I’m willing to sacrifice some karma on this. What a trash article that selectively picks information (some of it not really true and some of it easily overcome in today’s world). Whatever diet you follow, if you don’t care about what you eat or don’t eat and in which combinations, your health will not be what could be expected for a person of the same profile who cares about what they eat. Processed (also called “jun…
By eating food that is more unhealthy for you in order to save the planet, it means that you have valued the planet's health above your own. I find this to be irrational. I am all for finding the cleanest, most environmentally friendly way of feeding humans. But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it.
I find it more irrational to believe that one can be healthy in an unhealthy environment.
> I am all for finding the cleanest, most environmentally friendly way of feeding humans. But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it.
The article is about flimsy speculation on one extreme situation (vegan junk food vs. regular junk food). Nutrition science offers us precious little certainties, one of the few being that processed food is less healthy than food cooked by humans with a few simple ingredients. An healthy and balanced vegan diet would be fantastically more healthy than the choices of at least 90% of americans.
Can you create some optimally-healthy diet for a small group of priviliged people at the expense of fucking the environment and resources for everyone else? Probably. Should you? I guess it depends on how you see your relation with the rest of humanity.
In any case, this is all theoretical. I bet most people gasping about this are going to down some pizza & beer within the next 24 hours.