= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on Open thread, Nov. 10 - Nov. 16, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (194)
Why choose one? If you aren't sure which is worse, maybe you should assume that they are about equal. Then you should reduce total consumption. Is eliminating one option going to help you do that? Or will the other grow to fill the void?
It's easier to follow a hard-and-fast rule than it is to promise yourself you'll do less of something.
Yes, but it's just a commitment to an instrumental goal. To repeat myself: will it actually change, or will the one fill the void of the other? If you go to a wedding where you are offered a choice between fish and beef, the right ban does force the choice of fish, but most menus are longer than that; in particular, cooking at home offers the longest menu.
My goal is to get to neither. My partner is willing to eliminate one and I think that showing that we can substitute veggies for one form of meat will make an emotionally stronger case later that we can make the same substitution for a different meat.
If you think it is going to be a temporary phase, then it is even less important which one you choose.
But, again, flesh and fowl are fungible. Will eliminating one actually reduce your consumption? Perhaps setting a quota for how much meat to buy on weekly grocery store trips, or going by days of the week (the most popular method in the world!) would be more effective.
The current plan is to eliminate meat from lunch and substitute veggie soups and some other kind of sandwhiches (we have a panini grill and I know a few good vegetarian options). Also, we're going to swap in a veggie pizza once per week as well. It may be a temporary phase, but that is not the goal for either of us.
If your goal is for this to be a temporary step, pick whichever one will make a stronger argument. I.e. if one has much better substitutes available, get rid of it now.
I thought the same. From the way the choice is framed, animal suffering is not a factor to consider. It should be, but if you really were considering it, you'd give up both.
Animal suffering and environmental impact are the primary factors for me but I'm weakly motivated and don't think I'll be able to change my habits without my partner changing her eating habits as well (she prepares most of our meals because she likes cooking and I do not). Animal suffering is not important to her and she's had some health problems on a vegetarian diet before so she's only willing to cut one form of meat and see how that goes before cutting further. I'd like to cut the one that generates the most problems and replace it with vegetable products first and establish a new, better equilibrium first. I do think that I'll be better at planning vegetarian replacements than she was, so I'm optimistic that eventually we'll get to pescitarian at least, but I wanted to get input on how to think about the first step.