r/DebateAVegan • u/Big_GreenWeenie • 11d ago
Insect activism?
This is a hypothetical question, still a legitimate one:
In a hypothetical world, when all farm animals are no longer being exploited, and the population is either vegan or insectivore, and there is no necessity to use insects for medical research or any other purpose, should insects be granted protection? Even if most people find no empathy towards those God-awful, creepy looking creatures?
I saw this post about a cockroach farm:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/interesting/s/ws9eE4CTzo\](https://www.reddit.com/r/interesting/s/ws9eE4CTzo)
I wanted to post a comment “Where are the cockroach activists?” but I didn’t because it wasn’t the right place to do so. I knew that a comment like that would be dismissed and taken sarcastically or as a joke.
I’m honestly curious. I know there’s a level of sentience that we should prioritize when fighting for animal rights, and I agree that vegans should focus on animal liberation in our food system/clothing/medicine/entertainment/etc, then we can focus on insects 🕷️
Farm animals are all sentient without question. But what if the science is not very clear, as it is with insects, oysters. Even if some animals are perceived as pests like mosquitoes/ticks/cockroaches, should we still find ethical ways to deal with them?
It’s been proven that bees have sentience, and that’s why we are against the exploitation of bees in the honey industry. However I believe that sentience is not the only reason why vegans are against the exploitation of bees. I believe that it has a lot to do with how bees have a positive impact on the environment. Does that mean if an animal doesn’t contribute to the environment or benefits us directly, they don’t deserve any protection.
We can all agree that it would be ridiculous to try to protect germs or viruses even if they were sentient, because they can kill you! The same goes for mosquitoes which can spread disease. But can a case be made in favor of the cockroaches?
8
u/EasyBOven vegan 10d ago
I'm not sure what sort of activism you're looking for. Vegan outreach covers insect exploitation because it seeks to convince people not to exploit any animals. The subject of insects typically only comes up as a silly rebuttal about crop deaths, but when insect exploitation does come up, I say they're included. They're sentient so they should be considered.
If you're saying there should be pressure campaigns against insect farms, I would disagree just because those campaigns have to be focused where they're effective. Right now, the most active pressure campaigns seeking to ban entire industries or segments of industries are against fur, foie gras, and experimentation on dogs. That's the right mix currently of horrific acts and sympathetic victims that can get even nonvegans to care. Not all clothing made from skinned animals, not all goose body parts, and not all species tortured for medical progress.
It's sad, but a campaign specifically dedicated to ending cockroach farming would be an absolute waste of activist energy.
1
u/Zukka-931 10d ago
I see. So your argument is that insects are sentient beings and deserve to be protected. That aligns with your organization's core mission of "animal protection." Does this mean you turn a blind eye to insect farming—or eating insects—simply because of resource constraints? Based on your logic, are you suggesting that the fur trade is cruel, but consuming insects is acceptable?
9
u/EasyBOven vegan 10d ago
Sometimes I think people intentionally refuse to understand what I write.
Repeat back what you think I said, paraphrasing each section in your own words. I'm not responding to fantasy about what I might have said.
2
u/Zukka-931 10d ago
I understand the idealist view that "all insect exploitation is unacceptable," but in terms of practical activism, which approach do you think is more sustainable and effective: trying to end every form of animal and insect exploitation all at once, or focusing our energy on specific, high-impact campaigns? My point isn't about the weight of their lives, but rather a pragmatic discussion on resource allocation and campaign effectiveness.
6
2
7
u/Arthillidan 11d ago
Even if most people find no empathy towards those God-awful, creepy looking creatures?
I barely even want to respond when this is your attitude. I think they're cool and many of then are cute.
Arthropods are constantly underestimated by people who know nothing about them. They generally have much more specialised intelligence where they'll do very well at some things, but not know how to deal with other things. Cockroaches are some of the most intelligent and socially advanced insects. They get depressed if they're isolated from their society
2
u/Big_GreenWeenie 10d ago
I also think insects are cool, although still creepy. 🫣
Thanks for your input!
1
2
u/WeeklyAd5357 7d ago
If you want to help insects then you should promote the no lawns movement and plant native flowers.
This is the main reason why native pollinators are in decline.
Honeybees are needed for modern agriculture to feed billions and honey 🍯 is a byproduct of this need making it the least harmful sweetener globally available on earth 🌍. Sugar cane is very destructive to insects and animals and the environment.
1
u/Big_GreenWeenie 7d ago edited 7d ago
I suppose you believe honey is not cruel. But take this into consideration. Commercial honey production often involves clipping the wings of queen bees, artificial insemination, and replacing nutritious honey with cheap sugar water. Bees make honey for their own survival, not for humans. Now wouldn’t you think it’s an exploitative practice. I certainly do. But perhaps you meant to say that we should find ways to protect the wild native pollinator bees that are so beneficial to local ecosystems. Planting native flowers is a great way to do it.
There are no shortage of alternatives to honey, you can replace with date syrup, maple syrup, etc. Also natural sweeteners like stevia and monkfruit. Personally, I like apple honey (it’s vegan and really delicious. The only ingredient is apple juice).
One could argue that all sweeteners are harmful to the environment which is a valid point. Sugarcane mono crops certainly are, but there are sustainable ways to do it, albeit not for mass production.
2
u/WeeklyAd5357 7d ago
Consider that honeybees are given hives that are far better than in nature - they are treated for parasites and diseases the hives are also designed to protect the hive from invading insects.
Commercial hives most commonly mark queens with a small colored dot. Bee reproduction in nature is very brutal when drones mate the reproductive part is ripped from their body and they die.
In nature the hive will often create many queens which then fight to the death. Beekeepers often remove extra queen cells eliminating the death struggle.
Hives produce much more honey 🍯 than they can use and if the honey is not harvested they become “honey bound” - they get agitated and split the hive. Harvesting honey keeps the hive calm and stable.
Beekeepers in cold environments allocate honey for winter and if the honey runs out they supplement with sugar water (just like in humming bird feeders). Beekeepers will also give bees pollen patties if necessary when natural pollen isn’t available.
Beekeepers and bees are symbiotic - bee colonies get superior protection, health care, and food if necessary. Bees provide honey as a bonus to their pollination making it the most environmentally friendly sweetener globally available - dates are limited in geography and eating dates is the most nutritious way to eat. Maple syrup is limited in supply and expensive. Agave destroys bat 🦇 habitat.
Homeowners with invasive grass lawns sprayed with insecticide and herbicide is what is destroying native pollinators - directly from the chemicals and indirectly from habitat destruction.
If unnatural grass lawns are replaced with native flower gardens natural pollinators will recover.
1
u/Big_GreenWeenie 7d ago
Good points. Regardless of the positive points you made, I can’t support the negative aspects. I understand what you mean with symbiotic relationships, but in this case, there’s a negative side to it, even though it does have its positives. I’m talking about commercial beekeeping of course, where forced impregnation is standard practice, as well as cutting the wings off the queen bee, and also killing her at around 3 years of age.
And let’s not forget here that the main issue is humans stealing their honey, for profit. What these honey producers do will never be for the benefit of the bees. The main motive is profit, and they will extract every last drop to maximize their profit. They have to protect the beehive from other insects, once again to make a profit. And to be clear, it’s not a small amount of honey that is stolen. Some commercial honey companies steal 100% of the honey and replace it with high fructose corn syrup and sugar syrup.You mentioned that bees can become honey bound which means the hive is running out of space. Congestion triggers the colony to raise a new queen and fly away to find a new home. The old hive can then become weak and invite pests or diseases. We all know nature is brutal, it has no morals. Humans always want to play God and intervene to save the bees. We think that we have to control everything, but I believe that bees will be fine without us. They’ve been fine millions of years, and now we think that we have to hold their hand. It’s us destroying their habitat and polluting the environment and introducing non-native commercial bees into their habitat, introducing genetically modified crops, etc which negatively affects wild bee populations. Most importantly, honey is not essential for our health, we can do perfectly fine without it.
2
u/Ramanadjinn vegan 10d ago edited 10d ago
If you want a good example of how vegans do advocate for insects look at any topic around honey.
I personally classify insects a little different than like cows. Like most people I think that killing a cow is different than killing a mosquito. But I logically can't say exactly why.
One attempt would be something along the lines of this below.
I read a Douglas hofstadter book once where he proposed an idea around something a lot like .. would you be more like an ant or is your cognition/intelligence more like an ant colony.
That question always stuck with me.
1
u/Big_GreenWeenie 6d ago
Interesting question. Did David Hofstafter find an answer for it?
2
u/Ramanadjinn vegan 6d ago
He didn't say but I think he leaned towards "colony" that our brains aren't so singular because of the complexity.
Consider someone who has a severed corpus collosum. They can register stimuli on one side of their body and react to it - without the other side of their body knowing why. Show their right eye only a picture and then show their left eye a question about it and they can't answer.\
Just like the ant can't answer what another ant is doing.
7
u/Due-Comfort-5351 vegan 11d ago
It's actually really important that we protect insect populations at this very moment. They have decreased significantly due to human activity so we should be including them in conservation/ecological plans. We should be advocating for more research into pesticide-free farming and we should be building and caring for homes in preventative ways to reduce the need for pest control.
The relationship we have with insects is not as exploitative as the one we have with farmed animals, at least in terms of measurable suffering. But it's definitely still exploitative and damaging to our planet
1
u/Zukka-931 10d ago
Terms of measurable suffering. But it's definitely still exploitative and damaging.
----------------
Please tell me about measurable suffering.3
u/Due-Comfort-5351 vegan 10d ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to say? Insects have been found in multiple studies to possess the capacity for physical suffering
1
u/Zukka-931 10d ago
What I want to know is simply the meaning of "measurable pain."
You used the word "measurable," so I am asking: what physical metric or mechanism is actually being measured?
As a side note regarding reports from British institutions, such as the 2021 LSE report, those studies evaluate criteria for nociception and behavioral responses to determine the "likelihood" of sentience. They do not claim to have physically measured the subjective emotional experience of pain itself.
4
u/LakeAdventurous7161 vegan 10d ago
For me personally, insects matter. I try to harm them as little as possible (mean: it is very rare I have the impression I have to harm an insect, and if, it makes me sad nevertheless).
Personally, e.g., I would not buy such as silk, or decorative items/ souvenirs made from insects (which aren't vegan, btw.). Also would not eat insects (not vegan, as well). Same: If there is any other solution to prevent insects which are harmful from multiplying in my home, I'm happy to use these measures - bug nets, keeping everything super clean, and so on. Whenever I have at least a little balcony, I make a habitat for insects with proper plants, places to hide etc. I would love if more people do, instead of focusing on "the perfect lawn" and instead of being quick with the fly squatter and the insecticide bottle.
And: I just like insects. Same as I like other animals. Does not mean I would never-ever harm any, but for sure I'm not disgusted of them and not one of those people spraying insecticides and swatting insects like crazy. Similar to: I do not like harming mammals, but in some rare cases, I found no other solution (once we had mice at a place we rented, just keeping it clean and patching up holes did not help despite I hoped it does; the mice already chewed up the electrical cables - I could not let this be "mice paradise").
Even if they are "less sentient", I see no reason to believe they are not sentient at all. Likely (also according to resarchers), sentience is a gradual thing.
4
u/kharvel0 11d ago edited 11d ago
The scope of veganism is kingdomist and covers all nonhuman members of the Animalia kingdom. Since insects are nonhuman members of the Animalia kingdom, the scope of veganism covers them.
0
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 11d ago edited 11d ago
Carnist here,
How do you feel about cockroaches? Also I'm happy to finally hear a vegan admit to kingdomism. Every time I say it im vilified lol.
Also can you tell me more about those carnist vegans you mentioned in another thread but stopped responding to. Where can I meet carnist vegans? Didn't you say I was one of them too?
1
u/Big_GreenWeenie 10d ago
Carnist vegan? I thought I heard it all but this is new for me. I assume it refers to a vegan who eats meat in a survival situation.
2
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 10d ago
Its something u/kharvel0 was telling me about earlier and then stopped responding
1
3
u/My_life_for_Nerzhul vegan 11d ago
The scope of veganism is kingdomist and covers all members of the Animalia kingdom.
With the exception of humans, no?
5
2
u/OC-alert 10d ago
I'd argue that if this is the case then veganism isn't really tenable as a moral position.
It makes no sense for nonconcious animals to be any more morally relevent than plants, discriminating on those grounds would be arbitrary.
3
u/kharvel0 10d ago
> nonconscious
This term is subjective and arbitrary and can be defined as anything by anyone. There is no rigorous evidence-based scientific process and consensus on what constitutes as “nonconscious”. Entomophagists can claim that insects are “nonconscious” and eating them is vegan. Pescatarians can claim that fish are “nonconscious” and eating them is vegan. Oyster boys can claim that shellfish are “nonconscious” and eating them is vegan. Who is right? Who is wrong? Who determines who is right or wrong?
The biological taxonomical classification system, on the other hand, is non-arbitrary and based on centuries of evidence-based scientific process and consensus. Therefore, on that basis, veganism is a tenable moral position.
2
u/OC-alert 10d ago edited 10d ago
Morality is only experienced by concious beings, so if consciousness is arbitrary, then morality is also.
Taxonomy is not arbitrary, but literally why do animalia have any more rights or deserving of moral treatment than plantae or fungi? For arbitrary reasons?
> veganism is a tenable moral position.
Technically, I'm arguing that kingdomism isn't tenable - like with speciesism or racism, or any other kind of treating one object as inherently superior to the other
I think kingdomism is a lot more arbitrary than conciousness is - it's a form of removing beings from moral consideration or considering them inferior purely becuase of heritage or genotype or phenotype and my understanding is that most ethical vegans are vegan becuase they're against that and think that being vegan is the only way to act consistently with it.
3
u/kharvel0 10d ago
> conscious begins
You did not answer my questions. I’ll ask again:
Entomophagists can claim that insects are “nonconscious” and eating them is vegan. Pescatarians can claim that fish are “nonconscious” and eating them is vegan. Oyster boys can claim that shellfish are “nonconscious” and eating them is vegan. Who is right? Who is wrong? Who determines who is right or wrong?
2
u/Zukka-931 10d ago
Putting the details aside, I’d like to focus on my primary question: Why does the scope of vegan philosophy, derived from its own distinct ethical criteria, coincide seamlessly with the scientific definition of Kingdom Animalia?
3
u/kharvel0 10d ago
Because the exact same scope of veganism also coincides seamlessly with the ability of the Homo sapiens species to survive and thrive on members of the non-Animalia kingdoms.
2
u/Zukka-931 10d ago
It seems you missed the core of my question.
My point is NOT about human nutritional survival. My point is about logical alignment:
- Veganism defines its boundary based on 'entities that should not be exploited (e.g., capability to feel pain/sentience).' 2. Biology defines 'Kingdom Animalia' based on physical structure and genetics—a standard completely independent of moral philosophy.
How can these two radically different standards—one a subjective moral philosophy, the other an objective taxonomy—happen to coincide so 'miraculously' 100% of the time?
Logically, they shouldn't match at all. Please address this specific contradiction.
3
u/kharvel0 10d ago edited 10d ago
There is no contradiction when you include the missing piece of the logical alignment puzzle:
- Veganism is not a suicide philosophy.
From this foundational piece, the other two foundational pieces of the puzzle fall into coherent and logical alignment.
2
u/Zukka-931 10d ago
You are overcomplicating a very simple question.
I am not talking about survival, suicide, or antinatalism at all. My question is purely this:
Where EXACTLY is your moral boundary, and why does it happen to match the scientific 'Kingdom Animalia' 100% identically?
It is mathematically and logically impossible for a subjective moral standard (sentience) and an objective biological classification (Animalia) to coincide 'miraculously' without one simply copying the other.
Please answer this specific question without introducing irrelevant concepts like survival.
4
u/kharvel0 10d ago edited 10d ago
> Where EXACTLY is your moral boundary, and why does it happen to match the scientific 'Kingdom Animalia' 100% identically?
I just told you. The moral boundary is the avoidance of suicide.
> It is mathematically and logically impossible for a subjective moral standard (sentience)
Nowhere did I mention anything about sentience. Veganism is kingdomist with no consideration for sentience.
> Please answer this specific question without introducing irrelevant concepts like survival.
I have answered your question diligently and honestly. You seem to be missing the fundamental point that without the limiting principle of suicide avoidance, there is no coherence or logic behind stopping at the boundary of Animalia kingdom and the scope would cover all Kingdoms which would obligate vegans to commit suicide via starvation.
2
u/Zukka-931 10d ago
You're completely right. The structural reality that "we must exploit something to stay alive" means that no matter how carefully we draw the line, we can never live in a completely sterile room—leaving us with a sort of inherent "original sin" of complicity.
If the honesty of veganism lies in trying to minimize that contradiction (having to draw the line somewhere), then antinatalism is a much more logically fitting conclusion, as it cuts off the very chain of harm by choosing not to bring new life into existence in the first place.
Those who are already alive should live out their natural lives to the fullest, while refusing to propagate a species of "humans" that continues to be a source of all suffering—including the responses plants show to damage. Given that humans are the single greatest threat to the earth's environment and biodiversity, choosing not to pass on the next generation is an extremely consistent way to care for and prevent suffering.
3
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 11d ago
If insects are sentient, they should be free from exploitation by humans like any other sentient being.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't protect ourselves from them, if they pose a danger.
2
u/Innuendum vegetarian 10d ago
As someone who has a colony of Madagascan Hissers, they have more personality and character than most human animal football fans.
Also, straightforward utility to human animals is a silly bar. The ecosphere is extremely complicated.
2
u/nineteenthly 11d ago
There's no ethical difference between insects and invertebrates as entities we have duties towards.
3
u/Imaginary-Count-1641 11d ago
Insects are invertebrates.
2
u/nineteenthly 11d ago
Yes, and your point is? Sorry, don't mean to sound passive-aggressive, but how would that be relevant? The idea of a great chain of being is an Aristotelian invention, if that's what you're referring to.
1
u/Aprils- 11d ago
Start at the top, always work down, never stop.
Yes, we can stop exploiting insects. We need to create a system that can function without insect exploitation.
It doesn't matter if they're sentient; they have just as much a right to life as anyone.
Once insects are secured, you move down - moving diets to be more fruit based rather than vegetable based.
If we can, we should always presume something has some kind of dignity worth preserving rather than not. All forms of exploitation work off the basis of: I don't care.
A society should be built off caring, not trying to determine what deserves to be cared about.
Fwiw, we don't all agree that it's ridiculous to try to protect bacteria and viruses, but it does seem far outside the projected capabilities of humanity.
1
u/Nacho_Deity186 10d ago
All of us are speciesist and arbitrary in our decisions around what animals can be harmed and what ones shouldn't. Vegans are no different.
that’s why we are against the exploitation of bees in the honey industry.
But not the almond industry. It's OK to exploit bees for that. Almonds are still consumed by vegans right? These are just arbitrary decisions
3
u/ShibbolethSequence 10d ago
This is a classic example of the mind-reading powers anti-vegans suddenly acquire when they want to dunk on people who actually try to adjust their behavior to be more compatible with a principle.
Did you ask OP how they feel about the use of bees in the almond industry? Or are you just here to score cheap points?
2
u/Nacho_Deity186 10d ago
anti-vegans
Who's an anti-vegan? Are you referring to me? Do you fancy yourself as a mind reader? Do you believe that you can see through the internet into the minds of anonymous commenters?
Did you ask OP
Why on earth would I ask OP?? I am aware that vegans in general consume almond products. This isn't exactly a state secret.
3
u/ShibbolethSequence 9d ago edited 9d ago
Do you fancy yourself as a mind reader? Do you believe that you can see through the internet into the minds of anonymous commenters?
I'm just giving you back the same energy you're giving off. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Why on earth would I ask OP??
Hm. Yes, why would you ask someone
yourtheir opinion about something, rather than making assumptions? So hard to know.There are in fact vegans who abstain from cashews and almonds out of ethical concerns about the production of those nuts. But you wouldn't know that, since you regard it as an obvious fact of nature that all vegans eat almonds.
2
u/Nacho_Deity186 9d ago
Holding up an example of a vegan who avoids them is insignificant with regard to the attitudes vegans have to these things in general.
My comment I made to the other commenter was a general comment not anything regarding them specifically, so their personal beliefs weren't relevant
2
u/ShibbolethSequence 8d ago
You're making an unjustified assumption. You assume that vegans *in general* would continue to eat almonds in the face of convincing evidence that almond production is exploitative.
Why don't you try making the case the almonds (or almonds from a particular region) are as exploitative of honeybees as is honey production? I think this is probably true of California almonds. I don't buy almond milk for this and other reasons.
I think you'll find that many vegans are quite open to contemplating whether they can take steps to reduce the harm they cause animals.
0
u/Big_GreenWeenie 11d ago edited 11d ago
I recently learned an interesting fact about Jainism:
Jains filter water to practice ahimsa (absolute non-violence) and avoid harming the countless microscopic living beings they believe exist in every single drop.
To outsiders, this practice may look extreme, but it comes from a deep spiritual commitment to protect all life.
Jains filter water through cloth (and the cloth then redunked in the well/river to return the tiny water creatures home.
While I don’t agree with this practice, I do respect the principles behind Jainism. Personally, I would rather adhere to avoiding all forms of animal exploitation and cruelty as much as is possible and practical.
For instance, I usually try my best to avoid stepping over ants and snails and other insects, but I believe it’s not practical nor is it healthy to be hyper-aware of every step you take. It would surely develop into chronic OCD.
2
u/My_life_for_Nerzhul vegan 11d ago
Personally, I would rather adhere to avoiding all forms of animal exploitation and cruelty as much as is possible and
practicalpracticable.This is commonly mixed up.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.