinery) to use it.
1.6.12. Con: Some of our intake comes from non-living sources, such as water and salt.
1.6.13. Con: Vegan products are not derived from animals. Although animals may contaminate or contribute to the creation of those products, the animals themselves are not the products.
1.7. Con: Just because something is vegan, does not mean it cannot exploit animals and lifeforms, especially if they're not harmed in the process.
1.7.1. Pro: Vegans can consume lifeforms \(such as chromists in [chalk and gypsum](https://gizmodo.com/blackboard-chalk-isn-t-really-chalk-at-all-1701961875)\) if they are unicellular.
1.7.2. Pro: Many inventions are [inspired by animals](https://tailandfur.com/successful-inventions-inspired-by-animals/), just through mere observation, rather than exploiting them to invent.
1.8. Pro: Human bodies are not vegan.
1.8.1. Pro: Humans are not vegan, as they are the byproduct of evolutionary survival of the animals \(as ancestors\) that came before them.
1.8.2. Pro: Even if humans did not eat anything, through the body's maintenance systems, the body is constantly consuming its own flesh \(autophagy\) to cleanup and make room for new cells. Thus, humans cannot be vegan, as our bodies 'eat' themselves.
1.8.2.1. Con: Autophagy can be included in the philosophy of [veganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism) as it does not support the exploitation of \(primarily non-human\) animals.
1.8.2.2. Con: Autophagy, while described as the body consuming itself, it is nothing like the digestive process, and any flesh "consumed" this way would having nothing to do with veganism.
1.8.3. Con: Sunlight to make Vitamin D in our bodies is vegan.
1.8.4. Con: Human bodies could be modified to become vegan.
1.8.4.1. Pro: Even though the definitions are arbitrary, if we follow them exactly, then we could lead to a world where it's possible to be fully vegan, like being a [digital](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlLGgu72vyY) or [android](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcvfmIBqkQU), as then animals wouldn't be involved in our life.
1.8.4.1.1. Con: One could say, however, that even becoming a digital or android being isn't truly vegan, as even then it took animal exploitation to get to that height.
1.8.4.2. Pro: If we can be autotrophs \(such as [synthesizing Vitamin C](https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/20657/can-humans-survive-without-consuming-life)\), then that source of food is vegan.