I wonder why the only points discussed are about animal ethics. The strongest point for going vegan is simply enviromental (and thereby more about human ethics). The UN did a study on the enviromental effects of livestock called ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’. When I do out myself as a vegan, I try to steer the discussion away from animal ethics (unless I can make a few points there) since with the denialists this turns way too philosophical and tedious.
“Warren Buffet thinks that in order to be successful, you should focus on doing just a few things well.” -xccf
Yea, fuck ethics. No seriously what? You can’t change a cultural habit because other things you’re doing will suffer? E.g. if you wanna be a successful investment banker don’t leave your sect, cause managing two things in your life is too difficult. Sorry, that’s just plain laziness. Though if you are not living in a larger city, your point might just be valid. In the larger german city I live in it was fairly easy to find vegan supplements.
I think it’s just a matter of time, there are some interesting startups tackling meat like products and as soon as they’ll beat the price of “real meat” (which is very likely given the effort animal products take) change will come and I speculate that we will enter the era of hindsight ethics in which everyone will be pro-animal rights. And if you allow the Schadenfreude, I’ll be glad to tell my grandkids that I was on the right side of the fence.
The world has many problems. I could point to any one of those problems and say “Why aren’t you trying to solve it?” And then when you responded, I could say “Sorry, that’s just plain laziness. You should be working to solve it along with everything else you are trying to do.”
For a consequentialist like me who makes no act/omission distinction, that’s how your argument sounds. The reason that it’s a bad argument is that your resources are finite. The way to be an EA is to figure out which cause is the best use of your resources on the margin and spend your resources on that cause: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/1997/01/giving_your_all.html
E.g. if you wanna be a successful investment banker don’t leave your sect
I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say here. By “sect” do you mean religious sect? If an EA finds emotional support from their religious sect and maintaining those ties seems like one of their best options available for staying mentally healthy, I’m in favor of them staying in it. If leaving the sect makes them sad for a month but after that they are happier and more productive, I’d say leave it. I don’t see the relevance.
I think it’s just a matter of time, there are some interesting startups tackling meat like products and as soon as they’ll beat the price of “real meat” (which is very likely given the effort animal products take) change will come
My impression is the same. That’s why I think it’s a much better use of resources to try to hasten that day than eat vegan. I’d guess that bringing forward the development of quality in vitro meat by a single day would do much more for animal suffering than converting the entire EA movement as it currently stands to veganism.
For a consequentialist like me who makes no act/omission distinction, that’s how your argument sounds. The reason that it’s a bad argument is that your resources are finite. The way to be an EA is to figure out which cause is the best use of your resources on the margin and spend your resources on that cause.
So am I, I just don’t see the big cost in ressources while I do think the cost in ressources livestock has is proven.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say here.
I admit, the analogy wasn’t as clear as I hoped it would be. My point was that we have the capacity to solve multiple problems in our lives. Peter Dinklage is an awesome actor while being vegan… so yeah.. Not my strongest argument maybe :D
I’d guess that bringing forward the development of quality in vitro meat by a single day would do much more for animal suffering than converting the entire EA movement as it currently stands to veganism.
A good way to bring development forward in an open market is to generate demand and from my personal experience (excuse the irrationality, or not) vegans tend to generate a higher demand for such products. So why the false dichotomy?
The demand point is an interesting one. I’d guess that funding in vitro meat development directly with earnings from a high-paying job is still much more promising than buying vegan food products in the hope that your actions will be reflected in statistics in the hope that investors will act on those statistics in order to invest in in vitro meat. Other issues:
Self-interested investors may not fund the basic research necessary for in vitro meat development if it’s too far out.
Research funded by self-interested investors will likely be kept secret in order to maintain a competitive advantage.
BTW, these are the only ACE links I can find that seem to discuss in vitro meat in significant depth. I’d be interested to see further EA coverage of the topic.
I wonder why the only points discussed are about animal ethics. The strongest point for going vegan is simply enviromental (and thereby more about human ethics). The UN did a study on the enviromental effects of livestock called ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’. When I do out myself as a vegan, I try to steer the discussion away from animal ethics (unless I can make a few points there) since with the denialists this turns way too philosophical and tedious.
“Warren Buffet thinks that in order to be successful, you should focus on doing just a few things well.” -xccf
Yea, fuck ethics. No seriously what? You can’t change a cultural habit because other things you’re doing will suffer? E.g. if you wanna be a successful investment banker don’t leave your sect, cause managing two things in your life is too difficult. Sorry, that’s just plain laziness. Though if you are not living in a larger city, your point might just be valid. In the larger german city I live in it was fairly easy to find vegan supplements.
I think it’s just a matter of time, there are some interesting startups tackling meat like products and as soon as they’ll beat the price of “real meat” (which is very likely given the effort animal products take) change will come and I speculate that we will enter the era of hindsight ethics in which everyone will be pro-animal rights. And if you allow the Schadenfreude, I’ll be glad to tell my grandkids that I was on the right side of the fence.
The world has many problems. I could point to any one of those problems and say “Why aren’t you trying to solve it?” And then when you responded, I could say “Sorry, that’s just plain laziness. You should be working to solve it along with everything else you are trying to do.”
For a consequentialist like me who makes no act/omission distinction, that’s how your argument sounds. The reason that it’s a bad argument is that your resources are finite. The way to be an EA is to figure out which cause is the best use of your resources on the margin and spend your resources on that cause: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/1997/01/giving_your_all.html
I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say here. By “sect” do you mean religious sect? If an EA finds emotional support from their religious sect and maintaining those ties seems like one of their best options available for staying mentally healthy, I’m in favor of them staying in it. If leaving the sect makes them sad for a month but after that they are happier and more productive, I’d say leave it. I don’t see the relevance.
My impression is the same. That’s why I think it’s a much better use of resources to try to hasten that day than eat vegan. I’d guess that bringing forward the development of quality in vitro meat by a single day would do much more for animal suffering than converting the entire EA movement as it currently stands to veganism.
So am I, I just don’t see the big cost in ressources while I do think the cost in ressources livestock has is proven.
I admit, the analogy wasn’t as clear as I hoped it would be. My point was that we have the capacity to solve multiple problems in our lives. Peter Dinklage is an awesome actor while being vegan… so yeah.. Not my strongest argument maybe :D
A good way to bring development forward in an open market is to generate demand and from my personal experience (excuse the irrationality, or not) vegans tend to generate a higher demand for such products. So why the false dichotomy?
The demand point is an interesting one. I’d guess that funding in vitro meat development directly with earnings from a high-paying job is still much more promising than buying vegan food products in the hope that your actions will be reflected in statistics in the hope that investors will act on those statistics in order to invest in in vitro meat. Other issues:
Self-interested investors may not fund the basic research necessary for in vitro meat development if it’s too far out.
Research funded by self-interested investors will likely be kept secret in order to maintain a competitive advantage.
BTW, these are the only ACE links I can find that seem to discuss in vitro meat in significant depth. I’d be interested to see further EA coverage of the topic.
http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/research/organizations/new-harvest/
http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/blog/beyond-meat-vs-new-harvest/
Your time, energy, and attention are limited. Time/energy/attention spent on veganism takes away from your stock to spend on other stuff.