conchis comments on Essay-Question Poll: Dietary Choices - Less Wrong

12 Post author: Alicorn 03 May 2009 03:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (234)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: taw 04 May 2009 03:32:50PM 2 points [-]

If patterns of avoidance looked like what reasonable science-based consequentialist GHG/sustainability concerns would look like, I would be fine with it.

But what I found is that universally people who talk about sustainability make decisions that are worse or orthogonal to the issue, like buying expensive, organic, and low yield crops (fancy fruits and vegetables) etc., instead of cheapest, highest yield, and most mainstream crops and meat from grass-fed animals. And they're very rarely genuinely interested in science behind nutrition, agriculture, energy etc.

What all makes me believe that they just pretend to be concerned about GHG and sustainability.

Actually, how about consequentialist vs non-consequentialist as labels? Wouldn't that be even more accurate?

Comment author: conchis 04 May 2009 04:31:41PM *  3 points [-]

But what I found is that universally people who talk about sustainability make decisions that are worse or orthogonal to the issue...

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit. I agree that there's a lot of inconsistent posing that goes on around these issues, and it frustrates the hell out of me too. But claiming it's universal is just inaccurate. (At best it's a sloppy exaggeration.)

  1. There are vegetarians whose primary or only concern is sustainability, and who try to make food choices that reflect this. I know some of them personally.

  2. To infer that anyone who makes decisions that don't exactly mesh with "reasonable science-based consequentialist GHG/sustainability concerns" are "just pretend[ing] to be concerned about GHG and sustainability" is unjustified. As I've noted elsewhere, there are a often tensions between the various rationales for restricted diets. Which means that if you buy into more than one of these rationales, you'll sometimes end up having to make awkward compromises between them. That doesn't mean that you don't really care about any of them; it just means that the world isn't conveniently designed to let you have everything you want.