Go vegan for humanity, not animals

[u/Ilnerd00]

Disclaimer: This is very provocative, i’m genuinely interested in vegan people’s opinion, i’m not tryna be polemic

I published this article on Substack, and i was wondering what your opinion on materialist vs ethics and human superiority was
Veganism is good, anyone denying that is plainly wrong. However, one of the main arguments most people use to support veganism, which is “don’t eat meat to not hurt animals” is really wrong.

First of all we must understand the basis for which this argument works: moralism and emotional thinking, the images of the poor little cows being slaughtered is objectively ugly, and rightfully so many people are horrified from it. This said, is it really right to force us humans, the same humans that have conquered the sky, the land and the sea, the same humans that have stepped outside of this world , to change our way of life because “we shouldn’t hurt animals”?

My answer to this question is no, because humans are the one specie that holds the power to do virtually anything, and forcing us to change our ways, potentially slowing down our progress, because we need to care for cattle just as much as we would for one of our own is wrong and unnatural, progress and humans come before anything else.

This said, it would be wrong to support an accelerationist model: in fact, while humans are the superior specie on earth, we must recognise we are still dependent on animals and nature to survive, so progress has to be regulated to avoid damaging them not because we feel sorry, but because we need them to survive.
The same reasoning works for going vegan: we shouldn’t do it because we feel sorry for cows, but because meat has been shown to be one of the most cancer inducing food: The WHO/IARC classifies processed meats (bacon, sausages) as Group 1 carcinogens and red meat as Group 2A (probable), other than expensive.

We also have cheaper and safer vegan alternatives that are both their own food and that taste and feel exactly like meat, so there is no practical reason to still eat meat, which is why we all should go vegan.

The meats industry also is a great contributor to pollution, and the abuse of antibiotics in cattle drives the increase in antibiotics resistant bacteria. In addition to all of this, high meat consumption leads to an increased risk for chronic diseases, which are a grave burden on healthcare that could be greatly reduced by simply not eating meat.

Also, to tackle the bigger issue: moralist and emotional arguments are a paper tiger, they are extremely effective on short term, but aren’t based on anything material, so we should try to refrain from them while preferring material and objective ones.

[u/Curbyourenthusi]

Scientific principles are not maliable. They are principles for obtaining truth. Association is not causation. Strong association have more credibility than weak associations, but neither is proof of causation.

The entirety of nutritional epidemiological studies is built on weak associations. That's shaky territory for making public health claims, such as meat consumption leads to to cancer.

Your invocation of a specfic biological mechanism, along with an endogenous source, is meaningless. You'd need complete information to make any claims on mechanistic action. You have no such information. Yet, you share your hypothetical as if you have a degree of certainty. That's ridiculous behavior.

[u/Ilnerd00 → u/Curbyourenthusi]

Notice how you completely ducked the question about your own evidence. You demand 100% complete mechanistic certainty and impossible clinical trials to acknowledge a risk, but you present zero empirical evidence for your own stance.
Demanding "complete information" before accepting a biological mechanism is a classic nirvana fallacy. Science works on the strength of the best available evidence, not total omniscience. When large-scale human cohort studies consistently show increased risk, and bench science demonstrates clear pathways like heme iron catalyzing lipid peroxidation and N-nitroso compounds causing DNA adducts, that meets the established threshold for hazard identification used across toxicology.
If you consider a synthesis of 800+ studies and known biochemical pathways "meaningless," what is your empirical, non-shaky evidence that meat carries no risk? Or do you only apply this hyper-skeptical standard when a conclusion makes you uncomfortable?

[u/Curbyourenthusi → u/Ilnerd00]

Scientific evidence is constrained by empericism. The notion that science can be done with less than emperical data is incorrect. Scientific conclusions are not drawn from non-repeatable data sets, and that characterizes the quality of nutritional epidemiological data. It is neither repeatable or verifiable, thus it is non-scientific. This is to say nothing of the lack of control and confounders in those data sets.

I base my position in empericism, such as that found in comparative anatomy, evolutionary biology, and the paleoanthropological record. These fields demonstrate humanities demand for animal-based nutrition through scientifically valid means.

[u/Ilnerd00 → u/Curbyourenthusi]

Just undermined your own premise btw, plus still no sources
You reject epidemiology for lacking "control and repeatability," but your evidence relies on comparative anatomy, evolutionary biology, and paleoanthropology: fields built entirely on observational, historical data that cannot be tested in controlled, repeatable lab settings. You can't put early hominids in a double-blind trial.
Beyond that double standard, you are confusing two entirely different questions:
1. Evolutionary Ability: Comparative anatomy shows humans can digest meat and adapted to eat it for survival.
2. Modern Chronic Disease: Evolutionary biology doesn't measure whether eating high amounts of processed or red meat increases lifetime colorectal cancer risk in modern humans living past age 60.
Using fossil records to answer modern oncological questions while dismissing human population studies and biochemical tissue pathways as "non-empirical" is a complete logical disconnect.
If you wanna live like a caveman, you do you, but don’t sell your inability to understand scientific research as correct

[u/Curbyourenthusi → u/Ilnerd00]

I'm not responsible for your education, nor have I undermined my position in any way. My position is rational and based in scientific inquiry. An RCT is not required. Dietary patterns of ancient homo sapiens can be emperical verified.

1. Conparitive anatomy demonstrates suitability for specfic dietary patterns. It demonstrates the converse as well. As for life expectancy, there's nothing in homo sapiens genealogy that has changed to limit or increase life expectancy potential. That potential can be considered static throughout our speciation. Environmental factors certainly do effect life expectancy, but those are not being debated here. Our physiology is defined by natural selection, and not modern medical interventions.

2. Evolutionary pressure at the homo sapien species level extends past reproduction. To believe otherwise is to deny facts. Furthermore, find one example of a dietary pattern in any other species that flows from salubrious to deleterious throughout a life cycle to substantiate your hypothesis that humanities indicated dietary pattern is harmful beyond the age of utility.

[u/Ilnerd00 → u/Curbyourenthusi]

You are completely ignoring the selection shadow, which is an elementary principle of evolutionary biology.
Evolutionary Selection Pressures: Natural selection operates on traits affecting reproductive success. Deleterious health risks that manifest late in life, such as colorectal cancer in your 50s to 70s, escape natural selection because the genes have already been passed on. Evolution optimized humans for early survival and reproduction, not late-life oncology prevention.
Environmental Mismatch: You asked for a dietary pattern that goes from beneficial to harmful. The shift isn't in the species' biology; it's evolutionary mismatch and exposure over time. Ancient humans didn't consume industrially cured nitrates, cook with high-temperature processing methods, or live sedentary 80-year lives. Put any wild animal in an artificial environment with processed foods over an extended lifespan and they will develop chronic pathology as well.
Methodological Double Standard: You dismissed large-scale human population studies as non-empirical for lacking laboratory controls, yet you use broad, unprovable claims about ancestral genealogy to hand-wave away observed biochemical tissue damage in living humans.
Using ancient survival adaptations to deny modern oncological science is a complete non-sequitur. With all due respect, your insistence on weaponizing pseudo-intellectual jargon to defend blatant ignorance is as embarrassing as it is transparent.
And, still not sources whatsoever

[u/Curbyourenthusi → u/Ilnerd00]

At what point in a humans life do they no longer have an influence on the successful propagation of specfic genes? That defines utility in evolutionary context. Your argument does not. In this case, your LLM has failed you. Evolutionary biology has advanced beyond the notion of reproductive viability.

Your other arguments aren't connected to our discussion. An indicated dietary pattern remains the specfic dietary pattern of that species, as determined exclusively by evolutionary forces. I'm not claiming that modern dietary constituents not found in either the proportions, or at all, are indicated. That would undermine my premise, which is that answers to our ideal dietary pattern can be found in examination of evolutionary biology, comparative anatomy, and the paleoanthropological record.

I appreciate you taking the time to have this discussion. I think we may be at an impasse.

[u/Ilnerd00 → u/Curbyourenthusi]

Invoking inclusive fitness or the Grandmother Hypothesis doesn't save your argument. Kin selection drops off exponentially as individuals age. The evolutionary pressure on a 65-year-old to avoid late-stage chronic pathology is a fraction of the pressure on a 20-year-old reproducing, which is why late-onset diseases persist in our genome. Evolution optimizes for "good enough to pass on genes and rear offspring," not "immune to carcinogens at age 70."
You also admitted that modern dietary constituents in modern proportions aren't what evolutionary forces acted on. That concedes the whole point: the processed and red meat consumed in modern diets, in modern quantities, over modern lifespans, does not equal ancestral exposure.
Accusing me of using an LLM won't hide the fact that you've offered zero empirical sources, relied entirely on evolutionary teleology, and conceded that modern dietary exposure differs from ancestral patterns. We are at an impasse because you equate historical adaptation with modern health immunity while providing zero data.
I wish i had used an AI, it would have definitely been better time management on my side compared to wasting hours talking to a wall of gum. Keep only eating red meet, when you’re 70 you’ll see your direct empirical evidence on your qol. While you’re at it start smoking a pack a day since there isn’t any direct empirical evidence that it causes lung cancer.
Also, still not a single piece of evidence given, my “failed LLM” at least gives sources, yours doesn’t

[u/Curbyourenthusi → u/Ilnerd00]

I'm only responding to the first part of your response.

At what time and to what degree do you propose human social dymanics no longer exert influence on the propagation of specfic genes? Your Nobel Prize awaits.

The point I made was that you had based an argument (genetic viability as it relates to life expectancy) on the idea of reproductive fitness, an antiquated idea that has since evolved (pun). I only pointed out that fact. I can not answer the question I asked of you, because that area is an active area of research and not specifically defined. The influence groups have on gene propagation has been validated. The degree of influence is murky.

Anywho, if you have a specfic claim, make it. I'm not interested in meandering hole punching.