Things are getting better!

[El_Machinae]

Well, as you said:

The boycott doesn't matter. But what you DO buy really does matter (obviously, in it's own tiny way). It's not a Koan, it's a description on how the economy works. No real trendlines are created by boycotts. But trendlines certainly can be started by early adopters of a new technology or services.

 

[Ryika]

The fact that it's only such a small thing per person is the main reason nothing changes in terms of consumer behavior. It's simply a flaw in human reasoning. "Because I don't have any real influence in the great picture, I don't have to take any responsibility, after all, everybody else doesn't do it either so nothing's going to change anyway."

Best local example: Plastic bags. Tons of people used them, even when paper bags and cloth bags were available as alternatives. Everybody always talked about how great it would be if we didn't use plastic bags, even as they were carrying three of those bags around. Then in a virtue signaling frenzy, most shops began simply not offering plastic bags anymore, and suddenly people are running around with paper bags and brag about how great it is that we've overcome the usage of plastic bags, and how we're doing a great thing for nature.

Companies of course love to name the "will of the consumer" as the reason to hide from their moral responsibility. That's really the main reason why capitalism only makes sense when combined with social policies and restrictions when there's obvious harmful behavior.

 

[Hygro]

I vote for all the pro environment ballot options but I eat meat and drive for fun. I will run a heater liberally. I bring my own bags to the store when I remember.

 

[Synobun]

I vote for all the pro environment ballot options but I eat meat and drive for fun. I will run a heater liberally. I bring my own bags to the store when I remember.

Fret not, Haygro. It just means you have a perspective on the future that doesn't entail self-flagellation. Many environmentalists push forward the belief that in order to save the world you need to reduce your quality of life.

I'm a bit different on that front. I believe the ideal path of progress should be where we can make the choices we want but our technology prevents it from doing damage. Post-scarcity, in other words.

Why go vegan when you can eat lab-grown meat?

 

[Lexicus]

The similarities between certain tendencies on the left and certain tendencies within Christianity is just something you can't unsee once you see it. For example, I think revolutionary socialism is actually best viewed as a millenarian sect of Protestantism, with "the Revolution" being a substitute for the Second Coming. The 'ethical consumption' crowd, meanwhile, just doesn't want people to imperil their salvation with sin. I agree with @El_Machinae that consumption choices matter but there is a lot of truth to "no ethical consumption under (late) capitalism."

On an unrelated note, it doesn't sit well with me when vegans act like you're a horrible person for eating animal products but don't care if their fruits and vegetables are picked by slave labor.

 

[Ryika]

Why go vegan when you can eat lab-grown meat?

Because it's gross!

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm a bit different on that front. I believe the ideal path of progress should be where we can make the choices we want but our technology prevents it from doing damage. Post-scarcity, in other words.

the question becomes, what choice do we make at the individual level in order to get from A to B in the most efficient route?

I need to forego certain consumption in order to afford my retirement. Foregoing certain consumption in order to speed the arrival of other goals, is along the same vibe. None of my analysis involves self-flagellation, it all involves getting to the world that I want to live in. In economic terms we call this the discount that we on future consumption. Most analyses I've seen indicate that the vast majority of people do not match their stated goals with their implicit Behavior

 

[Lexicus]

the question becomes, what choice do we make at the individual level in order to get from A to B in the most efficient route?

I need to forego certain consumption in order to afford my retirement. Foregoing certain consumption in order to speed the arrival of other goals, is along the same vibe. None of my analysis involves self-flagellation, it all involves getting to the world that I want to live in. In economic terms we call this the discount that we on future consumption. Most analyses I've seen indicate that the vast majority of people do not match their stated goals with their implicit Behavior

It's become something of a running joke among my generation that older folks like to blame millennial consumption choices for our generally bad financial situation. A funny meme I saw about it once went something like "did you know that if you give up everything that makes life worth living for three years you can have a savings account with $600?"

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2...coon-hammers-millennials-over-spending-habits

This is the prime example. The avocado toast thing very quickly became a meme

 

[Synobun]

Because it's gross!

Right now it definitely is. I had the fortune (or misfortune, I guess) of trying one through New Harvest a while ago. It was not good.

That being said, the estimates for a usable consumer product have been getting more and more accessible. When this first started picking up steam 8~ years ago there were estimates that it would take until at least 2050 before a comparable meat cut could be grown. There's a cut available today for the uber-rich that is getting there already, and now estimates are more around 2025 for something that an average consumer might buy at the store.

It helps that they're moving from bovine research and heading into poultry now. Research is picking up and finding a usable model will be easier with more varied efforts.

Once the technology is refined enough, I'm confident that they will be able to manufacture meat that is essentially indistinguishable from the real thing.

the question becomes, what choice do we make at the individual level in order to get from A to B in the most efficient route?

I need to forego certain consumption in order to afford my retirement. Foregoing certain consumption in order to speed the arrival of other goals, is along the same vibe. None of my analysis involves self-flagellation, it all involves getting to the world that I want to live in. In economic terms we call this the discount that we on future consumption. Most analyses I've seen indicate that the vast majority of people do not match their stated goals with their implicit Behavior

Oh, I wasn't referring to you. You're generally pretty solid in making cost-benefit analyses when it comes to QoL vs. Progress.

You're right that people don't put their money where their mouth is, although I'm not sure if I'd really blame them for it. There's a bottomless pit of choices when it comes to research efforts you can donate towards. Dozens within a niche, each with varying returns and focuses. It's exceptionally difficult for an average person to fund an effort they feel strongly about and also feel like they made the right choice. Too many decisions and not enough intimate knowledge makes for a shotgun approach for those who make the effort. It's why it's so much easier to donate towards a known variable, like someone in the community or a hugely politicized fundraiser (ALS Ice Bucket Challenge).

I personally hold out hope that some day a government will set up an opt-in (or out, maybe) program that adds a tax to your income and lets you select a category of QoL research to invest it towards. The government, as much as some people may hate them for inefficiency and corruption, is generally far more effective at allocating and determining resources in projects like that. Far more than any individual non-profit could ever be. I think "putting your money where your mouth is" would become much easier if the actual legwork gets taken out of the equation for the person contributing towards the effort.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

On an unrelated note, it doesn't sit well with me when vegans act like you're a horrible person for eating animal products but don't care if their fruits and vegetables are picked by slave labor.

My housekeeping helper was over yesterday. She's recently become vegan and lectures me on the contents of my fridge and how various animals are treated.

She didn't like it when I pointed out that unless a vegan is eating something totally removed from animal involvement of any kind, it's hypocrisy to lecture non-vegans. After all, if you're eating a food that grows because a bee pollinated it, you're taking advantage of the labor of bees. When you cut down a stand of trees to expand farmland, you're destroying animals' habitat, not to mention all the burrowing animals that get ground up. But I guess vegans' morals don't include moles and earthworms.

So as far as I'm concerned, she can eat what she wants to, and I'll eat what I want to. I've told her to cut out the lectures, because I know that in a perfect world no animal would ever need to suffer. But I also know what I need to keep myself healthy, and nuts are not part of what keeps me healthy. A lot of vegans get so caught up in their lecturing, they forget that some people have allergies or other reasons why they can't consume certain kinds of foods.

 

[Lexicus]

Once the technology is refined enough, I'm confident that they will be able to manufacture meat that is essentially indistinguishable from the real thing.

I think we can already grow some human tissues for medical purposes, no? Or am I wrong about that?

Oh, I wasn't referring to you. You're generally pretty solid in making cost-benefit analyses when it comes to QoL vs. Progress.

Framing it this way actually reminds me a lot of Karl Polanyi's framing of the question of the Industrial Revolution and onset of the factory system as one of "habitation vs improvement." It does no one any good to destroy the present ability of the land to sustain the population in the name of future economic growth.

A lot of vegans get so caught up in their lecturing, they forget that some people have allergies or other reasons why they can't consume certain kinds of foods.

That's very true. In the left-wing circles I run with the idea that a lot of vegans care more about fuzzy animals than human beings of color has become a meme, and it is constantly validated by stuff vegans post on social media like comparing factory farming to slavery. I understand that such comparisons are valid in a sense but the optics of making them is just terrible and not calculated to get people on your side.

 

[Synobun]

I think we can already grow some human tissues for medical purposes, no? Or am I wrong about that?

Yes, although in a limited capacity. The war on stem cell research did a real number on progress on that front. Now that it's become somewhat acceptable, you'll probably see more and more breakthroughs on that front in the next 20 years. Assuming the US and China don't give in to religious moralizing again. A lot of the top scientists are from other countries but the money is in the US and China. More specifically, California is blowing everyone else out of the water when it comes to funding research. They made a serious effort at independently funding research because of the Bush restrictions which have yet to be genuinely lifted.

A lot of vegans get so caught up in their lecturing, they forget that some people have allergies or other reasons why they can't consume certain kinds of foods.

That's very true (hi Lexicus!).

For myself, I have the least amount of gastrointestinal problems with certain prepared meats compared to other protein sources. A vegan diet would ruin me in all likelihood.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I understand that such comparisons are valid in a sense but the optics of making them is just terrible and not calculated to get people on your side.

"Future generations may look back on meat consumption with the same moral certainty with which we view slavery," maybe. But, of course, there's never room for nuance in sloganeering.

 

[Lexicus]

(hi Lexicus!).

Eh? Was I lecturing someone on their food consumption choices without realizing they had an allergy?

"Future generations may look back on meat consumption with the same moral certainty with which we view slavery," maybe. But, of course, there's never room for nuance in sloganeering.

Yes, this is a good point. I was thinking more about the gratuitous cruelty of the factory farm system, the purpose of which is to squeeze as much profit out of the process as possible. The slave South treated people just the same way. But people have greater ethical weight than animals, and there's really just no getting around that.

 

[Synobun]

Eh? Was I lecturing someone on their food consumption choices without realizing they had an allergy?

No, we said the same thing.

 

[Lexicus]

No, we said the same thing.

Okay, good. Sometimes I'm stupid like that.

 

[Traitorfish]

The similarities between certain tendencies on the left and certain tendencies within Christianity is just something you can't unsee once you see it. For example, I think revolutionary socialism is actually best viewed as a millenarian sect of Protestantism, with "the Revolution" being a substitute for the Second Coming.

Ah, that explains the success of revolutionary movements in Protestant strongholds like Russia, Cuba and China.

 

[stinkubus]

All have had revolutions within the past 100 years or so. How often do you expect them to happen?

 

[Lexicus]

Ah, that explains the success of revolutionary movements in Protestant strongholds like Russia, Cuba and China.

By this logic, Protestantism itself could never have 'succeeded' in the Catholic Europe of 1517.

 

[Narz]

Fret not, Haygro. It just means you have a perspective on the future that doesn't entail self-flagellation. Many environmentalists push forward the belief that in order to save the world you need to reduce your quality of life.

I'm a bit different on that front. I believe the ideal path of progress should be where we can make the choices we want but our technology prevents it from doing damage. Post-scarcity, in other words.

Why go vegan when you can eat lab-grown meat?

Post-scarcity is only a fantasy.

Im not judging you or Hygro, I'm a mostly half-ass environmentalist myself but don't delude yourself that technology is gonna save our asses. There is no trend in that direction. Most new efficiencies and technologies creates more waste not less. Kind of how labor-saving devices make life more harried.

Because it's gross!

Where did you try it?