Hacker News Reader

You know, I'm not the biggest capitalist in the world, far from it, but this is a situation where I'd say...let the market do its job.

I'd say, let's stop subsidizing the meat industry. Let the prices rise to whatever their market cost without government intervention would be. Let people decide when they're not paying a hidden cost to make meat cheap at the market.

Why not, eh?

Yes, I am fine with that idea. I do not like the subsidies either.

However I think that the subsidies game is even deeper, and that it's responsible for many more negative things than just making for cheap meat - most processed food today is just high fructose corn syrup in disguise.

So yeah, I would like to see prices of low-quality food stop being artificially low, because I believe that would affect the prices of higher quality food (quality meat and quality vegetables) in a positive way.

I absolutely agree with you whenever I can I like to stay in a Paleo Diet because it makes me feel a lot better than any other diet I have tried. However, whenever I read comments about the environment on HN I always get this Malthusian feeling from them. Their story always revolves around the fact that we are consuming resources today that future generations won't get and that we are essentially dooming the future of humanity by polluting with CO2 and consuming meat. It's essentially Malthus' argument in disguise. I always approach these kinds of arguments with extreme caution because you are essentially betting against humanity's ability to innovate. And before anyone jumps at me yes, global warming is real and it will have a real cost on society. But before you advocate for one radical policy or another consider whether the actual cost of global warming from that activity actually justifies it economically.

Big oil drives development in emerging economies, that's a better justification than eating animals than some blind progress one.

I think the best argument for veganism is simply what right do we have to take another creatures life purely for our matter of taste. I wasn't directly talking abkut veganism though in the parent.

Yes, that's why I mention dishonesty in my original post. Most people who argue hard for not eating meat because of climate change actually have deeper motives (animal welfare/not causing animals suffering), and will use whichever argument, no matter how flawed, to push their agenda. I know this because I used to belong to these circles.

By methane production (a comon bogeyman for animal rights activists to push for banning meat use), all of agriculture together makes for only 1/4 of total methane production, the rest is transportation, manufacture and such. Of that 1/4, cows are responsible for cca 1/3-1/2 of it.

As an interesting side note, rice production also generates large amounts of methane (because of anaerobic conditions in rice paddies): cows generated 189 tons of it from 1996 to 2001, while rice production has generated 112 tons in the same period. So rice productions generates 2/3 as much methane as cows:

http://www.southasia.ox.ac.uk/sites/sias/files/documents/GHG...

I agree with you about the Malthusian argument, it's similar to how gloomy people were about our ability to feed ourselves before we invented artificial fertilizer - I believe that the best improvement for future of our planet will be some clean energy revolution - most likely working fusion. Once we'll have that, most of problematic emissions will be taken care of.

Also, considering the rapid progress in genetic science, I wouldn't be surprised if we will be able to create biological machines such as a standalone chicken's digestive and reproductive tract - you would have it in your kitchen, and feed it scraps; from them it would produce eggs. And you could optimize your nutrition by adding specific nutrients to scraps, such as omega3 fat acids.

I am mostly vegan. I think the solution is to make it easier to consume plants. I don't think taxes or bans are necessary.

I also think you can decide you want to be a rich person who eats a 10x share of meat while the poorest get a 0.1x share. I'm not being facetious, I don't think you're really harming anyone by choosing that.

But I do think you need to admit that you are taking that choice away from future generations. You believe you are more important than future generations, so you want to use a 10x share of resources.

Again, I don't think that's immoral, but I think you have a moral duty to be honest about your values and that you don't place value on future generations' use of those resources.

I do not want to be a rich person, nor live a rich lifestyle. I lead a simple life, have simple and inexpensive hobies, and don't really spend money on things. Eating animal products is one of rare things where I cannot accept a compromise, simply because I believe it is very unhealthy to do so.

'You are taking choice away from future generations' is a very meaningless statement that can be applied to everyone, and comes off simply as a concern troll. Most of us Westerners can improve the future in many more significant ways than not eating meat. You are taking choice away from future generations simply by existing and spending resources; by living a cushy western urbanite life and participating in online forums instead of living an isolated rural subsistence life without modern life comforts.

Another poster here wrote that just 5 minutes of driving daily is worse for environment/climate than any possible diet style one might be following. So a vegan that drives 5 min daily affects the environment and climate worse than a meat eater who cycles to work.

As for me, no, I do not have a moral duty to be honest about my values, and your concern troll did not work. I feel I have a moral value to take care of myself and my health primarily, and that's why I switched from ideology I followed (veganism based on ethical issues - resource use and animal abuse/suffering) when the ideology proved to be supported by lies about how veganism is healthy and meat-eating is unhealthy. Instead of an ideology, I went with what proved itself to be correct. And I am glad I did.

> You are taking choice away from future generations simply by existing and spending resources; by living a cushy western urbanite life and participating in online forums instead of living an isolated rural subsistence life without modern life comforts.

You are right that by existing we are consuming precious resources. In fact, life (i believe) feeds off of some other death, somewhere, in the grand scheme of things. That said, i don't think we'll convince many people to stop existing for environmentalist causes. We'll have to find a compromise. One of those, i believe, is living a life with a small footprint (cycle don't drive, avoid air travel, go veggie where possible, eat local produce as much as possible). However, and i can't go into as much detail here as i'd like, it's not always practical to convince people to become vegos, only cycle, etc. I suggest interested people read the 98% Environmentalist [1], an essay i thought quite insightful.

However, regarding your second point, i think it is a misconception that an urbanite lifestyle is more wasteful of resources than a rural one. In fact, if we as a species are to become less environmentally impactful, i believe (perhaps mistakenly) that we should live in cities as much as possible: this allows us to use public transport (as opposed to wasteful single occupancy ICE cars), work from home or cycle to work, live more densely (= easier to centralise recycling, insulation and heating of buildings is more efficient in apartment buildings, etc.). As opposed to the rural existence where one is probably forced to drive to a nearby city for supplies one cannot grow (building materials perhaps).

Of course, i may be completely wrong. I encourage everyone to live as mindfully of the environment as possible, in their own way, without claiming to have a one-size-fits-all answer. I hope we don't, however, stick our heads into the sand and hammer the final nail into the climate's coffin during our lifetimes – i worry it may already be a lost battle [2].

1. still looking for the link :( help me HN?

2. https://xkcd.com/1732/

I made a slight mistake in the post, in "I feel I have a moral value to take care of myself and my health primarily" It should be 'moral obligation' instead of 'moral value'.

I also feel deeply about helping to preserve our planet - I don't drive, I don't buy useless stuff that has traveled thousands of km on a container ship burning terribly dirty bunker oil, I don't support wasteful services. Like I said before, the only thing where I won't compromise is eating animal fats, because of health reasons. I also felt very, very cheated after realizing I've been lied to about how veganism is healthier than 'meat eating', when it was making me ill instead.

I'd like to clarify that I wrote 'rural subsistence lifestyle', not 'rural lifestyle', so I don't mean what is considered a typical rural lifestyle these days - commute to work for an hour or more, have a large farm operated with gas-powered machinery and such. That is equally wasteful as urban life.

What I meant was a simple rural life - having a small home that is optimally designed to need a minimum amount of heating and cooling, raising your own food on a couple acres without help of machinery (vegetables, chicken/ducks and a small flock of sheep or goats, possibly also fish with recently popular aquaponics). And with the rest of necessary income coming from working online, remotely. Not easy to pull off, but I know a couple people that managed to do it, and I hope that I'll manage to do it soon too.

PCs have come a long way, and a modern ultrabook spends so little power that it can easily be recharged from a solar panel/battery combo, and won't need to be replaced for quite a few years because the CPU development mostly stagnated these days. So an internet router + an ultrabook is the extent of 'modern luxuries' in the 'rural life' I talked about.

I do not know what SJW is nor that the toxic masculinity angle is standard. I never thought about it much until I wrote about it here. I cannot help it is not very original; it is what I see around me ( I own a meat serving restaurant for instance ).

A lot of people believe 1-2 glasses of alcohol a day save your life while there is more and more proof it is actually very bad (which is what you call it outright); I see the same kind of thing happening for meat. That was what I was commenting on.

Well, a meat serving restaurant would teach you more about people's obsession with status than with meat, in my opinion (which fits in line with the rest of your observations), so it might not give you 100% correct insight on this. I do not eat out if I can help it.

As for the alcohol, it puts a significant workload on liver, without any benefits I know of; however, funny thing is that metabolization pathway in liver for sugar is very similar to that of alcohol, so I consider sugar to be as unhealthy as alcohol is.

I do not have much of a particular opinion on meat itself tho - it's animal and dairy fats that I consider important. However, I feel that most of arguments about meat being unhealthy should be targeting unhealthy meat raising practices instead - loading the animals full of antibiotics, having them on an unvaried grain-only diet and such.

I would agree with what you say here. The problem is that it is quite hard for most people to get animal product without all the chemicals right? I live on a mountain far from cities so for me it is far easier but for most people it would be hard. Another positive about the meat from the mountain is that the animals basically do not suffer (much) but that is not the unhealthy for human factor we were talking about anyway.

I agree with you as well. I dream of living a rural life and raising my own food, both because then I would know that my animals weren't injected/fed with anything unhealthy, and because I could make sure they lived a nice life and died a quick, painless death.