Per the title. If an animal dies out in nature without any human involvement, shouldn’t it be considered vegan to harvest any of the useful parts from it (not nessicarily meat, think hide), since there was no human-caused suffering involved?
Similarly, is driving a car not vegan because of the roadkill issue?
Especially curious to hear a perspective from any practicing moral vegans.
Also: I am not vegan. That’s why I’m asking. I’m not planning on eating roadkill thank you. Just suggesting the existence of animal-based vegan leather.
For the second question, one could argue driving a car isn’t vegan (unless it’s electric) because gas and oil are technically animal products, even if that animal was a dinosaur
I’m gonna be that “acktually…” guy for a sec here. Oil & gas (mostly) are not dinosaurs… the vast majority of petrochemicals are from compressed dead algae, planktom and plant matter long pre-dating the dinosaurs: https://www.chevron.com/newsroom/2024/q4/explainer-where-do-oil-and-gas-come-from
Where does this notion that oil&gas are dead dinosaurs come from? I know what you said is the truth, just as coal is the remainder of the huge forests that existed before bacteria could break down cellulose, but i would really like to know where this wrong factoid comes from - it’s literally everywhere
Here’s a nice write up from a paleontologist.
So veganism isn’t about not causing harm to animals? Just blindly refusing to use animal parts?
It’s mostly about consent. We can debate when and where sentience begins, but it begins somewhere and vegans hold a moral philosophy that says using another sentient being’s work product or body without their consent is immoral.
Note that I am not vegan myself but understand, if not agree with, their moral position.
And as another reply said, most vegans recognize it as a “best effort” philosophy, as they appreciate the impracticality of an absolutist stance. They are focused on “harm reduction”.