this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2025
27 points (86.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

44412 readers
647 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
27
Why isn't it considered vegan to harvest animals who die naturally? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) by baggins@lemmy.ca to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] toomanypancakes@piefed.world 28 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

Hi, ive been vegan for a bit over 10 years. I don't think animal parts are for us to use at all. I'm not really sure why you'd harvest animals at all, I don't think normalizing the commodification of others' bodies is a good thing to be doing. If you really can't live without animal parts, that's probably the least harmful way of acquiring them. I wouldn't recommend eating anyone you find lying on the ground though, that sounds like a good way to contract horrible diseases.

Veganism is about doing the most that is possible and practicable. We probably kill insects just by walking, but it's not reasonable to never move again to avoid that. Similarly, driving a car for many people is a necessity to be able to access goods and services, and its not at all practicable to avoid driving for them.

Ultimately, veganism is a moral stance about reducing harm to others as much as you can. It's not a competition, so don't feel like you have to be perfect at it to do good.

[–] OfCourseNot@fedia.io 3 points 11 minutes ago

We probably kill insects just by walking, but it's not reasonable to never move again to avoid that.

There's this Hindu sect whose adherents wear veils, sweep the floor before them, and/or tread very slowly and carefully to avoid injuring, killing or eating any small insects. As you said, it's about doing as much as you can, but if it were a competition they'd win for sure.

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 hour ago

Thank you for this perspective!

[–] QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

i saw a really interesting video about biking jackets and the design of them, the conclusion is that molecularly leather is the safest material for abrasion and there's not really any synthetic replacement that comes close.

What does your perspective (in regard to veganism) have on this subject?

https://youtu.be/xwuRUcAGIEU
Btw this channel is REALLY entertaining and well written, I'd recommend watching this channel if you get bored sometime

[–] toomanypancakes@piefed.world 3 points 51 minutes ago

I'd take the risk with synthetic materials, personally. I don't think any amount of danger I put myself in would justify killing someone else for their skin. I have a synthetic jacket with elbow and shoulder reinforcement for when I ride, and that's good enough for me.

I'll definitely check out the video later when I have more downtime though.

[–] CannedYeet@lemmy.world 1 points 5 minutes ago

For the sake of argument I think you could say that you're depriving a scavenger of a meal. I don't know if that's how veganism is usually framed.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 19 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

To me it’s not a matter of ethics but a matter of health. Unless you saw the animal die from something that clearly isn’t disease I wouldn’t trust meat I just found laying around.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 22 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

It doesn’t have to be edible. Glue, gelatin for skin mimicry, clothing, and bones for weapons, etc are all non-edible uses of animals.

[–] UndergroundGoblin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 26 minutes ago* (last edited 23 minutes ago)

For me personally: Veganism is also about signaling to the outside world. Suppose I were to skin an animal that died naturally and make a jacket out of it, this would probably be the most ethical way to produce a leather jacket. But I still wouldn't wear it, because by doing so I would signal to the outside world that it's okay to wear the skinned hide of animals. Outsiders can't know under what circumstances I got the leather.

It might be a bit more radical, which is why I might face hostility, but I also throw away non-vegan foods that I unintentionally receive, instead of giving them to non-vegans. Simply because I don't want to project to the outside: "Here you go. I would never eat it because I find it unethical, but if you eat it, then that's okay."

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 14 points 1 hour ago

Good point. I forgot vegans included all that stuff and not just eating animal products.

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 hour ago

Neither would I but what about the hide?

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I trust old meat I find lying around. It may be a different color, but it still spends the same.

[–] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 2 points 22 minutes ago

From a materialist point of view, I can't see any harm in harvesting the hide of an already dead animal. However, wearing a real fur coat and calling yourself a vegan is never going to be an easy thing to explain lmao

[–] JustARegularNerd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

From my end, I'm a registered organ donor because I feel that I won't need this body once I'm done with it, and if anything is useful off it for someone else, then hell, let them have my liver.

However, an animal can't consent to that and yeah, an argument could be made that who gives a fuck, it's a pig/chicken/cow, it's not gonna give a shit, but death is unfortunate for anything and I'd feel more at ease that the carcus is either left for nature to do what it does than me harvesting it for food.

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 4 points 1 hour ago

It is going to be eaten no matter what. The chance of it being eaten is essentially 100%. So i can't see how that's part of the equation.

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Interesting.

(Parent comment was edited)

[–] JustARegularNerd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 hour ago

And such is the circle of life right. I also feel that if we as a species can move beyond meat, then we should. I can live a perfectly normal life on my current vegan diet, and if that carcus is then left for other animals and fauna to have, thus leaving the cycle undisrupted.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that I'd rather let the animals that need those nutrients have it, as I'm already sorted.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

You can do pretty much whatever you want man...

Like "vegan" isn't even a century old yet, it was made up in the 1940s by some guy who thought vegetarians weren't good enough, and he set whatever rules he wanted to.

You can just keep using his word, but not care about his rules.

Or you can make up your own name and rules.

People searching for labels they like and then conforming to every fucking aspect of that label and nothing else, doesn't work out well.

So please, if you want to eat roadkill just do it.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 3 points 1 hour ago

Like "vegan" isn't even a century old yet, it was made up in the 1940s by some guy who thought vegetarians weren't good enough, and he set whatever rules he wanted to.

[citation needed]

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Cool comment but did you want to answer the question, or just bitch about nothing?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

but did you want to answer the question

I did...

it was made up in the 1940s by some guy who thought vegetarians weren’t good enough, and he set whatever rules he wanted to

Every reason why you can/can't do something and be Vegan, is because the guy who made the word up ~80 years ago decided it should be like that

You're acting like it's a math or science, like it's based on logic or something...

It's not, so the answer to "why" is essentially "because the founder said that"?

Does that make sense now?

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I'm not vegan and I'm here to tell you that your argument isn't valid. Whoever invented a word doesn't get to permanently declare exactly what it means down to the tiniest detail. Words change meaning over time. I would guess that especially new words change over time. The word "awful" originally meant full of awe. The word "terrible" originally meant a thing caused terror.

It doesn't matter what the creator of the word thought.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

It doesn’t matter what the creator of the word thought

Yeah...

That's why I said:

You can just keep using his word, but not care about his rules.

Thanks for aggressively agreeing with me I guess?

Weird move, and I think it's more likely you were just confused, it works better if you ask questions when you're confused.

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

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

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

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, plankton and plant matter long pre-dating the dinosaurs: https://www.chevron.com/newsroom/2024/q4/explainer-where-do-oil-and-gas-come-from

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

So veganism isn't about not causing harm to animals? Or are you suggesting humans killed the dinosaurs? is it just about blindly refusing to use animal parts?

[–] neatchee@piefed.social 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

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".