Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: vollmer 22 November 2014 07:33:16PM *  0 points [-]

For me, this is not working for some of the posts,

e.g. http://lesswrong.com/lw/kd/pascals_mugging_tiny_probabilities_of_vast/?sort=top

Comment author: vollmer 19 October 2014 06:22:56PM 9 points [-]

I'd appreciate greatly if I could fill in the second part of the form at a later date, maybe ~3 months prior to the weekend.

Comment author: blob 25 January 2014 03:55:02PM 2 points [-]

Good point, done!

Comment author: vollmer 05 February 2014 10:27:10AM 1 point [-]

Great! I'm in for this one.

Comment author: vollmer 10 December 2013 01:20:25AM 9 points [-]

I took the survey, was fun!

Comment author: Decius 04 August 2013 01:17:24AM 0 points [-]

Yeah, I meant e.g. adopting a vegetarian diet for three days a week and an unchanged diet for the other four; it would seem to offer 3/7 of the benefits of being fully vegetarian.

Comment author: vollmer 04 August 2013 12:17:34PM 0 points [-]

Okay, now I see what you meant. I assumed that since you'd optimize for financial benefit you want to start with a reduction of the most expensive meat options and thus get more than 3/7 of the financial benefit when adopting it three days a week.

Comment author: falenas108 02 August 2013 10:18:19PM 1 point [-]

You should read the results of the first study you posted more carefully:

Cohort studies of vegetarians have shown a moderate reduction in mortality from IHD but little difference in other major causes of death or all-cause mortality in comparison with health-conscious non-vegetarians from the same population.

The other links don't contradict this study, and only look at deaths from specific causes, and not general mortality.

Comment author: vollmer 03 August 2013 06:21:37PM *  2 points [-]

You should read the results of the first study you posted more carefully:

Good point, thanks. My statement is not exactly wrong, but I should have written "healthier than average diets".

The other links don't contradict this study and only look at deaths from specific causes, and not general mortality.

That's quite wrong, examples:

Key 1999:

Total mortality and longevity also differed according to vegetarian status in California Seventh-day Adventists. After adjusting for age and sex, Seventh-day Adventist vegetarians had a relative risk for total mortality of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.87) compared with those who ate any meat products. Using a multivariate, multiple-decrement-lifetable approach (19), we showed that vegetarian Seventh-day Adventist women live 2.52 y longer than their nonvegetarian (meat ≥ 1 time/wk) counterparts (P < 0.001), and a similar comparison in men showed a 3.21-y difference in longevity (P < 0.001).

McEvoy 2011 (review):

Overall, vegetarians tend to be slimmer, appear to be in better health, with reduced risk of chronic diseases and greater longevity when compared with omnivores

In that analysis, no significant differences were observed for stroke mortality or overall mortality between vegetarians and non-vegetarians(12).

(...) but no significant differences were observed for overall mortality rates between vegetarians and omnivores in these cohorts. One possible explanation may be that overall mortality was low in the cohort populations compared with the general Western population.

I deliberately only quoted very conservative and reliable sources, and although the effects are not really large, they are statistically significant and positive.

Comment author: Decius 02 August 2013 04:00:10PM 3 points [-]

Is the benefit of not hurting sentient beings at all significantly different from the benefit of not hurting sentient beings as much?

Treat me as though I don't understand the moral value in not hurting animals...

Comment author: vollmer 03 August 2013 05:56:11PM 0 points [-]

If the part-time vegetarian still eats significant amounts of meat and eggs, then yes, there will also be a significant ethical difference.

If you're just interested in cutting down the cost of your diet, you also might switch to different products such as cage eggs. The cheapest production often is also the most cruel. But I assume that's not what you meant (and it's not what I meant either).

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 02 August 2013 10:16:38PM 3 points [-]

I got anecdotal evidence from quite a few people telling me that going and staying veg is actually much easier than they anticipated.

I would expect this, but my point is that if non-vegetarians have inaccurate impressions about how hard it is to go vegetarian then that could be a useful misconception to clear up.

Comment author: vollmer 03 August 2013 05:45:42PM 1 point [-]

Agreed. Do you have an idea how to go about this?

Comment author: Adele_L 02 August 2013 03:48:20AM 3 points [-]

Is this still true after accounting for nutritional and health changes necessary to get a vegetarian diet with the same quality as an omnivorous diet? I could cut out all meat, and just replace it with more of the vegetarian things I typically eat, but I would get less protein, and healthy fats, creatine, etc... which I would have to compensate for.

Comment author: vollmer 02 August 2013 01:25:24PM 2 points [-]

Protein deficiency is very rare even among long-term vegans and it's pretty hard to miss out on essential amino acids. As for "healthy fats, creatine, etc...", those can be easily supplemented, which is particularly important for vegans. Also note that meat eaters usually don't get enough healthy fats either.

Vegetarians have higher life expectancies (1-9 years), as also stated here.

Comment author: Decius 02 August 2013 05:30:12AM 3 points [-]

Can't you get almost all of that cost reduction without becoming fully vegetarian? For that matter, could one get some portion of almost all of the befits of being completely vegetarian by becoming a part-time vegetarian?

Comment author: vollmer 02 August 2013 01:19:36PM *  -1 points [-]

Yes, except the benefit of not hurting sentient beings, I'd say. And probably except the benefit of not being biased towards hurting animals.

View more: Next