Home / H. Environment, ecology and agriculture / Part IND
"Harvests kill animals; vegans kill too."
it's true that agriculture kills animals, such as rodents, insects and birds, during planting and harvest. But livestock farming uses far more cropland, because the animals eat feed, as well as using enormous pastures. About 80% of the world's farmland serves the production of meat, dairy and farmed fish. Eating plants directly tends to cause fewer harvest deaths than eating animals fed on plants.
Short answer
It's true: agriculture kills animals. But livestock farming needs much more agriculture, because the animals eat feed, and it occupies immense pastures. About 80% of the world's farmland serves the production of meat, dairy and farmed fish. Eating plants directly uses less land and tends to cause fewer harvest deaths. The question isn't which diet is perfect, but which causes fewer deaths.
For children
When machines harvest the fields, some little animals can die. That's sad. But farm animals eat a lot of crops. So to make meat, even more has to be planted, and more little animals die in the harvest. Eating the plants directly means fewer little animals die.
"If harvests kill animals, doesn't eating animals fed on harvests kill even more?"
Como pode aparecer
"How many mice died for your salad?"
"Vegans have blood on their hands too."
"Harvests kill animals."
"One cow feeds lots of people; the harvest kills thousands of little critters."
"A diet with pasture-raised meat may cause fewer deaths than a vegan diet."
"You use a phone, so you're a hypocrite." (which is L4)
The strongest version
"How many mice died for your salad? Vegans have blood on their hands too."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Agriculture kills animals during soil preparation, planting, pesticide application and harvest.
- P2Vegans eat agricultural products.
- P3So vegans also cause animals' deaths.
- CSo the vegan diet isn't morally superior.
P1, P2 and P3 are true. The problem lies in the conclusion: it ignores that eating animals requires even more agriculture, and therefore even more harvest deaths, on top of the deaths of the farmed animals themselves.
The argument is valid to show that no diet is entirely innocent. Its soundness fails when it concludes the diets are equivalent.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument compares the vegan diet with a cost-free diet, not with the real diet with meat:
Diet Harvest deaths Deaths of farmed animals Vegan From crops for human food None With meat from feed-fed animals From crops for human food and from crops for feed, which is larger Billions of animals a year - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Livestock farming uses most of the farmland.
According to Our World in Data, about 80% of the world's farmland, between pasture and feed crops, serves the production of meat, dairy and farmed fish, which provide only 17% of calories.
2. The animals eat feed.
To get one calorie of meat, the animal must be given several calories of feed. This multiplies the area planted and, with it, tends to multiply harvest deaths. Estimates of how many animals die per hectare are very uncertain, but the difference in area is large enough to matter.
3. A vegan diet would greatly reduce farmland.
According to Poore and Nemecek, a global vegan diet would reduce farmland by about 75%.
4. There are also the deaths of the farmed animals themselves.
On top of harvest deaths, livestock farming directly kills tens of billions of land animals a year.
5. The argument confuses accidental and intentional deaths.
Even where there are harvest deaths, they're side effects, while slaughter is the goal (F4).
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Our World in Data, land for agriculture Livestock uses 80% of farmland and provides 17% of calories and 38% of protein Global data Our World in Data, land use and diets A global vegan diet would reduce farmland by about 75% Based on Poore and Nemecek, 2018 Matheny, 2003, *Least Harm*, record in the FAO's AGRIS database Replies to Davis (2003): per-hectare counts ignore how many people each area feeds; corrected, they favor vegetarianism Checked from the abstract - d
The strongest counter-reply: pasture-raised meat may kill less
The most serious version, defended by the philosopher Steven Davis in 2003, says cattle raised only on pasture, without feed, would cause fewer wild animal deaths per calorie than crops, because pastures aren't harvested.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
The numbers were disputed.
Matheny showed that Davis compared deaths per hectare, not per calorie produced. Per calorie, crops for direct human consumption come out better.
Pasture requires far more land.
Pasture-raised meat uses an enormous area, often won through deforestation (H1).
Almost no one eats only pasture-raised meat.
Most meat comes from animals fed on feed.
- f
Back to the moral question
The argument recognizes that the death of animals matters, and that's the central point of veganism. If it matters, the consistent choice is the one that causes fewer deaths. The moral question returns: if eating plants kills fewer, why choose what kills more?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Tu quoque
Nirvana fallacy
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Leaving out feed
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Confusing accidental and intentional
Biases
Motivated reasoning
The argument serves to excuse change
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if every option causes some harm, they're all equivalent".
If it applied to…TransportTap to see
A bicycle and a truck would pollute equally, because both cause some harm
No one concludes this
If it applied to…EnergyTap to see
Solar and coal would be equivalent
No one concludes this
If it applied to…DietsTap to see
Vegan and meat-eating diets would be equivalent
The data show the opposite
Contradictions
But eats animals raised and slaughtered.
Which is larger than that for human food.
Even knowing that eating plants would cause fewer deaths.
What the argument gets right
What is true
The argument gets one important thing right: agriculture kills animals, and no diet is entirely innocent. Vegans should recognize this and support farming practices that reduce those deaths. The philosophical debate on the subject is serious.
But
But comparing real diets, eating plants directly uses less land and causes fewer deaths. If harvest deaths matter, they're one more reason to stop eating animals.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- But Doesn't Veganism Cause Even More Deaths Than… Vol. IV, ch. 14
References
Environmental data
- Half of the world's habitable land is used for agriculture. *Our World in Data*.
- If the world adopted a plant-based diet, we would reduce global agricultural land use. *Our World in Data*.
Philosophy
- The least harm principle may require that humans consume a diet containing large herbivores, not a vegan diet. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16.
- Least harm: a defense of vegetarianism from Steven Davis's omnivorous proposal. *Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics*, 16.