Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 443 posts

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#231

Post by yesenadam »

meowface wrote: post #177
arawde wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on the opposite side of this. I've eaten meat for the first 23 years of my life, but my current partner is vegan. A large part of our relationship has been discovering that vegetables are actually good to eat when they're not an afterthought to a meal. I go out of my way to try the meat substitutes now, because I'm holding out that one of them will actually be good enough for me to show my carnivore friends. For…

At risk of sparking an ethics debate, why do most people who turn vegetarian out of conscientiousness seem to very disproportionately do it for environmental reasons? I mean, on one hand, it makes complete rational sense, because it's self/species-interest: reduced meat consumption should decrease the effects of global warming and other issues, and you want a world that you and future generations of people can safely…

>why do most people who turn vegetarian out of conscientiousness seem to very disproportionately do it for environmental reasons? ...are you then still not doing it for selfish reasons, or at least species-selfish reasons?

You seem to have answered your own question there. It shouldn't be surprising, although yes, it surprises me too I guess. (I became vegan because..how to put it..Humans have no right to treat animals as if their lives are nothing, as if they're just things for humans to eat, if we can easily avoid it. Which I can. I'd rather not be killed, and want to avoid pain, so I figure non-human animals want that too.)

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#233

Post by meowface »

xnxn wrote: post #221
meowface wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At risk of sparking an ethics debate, why do most people who turn vegetarian out of conscientiousness seem to very disproportionately do it for environmental reasons? I mean, on one hand, it makes complete rational sense, because it's self/species-interest: reduced meat consumption should decrease the effects of global warming and other issues, and you want a world that you and future generations of people can safely…

I don't think your premise is correct. The data I can find[1][2] suggests that vegetarians and vegans are principally concerned with animal ethics. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257659/ [2] https://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/10062622/data/veganuary-infogra...

Thank you, interesting. I shouldn't rely so much on anecdata.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#234

Post by smallgovt »

JasonFruit wrote: post #53
perplamps wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's no substitute for the flesh of an animal — especially one I raised, where I know its diet, its experiences, and how it was slaughtered and butchered When PG said eating meat might sound perverse one day, it's hard to imagine how a comment like this might come across. I'm not a vegetarian and even I find it difficult to differentiate between the above justifications and the ravings of a serial killer.

Oh, you see, that's easy — a serial killer kills people. Is it maybe more moral not to think about where your meat comes from? If you are eating meat, but you can't contemplate the death of the animal that provided it, maybe you're not as morally elevated as you think.

It sounds like you're attacking the parent commenter's morality as a way of defending your own actions' morality.

However, it's entirely possible that both parent commenter's actions AND your actions are immoral. In other words, the claim that "ignorant meat eating" is immoral doesn't make "aware meat eating" moral.

I think one argument you could make is that animals are somehow not worthy of the same just actions we deem humans to worthy of. But, if we value animals to the same degree we value humans, most ppl would deem your actions to be immoral.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#235

Post by [deleted] »

yesenadam wrote: post #231
meowface wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At risk of sparking an ethics debate, why do most people who turn vegetarian out of conscientiousness seem to very disproportionately do it for environmental reasons? I mean, on one hand, it makes complete rational sense, because it's self/species-interest: reduced meat consumption should decrease the effects of global warming and other issues, and you want a world that you and future generations of people can safely…

>why do most people who turn vegetarian out of conscientiousness seem to very disproportionately do it for environmental reasons? ...are you then still not doing it for selfish reasons, or at least species-selfish reasons? You seem to have answered your own question there. It shouldn't be surprising, although yes, it surprises me too I guess. (I became vegan because..how to put it..Humans have no right to treat anima…

[deleted]

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#236

Post by 0_gravitas »

morningmoon wrote: post #215
0_gravitas wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah but if the whole goal is to minimize suffering in the world as I assume yours is, the lines get very blurry very fast. I would probably not personally beat a Chinese kid that's building my phone too slowly in a sweatshop, yet I still use a phone, and all the other electronics and clothing produced like that; and I'm going to assume you do have some of these products as well. And then of you really wanted to…

Making iPhones does not require beating people. Industrial meat production requires mutilating, imprisoning, and slaughtering animals (edit: obviously I'm not referring to cultured meat tissues, which does not exist on the market).

Going by the same reasoning, making meat does not in fact require that, lab grown meat exists, but as it stands, much like the phone example, the current methods prove cheaper, and easier, and faster.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#237

Post by markstos »

JasonFruit wrote: post #53
perplamps wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's no substitute for the flesh of an animal — especially one I raised, where I know its diet, its experiences, and how it was slaughtered and butchered When PG said eating meat might sound perverse one day, it's hard to imagine how a comment like this might come across. I'm not a vegetarian and even I find it difficult to differentiate between the above justifications and the ravings of a serial killer.

Oh, you see, that's easy — a serial killer kills people. Is it maybe more moral not to think about where your meat comes from? If you are eating meat, but you can't contemplate the death of the animal that provided it, maybe you're not as morally elevated as you think.

People are sentient beings. Animals we kill and eat are sentient beings.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#238

Post by smallgovt »

JasonFruit wrote: post #59
perplamps wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of things we do out of convenience that we don't delight in, like walking over ants. There's a distinct difference between welcoming an easy alternative to walking over ants and delighting in squishing them under your feet (regardless of how brazenly you celebrate your actions).

Are you suggesting that you eat meat because paying $10/pound for a mediocre steak that gives you the moral willies is honestly more convenient than buying a can of beans and taking a vitamin supplement? I'm saying I delight in eating the flesh of an animal, and that knowing I gave it a comfortable, healthy life and a merciful death contributes to that pleasure. Your reasoning is pretty waffly and evasive to serve as…

Here in is what triggered the negative reaction to your most-parent comment.

> There's no substitute for the flesh of an animal — especially one I raised, where I know its diet, its experiences, and how it was slaughtered and butchered

> I'm saying I delight in eating the flesh of an animal, and that knowing I gave it a comfortable, healthy life and a merciful death contributes to that pleasure.

The former comment can be misconstrued to mean that 1) you revel in the power you have over animals you raise or 2) you enjoy the process of slaughtering an animal, in of itself.

The latter comment makes it clear that your intent is to give animals the best life possible (given your decision to eat meat).

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#239

Post by dennis_jeeves »

loceng wrote: post #161

Most people are omnivores, not carnivores as PG stated - however the trend seems to be moving towards the health benefits of eating as carnivore - a purely meat diet; it's the food you don't eat that improves health, meat is a healthy food for most people. We have the sugar lobby who paid researchers to create propaganda that fat was the culprit. We have companies incentivized to sell fad diets, we have every partici…

Hey loceng, I don't normally comment on the meat subject. "Veggies are good and meat is bad" is a modern day religion.

Looking at you past posts it seems that you are dealing unsuccessfully with depression. Here is something that will work with a very high degree of certainity. Go all red meat. No spices, no lean meat, no veggies. Nothing but red meat and salt for a month. Go for the fatty and gelatinous cuts: Ribs, steaks, brisket etc, but no lean cuts. You may have to stick with it for life. I'm a carnivore (only meat + eggs) for 6 years now. I had other health issues but not depression. There are lots of anecdotes from the web about depression of all kinds reducing or disappearing.

Sincerely hope that my post also helps someone else.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#240

Post by photoguy112 »

I feel like his comments do not apply to all of the world. In Japan for example, meat consumption is so prominent that we hardly ever consider not having meat. Sure, there is a lot of hamburger here but for the most part people stick to meat in its natural state - lots of pork, beef. Trying to convert Japan from a pork eating society would probably be a feeble attempt.
Post reply on HN