r/DebateAVegan

I believe vegan is a morally superior lifestyle. No argument on this really. Everyone should be vegan.

But I dont think vegans that own dogs and cats should call themselves vegan.

First reason I can come up is that they buy animal products for feed. They add up to the "kill count".

Or the fact they had to choose, out of plethora of animals, the two species in the order "CARNIVORA" as their pet. Just why.

I dont think a western vegan with three dogs and two rescued cats is more vegan than eastern rice farmer who maintains relatively low meat consumption than eastern average.

Below is my further argument towards carnivorous pet justifications.

1. “I’m only taking care of an animal that already exists. I didn’t increase the population.”

-> same logic as a meat-eater saying, “I only eat meat that was already slaughtered. I didn’t kill it.” You still contribute to the demand.

2. “My dog/cat is not from a pet store.”

->you still contribute to the system by keeping one. You fund the pet-food industry, which relies heavily on animal agriculture. Its a pretty basic vegan argument.

3. “It’s not their fault that they eat meat.”

-> But it is our deliberate choice to keep more carnivorous animals as pets, outside of their natural ecosystems, and then continuously provide meat for them.

4. “Humans, dogs, and cats have been companions for a long time.”

Analogous to meat eater logic “Humans are built to eat meat.” Tradition does not automatically make something necessary or ethical. We do not biologically need dogs or cats. Rather we manipulated wolf genetics into animals that depend on us.

5. “Pet food is mostly made from organs and by-products humans don’t eat.”

Soybean meal is also a by-product of soybean-oil production and is used as livestock feed. Calling something a by-product does not mean it is outside the production system or has no impact on demand.

6. “What am I supposed to do? I already have a pet. I’m obligated to give them a good life.”

This is still actively choosing one carnivorous animal’s life over the many smaller animals killed to feed them—because that particular animal is candy to you. I understand that emotionally, but it does not feel fully consistent with vegan logic.

Thanks for reading

So , I was watching this video on YouTube where these tribal people were trying to hunt a deer and it was long 8 hour hunt and when the hunter ultimately killed the animal the thing I saw was pure gratitude and emotions and realisation that he had killed a being to further his own life so an importance of life itself . And then I thought we don't have this experience anymore and this has made us distant from the animal we eat . We don't know anything about the animal that has been presented as meat in front of our table, for us it's not a distinct animal but rather just a meat .So, I think people should get familiar with the animal they are going to eat but not form any bonding with them but just familiar with their behavior and how they act and live , I think so and if they can psychologically process it and then make the decision to let them get killed or kill them and then eat or decide not to kill them, it is much better, though it's not similar to hunt and can't produce the same emotions but atleast it can give the animal it's meaning in the memories of the person who eats it ( compared to now when no one knows about the animal they are eating) and remember that the animal itself had a life and he ended it to further his own life . Edit - The hunter hunted for his survival not for fun, to make it clear.

Edit - I know it's practically impossible to be familiar with every individual animal you eat , I just want that people should be aware of the reality and should visit slaughterhouses and be familiar with the act of killing the animal itself and spend sometime with these animals in general and know them better and then decide if they want to kill them for food or not .

Copié y pegué de un grupo de ética carnívora pero me lo rechazaron así que lo posteo aquí:

Soy carnívora, y exvegana por tanto no están dialogando con una activista vegana poco preparada y desinformada, cuando leí a Lierre Keith me sentí tan identificada que dejé el veganismo, además aprendí la ética omnívora de pueblos indígenas y entendí que ser vegano es un sinsentido.

Sin embargo, desgraciadamente, me temo que la mayoría de gente que critica al veganismo lo hace por los motivos equivocados y en vez de refutarlos, les dan la razón.

Para empezar, el argumento bienestarista de que está bien criar animales, porque estos no sufren no resiste el mayor análisis, dado que si se tratara de nosotros, como especie humana, lo normal es que la gente consideraría que no deberían tratarnos como un medio para un fin. Si igual insisten en este argumento, igual falla, prácticamente toda nuestra sociedad gira en torno a la idea de derechos humanos y esta presupone el concepto kantiano de dignidad humana. Aunque tú no pienses que existe la dignidad humana, te beneficias de ella en tanto que otros lucharon para que al menos se considere que tu vida tiene un valor en fin en sí mismo, antes que un medio para otros. Es cierto que en la práctica no se respetan nuestros derechos dependiendo de si eres una persona con bajos recursos, pero si no se reconociera tu dignidad a nivel jurídico tu situación sería aún peor.

Luego, rechazo los argumentos ambientales y nutricionales, de la evolución y similares sobre dejar de consumir carne, porque además de que algunos parten de premisas falsas y suelen ser mal planteados no van a la raíz que es la ética. Ser omnívoro debe ser una ética.

Empiezo con lo que los veganos sí plantean bien. Tienen razón en que rara vez consideramos los intereses de los animales. Si se tratara de nosotros, no consideraríamos suficiente que no sufrieramos. Si una civilización extraterrestre nos explotara, lucharíamos por nuestra autonomía y protestaríamos, por eso resulta muy incoherente que no contrapongamos nuestros intereses triviales de consumir carne con los relevantes de los animales de vivir o no sufrir. Creo que la argumentación en contra de los veganos generalmente falla porque es muy inverosímil si se aplica hacia los humanos. Por un lado, estamos en una posición de poder en tanto no se nos instrumentaliza al mismo tiempo que justificamos la instrumentalización de los animales. Una ética omnívora tiene que resolver ese problema y casi nadie lo ha hecho, ¿por qué?

La solución es simple. Una ética omnívora implica tomar el toro por las astas y plantear con claridad nuestra postura. En realidad, ninguna vida debería tener ese valor deontológico, una auténtica ética omnívora fomenta la caza y consumo responsable de animales, al mismo tiempo que acepta que los humanos somos presas como cualquier otra especie. Eso implica que estoy en la selva amazónica y me encuentro con un puma, seré su almuerzo. No tengo ningún privilegio en tanto no existe una dignidad humana que me convierta en un fin en sí mismo, del mismo modo que críamos animales para nuestro consumo tenemos que abolir la metafísica de los derechos humanos desde la cual nos privilegiamos sistemáticamente. Simplemente, no podemos seguir sosteniendo que consumir carne es algo ético al mismo tiempo que no estuviéramos dispuestos a estar en la situación de los animales. Tenemos que aceptar que no somos seres autónomos, sino que estamos en una relación depredatoria de la que no podemos escapar. Es simplemente el ordenamiento de la realidad que tiene implicancias éticas considerables. Hay reciprocidad entre humanos y animales, en tanto que ninguno posee un privilegio a nivel ontológico o ético que nos haga a los humanos especiales.

No funciona ante esto seguir haciendonos los éticos por decir "los animales no sufren", "la vida funciona así", "en la agricultura también hay impacto", esto es mucho más complejo. Se trata de una ética que intente sostenerse realmente en la vida real. Deberíamos abandonar nuestra civilización industrial, abolir toda la ganadería industrial, volver a cazar o a criar animales en condiciones de no sufrimiento de forma responsable y humanitaria; y también políticas rewilding; aceptando que la vida humana no es sagrada y que los depredadores tienen el derecho a consumir nuestros cuerpos si así lo desean y que no se considere eso inmoral.

Mi propuesta es que si defendemos un modelo ético como el mío más cercano a un anarcoprimitivismo podemos hacer frente al veganismo, de lo contrario lo que hacemos es darles la razón porque intentamos tapar el sol con un dedo.

My relative told me this theory recently and honestly it made me think a lot

Look at how herbivores like cows, goats and horses usually drink by sipping/sucking water into their mouth. while carnivores like lions, cats and dogs mainly lap it with their tongue. Humans also sip/suck water ?

Humans evolved from primates, and most monkeys today are mainly plant eaters, but many also eat insects, eggs and sometimes small animals. So what if our ancestors were originally more herbivorous, then slowly became omnivores because of environment and food availability?

So I started wondering, Could this drinking behaviour be inherited from our ancestors who were herbivore? What if humans and our earlier primate ancestors were mainly plant eaters, and later, because of changes in environment and food availability, they started eating insects, eggs and eventually meat?

My relative has lived almost his whole life in a village and has never eaten meat, and he's still healthy even at an old age. So it also made me wonder: if humans can live without meat, was eating animals always necessary, or did our ancestors start doing it because it was available, useful for energy/nutrients, and eventually became something we liked?

Maybe taste and circumstances played a bigger role than we think.

Many animals can eat something other than their primary food without changing what they are. Herbivores can sometimes eat animal matter but still remain primarily plant eaters. So could humans have similarly started eating animals because of circumstances and availability, and later developed a taste and preference for it? That's really the point I'm trying to explore. Maybe our ancestors ate animals because it was useful for survival, but today we continue doing it partly because we enjoy the taste, even when we don't necessarily need to kill animals to survive.

Isnt the vegan option to let the mother decide? Either let them be born, or eat them?

Once the human makes that decision, doesnt it stop being vegan?

I read an argument claiming that the only real solution to animal suffering and exploitation would be for humanity to eventually create some kind of “red button” that could permanently end all life on Earth.

Their reasoning was basically this:

1. Veganism supposedly isn’t a realistic solution because only a very small percentage of humans are vegan, and many people who avoid animal products do so for environmental rather than animal-rights reasons.
2. Even if industrial animal farming were abolished, humans might just start raising and slaughtering animals themselves, potentially in even worse conditions with less regulation.
3. If animal agriculture disappeared and farmland were rewilded, the suffering wouldn’t necessarily disappear. It could instead shift toward wild animals such as birds, rodents, frogs, insects, and other animals living in those ecosystems.
4. And if we don’t rewild those areas, there would apparently still be suffering among animals living in cities and other human-dominated environments.
5. Even if animal farming and other major forms of animal exploitation were abolished, individual people could still intentionally harm animals. For example, someone could buy an animal from a pet store or obtain one elsewhere and abuse it in private. So the argument is that as long as humans and other sentient beings exist, there will always be some possibility of suffering that laws, veganism, or regulations can’t completely prevent.
6. They also argued that, from a practical perspective, being pescatarian would somehow be “better” than being vegan, because overfishing is already severely depleting ocean ecosystems. if there are fewer fish alive in the oceans, then there are fewer individual fish who can experience things like starvation, disease, predation, parasites, injury, and painful deaths.

Their conclusion was basically that veganism and animal-rights reforms can never actually solve the problem of animal suffering, because suffering would always continue somewhere, and therefore extinction would be the only permanent solution.

I’m vegan and this argument genuinely confused me. I’d really like to hear what other vegans think about it. Do you think there are flaws in this reasoning? Does the fact that we can’t eliminate all animal suffering mean that reducing the suffering humans directly cause is somehow pointless? And how do you think about wild-animal suffering and rewilding in relation to veganism?

Edit: added 5-6
Edit2: the person who proposed these arguments isn’t vegan but still advocates for ending all life

Can ethical vegans eat food that has been grown with pesticides? If they don’t want to harm animals/insects with their dietary choices, shouldn’t that logic apply here?

hello everybody, this is my first post on Reddit so sorry if I’m not doing it right!

I want to live a more sustainable life and I’ve always loved animals. I became vegetarian a few months ago, and I’m gradually moving towards a vegan lifestyle.

My main reasons are animal welfare and environmental impact. I don’t want my consumption to contribute to animals suffering, being kept in poor conditions, or being killed when it could reasonably be avoided. And since animal products like dairy, eggs, wool, etc. are generally produced within systems that involve some level of harm to animals, I’m increasingly uncomfortable consuming them.

However, there is one part of vegan philosophy that I’m struggling to understand, and I’d genuinely like to hear how vegans think about it.

I understand avoiding animal products when producing them involves suffering. What I don’t understand is why using something that comes from an animal would necessarily be wrong if we could be certain that the animal was not harmed, exploited in a harmful way, or deprived of anything they needed.

For example, imagine I have a dog who naturally sheds a lot of hair. If I collect the hair that would otherwise end up in the trash and use it to make yarn or fabric, I don’t really see this as “using my dog as a resource.” I see it as making use of something that the dog naturally produces and loses anyway, rather than wasting it. The dog doesn’t suffer, I don’t make them produce more hair, and I don’t take anything away from them.

I feel similarly about other examples. If a chicken is genuinely well cared for, lives a good life, and naturally lays an egg that she doesn’t need, why would eating that egg necessarily be wrong? Or if a sheep needs to be shorn for its own welfare and the wool would otherwise be discarded, why would using the wool be morally wrong?

I think I have a somewhat different view of the relationship between humans and animals. I don’t necessarily see humans and animals as needing to live completely separately. I think we can be interdependent: humans can provide animals with food, shelter, safety and care, while animals can sometimes provide us with things that they naturally produce. To me, the important question is whether the relationship is mutually beneficial or at least whether the animal is not harmed by what we take.

This is also why I struggle with the concept of “exploitation.” I understand exploitation when an animal is treated as a means of production, where we deliberately breed, confine or manipulate them to maximize what we can get from them, even at the expense of their welfare.

But I’m not sure I understand why all use of animals has to be considered exploitation. If I use something that an animal naturally sheds or produces, without causing them any harm, what exactly is morally wrong about that?

I realize that in the real world it is extremely difficult to guarantee that an animal product was genuinely produced without suffering. That’s actually a big reason why I want to move towards veganism in practice: I would rather avoid these products than unknowingly support harmful systems.

But philosophically, I’m not convinced that using an animal or something they produce is inherently wrong.

So I’d genuinely like to hear from vegans, especially those who hold a more philosophical/ethical view of veganism:

Why is it morally wrong to use an animal product if the animal did not suffer, was not deprived of anything, and the product would otherwise have gone to waste?

Is the problem the possibility of suffering? The idea of treating animals as property? The fact that we are benefiting from them at all? Or something else?

I’m not trying to argue that veganism is wrong — I’m genuinely trying to understand a part of the philosophy that I currently don’t agree with. And I’m also interested in whether there are vegans who share some of these intuitions about interdependence and avoiding waste, or whether that is fundamentally incompatible with vegan ethics.

Thank you guys!!

I like the idéa of veganism in principle, and I've listened to people like Earthling Ed who argues very good and is extreamly well spoken. But as far as I'm concerned, you draw the line on not eating animal products and not using animal materials for clothes?

If the general idea is to reduce suffering of animals, would I need to figure out every brand in the store to know which is more ethical, if no, why not? And if no, how would that be different from having to figure out how to cook good tasting vegan recipes to make it sustainable in the long run. Isnt it just time spent on research and learning and the end justifys it?

The reasonable vegans as I consider them say that veganism is the way when you have a choice and indiginous people etc do it for survival. But why are they cut some slack on things because of culture and westerners are not? Many vegans argue say "well oh well yes we have eated meat historically, but tradition is not an argument since we have had bad traditions and we can evolve" Okay. Why can't we bring the same attitude towards them? And I understand some really militant vegans probably think we should do that, force them to live in modern society and teach them vegan values and logic so that they actually are able to engage in it. But to you who dont think we should force for example the Inu in Candada, or tribes in africa etc to adapt into society, why? Where do you draw the line that a culture should or dont need to change for the animals? And again why would I not need to check all the items at the store all the time otherwise I am a hypocrite. And if I dont need too check all items which probably alot of vegans dont and thus potentially cause more harm that needed, what is the arguement for saying that your amount of reduced suffering (since yes it would still be less that engaging in animal consuption), which is not all the way, gets a pass but others dont, how do you quantify it to being "enough"?

This doesnt make any sense to me. I understand wanting to reduce suffering, and you say you have the moral obligation to do what you can, but how far do we push that line and why? If you dont do it the entireeee way then doesnt the whole idea collapse on itself, since you are a hypocrite who says you do it for the animals "but not all the animals" just as meat eaters do it for some animals but not all of them.

Cheers.

A vegan literally told me once that fish didn’t count because they aren’t as smart as humans,
Like excuse me??
Yes it’s a animal, so yes it’s meat,

So how the heck does it not count as meat!?

By the way is it also immoral for vegans to eat mushrooms?
As mushroom genetics are closer to humans than plants

Solicito que sean abiertos, este es solo un ejercicio mental, incluso puede servir para reforzar sus argumentos previos. ¿Se les ocurre algún modo de defender una postura a favor del no uso de los animales desde el emotivismo? Es difícil pero no creo que sea imposible. Por ejemplo, Hume decía que existen ciertos patrones que guían nuestra ética que son emociones y sentimientos que nos impulsan a actuar. Puede decirse que el rechazo que sienten les niñes a comer carne es suficiente para fundar una ética emotivista que prohiba usar animales dado que por la empatía consideramos que comer animales es malo. Del mismo modo que nuestro sistema jurídico prohibe matar humanos (si la ética es emotivista tendría necesariamente que sostenerse que los DD.HH. tienen una base en intuiciones, emociones y sentimientos) lo mismo deberia hacerse para con los animales.

Every single organism (animal and plant) feed of another organism one way or another. That's one of the very basic systems of this flying rock. So why do vegans think they have the moral high ground in regard to that topic? Just because you don't eat an animal doesn't mean you are better.

Many vegans argue along the lines that non-human animals should be treated in ways that we typically treat marginal case humans. The argument is that severely disabled humans who have the same (or similar) subjective experience as animals are still afforded basic rights and dignity and there is no morally significant difference between marginal case humans and non-human animals; therefore, we should afford basic rights and dignity to non-human animals.

However, I'd argue that this intuition doesn't actually hold in all cases, even for vegans who would typically use this line of reasoning.

My example is taking pictures of naked people without their consent vs taking pictures of naked non-human animals without their consent. If I secretly took a picture of a naked human and posted it online, we would think I wronged this human in a significant way, even if the human was mentally disabled such that they couldn't feel wronged by the action.

However, many people, including vegans, take pictures of naked animals and post them online all the time. No one, including vegans, feels that this is a form of exploitation. This is a very big asymmetry that requires accounting for.

One possible answer is that even if a human is severely disabled and is unable to feel wronged by the action, they are still participating in a society where such an action is viewed by society as degrading to those humans. Therefore, although the action might not cause those humans to experience any suffering, they are still suffering reputational damage as people in our society.

Non-human animals are not participants in our society in the same way as people (even severely disabled ones). If I post a picture of my naked dog online, this doesn't cause my dog any reputational damage in society. In fact, my dog may be considered cute and benefit reputationally. It would also not be considered exploitative to my dog if I monetized pictures of her.

Additionally, because the human did not consent to the photo being taken may be seen as a violation of the human's privacy and dignity. However, photographing and filming wildlife without their consent is not something that is considered wrong by the vast majority of people, including vegans. In fact many people, including vegans, enjoy watching videos and photos of naked animals without their consent.

But it seems clear that there is an asymmetry between the sorts of things that might harm a human (even a severely mentally disabled one) and the sorts of things that might harm a non-human animal.

I think that this difference can also extend to other areas where we treat animals differently but in ways that don't necessarily harm them but benefit us. For example, a non-invasive and non-harmful extraction of a few cells from an animal would benefit us greatly when it comes to lab-grown meat, and it can be done in a way in which the animal is indifferent to the action. Many vegans are against this because the animal can't consent, and the animal is being used. Vegans will then compare doing this to a human and claim that it is non-vegan, morally wrong, and an instance of exploitation.

I'd argue that there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between what counts as an instance of exploitation to a human and what counts as an instance of exploitation to a non-human animal. If vegans agree that it is exploitative to monetize pictures of naked humans without their consent, but it isn't exploitative to monetize pictures of naked animals without their consent, then it seems like vegans agree with this as well.

Then why should we consider it to be an instance of exploitation to take a few cells from an animal for our purposes if the animal is indifferent to the act? It seems no more exploitative than monetizing a picture of a naked animal (which is already deemed to be acceptable and unharmful to animals).

To start, I respect vegan and vegetarian diets. They require discipline and a consideration for life and health. Thank you for spreading these practices, but for those who feel resentment or are concerned about conventional diets, or for those of you who only ever consume food but don't produce anything themselves, I simply wanted to share some thoughts here.

We are by nature omnivores, which includes eating meat. To deny that entirely is deny your own nature. Some important ethical questions to consider are:

1. Where does the meat come from? Was it ethically raised and harvested?

2. When eating meat, do you take a moment to appreciate the sacrifice and significance of the life taken for you to sustain?

3. Are you eating meat more purely to satisfy a hedonistic tendency or because you are genuinely hungry and in need of that nutrition?

4. Should a person who eats meat go through the experience of hunting and taking the life of a wild animal for food in order to have a deeper connection to their food and sense of consequence when eating it?

We are merely animals, not some beings that are above the realities of natural laws and cycles. To that point, we can choose to be vegan/vegetarian but murdering animals for meat is part the human cycle of life. We one day die and our meat becomes food for other organisms.

On a final note, as humans, we have to capacity to give back and contribute to the proliferation of life through things like native gardening, ecosystem management, and forestry. It's what many of our ancestors did and what allowed them to have abundance in way that connected them to their environment. In other words, we can be a beneficial keystone species. This is far more important and beneficial than simply consuming only plants endlessly, but never giving back to the world that sustains you.

If your concerns are environmental or on the ethics of killing animals, I encourage you to reflect on wildlife and to reflect on things you can do to help proliferate life so that animals can also thrive in a world where they will be killed by other animals (including us).

Being Vegan/ Vegetarian is ethically better. Being non-veg is just such an ethical no-no. The pain and suffering that animals go through is unfathomable. The fear in their last moments., Screams and tears shed just for your taste buds. Imagine being taken into an unfamiliar place, with unfamiliar smells and sounds and feeling so fearful that your whole body starts shaking yet not being able to move as you are tied down. Just imagine that. Animals are way way more sentient than we give them credit for. Anyone who has a pet would know that. People are just so desensitised. I get that eating meat is so prominent in some cultures and maybe its tough for people in a poor economic position to choose a purely vegan or vegetarian diet, but for people who have all the necessary resources, what is stopping you from making the switch?

I do not aim to force anyone to switch or degrade their opinion but i am just laying out the pure simple truth: Eating meat is murder.
I am aware people might argue that “Eating plants is murder too” but you need to realise the fact that most fruits and plants we eat never truly kill the plant and plants dont feel any pain whatsoever. In fact, most plants want their fruit to be eaten (search up endozoochory)
Plants are not sentient either, in any way or form.

We will never truly know to what degree animals feel fear but one thing is difficult to deny: an animal that is frightened wants the frightening situation to stop. No animal willingly or unwillingly wants to die.

Personally, i have been a non-vegetarian all my life and never really realised how wrong it was up until a year ago when i truly felt the weight of the situation and made the switch.
I do admit it is extremely tough at times to deal with my diet especially when i go out with friends due to the lack of options and the fact that meat is incredibly delicious but in the end, it is NOT OK to eat meat.

Everytime you eat meat just remember; you are eating the flesh of a dead corpse of a previously alive, breathing animal.

At the end of the day, you do what you want. The purpose of this post is to make you aware. Thats it.

I am open to discussion on this topic.

I want to see what vegans say to my point that I'm about to raise, and also l'll pose the question after you've read the whole point below of how/whether you believe buying whey is contributing to animal exploitation in the current market.

The point I want to bring up is that cheese can't be made without whey automatically being filtered out when cheese is made, regardless of whether the producers want whey to come out or not.

So when people buy whey, they're not contributing to more milk having to be produced from cows, since the milk is being used to make cheese, and whey just naturally comes out when cheese is made.
So isn't the demand for milk in that situation only coming from those buying cheese?

In some alternative universe where more people buy whey than cheese, and they were throwing away cheese because of how much whey is being sold, then l'd obviously say whey contributes to net-milk production and therefore animal exploitation because they'd be milking cows specifically for whey, but that's not the case in the real world, far more cheese is bought than whey, so they milk cows for cheese, then whey comes out and it then either gets wasted, or it can be bought.

So people who buy whey are basically just buying that which would've been thrown away when cheese is made, and the demand for cheese is coming from those who buy cheese.

So with that said, if whey is the only dairy one buys, how would you say they're still contributing to animal exploitation?

With all of the lead that plant protein powders tend to have, isn't taking plant-based protein powder dangerous in the long term, especially when it comes to retardation?

For example, orgain protein powder just tested above the safe levels of lead and it is 143% above California's limit.

Costco is currently in a lawsuit because of this, because the products are not as healthy as marketed to consumers.

People like to make fun of California's law but have you ever thought about maybe that they are right and have the progressive position in the regulation of cancer-causing substances in food?

I've spoken to some vegans about this but it feels like a lot of them just handwaved this concern away, and that's something that concerns me.

You might not notice the effects immediately, but the heavy metals accumulate over time in your body and it is difficult to remove it.

Hey lovely, clever people.

I just came across a poll asking vegans if lab grown meat would be considered vegan.

A big majority said it would be considered vegan.

Now I have to admit, that I am not knowledgable on how lab grown meat would actually be produced if it came to our markets, but I highly doubt no animals would be harmed or exploited in the process.

So unless I'm wrong on that, I believe lab grown meat cannot be vegan by definition.

So is the lab grown meat industry actually a shiny utopia?

What do you think? Can lab grown meat be vegan?

Edit: Thank you all for taking part! Through the insights and information you presented I do believe that lab meat production on a scale as is now seems to be cruelty free and therefore should indeed be considered vegan.
If it will still be cruelty free when it's produced on a global scale we cannot know. Let's evaluate that when the time comes and for now hope that it will at the very least be an alternative for meat eaters, so we can look at a future in which less animals will be abused.