A rise in vegetarian options leads customers to embrace meat-free meals • Hacker News Board

Re: A rise in vegetarian options leads customers to embrace meat-free meals

#251

Post by sterkekoffie » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

larrik wrote: post #231

sterkekoffie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veganism is not a dietary preference, it's a system of ethics. If there had been vanity plates in the 1910s there probably would have been some that said 5UFFR4G3, too. Veganism extends to all modes of consumption, not just food--for example, vegans don't buy leather or animal-tested makeup. Side note, to reduce confusion like yours, some people use 'plant-based' specifically to describe vegan food. People are vegan,…

I know some people who eat vegan to avoid a number life threatening allergies, so it's not always about ethics. It usually is, though.

Those people would accurately be called plant-based dieters. The point being that people getting vegan license plates are not allergy sufferers.

Re: A rise in vegetarian options leads customers to embrace meat-free meals

#252

Post by gridlockd » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 9:21 PM UTC

seanwilson wrote: post #101

gridlockd wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not like the fact that cow, chicken, pig, dog, have to die for my tastebuds to feel nice. Not only do they have to die, they also have to live . If everyone went vegan, those animals would never have existed. If the standards of living for the average farm animal were really good, would that be worse than them having never existed?

> Not only do they have to die, they also have to live. If everyone went vegan, those animals would never have existed. In the same way, you could justify birthing a human into slavery, birthing a dog for dog fighting, birthing a bull for bullfighting etc. - it's not a good reason. There's animals related to farm bred cows, pigs and chickens in the wild as well. You could use the land that's used for animal agricultu…

> In the same way, you could justify birthing a human into slavery, birthing a dog for dog fighting, birthing a bull for bullfighting etc. - it's not a good reason.

You misread. The premise is that they will live a good life, whatever that means for the species in question.

> There's animals related to farm bred cows, pigs and chickens in the wild as well. You could use the land that's used for animal agriculture to let wild animals thrive, instead of birthing animals into a miserable life.

Life in nature is rather miserable. I'm talking about better life than nature would afford. Would it be better for those lives to have existed, or not?

It's a philosophical question, there's no "correct" answer.

Re: A rise in vegetarian options leads customers to embrace meat-free meals

#253

Post by gridlockd » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

athriren wrote: post #112

gridlockd wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not like the fact that cow, chicken, pig, dog, have to die for my tastebuds to feel nice. Not only do they have to die, they also have to live . If everyone went vegan, those animals would never have existed. If the standards of living for the average farm animal were really good, would that be worse than them having never existed?

I can't answer for everyone, but in the interest of continuing conversation my answer to your question in the last sentence would yes. It would be better for an animal to have never existed than to have its entire existence be measured by the utility of killing it and butchering it for people to eat.

All life leads to death, in nature or captivity. Pretty much any animal will be eaten upon death, by predators, scavengers, or microbes. Sometimes it will be killed to be eaten. Death follows wild animals at every step.

Captive animals can live better lives than wild animals. They can be treated well. That's my premise.

You can have the position that either such life is just meaningless suffering and that its non-existence is better than its existence.

Re: A rise in vegetarian options leads customers to embrace meat-free meals

#254

Post by gridlockd » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

hombre_fatal wrote: post #122

gridlockd wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not like the fact that cow, chicken, pig, dog, have to die for my tastebuds to feel nice. Not only do they have to die, they also have to live . If everyone went vegan, those animals would never have existed. If the standards of living for the average farm animal were really good, would that be worse than them having never existed?

Could ask the same about humans. Do you really think it's better to give a kid a good life and then off them at age 10 because something else thinks they taste good? Seems like a pretty simple ethical question: no. You could extend this anywhere. Pussy feels great. Rape doesn't kill anyone. We could keep some women around and give them great lives as sex slaves. Surely nonexistance is be worse than that! I could even…

> Do you really think it's better to give a kid a good life and then off them at age 10 because something else thinks they taste good? Seems like a pretty simple ethical question: no.

A more appropriate question would be, would you rather live a life in the wild and die from starvation, from a simple infection, or from being mauled to death? Or, would you rather have full accommodation for your entire life, but you get killed at age 35? Or, would you rather not exist at all?

I don't think that question is as simple as you make it sound.

> We could keep some women around and give them great lives as sex slaves.

"Great lives as sex slaves" sounds a bit oxymoronic, doesn't it?

> I could even give my harem a much better life than any animal can experience.

If you can afford it, you can have a harem right now without enslaving anybody, because some women would rather be a prostitute than whatever the alternative is.

Re: A rise in vegetarian options leads customers to embrace meat-free meals

#255

Post by ethbro » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 10:11 PM UTC

sudosteph wrote: post #235

ethbro wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will say, as someone who's live in both southern and northern US states... - Northern "American" food traditions tend to completely lack seasoning of any sort (note: not including appropriated ethnic traditions here) - Southern "American" food traditions tend to heavily season vegetables (often with ham) Essentially, if you just took raw vegetables and steamed them, nobody would bat an eye in New England. In the So…

I can't confirm if northerners actually eat unseasoned steamed veggies (surely they at least add salt and pepper?) But I can can confirm that would be considered basically inedible in the south. For example, the most common broccoli dish is typically a broccoli casserole loaded up with cheese, bread crumbs, and various seasonings, and butter and/or cream as well.

Also the most common squash dish! And green bean! And sweet potato (with more sugar)!

Re: A rise in vegetarian options leads customers to embrace meat-free meals

#256

Post by gridlockd » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 10:23 PM UTC

superpermutat0r wrote: post #132

gridlockd wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not like the fact that cow, chicken, pig, dog, have to die for my tastebuds to feel nice. Not only do they have to die, they also have to live . If everyone went vegan, those animals would never have existed. If the standards of living for the average farm animal were really good, would that be worse than them having never existed?

The only meat I'd eat is from an animal, living in excellent conditions, dying of old age. If the species was ever bred, it must have been bred exclusively for health and fitness, not for higher yield of flesh or milk. If it was not bred, the reproduction should have no human intervention. Everything else life related should not have human intervention, if it does not improve upon the quality of life. Although, this…

> Although, this view is pretty idyllic and probably unattainable or not profitable.

It's on the extreme end, but there is a spectrum of how we allow animals to be raised. At the one end, even those with the lowest incomes can afford meat, but conditions are bad. At the other end, only the wealthy can afford meat, but conditions can be good. That's the trade-off.

Profit is just markup, it can be made either way.

Re: A rise in vegetarian options leads customers to embrace meat-free meals

#257

Post by athriren » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 12:57 AM UTC

gridlockd wrote: post #253

athriren wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't answer for everyone, but in the interest of continuing conversation my answer to your question in the last sentence would yes. It would be better for an animal to have never existed than to have its entire existence be measured by the utility of killing it and butchering it for people to eat.

All life leads to death, in nature or captivity. Pretty much any animal will be eaten upon death, by predators, scavengers, or microbes. Sometimes it will be killed to be eaten. Death follows wild animals at every step. Captive animals can live better lives than wild animals. They can be treated well. That's my premise. You can have the position that either such life is just meaningless suffering and that its non-exi…

But the purpose of a wild animal is not to be killed and eaten. I’m not convinced you could accurately describe in words what the purpose of a wild animal is. However, it is easy to describe what the purpose of beef cattle. It is to be killed and be eaten by the same animal who has bred them to have high muscle content and caged them.

“Captive” animals is entirely too broad a class. Pets have great lives much of the time. I am talking about animals bred and raised for human consumption only, and I do believe those lives are meaningless suffering based on the goal of that life. Extending the argument, if a person were birthed solely to be an organ farm for a wealthy individual, that would also be meaningless suffering even if they were treated “well” for most of their life.

Just my opinion. Thanks for discussing!

Re: A rise in vegetarian options leads customers to embrace meat-free meals

#258

Post by jccooper » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 3:51 AM UTC

jfengel wrote: post #151

jccooper wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cauliflower costs substantially more than flour, if I were to guess. The plant based patties are highly processed and much lower volume. Why would you expect these things to cost the same?

Possibly because ingredient costs are only a small part of a restaurant's expenses. Staff, rent, utilities, cleaning, etc. make up such a huge part that the food prices can be set primarily in terms of demand. The price of inputs sets a floor on what they can charge, but even if a veggie patty cost twice as much as a beef patty, that would be $.30 rather than $.15. That doesn't justify a cost difference of $4 versus…

Doubtless there's some pricing power coming into play. An "alternative" is always going to be pricier, else it wouldn't be an alternative, it would just be the thing.

But: food costs are something like 25% of a restaurant's costs. Even if the parent is talking exclusively about restaurants, it seems quite reasonable if something like a cauliflower crust is >4x as expensive as something dirt cheap like a flour dough.

Re: A rise in vegetarian options leads customers to embrace meat-free meals

#259

Post by KitDuncan » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 5:43 AM UTC

distant_hat wrote: post #243

nefitty wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not necessarily the lack of interest, but instead the absolute choice to not consider it at all. In terms of biology plenty of humans thrive on vegan and vegetarian diets.

I know plenty of vegetarians and a few vegans. While vegetarians do relative okay especially if they eat eggs, the vegans are forever talking about supplements and are fatigued and look like 60 by the time they are in their 40s.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Those are anecdotes and it sounds like you're biased.

There are plenty of athletes on a vegan diet. Sure we take B12, but plenty of omnivores are deficient as well. The only reason you get more of that is because it's supplemented to livestock.

My blood tests came back absolutely stellar and I eat whatever I want most days. When it comes to sports, I can easily compete with my omnivore friends.

Re: A rise in vegetarian options leads customers to embrace meat-free meals

#260

Post by KitDuncan » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 5:49 AM UTC

loceng wrote: post #69

reportgunner wrote: post #62

This research is pretty laughable. Made by one university, 3 locations - ages/demographics are not represented properly at all, the cultural environment is the same (one university). The ratio of veg doubled (0.25 to 0.5) while the ratio of meat fell 33 % (0.75 to 0.5). Also it doesnt at all mention the in volume of the eaters: What if the people who predominantly eat meat simply stopped going to the cafeterias as of…

Most food related research is this terribly done - and of course the research that supports strong ideologies with a growing follower base reach the top.

The livestock industry invests billions of dollars into heavily biased studies and lately I feel like you hear a lot more about health benefits of Keto than Veganism...

I think in general there is a lot less profit to be made with Veganism, it would surprise me if there was a stronger propaganda campaign then the one from the livestock industry.