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

On ‘Plant-Based’

aliciakennedy.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 210 posts

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#141

Post by layer8 »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #130
mytailorisrich wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veganism is an extreme and therefore it tends to attract people who are seeking extremes. This brings a rather negative image because there's always a part of intolerance and/or unreasonableness in extremes. I think most people will think that, for instance, not eating honey or eggs is too extreme.

Veganism = reduce animal suffering as much as possible. Why do you think it's extreme not wanting to cause animal death and suffering? On the other hand you could also argue that veganism attracts people who want to move away from the extremes of the animal and dairy industry, which contributes massively to our carbon footprint and biosphere destruction on top of causing unnecessary animal suffering.

I guess it gets perceived as extreme-ish when it becomes an ideology constantly imposed in a combative fashion onto others.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#142

Post by chc »

solardev wrote: post #64
derbOac wrote: post #6

I've tended to see the term "plant-based" as synonymous with "vegan and/or vegetarian", used when there's variability or uncertainty about which of those more specific terms would apply. "Meatless" would also suffice but I think "plant-based" is used to emphasize what is present rather than absent. But I think the essay is right the term has become vaguer than that even, and my own understanding of it doesn't quite m…

It's totally a marketing gimmick. Some of the "plant-based" brands mixed real meat in with the plant stuff: https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2019/06/13/Tyson-u... The marketers like "plant-based" because it's both in vogue and definitionally meaningless, much less precise than "vegan" (which itself is already imprecise, i.e., whether to include bugs killed in agriculture, or sugar processed with animal bypro…

None of the examples in that article appear to use the term "plant-based" on their products, so it seems even those brands were respectful on the term. If anything, that seems like it makes the opposite case of "plant-based is definitionally meaningless."

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#143

Post by mytailorisrich »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #130
mytailorisrich wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veganism is an extreme and therefore it tends to attract people who are seeking extremes. This brings a rather negative image because there's always a part of intolerance and/or unreasonableness in extremes. I think most people will think that, for instance, not eating honey or eggs is too extreme.

Veganism = reduce animal suffering as much as possible. Why do you think it's extreme not wanting to cause animal death and suffering? On the other hand you could also argue that veganism attracts people who want to move away from the extremes of the animal and dairy industry, which contributes massively to our carbon footprint and biosphere destruction on top of causing unnecessary animal suffering.

> Why do you think it's extreme not wanting to cause animal death and suffering?

That's a (lazy) strawman [edit: because it that has nothing to do with what I wrote and unfortunately also seems to be a common Pavlovian response to any criticism].

If you want to make a constructive reply I will gladly engage with it.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#144

Post by xenonite »

tengbretson wrote: post #77

I typically interpret the term "plant-based" in a similar way to when I see that something is "based on a true story."

`Plant' can also mean `factory', which makes the term luckily more factual given the highly manufactured origin of `plant-based' material.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#145

Post by tomtheelder »

sudden_dystopia wrote: post #135
tshaddox wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote you used says “food based on plants was the default.” Seems pretty deliberately worded to not claim that most humans never ate meat.

That’s not true either. It was only plant based when they couldn’t obtain meat. Supplementing plant foods was the default when there was no prey available is more accurate.

Do you have a source on that? I don't think that's an accurate statement, or at least not one you can claim with confidence.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#146

Post by inkcapmushroom »

sudden_dystopia wrote: post #131
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are heaps of people who thrive strictly on plants who aren’t bloated or struggling to digest their food or get calories in.

Maybe so, but protein is a different story. How many professional athletes are true vegans for extended periods outside of Tom Brady, who is kind of psycho to begin with.

[dead]

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#147

Post by layer8 »

sheusndudn wrote: post #84
mytailorisrich wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veganism is an extreme and therefore it tends to attract people who are seeking extremes. This brings a rather negative image because there's always a part of intolerance and/or unreasonableness in extremes. I think most people will think that, for instance, not eating honey or eggs is too extreme.

Honey and eggs are not comparable. Maybe honey is extreme, but watch a youtube video of them shredding male live chicks that won't lay eggs so aren't useful is the closest thing to hell i've ever seen.

You now can buy eggs from producers that don’t do that (at least in Europe).

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#148

Post by scatters »

vel0city wrote: post #71
captainmuon wrote: post #20

One reason I dislike "plant-based" that's not in the article: it singles out plant-based food. But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Food should have labels when it includes stuff other than plants (or other than what we humans evolved to eat typically). The other thing I don't like is that "plant-based" always sounds like marketing. Especially here in Ger…

> But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Right, and all those cave paintings depicting hunting scenes were entirely for sport. There are no instances in the wild of any species similar to humans eating meat I guess. Ancient writings where they reference meats, they were really talking about Beyond Meat. We've evolved to eat plants, yes. We've also evolved t…

Not sport in the sense of exercise purely for the sake of burning calories, but sport in the sense of fitness display for status, bonding through teamwork and practice for warfare, definitely. The amount of calories and protein that can be achieved from hunting large game is just far too low compared to the same amount of effort and risk expended on trapping, fishing and gathering.

Of course humans were eating meat in prehistory, and more than once agriculture began. But we make art of the ideal and aspirational more than of the everyday.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#149

Post by drewg123 »

californical wrote: post #116
drewg123 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not buying it because of the case where they're scared to label something which is vegan as such, then you're part of the problem and you're hurting veganism. What matters is reducing climate impact, reducing animal cruelty, and the health benefits. What doesn't matter is your feelings about labels. By boycotting such products, you're reducing their market, potentially causing them to drop their plant based…

Why would they be scared to label it if it’s actually vegan? I can understand someone who feels morally about something not wanting to take a chance on something that the producer isn’t willing to back with a proper label

I think its as the GP says "vegan is a dirty word for some people". Between a lot of vegans being meme-level obnoxious about their veganism, and early plant based products being horribly bad (Boca burger, I'm looking at you), veganism has tended to get a bad name.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#150

Post by tomtheelder »

nradov wrote: post #120
captainmuon wrote: post #20

One reason I dislike "plant-based" that's not in the article: it singles out plant-based food. But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Food should have labels when it includes stuff other than plants (or other than what we humans evolved to eat typically). The other thing I don't like is that "plant-based" always sounds like marketing. Especially here in Ger…

For much of pre-history it seems our diet may have been largely carnivorous. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24247

Did you read this? It's like a carnivore fan-fic, it's absolutely hilarious. I've almost never read a clearer example of starting with a conclusion and trying to bend the evidence to fit it.
Post reply on HN