WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat(time.com)
time.com
WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat
http://time.com/5338287/wework-meat-vegetarian-company-environment/
318 comments
I had the same thing at one of my previous gigs. We used to have (allegedly unhealthy) snacks all the time, then they had some kind of bullshit campaign where they would not restock the snacks for one month and donate the cost to the homeless (fair enough), but guess what happened at the end of that campaign - still no snacks.
That could easily backfire though (healthier chips are usually much more expensive), specially because kale chips are delicious :)
> specially because kale chips are delicious :)
This is OT, but I'm curious: what do kale chips taste like to you? A little sweet? To me, they taste like lemon rind without the "lemony" taste. Just pure bitterness.
This is OT, but I'm curious: what do kale chips taste like to you? A little sweet? To me, they taste like lemon rind without the "lemony" taste. Just pure bitterness.
I guess there are many variants of kale chips, but never tried one that tasted particularly "lemony". They are indeed a bit bitter, but the ones I buy are mostly a fried something with lots of salt (yeah, like pretty much all chips). I do like its texture and more earthy/complex flavor, which I generally find more interesting than potato or tortilla chips alone.
[deleted]
I've tried 3 kinds of kale chips and disliked them all. Then again, I really dislike kale. And I like just about everything. I refer to kale as fart lettuce.
Plus the increase in toilet paper usage and loss of productive time with all the additional fiber that everyone's getting.
You forgot:
6. Fire the engineer pointing out that the pay of even one member of the finance team during this 2-month project would have paid for nachos for the whole company for 10 years.
6. Fire the engineer pointing out that the pay of even one member of the finance team during this 2-month project would have paid for nachos for the whole company for 10 years.
If such parasitic behaviour (on part of finance team in this example) is tolerated by the upper management it is better for productive developer to update his resume and spend time on networking and seeking the new opportunities. The nachos are just signs of things to come.
I can't eat a lot of types of food due to allergies. Meat is one of the few things I still can eat without issue. Yes, there are actually people out there (hi, me!) that actually cannot eliminate certain foods from our diets without getting sick. This policy would prevent me from being able to work at that company, for recognized medical health reasons, because I would not be able to do legitimate expenses of food related to travel, nor would I be able to eat probably anything during the "summer camp".
I also have serious concerns about letting companies have moral opinions about paying for choices you make for your own health, for example with health insurance, and considering the current supreme court situation, maybe you should too.
I also have serious concerns about letting companies have moral opinions about paying for choices you make for your own health, for example with health insurance, and considering the current supreme court situation, maybe you should too.
Not only is it terrible from a dietary standpoint, it reveals an intolerant workplace culture that I certainly wouldn't want any part of. Most of the world, and likely most of their employees, eat meat. It shows a serious lack of connection with the real world, and a willingness on the part of management to forcefully impose extreme views on a whim.
Sounds like an unhealthy place to work, even if they all become vegetarians.
Sounds like an unhealthy place to work, even if they all become vegetarians.
WeWork's history of firing any employee even hinting at collective bargaining or discussing employee rights in general is well known.
Whatever happened with that unpaid overtime lawsuit they got slapped with?
Whatever happened with that unpaid overtime lawsuit they got slapped with?
Heh, try being a vegetarian in the Midwest if you want to feel real intolerant workplace culture.
Love your profile message, you pretty much nailed what's going on with HN. Just keep posting, it's the only way to improve things.
It’s definitely getting more and more extreme around here. The fact that this article made it to the front page, and is generally being viewed as a good thing in the comments section, doesn’t say good things about where HN is headed.
Actually you should expect the trend to continue. More consumers are demanding vegetarian and vegan options. Restaurants are selling out of new plant-based burgers and are being encouraged by industry magazines to offer vegan options. Demand is speaking pretty clearly in fact. What was once fringe is rapidly scaling. Nice to actually see the world moving forward in a good direction on this.
I wasn’t just talking about the whole vegetarian thing. I was talking about the idea that the HN community would be in support of any extreme idea like this. If you look at Twitter, for example, almost everyone that commented on this issue thought it was absolutely absurd. Yet here is HN, mostly supporting it, simply because it’s left-leaning. It shows how out-of-touch HN is with the rest of the world. No wonder people are starting to block access to their articles when HN is the referrer [1].
[1] https://jamie.build/how-to-build-an-npm-worm
[1] https://jamie.build/how-to-build-an-npm-worm
Are we reading the same comment section? Because I do not see "mostly supporting it", but lots of people arguing on both sides.
Just as I can find both people supporting it and people thinking its stupid on Twitter when randomly looking around. The "real world" doesn't appear to have a consistent opinion on this, which isn't surprising at all.
Just as I can find both people supporting it and people thinking its stupid on Twitter when randomly looking around. The "real world" doesn't appear to have a consistent opinion on this, which isn't surprising at all.
This isn't about where HN is headed. There has been a social shift happening in many countries in the last few years where veganism has stopped being a fringe movement and is entering the Overton window. You should expect to see more and more articles like this in the media, and to see increasingly positive reactions towards them.
What if your company said that they are starting a program to reimburse solar panel installation, but that program doesn't cover reimbursement for gas. Would your argument be that most of the world consumes gas, so they're "forcefully impose extreme views on a whim."
This is a false equivalence. It is apparently a matter of custom at WeWork for at least some employee meals to be paid for by the company. To dictate what employees may order in those situations is unconscionable.
Imagine your manager takes the team out for a working lunch, and you basically can’t order anything except for a garden salad from the menu. You have to be at the lunch, but you cannot order like a normal person. That’s wrong.
Imagine your manager takes the team out for a working lunch, and you basically can’t order anything except for a garden salad from the menu. You have to be at the lunch, but you cannot order like a normal person. That’s wrong.
Alright, you call false equivalence, I call petty fogging if you need your analogies to be perfect.
So to make it a proper example: what if your employer had a job benefit to reimburse gas & electric car expenses to visit clients, and then later decided to stop reimbursing gas.
Also, considering WeWork is taking this stance, if a WeWork boss takes you to a restaurant whose only vegetarian option is a garden salad, then she's totally trolling you.
edit: updating my analogy since i can't reply to your nested comment (not sure why)
So to make it a proper example: what if your employer had a job benefit to reimburse gas & electric car expenses to visit clients, and then later decided to stop reimbursing gas.
Also, considering WeWork is taking this stance, if a WeWork boss takes you to a restaurant whose only vegetarian option is a garden salad, then she's totally trolling you.
edit: updating my analogy since i can't reply to your nested comment (not sure why)
Again, false equivalence. I’m not being forced to use either form of energy. However, as an employee at WeWork, there are situations where I would be forced to eat WeWork-sponsored meals, to which this policy applies.
Edit: Since my comment no longer makes sense because you completely changed yours long after I replied to it (not a cool thing to do), I think your electric/gas car analogy would be extremely problematic and would likely result in lawsuits. As you know, most cars are gas-based. If it is customary for WeWork to reimburse employees for work-related transportation expenses, and they then changed that policy to favor employees with electric cars, they'd be sued (and rightfully so). The rules are theirs to set - they can either pay for this category of expense or not - but they can't discriminate. I'd imagine that even this vegetarian policy will meet with a few lawsuit threats, but it's so ridiculous that I think they would quietly cave before any suit was actually filed. Imagine trying to justify the cost of defending such a suit to your investors. I'd love to sit in on that meeting.
Edit: Since my comment no longer makes sense because you completely changed yours long after I replied to it (not a cool thing to do), I think your electric/gas car analogy would be extremely problematic and would likely result in lawsuits. As you know, most cars are gas-based. If it is customary for WeWork to reimburse employees for work-related transportation expenses, and they then changed that policy to favor employees with electric cars, they'd be sued (and rightfully so). The rules are theirs to set - they can either pay for this category of expense or not - but they can't discriminate. I'd imagine that even this vegetarian policy will meet with a few lawsuit threats, but it's so ridiculous that I think they would quietly cave before any suit was actually filed. Imagine trying to justify the cost of defending such a suit to your investors. I'd love to sit in on that meeting.
Individuals requiring “medical or religious” allowances are being referred to the company’s policy team to discuss options.
In the rare occasions where you absolutely need meat it would be available...
In the rare occasions where you absolutely need meat it would be available...
I mentioned in my edit the reply button disappeared. I could have appended the edit instead of changing it inline. No ill will, just trying to refine my analogy as you kept insisting false equivalence (ultimately analogies aren't equivalent).
You can eat whatever you want, WeWork simply won't reimburse you if it is meat.
Once again to reiterate, they are not limiting your choice, they are limiting what they will reimburse.
Once again to reiterate, they are not limiting your choice, they are limiting what they will reimburse.
“Intensely terrible” is one way to phrase “illegal under the ADA”...
I would assume there will be accommodations made for folks with dietary restrictions that require them to eat meat, whether that’s through a simple waiver or a massive lawsuit.
I would assume there will be accommodations made for folks with dietary restrictions that require them to eat meat, whether that’s through a simple waiver or a massive lawsuit.
No one's going to get sued for a reimbursement policy. They don't have an obligation to reimburse, and this falls so far outside of fair employment laws. HN is going nuts on this one.
> No one's going to get sued for a reimbursement policy
I wouldn't be so sure.
> They don't have an obligation to reimburse
They don't have an obligation to hire people, either, but if hiring doesn't make reasonable accommodations for disability, it's still illegal.
I wouldn't be so sure.
> They don't have an obligation to reimburse
They don't have an obligation to hire people, either, but if hiring doesn't make reasonable accommodations for disability, it's still illegal.
Well, they don't have an obligation to reimburse, but reimbursing in a discriminatory fashion could still be legally suspect. There's a difference between not reimbursing at all and reimbursing in a way that excludes certain people. Just like that case with Uber and jackets only for male team members - nobody is required to give out free jackets, but if you only give ones to males and not females, you'll end up in trouble. If not legal one than certainly PR one.
Why do you say that? It’s certainly in line with the spirit of the ADA, and a cursory Google suggests that lawsuits related to dietary restrictions have been successful.
For what it’s worth, I’m a vegetarian and broadly in support of this policy, assuming it can be made compliant with the law.
For what it’s worth, I’m a vegetarian and broadly in support of this policy, assuming it can be made compliant with the law.
It says in the article that "Individuals requiring “medical or religious” allowances are being referred to the company’s policy team to discuss options."
"I'm a meatarian, an obscure religion. I'm going to expense meat."
I'm also on a FODMAP diet - I've started bringing my own food in to work because I can't eat what they serve at work on this diet. I really don't see a problem. It's impossible to cater to every possible taste, allergy, intolerance and belief. It's nice to make an effort to cater for as many people as possible, but nobody's forcing anybody to eat anything here.
It is possible to go meat free on the fodmap diet, by the way (although people's definitions of the diet are admittedly inconsistent, and it is tricky). To be honest, meat is one the the things I find hard to eat because it's so often cooked with garlic.
It is possible to go meat free on the fodmap diet, by the way (although people's definitions of the diet are admittedly inconsistent, and it is tricky). To be honest, meat is one the the things I find hard to eat because it's so often cooked with garlic.
>Forcing your employees to only eat certain kinds of food is an intensely terrible thing to do.
I absolutely agree. Fortunately, no one is doing that. WeWork employees can eat as much meat as they want. It's just that WeWork won't pay for it.
I absolutely agree. Fortunately, no one is doing that. WeWork employees can eat as much meat as they want. It's just that WeWork won't pay for it.
Actually, they are doing that. Its an implicit force.
Would you also say that Apple is implicitly forcing their employees to starve because they don't serve free lunch?
I guess I missed how anybody being "forced" to do anything.
Their employees are still free to buy all the meat they want.
Their employees are still free to buy all the meat they want.
Is this the same conversation we're going to have when the company says no IUD costs can come from your health insurance plan?
They're forced for example in the context of a business trip.
No they're not.
Every company has limitations and provisions on what they'll expense on business trips, and I don't see how this is any different.
Every company has limitations and provisions on what they'll expense on business trips, and I don't see how this is any different.
Because they are saying you have to travel for work and you cannot eat anything we do not approve. How hard is it to understand that? I travel all the time for work. I cannot eat Gluten (medical reason), when I am in Japan what do you suggest I eat? There are many options that are safe for me to eat and they are all meat based. It is fine they choose not to server meat as part of what the company does as an in house offering but it is not okay for them to tell me what I can it when I am traveling on business. I do not require a drink with dinner. That’s fine, but I do require food I can digest without getting sick. This is pure bullshit over reach. The best part is everyone will just ignore it as no one turns in itemized reports on what they ordered just the CC slip. It is pure BS.
Companies used to have one hotel room per trip limitations, too, and if the woman didn't want to stay with a man she could always pay for her own room.
That's a really great example.
I don't understand how people cannot see the implicitly force used here. In fact, its a large part of why WeWork is doing this.
I don't understand how people cannot see the implicitly force used here. In fact, its a large part of why WeWork is doing this.
And they also used to let everybody smoke cigarettes inside at their desks. Times change.
[deleted]
and you are free to buy your own health insurance!
a) force WeWork owners to pay for something they're morally opposed to paying for
b) force staff to do what exactly? Pay for their own meat?
I'm pro-choice.
The exact same argument is used for requiring companies and insurance plans to pay for abortion.
The exact same argument is used for requiring companies and insurance plans to pay for abortion.
Maybe it is just me, but abortion and health care plans are in no way comparable to eating or not meat during company events.
But, it absolutely is strong argument for change of the laws so that employer paid healthcare plans are not privileged against individual plans. That way, insurance would be paid by government or employee without having to pay more money then what employers do. The root abomination is that employer has such advantage on insurance market against individual.
That would make healthcare kinda like eating dinner - none of employers business.
But, it absolutely is strong argument for change of the laws so that employer paid healthcare plans are not privileged against individual plans. That way, insurance would be paid by government or employee without having to pay more money then what employers do. The root abomination is that employer has such advantage on insurance market against individual.
That would make healthcare kinda like eating dinner - none of employers business.
That doesn't weaken the argument, it just calls into question the argument that employers should pay for abortions.
Where does it stop? When does compensation stop being the company's money and start being the employee's property to do with as they please?
It never started. The employee's wages can be used however they please.
Why are other forms of compensation (e.g. covering business expenses, or insurance) not equivalent to wages?
That is his point.
That is his point.
What if you don't consider it as compensation, but as an expense.
ie. Working for X company will net me $150k in wages, however I will have to pay for my own meat meals, insurance, etc. I probably won't work here. Even though the company pays for only economy class flights and requires me to take one every 3 months.
ie. Working for X company will net me $150k in wages, however I will have to pay for my own meat meals, insurance, etc. I probably won't work here. Even though the company pays for only economy class flights and requires me to take one every 3 months.
[deleted]
It’s nice that companies are releasing these types of policies publicly so peopl can choose whether to work there. It’s sometimes hard to get a good bead in company culture due to reporting bias of people there or who left. Stuff like this will help companies and workers find each other.
I worked for a company for a while before I learned their expense policy was really frustrating. $40 max expenses and their headquarters and work location was on Spear Street in San Francisco. They also wouldn’t allow any alcohol and required receipts for any expense. It wasn’t so onerous to make me quit, but it was annoying and kind of indicative of their philosophy on cost cutting.
Had I known about this it would have changed the weighting on some other offers I didn’t take.
I worked for a company for a while before I learned their expense policy was really frustrating. $40 max expenses and their headquarters and work location was on Spear Street in San Francisco. They also wouldn’t allow any alcohol and required receipts for any expense. It wasn’t so onerous to make me quit, but it was annoying and kind of indicative of their philosophy on cost cutting.
Had I known about this it would have changed the weighting on some other offers I didn’t take.
You expect the company to pay for your drinks? That sounds ridiculous to me and I am no abstinent.
My last firm did, but no, I don’t. But if I have a beer with dinner while traveling for work, yes, of course. My current employer has a per diem and doesn’t care.
It's pretty normal when traveling on business or especially going out as a team or a meal with clients. I've yet to have a job as a software engineer that hasn't, although there's usually an implicit or explicit cap.
While I don't think this "forces" a vegetarian diet on the employees, it is placing the employees in a situation where their company is promoting a particular ideology/lifestyle/diet through financial motivation. Dining is generally reimbursed during business travel due to the (often significant) increased cost of having to exclusively dine out, so the option for the employee is to eat vegetarian or accept additional personal finance costs. (I would also question the feasibility of finding vegetarian options all the time, but that might be due to my work travel sometimes taking me to more rural areas).
The question then becomes, is it acceptable for a business to use monetary incentive/disincentive to encourage lifestyle or ideological changes in it's employees?
The question then becomes, is it acceptable for a business to use monetary incentive/disincentive to encourage lifestyle or ideological changes in it's employees?
In this case exacerbated by the fact that said lifestyle or ideological change involves one of the bare necessities (since all of the "equivalent" examples I've seen do not).
"> bare necessities"
That's highly debatable. A good part of the world lives completely fine even without this bare necessity.
That's highly debatable. A good part of the world lives completely fine even without this bare necessity.
The bare necessity here is food in general. An employee has to eat when on business trips, so they can't a avoid the issue. They either have to accept the financial loss, or accept the dietary change.
There are of course alternatives to eating meat, but the real question is whether it's appropriate for a business to use financial disincentivis (effective pay reductions) to encourage lifestyle/idealogy change in their employees.
There are of course alternatives to eating meat, but the real question is whether it's appropriate for a business to use financial disincentivis (effective pay reductions) to encourage lifestyle/idealogy change in their employees.
If the "monetary incentive" is, in other words, to provide something for free to every employee then I don't see any inherent problem. What I do think is an actual problem is making an employee pay for any potential extra expenses during a business trip.
I agree. I think there is only really an issue when it is a monetary 'disincentive', i.e. it's a situation where the employee is effectively being paid less then what was expected based on the work-pay agreement (both in terms of actual contract and social/industry norms). If it's a monetary 'incentive' then it's adding something in addition to what was expected.
Also, it's an even bigger issue when the scale of the disincentive is largely a result of decisions outside the employees control. An employee often has limited control over when and how long a business trip may last.
Basically, encouraging people with an additional 'perk' seems reasonable to me, but encouraging them with what amounts to a 'fine' is not.
Also, it's an even bigger issue when the scale of the disincentive is largely a result of decisions outside the employees control. An employee often has limited control over when and how long a business trip may last.
Basically, encouraging people with an additional 'perk' seems reasonable to me, but encouraging them with what amounts to a 'fine' is not.
Being a vegetarian is exactly as equal a choice of freedom as being an omnivore or carnivore. This feels wrong to push this lifestyle on people. Of course one can always just not do business with We Work.
Let's not be hyperbolic here. Serving food that doesn't happen to contain meat isn't forcing you to be vegetarian any more than serving only soft drinks at an event would be forcing you to be a teetotaler.
Refusing to serve meat == refusing to serve vegetables. Imagine if the inverse were true. People would flip.
All I want to convey is that I believe eating an omnivorous diet is an equal dietary preference to eating a herbivorous one. Deserving of the same protections, if any.
All I want to convey is that I believe eating an omnivorous diet is an equal dietary preference to eating a herbivorous one. Deserving of the same protections, if any.
[deleted]
I don't know. If they're not going to expense your meals because you're away on official business and chose wrong then I'm not sure I'd be down with that. As for on premise and coordinated business events, sure, I'm down with that. Business trips where you're someplace new well away from home "if you want us to pay for a meal while we send you to this place then no meat" is.. a little too close to too personal. That seems mean and self-righteous. I don't think I wouldn't be interested in weWork even were I a vegetarian.
We can all try or not. Screw coercion, especially in excess.
We can all try or not. Screw coercion, especially in excess.
On the other hand, a policy of "you can expense vegetarian meals, but only vegetarian meals" is forcing you to be vegetarian at a much higher and more obnoxious level than that.
[deleted]
Employees are not being forced to become vegetarians, they can still eat fish, dairy and eggs and expense their meals.
They can even choose to go outside and eat meat, they have freedom of choice.
They can even choose to go outside and eat meat, they have freedom of choice.
But dairy and eggs are part of a normal vegetarian diet. You worded it as if they are not.
They are being forced if they don't want to or cannot afford to buy meat.
Pushing. Not forcing.
I mean, I'm pretty sure that most jobs that come with expense accounts also happen to come with a decent amount of, what do you call it, income. I sort of doubt that this sort of policy is headed to the per diem world.
I mean, I'm pretty sure that most jobs that come with expense accounts also happen to come with a decent amount of, what do you call it, income. I sort of doubt that this sort of policy is headed to the per diem world.
Is it okay if my business only allows the expensing of meat, and refuses to allow carbohydrates for health reasons?
EDIT: Fair enough! Not contrarian, just finding the line. What interesting times we live in.
EDIT: Fair enough! Not contrarian, just finding the line. What interesting times we live in.
Of course.
Though you might find it gets even more resistance. Plenty of people eat burgers, but almost all of them would expect it to be served on a bun, maybe with a condiment or two. I hear french fries are also popular.
Though you might find it gets even more resistance. Plenty of people eat burgers, but almost all of them would expect it to be served on a bun, maybe with a condiment or two. I hear french fries are also popular.
[deleted]
That's a pretty great analogy. Lots of businesses have a no-alcohol policy. No one even bats an eye when it's mentioned. I hardly see anyone complaining about such companies pushing a lifestyle agenda.
It's easy and common to ask for two checks, and alcohol purchases end up on a separate check, paid for with a separate card.
I'm not sure how a restaurant would react if one ordered a meal and asked for the the meat in that meal to be put on a separate check.
So it's an analogy, but not a great one, I think.
I'm not sure how a restaurant would react if one ordered a meal and asked for the the meat in that meal to be put on a separate check.
So it's an analogy, but not a great one, I think.
Alcohol is not a good example. Alcohol at work causes so many problems.
Some people can't handle alcohol. Others can usually handle alcohol, but it really only takes one time to be an issue. Get large enough, and serving alcohol at company events guarantees at least one, sometimes more, HR headaches, statistically speaking.
I'm not a huge fan of a company changing its behavior because it wants to avoid risks that are just inherent in dealing with people (the logical conclusion is to pretty much treat all your employees like children to avoid anyone causing trouble) but I can at least respect it if they're up front about their motivations.
I'm not a huge fan of a company changing its behavior because it wants to avoid risks that are just inherent in dealing with people (the logical conclusion is to pretty much treat all your employees like children to avoid anyone causing trouble) but I can at least respect it if they're up front about their motivations.
Does it really? I can get alcohol at two or three, and sometimes more, work events in any given week. Some teams have beer fridges. The sky doesn't fall.
(to be clear, I fully agree with GP)
(to be clear, I fully agree with GP)
Do you also drive home afterwards?
No, I don't drive to work as a general rule. Nor do I drink at work, as a general rule. I certainly wouldn't do both.
I'm a responsible human, as are my coworkers.
I'm a responsible human, as are my coworkers.
Serving food that doesn't happen to contain meat isn't forcing you to be vegetarian
Sure it is. There will be situations where employees have no choice but to eat company-sponsored food. Mandatory working lunches, dinner with potential clients (I’d love for them to take me to dinner as a potential client/partner and tell me I can’t order a steak...), etc. In those situations, they are indeed “forcing you to be a vegetarian”.
Sure it is. There will be situations where employees have no choice but to eat company-sponsored food. Mandatory working lunches, dinner with potential clients (I’d love for them to take me to dinner as a potential client/partner and tell me I can’t order a steak...), etc. In those situations, they are indeed “forcing you to be a vegetarian”.
Most of your comments on this thread have been illogical.
Companies are not required to dole out free food. Them changing their policies to only reimburse certain kinds of food can be met with you leaving the company if it matters that much to you.
You can bring your own food or pay for it out of your own pocket if you need to. They have stated people with medical/religious requirements that need meat will have their needs met.
Companies are not required to dole out free food. Them changing their policies to only reimburse certain kinds of food can be met with you leaving the company if it matters that much to you.
You can bring your own food or pay for it out of your own pocket if you need to. They have stated people with medical/religious requirements that need meat will have their needs met.
I think his point was that such a heavy handed policy that runs contrary to the views of most of the world's population is problematic. Since there will be situations where employees have little or no choice but to eat company sponsored meals, I for one don't see that to be "illogical".
At my current workplace I can only work from home once per week. I would vastly prefer working from home than the uncomfortable chair and noisy working environment of the office, but I have to make do.
Options available to me are changing jobs, asking for a policy shift because of medical issues, etc.
If you have to eat a more ethically sourced and less savory meal because of work I don't see that to be a large issue.
Options available to me are changing jobs, asking for a policy shift because of medical issues, etc.
If you have to eat a more ethically sourced and less savory meal because of work I don't see that to be a large issue.
It actually is a large issue. Deciding for an employee what they can eat, or highly encouraging it, is a huge issue.
Comparing working from home to eating is two totally different things.
Comparing working from home to eating is two totally different things.
It doesn't really work that way. It takes more than having once eaten a single grilled cheese sandwich to qualify as a vegetarian.
That's a real stretch.
If the company refused to pay for an escort, they aren't forcing me to be celibate. They aren't affecting my identity they are just choosing not to pay for a certain act.
If the company refused to pay for an escort, they aren't forcing me to be celibate. They aren't affecting my identity they are just choosing not to pay for a certain act.
That's just a completely disingenuous comparison. It's pretty normal for companies to pay for work-related food, just as it's pretty normal for you to pay for food you eat on your own time.
It's pretty not-normal for companies to pay for escorts, just like it's pretty not-normal for you to pay for escorts on your own time. Some people pay for escorts, but it's pretty well outside social norms, and I can't imagine a business situation requiring an escort anyway.
It's pretty not-normal for companies to pay for escorts, just like it's pretty not-normal for you to pay for escorts on your own time. Some people pay for escorts, but it's pretty well outside social norms, and I can't imagine a business situation requiring an escort anyway.
Bingo.
In fact, it would be like a company who normally does pay for escorts, but then deciding they'll own pay for opposite sex escorts, instead of allowing same sex escorts.
They'd rightly be pillared for allowing one but not the other.
In fact, it would be like a company who normally does pay for escorts, but then deciding they'll own pay for opposite sex escorts, instead of allowing same sex escorts.
They'd rightly be pillared for allowing one but not the other.
> It's pretty not-normal for companies to pay for escorts
I've known lots of companies to pay for escorts, but only the “walk you from the building to your car at night” kind and not the “euphemism for prostitute” kind.
I've known lots of companies to pay for escorts, but only the “walk you from the building to your car at night” kind and not the “euphemism for prostitute” kind.
> a business situation requiring an escort
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17453554
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17453554
I dare say this is a horrible comparison. There are no circumstances under which employees are expected, or even required, to have sex at work (presumably at least not at a mainstream tech startup). There are, however, many situations where employees would be expected/required to eat company-sponsored meals.
Your comment is much more polite than my knee-jerk reaction was going to be. I am thankful you made it before I made a poor comment.
I have no problem recognizing climate change and the impact humanity has had on climate change, but for some reason my brain dismisses a vegetarian diet for the sake of affecting climate change as an absurdity. I don't know why. I feel I am open minded out other things related to climate change, or vegan/vegetarian-ism. I don't doubt the science behind it at all, I just find it silly for some reason. I raise livestock on my own land for food and also hunt, maybe that bias has something to do with it.
I have no problem recognizing climate change and the impact humanity has had on climate change, but for some reason my brain dismisses a vegetarian diet for the sake of affecting climate change as an absurdity. I don't know why. I feel I am open minded out other things related to climate change, or vegan/vegetarian-ism. I don't doubt the science behind it at all, I just find it silly for some reason. I raise livestock on my own land for food and also hunt, maybe that bias has something to do with it.
My comment was going to be https://vimeo.com/9802538
God, PCU was lightyears ahead of its time.
God, PCU was lightyears ahead of its time.
Only exactly as equal a choice for the individual doing the eating. It's less of a choice for the other beings involved.
I'm curious about this mindset - it seems like you object to eating animals because they lack a choice. Do you have any problem with wild animals eating other wild animals (who presumably also have less of a choice)? I'm not trying to trick you or trap you, just genuinely curious.
I’m genuinely curious: you ask if one has any problem. Do you mean to imply that you have zero problem with this?
When you watch a big cat torture and eat a prey animal, do you not have any sense at all that maybe the prey would prefer that not to happen? Or that, all else being equal, if the tiger could eat something that doesn’t seem to mind being eaten, that would be at least as good for everyone?
Like, obviously we can’t really do anything about that without killing all the cats, which we don’t really like any better, and even that would probably end up killing all the prey species too... so we’re kind of stuck with things this way.
But — again, genuinely asking — does the intractability of that problem really force you, personally, to assign zero moral weight to the experience of animals? Or do you sincerely just... not care?
When you watch a big cat torture and eat a prey animal, do you not have any sense at all that maybe the prey would prefer that not to happen? Or that, all else being equal, if the tiger could eat something that doesn’t seem to mind being eaten, that would be at least as good for everyone?
Like, obviously we can’t really do anything about that without killing all the cats, which we don’t really like any better, and even that would probably end up killing all the prey species too... so we’re kind of stuck with things this way.
But — again, genuinely asking — does the intractability of that problem really force you, personally, to assign zero moral weight to the experience of animals? Or do you sincerely just... not care?
> Do you mean to imply that you have zero problem with this?
I really do have zero problem with animals killing and consuming other animals.
> When you watch a big cat torture and eat a prey animal,
I don't think it's fair to say that a big cat 'tortures' a prey animal. I suspect it's practice. Torture to me requires intent that I don't think the big cat has.
> do you not have any sense at all that maybe the prey would prefer that not to happen?
I do have a sense that the prey does not want to die. What they want doesn't really matter though to the carnivore.
> Or that, all else being equal, if the tiger could eat something that doesn’t seem to mind being eaten, that would be at least as good for everyone?
If the world could exist in a different state that had less suffering, that might be good. Not sure what it would cost though.
> But — again, genuinely asking — does the intractability of that problem really force you, personally, to assign zero moral weight to the experience of animals?
I think you misunderstood me, or I failed to explain well. I don't see any moral problem with animals consuming other animals. Killing animals for no reason I would find morally wrong. Killing animals for food I find morally neutral. Reducing sufferring where possible is morally good (whether in raising the animal, or the mechanism of killing the animal), but is separate from actually killing the animal in my opinion.
If you killed an animal painlessly, would there be any moral problem in consuming animals?
> Or do you sincerely just... not care?
I care immensely in making sure animals do not suffer needlessly. I care that animals are well taken care of while they are alive and that they are killed humanely and for a purpose. My livestock has, without question, healthier, more secure and more prolific lives than they would in the wild.
I really do have zero problem with animals killing and consuming other animals.
> When you watch a big cat torture and eat a prey animal,
I don't think it's fair to say that a big cat 'tortures' a prey animal. I suspect it's practice. Torture to me requires intent that I don't think the big cat has.
> do you not have any sense at all that maybe the prey would prefer that not to happen?
I do have a sense that the prey does not want to die. What they want doesn't really matter though to the carnivore.
> Or that, all else being equal, if the tiger could eat something that doesn’t seem to mind being eaten, that would be at least as good for everyone?
If the world could exist in a different state that had less suffering, that might be good. Not sure what it would cost though.
> But — again, genuinely asking — does the intractability of that problem really force you, personally, to assign zero moral weight to the experience of animals?
I think you misunderstood me, or I failed to explain well. I don't see any moral problem with animals consuming other animals. Killing animals for no reason I would find morally wrong. Killing animals for food I find morally neutral. Reducing sufferring where possible is morally good (whether in raising the animal, or the mechanism of killing the animal), but is separate from actually killing the animal in my opinion.
If you killed an animal painlessly, would there be any moral problem in consuming animals?
> Or do you sincerely just... not care?
I care immensely in making sure animals do not suffer needlessly. I care that animals are well taken care of while they are alive and that they are killed humanely and for a purpose. My livestock has, without question, healthier, more secure and more prolific lives than they would in the wild.
Thank you for the candid response! I have to admit I’m a bit confused, though. In particular, these statements seem slightly at odds:
> I really do have zero problem with animals killing and consuming other animals.
> If the world could exist in a different state that had less suffering, that might be good. Not sure what it would cost though.
The first sounds like you agree with my posit “I sincerely don’t care.” The second sounds like you agree with my posit “I care a small amount, but not enough to make the unworkable solutions attractive.” The rest of your comment makes the latter seem more likely, and I’m inclined to believe that since it seems like a more coherent and defensible ethical framework.
If that’s the case, I think we’re basically in agreement: there is some problem with wild animals eating other wild animals. Terminology aside, predation clearly involves unnecessary suffering. (Not only on the prey, but on sick or injured predators, who painfully starve for want of prey!)
All else being equal, it would be preferable for that suffering not to happen, but since we can’t make it any better, we tacitly consent to the current state of affairs.
The only part I find curious is that where I would call that “a slight moral force”, you would call it “morally neutral”. Why is that? Why does the question “do you have any problem with this” make sense to you, when it sounds like you agree there is a self-evident — though nuanced, and relatively minor — problem?
I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m arguing with you. In fact, to reinforce our agreement:
> If you killed an animal painlessly, would there be any moral problem in consuming animals?
Speaking for myself, I certainly do have far less issue with eating an animal that I can be personally assured has only had “one bad day”. I don’t think animals care that they live in a cage, iff the cage is big enough; in fact, they probably prefer it. This opinion is overwhelmingly common among the other vegetarians I know. Those who dissent are generally worrying about other less-humane-seeming things such as premature separation of young from parents— and those concerns are always tempered with the acknowledgement that it’s still far more humane than the common practice.
(Primary reasons such people still do not eat meat: One, this type of meat is prohibitively expensive in most urban areas, and would be very infrequent; two, eating meat that infrequently has a tendency to make folks feel ill.)
Again, I’m mostly curious why you would have expected any other answer, since it seems like it’s the answer you believe is reasonable. Why do you expect us to disagree, here?
Digressing, I’ve noticed something curious about the cultural perception of vegetarians, in these comments and elsewhere. Folks like yourself, who have clearly thought quite a bit about the ethics of your practice, I think see vegetarians basically eye-to-eye, and we can agree to disagree about exactly where to draw the line personally.
But think about your typical suburban meat eater who deliberately avoids learning more about how livestock is raised or slaughtered, since that makes them feel uncomfortable about eating meat. I think that person is genuinely a bit concerned that if they thought too hard about it, they would realize that it’s wrong in their own moral code to thoughtlessly consume factory-farmed meat, and then they’d have to change their lifestyle in an unpleasant way.
So maybe it’s soothing for that person to believe that all vegetarians are pursuing some radical or fallacious reasoning to an absurd conclusion. But the thing is... we’re really just not.
Myself, and every (ethical) vegetarian I know, we’re using the same boring moral principle that applies to pre-verbal infants, PVS patients, chimps and dolphins, mammals culturally coded as pets, and so on: if it is not absolutely necessary to save another life, it is respectively [impermissible..very not-ok] to kill and eat that thing.
Yes, we expand the circle of concern by a single logical step. The rest is just... normal ethics. Whatever are the moral beliefs you think a reasonable person would consistently hold after taking that step, yeah, of course we hold those. Why on earth wouldn’t we?
> I really do have zero problem with animals killing and consuming other animals.
> If the world could exist in a different state that had less suffering, that might be good. Not sure what it would cost though.
The first sounds like you agree with my posit “I sincerely don’t care.” The second sounds like you agree with my posit “I care a small amount, but not enough to make the unworkable solutions attractive.” The rest of your comment makes the latter seem more likely, and I’m inclined to believe that since it seems like a more coherent and defensible ethical framework.
If that’s the case, I think we’re basically in agreement: there is some problem with wild animals eating other wild animals. Terminology aside, predation clearly involves unnecessary suffering. (Not only on the prey, but on sick or injured predators, who painfully starve for want of prey!)
All else being equal, it would be preferable for that suffering not to happen, but since we can’t make it any better, we tacitly consent to the current state of affairs.
The only part I find curious is that where I would call that “a slight moral force”, you would call it “morally neutral”. Why is that? Why does the question “do you have any problem with this” make sense to you, when it sounds like you agree there is a self-evident — though nuanced, and relatively minor — problem?
I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m arguing with you. In fact, to reinforce our agreement:
> If you killed an animal painlessly, would there be any moral problem in consuming animals?
Speaking for myself, I certainly do have far less issue with eating an animal that I can be personally assured has only had “one bad day”. I don’t think animals care that they live in a cage, iff the cage is big enough; in fact, they probably prefer it. This opinion is overwhelmingly common among the other vegetarians I know. Those who dissent are generally worrying about other less-humane-seeming things such as premature separation of young from parents— and those concerns are always tempered with the acknowledgement that it’s still far more humane than the common practice.
(Primary reasons such people still do not eat meat: One, this type of meat is prohibitively expensive in most urban areas, and would be very infrequent; two, eating meat that infrequently has a tendency to make folks feel ill.)
Again, I’m mostly curious why you would have expected any other answer, since it seems like it’s the answer you believe is reasonable. Why do you expect us to disagree, here?
Digressing, I’ve noticed something curious about the cultural perception of vegetarians, in these comments and elsewhere. Folks like yourself, who have clearly thought quite a bit about the ethics of your practice, I think see vegetarians basically eye-to-eye, and we can agree to disagree about exactly where to draw the line personally.
But think about your typical suburban meat eater who deliberately avoids learning more about how livestock is raised or slaughtered, since that makes them feel uncomfortable about eating meat. I think that person is genuinely a bit concerned that if they thought too hard about it, they would realize that it’s wrong in their own moral code to thoughtlessly consume factory-farmed meat, and then they’d have to change their lifestyle in an unpleasant way.
So maybe it’s soothing for that person to believe that all vegetarians are pursuing some radical or fallacious reasoning to an absurd conclusion. But the thing is... we’re really just not.
Myself, and every (ethical) vegetarian I know, we’re using the same boring moral principle that applies to pre-verbal infants, PVS patients, chimps and dolphins, mammals culturally coded as pets, and so on: if it is not absolutely necessary to save another life, it is respectively [impermissible..very not-ok] to kill and eat that thing.
Yes, we expand the circle of concern by a single logical step. The rest is just... normal ethics. Whatever are the moral beliefs you think a reasonable person would consistently hold after taking that step, yeah, of course we hold those. Why on earth wouldn’t we?
> The first sounds like you agree with my posit “I sincerely don’t care.” The second sounds like you agree with my posit “I care a small amount, but not enough to make the unworkable solutions attractive.” The rest of your comment makes the latter seem more likely, and I’m inclined to believe that since it seems like a more coherent and defensible ethical framework.
I think your understanding of my reply is not correct. I have zero problem with animals killing other animals for food because it very typically is the only way they are able to eat and survive. I have read about (over the years, I don't have any sources) animals killing for "fun" or without eating their kill. I would have a problem with those cases.
> I think we’re basically in agreement: there is some problem with wild animals eating other wild animals.
We are not in agreement. I do not think there is any problem with wild animals eating other wild animals.
> Terminology aside, predation clearly involves unnecessary suffering.
I disagree with this. The suffering is necessary for wild animals. If lions could eat antelope without causing any fear or pain to the antelope, that would be nice - but these species have evolved in opposition to each other so there is no other way in nature for the lion to eat the antelope other than to catch it and kill it, which unfortunately causes suffering. As a human, I am more able to catch and kill my prey with minimal suffering, which is nice. I don't actually know if animals suffer for any length of time after being shot in the head, but if they do, it is reasonable to think that it is sub-second in duration. Sometimes things can go wrong, and suffering lasts longer. That is to be avoided.
> The only part I find curious is that where I would call that “a slight moral force”, you would call it “morally neutral”. Why is that? Why does the question “do you have any problem with this” make sense to you, when it sounds like you agree there is a self-evident — though nuanced, and relatively minor — problem?
I am not following you here I think. When I said "Killing animals for food I find morally neutral," I mean I have a right to eat and the animal has a right to survive. Those interests are in opposition. As far as hunting, given a fair chance - sometimes the animal will win and sometimes I will win. This is neutral to me. As far as farming there is an exchange - I provide food, shelter and protection for a short while, the animal provides me with nourishment. This is also neutral to me.
> Speaking for myself, I certainly do have far less issue with eating an animal that I can be personally assured has only had “one bad day”. I don’t think animals care that they live in a cage, iff the cage is big enough; in fact, they probably prefer it. This opinion is overwhelmingly common among the other vegetarians I know. Those who dissent are generally worrying about other less-humane-seeming things such as premature separation of young from parents— and those concerns are always tempered with the acknowledgement that it’s still far more humane than the common practice.
This sounds like you would not have a problem running your own farm and eating your own livestock. If you are able to take the enormous responsibility of animal husbandry seriously, it can be hugely rewarding and fulfilling.
I think your understanding of my reply is not correct. I have zero problem with animals killing other animals for food because it very typically is the only way they are able to eat and survive. I have read about (over the years, I don't have any sources) animals killing for "fun" or without eating their kill. I would have a problem with those cases.
> I think we’re basically in agreement: there is some problem with wild animals eating other wild animals.
We are not in agreement. I do not think there is any problem with wild animals eating other wild animals.
> Terminology aside, predation clearly involves unnecessary suffering.
I disagree with this. The suffering is necessary for wild animals. If lions could eat antelope without causing any fear or pain to the antelope, that would be nice - but these species have evolved in opposition to each other so there is no other way in nature for the lion to eat the antelope other than to catch it and kill it, which unfortunately causes suffering. As a human, I am more able to catch and kill my prey with minimal suffering, which is nice. I don't actually know if animals suffer for any length of time after being shot in the head, but if they do, it is reasonable to think that it is sub-second in duration. Sometimes things can go wrong, and suffering lasts longer. That is to be avoided.
> The only part I find curious is that where I would call that “a slight moral force”, you would call it “morally neutral”. Why is that? Why does the question “do you have any problem with this” make sense to you, when it sounds like you agree there is a self-evident — though nuanced, and relatively minor — problem?
I am not following you here I think. When I said "Killing animals for food I find morally neutral," I mean I have a right to eat and the animal has a right to survive. Those interests are in opposition. As far as hunting, given a fair chance - sometimes the animal will win and sometimes I will win. This is neutral to me. As far as farming there is an exchange - I provide food, shelter and protection for a short while, the animal provides me with nourishment. This is also neutral to me.
> Speaking for myself, I certainly do have far less issue with eating an animal that I can be personally assured has only had “one bad day”. I don’t think animals care that they live in a cage, iff the cage is big enough; in fact, they probably prefer it. This opinion is overwhelmingly common among the other vegetarians I know. Those who dissent are generally worrying about other less-humane-seeming things such as premature separation of young from parents— and those concerns are always tempered with the acknowledgement that it’s still far more humane than the common practice.
This sounds like you would not have a problem running your own farm and eating your own livestock. If you are able to take the enormous responsibility of animal husbandry seriously, it can be hugely rewarding and fulfilling.
Mmm, it sounds like we have some difference of principle, though not much in practice. I think I don’t see competing interests as zero-sum in the way you seem to.
That is, suppose A desires to kill B, and B desires to kill A, but neither A nor B desires to die. These interests are irreconcilable. “A and B kill each other with equal probability” is a potential resolution to the dilemma, but to my mind, that does not make it morally neutral. To wit, it is morally dispreferable to the universes where A and B resolve their differences, forget each other exists, hallucinate having succeeded in killing each other without actually doing so, and so on.
The preferred resolutions may be outlandishly infeasible to implement, but that won’t ever convince me that they are all morally equivalent.
Since we’re aligned on taking practical steps to minimize unnecessary suffering, we probably won’t gain anything from debating principles, but hopefully that helps you understand my surprise at your question.
I think it’s likely that you do apply my sort of reasoning in other situations, as I likely do yours. Something to muse on, maybe.
> This sounds like you would not have a problem running your own farm and eating your own livestock.
No substantial moral problem, no. On the other hand I also have no substantial moral reason to do so, and it would be an unpleasant change to my current lifestyle :)
That is, suppose A desires to kill B, and B desires to kill A, but neither A nor B desires to die. These interests are irreconcilable. “A and B kill each other with equal probability” is a potential resolution to the dilemma, but to my mind, that does not make it morally neutral. To wit, it is morally dispreferable to the universes where A and B resolve their differences, forget each other exists, hallucinate having succeeded in killing each other without actually doing so, and so on.
The preferred resolutions may be outlandishly infeasible to implement, but that won’t ever convince me that they are all morally equivalent.
Since we’re aligned on taking practical steps to minimize unnecessary suffering, we probably won’t gain anything from debating principles, but hopefully that helps you understand my surprise at your question.
I think it’s likely that you do apply my sort of reasoning in other situations, as I likely do yours. Something to muse on, maybe.
> This sounds like you would not have a problem running your own farm and eating your own livestock.
No substantial moral problem, no. On the other hand I also have no substantial moral reason to do so, and it would be an unpleasant change to my current lifestyle :)
Stating that you're not trying to trick someone doesn't really mean that your question isn't loaded.
I don't assign the same amount of moral agency to humans as I do to animals and I don't have to have a moral problem with a forest fire to not be happy about it killing a large number of animals, as an example.
But even if I did, a tiger in the jungle for example doesn't really have the ability to graze on grass. Meanwhile, the human being can thrive on a plant based diet, and following one is trivial today.
I don't assign the same amount of moral agency to humans as I do to animals and I don't have to have a moral problem with a forest fire to not be happy about it killing a large number of animals, as an example.
But even if I did, a tiger in the jungle for example doesn't really have the ability to graze on grass. Meanwhile, the human being can thrive on a plant based diet, and following one is trivial today.
> Stating that you're not trying to trick someone doesn't really mean that your question isn't loaded.
True, but I try not to have such a pessimistic perspective.
> I don't have to have a moral problem with a forest fire to not be happy about it killing a large number of animals, as an example.
That's an interesting example, thanks.
> But even if I did, a tiger in the jungle for example doesn't really have the ability to graze on grass. Meanwhile, the human being can thrive on a plant based diet, and following one is trivial today.
I don't think I would call it trivial. I suppose in the same way that some choose not to assign the same amount of moral agency to animals, I choose not to designate consumption of animals as an immoral thing to do.
True, but I try not to have such a pessimistic perspective.
> I don't have to have a moral problem with a forest fire to not be happy about it killing a large number of animals, as an example.
That's an interesting example, thanks.
> But even if I did, a tiger in the jungle for example doesn't really have the ability to graze on grass. Meanwhile, the human being can thrive on a plant based diet, and following one is trivial today.
I don't think I would call it trivial. I suppose in the same way that some choose not to assign the same amount of moral agency to animals, I choose not to designate consumption of animals as an immoral thing to do.
I think that humans in the past have undoubtedly had to eat meat to survive, as do many wild animals, but now that most humans no longer need meat, there's no reason to inflict suffering on other animals.
The other thing that gets missed in debates about vegetarianism is that it's not necessarily a binary thing. Just because you don't eat meat in some of your meals doesn't make you a vegetarian. There's a continuum between eating meat with every meal and never eating it.
This is most frequently missed when people bring up historical justifications for eating meat and cite that we're evolved to eat it. But that ignores that eating meat was, for most of human history, a rarity. For the majority of human history, we didn't have the tools necessary to hunt animals with weapons. Instead, we chased them on protracted persistence hunts that would last many hours, if not days. This made meat meals a once-in-a-while thing, not an every meal thing.
Too often, extremists on the vegetarian side advocate total meat abstinence and meat eaters think nothing of eating meat with every meal. And advocating meat abstinence works just about as well as advocating sex abstinence. People just aren't ready to give it up entirely. But many of the benefits of vegetarianism, both for the eater and the planet/animals, can be had by simply reducing meat consumption and eating vegetarian more often. Eating meat occasionally also simplifies a number of the malnutrition risks that can be a concern for people who are completely vegan.
I see policies like the one in this story being beneficial not because they're going to turn people into vegetarians, but because they're going to realize that they can have satisfying meals that don't include meat and maybe they'll make that choice a bit more often. No one has to become a vegetarian for this policy to be good.
This is most frequently missed when people bring up historical justifications for eating meat and cite that we're evolved to eat it. But that ignores that eating meat was, for most of human history, a rarity. For the majority of human history, we didn't have the tools necessary to hunt animals with weapons. Instead, we chased them on protracted persistence hunts that would last many hours, if not days. This made meat meals a once-in-a-while thing, not an every meal thing.
Too often, extremists on the vegetarian side advocate total meat abstinence and meat eaters think nothing of eating meat with every meal. And advocating meat abstinence works just about as well as advocating sex abstinence. People just aren't ready to give it up entirely. But many of the benefits of vegetarianism, both for the eater and the planet/animals, can be had by simply reducing meat consumption and eating vegetarian more often. Eating meat occasionally also simplifies a number of the malnutrition risks that can be a concern for people who are completely vegan.
I see policies like the one in this story being beneficial not because they're going to turn people into vegetarians, but because they're going to realize that they can have satisfying meals that don't include meat and maybe they'll make that choice a bit more often. No one has to become a vegetarian for this policy to be good.
If only the white rhino had chosen to be eaten!
"Meatspace Meeting Space Bans Meats In Spaces"
Ok, they're a private company, they can do what they want. If you don't like it, don't work there.
But, really......
But, really......
Like it or not, this is the side of history that will eventually win out. In 50-100 years from now, expect this kind of arrangement to be very common with American companies.
What’s a good way for me to bet you $1000 that you’re wrong? This statement seems so interesting. What’s the basis for this thought process? Isn’t the trend for meat consumption to increase with wealth so as the world develops, more meat will be consumed. [0]
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/meat-and-seafood-production-consu...
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/meat-and-seafood-production-consu...
There's a site that will help you do this: https://longbets.org/faq/
The downside is that you won't get your money. It'll go to charity. But you'll be able to prove your point to your great-great-grandkids!
The downside is that you won't get your money. It'll go to charity. But you'll be able to prove your point to your great-great-grandkids!
I'd be happy to take out a $100 bet, but I would probably want to lean towards the 100 year end of the prediction, and it's unlikely both of us will be alive in 100 years.
>Isn’t the trend for meat consumption to increase with wealth so as the world develops, more meat will be consumed.
Note I said "American companies", not companies around the world. I don't think my prediction will hold when applied to the entire world. I believe that within 200-300 years at the latest, there will be a strong cultural taboo in Western countries around hunting, meat farming, and eating "real meat". I figure synthetic and analogue meat will still be very popular. I don't think meat will be outlawed, but I sincerely think most people will treat meat-eaters like how most people currently treat neo-Nazis.
>Isn’t the trend for meat consumption to increase with wealth so as the world develops, more meat will be consumed.
Note I said "American companies", not companies around the world. I don't think my prediction will hold when applied to the entire world. I believe that within 200-300 years at the latest, there will be a strong cultural taboo in Western countries around hunting, meat farming, and eating "real meat". I figure synthetic and analogue meat will still be very popular. I don't think meat will be outlawed, but I sincerely think most people will treat meat-eaters like how most people currently treat neo-Nazis.
I eat meat and love it, but I don't think that's an unlikely scenario.
I'll get downvoted for mentioning any crypto-thing, but I think this might be doable with Augur (which is an actual live product, not some crypto-vaporware, though not particularly easy to use in its 1.0 state)
I doubt it. Unless lab grown meat manages to be a competitor, people are going to get meat based protein.
And have you seen the vast variety of food around the world made from meat?
It’s like saying people will give up excel. Possible, but only if some very major hurdles are crossed.
Otherwise ubiquity, biological, and cultural adaptation will win out.
The vegetarian side is underestimating the scope and time scale required.
And have you seen the vast variety of food around the world made from meat?
It’s like saying people will give up excel. Possible, but only if some very major hurdles are crossed.
Otherwise ubiquity, biological, and cultural adaptation will win out.
The vegetarian side is underestimating the scope and time scale required.
maybe i'm mistaken, but i think the overall point was not specifically about meat.
just that more and more companies will align themselves with some specific viewpoint and require/impel their employees to do the same as a condition of working there.
i'm probably mistaken though :)
just that more and more companies will align themselves with some specific viewpoint and require/impel their employees to do the same as a condition of working there.
i'm probably mistaken though :)
Hopefully those businesses will cease to exist due to market forces as artificially limiting talent available based on arbitrary preferences of management team would, I expect, reduce productivity and so increase labor costs.
When I was a traveling consultant, meal and lodging budgets were generally so bad that it really only made sense to eat a single meal per day anyway. While WeWork might be on a moral kick about this, I can only see it becoming common if companies can use it as some kind of cost cutting loophole, in much the same way many have a no-alcohol policy. Yes meat will continue to be a rare and expensive thing, but humans have been eating it for a few millennia now, I have a hard time seeing that go away in the 100 year picture.
And not because of environmental concerns. But moral concerns. Something that is flagrantly immoral would be opposed regardless of environmental questions.
That is important to note because it is not a simple question whether meat is net positive or net negative for the environment. It isn't even clear what it means if something is net positive for the environment.
This is a moral issue, not an eco issue.
That is important to note because it is not a simple question whether meat is net positive or net negative for the environment. It isn't even clear what it means if something is net positive for the environment.
This is a moral issue, not an eco issue.
I completely agree. The primary reason to not eat meat is that it's inherently unethical (factory farm or not). But a lot of people don't feel that way, so any argument that will persuade them to eat less (or no) meat works in my book.
I understand that view too, but insincere arguments have some drawbacks too. I do know some people who became disillusioned after hearing bad motivated reasoning on that, and on dubious health claims.
My current thinking is that both the eco and health questions are extremely complex. The moral issue, however, is simple.
My current thinking is that both the eco and health questions are extremely complex. The moral issue, however, is simple.
Sigh... please explain why it’s immoral to consume other organisms?
It's immoral to kill a conscious and sentient life form for luxury, recreation, or other purposes that aren't absolutely vital to immediate survival. Eating the result is generally encouraging the killing. Of course that doesn't apply to eating an organism that died through other means, or eating synthetic meat.
On what basis? The highly vegetarian countries are countries with a religious population, and Christianity has never been associated with vegetarianism.
There are plenty of (mostly older) Christian denominations that keep to vegetarian or vegan diets for large parts of the year. (This is why Ethiopian food tends to be so vegetable-heavy.)
Necessary, no, but it's thoughtful.
A lot of comments seem to be missing the facts:
- WeWork isn't forcing employees to be vegetarian (it's not like a hiring requirement)
- most companies have restrictions and rules surrounding their expensing
- WeWork has decided they won't reimburse meat (employees can still buy meat)
Should we force WeWork leadership, despite their rights to hold moral positions, to pay for something they don't want to pay for?
- WeWork isn't forcing employees to be vegetarian (it's not like a hiring requirement)
- most companies have restrictions and rules surrounding their expensing
- WeWork has decided they won't reimburse meat (employees can still buy meat)
Should we force WeWork leadership, despite their rights to hold moral positions, to pay for something they don't want to pay for?
Yes, they should be forced to pay for the things normally required of an employer. Including reasonable meals during business travel. The individual employee can choose on their own to be vegan or vegetarian, or to eat meat.
Why should the individual rights of the employee be surpassed by the rights of the powerful employer?
Why should the individual rights of the employee be surpassed by the rights of the powerful employer?
If you mean "rights" in a legal context, nowhere does an employee have a right to be reimbursed. The closest governing law here is fair employment, and this isn't anywhere close to that.
edit: so long as work-related expenses doesn't sum out to a minimum wage violation
edit: so long as work-related expenses doesn't sum out to a minimum wage violation
I meant it in the sense of the right to choose something as basic as what they eat while traveling.
This is an insane overreach of the employer/employee relationship, and the only reason it is getting a pass here is because the "right" kind of politics are behind it.
This is an insane overreach of the employer/employee relationship, and the only reason it is getting a pass here is because the "right" kind of politics are behind it.
>>> nowhere does an employee have a right to be reimbursed
Actually, there is. There are rules on expenses and meal. Probably not in most of the USA but the rest of the world is a thing.
Actually, there is. There are rules on expenses and meal. Probably not in most of the USA but the rest of the world is a thing.
We should certainly make sure that they feel the full effects of their decisions, in PR, the employment market, and in public praise or ridicule.
They will feel the full effects of their decisions, whatever those may be. I suspect they will not be large. I certainly can’t be arsed to care about this and I don’t see why you’d exert effort to “make sure” of anything here.
I like the way you phrased that; it's perfectly neutral.
curo(1)
> Should we force WeWork leadership, despite their rights to hold moral positions, to pay for something they don't want to pay for?
I'm pretty sure this is the exact argument by social conservatives when it comes to mandated birth control coverage (not taking a stance simply stating a fact).
Another point, not related to my response, is that non-meat dishes at a restaurant are similarly priced to some meat dishes, like a club sandwich and a salad. So the argument from a price standpoint is moot imo.
I can understand not wanting to do it at company sponsored events but seems wack to not do it for an individual's meal. I think this will promote shaming on employees who eat meat.
I'm pretty sure this is the exact argument by social conservatives when it comes to mandated birth control coverage (not taking a stance simply stating a fact).
Another point, not related to my response, is that non-meat dishes at a restaurant are similarly priced to some meat dishes, like a club sandwich and a salad. So the argument from a price standpoint is moot imo.
I can understand not wanting to do it at company sponsored events but seems wack to not do it for an individual's meal. I think this will promote shaming on employees who eat meat.
> WeWork isn't forcing employees to be vegetarian (it's not like a hiring requirement)
They're making a portion of wages/compensation contingent on eating vegetarian. If someone doesn't want to eat vegetarian when out on business, they have to pay for it themselves, where as a meal costing the exact same but lacking meat would be. I'd understand if it were a company based on vegetarian/vegan products, much like I'd understand a church choosing not to buy health care reimbursing birth control, but this doesn't appear to be that.
That said, I'm less concerned about meat at company events - the company can choose to cater whatever it wants - in much the same way I'd be fine with a friend hosting a party that didn't serve meat, but would consider it a pretty obnoxious faux pas to offer to buy dinner for me, but then ditch the check because I ordered a dish with chicken in it. Sure, I might stay friends with them, but it's a pretty good indicator of what kind of person they are.
> most companies have restrictions and rules surrounding their expensing
These tend to be pretty banal and don't really take a moral stance on whatever the employee's buying - "don't spend more than $x", "don't eat more than x times per day", "fly economy", etc. This would be more akin to "You cannot reimburse food containing Kale", "you cannot reimburse food bought at Olive Garden", "You must fly with Alaska on business trips", and so on. Maybe technically legal, but super obnoxious and arbitrary.
> Should we force WeWork leadership, despite their rights to hold moral positions, to pay for something they don't want to pay for?
Yes, I don't want my employer withholding compensation based on their own morals. See: companies refusing to pay for insurance covering birth control. Also consider hypotheticals where the otherwise secular employer doesn't pay for meals from non-halal/kosher restaurants, or which only stocks raw water in the company fridges, or which only allow employees to expense stays at hotels if they attend a sermon during work hours. Some of those might be illegal, some not (I'm honestly not sure on employment law for most of those) but all are just super obnoxious and disrespectful to their employees.
My employer has enough control over my life already. They definitely shouldn't also punish me financially for having different opinions than them.
To put a point on it: I don't think this particular case should necessarily rise to the level of "illegal", but I do consider it rude to the employees for taking away autonomy and implicitly disrespecting choices the employee makes. It's also overall pretty narcissistic of them to assume they both have the right opinions, and those opinions are so right that they should inflict them on their employees.
At the very least, I'm glad they're advertising this - now I know where not to work.
They're making a portion of wages/compensation contingent on eating vegetarian. If someone doesn't want to eat vegetarian when out on business, they have to pay for it themselves, where as a meal costing the exact same but lacking meat would be. I'd understand if it were a company based on vegetarian/vegan products, much like I'd understand a church choosing not to buy health care reimbursing birth control, but this doesn't appear to be that.
That said, I'm less concerned about meat at company events - the company can choose to cater whatever it wants - in much the same way I'd be fine with a friend hosting a party that didn't serve meat, but would consider it a pretty obnoxious faux pas to offer to buy dinner for me, but then ditch the check because I ordered a dish with chicken in it. Sure, I might stay friends with them, but it's a pretty good indicator of what kind of person they are.
> most companies have restrictions and rules surrounding their expensing
These tend to be pretty banal and don't really take a moral stance on whatever the employee's buying - "don't spend more than $x", "don't eat more than x times per day", "fly economy", etc. This would be more akin to "You cannot reimburse food containing Kale", "you cannot reimburse food bought at Olive Garden", "You must fly with Alaska on business trips", and so on. Maybe technically legal, but super obnoxious and arbitrary.
> Should we force WeWork leadership, despite their rights to hold moral positions, to pay for something they don't want to pay for?
Yes, I don't want my employer withholding compensation based on their own morals. See: companies refusing to pay for insurance covering birth control. Also consider hypotheticals where the otherwise secular employer doesn't pay for meals from non-halal/kosher restaurants, or which only stocks raw water in the company fridges, or which only allow employees to expense stays at hotels if they attend a sermon during work hours. Some of those might be illegal, some not (I'm honestly not sure on employment law for most of those) but all are just super obnoxious and disrespectful to their employees.
My employer has enough control over my life already. They definitely shouldn't also punish me financially for having different opinions than them.
To put a point on it: I don't think this particular case should necessarily rise to the level of "illegal", but I do consider it rude to the employees for taking away autonomy and implicitly disrespecting choices the employee makes. It's also overall pretty narcissistic of them to assume they both have the right opinions, and those opinions are so right that they should inflict them on their employees.
At the very least, I'm glad they're advertising this - now I know where not to work.
I really wonder if most critics would feel the same way after spending a week in a slaughter house?
Drastic times require wake up calls. Maybe folks will do some research and learn more about why this company implemented the policy.
If everyone had to slaughter their own meal, I think there would be less criticism...at least more understanding on why consumers are demanding more vegan options. At least watch some videos.
There's the option to stop working for the company too if one feels strongly about it.
Data shows that consumers, especially younger generations are moving forward toward plant-based options. A&W Canada is sold out of the Beyond Burger.
Times are changing.
Drastic times require wake up calls. Maybe folks will do some research and learn more about why this company implemented the policy.
If everyone had to slaughter their own meal, I think there would be less criticism...at least more understanding on why consumers are demanding more vegan options. At least watch some videos.
There's the option to stop working for the company too if one feels strongly about it.
Data shows that consumers, especially younger generations are moving forward toward plant-based options. A&W Canada is sold out of the Beyond Burger.
Times are changing.
On one hand, this seems like a very heavy-handed move considering today's societal ubiquity of meat.
On the other hand, I believe that in 100 years we'll look at today as the dark ages in terms of the scale of our industrial meat production.
So, I'm cautiously curious to see if other companies follow suit or not.
On the other hand, I believe that in 100 years we'll look at today as the dark ages in terms of the scale of our industrial meat production.
So, I'm cautiously curious to see if other companies follow suit or not.
It's obvious they are trying to save money, with the weirdest excuse they could find. Meat is the most expensive part of any meal.
Considering the magnitude of PR this has and will generate, any PR affects, whether positive or negative, will drastically dwarf any cost savings. If they are doing this out of purely self-interest, PR would be the primary concern, not cost.
Just order the dish with black truffles. Problem solved.
Eating vegetarian is more expensive if you want to feel full and satiated in the end.
I spent all my life an omnivore, until the last two years I became vegetarian; 6 of those months vegan. I’m inclined to agree with you if you meant that a ‘satiated’ vegan diet is more expensive, because often the (lower demand / higher price) raw ingredients to make meals from scratch are more niche and varied.
However, once you throw (principally) dairy into the mix, including mass-market meat substitutes (such as Quorn which often contains dairy derivatives), your options expand to the point where it is easy to a) just drop the meat and increase veg. intake with supplemented dairy from common dishes or b) replace the meat with a price-competitive meat substitute.
If you did indeed mean vegetarianism in general then I’m keen to know why you think it is more expensive.
I’m with other commenters here that this is a weird cost-saving measure from WW, and that dietary choices should not be imposed on people like this (whilst acknowledging WW is a private company and can do whatever they want—- it’s just a strange way to force it on people IMO)
However, once you throw (principally) dairy into the mix, including mass-market meat substitutes (such as Quorn which often contains dairy derivatives), your options expand to the point where it is easy to a) just drop the meat and increase veg. intake with supplemented dairy from common dishes or b) replace the meat with a price-competitive meat substitute.
If you did indeed mean vegetarianism in general then I’m keen to know why you think it is more expensive.
I’m with other commenters here that this is a weird cost-saving measure from WW, and that dietary choices should not be imposed on people like this (whilst acknowledging WW is a private company and can do whatever they want—- it’s just a strange way to force it on people IMO)
I don't mind weework not serving meat and I eat meat. I find it a bit weird and a flag they tend to be extremists, but on itself I am fine eating veg on company events.
I eat vegetarian 1-3 times a week and observe cost. I eat as much so that I don't feel hungry. If I am hungry I eat. Vegetarian days are more expensive.
Mostly because veg lunch itself is more expensive (or tiny) and don't last longer then 3.5 hours. Then I have to eat again, fruit and vegies are not enought (need nuts or dairy and a lot) or else my performance go a bit down.
I eat vegetarian 1-3 times a week and observe cost. I eat as much so that I don't feel hungry. If I am hungry I eat. Vegetarian days are more expensive.
Mostly because veg lunch itself is more expensive (or tiny) and don't last longer then 3.5 hours. Then I have to eat again, fruit and vegies are not enought (need nuts or dairy and a lot) or else my performance go a bit down.
I believe WeWork opened a great discussion and I personally applaud them for taking a stand. I also applauded Starbucks with straws like most others here.
Also, I find that it's pretty easy to actually save money on vegan food. Maybe it takes a little planning, but it's not that difficult to walk away with more money eating vegan while feeling better.
Also, I find that it's pretty easy to actually save money on vegan food. Maybe it takes a little planning, but it's not that difficult to walk away with more money eating vegan while feeling better.
Could you expand on that? I'm a lifelong vegetarian so I don't have a frame of reference for how satiated a meat eater feels. I wonder what I'm missing.
It probably depends on what you make. Nuts and store-bought seitan are indeed quite expensive, but lentils and legumes are quite cheap. Where I live (major US city), tofu is only $1 a pack.
I think you are drastically overestimating the cost of legumes.
Rice, legumes, etc. are very cheap.
Could you point me to research regarding this? It sounds pretty anecdotal
> co-founder Miguel McKelvey said the firm’s upcoming internal “Summer Camp” retreat would offer no meat options for attendees.
Maybe if they care about the environment perhaps they should skip the summer camp retreat and donate the money to charity? It certainly is not an essential thing to be doing.
Maybe if they care about the environment perhaps they should skip the summer camp retreat and donate the money to charity? It certainly is not an essential thing to be doing.
Taco Thursdays were the _ONLY_ good reason to work at a WeWork location (Unless you are trying to get paid to be an alcoholic).
It's funny to observe the criticism on a technical forum that should be in tune with the data. WeWork is setting a policy that is on the right side of history—for animals and the environment. I didn't see a lot of criticism on Starbucks straw decision. However, when the cost is a sacrifice closer to home, even when logic doesn't support the whining, so many try to find fault with a company decision that is net positive.
It's the do-gooder derogation effect: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550611415695
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/2017...
"But what was especially interesting was that those who viewed vegetarians more negatively were also more likely to expect that vegetarians would view them negatively, suggesting that a fear of moral reproach might underlie negative views of vegetarians. Supporting this idea, when the threat of moral reproach was experimentally manipulated, the researchers found that it increased negative evaluations of vegetarians."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/2017...
"But what was especially interesting was that those who viewed vegetarians more negatively were also more likely to expect that vegetarians would view them negatively, suggesting that a fear of moral reproach might underlie negative views of vegetarians. Supporting this idea, when the threat of moral reproach was experimentally manipulated, the researchers found that it increased negative evaluations of vegetarians."
Here's some criticism.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/12/starbucks-straw-ban-will-...
I hope there's more to Starbucks' plan than this, and that they've got a better lid in the works.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/12/starbucks-straw-ban-will-...
I hope there's more to Starbucks' plan than this, and that they've got a better lid in the works.
>I didn't see a lot of criticism on Starbucks straw decision.
There's been plenty
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/11/opinions/starbucks-plastic-dr...
There's been plenty
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/11/opinions/starbucks-plastic-dr...
Ok I see one article here that I still disagree with. Starbucks says they will work on this scenario and what prevents one from bringing their own straw if it's a disability issue? I think a solution here is possible while still protecting the environment and animals.
As a diabetic who is allergic to legumes... fuck you WeWork, I will never do business with you given a choice.
I know eggs and fish are okay, but what were the eggs fed? It does matter. If it's a company event, will there be eggs and fish, or just soy products?
I know eggs and fish are okay, but what were the eggs fed? It does matter. If it's a company event, will there be eggs and fish, or just soy products?
I was wondering when someone would mention diabetes. I feel like this policy will add a few more diabetics to the population. Now if they wanted to be really revolutionary they could ban sweets/sugar from their reimbursement policies instead..
The worse part, is sometimes I react to eggs/dairy (that are fed soy)... And, frankly not a huge fan of fish, which I could deal with. But there's really no way for me to get sufficient protein from vegetarian sources without getting too many carbs, and I'm not even sure there are complete vegetarian proteins without legumes.
It sounds like they're making exceptions for employees with religious or health needs that make this an undue burden.
> In an email to employees this week outlining the new policy, co-founder Miguel McKelvey said the firm’s upcoming internal "Summer Camp" retreat would offer no meat options for attendees.
Unlike some commenters, I'm okay with this! But the carbon cost of flying thousands of their employees on transatlantic return flights to the UK for this Summer Camp will be orders of magnitude greater than the carbon cost of any food choices, so it seems like an insincere concern.
Unlike some commenters, I'm okay with this! But the carbon cost of flying thousands of their employees on transatlantic return flights to the UK for this Summer Camp will be orders of magnitude greater than the carbon cost of any food choices, so it seems like an insincere concern.
You can't fix everything at once. Whataboutism, etc.
I thought about this some, and don't agree that this is whataboutism, because there's no change of topic. The environmental impact of WeWork's business decisions is supposed to be the topic. But the impact of massive transatlantic air travel gets a pass, and the far lesser impact of meat-eating doesn't. I think it's legitimate to ask whether someone's being consistent or sincere in their commitment to Cause X when they're decrying Thing X while (somewhat uniquely!) performing a Thing Y that does much more to hurt Cause X than Thing X does, you know?
But aren't nearly all individual actions to combat climate change or improve animal welfare like this? I think it's not hypocritical to take first steps that are easy, it's just tactics.
> staff will not be able to expense any meals that include poultry, pork or red meat.
What about dolphin?
What about dolphin?
Like most fake vegetarians, the policy apparently does not include any aquatic creatures like fish, squid, whales, or dolphins...even though the latter two are intelligent mammals with more capacity to feel pain than any type of poultry.
I really don't understand the moral argument for vegetarianism that excludes seafood. There are plenty of fish and marine invertebrates that are as smart/sentient/feeling as a chicken or cow. In many cases the environmental impact of their take is also much worse.
Squid are pretty smart, too, so probably should be included if one is using intelligence as a grounds for deciding what is food.
It's also already illegal to eat the latter two in the country in which WeWork operates.
WeWork operates in Tokyo as well.
Alligator might be an end around also :)
Hmmm in Sydney wework charges 850 per desk per month.
After paying rent, rice is the only option.
After paying rent, rice is the only option.
Is anybody being flown to this summer camp? A couple hours on a plane can match a few months of meat-free lunches. Especially considering employees might partially compensate with their non-expensed meals.
"A couple hours on a plane can match a few months of meat-free lunches."
I think you are mistaken there. Maybe if you only care about CO2 emissions, but meat production is also incredibly wasteful on resources like water, and is at least objectionable from an animal welfare standpoint.
I think you are mistaken there. Maybe if you only care about CO2 emissions, but meat production is also incredibly wasteful on resources like water, and is at least objectionable from an animal welfare standpoint.
[deleted]
Probably a net-negative business move.
This creates goodwill among vegetarians within the company, who will appreciate being part of this uniquely progressive organization. However, their lives will not actually change very much - they won't have to witness meat at company events, sure, but their travel lives will be the same - they will just order vegetarian, like usual.
This creates ill-will among meat eaters at the company, who will want to eat burgers and pork chops and will not be able to do so on the company expense, like every other company allows. Unlike the vegetarians, they will be reminded of this not only at company events but also every time they get food while traveling, as they have to think through what they are allowed to eat and see all the meat options, knowing that WeWork is the reason they can't have them.
The animosity outweighs the goodwill here by a large margin. Retention will suffer.
This creates goodwill among vegetarians within the company, who will appreciate being part of this uniquely progressive organization. However, their lives will not actually change very much - they won't have to witness meat at company events, sure, but their travel lives will be the same - they will just order vegetarian, like usual.
This creates ill-will among meat eaters at the company, who will want to eat burgers and pork chops and will not be able to do so on the company expense, like every other company allows. Unlike the vegetarians, they will be reminded of this not only at company events but also every time they get food while traveling, as they have to think through what they are allowed to eat and see all the meat options, knowing that WeWork is the reason they can't have them.
The animosity outweighs the goodwill here by a large margin. Retention will suffer.
Original source (w/o sound-on autoplay video): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-13/wework-te...
As a business decision this seems incredibly odd. Being vegetarian or supporting vegetarianism does not seem like it would have disproportionate representation among either their target clientele or their target employees. As such it seems to me it would have minor negative effect on their perception by clients, and moderately negative impact on their perception by employees. I don't see why they would risk that for a cause entirely unconnected to their business, for which there are many less controversial ways to make an impact (energy efficiency in their buildings, commitment to purchase carbon free energy, etc).
> I don't see why they would risk that for a cause entirely unconnected to their business
Maybe they just really believe in it.
Maybe they just really believe in it.
Well then it seems like starting an alternative to PETA would be a better use of management's time and efforts than running a real estate REIT that just has a vegetarian-friendly per diem policy.
Of course, they won't do that, because they actually just care about making money and aren't really worried about this stuff. So I'm still puzzled.
Of course, they won't do that, because they actually just care about making money and aren't really worried about this stuff. So I'm still puzzled.
Odd to see this paragraph in the middle - it has no relation to anything else in the article, and the 2 points don't relate to each other - beyond the theme of companies banning things:
> American Airlines Group Inc. and Starbucks Corp. recently joined the chorus of companies pledging to phase out plastic straws and drink stirrers. And Southwest Airlines Co., in a bid to reduce allergy risk, said this week peanuts will no longer be available on flights starting Aug. 1.
As far as I'm aware, meat-based meal options are available from both airlines and the restaurant.
> American Airlines Group Inc. and Starbucks Corp. recently joined the chorus of companies pledging to phase out plastic straws and drink stirrers. And Southwest Airlines Co., in a bid to reduce allergy risk, said this week peanuts will no longer be available on flights starting Aug. 1.
As far as I'm aware, meat-based meal options are available from both airlines and the restaurant.
I think they meant AA and *$ are looking to help the environemt.
What's their position on plastic straws?
Is this any weirder than how a lot of companies let employees charge their personal electric vehicles for free, but won't let you expense personal gasoline?
The average cost per mile for an electric is about 8 cents, gasoline is about 16 cents. https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf
Not sure what you're getting at.
It's a hell of a lot easier to install a charger in a parking lot than it is to install a gas station.
Also, there may be perks/subsidies offered by the local government for installing EV chargers.
Also, there may be perks/subsidies offered by the local government for installing EV chargers.
You don't need an on-site gas station to let people expense gas. It's actually the opposite: employees generally expense things because they cannot get them on-site.
Definitely weirder. There is well-established precedent for expensing food, which matters. Also, food is a bare-necessity for staying alive while traveling on your company's behalf, so manipulating people's options there is bound to produce blowback.
[deleted]
Just the annoyance of having to itemize a receipt _to that granularity_ would annoy me enough to quit working at a company like that.
"New research indicates that avoiding meat is one of the biggest things an individual can do to reduce their personal environmental impact," said McKelvey in the memo, "even more than switching to a hybrid car."
What research?
What research?
Here's one example from the European Commission: http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2359
the tl;dr is that 2% of overall environmental impact in the EU27 could reduced by switching to a Mediterranean style diet (reduced red meat but not 100% non-meat diet).
And PNAS have another study which used data covering 66% of the global population: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/11/28/1711889114
the tl;dr is that 2% of overall environmental impact in the EU27 could reduced by switching to a Mediterranean style diet (reduced red meat but not 100% non-meat diet).
And PNAS have another study which used data covering 66% of the global population: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/11/28/1711889114
If a company I worked for introduced that I think my response would be subterfuge. "Hey buddy, I'll have the steak but can you do me a favour and put 2 beetroot and feta tarts on the bill instead."
Gotcha. By "subterfuge", I assume you meant "risk my employment by committing reimbursement fraud".
> committing reimbursement fraud
lol, nobody takes reimbursements this seriously
lol, nobody takes reimbursements this seriously
Yes, people do. What OP described is called fraud and people get terminated for fraud all the time.
One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust policy.
You can quit your job if hurting animals and harming the environment is so important to you.
I care about companies not making moral judgements on behalf of their employees.
I guess this particular restriction aligns with your morality closely enough that you are happy to give it a pass. What if instead, a company morally objected to halal slaughter and refused to reimburse employees for halal meals? What if they decided coffee production was too likely to have involved child labour and so that's off the list too. Surgery deserts make people fat and can lead to diabities, can't go paying for that either.
For what it's worth 3 of my sister's are vegan. My mother has been vegetarian since the age of 9. So it's fair to say I've eaten my fair share of meat free meals.
I think as a company there are a whole bunch of things you could do to promote vegetarianism without alienativing 90% of the population. An easy one would be offering a similar range of vegetarian alternatives as they do normal meals.
I guess this particular restriction aligns with your morality closely enough that you are happy to give it a pass. What if instead, a company morally objected to halal slaughter and refused to reimburse employees for halal meals? What if they decided coffee production was too likely to have involved child labour and so that's off the list too. Surgery deserts make people fat and can lead to diabities, can't go paying for that either.
For what it's worth 3 of my sister's are vegan. My mother has been vegetarian since the age of 9. So it's fair to say I've eaten my fair share of meat free meals.
I think as a company there are a whole bunch of things you could do to promote vegetarianism without alienativing 90% of the population. An easy one would be offering a similar range of vegetarian alternatives as they do normal meals.
"I care about companies not making moral judgements on behalf of their employees."
This is absurd. Of course companies need to enforce some form of morality among its employees, for instance by having an anti-murder policy or by firing employees who shout racist epitaphs at quarterly meetings. The question is just where to draw the line.
"What if instead, a company morally objected to halal slaughter and refused to reimburse employees for halal meals? What if they decided coffee production was too likely to have involved child labour and so that's off the list too. Surgery deserts make people fat and can lead to diabities, can't go paying for that either."
Sounds terrifying. One day, those fascist may ask people to quit drinking on the job, enforce a no-drug policy, ask people to adhere to a dress-code, and prohibit them from carrying firearms on their desk job. Or wait, did I just take your slippery slope fallacy in the wrong direction?
"For what it's worth 3 of my sister's are vegan. My mother has been vegetarian since the age of 9. So it's fair to say I've eaten my fair share of meat free meals."
For the sake of your health, I sure hope you have eaten meals without meat every once in a while.
This is absurd. Of course companies need to enforce some form of morality among its employees, for instance by having an anti-murder policy or by firing employees who shout racist epitaphs at quarterly meetings. The question is just where to draw the line.
"What if instead, a company morally objected to halal slaughter and refused to reimburse employees for halal meals? What if they decided coffee production was too likely to have involved child labour and so that's off the list too. Surgery deserts make people fat and can lead to diabities, can't go paying for that either."
Sounds terrifying. One day, those fascist may ask people to quit drinking on the job, enforce a no-drug policy, ask people to adhere to a dress-code, and prohibit them from carrying firearms on their desk job. Or wait, did I just take your slippery slope fallacy in the wrong direction?
"For what it's worth 3 of my sister's are vegan. My mother has been vegetarian since the age of 9. So it's fair to say I've eaten my fair share of meat free meals."
For the sake of your health, I sure hope you have eaten meals without meat every once in a while.
> This is absurd. Of course companies need to enforce some form of morality among its employees, for instance by having an anti-murder policy or by firing employees who shout racist epitaphs at quarterly meetings. The question is just where to draw the line.
Those things aren't the responsibility of the employer. They are illegal.
I don't actually think my argument was the slippery slope. It was my attempt to show that other things could equally be considered immoral that perhaps don't align quite as neatly with your militant vegetarianism.
Anyway, I doubt anyone else is actually reading this 2 week old thread so I'll leave it at that. Have a good weekend.
Those things aren't the responsibility of the employer. They are illegal.
I don't actually think my argument was the slippery slope. It was my attempt to show that other things could equally be considered immoral that perhaps don't align quite as neatly with your militant vegetarianism.
Anyway, I doubt anyone else is actually reading this 2 week old thread so I'll leave it at that. Have a good weekend.
Again you are factually wrong. As long as it is not threatening, it is not illegal in the USA to express racism. That's why companies take a stricter stance against racism than the law does.
>It was my attempt to show that other things could equally be considered immoral that perhaps don't align quite as neatly with your militant vegetarianism.
I don't think you know what the word "militant" means.
Also, your argument remains absurd. Just because there is no universal agreement on morality, it does not mean that morality is relative and it certainly does not mean that companies should not have policies based on their morals and their values.
As a matter of fact, your line of argument is so ridiculous that I doubt even you believe in what you are saying. I think that this company's policy made you feel hurt and attacked for visceral reasons (the do-gooder derogation effect) and you are trying to justify that feeling for yourself by dressing it up as a political argument.
>Anyway, I doubt anyone else is actually reading this 2 week old thread so I'll leave it at that. Have a good weekend.
It sounds like a good idea that you leave. I hope that you learned something here and wish you a pleasant week.
>It was my attempt to show that other things could equally be considered immoral that perhaps don't align quite as neatly with your militant vegetarianism.
I don't think you know what the word "militant" means.
Also, your argument remains absurd. Just because there is no universal agreement on morality, it does not mean that morality is relative and it certainly does not mean that companies should not have policies based on their morals and their values.
As a matter of fact, your line of argument is so ridiculous that I doubt even you believe in what you are saying. I think that this company's policy made you feel hurt and attacked for visceral reasons (the do-gooder derogation effect) and you are trying to justify that feeling for yourself by dressing it up as a political argument.
>Anyway, I doubt anyone else is actually reading this 2 week old thread so I'll leave it at that. Have a good weekend.
It sounds like a good idea that you leave. I hope that you learned something here and wish you a pleasant week.
> In an email to employees this week outlining the new policy, co-founder Miguel McKelvey said the firm’s upcoming internal “Summer Camp” retreat would offer no meat options for attendees.
Unless they have two events called Summer Camp, that's not an internal event, it's an event they're selling to their members as including the best hand picked Street food vendors in the UK. I imagine lots of people will be surprised that none of them sell meat if it's actually that event.
Unless they have two events called Summer Camp, that's not an internal event, it's an event they're selling to their members as including the best hand picked Street food vendors in the UK. I imagine lots of people will be surprised that none of them sell meat if it's actually that event.
No Taco Bell was harmed in the making of this policy.
Meat has an horrific environmental impact, so i can see why a socially conscious company would not want to associate itself to that.
Notice that employees are still free to eat whatever they want, its just that the company will not pay for ecologically unsustainable meals.
So the freedeom of choice of the employees is unchanged, they can still go out and grab a burguer but its out of their own pocket.
Notice that employees are still free to eat whatever they want, its just that the company will not pay for ecologically unsustainable meals.
So the freedeom of choice of the employees is unchanged, they can still go out and grab a burguer but its out of their own pocket.
That's the same as fining people for practicing their religion and then saying that their freedom of religion is unchanged, they just have to pay more to do it.
Of course this affects employee choices, to think otherwise is obtuse.
Of course this affects employee choices, to think otherwise is obtuse.
[deleted]
I think the market will force them to rethink their decision, and rightfully so
This is completely unenforceable.
Just claim that you ordered the dish without meat.
Just claim that you ordered the dish without meat.
They pay their employees like shit to start, no surprise here.
Will WeLive dorms also be made meat-free?
Feel like this is just gonna cause so many bike shredding arguments internally it's not really worth it.
Seems like a breach of contract to me.
Easy, stay away from that company.
As long as chicken and fish are not meat then this is ok with me. :)
This is the anti-humanistic mindset that prioritizes "no impact" on nature above all else, instead of prioritizing human well being / human flourishing, which itself would account for environmental stewardship, but not to the level of sacrificing health to avoid eating animals (the healthiest option).
What evidence do you have for this? Along with the environmental devastation and the obscene cruelty of factory farming, the overwhelmingly negative health effects of meat and dairy consumption are the third pillar in the triumvirate of reasons to go vegan, or at the very least to limit and reduce consumption of animal products. For example, the World Health Organization classifies processed meats (bacon, salami etc) as group 1 carcinogens, meaning they are known to cause cancer. Processed meats may be the worst, but the health impacts of other meats and dairy products aren't a whole lot better. Combine those facts with the plethora of meat substitutes and plant-based dining options now available, and plant-based diets are increasingly becoming an easy and obvious choice.
Why is speciesism acceptable but not racism?
You certainly don't feel this way in principle, just in degree.
Do you swat at mosquitos or flies when they bite you?
Explain to me how you think different races compare to each other like a human compares to a cow? We are superior to the cow in so many ways... is that your opinion of races?
I think it is immoral to not hold humans in higher regard than animals, and do what is necessary to prioritize the well being of animals above humans where there is a choice to be made.
Also, I am absolutely in favor of treating animals as humanely as possible... though I won't go so far as to not eat them.
Maybe some group of humans will evolve over time to thrive without eating animals... but we haven't so far.
Do you swat at mosquitos or flies when they bite you?
Explain to me how you think different races compare to each other like a human compares to a cow? We are superior to the cow in so many ways... is that your opinion of races?
I think it is immoral to not hold humans in higher regard than animals, and do what is necessary to prioritize the well being of animals above humans where there is a choice to be made.
Also, I am absolutely in favor of treating animals as humanely as possible... though I won't go so far as to not eat them.
Maybe some group of humans will evolve over time to thrive without eating animals... but we haven't so far.
>Also, I am absolutely in favor of treating animals as humanely as possible... though I won't go so far as to not eat them.
So you're not in favor of treating animals as humanly as possible...
Your other post also applies to infants and the mentally disabled, can I eat them too?
So you're not in favor of treating animals as humanly as possible...
Your other post also applies to infants and the mentally disabled, can I eat them too?
You are superior to a cow in so many ways, according to you, based on your criteria. The nazis thought they were superior to jews in so many ways, according to them, based on their criteria. One is just as objectively true as the other.
Let's just leave it to "power". We are immensely more powerful than the cow, seeing as they aren't having any debates about whether they should eat us or not, and can't do anything to stop whether we want to eat them.. it is simply our choice to do so or not.
I think that's pretty objective.
I think that's pretty objective.
This seems like a Just don't work for that company issue. Some places don't reimburse travel meals at all and as long as I have a choice I wouldn't work for them.
"The company estimates that the policy will save 445.1m pounds of CO2 emissions ... by 2023." That's 202,000 kt over a 5-year plan.
Global fuel-based emissions in 2015: 36,061,710 kt CO2.
In other words, they think they are so important as to "save" about 0.1% of global CO2 annually just by refusing to include meat in the menu of their own events and employee-expensed meals. I doubt the magnitude of their estimates.
[added] For a sense of scale, WeWork has about 2,000 employees.
Global fuel-based emissions in 2015: 36,061,710 kt CO2.
In other words, they think they are so important as to "save" about 0.1% of global CO2 annually just by refusing to include meat in the menu of their own events and employee-expensed meals. I doubt the magnitude of their estimates.
[added] For a sense of scale, WeWork has about 2,000 employees.
Why does it make sense to compare global CO2 emissions to WeWork's CO2 emissions?
One company with one decision making an 0.1% reduction on global CO2 annually sounds pretty darn good to me.
One company with one decision making an 0.1% reduction on global CO2 annually sounds pretty darn good to me.
It should sound good—unbelievably good. This is why the global comparison makes sense: it implies wework is already using at least 0.1% of the world’s C02 production. Which seems absurd for 1/4000000th of the world population.
Maybe they were just letting cows rot in their pantry, I dunno.
Maybe they were just letting cows rot in their pantry, I dunno.
> One company with one decision making an 0.1% reduction on global CO2 annually sounds pretty darn good to me.
The point is that WeWork is being either credulous, fraudulent, or incompetent, because it isn't possible for this 2,000 person company to account for 0.1% of global CO2.
The point is that WeWork is being either credulous, fraudulent, or incompetent, because it isn't possible for this 2,000 person company to account for 0.1% of global CO2.
I read mkempe's comment as agreeing that it sounds pretty darned good... in fact too good to be credible.
Also, if a group of urban westerners WERE to stop eating such a large quantity of meat en masse, it would have the effect of lowering the price of meat and not the effect of simply reducing the meat eaten in the world. Most of that meat will just get bought by others for a slightly cheaper price. Making protein cheaper for poorer people in the world would arguably be the best outcome of this experiment if the magnitude were anything close to their estimates.
You're right to consider the marginal effect that this might have on the purchasing habits of meat eaters, but you're wrong to ignore the marginal effect that the fall in prices will have on meat producers.
A fall in price will always reduce the quantity supplied, ceteris paribus.
A fall in price will always reduce the quantity supplied, ceteris paribus.
> Also, if a group of urban westerners WERE to stop eating such a large quantity of meat en masse, it would have the effect of lowering the price of meat and not the effect of simply reducing the meat eaten in the world.
This is equivalent to claiming that demand for meat is purely elastic and that the market for meat is frictionless with respect to shipping worldwide.
What evidence do you have for these claims?
This is equivalent to claiming that demand for meat is purely elastic and that the market for meat is frictionless with respect to shipping worldwide.
What evidence do you have for these claims?
Let alone that lower demand might lower price and increase consumption from others, keeping net meat production the same.
Even more obviously absurd: 15 million animals saved is how many per employee?
If this is what a founder of WeWork is focusing on, I can't wait til they IPO so I can short it. I doubt this company survives the next recession.
As for livestock vs vegetation being better or worse for the environment, it isn't a contest. Farming is many times worse for the environment than raising animals. Has any of these useless journalists, CEOs and crazy vegans ever stepped on a farm? Do they understand what is involved in farming? To farm, you do your darnedest to pretty much wiped out all animals from insects to rabbits to coyotes to large herd animals to protect your farm. And if the world were to go vegan, we'd have to cut down every rich forest ( amazon to the jungles of southeast asia and africa ) to provide farmland for vegetables. Whereas wheat, soy and corn that we feed livestock can grow in harsher temperatures, most vegetables we eat cannot. Also goats, pigs, etc can forage on weed and other "pest" vegetation in harsh climates.
Also, farming kills 1000 times more animal than raising livestock. These vegans are so insane that they think vegetables fall from the heavens like manna. Nope. An incredible amount of insects and small rodents/mammals are killed prior to planting and during harvest. That's right, every salad, every fruit and every meal that you eat contains some animal.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/i-hate-...
I am so sick of the vegan nonsense. It's not based on fact, reality or common sense. It's just agenda pushing virtue signaling where people pretend to be morally superior for nothing.
More animal lives perished for a vegans salad than a carnivore's steak. And a vegan eating a salad is actually eating more animals than a carnivore eating a steak.
So morally speaking, a meat eater has the upper hand if you think all animal lives matter.
But maybe we should listen to a dumb city dwelling vegan who has never set foot on a farm. Lets wipe out forests and cultivate the land for farming. We'll wipe tens of trillions of animals in the process. And that's before dousing the farmland and vegetation with pesticides, petrochemicals, etc. But vegan feels over reality right according to the lazy journalist and the agenda pushing CEOs and corporations.
Or do cow, pig, chicken lives matter more than insect and small mammals?
Are the thousands of lives lost for a single salad meal worth a single cow's life that could produce a thousand meals?
Edit: Downvoted? I guess vegans don't like science. Maybe you are more of a huffpost crowd.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/02/bugs-in-food_n_1467...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/11581770/Hair-aphid...
Downvote all you want. Vegans eat more animals than a carnivore. In case you were wondering, insects are animals.
As for livestock vs vegetation being better or worse for the environment, it isn't a contest. Farming is many times worse for the environment than raising animals. Has any of these useless journalists, CEOs and crazy vegans ever stepped on a farm? Do they understand what is involved in farming? To farm, you do your darnedest to pretty much wiped out all animals from insects to rabbits to coyotes to large herd animals to protect your farm. And if the world were to go vegan, we'd have to cut down every rich forest ( amazon to the jungles of southeast asia and africa ) to provide farmland for vegetables. Whereas wheat, soy and corn that we feed livestock can grow in harsher temperatures, most vegetables we eat cannot. Also goats, pigs, etc can forage on weed and other "pest" vegetation in harsh climates.
Also, farming kills 1000 times more animal than raising livestock. These vegans are so insane that they think vegetables fall from the heavens like manna. Nope. An incredible amount of insects and small rodents/mammals are killed prior to planting and during harvest. That's right, every salad, every fruit and every meal that you eat contains some animal.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/i-hate-...
I am so sick of the vegan nonsense. It's not based on fact, reality or common sense. It's just agenda pushing virtue signaling where people pretend to be morally superior for nothing.
More animal lives perished for a vegans salad than a carnivore's steak. And a vegan eating a salad is actually eating more animals than a carnivore eating a steak.
So morally speaking, a meat eater has the upper hand if you think all animal lives matter.
But maybe we should listen to a dumb city dwelling vegan who has never set foot on a farm. Lets wipe out forests and cultivate the land for farming. We'll wipe tens of trillions of animals in the process. And that's before dousing the farmland and vegetation with pesticides, petrochemicals, etc. But vegan feels over reality right according to the lazy journalist and the agenda pushing CEOs and corporations.
Or do cow, pig, chicken lives matter more than insect and small mammals?
Are the thousands of lives lost for a single salad meal worth a single cow's life that could produce a thousand meals?
Edit: Downvoted? I guess vegans don't like science. Maybe you are more of a huffpost crowd.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/02/bugs-in-food_n_1467...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/11581770/Hair-aphid...
Downvote all you want. Vegans eat more animals than a carnivore. In case you were wondering, insects are animals.
Currently the number one cause of Amazon rainforest loss is cattle ranching.
Animal agriculture is worse for the environment than plant agriculture. There are numerous studies to support this, here's one, [1].
It is true that animal products at times use land that cannot be well utilized for most plants. But many studies, such as [2], show that this land is unnecessary to feed the world. A vegan diet uses the least amount of land, and excess land can either be utilized for other purposes or returned to nature. Of course there are certain parts of the world which have different capacities to grow different foods, so what I have written is true as a general rule it is not true of literally every location.
It is also true that a vegan diet does kill animals. Though, it kills the fewest animals, even considering field mice and insects killed in the farming process. See [3].
[1] Livestock's Long Shadow - http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
[2] Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: Ten diet scenarios - https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.12952/journal.el...
[3] Number of Animals Killed to Produce One Million Calories in Eight Food Categories - http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc/
Animal agriculture is worse for the environment than plant agriculture. There are numerous studies to support this, here's one, [1].
It is true that animal products at times use land that cannot be well utilized for most plants. But many studies, such as [2], show that this land is unnecessary to feed the world. A vegan diet uses the least amount of land, and excess land can either be utilized for other purposes or returned to nature. Of course there are certain parts of the world which have different capacities to grow different foods, so what I have written is true as a general rule it is not true of literally every location.
It is also true that a vegan diet does kill animals. Though, it kills the fewest animals, even considering field mice and insects killed in the farming process. See [3].
[1] Livestock's Long Shadow - http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
[2] Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: Ten diet scenarios - https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.12952/journal.el...
[3] Number of Animals Killed to Produce One Million Calories in Eight Food Categories - http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc/
Your rant is missing lots of facts my friend.
Most vegans by definition are ethically against the abuse of today's scaled animal agriculture farming techniques. This isn't a perfect world, but most people are either unaware or choose to be disconnected from how farm animals are regularly abused. All lives matter, but come on, let's not discredit the routine torture taking place on such animals.
It's not sustainable and is ethically wrong to most people who come face to face with it.
Defending animal agriculture is outdated and simply on the wrong side of history. Any online search can pull up why more people are looking into vegetarianism and why demand is increasing for vegan options.
Anyone can try and defend scaled animal agriculture, but the world is moving speedily beyond that.
Most vegans by definition are ethically against the abuse of today's scaled animal agriculture farming techniques. This isn't a perfect world, but most people are either unaware or choose to be disconnected from how farm animals are regularly abused. All lives matter, but come on, let's not discredit the routine torture taking place on such animals.
It's not sustainable and is ethically wrong to most people who come face to face with it.
Defending animal agriculture is outdated and simply on the wrong side of history. Any online search can pull up why more people are looking into vegetarianism and why demand is increasing for vegan options.
Anyone can try and defend scaled animal agriculture, but the world is moving speedily beyond that.
Nice. If you care at all about moral justifications for your own actions, eating meat is an extremely difficult position to defend. It even falls on the wrong side of the Kantian perfect/imperfect duty divide, since the default really is not eating meat, so eating meat is a positive action which must be justified. I think it's a great example of philosophy pointing out the absurdity of a (very) widely-practiced phenomenon.
Of course, there's always the perpetual ethical get-out-of-jail-free card of doubting the existence of any finite set of values (articulated in our imprecise, incomplete, informal language) which could inform all our actions in this staggeringly-complex world, plus the impossibility-in-principle of living consistent with those values ;)
Of course, there's always the perpetual ethical get-out-of-jail-free card of doubting the existence of any finite set of values (articulated in our imprecise, incomplete, informal language) which could inform all our actions in this staggeringly-complex world, plus the impossibility-in-principle of living consistent with those values ;)
How does that argument extend to animals that eat other animals? And why is the default defined as not eating meat?
The common justification for this is the comparative anatomy argument that we're primates and primates don't eat meat. These same people have had their heads in the sand for the last 30 years, because it's been found that primates do quite commonly eat meat.
Definitely not. The common justification for this is that we, as the most intelligent species on the planet, have developed a moral conscience. As such, it is unconscionable that we support the literal mass murder and ill-treatment of billions of animals each year when there are alternatives that require no suffering and no death.
Parent Poster said:
> the default
>it is unconscionable that we support the literal mass murder and ill-treatment of billions of animals each year when there are alternatives that require no suffering and no death.
There are ways to put down animals which require no suffering.
And no, there are no alternatives to death. Plants are living things too. Why is it okay to murder a plant but not an animal?
There are ways to put down animals which require no suffering.
And no, there are no alternatives to death. Plants are living things too. Why is it okay to murder a plant but not an animal?
We usually divide the world into moral agents (pretty much just humans) and non-moral-agents.
The default is not eating meat because the default is not eating anything. Humans must take a positive action to eat something.
Generally perfect duties in the Kantian sense take the form of "thou shalt-nots", so a positive action you shouldn't take, like killing a random stranger or some such. This is contrasted with imperfect duties, which are things that are merely virtuous to do - like using your time & resources to help the less-fortunate, for example.
The default is not eating meat because the default is not eating anything. Humans must take a positive action to eat something.
Generally perfect duties in the Kantian sense take the form of "thou shalt-nots", so a positive action you shouldn't take, like killing a random stranger or some such. This is contrasted with imperfect duties, which are things that are merely virtuous to do - like using your time & resources to help the less-fortunate, for example.
>The default is not eating meat because the default is not eating anything.
That's default for rocks and such, but not living things, whose existence requires by default the death of other living things
That's default for rocks and such, but not living things, whose existence requires by default the death of other living things
I'm a solitarian. I use photosynthesis.
> Humans must take a positive action to eat something.
If you're going to talk about morality and agency, it is not a positive choice to eat anything. It's acting out of necessity to survive. Choosing not to eat is self-destruction and there is absolutely nothing about that that's a moral choice. In fact, it's generally accepted to be immoral[1]. This is why we force feed people on hunger strikes and why suicide is illegal. Modern/western written law is based on natural law.
"Breatharianism" is pure stupidity/insanity and anyone who undertakes such practice can (and will) literally go die.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI25easQs2k
If you're going to talk about morality and agency, it is not a positive choice to eat anything. It's acting out of necessity to survive. Choosing not to eat is self-destruction and there is absolutely nothing about that that's a moral choice. In fact, it's generally accepted to be immoral[1]. This is why we force feed people on hunger strikes and why suicide is illegal. Modern/western written law is based on natural law.
"Breatharianism" is pure stupidity/insanity and anyone who undertakes such practice can (and will) literally go die.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI25easQs2k
Yes, per Sartre killing oneself is a course of action available to us at (almost) any moment, which must be justified against by any supposed moral system. This is pretty standard.
We aren't talking about what the law dictates, we're talking about how some moral system might inform our actions. Two very different things, although of course the relationship between them is fascinating in its own right.
We aren't talking about what the law dictates, we're talking about how some moral system might inform our actions. Two very different things, although of course the relationship between them is fascinating in its own right.
Eating isn't a choice. Please don't deflect from the criticism of your claim.
Downvote me all you like Andrew, but I'm going to call you out for espousing ideas that can literally kill people.
Downvote me all you like Andrew, but I'm going to call you out for espousing ideas that can literally kill people.
I can't downvote you, HN doesn't allow you to downvote people who reply to you.
I'll leave you with this quote of yours to consider:
> Choosing not to eat is self-destruction and there is absolutely nothing about that that's a moral choice. In fact, it's generally accepted to be immoral.
If something is immoral, there must have been a moral choice made to engage in the immoral activity. "Moral choice" here is a technical term which means the choice itself has moral weight, not that the choice is moral.
I'll leave you with this quote of yours to consider:
> Choosing not to eat is self-destruction and there is absolutely nothing about that that's a moral choice. In fact, it's generally accepted to be immoral.
If something is immoral, there must have been a moral choice made to engage in the immoral activity. "Moral choice" here is a technical term which means the choice itself has moral weight, not that the choice is moral.
Couldn't this be extended to plant life as well?
It could, and indeed there are people who hold this belief. They are called "Fruititarians" and only eat things which can be taken from the plant without killing or harming it, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism
I don't personally subscribe to this.
I don't personally subscribe to this.
Apparently lions, tigers and bears aren't aware of the Kantian perfect/imperfect duty divide.
I don't know that I fully agree with the parent's logic (despite the fact that I actually am a vegetarian), but I think the rationale to his argument is that humans are able to survive without meat (unlike cats, lions, or tigers), and we also have the ability to realize that we are able to avoid meat. Cats, bears, and tigers really don't have the mental faculties to know good or bad, or right and wrong, but we do (at least to some extent). If that's the case, shouldn't we avoid killing wherever possible?
Again, not sure I completely agree with the line of reasoning, but I at least see the point.
Again, not sure I completely agree with the line of reasoning, but I at least see the point.
Non vegetarians everywhere demonstrably don't have the ability or "mental faculties" to see that eating meat is wrong, any more than lions and tigers and bears do.
It's like someone saying everyone has the ability to accept God or Jesus. No, we don't. And it's a touchy subject, because zealots tend to next infer that someone isn't fully human if they don't share fundamental beliefs or axioms.
It's like someone saying everyone has the ability to accept God or Jesus. No, we don't. And it's a touchy subject, because zealots tend to next infer that someone isn't fully human if they don't share fundamental beliefs or axioms.
Again, not saying that I fully agree, I'm just trying to explain the perspective.
Oh my.
Obviously those animals are unethical. But once Orca evolve enough to really grok Kant they should come around and die off.
Should it?
If I argue that it’s immoral to not vaccinate your children, am I failing in not arguing that wild deer should vaccinate their children?
If I argue that it’s immoral to not vaccinate your children, am I failing in not arguing that wild deer should vaccinate their children?
The default really is not eating anything. Just fast, and fast, and fast, and die.
Re: why not "animals that eat other animals," the burden of proof here is with meat-eaters (those against killing people at least). There's a special status we afford to ourselves as humans, so why do we so easily accept the privileges of it, but raise objections when it comes with additional moral responsibilities?
As for the default, I think a simple way to put it is, "you don't have to eat meat."
As for the default, I think a simple way to put it is, "you don't have to eat meat."
Okay, I'll make a go of it: Which insect-eating-insect relationships are morally justified in the context of farming, and why? Are ladybugs morally superior for their crop-protecting abilities or morally inferior for their consumption of peaceful herbivores?
This is along the same lines as asking a vegan cat-owner what they feed their cat. I know that it's trite, but it's worth pondering.
Edit: 1hr without a reply. Wasn't that difficult.
This is along the same lines as asking a vegan cat-owner what they feed their cat. I know that it's trite, but it's worth pondering.
Edit: 1hr without a reply. Wasn't that difficult.
> If you care at all about moral justifications for your own actions, eating meat is an extremely difficult position to defend.
Let's do it gradually, first move to eating beef: less killed lives per lb of meat. From another hand if we reduce demand, those chickens will not even been born..
Let's do it gradually, first move to eating beef: less killed lives per lb of meat. From another hand if we reduce demand, those chickens will not even been born..
And this ladies and gentlemen is why vegans have a reputation for being annoying.
Haha, even as an occasional meat eater I liked this comment. If this sort of comment is annoying, maybe time to inquire into the defensiveness. Maybe you have too much "skin" in the game?
It's not defensive to be annoyed by people claiming moral superiority.
sounds like they are pushing Steve Jobs apple diet, worked out great treating his cancer
once again thing which would be illegal in Europe, employer can't decide what kind of food they will reimburse me
once again thing which would be illegal in Europe, employer can't decide what kind of food they will reimburse me
> that staff will not be able to expense any meals that include poultry, pork or red meat
That is absurd. Imagine the opposite (a company only allowed expensing meat meals) and the amount of blowback, PR nightmare, and internet outrage. The hypocrisy continues.
That is absurd. Imagine the opposite (a company only allowed expensing meat meals) and the amount of blowback, PR nightmare, and internet outrage. The hypocrisy continues.
I have no particular stance on WeWork's policy, but this argument seems pretty strained. You seem to be saying that if implementing the opposite of policy A would be unacceptable, then implementing policy A is hypocrisy.
That doesn't make sense to me. At the extreme end, take my moral stance against killing other people. "Imagine the opposite - having a moral stance FOR killing people - there would be outrage! Hypocrisy."
Or with a less extreme example, say as a company I mandate the use of electric cars on business trips (assuming rental companies had them available). Many people would think the opposite policy - say, mandating vehicles getting 12mpg or less - would be an outrage. Would that make the electric-car-preferred policy hypocritical?
It seems like our entire discourse now - especially our political discourse - is one big search for the big Hypocrisy Gotcha moment.
That doesn't make sense to me. At the extreme end, take my moral stance against killing other people. "Imagine the opposite - having a moral stance FOR killing people - there would be outrage! Hypocrisy."
Or with a less extreme example, say as a company I mandate the use of electric cars on business trips (assuming rental companies had them available). Many people would think the opposite policy - say, mandating vehicles getting 12mpg or less - would be an outrage. Would that make the electric-car-preferred policy hypocritical?
It seems like our entire discourse now - especially our political discourse - is one big search for the big Hypocrisy Gotcha moment.
What exactly is the hypocrisy? Eating only meat is a very restricted and strange diet while excluding only meat can be a perfectly healthy diet. You're trying to make these equal opposites but they're not.
Sort of like how not serving alcohol is acceptable but serving only alcohol (not even water) would be outrageous.
Sort of like how not serving alcohol is acceptable but serving only alcohol (not even water) would be outrageous.
It's not at all strange for many people, and exactly the opposite view is held by them.. that eating all vegetarian is unhealthy, and all or mostly meat is the healthiest.
I mean, we can provide some supporting evidence to support our claims, but certainly your statement is not uncontroversial..
I mean, we can provide some supporting evidence to support our claims, but certainly your statement is not uncontroversial..
The fact that they are limiting people's choices and free will to eat meat and write-off (financial incentive) is the core problem.
They’re not limiting people’s choices, they’re just limiting what they want to pay for. It’s not like they’re threatening to fire anyone who eats meat on their own.
I don’t see the problem here. Lots of companies don’t buy their employees food at all. (And I say this as a meat eater who would definitely be affected by this change.)
I don’t see the problem here. Lots of companies don’t buy their employees food at all. (And I say this as a meat eater who would definitely be affected by this change.)
The biggest issue for me would be getting reimbursed for travel expenses. True that some companies don't buy food for their employees at all but I definitely expect to be fed while traveling for the company, and I would definitely be finding a new place to work if I couldn't eat meat while traveling.
No one's stopping anyone from eating meat. They're just choosing to not serve it. I'm sure you could bring some jerky if you really had to have meat.
> “New research indicates that avoiding meat is one of the biggest things an individual can do to reduce their personal environmental impact,” said McKelvey in the memo
I cannot imagine that scales - you cannot extrapolate from micro to macro here. No animals = no food for 7 billion people.[1] Definitely no vegetarian food without animals.
Do vegetarians not know how grains and legumes are grown? How fertilizer and soil amendments are made?
It would be incredibly destructive to the soil to use no animal products to grow 'vegetarian' food. Definitely impossible at scale, you'd just be strip mining the soil. On smaller scale farms the ideal is to give crop land a break by turning it into pasture for 1-2 years. A great way to "mulch" the crop leftovers (you don't eat the whole part of the corn plant, etc) is to use them as forage (cornstalk grazing).
Seems really odd to shun the "meat" aspect when we really are "using every part of the buffalo." And a big part of our animal use is making food for sanctimonious vegetarians.
[1] about half of the earth land surface is better suited to livestock farming than legumes/grains/other row crops. You know what grows well in cold, rocky New England soil? Pork, chicken, sheep, etc.
I cannot imagine that scales - you cannot extrapolate from micro to macro here. No animals = no food for 7 billion people.[1] Definitely no vegetarian food without animals.
Do vegetarians not know how grains and legumes are grown? How fertilizer and soil amendments are made?
It would be incredibly destructive to the soil to use no animal products to grow 'vegetarian' food. Definitely impossible at scale, you'd just be strip mining the soil. On smaller scale farms the ideal is to give crop land a break by turning it into pasture for 1-2 years. A great way to "mulch" the crop leftovers (you don't eat the whole part of the corn plant, etc) is to use them as forage (cornstalk grazing).
Seems really odd to shun the "meat" aspect when we really are "using every part of the buffalo." And a big part of our animal use is making food for sanctimonious vegetarians.
[1] about half of the earth land surface is better suited to livestock farming than legumes/grains/other row crops. You know what grows well in cold, rocky New England soil? Pork, chicken, sheep, etc.
1. Pick the most popular snack (e.g. nachos)
2. Replace it with less tasty alternative (e.g. kale chips) "for your health"
3. Consumption is a few times smaller
4. The company can claim they take better care of their workers and no one can accuse them of being stingy
5. Finance team high-fives each other