Home / N. Ex-vegans: why I gave up / Part IND
"Being vegan is hard if you travel a lot"
traveling takes more planning for vegans, and sometimes the options are few. But almost every place has something without animal products: rice, beans, bread, fruit, vegetables, nuts. Restaurant-finder apps, supermarkets and a snack in the bag solve most cases. The difficulty justifies, at most, a rare and genuine exception, not giving up veganism at home, where most meals are eaten.
Short answer
Traveling does take more planning. But almost every place has something vegan, even if it's simple: rice, beans, bread, fruit, salad. A snack in the bag, a restaurant app and a supermarket solve most cases. And if somewhere there really is no option, that justifies an exception there, not dropping veganism at home.
For children
When we travel, we can bring a snack in our backpack: fruit, nuts, a sandwich. And almost everywhere there's rice, beans, bread or fruit. With a little planning, you can travel without eating animals.
"In how many of your meals this week do you really have no option at all?"
Como pode aparecer
"On the road, there's only fried snacks and cheese rolls."
"On a work trip, you can't choose."
"In another country, how am I supposed to know what's in the food?"
"Vegans don't travel, they just stay home."
"Eating out, traveling and parties become impossible." (which is J13)
"Nobody's perfect; I do what I can." (which is E6)
The strongest version
"I travel a lot for work. Being vegan on the road, in airports, in small towns is impossible. I gave up."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1People who travel a lot depend on what they find along the way.
- P2In many places, vegan options are few or nonexistent.
- P3No one is obliged to go hungry or to eat poorly.
- CSo people who travel a lot aren't obliged to be vegan.
P1 and P3 are true. P2 is sometimes true, but it's usually exaggerated. And the conclusion goes too far: even if some meals on a trip were difficult, that wouldn't justify eating animals at home or in places where there are options.
The argument is valid, but not sound: it extends the difficulty of a few situations to a whole life.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument uses the hardest case to decide all the others:
Situation Is it really hard? What to do At home No Eat vegan In a big city Rarely Restaurants and supermarkets On the road Sometimes Snacks in the bag, simple dishes, supermarkets In a remote place, with no option at all Yes As little harm as possible, as an exception - b
Where the argument breaks
1. The difficulty concerns some meals, not all of them.
Even people who travel a lot eat a good share of their meals in places with options. The conclusion of giving everything up doesn't follow from a few difficult meals.
2. Almost every place has basic vegan food.
Rice, beans, bread, pasta with tomato sauce, fruit, vegetables, nuts. It may not be a special meal, but it's food.
3. Planning solves most cases.
Bringing snacks, looking up restaurants in apps, choosing accommodation with a kitchen, asking for adapted dishes. That's what people with allergies, religious restrictions or celiac disease do.
4. The options are growing.
Restaurants, fast-food chains and supermarkets offer more and more vegan products, including on highways and in airports.
5. A genuine exception is different from giving up.
If, in a remote place, there's nothing without animal products, eating the minimum needed there is an exception. That doesn't license eating animals at home.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Faunalytics, 2014 Inconvenience was a reason for quitting for 13% of former vegetarians and vegans Survey carried out in 2014 in the United States - d
The strongest counter-reply: it's exhausting to live always planning
The most serious version says: the problem isn't one meal, but the fatigue of always having to plan, search, ask and explain. For someone who travels every week, that weighs on them.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Planning becomes a habit.
After a few trips, a person knows what to bring, where to stop and what to order. The effort shrinks over time.
Fatigue justifies simplifying, not giving up.
Eating the simplest dish, always bringing the same snack, having a few trusted places.
The cost to animals doesn't shrink with fatigue.
The discomfort of planning is still much smaller than the harm avoided.
- f
Back to the moral question
Even if traveling made veganism more work, the question would remain the same: is it just to make animals suffer and die to avoid the work of planning a meal? Most of the time, the answer is a snack in the bag.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Hasty generalization
From the hard case to the rule
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Forgetting who is affected
Biases
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if a rule is hard in some situations, it can be dropped in all of them".
If it applied to…Religious restrictionTap to see
Someone who travels could stop following their religion at home too
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Celiac diseaseTap to see
Someone who travels could always eat gluten
Absurd
If it applied to…RecyclingTap to see
Someone who can't find a recycling bin on a trip could stop recycling at home
Absurd
Contradictions
Tickets, hotel, meetings, itinerary.
And they eat by planning.
Where travel is no obstacle.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that traveling takes more planning, that in some places the options really are few and that the fatigue of always planning weighs on people. It's also right that no one should go hungry because of a rule.
But
But the difficulty of a few meals doesn't justify giving up veganism in all of them. The good answer is to share travel strategies, and to remember that genuine exceptions are different from giving up.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after