There are a handful of factors involved, so I will just share the conclusion, which also admits that "more research is needed":
"We looked for _any_ way to spin the nutrition argument in favor of grass-fed meat, but the actual data are fairly easy to verify. If we whitewashed this for a more palatable narrative, the obvious flaw in that position might cast doubt on everything else we are suggesting.
We realize that this is a remarkably unpopular position. But, [...], an ethical clinician would never tell a patient that they should eat only organic vegetables or no vegetables at all. We have the same position on meat. For those who simply don’t have access to grass-fed beef, we still feel red meat in general is an important, nutrient-dense food for humans."
Thanks for sharing - this would be easier to read if you didn't make it sound like everyone should be doing this all of the time. Yes, a carnivore diet will probably bring lots of benefits to many people.
At the same time I want to remain open to other lifestyles and tweaks which maybe don't fit into just one category. I want to eat out of choice, not out of habit.
My guess is they want to avoid any signals of dominance. It's not that they cannot afford to look stylish.
The question was probably "how modern or innovative do we want to look?" and the answer something like: "let's better lay low for the next years with all the public scrutiny and the risk of a breakup".
Microsoft has employed the same strategy for years, IMO.
I am wondering if we call some writers great because of what they did not, could not or cannot express (anymore). By their limited and graspable existence they serve as targets for our projections, whereas an AI is less attractive for that purpose, at least in my view.
I'd rather think about the authors of AIs, their assumptions and their worldview.
Well, thank you for you honesty and openness. (How does that sound to ears that are averse to classical NVC?)
Kelly Bryson ("Don't be nice, be real") mentioned how he experienced Marshall Rosenberg being quite torn about teaching people to be overly empathic as a habit. Kelly recommends radical honesty as an antidote to that.
First, make sure this is really what you want and need.
It helps to be a Jungian personality type that has a strong focus on the feeling cognitive function, i.e. Fi/Fe. If that's not you, then empathy/sympathy will probably not come natural to you.
Also, I have personally found that a very refined culture of giving and receiving empathy is found in the Non-Violent Communication (NVC) "universe" created by Marshall Rosenberg.
"We looked for _any_ way to spin the nutrition argument in favor of grass-fed meat, but the actual data are fairly easy to verify. If we whitewashed this for a more palatable narrative, the obvious flaw in that position might cast doubt on everything else we are suggesting.
We realize that this is a remarkably unpopular position. But, [...], an ethical clinician would never tell a patient that they should eat only organic vegetables or no vegetables at all. We have the same position on meat. For those who simply don’t have access to grass-fed beef, we still feel red meat in general is an important, nutrient-dense food for humans."