4 ms·

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 i

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.
  - ianleeclark 6y ago
    > You know, it is one thing to say that you believe it is best, and argue for it vigorously. I'm not a vegan. I just think that, if you are trying to live an ethical life, it is the most ethical position. > But if you are unable to imagine someone else holding a differing view in an intellectually and morally self-consistent manner I don't know what you mean by "morally self-consistent manner." If you mean moral anti-realism, then, no, I agree with moral realism and choose to side with expert opinion. I don't think morals are subject-dependent.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism. While I don't agree with the parent commenter and I think you made very good points against what they were saying, I also don't think meat consumption in principle is immoral. I absolutely think that industrial farming practices are immoral, especially the horrors of animals raised their whole lives in minuscule coops or pens. However, free-range animals which are given a decent life before being slaughtered likely lead a better life and definitely have easier deaths than virtually any animal in its natural environment - no predators, almost no disease, and a death that doesn't involve being violently killed or maimed by a predator, or slowly losing the power to find food and dieing of starvation in old age, or any of the numerous horrors that are a certainty for all animals living in nature. You can argue that we simply can't sustain the modern meat-eating diet for 7B people with traditional farming practices, and this may be true. But the solution is not to stop consumption entirely, but to force ethical production of meat while consumers adapt to a diet with less, but still some, meat (and eggs, milk, cheese, etc.).
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.

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.
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  > You know, it is one thing to say that you believe it is best, and argue for it vigorously. I'm not a vegan. I just think that, if you are trying to live an ethical life, it is the most ethical position. > But if you are unable to imagine someone else holding a differing view in an intellectually and morally self-consistent manner I don't know what you mean by "morally self-consistent manner." If you mean moral anti-realism, then, no, I agree with moral realism and choose to side with expert opinion. I don't think morals are subject-dependent.
tsimionescu 6y ago
> I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism. While I don't agree with the parent commenter and I think you made very good points against what they were saying, I also don't think meat consumption in principle is immoral. I absolutely think that industrial farming practices are immoral, especially the horrors of animals raised their whole lives in minuscule coops or pens. However, free-range animals which are given a decent life before being slaughtered likely lead a better life and definitely have easier deaths than virtually any animal in its natural environment - no predators, almost no disease, and a death that doesn't involve being violently killed or maimed by a predator, or slowly losing the power to find food and dieing of starvation in old age, or any of the numerous horrors that are a certainty for all animals living in nature. You can argue that we simply can't sustain the modern meat-eating diet for 7B people with traditional farming practices, and this may be true. But the solution is not to stop consumption entirely, but to force ethical production of meat while consumers adapt to a diet with less, but still some, meat (and eggs, milk, cheese, etc.).

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.