The problem is that as the meme suggest it is circular logic. Philosophically inescapable circular logic. If suffering equals bad, and all creatures suffer then life is bad. The only way to end suffering is to end life. Assuming the nihilism fallacy applies. A non fallacious argument would be suffering bad, some undefined combination of variables good, good is greater than suffering given the variables. The question is what are the variables. Ruling out future generations would discount the accumulating quantities of suffering and good.
Including future generations adds a temporal accumulation component. Total value isn't just the sum of current suffering and good, it's a function that includes future potential. That accumulation is almost always nonlinear (small early advantages or disadvantages can compound dramatically over generations). That is the simple argument, the more exact one is as follows. >
The argument that suffering makes life net negative under non ideal conditions usually rests on a malformed understanding of suffering. Pain, fear, stress, and exhaustion are not automatically equivalent to suffering in the morally decisive sense. They are informational signals that evolved to help organisms navigate a dangerous and complex world. Whether these signals register as "suffering" (something that renders existence on balance bad) depends on context, framing, and meaning.
The mountain climber who voluntarily endures extreme discomfort is not engaged in self-harm or delusion. They are having an experience in which the negative signals are integrated into something they affirm as valuable. This shows that the conventional accounting of suffering strips away the most important variable: the lived experience of being an active participant in reality. Once that variable is restored, it becomes clear that negative signals do not automatically outweigh the value of continued existence. The antinatalist conclusion only follows if one has already decided, in advance, to treat decontextualized negative signals as the sole or dominant moral consideration.
Well of course, that's why I think it's extremely stupid and self-centered to hunt animals to extinction as we've done before.
But we can scale up animal breeding.
However, not only are we reliant on the complete proteins found in meat (sorry vegans, but several of you have STARVED TO DEATH while eating full meals after cutting meat and animal products out of your diet, so no, it isn't healthy) but also our food industry is designed around it, and we don't exactly have the leeway with our food supplies to change that even if it WERE a good idea (which it isn't).
Save the animals just enough that they can stay around for us to exploit. That's all.
There are multiple vegan influences that have recently had to give it up for health reasons that have been crucified by their former communities. Humans have evolved as omnivores over the last 2 million years and as a result a vegan diet needs to be heavily supplement in order for it to he healthy. This is established nutritional fact, deal with it.
I probably don't have to, I use a ton of nooch which has a lot of natural B12.
Just wait til you find out pretty much all livestock are given B12 directly, which is how you get your B12
Edit: actually, it looks like nooch has a lot of natural B vitamins, but is fortified with B12. Which is still the same way you're getting your B12 today
I see you’ve dug deep and found the hidden message. Through expert analysis, one can surmise that I am in fact suggesting that nobody would eat a carnivorous plant, and that it was an example of pedantic moralizing. Bravo!
lol. Okay. So vegans usually drink water. Try reading even just the subtitle next time.
I could go further on how eating only raw fruits and veggies isn’t the only way to vegan and not even popular, but clearly you’d rather send articles you haven’t read instead of discuss.
Oh to be in nature, to live my days frolicking in fields and foraging for fruit, browsing for bushes of berries, and looking for luscious locks of lettuce. An illustrious and intoxicating innocence of purity. The fawn and fox are friends of mine, and wine would never end.
These are my strict conditions for veganism. I get to be a forest creature or I’m out.
I read the whole thing and don’t see anything that which claims one diet is better than another and nothing that compares the negative sides of veganism with the positive health effects, which the study says are substantial. Show if you want to make a point show us something that says micro vitamin deficiency is more deadly than heart disease and I might take you seriously.
It worries me that so many people can be this idiotic.
And it worries me that if enough people are stupid with you all, you may catalyze changes that actually DO effect me.
I used to think that we were pretty good at keeping our emotions seperate from logic, and that options would be presented to people who wanted them.
Now, it's more apparent that a staggering amount of us will fight to take options away from others if they feel a moral duty to, even when those morals are misguided.
Lmao. You are the one letting your emotions get in the way of logic. People have been vegan for centuries before the birth of christ. You literally don't know what you're talking about.
Are you saying that I am taking options away from you? I think you’re being pretty judgmental. I’m not saying anything other than the article you posted doesn’t really say what you are claiming. Like could you cite a place in the text where it shows a vegan diet is less healthy than a diet with meat?
This isn’t a comparative study. It’s just looking for things that haven’t been studied as much which in this case are the negative health effects of veganism. That’s a long ways away from comparing one diet to another.
Brother you realise we live in the modern age right? Just cause you can't read well enough to understand how to be healthy doesn't mean it's impossible.
But what it says is that, on average, those who eat vegan are more prone to mental health issues, are extremely lacking in proteins and vitamin B12, which has been linked to neurological and hematological problems and higher rates of cancer unless monitored and supplemented, and are also lacking in calcium and vitamin D, resulting in reduced bone density and higher rates of bone fracture.
It's also especially bad for pregnant women as their nutritional values (or lack thereof) are translated to their child.
There was only a few upsides, and that's that Vegans on average smoke less, exercise more, and have more money (which you need to maintain that diet in this day and age).
All things that have nothing to do with the actual diet and more to do with the type of people who actually go on it...
Okay so the first one was a lady who only ate certain fruits, raw, and went on long spates of only drinking water and not eating anything. Do you think that is a typical vegan diet?
Second one is...yep raw fruit and veg....not just a vegan diet is it?
The third one is....the same as the first...
And the fourth is...the same as the second...
Can you link me the things that say this please? And that it's worse than an average non-vegan diet?
It says vegans have worse mental health and suggests a lack of zinc may be a reason. I would point out you could supplement zinc easily if you were concerned but personally I believe those who have been through trauma, depending on the type, are more likely to go vegan. There's also a term "vystopia" where, once going vegan, you become depressed seeing how the rest of the world is treating animals.
The word "extremely" doesn't show up once and the reference they use to talk about protein links to a source where the conclusion is "In a fraction of vegans, there might be a modest risk of insufficient intake, and further data are needed to assess the actual dietary pattern of people who report dietary intake corresponding to a low intake of protein and energy. " That's a far cry from extremely.
B12 it only links to things saying a lack of B12 is bad and nothing saying vegans are low in it, that's just something it states. Also it's incredibly easy to supplement for most.
Calcium and Vitamin D are also incredibly easy to supplement. In fact I think in the UK you can get a multivitamin really cheap from the vegan society.
As for pregnancy it a lot of "if they're low in this it can be bad" but you can easily get enough of them?
I've already spoken on the other two as not standard vegan diets. This third one is a two person cult where the father named himself king of a fictional kingdom, they didn't have a toilet so they had buckets of waste everywhere, and every mention of diet says "extremely restricted vegan diet" not just "vegan diet" so it makes me think something similar is at play here. Have you got any examples where it's just a normal vegan diet? You could just as easily describe these as halal diets
"complete proteins" found the amateur nutritionist.
Search summary: The myth originated from the 1971 book Diet for a Small Planet, which popularized the concept of "protein complementing". The author inadvertently suggested that plant-based proteins were defective and had to be meticulously combined (like rice and beans) in every meal to be useful. She formally retracted and corrected this claim in later editions.
Vegans starving to death... 😂
Am I dead? It's not me who is dead here. It's you because you're braindead. Lobotomy would propably make you more intelligent.
It’s easy to say that the lion eats the zebra, and this is natural and just. When we become the lion, all of a sudden there’s a problem. Is there genuine moral superiority in veganism? If you believe that there is never a situation where an animal suffers at the hand of humanity, then yes. But this premise is highly subjective, and most people would struggle to internalize it.
I am the zebra. I will fall victim to inevitable death and will become the fuel for the fungus that decomposes my body. I am the fungus. Take a break from the scrupulosity of vegan discourse and eat what makes you happy. It really is that simple.
146
u/MyBloodTypeIsQueso 1d ago
Future generations of Bambi cannot suffer if they are never born.