I did read Elizabethâs preemptive response to the counterargument. However, her preemptive response doesnât seem to actually argue against the counterargument, so I didnât see any need to address it. I wrote my earlier comment to highlight that the counterargument is decisively strongâthe health costs of veganism are scarcely worth discussing.
If youâd like to volunteer a consideration I may have missed, Iâm all ears! However, Elizabethâs preemptive response you mentioned doesnât try to rebut the counterargument at all. Instead, it calls the counterargument a âfair argument for veganismâ, and lists some tangential considerations which I didnât find relevant enough to address in my earlier comment:
But itâs not grounds to declare the health costs to be zero.
The argument doesnât do that. It just says theyâre so small relative to the harms causes to animals that theyâre scarcely worth discussing.
Itâs also not grounds to ignore nutrition within a plant-based diet.
The argument isnât about that at all, and I think most people would agree that nutrition is important.
The argument isnât about that at all, and I think most people would agree that nutrition is important.
It sounds like youâre misreading the point of the article.
The entire point of this article is that there are vegan EA leaders who downplay or dismiss the idea that veganism requires extra attention and effort. It doesnât at all say âthere are some tradeoffs, therefore donât be vegan.â (it goes out of the way to say almost the opposite)
Whether costs are worth discussing doesnât depend on how large one cost is vs the other â it depends on whether the health costs are large enough to hurt people, destroy trust, and (from an animal welfare perspective), whether the human health costs directly cause more animal suffering via causing ~30% of vegans to relapse.
I did read Elizabethâs preemptive response to the counterargument. However, her preemptive response doesnât seem to actually argue against the counterargument, so I didnât see any need to address it. I wrote my earlier comment to highlight that the counterargument is decisively strongâthe health costs of veganism are scarcely worth discussing.
If youâd like to volunteer a consideration I may have missed, Iâm all ears! However, Elizabethâs preemptive response you mentioned doesnât try to rebut the counterargument at all. Instead, it calls the counterargument a âfair argument for veganismâ, and lists some tangential considerations which I didnât find relevant enough to address in my earlier comment:
The argument doesnât do that. It just says theyâre so small relative to the harms causes to animals that theyâre scarcely worth discussing.
The argument isnât about that at all, and I think most people would agree that nutrition is important.
It sounds like youâre misreading the point of the article.
The entire point of this article is that there are vegan EA leaders who downplay or dismiss the idea that veganism requires extra attention and effort. It doesnât at all say âthere are some tradeoffs, therefore donât be vegan.â (it goes out of the way to say almost the opposite)
Whether costs are worth discussing doesnât depend on how large one cost is vs the other â it depends on whether the health costs are large enough to hurt people, destroy trust, and (from an animal welfare perspective), whether the human health costs directly cause more animal suffering via causing ~30% of vegans to relapse.
this sounds like you believe the health costs of veganism are unfixable without animal products. Is that the case?