Aug 1014 min read

Why Do Vegans Breed?

Vegans love to remind us that their diet is the eco-friendly choice. They’re essentially the unsung heroes of environmentalism, single-handedly saving the planet one chickpea at a time. But if they are serious about 'saving the planet', then why do vegans breed?

While reducing animal consumption is undoubtedly a step in the right direction for the environment, there’s a little-known fact that’s many times more effective at preserving our planet—drumroll, please—not having children. That’s right. If you’re truly committed to reducing your environmental impact, skipping out on procreation is the ultimate green move. It stops the legacy of your carbon footprint from continuing for generations. To be clear, I am not advocating that no one should have children. Do whatever you want. I am simply saying don't have children if you want to end your legacy of animal suffering and death - vegan and carnivore alike. If you are alive, you cause other animals to suffer and die. And your offspring causes animals to suffer and die. Why not admit it - you having kids will result in animal deaths. Just be honest. Veganism, they say, is about avoiding harm to animals - and the most powerful way an individual can implement that is by not producing more humans. That would be the vegan choice if they were serious about their stated objectives. It would also be the choice of everyone who desires minimal impact on animals, vegan or otherwise. However, most non-vegans do not advocate for this goal; 'minimal harm to animals' isn't an objective they're striving to live up to or, seeking to impose on others as the right way to live.

So why, oh why, would an environmental-animal-saving-crusading vegan who is all about minimising animal suffering choose to breed? Ask and they toss their salad in anger. They argue it’s their right, it’s natural for our species, and it's nobody else’s business—kind of like eating meat! It’s as if they’re saying, “I’ll save the planet with my tofu and kale, but don’t ask me to save the planet from my own offspring.”

The lesser evil?

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: all humans contribute to animal suffering. Meat eaters do so directly by supporting industries that cage and kill animals for food, but vegans aren’t off the hook. Food production necessary to sustain even the most plant-based of diets involves the destruction of habitats and the deaths of countless small creatures—sometimes in shockingly large numbers.

Many vegans acknowledge their bread comes at a cost to the environment, but they shrug this off, arguing their way is the lesser of two evils. Fair enough. But then given the choice between having children and not having them, vegans must also acknowledge not breeding is the best environmental choice, and choosing to breed is personal self-interest in disregard for the environment; but don't say that to a vegan parent - they don't want to hear it!

My children are saviors!

Some vegans argue that raising compassionate, empathetic children could lead to a better future society. But let's be real—there’s no guarantee your kids will turn out to be ethical paragons. It’s a bit of an egotistical gamble, isn’t it? And while you’re busy trying to mold the next generation of planet-savers, the environment is still paying the price for their very existence.

Why not focus on educating the kids who are already here, rather than adding more to the mix? The idea that "my vegan children are better than your carnivore children (in terms of ethics and environmental impact)" that some vegans put forward may stem from ego, or have some merit. But its superfluous. Whether one is better or worse isn't the point. Both cause exponentially more harm than simply not having children.

It’s curious when vegans go to great lengths to downplay the environmental impact of their own children. They present scenarios where they grow their greens, don’t own a car, or are self-sufficient. Likewise, some non-vegans have a low impact on animal suffering by milking their cows, collecting free-range eggs from happy chickens in their backyard, and hunting deer that would otherwise turn into mushroom compost.

We can all point to outlier scenarios or claim we are exceptions to the rule. However, let’s be realistic. The broader issue is that while individual outlier practices may mitigate impact, they don’t change the fact that having children, regardless of one’s lifestyle, inevitably contributes to a larger environmental footprint. The key point is that while raising your children to be responsible is certainly better than raising irresponsible brats, from an environmental and animal welfare perspective, having children, even good ones, is still more harmful than not having any at all. To those still breeding and claiming their kids are saviors of the planet: Could you please provide any data showing that adding more people to the population actually helps reduce environmental pressure, improves air quality, or decreases animal suffering—compared to not having children?

Human Extinction

When vegans argue that "We don’t want to save the Earth for itself, we want to save it for our future generations," it sounds a lot like, "Everyone else is breed it, so why should I miss out, even though I know the planet doesn’t need more people."

The truth is, there's no risk of humans vanishing due to a lack of breeding—we’re pretty good at sticking around. So, it’s not about saving the world for humanity’s survival; it’s about having kids because you want to have them. And hey, that’s fine, but let’s not pretend it’s a selfless, human-species-saving mission. You can worry about your personal duty to breed more humans to save our kind from extinction when the global population drops by a few billion. Ceasing human procreation would eliminate all human-caused problems. However, I'm not recommending that course of action, or any other; do as you please - I don't care whether humans go extinct or not. My point is simply that, for any individual who wishes to minimize the human-caused impact of their personal legacy, logically, not breeding would be the most effective way to achieve that goal.

Justification, Denial, and Dismissal

To be clear, I’m not asking if vegans cause fewer animal deaths than meat eaters. I’m asking why a vegan, who wants to minimize the suffering they and their legacy propagate, would breed. Anitnataslist Vegans, who oppose spitting out babies, have a stronger moral position. By refraining from procreation, they avoid creating new beings who will contribute to the cycle of harm that all humans inevitably participate in. Good on them.

They aside, you would think that population levels—and their own breeding choices—would be a hot topic for all vegans concerned with food production and its impact on the environment beyond farm animals. But when I bring this up, many vegans are dismissive or deny the facts. Instead, they want to steer the conversation back to the usual debate: is a vegan diet better for the environment than a meat diet? However, I’m not asking which diet is better; I’m asking why have kids if your goal is to significantly reduce your footprint on the planet.

It’s telling when someone sidesteps a question that cuts to the heart of their stated values.

If minimizing animal suffering is truly the goal, then why create more humans to perpetuate that suffering? It’s a fair question and one that deserves a rational answer.

Vegans will sometimes try to deflect the question, claiming their focus is on direct animal suffering and cruelty, but environmental changes wreak havoc on animals too. Just ask the polar bears watching their icy homes melt away. Vegans don’t always take full responsibility for their environmental impact; instead, they often find ways to justify their choices. It's others who are to blame. Sure, it’s easy to make excuses, but let’s get real—can you honestly say your carbon footprint is zero? Or that your children leave no environmental mark? How about your contribution to waste? Does that just vanish into thin air?

It's a Complex Issue

It’s convenient to point fingers at others while glossing over the fact that bringing more children into the world only adds to the environmental burden. When I bring this up, many vegans will argue that the issue is too complex and that I'm oversimplifying things. But isn’t it funny how that complexity vanishes when they talk about meat? Suddenly, there’s no room for nuance—everything is straightforward and clear-cut; meat bad, veggies good. But still, how does creating more children have an overall positive impact on the natural world? It doesn't, right? Declaring morals, ethics, and the impact we have on the environment due to our decisions is a complex issue—as if 'complex' is a 'get-out-of-jail-free card.' This would only be a valid argument for vegans if they applied the same 'complex' excuse criteria to eating meat. Yes, being vegan reduces your environmental footprint. Having no children reduces it a whole lot more. That's what the data says, like it or not. In essence, it's not complex at all: If you have kids, the result is you will cause more animals to die compared to not having kids."

So what's your excuse?

Sometimes, I get asked by vegans, "What's your excuse for eating meat?" That's like asking a non-Buddhist what their excuse is for not following the Four Noble Truths or a non-Jew what their excuse is for not observing the Sabbath. The thing is, if I don't subscribe to your values and the rules that come with them, then those rules don't apply to me—they apply to you. It's not a complex principle, yet many vegans don't get it: I don’t need an excuse for not abiding by your rules. They’re your rules; I’m not bound by them any more than you are bound by mine.

Why aren't I Vegan?

Do I acknowledge that reducing meat consumption would be overall beneficial for the environment? Yes! So why do I eat it? Let’s address my personal practices...

Firstly, I’m not on a mission to save the planet. I don’t even care when humanity goes extinct. Sooner or later, our species will be gone, and nature will do just fine, at least until the sun swallows up the Earth.

I’ve killed animals and eaten them. I find it wholesome—part of the cycle of life and in line with how most of the natural world functions, with predators and prey. I have no moral objection to the way nature operates, how life consumes life; I am not anti-nature.

Secondly, I was a vegetarian for a few years. I don’t eat much meat as it is, but I find it beneficial and consider it part of a natural human diet—we evolved eating both meat and plants.

Thirdly, I grew up on a farm. The animals had freedom, space, and quite lovely lives. They suffered no more being killed for food than animals in the wild dying horrible natural deaths from old age, starvation during drought, or being eaten by predators. Humane farming causes no more animal suffering than a life in the wild.

We ate eggs from happy chickens who had a homely roost and roamed about as they pleased, foraging from the earth. I don’t believe they were in any way distressed by having their eggs eaten. We milked goats. They were like pets, enjoyed our company, had no fear of humans, and came to be milked willingly. They lived happy, content lives and were not distressed by us consuming their milk. Certainly, I'm depicting an idyllic scenario. For millions of farm animals, life is a nightmarish existence, and it's this cruelty that I believe we should strive to eliminate. It's not the consumption of animals per se, but the mistreatment that needs addressing. A vegan might argue that consumption is inherently cruel, yet many who have lived on farms where animals are well-treated would disagree, knowing these animals likely suffer less than wild animals who face harsh deaths from predation and disease. Lastly, I was vegetarian for two years. I feel healthier consuming animal products. The health aspect is a whole other can of worms, I'll leave that for another blog! I would be thrilled to see cultured meat become commercially viable. This would mean no more slaughtering animals to produce lab-grown, cultured meat. Even vegans might have no ethical objections then, or so one might assume...

Farming

I’m not in favor of cruel farming. For a New York City dweller who has never visited a farm, let alone lived on one, I understand they might be convinced that all farms are hellholes for livestock. However, animals can be raised and consumed humanely. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. I believe that certifying humanely operated farms and their products in supermarkets is one way to go, rather than endeavoring to completely eradicate all animal products from everyone’s diet. A few years ago, I killed millions of mice to grow crops for human consumption—up to 1,000 mice per hectare. Many vegans undoubtedly ended up with food from those fields on their plates, likely content in the delusion that their meal was free of death. Yet, if a few cows are killed per hectare, they consider it a crime.

The act of eating meat isn't what's killing our planet; it's unsustainable farming practices. The problem lies in having too many mouths to feed. Subsistence farming, where crops and vegetables are grown alongside pigs and goats, is very different from clearing vast tracts of forest to raise beef for hamburgers or wheat for bread. Sustainable farming is the solution, but with global urbanization and population growth, we're increasingly relying on industrial-scale farming. If we reject the efficiency of modern industrial farming and wish to return to the more traditional, less efficient methods of 150 years ago, we must also accept the population levels of that time. Our current high and urbanizing human population cannot be sustained without industrial-scale farming, whether for livestock or crops. Therefore, if vegans are truly committed to reducing animal suffering and protecting the environment, the most impactful decision they could make would be to refrain from having children. This action would significantly reduce the demand for food production and, by extension, the environmental strain caused by farming. All other measures, while well-intentioned, are merely tinkering at the edges of the problem.

None of us are Perfect, but I'm closer

I’m sometimes accused of having a seriously misconstrued perception of veganism and plant-based diets. “It’s just a diet; I’m not claiming to be perfect or to cause no harm,” they say. And that’s fair—so long as there isn’t a moral crusade attached to it. Just quietly munch on your lettuce without the moral virtue signaling.

I don’t expect anyone to achieve some unrealistic standard of ethical perfection, and I’m not suggesting that vegans think they’re flawless or that they should strive for an impossible ideal. I get that veganism is about minimizing harm within the limits of our society and making ethical choices.

But here’s the thing: if the goal is to minimize harm, the most effective way to do that is to choose not to have kids. It amuses me when they deny that, as they struggle with the thought of putting their own wants over that of animal suffering. So, if you’re a vegan who has children, then just as you might feel entitled to preach to others about the suffering they cause by eating meat, I’m equally entitled to point out the suffering that’s perpetuated by bringing more people into the world. If we’re going to talk about minimizing harm, let’s be consistent across the board.

False Dichotomy

Lumping veganism in with family planning is sometimes dismissed as a false dichotomy. That argument would hold water if vegans limited their discussions to health and nutrition. But as soon as they venture into ethical debates about lifestyle choices and their environmental impact, it's only fair to consider the full scope of life choices and their consequences.

We’re all in this together, vegans and meat eaters alike. None of us can have zero negative impact on the world. We can reduce some harm we do, but we can’t eliminate it. And that’s okay—acknowledging our imperfections is the first step. But if we’re serious about minimizing harm, shouldn’t we apply the same scrutiny to our reproductive choices as we do to our dietary ones? Or do we isolate our choices, and consider our impact on the world in separate chunks rather than as an overall impact package? If your goal is to minimize the net damage your legacy will do to the earth, having no kids is the best thing you can do, by a much greater factor than being vegan.

It is a fair comparison. Vegans claiming otherwise, and crying, "false dichotomy!" is an attempt to dismiss an uncomfortable truth.

The Impact of Children

A Swedish study published recently found that having fewer children is the most effective thing we can do to lower our carbon impact and combat climate change. Researchers from Lund University discovered that our most popular energy and carbon-saving tricks pale in comparison to the impact of a few key decisions, particularly that of having a smaller family.

They found that:

Having one fewer child results in an average of 58.6 metric tons of CO₂-equivalent (tCO₂e) emission reductions per year.
Living car-free saves 2.4 tCO₂e per year.
Avoiding airplane travel saves 1.6 tCO₂e per roundtrip transatlantic flight.
Eating a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tCO₂e per year.

Let that sink in. Eating a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tCO₂e annually while having one fewer child saves a whopping 58.6 tCO₂e each year. So, while you're patting yourself on the back for choosing the veggie burger, perhaps consider the environmental tidal wave that is your offspring.

In 2009, statistician Paul Murtaugh and climate scientist Michael Schlax calculated that having just one child in a high-emitting country like the United States will add around 10,000 tonnes of CO₂ to the atmosphere. That’s five times the emissions an average parent produces in their entire lifetime. This number is so colossal because offspring are likely to have children themselves, perpetuating emissions for generations to come. Green energy may hopefully alleviate this one day, but we aren't there yet. Either way, put simply, more people; more pressure on the natural environment and animals.

We should think of procreation in terms of overconsumption. Just like overconsumption, procreation is an act in which you knowingly bring about more carbon emissions and consume more resources than necessary, and may be ethical. If we condemn overconsumption, then, to be consistent, we should raise an eyebrow at procreation too. Some argue that having a child doesn’t increase your footprint but simply creates a new one, as if our choice to breed (or not) is irrelevant to our impact on the planet. This overlooks our broader legacy, which extends beyond our own lifetime. The choices we make affect that legacy. The idea that having kids, or not having kids, has an equal impact on the planet is absurd. To be fair, choosing to have kids doesn't mean a person can’t still work hard to reduce harm in other areas of life. But we can likewise say, choosing to eat meat doesn't mean a person can’t still work hard to reduce harm in other areas of their life too. We all do what we can within our own limited capacity; we make choices that align with our values and circumstances, and we are not obliged to all choose the same path.

Diet or Moral Crusade?

Veganism as a dietary choice is one thing, but veganism as grand environmental preaching to 'save the planet' is another. Sure, we are all limited in what we can do to nurse the environment; we can each only do our bit. But if your little bit is no more significant than another person's little bit, then there's no point in yelling your moral superiority from the rooftops.

Eat vegan, eat meat, have children, or otherwise; it's your choice. But vegans, please don't trumpet your superior ethics when in the end, your net impact on the planet is a little different to your socioeconomic peers, not much different to someone who doesn't own a dog, and likely a whole lot worse than your childless carnivore friends. Do the best you can for the earth, yourself, and your loved ones in a manner that makes you happy and allow others do to the same in their way. Veganism challenges the idea that taking an animal's life for food is necessary, especially when we can allegedly thrive on plant-based alternatives. The concepts of 'need' and 'want' are often difficult to separate and are frequently influenced by individual biases. Do we really 'need' more humans on the planet, contributing to environmental damage? If not, then why create more?" If you choose to prioritise your own desires and have kids, that's your decision. However, it would be hypocritical to judge others for placing their personal interests above animals (such as when eating them) and above the environment, when you've made a similar choice. Having kids is unnecessary. It causes harm to the environment. Vegans who choose to have kids are placing their own desire over that of animal suffering. It's hypocritical to declare that others should make small beneficial changes while you decide to do something (breeding) that causes a significantly larger negative impact on the animal world.

Maybe the real unsung heroes of environmentalism are those who choose not to bring more humans into this already burdened world. As for vegans who have already spat out a kid or two...for all your preaching, your negative footprint on Earth will be far greater than mine. Oh well. We all do acts of selfishness. So, I'll continue enjoying my steak, all the while pondering the complex tapestry of choices, ethics, and, yes, hypocrisies that make up our collective environmental footprint.