Hacker News Reader

Comment by bitL | Hacker News Reader

Some people can only eat meat due to autoimmune issues exacerbated by vegetables. Are we going to sacrifice them?

Is this an argument made in good faith? The commentator said reduce meat consumption and that most people ate too much. They didn't say "ban it for everyone, let the autoimmune suffer"

I purposefully chose an extreme example to put it onto the radar of everyone pushing veganism everywhere. Also if you really study sustainability, you see that reducing meat production doesn't lead to better sustainability anyway.

If you reduce meat production, you'll hike up prices, likely pricing out those with autoimmune diseases that barely survive already. So technically you are true like in "you can still eat meat in theory", but in practice those folks won't be able. Now where is the good faith in that argument?

This is theoretical and not the case in practice. Meat companies are an Oligarchy in The United States which is the largest world meat producer. There are four massive meat companies and if they existed at the onset of anti-trust they would have been broken up long ago. The miracle of the market to competitively decide on a price relies on competitive market environments which do not exist in the largest meat market in the world, The US.

You're saying a lot of stuff and I'm going to need more evidence to be convinced as to your position. For what reason would meat prices increase if people ate less meat?

"eating less meat" != "sacrifice them"

How about this modus ponens chain: "eating less meat" -> "lowering meat production" -> "hiking up meat prices" -> "autoimmune sufferers unable to buy meat" -> "autoimmune sacrificed"

Deal with meat as with any kind of life saving medication in that case. There's already infrastructure for that.

Good Christ, did the parent comment suggest banning all meat?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com