4 ms·

I think you would actually achieve your goal of advancing vegetarianism more effectively, if you left off the whole last paragraph. You had me very convinced i

I think you would actually achieve your goal of advancing vegetarianism more effectively, if you left off the whole last paragraph. You had me very convinced in the first half, because i recognise the risks discussed by Van Oosterhout, but the second you pivoted, you lost me. And probably others. And yeah, maybe that contrarian streak makes me an asshole, but I am sure that I am not the only contrarian on HN.

me-vs-cat 4y ago
[flagged]
myshpa 4y ago
"A key way of preventing pandemics in the future is to reduce our meat consumption. That’s the view of Cock Van Oosterhout ... argues that reducing livestock is ‘imperative’ for public and planetary health, and suggests more money and research time be spent on developing meat alternatives." https://www.transitionearth.co/2021/05/11/meat-reduction-key-to-reducing-risks-of-future-pandemics-argues-leading-professor-of-evolutionary-genetics/ https://www.transitionearth.co/2021/05/11/meat-reduction-key... You may not want to hear and see things, but that doesn't make the problems go away. And reducing livestock and stopping eating meat is a logical position to take. Also, https://i.redd.it/nk7dau6nmmja1.jpg https://i.redd.it/nk7dau6nmmja1.jpg
- p0pcult 4y ago
  You keep (mostly) repeating yourself, so I think you missed my point. I agree with Mr. Cock's points about industrial-scale, monoculture livestock being a fertile breeding ground for novel pathogens. Makes a lot of sense to me. Let's go, let's recognize it as an existential risk, let's do something about that. >stopping eating meat is a logical position to take Oh, I'm out. No thanks. There is certainly an accelerationism at work in your logic, as the professor merely suggests reducing meat consumption. Which you take to the mat, and think we should stop eating meat. Do you see the difference? Van Oosterhout comes across as an academic. You come across as a scold, and no one wants to listen to a scold. And this is from someone who eats meatless a couple days a week, and when I do eat meat, it tends to be a sensible portion size. I'm all in on the Beyond/Impossible stuff too. In other words, I'm pretty open minded generally to the idea of reducing meat consumption.
  - myshpa 4y ago
    Scold or not (thank you), optimal amount of meat (animal products) we should eat is zero. You won't hear it from academics as plainly not because it's not true, but because of resistance of general population to the idea. There is a push for reduction now, and it will (surely) in the future morph into elimination. There are many reasons for that. There are many sources discussing the problem. You may choose ignorance. Fine. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug, so your position is a familiar to me (for I've been where you are). If you'll take the red pill by studying the problem from all its sides, you'll think differently in the future. You're not ready to face the facts now, I get it. But don't worry. You seem to be on the right path. P.S. Scold? More like Don Quixote ;)

me-vs-cat 4y ago

[flagged]

myshpa 4y ago

"A key way of preventing pandemics in the future is to reduce our meat consumption. That’s the view of Cock Van Oosterhout ... argues that reducing livestock is ‘imperative’ for public and planetary health, and suggests more money and research time be spent on developing meat alternatives." https://www.transitionearth.co/2021/05/11/meat-reduction-key-to-reducing-risks-of-future-pandemics-argues-leading-professor-of-evolutionary-genetics/ https://www.transitionearth.co/2021/05/11/meat-reduction-key... You may not want to hear and see things, but that doesn't make the problems go away. And reducing livestock and stopping eating meat is a logical position to take. Also, https://i.redd.it/nk7dau6nmmja1.jpg https://i.redd.it/nk7dau6nmmja1.jpg

p0pcult 4y ago
You keep (mostly) repeating yourself, so I think you missed my point. I agree with Mr. Cock's points about industrial-scale, monoculture livestock being a fertile breeding ground for novel pathogens. Makes a lot of sense to me. Let's go, let's recognize it as an existential risk, let's do something about that. >stopping eating meat is a logical position to take Oh, I'm out. No thanks. There is certainly an accelerationism at work in your logic, as the professor merely suggests reducing meat consumption. Which you take to the mat, and think we should stop eating meat. Do you see the difference? Van Oosterhout comes across as an academic. You come across as a scold, and no one wants to listen to a scold. And this is from someone who eats meatless a couple days a week, and when I do eat meat, it tends to be a sensible portion size. I'm all in on the Beyond/Impossible stuff too. In other words, I'm pretty open minded generally to the idea of reducing meat consumption.
- myshpa 4y ago
  Scold or not (thank you), optimal amount of meat (animal products) we should eat is zero. You won't hear it from academics as plainly not because it's not true, but because of resistance of general population to the idea. There is a push for reduction now, and it will (surely) in the future morph into elimination. There are many reasons for that. There are many sources discussing the problem. You may choose ignorance. Fine. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug, so your position is a familiar to me (for I've been where you are). If you'll take the red pill by studying the problem from all its sides, you'll think differently in the future. You're not ready to face the facts now, I get it. But don't worry. You seem to be on the right path. P.S. Scold? More like Don Quixote ;)