I’m a vegetarian because of environmental (and more recently, ethical) reasons. I’m an enormous advocate of reducing the quantity of animal products that the world uses.

This is definitely not a “great thing”. There are much less invasive ways to influence behavior and nudge consumers to consume fewer harmful products. Like simply using product-specific taxes or labeling requirements. Or targeting the producers directly.

We don’t need to increase government surveillance, ever.

You should look up "Dairy is scary" on YouTube then (promise, it's worth it!). Being a vegetarian has much less impact than one might think.

Heh I’ve been vegan for ages, just watched it. Great reminder.

Meat is part of a healthy diet. Sure, some survive on other stuff, but in general, meat is healthy.

It's essential.

Seconded. I'm on an all-meat diet and I turned my health around thanks to it. Most often people who advocate eliminating meat look sickly, because they are.

I'm happy that worked for you, but nutrition is too complex to make sweeping statements like that. Some scientists say that animal fats are unhealthy, while others correlate the increase in lifestyle diseases with the increased consumption of vegetable fats. We just don't know enough about how the body works.

I'm all for meat, fish and vegetables. That's the healthiest slice of the available foods. Any reason you've cut out vegetables entirely? I'd consider eating lots of green veg, while avoiding the starchy ones. My entrance point was AIP which basically forces one to do this.

I think it has to do with gut biome somehow. I've seen excellent biome diversity scores from other people on the diet, but in my case it's from repeated experience with gradually eating more and more fruit (and nothing else), not necessarily large quantities even (though I did ocassionaly eat quite a lot apples).

I haven't really tried with vegetables (not interested taste-wise), so it might be the carbs / fruit sugars that weren't great for my gut biome, which I suspect is messed up as it is for many people nowadays.

I never needed to turn around my health as a vegetarian. There's about a 99.999% chance that I'm stronger and faster than you, I wish I could demonstrate. You'd be embarrassed saying what you just said in front of me!

I believe vegetarians can be healthy.

However, I’ve identified many people that were vegans just by their looks before they (inevitably) announced it. You’re supposed to be able to supplement your way in to what you need but either the majority don’t or they’re still missing something.

> I believe vegetarians can be healthy.

There's no need for belief, all over the world vegetarians live around a decade longer. There could be any number of confounding factors of course but the burden of proof concerning health and diet is definitely on the pseudo-carnivores consuming their packaged flesh.

> There's no need for belief, all over the world vegetarians live around a decade longer.

Controlling for wealth, total calories consumed, and a number of other known and suspected positive and negative contributors to longevity, quantity of meat eaten seems to end up positively correlated with longevity across the board.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8881926/#!po=26...

The better conclusion might be that vegetarian is an elite affectation that is not as bad for you as the competing elite affectation of overeating.

Where do you get your dietary fiber from?

I don't, turns out transit works fine (actually much better) without it.

I won't speculate on whether this would apply to everybody but my hypothesis is my health issues stemmed from gut biome disregulation caused by - way too many causes to list - and somehow only total elimination of carbohydrates and plant matter fixes it.

HN is so fucking stupid.

Part of. Extreme consumption of meat, especially red meat, is unhealthy. Not to mention bad for the planet.

Let's not stop there and let's profile people on everything they purchase and increase their taxes on everything that's not remotely considered healthy enough, because you know, they increase the burden on the whole society!

That's the recipe for the abolition of individual freedom.

There’s a lot of talk in N about the “people health” and how people need to eat less sugar etc. And how things like sugar should be taxed more. But you can still buy as much candy and whatever at the grocery store. And it doesn’t seem terribly expensive, either. (Alcohol is, though.)

There should be some opt-in assistance for making better lifestyle choices, I think. More walk, less talk. There are already self-help ideas that center around promising other people that you won’t do X, or that you will do Y, and then having to pay them money or something if you do/don’t. Why couldn’t the government help you do the same thing? As a not-for-profit alternative.

EDIT: I don’t mean that the disincentive should be that you give the government money if you fail. That would be a bad incentive for the government.

You can choose to pay more taxes/fees at least, people already do that for certain things that are designed to nudge people to behave properly (e.g. pay 10 cents for a bag to encourage you to bring reusable bags and some people just don't care). Sin taxes are not new things.

Climate change is stopped by doing meaningful things like stopping oil exports, moving the grid to renewable energy,

Not shifting the burden to individuals who contribute almost nothing compared to giant corporations, And doing werid things like banning meat, imagine if they did the opposite, they hike vegetable prices because you don't eat enough meat.

If this happens(the article doesn't say this has anything to do with climate change specifically) it would be just a giant distraction from Norway's role in climate change by producing Oil.

> compared to giant corporations and doing werid things banning meat

Presumably these giant corporations are after the profits that can be booked by serving the demand. The question is how much of that demand is ultimately attributable to demands generated by the behaviors and wants of the lay people, even if they are not the proximate cause.

Avoiding externalities is a thing. I would rather have that loop hole plugged instead of a persistent socialization of risks and losses and privatization of the gains, now that would be a free market.

> Ah yes, the great "individual freedom" to screw over the many people already affected by climate change. Thanks buddy.

So you'd be OK with full-on tyranny? Because there's never going to be a short list of massive problems in the world to deal with.

> You're also shifting the discussion from climate change

Not shifting anything, I was giving an example of how certain items could be taxed by linking them to current problems. You can easily extend that example to other things beyond climate change.

> there's never going to be a short list of massive problems in the world to deal with.

Yes, you live on a finite world with a lot of people and many things you choose to do affects other people too. Now, you may choose to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and straw-man everything you don't like as "full-on tyranny" if you wish, but that's not how it works and at that point you're no longer really part of any constructive dialogue. There is always a balance, and it's rarely easy.

Meat is literally recycled grass. Zero net carbon footprint. Sure cows release methane, but it’s part of a cycle and doesn’t contribute to long-term climate change.

All other “C footprint” is a consequence of poor farming practices, not meat. Blame the process (and the energy source) not the product.

Ah yes, the meat people eat definitely has more impact than the oil Norway produces.

You don't get to dectiate what people eat, imagine the other side, you are not eating enough meat, we will tax vegetables more in your purchases.