/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>7166845
>I don't think it's a reasonable thing to do to bring up some other issue going on in the world to ignore any other issue, such as this one.

neither would 99% of vegans.

>What, precisely, is the difference? The factor of death?

yes

>In that case is the accidental death of animals in harvesting a lesser exploitation?

yes

>Is the (unpaid, unrewarded) work of humans a lesser exploitation of animals?

no. all sane people put higher value on human life than animal ones.
if a suffering is avoidable, then it is our moral imperative to minimise it.

>What about mussels and oysters, which do not have a recognizable nervous system?

for a rational aka 'tentative vegan', it does not count as death anymore than the "death" of a sponge or potato. http://sentientist.org/2013/06/15/oystersmusselspt2/

>Do the tiny deaths of crickets and locusts outweigh their nutritional density and ease of raising?

yes. because soy/wheat/etc. crop is a) ethically preferable and b) a more efficient use of resources. optional point c): insects taste like shit.

>I have no desire to commit to a vegan lifestyle for the points that I raised

no. you have no desire to commit for unstated reasons. none of those which you have outlined stand up to even the lightest rational scrutiny. try again

>it is hypocritical

nope. aiming to minimise suffering, and shopping/consuming accordingly is not hypocrisy by definition. veganism is not commonly an absolutist postion (although you would prefer that as it's far easier to dismiss as irrational).

>privileged

if you live in a country where supermarkets are plentiful, nope. legumes, grains and vegetables are universally cheaper than meat or dairy, by nutritional content.

>may not even be effective

not only is this demonstrably false, even it were true, consuming animal products does not provide a more reasonable alternative.

>but I do expect people to be consistent in their beliefs.

kek. expected of every person but you, right?