But Doesn't Veganism Cause Even More Deaths Than Consuming Animals?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume IV, p. 61 of the PDF edition · English translation

It is sometimes argued that, contrary to what might seem at first glance, veganism causes even more deaths than consuming animals. According to this claim, this would be because of the animal deaths caused as a side effect of agriculture, such as the accidental deaths of small animals during harvesting and the transport of plant foods, and even intentional deaths, as in the use of pesticides during planting¹⁵⁰.

The reply usually offered to this objection points out that the greater the number of vegans, the fewer crops would be required, since a large share of the grain produced in the world is used to fatten the animals humans exploit for consumption.

However, a proponent of the objection could point out that if everyone consumed only aquatic animals caught in the wild at sea, there would be no need to grow crops at all, and this, all told, would allegedly result in fewer deaths than a vegan world.

One possible reply here is to question whether, all told, doing so would result in fewer deaths than there would be in a vegan world. Regardless of that, however, there is another possible reply, which points to the importance of taking into account all the consequences, and not just some of them. This reply will be explored in more detail below.

It could be pointed out that the objection takes into account only the direct consequences of each form of consumption, neglecting the influence of the worldview passed on through each kind of attitude. To defend consuming animals is to reinforce the view that they are resources at our disposal. To defend veganism, on the other hand, reinforces the view that animals are beings we ought to be concerned about.

It is only in a world where animals receive moral consideration that there will be people concerned with minimizing the indirect deaths resulting from agriculture and with trying to improve the situation of animals in general. Defending the consumption of animals definitely does not help make such a world possible (on the contrary, it hinders it). Therefore, these two

kinds of attitudes have very different consequences in the long term, because of the ideal they reinforce.

The consequences of the influence that worldviews exert are much greater than the direct consequences of each person's consumption, since they extend over many generations. The consequences of consumption last until the moment the person dies. The consequences of the worldview they promote, by contrast, continue long after they die.

For this reason, the indirect positive impact of a vegan way of life, that of reinforcing consideration for animals, is even greater than the direct positive impact of preventing more animals from being born to suffer and die. Of course, these positive indirect consequences exist only if one emphasizes that one does not consume animal products out of respect for animals (not consuming animal products for anthropocentric or environmentalist reasons does not have the same positive indirect effect of reinforcing moral consideration for animals).

Therefore, even if it were true that practicing veganism killed more animals because of the indirect harm caused by planting, harvesting, and transport (and, incidentally, there is no evidence that this number of deaths is greater than the deaths resulting from animal exploitation), still, if we take into account the consequences of the worldview each practice helps pass on, it is more likely that advocating veganism would still have better overall consequences over time.