it seems arbitrary to consider the division “animal/non-animal” as especially nutritionally salient.
I don’t think this is actually arbitrary. Humans are animals, not plants. As such, it seems prima facie plausible that animals would contain the nutrients we need, as they are presumably largely the same nutrients the animals need. Humans did not evolve to only eat plants though, so it’s plausible that there are some nutrients that we need that are both absent in plants and that we are unable to metabolize from plants.
Also, “caring about lesser minds” is a good meme to promote, especially considering FAI, CEV etc.
The point about CEV is that it is extrapolated—if you have a good argument for vegetarianism, CEV would take that argument into account, whether or not you actually made the argument to anyone. So there’s no need to evangelize now.
Humans are animals, not plants. As such, it seems prima facie plausible that animals would contain the nutrients we need, as they are presumably largely the same nutrients the animals need.
Holding calories constant, the foods richest in micronutrients are plants, not animals.
I don’t think this is actually arbitrary. Humans are animals, not plants. As such, it seems prima facie plausible that animals would contain the nutrients we need, as they are presumably largely the same nutrients the animals need. Humans did not evolve to only eat plants though, so it’s plausible that there are some nutrients that we need that are both absent in plants and that we are unable to metabolize from plants.
The point about CEV is that it is extrapolated—if you have a good argument for vegetarianism, CEV would take that argument into account, whether or not you actually made the argument to anyone. So there’s no need to evangelize now.
Holding calories constant, the foods richest in micronutrients are plants, not animals.