5 ms·

I’m willing to sacrifice some karma on this. What a trash article that selectively picks information (some of it not really true and some of it easily overcome

I’m willing to sacrifice some karma on this. What a trash article that selectively picks information (some of it not really true and some of it easily overcome in today’s world). Whatever diet you follow, if you don’t care about what you eat or don’t eat and in which combinations, your health will not be what could be expected for a person of the same profile who cares about what they eat. Processed (also called “junk”) foods aren’t going away, whichever diet you look at. People want convenience. Try telling someone to change their diet to be different from what they’re used to eating and you’ll find out how difficult it is (without other motivations, external support, convenience of picking stuff off the shelves or ordering something, etc.). Considering the environmental impact of meat (and the current agricultural systems), and considering that it’s absolutely impossible for everyone to avoid their supermarkets and convenience foods, these alternatives provide some kind of stop gap even if they may be unhealthy. Point the drawbacks. Give feedback to the makers to improve the products. But don’t pretend that the currently available junk foods (that aren’t vegan) are better overall, all things considered. Personally, I avoid processed and junk foods most of the time. I also cook food by myself almost all the time. But I do indulge once in a while on some junk food. And I can feel its adverse effects. I’m under no illusion that this would be the same for others or even possible for others just because I’m able to do it.

Thorentis 6y ago
By eating food that is more unhealthy for you in order to save the planet, it means that you have valued the planet's health above your own. I find this to be irrational. I am all for finding the cleanest, most environmentally friendly way of feeding humans. But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  > By eating food that is more unhealthy for you in order to save the planet, it means that you have valued the planet's health above your own. It's entirely possible that these products, in conjunction with a vegan diet, are better overall than a meat-eating diet with similar junk foods. The starting point is this: a generally healthier vegan diet vs. a generally less-healthy omnivorous diet. > But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it. If the conversation of veganism vs. eating meat is centered around the cost/benefit analysis of junk-foods available to both diets, then the moral distinction between the two has already been overlooked. I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    > I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism. You know, it is one thing to say that you believe it is best, and argue for it vigorously. But if you are unable to imagine someone else holding a differing view in an intellectually and morally self-consistent manner, that says a lot more about your thought patterns than it does about the intrinsic validity of a cause.
    - crucio 6y ago
      He isn't saying he can't imagine it, I believe he's saying there is no way that one can say they are living a moral lifestyle while still consciously contributing to the destruction of the planet and abuse of animals when it can so easily be avoided by eating different foods. I understand some people can be naive of the issues or not be in a position to choose their diet.
    - hombre_fatal 6y ago
      It's perfectly reasonable to me that some people consider the morality of veganism as settled as the morality of, say, rape. Especially in a world where the vast majority of us only eat meat because we were born into it and it pleasures us. Frankly, I think the moral superiority of veganism is obvious to most people and very difficult to argue against. I think a lot of the drama is only the fallout of our difficulty squaring those morals with our culturally-backed, deeply-seated, identity-level behavior and our already existing struggle to control what we eat.
- normalnorm 6y ago
  > By eating food that is more unhealthy for you in order to save the planet, it means that you have valued the planet's health above your own. I find this to be irrational. I find it more irrational to believe that one can be healthy in an unhealthy environment. > I am all for finding the cleanest, most environmentally friendly way of feeding humans. But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it. The article is about flimsy speculation on one extreme situation (vegan junk food vs. regular junk food). Nutrition science offers us precious little certainties, one of the few being that processed food is less healthy than food cooked by humans with a few simple ingredients. An healthy and balanced vegan diet would be fantastically more healthy than the choices of at least 90% of americans. Can you create some optimally-healthy diet for a small group of priviliged people at the expense of fucking the environment and resources for everyone else? Probably. Should you? I guess it depends on how you see your relation with the rest of humanity. In any case, this is all theoretical. I bet most people gasping about this are going to down some pizza & beer within the next 24 hours.
- francescopnpn 6y ago
  Prime example of a human thinking he's smart while in reality he has subpar IQ to the point of being cringy. Bookmarked for future reference.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    I have downvoted and flagged this comment. I will reiterate several of our guidelines from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

Thorentis 6y ago

By eating food that is more unhealthy for you in order to save the planet, it means that you have valued the planet's health above your own. I find this to be irrational. I am all for finding the cleanest, most environmentally friendly way of feeding humans. But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ianleeclark 6y ago
> By eating food that is more unhealthy for you in order to save the planet, it means that you have valued the planet's health above your own. It's entirely possible that these products, in conjunction with a vegan diet, are better overall than a meat-eating diet with similar junk foods. The starting point is this: a generally healthier vegan diet vs. a generally less-healthy omnivorous diet. > But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it. If the conversation of veganism vs. eating meat is centered around the cost/benefit analysis of junk-foods available to both diets, then the moral distinction between the two has already been overlooked. I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  > I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism. You know, it is one thing to say that you believe it is best, and argue for it vigorously. But if you are unable to imagine someone else holding a differing view in an intellectually and morally self-consistent manner, that says a lot more about your thought patterns than it does about the intrinsic validity of a cause.
  - crucio 6y ago
    He isn't saying he can't imagine it, I believe he's saying there is no way that one can say they are living a moral lifestyle while still consciously contributing to the destruction of the planet and abuse of animals when it can so easily be avoided by eating different foods. I understand some people can be naive of the issues or not be in a position to choose their diet.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    It's perfectly reasonable to me that some people consider the morality of veganism as settled as the morality of, say, rape. Especially in a world where the vast majority of us only eat meat because we were born into it and it pleasures us. Frankly, I think the moral superiority of veganism is obvious to most people and very difficult to argue against. I think a lot of the drama is only the fallout of our difficulty squaring those morals with our culturally-backed, deeply-seated, identity-level behavior and our already existing struggle to control what we eat.
normalnorm 6y ago
> By eating food that is more unhealthy for you in order to save the planet, it means that you have valued the planet's health above your own. I find this to be irrational. I find it more irrational to believe that one can be healthy in an unhealthy environment. > I am all for finding the cleanest, most environmentally friendly way of feeding humans. But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it. The article is about flimsy speculation on one extreme situation (vegan junk food vs. regular junk food). Nutrition science offers us precious little certainties, one of the few being that processed food is less healthy than food cooked by humans with a few simple ingredients. An healthy and balanced vegan diet would be fantastically more healthy than the choices of at least 90% of americans. Can you create some optimally-healthy diet for a small group of priviliged people at the expense of fucking the environment and resources for everyone else? Probably. Should you? I guess it depends on how you see your relation with the rest of humanity. In any case, this is all theoretical. I bet most people gasping about this are going to down some pizza & beer within the next 24 hours.
francescopnpn 6y ago
Prime example of a human thinking he's smart while in reality he has subpar IQ to the point of being cringy. Bookmarked for future reference.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  I have downvoted and flagged this comment. I will reiterate several of our guidelines from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.