4 ms·

It's funny because a fair amount of vegan-based products (specifically meat substitutes) contain wheat and gluten, which I can't eat because of a physical disab

by fao_ 7y ago

It's funny because a fair amount of vegan-based products (specifically meat substitutes) contain wheat and gluten, which I can't eat because of a physical disability. While there has been much more acceptance, etc. in recent years, and the amount of things I can eat has gone up, it's still frustrating to see vegans and vegetarians -- something that is for many people a dietary choice -- being catered to before people with physical disabilities. Vaguely related, I'm not really won-over that everyone cutting meat out of their diet would have a considerable effect on the environment. The overwhelming majority of deforestation is done for crops, not pasture. And off the top of my head the most the majority people contribute to climate change is about 10%. So, sure, everyone stops using cars, and eating meat, etc. ad nauseum, that still leaves governments giving billions in subsidies to the coal and oil industries, etc. It's a nice gesture, but that's all I'm seeing happening lately. Everyone's making gestures to climate change, but there has been no inter-governmental effort to actually charge, prosecute, and put to use the assets of the people who are responsible for covering up climate change for over forty years. I fear by the time it happens millions will have lost their lives in climate-related disasters.

loosescrews 7y ago
Many of the crops are grown to feed to animals which will then be used for meat. A lot fewer crops would be needed if people didn't eat meat.
musicale 7y ago
Well, if you are allergic to soy, nuts, wheat, legumes, peas, etc. it may be challenging to find an off-the-shelf vegan meat substitute. Mushrooms are meaty/umami tasting and widely available but not high protein; perhaps nutritional yeast would be something to consider for savory dishes. Also you can get enough protein just eating vegetables, fruits, and other grains (and pseudo-grains like quinoa and amaranth.) Spirulina could be another good ingredient, although algae is more fishy than meaty.
- fao_ 7y ago
  > Well, if you are allergic to soy, nuts, wheat, legumes, peas, etc. I have celiac disease, so am allergic to gliadin. I don't know why you presumed that this encompasses soy, legumes, peas, etc. But given the severe undereducation about these disabilities I can see why you might not have known about it or recognized it at first glance. Osmosis has a good video on it describing the pathology and full scope of the disease if you care to educate yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXzBApAx5lY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXzBApAx5lY
  - kwoff 7y ago
    I also have Celiac but didn't assume that "you are" literally referred to you personally, but rather the very common alternative to "one is".
diablerouge 7y ago
> The overwhelming majority of deforestation is done for crops, not pasture I'm not so sure this is true. Maybe in the United States. But most of the deforestation happening in the Amazon (which is a major component of climate change) is for meat and leather production. Relevant quote from Wikipedia: "The cattle sector of the Brazilian Amazon, incentivized by the international beef and leather trades,[1] has been responsible for about 80% of all deforestation in the region,[2][3] or about 14% of the world's total annual deforestation, making it the world's largest single driver of deforestation.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra...
mdorazio 7y ago
Somewhat different, but I have a similar issue finding dairy-free foods that aren't vegan (I'm lactose intolerant and the dairy pills don't always work well). It's really frustrating. In any case, as another commenter pointed out, Vox has a good map showing how much of cropland is used for feed and fuel rather than direct human consumption [1]. [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel...
- catern 7y ago
  I'm just curious, not intending to be challenging: Why is it a problem that you can't find dairy-free foods that aren't vegan? You didn't mention another dietary restriction; is it that you don't like the taste of vegan food?
  - mdorazio 7y ago
    Great question. A lot of times I want a meat-based dish or dessert. Soy and similar alternatives just don't taste that good to me (beyond meat isn't bad, but it's also not exactly healthy for you). For the former I end up mostly cooking myself, predominantly Asian (tons of naturally dairy-free dishes) and some modified Mediterranean. For desserts it's a lot harder and these days I just don't eat many anymore, which is probably a good thing anyway.
notafraudster 7y ago
There exists a paradox in social choice theory (game theory applied to elections), the paradox of voting -- this comes out of Anthony Downs around 1950. We can roughly consider that the utility value of voting is equal to a formula that looks like: E[voting] = pV - c, where c is the cost of voting (time cost, information cost, etc.), V is the value of your preferred candidate winning over other candidates, and p is your probability of being the pivotal voter. By pivotal voter, I mean that if everyone other than you cast their vote first, and then you cast your vote, the question is would your vote have a capability to change the outcome. The typical view is that c is small but non-zero, V is reasonably large and by definition positive, but p is infinitesimal. And so, no one should bother voting. And yet, people do vote, an off-equilibrium behavior. And although it could be the case that someone's subjective belief in p is much higher than the true p is, this seems an unsatisfactory explanation because even stupid idiots know that their individual vote is unlikely to make the difference. There are two major lines of rebuttal to the paradox. The first is that individual equilibrium models are not appropriate for assessing these kinds of questions. The second line of rebuttal is that there must exist other terms in the equation. The most promising of these is that the civic religion we have built around voting (social pressure to vote, personal moral imperative to "do one's part in society", the dumb stickers, how good it feels to stand up for what you believe, etc.) creates a "consumption value" of voting. So maybe the equation is E[voting] = pV - c + d where it is assumed that d >= c for many people, who vote. I mention all of this because based on your post, p = 0, V = Infinity, c = high, and d = 0. If you are looking for a call to action, all you need to do is consider the great many benefits of changing your d term. Finally, I think it weakens the approachability of your third paragraph argument (why bother, states should do it instead) that it comes after your second argument (environmentalists don't even help the environment) or your first argument (vegans annoy me because I can't eat gluten, why aren't people listening to me).
- fao_ 7y ago
  > Finally, I think it weakens the approachability of your third paragraph argument (why bother, states should do it instead) that it comes after your second argument (environmentalists don't even help the environment) or your first argument (vegans annoy me because I can't eat gluten, why aren't people listening to me). Yes, this is true. I would dispute your distillation of my first paragraph. It is not vegans or vegetarians that annoy me, it is the fact that groups and organizations are choosing to catering first and foremost for people who have fundamentally chosen not to eat something, rather than those who cannot eat something because of a physical disability. It means the interests of rich, abled-bodied people are once again being put above the interests of disabled people (Who are more likely to be poor, because they have invested a significant amount of money in coping with their disability -- as a celiac, for example, bread is 3x the price of normal bread, for a loaf about half the size (this is true for most other grain-based things)).

by fao_ 7y ago

loosescrews 7y ago

Many of the crops are grown to feed to animals which will then be used for meat. A lot fewer crops would be needed if people didn't eat meat.

musicale 7y ago

Well, if you are allergic to soy, nuts, wheat, legumes, peas, etc. it may be challenging to find an off-the-shelf vegan meat substitute. Mushrooms are meaty/umami tasting and widely available but not high protein; perhaps nutritional yeast would be something to consider for savory dishes. Also you can get enough protein just eating vegetables, fruits, and other grains (and pseudo-grains like quinoa and amaranth.) Spirulina could be another good ingredient, although algae is more fishy than meaty.

fao_ 7y ago
> Well, if you are allergic to soy, nuts, wheat, legumes, peas, etc. I have celiac disease, so am allergic to gliadin. I don't know why you presumed that this encompasses soy, legumes, peas, etc. But given the severe undereducation about these disabilities I can see why you might not have known about it or recognized it at first glance. Osmosis has a good video on it describing the pathology and full scope of the disease if you care to educate yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXzBApAx5lY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXzBApAx5lY
- kwoff 7y ago
  I also have Celiac but didn't assume that "you are" literally referred to you personally, but rather the very common alternative to "one is".

diablerouge 7y ago

> The overwhelming majority of deforestation is done for crops, not pasture I'm not so sure this is true. Maybe in the United States. But most of the deforestation happening in the Amazon (which is a major component of climate change) is for meat and leather production. Relevant quote from Wikipedia: "The cattle sector of the Brazilian Amazon, incentivized by the international beef and leather trades,[1] has been responsible for about 80% of all deforestation in the region,[2][3] or about 14% of the world's total annual deforestation, making it the world's largest single driver of deforestation.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra...

mdorazio 7y ago

Somewhat different, but I have a similar issue finding dairy-free foods that aren't vegan (I'm lactose intolerant and the dairy pills don't always work well). It's really frustrating. In any case, as another commenter pointed out, Vox has a good map showing how much of cropland is used for feed and fuel rather than direct human consumption [1]. [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel...

catern 7y ago
I'm just curious, not intending to be challenging: Why is it a problem that you can't find dairy-free foods that aren't vegan? You didn't mention another dietary restriction; is it that you don't like the taste of vegan food?
- mdorazio 7y ago
  Great question. A lot of times I want a meat-based dish or dessert. Soy and similar alternatives just don't taste that good to me (beyond meat isn't bad, but it's also not exactly healthy for you). For the former I end up mostly cooking myself, predominantly Asian (tons of naturally dairy-free dishes) and some modified Mediterranean. For desserts it's a lot harder and these days I just don't eat many anymore, which is probably a good thing anyway.

notafraudster 7y ago

There exists a paradox in social choice theory (game theory applied to elections), the paradox of voting -- this comes out of Anthony Downs around 1950. We can roughly consider that the utility value of voting is equal to a formula that looks like: E[voting] = pV - c, where c is the cost of voting (time cost, information cost, etc.), V is the value of your preferred candidate winning over other candidates, and p is your probability of being the pivotal voter. By pivotal voter, I mean that if everyone other than you cast their vote first, and then you cast your vote, the question is would your vote have a capability to change the outcome. The typical view is that c is small but non-zero, V is reasonably large and by definition positive, but p is infinitesimal. And so, no one should bother voting. And yet, people do vote, an off-equilibrium behavior. And although it could be the case that someone's subjective belief in p is much higher than the true p is, this seems an unsatisfactory explanation because even stupid idiots know that their individual vote is unlikely to make the difference. There are two major lines of rebuttal to the paradox. The first is that individual equilibrium models are not appropriate for assessing these kinds of questions. The second line of rebuttal is that there must exist other terms in the equation. The most promising of these is that the civic religion we have built around voting (social pressure to vote, personal moral imperative to "do one's part in society", the dumb stickers, how good it feels to stand up for what you believe, etc.) creates a "consumption value" of voting. So maybe the equation is E[voting] = pV - c + d where it is assumed that d >= c for many people, who vote. I mention all of this because based on your post, p = 0, V = Infinity, c = high, and d = 0. If you are looking for a call to action, all you need to do is consider the great many benefits of changing your d term. Finally, I think it weakens the approachability of your third paragraph argument (why bother, states should do it instead) that it comes after your second argument (environmentalists don't even help the environment) or your first argument (vegans annoy me because I can't eat gluten, why aren't people listening to me).

fao_ 7y ago
> Finally, I think it weakens the approachability of your third paragraph argument (why bother, states should do it instead) that it comes after your second argument (environmentalists don't even help the environment) or your first argument (vegans annoy me because I can't eat gluten, why aren't people listening to me). Yes, this is true. I would dispute your distillation of my first paragraph. It is not vegans or vegetarians that annoy me, it is the fact that groups and organizations are choosing to catering first and foremost for people who have fundamentally chosen not to eat something, rather than those who cannot eat something because of a physical disability. It means the interests of rich, abled-bodied people are once again being put above the interests of disabled people (Who are more likely to be poor, because they have invested a significant amount of money in coping with their disability -- as a celiac, for example, bread is 3x the price of normal bread, for a loaf about half the size (this is true for most other grain-based things)).