I think it would have been more fair if you hadn’t removed all the links (to supporting evidence) that were included in the quote below, since it just comes across as a string of unsupported claims without them:
Beyond the environmental effects, there are also significant health risks associated with the direct consumption of animal products, including redmeat, chickenmeat, fishmeat, eggs and dairy. Conversely, significant health benefits are associated with alternative sources of protein, such as beans, nuts, and seeds. This is relevant both collectively, for the sake of not supporting industries that activelypromote poor human nutrition in general, as well as individually, to maximize one’s own health so one can be more effectively altruistic.
I think this evidence on personal health is relevant in the ways described. I don’t think it’s fair to say that the quote above implies that “[health benefits] will definitely happen with no additional work from you, without any costs or trade-offs”; obviously, any change in diet will require some work and will involve some tradeoffs. But I agree that it’s worth addressing the potential pitfalls of vegan diets, and it’s a fair critique that that would have been worth including in that essay (even though a top link on the blog does list some resources on this).
FWIW, in terms of additional work, tradeoffs, and maximizing health, I generally believe that it is worth making a serious investment into figuring out how to optimize one’s health, such as by investing in a DNA test for nutrition, and I think this is true for virtually everyone. Likewise, I think it’s worth being clear that all diets involve tradeoffs and risks, including both vegan and omnivore diets (some of the risks associated with the latter are hinted at in the links above: “redmeat, chickenmeat, fishmeat, eggs and dairy”).
I’ve fixed this on my blog but LW’s editor is being difficult (and because this is a cross-post I can only fix it there), I’ve pinged the team about getting access to the right editor. I wish I’d included your links because it’s always good to quote people more accurately. I’m not sure it matters materially, because I preemptively agreed that overconsumption of animal products has its own risks.
I think most of the nutritional harm would be mitigated if vegan advocates said “all large dietary changes have challenges, here’s an easy guide to starting” in a way people believed and followed up on (and no one loudly argued to the contrary, which at one point was very widespread within EA). I would still think there was something important in acknowledging that it can’t work for everyone, and thus the strongest forms of vegan advocacy will leave those people malnourished. I can respect arguments that this is a regrettable necessity, but not blindness to it. I would also still see value in arguing about the ideal diet, or more properly how to discover an individual’s ideal diet, which is so complicated and has so much variation between people. But I wouldn’t have put nearly this level of work in if I didn’t see people being harmed.
I think it would have been more fair if you hadn’t removed all the links (to supporting evidence) that were included in the quote below, since it just comes across as a string of unsupported claims without them:
I think this evidence on personal health is relevant in the ways described. I don’t think it’s fair to say that the quote above implies that “[health benefits] will definitely happen with no additional work from you, without any costs or trade-offs”; obviously, any change in diet will require some work and will involve some tradeoffs. But I agree that it’s worth addressing the potential pitfalls of vegan diets, and it’s a fair critique that that would have been worth including in that essay (even though a top link on the blog does list some resources on this).
FWIW, in terms of additional work, tradeoffs, and maximizing health, I generally believe that it is worth making a serious investment into figuring out how to optimize one’s health, such as by investing in a DNA test for nutrition, and I think this is true for virtually everyone. Likewise, I think it’s worth being clear that all diets involve tradeoffs and risks, including both vegan and omnivore diets (some of the risks associated with the latter are hinted at in the links above: “red meat, chicken meat, fish meat, eggs and dairy”).
I’ve fixed this on my blog but LW’s editor is being difficult (and because this is a cross-post I can only fix it there), I’ve pinged the team about getting access to the right editor. I wish I’d included your links because it’s always good to quote people more accurately. I’m not sure it matters materially, because I preemptively agreed that overconsumption of animal products has its own risks.
I think most of the nutritional harm would be mitigated if vegan advocates said “all large dietary changes have challenges, here’s an easy guide to starting” in a way people believed and followed up on (and no one loudly argued to the contrary, which at one point was very widespread within EA). I would still think there was something important in acknowledging that it can’t work for everyone, and thus the strongest forms of vegan advocacy will leave those people malnourished. I can respect arguments that this is a regrettable necessity, but not blindness to it. I would also still see value in arguing about the ideal diet, or more properly how to discover an individual’s ideal diet, which is so complicated and has so much variation between people. But I wouldn’t have put nearly this level of work in if I didn’t see people being harmed.