Veganism is not really a technology issue, it is a philosophy of minimising suffering.
Veganism does not rely on trapping carnists, it relies on convincing carnists.
Burger patty taste does not excuse genetically modifying and killing a sentient being. If vegan burger patties taste 70-90% as good as carnists burger patties, that’s more than enough to live with.
Of course, improving taste can be good, but veganism is not a substitute.
Refusing veganism because vegan burger patties do not taste good enough is cognitive dissonance, burger patty taste is not an argument for carnism.
They’re trying to expose you as a hypocrite for wanting things for yourself that you don’t care about others having.
That said, not valuing rights seems a bit inconsistent with Marxism. IIRC it was the socialist states that insisted that the UN Declaration of Human Rights include such things as “education” and “housing” as basic human rights. Of course, every despotic regime in the world has signed up to that, so perhaps they were just being dishonest.
That’s all fine and I basically agree. But I think you need to be aware that you’re essentially talking to yourself. In your view, taste comes second or third among your priorities. Again, I somewhat agree. But this is just not the way most people see things. If we want to convince them, we have to acknowledge that fact. And you say explicitly that you do want to convince them.
I want to convince them and not trick them into a situation.
Yeah, vegan patties are tasty, if have no choice but to live vegan now is not how any of this works. This might be a joke colleagues or friends tell each other, but the argument and emotional belief system of its speaker is incomplete for veganism.
Veganism is one of the most binary philosophies - there are no consistent half-vegans.
“Veganism = Religion” is a thought-terminating cliché, a knockout argument.
There are no unfalsifiable entities (i.e. gods, prophets) in the vegan philosophy.
Veganism is not a diet, it is an ethical philosophy and way of life.
I’m not against vegan burger patties, their development and further market penetration. The absence of vegan burger patties on the other hand would not end veganism or rob it of any argumentative strength.
Again: I don’t question the arguments in favor of veganism, I agree with them (I have better things to do than come here to piss off vegans). I don’t question your right to treat your diet as an “ethical philosophy and way of life”, i.e. something very close to a religion (it sounds like Buddhism).
I’m saying: what is the best way to get the most people - including techbros and everyone else - to eat as little meat as possible? If you care about ending animal suffering and saving the environment as much as you seem to do, then you should be interested in the answer to that question. It sounds to me like you’re more interested in just holding the moral high ground personally. Would be delighted to be wrong.
What is the best way to get the most people - including techbros and everyone else - to eat as little meat as possible?
My opposition to techbros in the vegan context stems from the argument that posits tasty vegan burger patties specifically or “artificial meat” generally as some sort of prerequisite for personally adopting veganism.
Once artificial meat is ready, I’m going vegan. - This is a moving-goalposts argumentative fallacy.
My opinion is that the best way to get a maximum of people to eat less meat is to convince them of/for veganism, because once a critical share of a society actually holds a opinion, society-wide change canwill happen more rapidly and somewhat spontaneously. Society-wide change can then render carnist behaviour (i.e. animal product production chain, hunting etc.) impossible, undesired, deviant or illegal.
This social tipping point isn’t possible IMO, when the people behaving plant-based are not actually vegan (i.e. convinced by the vegan philosophy).
And also hopelessly idealistic, I would say. There will never be more than a small minority of people prepared to change something as crucial to their self-image and group identity as food for the sake of ethical considerations alone. The evidence to the contrary is just not there. People don’t care, or don’t care enough. Even educated people in rich places, let alone the up-and-coming masses in the wider world.
IMO there are precisely three things that might precipitate change: taste, cost, and (distant third) healthiness. I.e., the only things the vast majority of people care about when in the supermarket. Hence the promise of fake meat. It may never be tastier or healthier but if one day it is literally, say, 30% cheaper then we might have a game-changer. At which point, lots of animals will be spared suffering and the environment can take a breather. Although personally I have a terrible suspicion that even this won’t be enough and that lab meat will be only thing to pass muster.
Your approach of fostering a nebulous social movement that will spontaneously sweep all before it, well, again, I would love to be wrong but the evidence is pretty clear that it’s not coming and won’t come. And in the meantime, the animal suffering and environmental destruction does not relent.
Veganism is not really a technology issue, it is a philosophy of minimising suffering.
Veganism does not rely on trapping carnists, it relies on convincing carnists.
Burger patty taste does not excuse genetically modifying and killing a sentient being. If vegan burger patties taste 70-90% as good as carnists burger patties, that’s more than enough to live with.
Of course, improving taste can be good, but veganism is not a substitute.
Refusing veganism because vegan burger patties do not taste good enough is cognitive dissonance,
burger pattytaste is not an argument for carnism.Removed by mod
I bet those cows wanted some parts of Maslow’s needs as well.
Why is your self-actualisation more important than a cow’s existence?
Taste is not argument for carnism because it isn’t just to compare taste to right to exist.
Removed by mod
So? Humans have the ability intentionally NOT to kill animals for consumption and the ability to make up rights.
The externality vs internality of rights discourse doesn’t externalise your personhood with rights.
Removed by mod
Is this SovCit meeting Stirner? Do I have to say the word?
Following questions:
Do you see yourself as human?
Do you value your life and body integrity? Do you value life and body integrity of other beings, like friends?
Do you avoid experiencing violence?
Removed by mod
They’re trying to expose you as a hypocrite for wanting things for yourself that you don’t care about others having.
That said, not valuing rights seems a bit inconsistent with Marxism. IIRC it was the socialist states that insisted that the UN Declaration of Human Rights include such things as “education” and “housing” as basic human rights. Of course, every despotic regime in the world has signed up to that, so perhaps they were just being dishonest.
Removed by mod
That’s all fine and I basically agree. But I think you need to be aware that you’re essentially talking to yourself. In your view, taste comes second or third among your priorities. Again, I somewhat agree. But this is just not the way most people see things. If we want to convince them, we have to acknowledge that fact. And you say explicitly that you do want to convince them.
I want to convince them and not trick them into a situation.
Yeah, vegan patties are tasty, if have no choice but to live vegan now is not how any of this works. This might be a joke colleagues or friends tell each other, but the argument and emotional belief system of its speaker is incomplete for veganism.
Veganism is one of the most binary philosophies - there are no consistent half-vegans.
This sounds like a prescription for a religion more than a diet.
Being religious is fine. The problem is that this approach is clearly not going to be effective at getting people to eat less meat.
“Veganism = Religion” is a thought-terminating cliché, a knockout argument.
There are no unfalsifiable entities (i.e. gods, prophets) in the vegan philosophy.
Veganism is not a diet, it is an ethical philosophy and way of life.
I’m not against vegan burger patties, their development and further market penetration. The absence of vegan burger patties on the other hand would not end veganism or rob it of any argumentative strength.
Again: I don’t question the arguments in favor of veganism, I agree with them (I have better things to do than come here to piss off vegans). I don’t question your right to treat your diet as an “ethical philosophy and way of life”, i.e. something very close to a religion (it sounds like Buddhism).
I’m saying: what is the best way to get the most people - including techbros and everyone else - to eat as little meat as possible? If you care about ending animal suffering and saving the environment as much as you seem to do, then you should be interested in the answer to that question. It sounds to me like you’re more interested in just holding the moral high ground personally. Would be delighted to be wrong.
My opposition to techbros in the vegan context stems from the argument that posits tasty vegan burger patties specifically or “artificial meat” generally as some sort of prerequisite for personally adopting veganism.
Once artificial meat is ready, I’m going vegan. - This is a moving-goalposts argumentative fallacy.
My opinion is that the best way to get a maximum of people to eat less meat is to convince them of/for veganism, because once a critical share of a society actually holds a opinion, society-wide change can
willhappen more rapidly and somewhat spontaneously. Society-wide change can then render carnist behaviour (i.e. animal product production chain, hunting etc.) impossible, undesired, deviant or illegal.This social tipping point isn’t possible IMO, when the people behaving plant-based are not actually vegan (i.e. convinced by the vegan philosophy).
A coherent and well-articulated philosophy.
And also hopelessly idealistic, I would say. There will never be more than a small minority of people prepared to change something as crucial to their self-image and group identity as food for the sake of ethical considerations alone. The evidence to the contrary is just not there. People don’t care, or don’t care enough. Even educated people in rich places, let alone the up-and-coming masses in the wider world.
IMO there are precisely three things that might precipitate change: taste, cost, and (distant third) healthiness. I.e., the only things the vast majority of people care about when in the supermarket. Hence the promise of fake meat. It may never be tastier or healthier but if one day it is literally, say, 30% cheaper then we might have a game-changer. At which point, lots of animals will be spared suffering and the environment can take a breather. Although personally I have a terrible suspicion that even this won’t be enough and that lab meat will be only thing to pass muster.
Your approach of fostering a nebulous social movement that will spontaneously sweep all before it, well, again, I would love to be wrong but the evidence is pretty clear that it’s not coming and won’t come. And in the meantime, the animal suffering and environmental destruction does not relent.