Hacker News Reader

Comment by moosey | Hacker News Reader

I'm a vegan and I could give a crap how we ate 100k years ago. It has no bearing on building a contemporary diet conducive to health optimal health and pollution related outcomes.

Given trophic levels, meat takes far more energy, land, and clean water to produce. Population studies repeatedly show that large amount of meat consumption leads to individual and population health issues. The same is true of sugar and alcohol, I readily admit, and assume kinds of meat don't require as much energy.

We are fishing our oceans to extinction, destroying essential natural area to grow soy and corn which we then waste 90% of as cow feed.

There is no amount of persuasion that could make me go back, unless the laws of physics are rewritten such that eating meat reduces the amount of atmospheric carbon.

View on HN

> There is no amount of persuasion that could make me go back

I don't really eat meat myself but I don't believe you, sorry. What about "if you ate meat you could increase your brain capacity by 500 cc and live a longer, healthier life". Would that make you go back? I bet it would. Even if it wouldn't, it would probably make the majority of people go back for sure.

You cannot seriously make an argument that we as humans should potentially accept any diminished quality of life in regards to our mental capacity and health to "reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon".

Again, as I said, I don't really eat meat and I'm all for saving the environment but arguments like that are the reason why it's so hard to convince "ordinary people" of the importance of sustainability and long-term thinking. The only alternative is only presented with these radical, self-destructive requirements.

Why not pour the all the efforts of vegan evangelism into sustainable lab-grown meat? If it works, all problems solved, everybody can eat as much meat as they want (or not), the environment is saved and a lot of (potentially increased) brain capacity freed for other human improvement.

If, and I mean if, such a health outcome differential between being a vegan and not, then it would be widely known. As far as I am able to garner from known population studies my children will be a few inches shorter due to a vegan diet, no less intelligent, and will have a very compassionate ethical starting point, which is something I personally value.

However, if veganism required is to scale back massively scientific research due to drops in human intelligence, I would be on the fence... Further, I do recognize that giving up meat to be an actual sacrifice of summer form... There seems to be a large biological desire to eat meat, which probably is actually largely derived from gut bacteria, if I were to guess. Still, perhaps giving up meat is an actual sacrifice. With my indifference to meat after 16 years or so, I am heavily biased towards veganism as a tool for meeting the climate needs of our current planet biosphere.

Nah, man, I really don't like meat and I can't think of a defendable defense for it's continued consumption given what we know today.

Devil's advocate: Would you not be annoyed that your individual health is reduced so that the "commons" is healthier?

I think part of the problem is people will not sacrifice their own health. It's mainly a "that sounds great, you go first" mindset. Thankfully with population growth slowing I think we're not nearly as bad off as you might think.

There are seaweed eating sheep in Scotland who do not produce methane (due to their diet) and live on beaches (so no land use). My point is that your statement "meat takes far more energy, land, and clean water" while more or less true for most meat today is not settled fact.

There are carbon neutral meats, I recognize that. While still an ethical calamity, at least if we could get everyone to cut over.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com