Burger King Austria has become the first food service outlet to launch Oatly‘s Baristamatic oat milk, which has been specially developed for use in fully automatic coffee machines. Following the launch, Burger King will reportedly stop using cow’s milk for specialty coffees at all its Austrian locations.

Hey folks, I want to start this off with I was a vegan for about 7 years before. Eventually I started getting sickly due to probably diet reasons and I ended up getting off the wagon for safety reasons.

I'm not sure what I did wrong. But 90% of my food is still vegan. I work a lot, probably more than people should. I'm wondering what your go to quick meal options are?

Animals, which have done nothing to deserve any of the suffering or slaughter, should not have to go through what they do go through that people would have meat, eggs, and dairy from that, and we should not contribute to it. So everything needed for food can all be from plants.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/37613672

Degrowth, a leading paradigm addressing our socio-ecological crisis, criticizes the highly destructive animal factory-farming industry. However, it does not challenge the commodification of sentient beings and the underlying system that perpetuates the oppression of the “less-than-human”. Animals-as-food, reduced to “flesh machines,” are exploited with institutional legitimacy rooted in societal belief systems. Drawing upon posthumanist and ecofeminist perspectives, this article argues that to achieve a just transformation, the degrowth proposal must gain ethical congruence and dismantle anthropocentric worldviews. Adopting an anti-speciesist framework becomes crucial to overcoming socio-ecological collapse, fundamentally reshaping our interactions with cohabiting individualities within the biosphere.

archived (Wayback Machine)

Edit: I just remembered I already had a reason to dislike this show because they blatantly used the name "Gen V" for their show despite obviously knowing (they do research for this thing) about the existing vegan/animal rights charity organization called Gen V, formerly known as Million Dollar Vegan, which has since been forced to largely rebrand as "Generation Vegan" and doesnt use the Gen V name as much anymore since the TV show is the most well known result for that name, while previously it was the vegan org. And Gen V is a good vegan-themed name too; maybe we'll still use it.

If anyone watches the show Gen V, which is the spin off of politically satirical superhero show The Boys, you probably were cringing with frustration at the inability to respond (almost like another Kevin Costner/Taylor Sheridan/Ted Nugent/Joe Rogan "Yellowstone" moment) to Hamish Linklater's character (no hate on the actor) when he made the argument that Australians love their national icon of the kangaroos because they kill them to strengthen their population. It left a bad taste and I had to say something about it. As someone who has come across this argument a lot, though usually in the American context of killing deers, it always pains me when people make misinformed claims that killing wild animals is somehow benevolent.

Here's the quote:

You ever been to Australia? Used to go with my dad when I was a boy. The Aussies love their kangaroos. So, every year, they let hunters kill them. They cull the population in order to protect it. For the strength of the herd.

Firstly I want to focus on the "positive" silver lining, which is that his character is a villainous utilitarian and he is using this logic as an argument to defend doing the same or similar to humans. And that's where many vegans would go immediately, is "Would you find this acceptable to do to humans under equivalent hypothetical conditions?" and then run Name The Trait/NTT ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZughsYK_qE ) or something if he says no, in order to resolve the inconsistency. But he already came out biting the bullet on doing it to humans unprompted, since that was his initial goal. So he kind of outed/unmasked himself as sociopathic before he even mentioned animals, and also demonstrated how his specific antivegan argument aligned with principles that most humans already find abhorrent. This is definitely an effective way to establish vegans/animal rights supporters (or at least people who are against hunting) as firmly on the camp of "good" and people who defend hunting and animal exploitation as on the side of "bad". Additionally and somewhat related, the character, who is probably a human supremacist (like most humans in the real world), is also a "Supe supremacist" and believes in the inferiority of humans who don't have powers because they haven't been dosed with a serum called compound V by the nefarious corporation Vought (where the show derives its "V" name from), which is a pretty stupid concept if you ask me. But it's an interesting parallel that he calls non-Supe humans simply "humans", which implicitly denies that "Supes" are humans too and raises them to a different category/level/status of superiority or value, which is exactly the same thing that most humans do when they refer to non-human animals/other animals as simply "animals" (I know even we vegans often do it too due to speciesist/carnist conditioning) and even overtly say that humans aren't animals and "can't be compared to animals", which actually stems from Biblical denial in evolution and the animal nature of humans and the belief that humans alone are basically gods/made in the image of god (which is why I tell hardcore atheists that they're paying service to Christianity and other religions when they pretend that humans aren't animals and spout all these Biblically-derived anti-vegan arguments). Relevant and based Carl Sagan quote: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/296126-humans-who-enslave-castrate-experiment-on-and-fillet-other

Now I want to try to debunk the argument, though I can't do any research for it right now so it's just going to be based on my existing knowledge, and mainly from a moral lens rather than fact-based/empirical. I'd love if any vegans would share their own thoughts on it, even if you haven't watched the show (you really don't need to).

1. It's a deontologically compromised utilitarian argument. It wouldn't matter if its claims were true, because it would still be fundamentally devaluing the life of the individual and prioritizing the "greater good" of the many. It violates core moral principles about the sanctity of sentient life. And of course, someone can hold this view and even apply it to humans consistently (which they would have to if they held it for non-human animals without contradicting themselves, as the argument from marginal cases/NTT establishes), but then they would be in disagreement with the majority of humans already, and probably themself on some level, who think their view is morally despicable and horrendous. And at that point it's just a joke to take them seriously.

2. The empirics of the claim don't seem to check out.

• Cipher (Linklater's character who made the pro-"culling" of kangaroos argument) claims that you're "strengthening the herd" by picking off the weaklings. In theory, this makes sense, though it's despicable. But that isn't what people are actually doing. In almost all cases, adult, mature, male, and strong/well built animals are killed, because those are the ones that are most valuable for humans to use, and because ironically even hunters usually have a hang up about killing animal children (but not orphaning them by killing their parents) if you can believe it. Very rarely are child animals or disabled/injured/deformed/small/weak animals killed, who would be the ones to kill off if you really wanted to "strengthen" the population, though even then it could do the opposite in some cases and disrupt the natural balance of the ecosystem (which is almost never actually natural due to significant human interference).

• The dynamics with kangaroos and dingoes (the missing piece of the puzzle no one wants to talk about), or other of their natural predators like crocodiles, wedge-tailes eagles and pythons, is very similar to the dynamics with deers and their natural predators such as wolves, mountain lions, coyotes and bears in the US. Like deers, kangaroos are herbivorous. Both species of animals are hunted by humans (who are their primary threat) and one reason often given is because their populations are large or they're considered "pests" (imagine using that kind of language for a different race of humans you believed was intrusive), but even know that's often true with regard to population sizes, not only is it arguably incredibly morally unsound and insufficient reasoning/justification for taking their lives, but is also unnecessary for achieving the goal of lowering the population (and in reality doesn't lower it as I explained, and actually can increase and "weaken" it by allowing more "weaklings" to "dilute" the population strength and eliminating the biggest competitors for resources), and even counter-productive and self defeating. The population of those herbivorous wild animals is "overpopulated" (in humans' determination, despite being by far the most invasive, destructive and overpopulated species on Earth ourselves) because humans kill their natural predators, not to protect them or even to protect themselves (humans), but to protect animal farming operations, since otherwise predators will kill the farmed animals before the farmer/slaughterhouse worker can and they won't be able to use/sell them. In actuality, ironically and quite poetically in an almost intersectional or karmic reading, it all leads back to animal farming. Humans' desire to exploit and kill animals ultimately results in even more bloodshed done to facilitate, protect and ensure those habits - violence begets violence, both to humans and to non-human animals, but here being violent and oppressive to some animals leads to being violent and oppressive to more animals. Basically "we kill deers so that we can kill wolves so that we can kill cows". Or in this case "we kill kangaroos so that we can kill dingoes so that we can kill cows". It's as ridiculous and evil as that. We kill herbivorous wild animals to supposedly keep their population down (except it doesn't), which we simultaneously increase and undo our "work" of, not only by those actions themselves ironically but by killing the other animals who are keeping their populations down, which we do in order to be able to keep "farming", exploiting and killing animals to sell products made from them. It's insanity. We cause problems with violence and then try to fix them with more violence and just make them worse and continue the horrific cycle.

3. "Strengthening the population" is clearly not the real reason or motivation that most humans have for hunting non-human animals, including kangaroos in Australia. So this is a front/cover story/smokescreen/pretext. It's disguising the true intentions with post hoc rationalizions. It's the same kind of "logic" (or actually I would say propaganda) as when animal farming defenders and the industries themselves spin practices like cow-calf separation in the dairy industry or farrowing crates in the pig flesh industry as somehow benevolent or in the interests of the animals. Or that CO2 gas chambers for pigs are peaceful and don't cause suffering. It's complete profit-driven lies, 100% false. In reality, people hunt animals, including kangaroos, mostly so that they can eat their flesh, or use or sell their body for something else (such as this https://www.rooballs.com/australian-kangaroo-scrotum-gift-pack - yes it's real and they're disgustingly sold over the country as tourist souvenirs) or for sport/some kind of absurd bloodlust or sense of power/domination over others. This is always not only a factor/component but the ultimate reason why any of this is done, not to help animals or protect the environment. In the cases where people are hired by the government or authorized to kill wild animals to carry out "population control", they still do it for other reasons too, they still use the animals' bodies, or they do it to protect vegetation or their farming operations. It's never done purely to help animals (in some misguided way), and usually not done for them at all - it's done in the interests of humans, not our victims, obviously. And it's convenient that only the humans are here to share their side of the story because the other animals can't speak and defend themselves (which neither can some humans but we wouldnt exploit or discriminate against them just because they're differently abled in some way). I'm sure that deer or that kangaroo that you killed wouldn't be given any solace by the notion that their "sacrifice" was supposedly going to help other members of their species that they don't even know. It's just as bad for them no matter what reason you come up with to justify unnecessarily causing their suffering & premature death.

I may have more thoughts but that's about it for now. Hope this wasn't too off-topic or rambling. Would love to know what you all think about this.

A coalition of [torturers] gathered in the nation’s capital this week to fight federal efforts aimed at blocking state laws that promote humane, crate-free treatment of livestock.

According to meat-eaters, Pythagoras was the main “cultist vegan.”

Then Einstein joined the same “cult”

And a whole bunch of other weirdos too: Leonardo da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Tolstoy, Newton…

Just imagine,the greatest minds of humanity, the ones who pushed science and art forward,
all of them were “crazy vegans.”

Video Source: @danieljubnelson

Not sure how well known this thirty-year-old gem still is. But I just watched it for the first time with my kids and couldn't stop cheering. This is such a heartwarming fable about speciesism and animal rights. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out, either on your own or with your kids.
I'm renting Gunda next!

So, yes, there are sneakers made by gum and canvas (like Converse) but these are not the best pick for everything.

I'm skeptical on leather alternatives for shoes, "fake leather" has generally low durability and I'm not strictly interested in cloning the aesthetic; when it comes to boots/shoes there are very poor alternative to a refurbished leather pair: great durability and flexibility, traditional models can be resoled, great looking over time when well maintained, the ecologic aspect, etc. Also the price: new tech-fibers are generally very expensive with dubitabile quality, while leather can be very cheap considering what you pay for.

What do you think about it? What's your daily use? I could edit this OP to share products you found interesting.

(edit) An user suggests vegetarian-shoes.co.uk

This article is about an analysis done by a "sustainability think-tank" (this is my description based on a brief google) and by fermentation, they appear to be referring to any type of food and drink made using cultures of bacteria and/or fungus in bio-reactors.

There is no sustainability with any continued use of animals in any way, as environments are being ruined more rapidly and oceans are being depleted and contribution to climate change is greater, with it, and there is a healthier way to eat without animal products anyway so they are not justifiably needed, which can be shown. The vegan ethics I see is about not supporting human use of animals, which are generally kept captive all their shortened lives for that. They are not destructive and would not attack unprovoked. There is so much exploitation that is not generally acknowledged or recognized that I see preferable to not continue any involvement in, and the real sustainable ways that need our attention to live responsibly do not need any of that.

“Cigarettes only kills about half a million Americans every year, whereas our diet kills many more,” Dr. Greger.
https://f.mtr.cool/skcqnwbwnp

While eating food from just plants may seem more limiting to others more than me, I see it as all the food I need. There is enough variety and includes the tastiest things, and I would mention such things I have.

Exposing the biggest lies ever told about animals, food and veganism. My full talk from Vegan Camp Out 2025.

Key Topics Discussed:

✅ The biggest lie about veganism and why people still believe it

✅ Are meat and dairy really necessary for protein and calcium?

✅ The truth behind “happy cow” marketing and factory farming reality

✅ Richard Berman and anti-vegan campaigns like “PETA Kills animals”

✅ Why going vegan is harder than people think (and how to break free)

I care for animals, realizing caring for some pets is not the same compassion, and not so fair, when the animals that are pets would have no care for any protection with happening to not be the pets they are.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.vg/post/3654190

To answer the question of whether the animal rights movement and the veganism movement are the same, their philosophical and sociological differences will be discussed by someone who has been an animal rights vegan for decades. This will include a brief history of the two philosophies/movements and how they intersect today. Understanding whether they have now merged into a single movement or are somehow still separate is useful to understand the dynamics of the current animal rights movement – including tribalism and infighting – and assess how it will evolve in the future.

A review of published meta-analyses examining protein supplementation found no evidence supporting intake beyond 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight daily, according to an analysis by cardiologist Eric Topol. The review examined multiple randomized controlled trials encompassing thousands of participants. The most widely cited Morton study, which included 1,863 participants across 49 trials, showed no statistically significant benefit at higher protein levels, with a p-value of 0.079.