The objection
"Veganism kills even more animals, because of farming: tractors, harvesting, and pesticides kill lots of small creatures."
The usual answer
A large share of the grain grown in the world is used to fatten the animals raised for consumption. To produce meat, you have to grow much more than you would to feed people plants directly. So the more vegans there are, the fewer fields would be needed, and the fewer animals would die in them.
A smarter version of the objection
Someone could reply: "What if everyone ate only fish caught in the ocean? Then we wouldn't need to grow anything."
The author answers in two ways.
First: it's very doubtful this would kill fewer animals. Fishing kills enormous numbers of fish and other animals.
Second, and more important: the objection only looks at the direct consequences of what each person eats. It forgets the effect of the ideas we pass on.
The effect of ideas
People who live as vegans spread the idea that animals matter. Only in a world where animals are taken seriously will there be people who want to:
- reduce accidental deaths in farming;
- improve the lives of wild animals;
- create new technologies that avoid harming animals.
Meanwhile, people who eat animals reinforce the idea that animals can be used. These ideas get passed from generation to generation, and their effect is much bigger than that of a single meal.
In short
- Eating animals requires growing much more than eating plants does.
- Eating only fish probably wouldn't kill fewer animals.
- Veganism spreads the idea that animals matter, and that has huge effects.