It depends if you consider veganism as a philosophy or a diet. I consider it a philosophy because I do not eat leather yet veganism prohibit its use.
Comment on spoopy figs
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 hours agoNot completely true. There’s a tick which can make you allergic to animal cell structures, basically making you vegan. So lab grown meat would still be a no no. For me, I want to eat plant (and fungi) based products so I don’t want lab grown meat (although I would like to try it once). I think lab grown meat is amazing, because people who desperately want to eat meat can do so without feeding the fucked up meat industry. Less livestock means less chance on virus mutation, so less chance of pandemics. I think this is the most important reason to reduce global livestock.
yabbadabaddon@lemmy.zip 18 hours ago
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 hours ago
Being vegan means not using animal products. That’s different to a plant based diet. In sports a plant based diet became popular since a documentery on Netflix, but these people aren’t vegan as they do use leather, wool and bees wax for example.
yabbadabaddon@lemmy.zip 13 hours ago
As I said, veganism can be considered a diet or a philosophy. At least that’s what Wikipedia and every online dictionaries say.
Manticore@lemmy.nz 6 hours ago
Your point about the tick is correct, but I’m not sure if that counts as veganism? Theres a significant difference between vegetarianism and veganism beyond the diet itself.
Vegetarianism is a dietary restriction around consuming flesh, whereas veganism is a philosophical restriction around animal suffering/exploitation. But even that philosophy can have different interpretations (what counts as suffering? What counts as exploitation?).
Thus vegans having a reputation of being inflexible, because eating nonvegan is a violation of their personal principles; whereas most vegetarians won’t care what you eat so long as you still provide something they can eat.
Therefore I’d expect vegetarians don’t eat lab meat (it’s flesh) but many vegans may (if they believe it is developed ethically, and doesn’t incentivise unethical practice).
But IMO both of the terms are pretty absolute and inflexible. An increasingly large number of people ate ‘vegan except for X’, or vegetarian [98]% of the time’, and we don’t have words to distinguish them from those who don’t plan to reduce animal products at all. I’d like if there was, to encourage people to have more varied diets without seeing it as ‘all or nothing’. Significantly reducing animal intake is still an environmental win even if they can’t eliminate it.