14 years ago, I started a blog (this one, in fact). At that time, it was kind of normal to blog about things. Life, opinions, whatever.
Nowadays, almost nobody does that anymore because social media. I left social media a few years ago, primarily because it’s a big waste of time. But also it started to occur to me that anything I say there can be used against me, and that if it’s unpopular enough or offends the wrong person, it’s even likely to be removed.
Outside of social media, there are hosted blogs, such as medium, but these suffer from the same issues — at the end of the day, your content can be censored because it displeases the platform’s moderators.
So now that I’m saying things again, it’s back to 14 years ago. That means my posts will not have access to social media network effect explosion potential. People will have to actually want to come here and read things. It also means I had to go through the work of getting this blog set up self-hosted, and I have to spend time and money to maintain that.
Yet, it also means that I get to say what I want. The content belongs to me. And readers know that I’m not censored.
I finally watched Food, Inc today. It’s a start, but I found three facts conspicuously absent:
Most of the monocropped grain we grow is fed to animals. If we ate it directly, we would need much less of it.
Grass fed beef and dairy are so inefficient with land use that they are less sustainable than feedlots.
Killing an animal that doesn’t want to die is not treating it with respect.
Even ancient farming practices, like the ones promoted in Food Inc and by Joel Salatin (and what we have been taught is “natural” since we were children), are cruel to animals. We don’t realize this because culturally it has always been so taboo to talk about the perspective of the animals used for food. Even today we dance around the issue by blaming factory farms. Yet these hellish factories are in fact a natural evolution of the idea that it’s somehow right and just for us to dominate other species for our own pleasure. It’s not.
A certain article has been making the rounds which purports to paint a picture of a “sugar conspiracy“. There are a number of problems with said article, and here are a few. This will not be a thorough takedown.
“Oh but isn’t that processed?” Yep so is beer, wine, bread, pasta…processing isn’t what matters. Number of ingredients and whether you can pronounce them are not important either. What matters is nutritional content. That’s a fact. Not an opinion. Can we as a culture just get over this pseudoscientific food snobbery please? Thanks.
“What matters is nutritional content” perhaps, but I would be sure to add some caveats to that. We don’t have a complete index of nutrients nor their impacts on the body. For example plant polyphenols in berries, we’re just starting to understand1, and there is evidence that eating these nutrients in their “unprocessed” state is more effective than just eating the nutrients directly234. Why would that be? It’s possible that we just don’t know what all the co-nutrients are yet, but it is more likely that there are countless interactions between body and food that we haven’t even scratched the surface of explaining.
A second caveat I would include is that food is a “package deal”. You have to eat something. If you’re eating a lot of processed foods (or a lot of animal foods), the likelihood of you getting the nutrients you are talking about goes down5. Also, the likelihood of getting toxins that you don’t want goes up. For example, potatoes, which are generally fairly healthy when steamed or boiled, create acrylamide when cooked at high heat a la french fries6. So even if we ignore my first caveat for a moment, it can be misleading to tell people that how processed a food is doesn’t matter, because that will most likely lead them to get fewer of the nutrients that we agree are important and more of the bad things.
Given these caveats, if you actually want to eat healthfully, it makes more sense to step back and look at the whole diet, rather than individual nutrients. This means you’re basically stuck with epidemiological studies of populations, and dietary intervention studies, neither of which is capable of establishing a sure-fire causal relationship. However, the evidence from such studies is pretty strong6 in favor of eating more foods of plant origin and in less processed form23478.
What happens to your economic theory when the value of human labor is $0? [article suggesting we need basic income]
The idea that the value of human labor will go to $0 is a bit hyperbolic. Sure, maybe drivers, bank tellers, and some other jobs are on the way out. But history is full of this progression. 150 years ago most jobs were on the farm. And then tractors and railroads and industry happened. Did all the jobs disappear? Well, farming jobs did, but other jobs replaced them. What makes this time so different?
I don’t claim to be able to imagine all the new types of jobs we’ll have in 50 years, but I can submit a few to you that I’m willing to bet will still be around:
writer, journalist, reporter
actor, artist, dancer, musician
sports player, announcer
programmer, engineer (though these may look a lot different in 50 years)
plumber, carpenter, electrician, etc
And some may take issue with this one, but I’m pretty sure some basic service jobs will still be around, such as cleaning, cooking, serving food, etc. There may be some instances (i.e. fast food) where waiters are no more, but I think people like the social aspect of having a waiter and will therefore continue to pay for it.
As for basic income, it’s a better idea than our current entitlement system, but until we find a way to make them voluntary (such as a social insurance program that you can opt-out of), such systems are immoral.
Humane Research Council did a study in which they outlined a bunch of useful stats on veganism/vegetarianism. One of the things they pointed out was that 63% of former vegans/vegetarians didn’t like how they stuck out in the crowd.
So I thought I’d write about how not to stand out in the crowd.
Ok, if you look at some of these online debates, the pro-vegan side doesn’t typically lose (though it’s possible that the audience planted themselves to create that result). Nevertheless, they still make mistakes. Here are some of them:
Claiming that the only solution to factory farming is to go vegan. We can make the argument till the cows come home that factory farms are awful, toxic, environmentally damaging and cruel. Few will argue with us. But many will disagree that the only possible solution is animal rights or veganism. That’s not to say that factory farming practices have no place in a debate about veganism. For one thing, veganism certainly offers a neat solution to the factory farming problem. We can also make the argument that without factory farms, there would necessarily be much less meat and dairy and it would be more expensive.
Defending or promoting vegetarianism. Lacto-vegetarianism still has all the ethical, environmental, and health issues that non-vegetarians have, though perhaps to lesser degree. If we promote vegetarianism as a solution, we expose ourselves to being called out on one of these inconsistencies. Promote vegan as the standard, and we are on much firmer ground. We can still applaud and encourage the ideals that compel people to go vegetarian, and even promote vegetarianism as a natural step towards veganism.
Overstating the position. Overstatement hurts the cause and loses debates, because it destroys credibility. Here are some things not to say:
100% vegan is the only way for the environment. It’s true that the planet can’t sustain the level of meat/dairy/fish/eggs that we currently consume. The facts are starkly on the side of veganism. A great example is the proposition that a sustainable amount of animal food per person is about 2 ounces of animal foods per week. That’s almost nothing. But it’s not nothing! It may be true that ultimately a vegan solution is the best way forward for the environment, but in a debate, we’ll get much further by arguing with well established facts — for example, that consumption of meat/dairy/etc products must be drastically cut in order to reach a sustainable level. Similar to the factory farming issue, veganism offers a neat solution for our environmental problems, but the facts do leave a little bit of wiggle room between about 98% and 100% vegan.
100% vegan is best for physical health. John Mackey makes a good move by backing away from this claim in this debate. There is ample scientific evidence for the health benefits of a mostly plant-based, whole foods diet (see here. There is not, however, anything conclusive that says when you go from a 99% vegan diet to a 100% vegan diet, you’re doing yourself a favor. So when we argue that 100% vegans are nutritionally healthier than 99% vegans, we are destroying our credibility.
Veganism is ethically pure. Even for vegans there are murky ethical issues. We act with compassion towards the animal kingdom, but what about plants? By some accounts, plants may have the capacity to suffer to some degree. Even a plant-based diet has some impact on the environment, ecosystems for animals, and insects. We aren’t perfect, and it’s crucial that we admit that. This forces us to give the ethical debate a little bit of fuzziness. Eventually it leads us to the fact that just because some harms aren’t avoidable, doesn’t mean we just throw up our hands and toss morality out the window. This point is rarely argued with, and really strengthens the vegan position.
One nice tactic for winning a debate is to reduce the claim. By pointing out the ways in which being mostly vegan is beneficial, we get to present all of our best arguments without having the burden of them being 100% black and white. Here are some suggestions:
(ethics/science/evolution) Paint the picture of the evolution of human perspective. Gallileo showed that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe. We are continuing this trend by discovering that humans aren’t the center of the ethical universe. Science can’t dictate ethics, but it can certainly show that animals are capable of much of what we consider worthy of ethical consideration; including intelligence, emotion, communication, and perhaps most important, suffering. We know animals suffer, and we know that humans have the choice and ability to reduce this suffering.
(environment) The environmental facts are good enough without being overstated. Just make sure the facts are correct before repeating them. If a hamburger takes as much water as 6 months worth of showers, saying that his impressive enough that there’s no reason to exaggerate it to 12 months.
(health) Point out what studies have shown, namely that a diet consisting of primarily whole, plant-based foods dramatically reduces the incidences of many of our nastiest diseases. Acknowledge that the jury is still out on the space between “mostly vegan” and “all the way vegan”, but it’s also fair to point out that there are many “all the way vegans” who have excellent health.
(personal) Few people actually want to harm animals, given the choice. Most people see themselves as kind, compassionate beings; yet their plates would indicate otherwise. Just point this out, and demonstrate that there is a choice by being a healthy vegan.