I wonder how many of these "self-reported" vegans were true ethical vegans vs instgram influencer, "I eat chicken once a week" vegans.

Also, what's your point? Is there a proven direct correlation between ethics/morals and educational level? And even if there were, does that imply that this less educated group is as a whole completely wrong? And are you implying that ethics and morals were even objective and measureable? I mean, completely no idea what you are getting at here.

> Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level

this is such a... wrong conclusion to make from the study. the study has found a correlation and by no means is it a causation. there are so many cultural, societal reasons for this to be the case. (eg. in india, upper caste people are usually vegetarians who generally have more access to education.)

Interesting that you think having any drawbacks whatsoever to not eating meat is sufficient to justify eating it, I would've thought the drawbacks had to at least outweigh the suffering involved.

I didn't suggest sourcing a non-meat diet.

I'm suggesting the opposite.

by design eating meat is morally questionable. (as do so many things with our modern society.) all meat is fair game, because all animal dependent diet is questionable anyway.

Verfiably false statement that you need meat to do physical labor.

Lazy statement that “sourcing” a vegetarian meal is difficult.

Eating less meat is better for your health and better for the planet.

The few exceptions I think worth noting are if you were born into and continue to live in largely/culturally hunter culture (Inuit, bushmen) or where you live is not sustainable for agriculture (Tibet.)

Most folks could just cook more rice, beans, greens and be fine.

Your excuse for participating in one of the most vile enterprises in human history, factory farming, is that it's too much effort to collectively figure out a less barbaric diet?

And literally no vegan has a problem with people who medically need to eat meet doing so. I own several cats, they are carnivores. The problem is scale: The fact that some people medically must eat meat does not give a free pass for apathetic barbarism to the rest of society.

Even collectively cutting out a single meat or dairy-based meal a week would contribute to a massive reduction in demand. You have no excuse. Use this energy to build a fairer world for all animals instead of using it to get defensive whenever someone brings up how massively inhumane modern factory farming is.

It is not only totally possible to be vegan, but it can be more healthy too. The Acadamy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the largest org for nutritionist and dieticians in the world, have a position paper out saying that a well planned diet is appropriate for all stages of life, including pregnancy. The NHS says the same thing. We even have vegan top athletes nowadays such as Djokovic and Hammilton. You can be vegan, so any justification you bring for violence against animals is for taste pleasure, habbit, culture and just generally not having evolved nor being up to date with the science.

Your italicised text is /exactly/ wrong. Hen eggs are fertilised inside the hen’s oviduct. I mean, eggs are somewhat porous after laying, but they’re not that porous.

(I don’t know about you. I’m just a programmer holding strong opinions about avian physiology. Maybe there’s an actual biologist on the plane who can correct me)

> Waiting for good lab grown meat to become cheap.

This is a cop out. There are plenty of excellent plant-based meat alternatives that I'm sure you couldn't tell the difference in a blind test.

Just to note, eggs are not as ethical as you may assume... We have bred chickens so that they lay an unhealthy amount of eggs, which is likely a pretty stressful life experience. The original breed of bird (Red junglefowl) laid roughly a dozen eggs a year, where as modern layer hens will lay 300+. So it's not really "comes out anyway".

They often get medical conditions like Keel bone fractures and reproductive tract disease and they're also culled at around 18 months when output drops (tiny fraction of their lifespan). Oh and the male chicks don't lay, so roughly one per hen gets killed on day one.

I still think overall milk is probably worse, but plant-based is biggest win to reduce suffering overall!

From my understanding this is doable in a context like yours but if you want to run a business out of it you have to optimize it which requires this separation.

modern cow, goat etc. are selectively bred to produce more milk than their youngling needs. so separation is not a strict requirement ( you might lose 5 - 10% more if you just let them be.)

But when we used to own cows & goats, it was very common practice to keep the youngling tied away a few hours before milking. you can feel the pain of separation the parent goes through. ( goat and cow crying, while looking at their offspring is indeed quite sad https://www.flickr.com/photos/murfalizer/4429214117). to add insult to injury it is also common practice to tie the youngling in the line sight of the parent to milk more freely.

cows might be more in some dimensions like emotion because cattle raise their young unlike octopus which doesn't . does that make the equation any easier to accept?

why is this a controversial idea? mammals indeed are smarter than mollusks (of which octopus is one).

I agree with you.

but I find meat and the associated horrors that come with it, to be no more or less repugnant than the broader society and industrial complex that I'm forced to be a part of.

I suppose, I personally could contribute to be one less living being suffering. but in the broader scheme of things (new wars, poverty, deaths etc.). in a very nihilistic way, I don't see how it changes anything.

I'm probably just copping out.

Salmons decay after spawning, then die. Their offspring eat the nutrients presents in the water, including their parents leftovers.

Octopi is equally correct because we're speaking English and frequency of use trumps etymological cromulence.

Octopuses works too. I quite like "Octopods" because -podes is unusual in English, though not entirely absent (see Antipodes).

(I'm not sure "an Octopi" is correct in any of these cases!)

I'd go, fully expecting to be eaten for the good of mankind.

There are hazards to doing it on an individual level, but on a species level sure why not? Between a talking plant and a brainless bovine I know which one I'd say is the obvious right answer to eat (assume both species occurred naturally for this thought experiment).

Based on not having a realistic choice. The only person I personally know to successfully pull it off is an acquaintance that's rich by local standards, doesn't work, spends a lot of time sourcing and cooking it, and also eating it. He needs to eat more for same energy. It's so involved that most of his life revolves around it. It takes a good bit out of his time. The rest of the people from that friend group couldn't afford it, couldn't afford spending the money, couldn't afford spending the extra time on it.

I personally wouldn't eat meat if I had a good alternative. I rarely do, I eat it for health related reasons, considering my setup.

What's not existing like?

This is an interesting thought experiment, though I generally come to opposite conclusions. I personally think that hunting a wild animal situates the hunter in the broader context of the natural world, in which organisms live by their wits and try to outrun others doing the same.

Conversely, farmed animals owe their existence as you say to our cultivating them. But where you see a moral release in that connection, I see a corruption of life into industrial inputs. A hunted animal many times will catch scent or sound and take flight, winning their life for another day. Livestock can't change their destiny by wit or will. Their entire existence is within the technological apparatus of our species.

The corruption becomes evident in evolution cleaved from the organism's interest and placed in service of our appetites. In turkeys with breasts too large to be able to balance standing up, let alone walk. Such animals can only reproduce by artificial insemination and only eat when food is placed directly in front of them.

Power dynamics such as these tempt us to tell just-so stories about lives well lived. Can we say for them that their lives are preferable to not existing at all? We're surely not neutral.

> You cannot judge if it's worth it from the cow's perspective, it got to live, enjoy the sun, eating in the field, doing cow stuff, same as us.

Yep, same as us.

Peter Singer, father of the animal liberation movement, also now says that farming animals for food but giving them a good life "may be permissible":

More radically, Singer suggested that meat-eating may be permissible if “farms really give the animals good lives, and then humanely kill them, preferably without transporting them to slaughterhouses or disturbing them. In Animal Liberation, I don’t really say that it’s the killing that makes [meat-eating] wrong, it’s the suffering.”

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2021/05/peter-singer-why-...

Full disclosure: I have profound disagreements with Singer's utilitarian philosophy.

Don't kid yourself Jimmy, if an octopus ever got the chance he'd eat you and everyone you cared about!

Octopus is the only animal I've ever stopped eating due to ethical concerns (not that I'm against examining my relationship with other animals). That being said, it's really delicious if you get it fresh. It just so happens that it's very rare (in the US) to get fresh octopus. I liked tako nigiri and grilled octopus, Mediterranean style. The taste and texture difference between fresh and not fresh is huge though. Probably another great reason not to eat them!