Veganism

[zlemflolia]

Can you at least agree even for a second than this pointless online confrontation was a result of, on both sides, either selective perception or semantics?

 

I don't think so, in my view you are still factually incorrect so it's not completely a misunderstanding.  I misunderstood the depth of your incorrectness by not being charitable to your supposedly drunken posts (no effect vs. no statistically significant effect) but you still haven't admitted the reality that vegetarians do indeed have a statistically significant effect on global meat consumption and therefore production.  I'm not sure what else is required to convince you apart from the global statistics I provided.

 

I will admit that it's a pretty pointless discussion though.

[Hugh Mughnus]

And 2nded. Absolutely pointless because from what I can see we’ve not disagreed on any of the merits of veganism or vege. Everything else seems to be semantics and superfluous to the main topic which is that not killing animals is good. ‍♂ Have a good night Zeff.

[zlemflolia]

Can you relate to me the definition of statistically significant? In statist terminology.

 

I assume you mean statistical terminology not statist terminology

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

 

It means various things in various scenarios, but the simplest is this scenario.  If you run two parallel experiments with only one variable differing (Our real Earth with n% vegetarians vs. a hypothetical Earth without any vegetarians), each of which have N trials with some numerical result X, then based on the mean, standard deviation, and number of trials ran, you can calculate the probability (p-value) that the modified variable had some effect on the results (modification in meat consumption and production).  The exact formulation depends on the scenario (total population, number of trials, groupings of trials, what relationship between the results you're testing, etc.).  Here are some various scenarios with statistical tests used to calculate the p-values for each

 

 

 

 

The test that would apply here is probably a 2 Sample T-Test for equality of mean (difference equal to 0) meat consumption and production rates in various geographical regions in each of the two hypothetical Earths.  This test would no doubt conclude it's basically certain that the presence of vegetarians at present rates in each geographical region on average decreases meat consumption and production rates by some statistically significant quantity (strong p-value), probably by a rate that's closely linearly correlated to the rate of vegetarianism in the region

 

This is so obvious that I considered it absurd that you would even suggest otherwise, which is what you've been doing and what you still seem to stand by.

[zlemflolia]

Statistically significant implies changing a trend.

 

These are two different quantities we're talking about.  If you want to talk about the statistical significance of the effect of ongoing vegetarian conversions on the trend, this is different from the statistical significance of the effect of existing vegetarians on the consumption and production (I'll shorten "consumption and production" to "consumption" from now on since there is clearly a correlation between the two driven by market forces)

 

There is the current meat consumption quantity, a function of time, C(t).  Then there is C'(t), the derivative of C(t) or in other words the instantaneous change in consumption at time t, or in other words the trend.  This means C'(t) is the change in meat consumption.  Change in the trend then means C''(t) or the second derivative of the quantity at time t.  

 

C(t) = consumption at time t

C'(t) = change in consumption at time t (the trend)

C''(t) = change in the change in consumption at time t (the change in the trend)

 

I've already established in this post [https://forum.watmm.com/topic/96761-veganism/page-10?do=findComment&comment=2707627] that the global vegetarianism rate obviously has a statistically significant effect on absolute meat consumption.  Whether it has a statistically significant positive effect on the trend is another matter entirely.  Note that an effect on the trend does not have to be a reversal of the trend, though a reversal is a strong effect.  Even though the trend is that meat consumption is increasing, this is not a refutation of the claim that vegetarianism has a statistically significant positive effect on the change in this trend.

 

For simplicity assume equal consumption per-person among carnists, then redefine C(t) as the "potential" consumption at time t for a hypothetical 0% rate of vegetarianism.  Split C(t) into the sum of two functions:

c(t) the number of carnists

~c(t) the number of vegetarians

 

C(t) = c(t) + ~c(t)

 

In order for vegetarianism to change the trend, this means it must have a statistically significant effect on C''(t):

C''(t) = c''(t) + ~c''(t)

 

For it to change the trend positively, this means it must be the case that

c''(t) + ~c''(t) > c''(t)

 

Or in other words that

~c''(t) > 0

 

In order for it to positively change the trend, it only needs to be the case that ~c''(t) is positive i.e. the rate of change in the rate of change in the number of vegetarians is positive, i.e. the number of newly converted vegetarians in any finite and relatively short time period (let's say a year) [b, Y] is greater than the number of newly converted in some time period [a, X] such that X <= b.  Is this the case?  In other words, the curve representing the global number of vegetarians at time t in the recent past needs to be "concave up" as in visually moving upwards like this:

 

...in a way that is statistically significant i.e. for some splitting of the curve into some N number of intervals, the number of concave upwards intervals U needs to be greater than the number of concave downward intervals D.  This means it would need to past the Binomial Test that the distribution of U vs. T appears to follow a Bernoulli distribution such that P(U) > P(T) with some sufficient p-value

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_test

 

So is this the case?  Let's take a look at some charts graphing the rate of vegetarianism over time:

 

It appears that based on Google search trends, this is the case for veganism (assuming a positive correlation between interest in veganism and the rate of vegetarianism).  See the blue line.  

 

Based on more detailed Google search trends for "vegan restaurant" searches in the US on Google, this seems to probably apply in the past few years

 

In recent decades in the UK though this seems not to be the case.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254412281_An_Estimate_of_the_Number_of_Vegetarians_in_the_World

 

In the US there also lacks a statistically significant upwards change in the trend

 

I guess you may be right.  These are some bullshit sources and I can't find any better ones, but this is pretty disappointing.  All it means is that in order to reverse this, we need more activism and awareness spreading, hopefully social media can help with this since it allows fast information transfer.  Given the exponential speed of agenda-oriented media dissemination on the internet, it's a possibility.  But it has to overcome entrenched pro-carnist propaganda like Burger King commercials.  I think there might be no hope.

 

It is not only the ethical obligation of each person to become vegan, but for each vegan to attempt to convert other people to veganism, with the number of people they convert increasing each year.  If vegans themselves are not even modifying the trend, there is no hope for the trend to be modified by people randomly stumbling upon vegan information that causes a conversion by themselves.  Being vegan alone is not enough.

 

Despite you not being a vegan yourself you just made a very good argument in favor of the ethical obligation of the individual to not only be a vegan, but a vegan activist.

 

The bigger question though is why did I spend my Friday night writing this post on a metallic fart noise music discussion website

[YangYing]

 

Statistically significant implies changing a trend.

 

 

These are two different quantities we're talking about.  If you want to talk about the statistical significance of the effect of ongoing vegetarian conversions on the trend, this is different from the statistical significance of the effect of existing vegetarians on the consumption and production (I'll shorten "consumption and production" to "consumption" from now on since there is clearly a correlation between the two driven by market forces)

 

There is the current meat consumption quantity, a function of time, C(t).  Then there is C'(t), the derivative of C(t) or in other words the instantaneous change in consumption at time t, or in other words the trend.  This means C'(t) is the change in meat consumption.  Change in the trend then means C''(t) or the second derivative of the quantity at time t.  

 

C(t) = consumption at time t

C'(t) = change in consumption at time t (the trend)

C''(t) = change in the change in consumption at time t (the change in the trend)

 

I've already established in this post [https://forum.watmm.com/topic/96761-veganism/page-10?do=findComment&comment=2707627] that the global vegetarianism rate obviously has a statistically significant effect on absolute meat consumption.  Whether it has a statistically significant positive effect on the trend is another matter entirely.  Note that an effect on the trend does not have to be a reversal of the trend, though a reversal is a strong effect.  Even though the trend is that meat consumption is increasing, this is not a refutation of the claim that vegetarianism has a statistically significant positive effect on the change in this trend.

 

For simplicity assume equal consumption per-person among carnists, then redefine C(t) as the "potential" consumption at time t for a hypothetical 0% rate of vegetarianism.  Split C(t) into the sum of two functions:

c(t) the number of carnists

~c(t) the number of vegetarians

 

C(t) = c(t) + ~c(t)

 

In order for vegetarianism to change the trend, this means it must have a statistically significant effect on C''(t):

C''(t) = c''(t) + ~c''(t)

 

For it to change the trend positively, this means it must be the case that

c''(t) + ~c''(t) > c''(t)

 

Or in other words that

~c''(t) > 0

 

In order for it to positively change the trend, it only needs to be the case that ~c''(t) is positive i.e. the rate of change in the rate of change in the number of vegetarians is positive, i.e. the number of newly converted vegetarians in any finite and relatively short time period (let's say a year) [b, Y] is greater than the number of newly converted in some time period [a, X] such that X <= b.  Is this the case?  In other words, the curve representing the global number of vegetarians at time t in the recent past needs to be "concave up" as in visually moving upwards like this:

 

...in a way that is statistically significant i.e. for some splitting of the curve into some N number of intervals, the number of concave upwards intervals U needs to be greater than the number of concave downward intervals D.  This means it would need to past the Binomial Test that the distribution of U vs. T appears to follow a Bernoulli distribution such that P(U) > P(T) with some sufficient p-value

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_test

 

So is this the case?  Let's take a look at some charts graphing the rate of vegetarianism over time:

 

It appears that based on Google search trends, this is the case for veganism (assuming a positive correlation between interest in veganism and the rate of vegetarianism).  See the blue line.  

 

Based on more detailed Google search trends for "vegan restaurant" searches in the US on Google, this seems to probably apply in the past few years

 

In recent decades in the UK though this seems not to be the case.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254412281_An_Estimate_of_the_Number_of_Vegetarians_in_the_World

 

In the US there also lacks a statistically significant upwards change in the trend

 

I guess you may be right.  These are some bullshit sources and I can't find any better ones, but this is pretty disappointing.  All it means is that in order to reverse this, we need more activism and awareness spreading, hopefully social media can help with this since it allows fast information transfer.  Given the exponential speed of agenda-oriented media dissemination on the internet, it's a possibility.  But it has to overcome entrenched pro-carnist propaganda like Burger King commercials.  I think there might be no hope.

 

It is not only the ethical obligation of each person to become vegan, but for each vegan to attempt to convert other people to veganism, with the number of people they convert increasing each year.  If vegans themselves are not even modifying the trend, there is no hope for the trend to be modified by people randomly stumbling upon vegan information that causes a conversion by themselves.  Being vegan alone is not enough.

 

Despite you not being a vegan yourself you just made a very good argument in favor of the ethical obligation of the individual to not only be a vegan, but a vegan activist.

 

The bigger question though is why did I spend my Friday night writing this post on a metallic fart noise music discussion website

[tec]

I ain’t reading the last pages but Bulk, it’s worth remembering that every point you make will have been made to every vegetarian and vegan countless times at most social occasions they attend. It can be very tedious.

[diatoms]

dead fish vs. beefcake

 

vegan thread

 

:)

[zkom]

It is not only the ethical obligation of each person to become vegan, but for each vegan to attempt to convert other people to veganism, with the number of people they convert increasing each year.  If vegans themselves are not even modifying the trend, there is no hope for the trend to be modified by people randomly stumbling upon vegan information that causes a conversion by themselves.  Being vegan alone is not enough.

 

Yeaaah.. that does not sound like a cult or religion at all..

 

I'm sure attacking people with your own sense of ethics is going to go down well also.. somebody comes to scream to me that I'm a horrible person for doing x and I need to stop doing x. Do you know what? It really makes me want to do more of the x even if I know it might be a bad thing.

[dingformung]

Zeffolia, is it right to be a vegetarian considering the atrocities done by the milk and egg industry?

[zlemflolia]

 

It is not only the ethical obligation of each person to become vegan, but for each vegan to attempt to convert other people to veganism, with the number of people they convert increasing each year.  If vegans themselves are not even modifying the trend, there is no hope for the trend to be modified by people randomly stumbling upon vegan information that causes a conversion by themselves.  Being vegan alone is not enough.

 

Yeaaah.. that does not sound like a cult or religion at all..

 

I'm sure attacking people with your own sense of ethics is going to go down well also.. somebody comes to scream to me that I'm a horrible person for doing x and I need to stop doing x. Do you know what? It really makes me want to do more of the x even if I know it might be a bad thing.

 

 

Were believers in human slavery abolishment a cult or religion?

 

Nobody's attacking anyone.  Nobody's saying anyone is a horrible person.  The act is horrible.  And if that's your reaction, wanting to do bad things more often because others tell you to stop doing bad things, then this is very childish and it's strange that you'd even admit this.

[zlemflolia]

Zeffolia, is it right to be a vegetarian considering the atrocities done by the milk and egg industry?

 

Vegetarianism is more ethical than carnism, but it's not as good as veganism because as you said the milk and egg industry are not only unethical by themselves, but they directly contribute to the meat industry as well.  Old egg laying hens are ground up for low quality meat like chicken nuggets.  Spent dairy cows have the same done for burgers.  Many baby male cows from dairy mothers are then shackled to the ground in small cages and killed within weeks as veal, since they can't produce milk

 

If you are only a vegetarian and you consume dairy and eggs you are still contributing money to the meat industry, just slightly indirectly.  You have to cut out the dairy industry to truly cut yourself off from the meat industry.

 

Vegetarianism is as close to carnism as it is to veganism for these reasons

[sweepstakes]

StephenG and Zeffolia's last dying thoughts "I wish I spent more time in the veganism thread"...

lol

[sweepstakes]

I ain’t reading the last pages but Bulk, it’s worth remembering that every point you make will have been made to every vegetarian and vegan countless times at most social occasions they attend. It can be very tedious.

True. When I was vegan for a while, my diet suddenly became everyone's business. It wasn't like I was yelling about the evils of meat, I would just, like, not eat meat/dairy/eggs, and suddenly I would find myself in an attempted ad hoc intervention.

[dingformung]

Is the vegetable, grain and fruit industry moral?

Where do they get their fertilizers from?

[zlemflolia]

Is the vegetable, grain and fruit industry moral?

Where do they get their fertilizers from?

 

They get their fertilizers from ground animal bones and dung because it's the cheapest option right now since these are byproducts that come in large supply which would otherwise be useless.  But if widespread government subsidization of the meat industry were to become phased out, meat prices would rise, rendering plant based composting methods more cost-effective.  Keep in mind that all animal based fertilizers have the potential to be plant based since the animals essentially consist entirely of what was previously plant material, since that is all they eat.  So the plant industry is currently interlinked with the animal industry, but it's not a link of necessity but rather a link of economy at present and it can be severed painlessly when the time comes

[zkom]

 

 

It is not only the ethical obligation of each person to become vegan, but for each vegan to attempt to convert other people to veganism, with the number of people they convert increasing each year.  If vegans themselves are not even modifying the trend, there is no hope for the trend to be modified by people randomly stumbling upon vegan information that causes a conversion by themselves.  Being vegan alone is not enough.

 

Yeaaah.. that does not sound like a cult or religion at all..

 

I'm sure attacking people with your own sense of ethics is going to go down well also.. somebody comes to scream to me that I'm a horrible person for doing x and I need to stop doing x. Do you know what? It really makes me want to do more of the x even if I know it might be a bad thing.

 

 

Were believers in human slavery abolishment a cult or religion?

 

Nobody's attacking anyone.  Nobody's saying anyone is a horrible person.  The act is horrible.  And if that's your reaction, wanting to do bad things more often because others tell you to stop doing bad things, then this is very childish and it's strange that you'd even admit this.

 

 

I consider forcing your own ethics and morals on others and expecting them to go proselytizing your message pretty much what religions are. You might also want to actually check how much religion played a part in the abolition of slavery before you use it as a counterexample.. 

 

And yes, if I'm having extra-marital sex and some Christian comes moralizing that I need to stop that because it's sin/immoral/unethical then I feel like I'm going to go fucking around even more. That's how human psychology works, we are not robots. And I willingly admit that's my immediate reaction. I don't think it makes me childish, just means I'm human. You can't just expect that people will immediately absorb your message and change their behavior on the spot.

 

Also have you considered that most people in the world do not accept your ethics about animal rights? Are you going to just keep telling them what they do is horrible until they cave in? Ethics aren't an universal thing no matter how strongly you believe in them.

[zlemflolia]

 

I consider forcing your own ethics and morals on others and expecting them to go proselytizing your message pretty much what religions are. You might also want to actually check how much religion played a part in the abolition of slavery before you use it as a counterexample.. 

And yes, if I'm having extra-marital sex and some Christian comes moralizing that I need to stop that because it's sin/immoral/unethical then I feel like I'm going to go fucking around even more. That's how human psychology works, we are not robots. And I willingly admit that's my immediate reaction. I don't think it makes me childish, just means I'm human. You can't just expect that people will immediately absorb your message and change their behavior on the spot.

 

Also have you considered that most people in the world do not accept your ethics about animal rights? Are you going to just keep telling them what they do is horrible until they cave in? Ethics aren't an universal thing no matter how strongly you believe in them.

 

 

If you want pull the moral relativism card then you can't grumble about the supposedly cult-building activities that animal rights activists engage in, since cult-building isn't unethical anymore either.  Plus I never said any of this stuff you said about forcing people to do anything.  You are the one who said that.

[zkom]

 

 

I consider forcing your own ethics and morals on others and expecting them to go proselytizing your message pretty much what religions are. You might also want to actually check how much religion played a part in the abolition of slavery before you use it as a counterexample.. 

And yes, if I'm having extra-marital sex and some Christian comes moralizing that I need to stop that because it's sin/immoral/unethical then I feel like I'm going to go fucking around even more. That's how human psychology works, we are not robots. And I willingly admit that's my immediate reaction. I don't think it makes me childish, just means I'm human. You can't just expect that people will immediately absorb your message and change their behavior on the spot.

 

Also have you considered that most people in the world do not accept your ethics about animal rights? Are you going to just keep telling them what they do is horrible until they cave in? Ethics aren't an universal thing no matter how strongly you believe in them.

 

 

If you want pull the moral relativism card then you can't grumble about the supposedly cult-building activities that animal rights activists engage in, since cult-building isn't unethical anymore either.  Plus I never said any of this stuff you said about forcing people to do anything.  You are the one who said that.

 

 

Yes, I'm not going to take part of any cult-like activity, just my personal choice. Forcing was maybe wrong wording. I mean pushing your own agenda too aggressively is counterproductive.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is you might want to consider changing your strategy. Being too pushy and going all high and moral will eventually get a counter reaction. If you just explain what you are doing and why will get you much further than saying what others should be doing. 

[dingformung]

 

Is the vegetable, grain and fruit industry moral?

Where do they get their fertilizers from?

 

They get their fertilizers from ground animal bones and dung because it's the cheapest option right now since these are byproducts that come in large supply which would otherwise be useless.  But if widespread government subsidization of the meat industry were to become phased out, meat prices would rise, rendering plant based composting methods more cost-effective.  Keep in mind that all animal based fertilizers have the potential to be plant based since the animals essentially consist entirely of what was previously plant material, since that is all they eat.  So the plant industry is currently interlinked with the animal industry, but it's not a link of necessity but rather a link of economy at present and it can be severed painlessly when the time comes

 

So you basically admit that changing the laws and politics of food industry is more effective than individuals becoming vegan?

What kind of political participation do you recommend to induce these changes? Activism? Voting?

Which political party should be voted for?

Should we hand out pictures of disjointed pigs to kids in front of McDonalds?

[cruising for burgers]

[zlemflolia]

 

 

Is the vegetable, grain and fruit industry moral?

Where do they get their fertilizers from?

 

They get their fertilizers from ground animal bones and dung because it's the cheapest option right now since these are byproducts that come in large supply which would otherwise be useless.  But if widespread government subsidization of the meat industry were to become phased out, meat prices would rise, rendering plant based composting methods more cost-effective.  Keep in mind that all animal based fertilizers have the potential to be plant based since the animals essentially consist entirely of what was previously plant material, since that is all they eat.  So the plant industry is currently interlinked with the animal industry, but it's not a link of necessity but rather a link of economy at present and it can be severed painlessly when the time comes

 

So you basically admit that changing the laws and politics of food industry is more effective than individuals becoming vegan?

What kind of political participation do you recommend to induce these changes? Activism? Voting?

Which political party should be voted for?

Should we hand out pictures of disjointed pigs to kids in front of McDonalds?

 

 

Removing livestock subsidies would indeed be great and do a lot to help veganism.  Banning meat would be really effective, but I wouldn't suggest it.  It's a balance between many actions a person and group can take.  This government action needs to correspond to individuals becoming vegan because otherwise what will happen, meat prices increase dramatically and everyone still pays it at the same rate?  It's not affordable for most people, so they'd have to become vegan.  On these observations it seems authoritarian to force it from the top down.  It has to go from the bottom up.

 

The "Anonymous For The Voiceless" vegan activist organization [https://www.anonymousforthevoiceless.org/] does something called the "Cube of Truth" where they stand in a square in busy places with anonymous masks holding TV screens showing real videos of slaughterhouses, and offering VR goggles for a 360 degree view, this is supposedly effective and I always see lots of engagement when I walk by the one that happens near me.  It's international but unlikely to ever happen in China.  McDonald's would kick you off their lot but similar things can be done yes

 

Reinforcing helplessness and claiming there's nothing that can be done doesn't seem very helpful

 

As for voting, left/progressive candidates are going to be the only useful vote on this area obviously but I don't think it's worth being a single-issue voter on veganism because there are more important things, like avoiding the US and other western countries becoming more authoritarian as they seem to be doing lately, at all costs

[dingformung]

Forcing the meat industry to provide the animals a good life before killing them doesn't sound that authoritarian to me.

I would totally like to become a masseur for cows or a professional in pig entertainment

[dingformung]

Wouldn't that be a nice way to lower the unemployment rate that will come with digitalization?

[brian trageskin]

It is not only the ethical obligation of each person to become vegan, but for each vegan to attempt to convert other people to veganism, with the number of people they convert increasing each year.  If vegans themselves are not even modifying the trend, there is no hope for the trend to be modified by people randomly stumbling upon vegan information that causes a conversion by themselves.  Being vegan alone is not enough.

 

Despite you not being a vegan yourself you just made a very good argument in favor of the ethical obligation of the individual to not only be a vegan, but a vegan activist.

 

Were believers in human slavery abolishment a cult or religion?

 

people need more policies based on universalistic moral principles being shoved down their throats. nothing wrong with that.

[zkom]

 

It is not only the ethical obligation of each person to become vegan, but for each vegan to attempt to convert other people to veganism, with the number of people they convert increasing each year.  If vegans themselves are not even modifying the trend, there is no hope for the trend to be modified by people randomly stumbling upon vegan information that causes a conversion by themselves.  Being vegan alone is not enough.

 

Despite you not being a vegan yourself you just made a very good argument in favor of the ethical obligation of the individual to not only be a vegan, but a vegan activist.

 

Were believers in human slavery abolishment a cult or religion?

 

people need more policies based on universalistic moral principles being shoved down their throats. nothing wrong with that.

 

 

Who chooses the morals?