5 ms·

> they require no violence against animals. While I sympathise with the argument, I think that it's a mistake to push this aspect front and centre. There's a

> they require no violence against animals. While I sympathise with the argument, I think that it's a mistake to push this aspect front and centre. There's a whole lot of people out there who simply like eating meat, and that it means killing an animal is not particularly a problem. The people I've spoken to about Beyond/Impossible and similar fake-meats all tend to think of it as something for vegans/vegetarians, because that's how this type of product has been presented for decades. "Oh, you're having a BBQ? Fred's partner is a veggo, better chuck on some mushroom burgers or something" It's a tough push to convince people that this isn't meant for vegans/vegetarians wanting meat, but a product for meat-eaters wanting to reduce their meat intake, but not necessarily wanting to give up their ability to have meals that taste like what they're used to. Pushing from that angle, I would argue, is likely to have a bigger impact than saying "Think of the poor cow that had to get murdered for your burger!".

name_nick_sex_m 5y ago
I disagree. While there will no doubt be friction, people should be confronted with the reality of their choices; long term we can't preserve their bubble of ignorance, might as well address it now
- vel0city 5y ago
  I mean, its not always ignorance. I understand meat has massively more impact on the environment in many metrics. I still enjoy meat products and tend to eat them from time to time. There's things I enjoy about those products, even though there are externalities. If there's a product out there which can offset most of those externalities and still satiate that same kind of experience, I'll pay a few more bucks for it. Hopefully, many more similar people to me will as well, and maybe we'll even make it cost effective to offset most of that highly impactful meat eating with something that more people find agreeable. Its way better for the environment if I never purchased a car or even a bicycle and I just walked everywhere. My environmental impact would probably be lower. But in the end I'm going to buy some kind of vehicle, because I enjoy what buying a car gets me. Its way better for me to never eat meat, but in the end I enjoy what eating meat gives me. I can massively reduce my impact on the Earth living naked foraging berries and roots and never traveling farther than I can walk but in the end there are things I enjoy and will end up doing them despite the externalities. I'm going to own an air conditioner and I'm going to run it. This has externalities and would be better for the environment if it was never made and was never run. I'm going to own a refridgerator and run it. This has externalities and would be better for the environment if it was never made and never run. I'm typing this on a computer which will eventually go into a landfill and probably become some trace amount of toxic waste. In the end, I still managed to get usage out of it and find value from it while its useful. The only way to have no impact on the Earth is to never exist. Its nice having the option to do things which give most of the same experience while reducing the externalities. I'll buy the refrigerator which is more efficient. I'll buy the right size AC system for my home to cool it as effectively as possible I'll maintain all my appliances to give as long as a serviceable live as possible. And I'll buy what gives me similar experiences to what I enjoy for food that reduces my impact on the Earth.
- doodirock 5y ago
  Um... Now you sound like the one who is ignorant. Not everyone thinks killing an animal for food is some terrible blight on the world. I have zero issues with it and no amount of "but they're living things and so cute" is going to change that fact. It's exactly this type of nonsense that gets people to turn away from meat like products. We don't need a lecture about sad little animals every time we order a delicious smash burger.
  - dotsam 5y ago
    I think it is useful to distinguish between 'killing an animal for food' and 'rearing billions of animals each year in factories in conditions in which they suffer, and subsequently killing them for food'. Factory farmed animals does look like a terrible blight on the world to me - what makes you think it isn't?
    - xdennis 5y ago
      Factory farming makes meat available to the common man. Without it only rich people could afford meat.
      - dotsam 5y ago
        Victorian factory owners might use a similar argument to support using child labour to make cheap goods which the common man can afford; that doesn't mean that child labour is good.
    - twhizzle 5y ago
      It doesn’t bother me a bit. I understand some people get real emotional about this type of thing, but I truly do not care. I’d just prefer we start gene editing to create brainless cows so people can find something else to get all uppity about.
      - dotsam 5y ago
        I like the idea of gene editing to remove brain stems, although that still leaves us with the input/output issues (feed, methane etc), which perhaps we can also engineer away. If animal suffering doesn't bother you, does human suffering?
- xdennis 5y ago
  Mate, you're the one who lives in a bubble. Natural food eaters have no problem killing animals for food. We've been doing it for hundreds of millions of years and we're not going to stop now because you live in a first world country where you have time for imaginary problems.
claudiawerner 5y ago
>There's a whole lot of people out there who simply like eating meat, and that it means killing an animal is not particularly a problem. I'm going to be as neutral as I can be in this comment. I don't think that's something that should stand in the way; it depends if we're coming from a philosophical perspective, or a political perspective. Arguably, some harms should not be tolerated in civil society - and I think the moral vegetarian case (as expounded by philosophers of all stripes) does some work towards that. My point is that we can name a variety of behaviour that a large proportion of society engages in which are also harmful. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying to convince them, nor to discourage those behaviours through the softer power the government has available to it - higher taxation on meat agriculture and the end of subsidies for meat agriculture being examples. I have met very, very few moral vegetarians who wish to outright ban meat production, at least immediately. How did the population in general become acclimatised to other things we now see as immoral[0]? Would that work for moral vegetarianism? I don't have the answers to those questions, but I'm sure someone has discussed it previously. Eating meat is an ancient tradition - even older than that - but so were other moral norms, such as the prohibition of homosexuality. We very, very frequently shame other people on the basis of their conduct as regards morality - the principle of moral judgements. Most (though not all) philosophers argue this is beneficial to society if morality is worth talking about at all. We still shame adultery for moral reasons. What would it take to bring meat production, or even consumption, to a similar level of disdain? [0] See any of: slavery, marital rape, revenge porn, CSEM, regulations against abortion, regulations against homosexuality, child marriage, Jim Crow laws - and that's just considering the Western world.
- vel0city 5y ago
  > How did the population in general become acclimatised to other things we now see as immoral[0]? Pretty much all of our examples in that list of things have direct human victims. Its far easier to get people to realize things are immoral when there are direct human victims. Eating meat usually doesn't have direct human victims, so it is harder to get most people to agree its immoral.
patrickmclaren 5y ago
I think the best angle is the one given in the title: 90% less greenhouse emissions, 99% less water, and 93% less land. This is an approach that provides compelling meal options in a manner that scales much better than our traditional livestock methods.
- fossuser 5y ago
  I disagree actually - I think the animal suffering morality angle is the best argument for most people (as long as it's done in a way that isn't too adversarial). Most people don't care about the environmental costs, we do lots of things that have environmental effects because we like them and think it's worth it. Impossible and Beyond, while good, are still noticeably worse than beef to me. The animal suffering bit makes me accept that it's worth it. The environmental use isn't as compelling (imo).
  - patrickmclaren 5y ago
    Valid. Different messaging for different markets perhaps!
  - learnstats2 5y ago
    The messaging above is good because the animal suffering morality angle is implied without needing to be stated. If you haven’t been convinced by decades of animal cruelty messaging (and most people haven’t), you’re unlikely to be convinced by it here. It might form a meaningful part of a bigger decision-making process, but we already have that information.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

name_nick_sex_m 5y ago

I disagree. While there will no doubt be friction, people should be confronted with the reality of their choices; long term we can't preserve their bubble of ignorance, might as well address it now

vel0city 5y ago
I mean, its not always ignorance. I understand meat has massively more impact on the environment in many metrics. I still enjoy meat products and tend to eat them from time to time. There's things I enjoy about those products, even though there are externalities. If there's a product out there which can offset most of those externalities and still satiate that same kind of experience, I'll pay a few more bucks for it. Hopefully, many more similar people to me will as well, and maybe we'll even make it cost effective to offset most of that highly impactful meat eating with something that more people find agreeable. Its way better for the environment if I never purchased a car or even a bicycle and I just walked everywhere. My environmental impact would probably be lower. But in the end I'm going to buy some kind of vehicle, because I enjoy what buying a car gets me. Its way better for me to never eat meat, but in the end I enjoy what eating meat gives me. I can massively reduce my impact on the Earth living naked foraging berries and roots and never traveling farther than I can walk but in the end there are things I enjoy and will end up doing them despite the externalities. I'm going to own an air conditioner and I'm going to run it. This has externalities and would be better for the environment if it was never made and was never run. I'm going to own a refridgerator and run it. This has externalities and would be better for the environment if it was never made and never run. I'm typing this on a computer which will eventually go into a landfill and probably become some trace amount of toxic waste. In the end, I still managed to get usage out of it and find value from it while its useful. The only way to have no impact on the Earth is to never exist. Its nice having the option to do things which give most of the same experience while reducing the externalities. I'll buy the refrigerator which is more efficient. I'll buy the right size AC system for my home to cool it as effectively as possible I'll maintain all my appliances to give as long as a serviceable live as possible. And I'll buy what gives me similar experiences to what I enjoy for food that reduces my impact on the Earth.
doodirock 5y ago
Um... Now you sound like the one who is ignorant. Not everyone thinks killing an animal for food is some terrible blight on the world. I have zero issues with it and no amount of "but they're living things and so cute" is going to change that fact. It's exactly this type of nonsense that gets people to turn away from meat like products. We don't need a lecture about sad little animals every time we order a delicious smash burger.
- dotsam 5y ago
  I think it is useful to distinguish between 'killing an animal for food' and 'rearing billions of animals each year in factories in conditions in which they suffer, and subsequently killing them for food'. Factory farmed animals does look like a terrible blight on the world to me - what makes you think it isn't?
  - xdennis 5y ago
    Factory farming makes meat available to the common man. Without it only rich people could afford meat.
    - dotsam 5y ago
      Victorian factory owners might use a similar argument to support using child labour to make cheap goods which the common man can afford; that doesn't mean that child labour is good.
  - twhizzle 5y ago
    It doesn’t bother me a bit. I understand some people get real emotional about this type of thing, but I truly do not care. I’d just prefer we start gene editing to create brainless cows so people can find something else to get all uppity about.
    - dotsam 5y ago
      I like the idea of gene editing to remove brain stems, although that still leaves us with the input/output issues (feed, methane etc), which perhaps we can also engineer away. If animal suffering doesn't bother you, does human suffering?
xdennis 5y ago
Mate, you're the one who lives in a bubble. Natural food eaters have no problem killing animals for food. We've been doing it for hundreds of millions of years and we're not going to stop now because you live in a first world country where you have time for imaginary problems.

claudiawerner 5y ago

>There's a whole lot of people out there who simply like eating meat, and that it means killing an animal is not particularly a problem. I'm going to be as neutral as I can be in this comment. I don't think that's something that should stand in the way; it depends if we're coming from a philosophical perspective, or a political perspective. Arguably, some harms should not be tolerated in civil society - and I think the moral vegetarian case (as expounded by philosophers of all stripes) does some work towards that. My point is that we can name a variety of behaviour that a large proportion of society engages in which are also harmful. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying to convince them, nor to discourage those behaviours through the softer power the government has available to it - higher taxation on meat agriculture and the end of subsidies for meat agriculture being examples. I have met very, very few moral vegetarians who wish to outright ban meat production, at least immediately. How did the population in general become acclimatised to other things we now see as immoral[0]? Would that work for moral vegetarianism? I don't have the answers to those questions, but I'm sure someone has discussed it previously. Eating meat is an ancient tradition - even older than that - but so were other moral norms, such as the prohibition of homosexuality. We very, very frequently shame other people on the basis of their conduct as regards morality - the principle of moral judgements. Most (though not all) philosophers argue this is beneficial to society if morality is worth talking about at all. We still shame adultery for moral reasons. What would it take to bring meat production, or even consumption, to a similar level of disdain? [0] See any of: slavery, marital rape, revenge porn, CSEM, regulations against abortion, regulations against homosexuality, child marriage, Jim Crow laws - and that's just considering the Western world.

vel0city 5y ago
> How did the population in general become acclimatised to other things we now see as immoral[0]? Pretty much all of our examples in that list of things have direct human victims. Its far easier to get people to realize things are immoral when there are direct human victims. Eating meat usually doesn't have direct human victims, so it is harder to get most people to agree its immoral.

patrickmclaren 5y ago

I think the best angle is the one given in the title: 90% less greenhouse emissions, 99% less water, and 93% less land. This is an approach that provides compelling meal options in a manner that scales much better than our traditional livestock methods.

fossuser 5y ago
I disagree actually - I think the animal suffering morality angle is the best argument for most people (as long as it's done in a way that isn't too adversarial). Most people don't care about the environmental costs, we do lots of things that have environmental effects because we like them and think it's worth it. Impossible and Beyond, while good, are still noticeably worse than beef to me. The animal suffering bit makes me accept that it's worth it. The environmental use isn't as compelling (imo).
- patrickmclaren 5y ago
  Valid. Different messaging for different markets perhaps!
- learnstats2 5y ago
  The messaging above is good because the animal suffering morality angle is implied without needing to be stated. If you haven’t been convinced by decades of animal cruelty messaging (and most people haven’t), you’re unlikely to be convinced by it here. It might form a meaningful part of a bigger decision-making process, but we already have that information.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]