Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why aren't figs considered vegan?

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#81

Post by ddeokbokki »

Grustaf wrote: post #21
bloogsy wrote: post #7

The article touches on this, but veganism is not about only eating plants - it's actually an ethical decision to avoid anything that harms animals. As such, figs are definitely vegan since the wasp is living its natural lifecycle.

Well, producing honey is also very much part of the bee’s natural cycle, as is laying eggs for the hen and unfertilised eggs don’t suffer. Of course commercial animal husbandry causes endless suffering, but most vegans would probably object even to naturally produced honey and eggs. Just saying.

Hen in the wild eat their unfertilised eggs to regain the nutrition they lost making the egg.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#82

Post by scandinavegan »

dan-robertson wrote: post #26
ma2rten wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "there are different kinds of vegans". The term vegan was coined by the Vegan Society. They have the following definition: "Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."

Presumably that there are many people who call themselves vegan despite having different opinions on what they should eat and why, and that those people do not necessarily care about or align with the cure definition from the vegan society. Indeed if I look at the vegan society on Wikipedia, it claims vegan originally meant “non-dairy vegetarian”.

From Wikipedia: "Watson coined the word "vegan" to stand for "non-dairy vegetarians" who also ate no eggs."

You shouldn't leave out the egg part.

But yes, terms change. I've read early Vegan Society texts where they talk about "fruitarians" as those vegetarians that only eat the fruits produced by animals, i.e. milk, egg, honey. Today a fruitarian is a vegetarian that only eats fruits (and sometimes nuts and seeds) that you can pick without killing the plant.

There are also different opinions on the term vegetarian. In Sweden, it commonly includes milk and egg, and if you order a vegetarian pizza you get cheese from cow milk. But the Swedish National Food Agency, and other agencies like the Consumer Agency, define a product marked "vegetarian" as being strictly vegetable based. The last couple of years, soy hot dog manufacturers have been forced to add "lacto vegetarian" or "ovo vegetarian" to their packages.

So it's nothing strange to have different points of view of what exactly is denoted by the terms vegetarian and vegan.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#83

Post by keithnoizu »

gambiting wrote: post #3

Considering figs not vegan because of this is insane, frankly. If that's the standard you want to apply(the food should not have any insect parts in it) then there will be nothing for you to eat. Zero. Any kind of grain will always contain finely ground insects, in minuscule quantities but you can be 100% certain they will be there.

Well. I think the trick is, if you are cultivating figs specifically for sale, and wasp corpses are a necessary component of the trade then part of your food preparation process specifically relies on the death of wasps. With out the fig farmer there would fewer insects captured in the fruits.

So, if one thinks insects aren't vegan I think you can make a logical basis for not wanting to include figs in your diet.

For hyperbole, if the only way for mango trees to grow was by soaking up the nutrients of dead sheep, and so every mango farm would chop up a ewe for fertilizer once a week to maintain their orchards, than would mangoes still be considered vegan?

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#84

Post by scandinavegan »

seanwilson wrote: post #44

I wish people wouldn't generalise that because 1) some people might consider figs non-vegan and 2) this line of reasoning might be weird/stupid, then 3) most vegans must think this therefore veganism is weird/stupid as a whole. How many people that say they are vegan consider figs non-vegan? Are there surveys on this? I'm going to guess most haven't thought about it (figs aren't daily in most places), don't have a st…

> extreme fringe views (who is actually claiming this? how many are?)

I agree. This topic recently ran as Today I Learned on Reddit, and of all the vegans checking in, no one had heard about this. It's the same with me and all my vegan acquaintances, no one has heard that figs wouldn't be considered vegan.

The article title makes it sound like everyone agrees that figs aren't considered vegan, which is weird.

Speaking of fringe views, I read an interesting article debunking the idea that vegans are deficient in common nutrients. It looked deeper into the studies presented, and it turned out that they had studied fruitarians (only eats fruits and perhaps nuts and seeds without killing the plant), or religious groups with extremely limited food sources. Those groups are vegan, but they are a small subset of all vegans, and it would be incorrect to say that findings with these groups apply to people eating varied vegan diets.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#85

Post by wtdata »

cannonedhamster wrote: post #37
oeuviz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But neither do plants produce "naturally" food for humans. The produce it to reproduce and make the fruit delicios so animals eat it and transport the seed somewhere else to spread. Humans are very bad in spreading plants by means of eating and deposing the seed.

Plants that humans eat are literally some of the most widespread plants in the face of the Earth. Apples, tomatoes, potatoes, corn, soy, and rice are all massive successes for the plants in spreading, that doesn't even get into sugar producing plants. This started as humans eating and distributing seeds. Farming just made this process not need to involve eating. It's not just about delicious either. We eat some bitte…

The thing is, the plants that exist naturally in the wilderness are not particular tasty, delicious, or even produce apreciable sized fruits/crops.

Almost all that you are eating are plants, taken from the wilderness tens of thousands of years ago, and genetically selected over hundreds of generations.

If you went back to eating the plants in the state they exist naturally in the wilderness, you would have a very hard time feeding yourself.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#86

Post by kabacha »

fsniper wrote: post #2

After watching a YouTube comedy video, where wasps describe themselves as murderous, but uselessness insects, I was thinking of researching wasps. This was an unexpected, but welcome read. So they are not only murderous, also incestuous, but not useless. At least this fig born species.

Most of wasps are also polinators and in general are considered a boon to the environment: https://www.dw.com/en/good-bees-bad-wasps/a-45555518

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#87

Post by scotty79 »

wtdata wrote: post #85
cannonedhamster wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plants that humans eat are literally some of the most widespread plants in the face of the Earth. Apples, tomatoes, potatoes, corn, soy, and rice are all massive successes for the plants in spreading, that doesn't even get into sugar producing plants. This started as humans eating and distributing seeds. Farming just made this process not need to involve eating. It's not just about delicious either. We eat some bitte…

The thing is, the plants that exist naturally in the wilderness are not particular tasty, delicious, or even produce apreciable sized fruits/crops. Almost all that you are eating are plants, taken from the wilderness tens of thousands of years ago, and genetically selected over hundreds of generations. If you went back to eating the plants in the state they exist naturally in the wilderness, you would have a very har…

I wonder if anyone is advocating dumping vegans into the middle of the jungle so they can live naturally ... albeit briefly.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#88

Post by strainer »

ddeokbokki wrote: post #81
Grustaf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, producing honey is also very much part of the bee’s natural cycle, as is laying eggs for the hen and unfertilised eggs don’t suffer. Of course commercial animal husbandry causes endless suffering, but most vegans would probably object even to naturally produced honey and eggs. Just saying.

Hen in the wild eat their unfertilised eggs to regain the nutrition they lost making the egg.

Vegan ethics are not based on the innate ethics of animals. It aspires to make the most of our human judgement and adaptability/invention, which few if any animals posses similar power to recognize and realize ideas and effects.

The poet Percy Shelley wrote most idealistically but also intelligently about vegetarianism, this small section of a poem contrasts a human caretakers attention to the behavior of wild animals:

  She lifted their heads with her tender hands,
  And sustained them with rods and osier-bands;
  If the flowers had been her own infants, she
  Could never have nursed them more tenderly.

  And all killing insects and gnawing worms,
  And things of obscene and unlovely forms,
  She bore, in a basket of Indian woof,
  Into the rough woods far aloof,--

  In a basket, of grasses and wild-flowers full,
  The freshest her gentle hands could pull
  For the poor banished insects, whose intent,
  Although they did ill, was innocent.
[1] https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-sensitive-plant/

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#89

Post by gambiting »

keithnoizu wrote: post #83
gambiting wrote: post #3

Considering figs not vegan because of this is insane, frankly. If that's the standard you want to apply(the food should not have any insect parts in it) then there will be nothing for you to eat. Zero. Any kind of grain will always contain finely ground insects, in minuscule quantities but you can be 100% certain they will be there.

Well. I think the trick is, if you are cultivating figs specifically for sale, and wasp corpses are a necessary component of the trade then part of your food preparation process specifically relies on the death of wasps. With out the fig farmer there would fewer insects captured in the fruits. So, if one thinks insects aren't vegan I think you can make a logical basis for not wanting to include figs in your diet. For…

As someone else pointed out - those wasps dying in the figs is part of their life cycle. It's not us exploiting animals to produce something for consumption - if anything, by cultivating more fig trees we allow more wasps to breed.

As for your example - if the sheep's natural life cycle included being consumed by a mango tree in order to breed then sure, I'd consider those mangoes vegan. If we have to kill the sheep in order to grow mangoes ourselves(but the sheep gets nothing out of it) then I would not consider them vegan.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#90

Post by ZeroFries »

scandinavegan wrote: post #79
brusch64 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does she or he have a pet ? Just wondering.

There are obviously many different flavors of vegans, each stopping at different points when it comes to what they consider animal suffering. There are vegans with pets, but they might not agree with the idea that all forms of keeping animals is considered suffering. Other vegans won't keep pets, I'm one of them, because I agree completely with the post you commented on and draw the same conclusion as you that it's i…

I'm genuinely curious about this: are vegans who are against animals suffering in any form universal anti-natalists? From my perspective, if you treat a pet well, or even live-stock well, their lives involve much less suffering than their wild-counterparts, who typically die of disease, starvation, or predation. So the only way to make the view consistent IMO is to be against animal life in general.
Post reply on HN