113
Cruelty-free
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2026
113 points (63.4% liked)
Comic Strips
22136 readers
1863 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Limit of two posts per person per day.
- Bots aren't allowed.
- Banned users will have their posts removed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Is it more or less than the amount that die when you grow crops to feed to animals that you then slaughter and eat? It seems like less, but I’m not a math major.
Just throwing in Buddhas dilemma when he wanted to stop eating meat, but realized the insects that die in the process and asking himself does one life form have more value than another?
Point to where in the Pali Canon the Buddha says that. You can't.
You're thinking of Jain Sallekhana. It's not a thing in Buddhism.
Like with everything, there is no clear boundary and it's up to us, the thinking, sapient creature to make these distinctions so that we can exist while minimizing our harm to the world.
We will never eliminate all harm we do to the living world, that's ridiculous and nobody is expecting it except the most delusional people.
But we do need to draw lines somewhere. And broadly, we can make distinctions that higher animals like cows, pigs and chickens have more of an "experience" of the world than most insects, and thus their lives have more value. It's a weird thing to say out loud but we can't shy away from making these moral choices as long as inhabit the earth and want to remain the dominant species.
One life does have more value than another. I'll kill a hundred cows to save a human.
But only if I have to. I won't kill a hundred cows to save the minor inconvenience of finding something different to eat.
While I agree, I think we need an *. Some biological humans are no better than dirt and crows would be better company.
Insects are more important to our ecosystem, yet we don't seem to care about that because they aren't fuzzy and cute.
"we" care just fine. I don't spray pesticide. I work with my land to keep critters out of my house. Human compassion is not in short supply.
And I'll kill every one of those fuckers if it would save human lives.
Will not eating veggies save them? Or are they dying for other reasons?
But if the answer to that is no, then by eating meat you’re responsible for the death of the animal you eat, plus all the insects that were killed to raise crops to feed it before you ate it. For something like a cow, they’re eating significantly more crops than you would because they weigh like 1000 lbs.
If the answer is yes, then don’t eat the cow, because as far as we can tell it has more awareness and capacity for suffering than a bug.
take soy, as an example.
some 80%+ of all soy is pressed for oil, but a soybean is only about 20% oil anyway. that leaves 80% of 80% of the total crop as industrial waste. we feed that to livestock. (we call it soymeal or soycake). so no insects are harmed to produce that for livestock: they were harmed to make soybean oil. by feeding the byproduct to livestock, we are conserving resources.
Sorry, this is an accounting trick. The cows are still eating an agricultural product that killed insects, we can’t decide ‘oh, actually that’s entirely for oil’ if the soy meal is also valuable enough to sell and export as a product (about 65% of production, per the wiki article you linked).
There also aren’t any livestock that live entirely off soybean meal; a huge amount of corn is also fed to livestock. So even if you want to do shoddy accounting, they’re not being raised off waste and sunlight. A lot of crops are grown exclusively for livestock consumption.
even the corn plant is a great example. people don't eat corn leaves, cobs, or stalks, but livestock eat silage made from them.
Some can argue insects are more important to our ecosystem.
Either way, I have personally cut back on eating red meat. Been trying to cut back on meat altogether, but strictly for my health. At this point in the world, I don't have much hope. Climate change will dictate what we eat.
Unless you consume the entire animal yourself and refuse to share, the math doesn't check out.
A cow eats more crops which kill more insects over its lifetime than you will by eating plants over the same period, because you eat fewer plants. There’s no way that adding entropy by eating something that ate plants somehow kills less insects, even if you want to take into account dividing up the meat between other people.
Example: steers eat 30-40lbs of feed per day for 1-2 years. Less than half of a steer is usable beef, and will give you a little less than 500 lbs of meat from a 1200 lb steer. Assuming 1/2 lb servings, that’s a little less than 1000 servings of ~500 calories for something that took years to raise and literal tons of crops like corn to be fed to it.
My point is that is more than if one person consumes the animal the environmental impact should divided between the person, based on how large part of the animal they eat.