Should you buy plants with less animal deaths then other plant products?

[NickNack]

Yeah, this is kind of going a-bit more extreme but should we be more conscious about how many animals die not just from meat and dairy but also form plants? Like buy plant products that have less animal deaths then other plant products? Thoughts?

[Jebus]

You need to consider the sentience of the animal killed, i.e. one cow is more important than 100 ants.

[thebestofenergy]

Yes, definitely.
And I don't see why it would be extreme, at all - just like veganism isn't. Reducing suffering whenever practicable is the opposite of extreme. It should be the norm.

In the very definition of veganism it's stated:
'A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose'

If eating certain plant-based foods kills a significant amount of animals, and it's replaceable (therefore possible and practicable) with something that would kill significantly less, then it definitely would be vegan to choose the latter option.

Take for example palm oil. Palm oil is plant-based, but far from being vegan considering what it does.
It's much worse than honey - and yet, honey is considered not OK, but palm oil OK in a vegan diet.

For reference:
wiki/index.php/Palm_Oil

Palm oil kills tens of thousands of animals high on the sentience scale, and harms humans significantly (both the natives living in the forests, and the hundreds of thousands of children that develop respiratory problems caused by the haze from burning down the forests) - not considering the environmental effect and the domino consequences it has.
And fortunately enough, palm oil is replaceable. There is a wide variety of vegetable oils that can substitute it.

That's an extreme case, though. It gets a bit trickier with something like which vegetable requires less land and less crop deaths, and it needs to be looked at for each context.
Unless it's egregiously high though, I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Insects are barely sentient, and those represent most of the crop deaths. And at this point, it's pretty hard to quantify the crop deaths of eating a carrot vs a potato, and is likely not a significant difference.
It also would make veganism (something very impactful) something much harder to do, for a very little gain that's mostly unknown.

So advocating to eat only the vegetables that require the least amount of land/farming, would likely not do much good, and actually be counterproductive by increasing the barrier of entry/failure/recidivism of veganism - which would be a known problem, and certainly something to avoid. (e.g. if people already struggle to go and stay vegan, advocating for further restriction - for something likely insignificant - will make people struggle to go and stay vegan - something very impactful - even more)

[brimstoneSalad]

It also would make veganism (something very impactful) something much harder to do, for a very little gain that's mostly unknown.

There's a phrase, "penny wise, pound foolish" that encapsulates it well.
The differences between most plant crops are so small it would be a waste of effort to try to figure out which are better in the context of an agricultural environment that contains animal agriculture.

I can imagine in a future where animal products are gone that this might be an important question, and we could see something like a vegan 2.0 where we're trying to optimize compassion at every level of agriculture (and have the informational means to do so).

[NickNack]

So Its about getting your priorities straight and going after things with significant harm rather then wasting time on things that are not nearly as harmful when you could have used that time to go after the main things that are harmful?

[NickNack]

Any one have any sources on how many animals are hunted to protect crops? I have seen alot if carnivore advocates boast about how the vegan diet still kills alot of animals but Im wondering what the sources say.

[NickNack]

You need to consider the sentience of the animal killed, i.e. one cow is more important than 100 ants.

If we put it in the human context, does a less sentient human deserve less of a right to life then a more sentient human?

[Jebus]

If we put it in the human context, does a less sentient human deserve less of a right to life then a more sentient human?

If there is such a thing, then yes, even though "deserve less of a right to life" may not be the best way to phrase the amount of consideration given to, for example, individuals in an overcrowded life boat.

[brimstoneSalad]

So Its about getting your priorities straight and going after things with significant harm rather then wasting time on things that are not nearly as harmful when you could have used that time to go after the main things that are harmful?

Yes.

Any one have any sources on how many animals are hunted to protect crops? I have seen alot if carnivore advocates boast about how the vegan diet still kills alot of animals but Im wondering what the sources say.

Most animals, like wolves foxes etc., are hunted to protect livestock.
In terms of hunting herbivores, forestry management intentionally increases their numbers to sell more hunting licenses.

The animals killed for plant agriculture are overwhelmingly insects and rodents. In the former case, the most effective insecticides tend to target development (preventing eggs from hatching or preventing small larvae from growing) rather than killing adults.
Rodents are usually trapped or poisoned to keep their numbers down.

However, this killing occurs in plant agriculture too. Rodents are threats to chickens, eggs, and the feed of all farmed animals.
There's zero evidence that this disproportionately affects plants and insane to think it would because farmed animals eat plants -- and far more of them.

In terms of harvest/slaughter, there are some attempts to come up with numbers on those, eg:
https://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc

You need to consider the sentience of the animal killed, i.e. one cow is more important than 100 ants.

If we put it in the human context, does a less sentient human deserve less of a right to life then a more sentient human?

"Deserve" and fundamental rights are a deontological concept so don't really factor in itself.
It is typically less of a harm to kill a less sentient creature.

[NickNack]

If we put it in the human context, does a less sentient human deserve less of a right to life then a more sentient human?

If there is such a thing, then yes, even though "deserve less of a right to life" may not be the best way to phrase the amount of consideration given to, for example, individuals in an overcrowded life boat.

I do believe having a significant enough effect on a sentient creature is a requirement for something to have moral consideration, but why does a creature having more sentience mean more moral consideration for that specific creature then a less sentient creature?