Keeping Bees vs. Keeping Pets

Although I haven't quite made my mind up about wether it can be ethically acceptable (for vegans as well as non-vegans) to keep pets, it is clear to me that there is an obvious distinction between 'owning' (ofcourse that word makes you question already if such practices can be justified) a pet and keeping bees for honey: The bees are working, having their minds set on creating a winter-foodsupply, for your benefit and you give them lousy sugar-water in return. While a regular pet, on the other hand, is relatively free. At least most pets will have way better lives than animals in factory farming. As will most animals in zoos, actually. And yet, zoos are mostly regarded as morally incorrect by vegans, because it's about keeping animals imprisoned for human entertainment. But then, how are pets so very different from that?

Anyway, there's something that bugs me a lot more concerning vegans keeping pets and that is feeding them food that the owner him- or herself would never eat. So in that sense I think it's virtually unthinkable for a vegan to have cats as pets since they are carnivores. And if you keep a dog you should, as far as I'm concerned, feed him or her vegan as well. Because why would you apply different morals to the food you buy for your pet?

You have some true words, but I can't help but feeling that you're actually defending my points rather than contradicting them (not that I have any problem with that :)).
Rhyme79 said:Zoos are about recreation yes, but also about education and conservation. Zoos co-operate internationally in order to create and maintain successful breeding programs for endangered species. The zoos make money for these programs through admission to the public, ( and grants and private funding too.) The moral issue there I suppose is; is it OK to allow a few individual animals to live in captivity if it will benefit the entire species? I think that yes, morally it is important to protect the whole.
That keeping animals in zoos is defensible is exaclty what I was trying to say. Like you, I disagree with the consensus under vegans that not supporting zoos is necessarily a part of veganism. I probably should have been a bit clearer on that.
Rhyme79Besides that, cats require a large amount of protein compared to a human. Humans need about 0.8g per kg of body weight per day, which is only one fifth of a cat's 4g per kg per day requirement. The second paragraph of this page of the Marck Veterinary Manual here shows that it would de difficult to create a suitable vegan diet for a feline.
Again, the fact that it's virtually impossible to feed a cat vegan, was precisely my point. And to me, that means vegans can't have cats as pets.
Rhyme79Veganism is a choice, unless you have a talking pet, they can't tell you that they want to be vegan. Who can say that they have the right to make that decision for an animal?
I think this is the only thing here we have very diffferent opinions on :)

sewable said:
Several of my veg friends keep pets, but vegans will refuse honey on the grounds that bees are mistreated and exploited for their labor.

I'm not vegan so I don't feel that strongly about this kind of stuff, but I do understand the rationale behind avoiding milk and eggs. The thing about honey is not really clear for me. Only an overproduction of honey is taken
from the bees, as otherwise the beekeeper would harm the bee population.

sewable said:
It seems to me that keeping any other living thing around (and removing it from it's natural state) simply for our own enjoyment is equally reprehensible, but let's face it: cats and dogs are adorable.

I've also heard the argument that cats chose us, but it still seems arrogant to decide that an animal is happier domesticated than wild.
Well first, cats and dogs are domesticated animals. I would argue that if you released them into "the wild" many wouldn't have that much of a great time.
The only problem I see is when people get pets and don't know anything about how to treat them and generally don't invest much time in them. This is especially true for dogs. I love huskies. They are great dogs, but you need to
spend much time caring about them. I also think that I wouldn't get a dog if I lived in a city. What I want to add is, that (most) people don't see their dogs as amusement but as a dear comrade (or at least that's how I feel).
The point I want to make is that I'm sure that you can create a good environment for a pet if you know how.
Most importantly: If you want to get a pet, get it from an animal shelter. These are unfortunate animals that surely would appreciate your care.

mrsqrrl said:
But I don't nearly miss honey enough to justify what the bees have to go through.
As always it burns down to whether the being one is talking about can experience feelings like or at least simillar to how humans do. Although some people probably don't care about that but would grant every being the right to not be killed or used in other ways for ones purpose. However, I don't feel any sympathy towards insects, but that's just my own attitude.
(I don't want to get totally off topic so I stop writing now ;) )

It seems to me that keeping any other living thing around (and removing it from it's natural state) simply for our own enjoyment is equally reprehensible

People who care for companion animals do so for a variety of reasons, not just 'simply for their own enjoyment'. Many people I know, vegans and non-vegans alike, have taken in rescued or otherwise unfortunate animals. To me adopting an animal can be a direct way to make a positive difference in the life of a sentient being. Will a dog or cat ever lead a perfect or optimal life in the company of people? Probably not, but neither are our lives perfect, nor is an animal's life in their 'natural state' - whatever that is exactly for animal that have been domesticated for centuries. You can, however, do many things to make life pleasant and worthwhile for a companion animal - and make it a lot better than it was.

I do agree that -from the vegan standpoint anyway- it only makes sense that companion animals aren't fed other animals. For the slaughtered animals there is no difference in whether their flesh is consumed by human beings, dogs or cats. This is also why I have chosen to only give (enriched) plant foods to my dog. Gladly, she seems to enjoy her food very much and she has plenty of variety in tastes too. :)

It irks me that the entire top shelf on the peanut butter/jelly aisle in a typical supermarket is dedicated to honey. For the typical consumer, isn't honey one of those things bought once and forgotten in the back of the pantry? I know tea drinkers like it and it's called for semi-frequently in baking, but the market is still so clearly over-saturated. So much of the honey goes to waste. What's wrong with agave nectar?

The bees aren't behaving as they would without human interference. Encountering pesticides is troublesome enough, but to have to constantly be on the clock as each new yield is ripped away and poured into plastic bears or turned into hipster lip balms...it's not sustainable. They're dropping dead. We need them healthy and behaving naturally and travelling and pollinating plants.

RE: Cats...it is a conundrum. There is a website that sells what they claim is a suitable dietary workaround for cats, but it has proven dodgy - especially for males. I find it difficult to criticize someone who adopts a shelter cat, regardless of the unfortunate dependence on byproducts of other species. Keep them indoors, though. Outside cats are ecosystem wreckers.

juliacsd said: Human beings have a metabolism that can work with or without meat so we can choose, but making a dog or cat vegetarian is completely out of question :(

Wrong. It's not recommended for cats, but dogs take swimmingly to a vegetarian/vegan diet.

Do they not have Google in Finland?

Rhyme79 said:
juliacsd said:

• Don't keep fishes. They need more space than the biggest aquarium you can get (find a safe place and set them free)
• Actually, any animal that you have to keep "jailed", small rodents, birds, reptiles, etc. Set them free in their natural habitat. Also goes for exotic animals.

Err, setting animals free is not a good idea for several reasons. Firstly, releasing an animal bred in capitivity with no idea of how to survive for itself is basically just killing them. Secondly, releasing animals into the eco system that wouldn't otherwise be there regardless of whether it is 'their natural habitat' can cause real problems for the natural balance that maintains that ecosystem and every lifeform within it. You just need to look at Australia to see what can happen when people, entirely out of ignorance, do things like this.
I'm sure there are a load more reasons why telling people to set their animals free is really stupid advice, but I'm not an expert on either ecology or bio-diversity or animal welfare etc etc..


Of course, I couldn't agree more, there are centers to reintroduce animals or, if that is not possible (for the reasons you mentioned), then we'll have to provide an artificial environment bigger than the typical home aquarium (I know a couple of these where they take care of species that cannot be released here).

Rhyme79 said:
juliacsd said:
About Zoos, I have to answer to this:

Rhyme79 said:
is it OK to allow a few individual animals to live in captivity if it will benefit the entire species? I think that yes, morally it is important to protect the whole.

juliacsd said:
If you have to be in jail for all your live watching kids shouting at you for no reason just to save your species, would you do it? I wouldn't.
Really?? You wouldn't sacrifice yourself, numbering just one to be 'shouted at by kids', in order to save the entire human race numbering just over 7 billion? That's pretty selfish!

Yes, I consider myself selfish. Evolutionarily speaking, the individual that sacrificed itself for the group sure didn't have more offspring because of that, so selfishness is just a genetically inherited trait. But, we can reason to make this kind of decisions, and I wouldn't spend my whole life in a cage to save the human race... Why sacrifice your life (and we only live once) to save something that will destroy itself? Enjoy your life, try not to help this self-destruction, do your part as citizen to improve the situation but overall be happy... And don't confine yourself in a cage, at least not for me :)

dth3tr said:
Do they not have Google in Finland?


Good point but I'm too lazy to check ;) if I adopt a pet I'll see if this diet would be healthy, I promise ^^

Rhyme79 disse:

Veganism is a choice, unless you have a talking pet, they can't tell you that they want to be vegan. Who can say that they have the right to make that decision for an animal?




actually, he will let you know.
If you really love your pet, you'll know whether you are putting him through something bad for him or not... its not just because an animal can't talk that he can't communicate with you

Rhyme79 said:
[...]. Perhaps it is this selfishness trait that is leading to the destruction of the human race you mentioned juliacsd? As people are becoming more concerned with their own life and ignoring their community which, in my view, is leading to a break down in society, (well at least in the UK) . Just because a trait enables survival for an individual, doesn't mean it's a good thing for the species.
I don't know if being selfish is good or bad... It's difficult to reduce everything to good or bad and white and black. Of course, we can reason "against" our instincts, that's up to each individual. As I said, enjoy your life, try not to help this self-destruction, do your part as citizen to improve the situation but overall be happy, and I do it selfishly :P If everyone did just a little bit to improve the situation then I won't have to worry about the future too much, so I do my part ^_^ (but I do it for me... ok, maybe for my family and friends too).

The only problem I see is that many people don't have enough information (education/logical thinking/call it what you want) to make the right decision for themselves. If they saw that what they are doing will harm them eventually they'd stop, I would.

Rhyme79 said:
OK, what does this have to do with bees again? O.o I think we've gone off on a bit of a tangent!
True! :)

Don't discount the fact that many people are stupid or at the very least ignorant. Denying climate change is the nouveau denial of evolution for simpletons and crackpots who insist on forcing all new acquired information through a filter of politicization.

At least denying evolution harms little else than one's own credibility. Denying man's role in climate change while seemingly intentionally ramping up the waste as some kind of sick passive-aggressive protest/jingoistic ode to "the way things used to be"...well that hurts us all.

As far as staying on topic goes, maybe we should make another thread. Though dead bees are one of many byproducts of a deteriorating ecosystem so perhaps it ties in.