For example, famously Adventists are vegetarians and live longer than the average population. However, vegetarian is importantly different from vegan. Also, Adventists don’t drink or smoke either, which might explain the difference.
Nit: we actually do have a study that looks at the mortality rate of vegan Adventists in particular. They fare well, having a nearly significantly lower mortality rate than omnivores after adjustments for drinking, smoking and other things:
As you can see, groups that restrict meat intake in some form all trend towards having a lower mortality rate than the "nonvegetarian" group. The pescatarian mortality rate appears slightly lower than the vegan one, but in practice the difference is too small and the confidence intervals are too wide to tease out which one is actually lower. When broken down by sex, nearly all of the effect is concentrated in men, while all diets are pretty similar to each other in women.
Make of that what you will; I am not claiming there's a causal effect, though note that the study does control for a lot of confounders, such as smoking, drinking, age, race, income, education, marital status, etc.
...
Your own screenshot shows that pescatarians do better than vegans (not statistically significant, but neither is the difference between vegans and omnivores). And if you break it down by sex (and continue to ignore statistical significance), veganism is the worst choice for women after unconstrained omnivorism
More of my opinion of this study here.
Your own screenshot shows that pescatarians do better than vegans (not statistically significant, but neither is the difference between vegans and omnivores). And if you break it down by sex (and continue to ignore statistical significance), veganism is the worst choice for women after unconstrained omnivorism
I addressed both of those points in my comment above. From my comment:
The pescatarian mortality rate appears slightly lower than the vegan one, but in practice the difference is too small and the confidence intervals are too wide to tease out which one is actually lower. When broken down by sex, nearly all of the effect is concentrated in men, while all diets are pretty similar to each other in women.
To explain this more in-depth, you cannot conclude from this table that "veganism is the worst choice for women after unconstrained omnivorism." The confidence intervals of the adjusted hazard ratios for the "vegetarian" diets for women are essentially identical. It's not just about failing to meet an arbitrary threshold of statistical significance - the difference between those diets has a very high p-value, not a p-value that almost approaches significance but falls just s...
You can also look for welfare certifications on products you buy - Animal Welfare Institute has a nice guide to which labels actually mean things. (Don't settle for random good-sounding words on the package - some of them are basically meaningless or only provide very very weak guarantees!)
Personally, I feel comfortable buying meat that is certified GAP 4 or higher, and will sometimes buy GAP 3 or Certified Humane in a pinch. Products certified to this level are fairly uncommon but not super hard to find - you can order them from meat delivery services like Butcher Box, and many Whole Foods sell (a subset of) meat at GAP 4, especially beef and lamb (I've only ever seen GAP 3 or lower chicken and pork at my local Whole Foods though). You can use Find Humane to search for products in your area.
Specifically: humanely raised often indicates only that they were fed vegetarian feed. This made me so angry when I read the fine print and I think everyone involved should be sued into oblivion.
I've been doing this all my life. In the US, I buy Grass-Fed Pasture Raised Eggs by Coastal Hill (available in Good Eggs, Gus, and other grocery stores in the US) and Alexandre Farms milk and dairy products.
However, I wish it was this simple. Just recently, I learned that Alexandre Family Farms has been accused of serious animal welfare violations. Please skip if you're sensitive to this information:
(There are more links, but those were the most handy in my bookmarks list.)
This is relevant because Alexandre Family Farms is, to date, one of the largest most humane organic farms in California and even the US. Their milk is one of the tastiest and most European-like. I was both sad and annoyed when I learned this.
All of that goes to say, don't blindly trust these certifications. It's likely on average they increase animal welfare, but it's still plenty far ahead of s...
I thought a potential issue with wild caught fish is that other consumers would simply substitute away from wild to farmed fish, since most people don’t care much and wild caught fish supply isn’t very elastic.
But anchovies and sardines (as suggested in the post) seem like they avoid that issue since apparently there’s basically no farming of them.
I also think it’s just super reasonable to eat animal products and offset with donations — which can easily net reduce animal suffering given how good donation opportunities there are.
I also think it’s just super reasonable to eat animal products and offset with donations
The concept of offsetting evil with good does not make sense. Even if the good outweighs the evil, it would be even better to not do the evil thing, and still do the good thing.
In situations where a single act has both good and evil consequences, such as the classic trolley problem, it may make sense to calculate the net amount of good. It does not make sense when the good and the evil come from separate actions that can be chosen independently of each other.
I imagine there could be an argument along the lines of something something timeless decision theory, to exclude the choice of doing good and not evil, but I do not see what it could be.
ETA: I see there have been a few (ETA2: a lot of) disagreement votes. I can't say much to those without any comments to go on, but here's a diagram that expresses things as starkly as possible. You can choose any of the four boxes. Which one?
Everything has a cost. Inconvenience, taste, enjoyment, economic impacts. The argument that for some reason in the domain of animal welfare we should stop doing triage and just do everything has been discussed a lot, and responded to a lot.
See also Self-Integrity and the Drowning Child.
Vegans/vegetarians had over twice the odds of depression (OR ~2.14) compared to omnivores
I would be a bit leery about selection effects here too. What kind of person becomes vegan? One who is generally very aware about suffering or social problems, or possibly very neurotic about what they eat. Sometimes both. If you're the kind who stops eating meat because they feel that farming and killing animals is monstrous, and then still have to live in a world which keeps perpetuating that, not to mention however many other things you also feel are similarly monstrous, aren't you going to be more prone to depression than the average person who may not worry much about any of that?
The use of the Chinese study about healthy aging for elderly Chinese people is egregiously misleading. The OP uses it to make three separate points, about cognitive impairment, dose-response effects and lower overall odds of healthy aging. But it's pretty clear that the study is basically showing the effects of poverty on health in old age!
Elderly Chinese people are mostly vegetarian or vegan because a) they can't afford meat, or b) have stopped eating meat because they struggle with other health issues, both of which would massively bias the outcomes! So their poor outcomes might be partly through diet-related effects, like nutrient/protein deficiency, but could also be sanitation, malnutrition in earlier life (these are people brought up in extreme famines), education (particularly for the cognitive impairment test), and the health issues that cause them to reduce meat. The study fails to control for extreme poverty by grouping together everyone who earned <8000 Yuan a year (80% of the survey sample!), which is pretty ridiculous, because the original dataset should have continuous data.
But, the paper does control for diet quality, and it also makes it abundantly cl...
In Minnesota many people I know buy their beef from local farmers, where they can view the cows when buying the meat at the farm. From what I've heard the cows appear to be healthy and happy, and the prices are typically cheaper than the grocery store if buying in bulk.
If you have the ability, have your own hens. It’s a really rewarding experience and then you can know for sure that the hens are happy and treated well.
Unfortunately, I'm moderately uncertain about this. I think chickens have been put under pretty tremendous selection pressure and their internal experiences might be quite bad, even if their external situations seem fine to us. I'm less worried about this if you pick a heritage breed (which will almost definitely have worse egg production), which you might want to do anyway for decorative reasons.
Similarly, consider ducks (duck eggs are a bit harder to come by than chicken eggs, but Berkeley Bowl stocks them and many duck farms deliver eggs--they're generally eaten by people with allergies to chicken eggs) or ostriches (by similar logic to cows--but given that they lay giant eggs instead of lots of eggs, it's a much less convenient form factor).
I appreciate this post for the "How to reduce suffering of the non-human animals you eat" section - as someone who empathizes with the vegan cause but just can't stop eating animal products (due to both weak will and health concerns) it's highly appreciated.
Well, you've managed to write a post that is both very interesting and also makes me deeply uncomfortable so kudos there.
Honestly, I’d prefer not to eat plants either, because I put a disconcertingly high probability that plants are also sentient.
Deeply relatable, I can't wait to be genemodded to be able to photosynthesize.
I've been vegan for about three and a half years now after about three and a half years of omnivory after roughly 10 years of vegetarianism.
When I first went vegan it felt like a really profound moment of waking up and paying attention to the world and fully living within my values for the first time. I kinda did suspect it would harm me and I just didn't care at all, I cared about the the outcomes for the world. I took going vegan slowly and replaced things in my diet one at a time, making sure I was doing it as sustainably as possible and maintaining my health and nutrient balance as best I could.
I like to think that I'm pretty good at noticing my body's needs and adjusting my diet to meet them, I increased the amount of impossible products I ate when I started craving iron, I increased the amount of protein and vegetables I ate when started getting sore ...
There was that RCT showing that creatine supplementation boosted the IQs of only vegetarians.
While looking for the RCT you're referencing, I instead found this one from 2023 which claims to be the largest to date and which states "Vegetarians did not benefit more from creatine than omnivores." (They tested 123 people altogether over 6 weeks; these RCTs tend to be small.)
A systematic review from 2024 states:
To summarize, we can say that the evidence from research into the effects of creatine supplementation on brain creatine content of vegetarians and omnivores suggests that vegetarianism does not affect brain creatine content very much, if at all, when compared to omnivores. However, there seems to be little doubt that vegans do not intake sufficient (if any) exogenous creatine to ensure the levels necessary for maintaining optimal cognitive output.
I wish that we could be optimally healthy without eating animals. Honestly, I’d prefer not to eat plants either, because I put a disconcertingly high probability that plants are also sentient.
This is clearly not the main point of this post but I am curious why you believe this as it seems to be an extremely fringe opinion in a way animal suffering is not. Shrimp welfare has a lot of backlash and at least shrimp have neurons and whatnot. Also, do you have any thoughts on mushrooms?
Quick response dashed off without sources:
I live in India and I’m vegetarian. This is very easy to do because a lot of Hindus are also vegetarian for religious animal welfare reasons. I consume milk and milk products but not egg. I have been low on B12 but not to the point it’s a health hazard and I have supplemented it in past.
I think it’s possible in theory to ethically milk cows, but yes situations in practice differ.
Do you think cow milk and cheese should be included in a low-suffering healthy diet (e.g., should be added in the recommendations at the start of your post)?
Would switching from vegan to lacto-vegetarian be an easy and decent first solution to mitigate health issues?
Not to mention that of all of the hunter gatherer tribes ever studied, there has never been a single vegetarian group discovered. Not. A. Single. One.
Of the ~200 studied, ~75% of them got over 50% of their calories from animals. Only 15% of them got over 50% of their calories from non-animal sources.
Do you have a source for this? I'm asking more out of curiosity than doubt, but in general, I think it would be cool to have more links for some of the claims. And thanks for all of the links that are already there!
Wait, there's something very strange about those two claims. 75% got more than half their calories from animals. 15% got more than half their calories from not-animals. So what did the other 10% do? (Exactly 50% from each, obviously :-).)
Answer from the abstract of the paper Kat linked in a parallel comment:
Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods.
Like you, I used to be a strict vegan, but I recently started eating a few select non-vegan foods for a variety of reasons, mostly social. I noticed that I was actually able to have a greater influence on others' diets when I showed flexibility in my own. Like you, I occasionally eat certain types of seafood and humanely-produced eggs.
However, I take issue with your argument about cows. Factory-farmed cows might be marginally better off than factory-farmed chickens or pigs, but they still suffer a great deal. In particular, factory-farmed dairy cows arguab...
I'm surprised, in discussions related to veganism, to never see mentioned the point that having the people who care the most about animal suffering not buy meat at all shift economic incentives for producers in a bad way. I'm not involved in vegan culture, so maybe these discussions do happen and I'm just not aware, but it never popped up anywhere I saw it.
If the only people who care about animals do not buy meat at all, then factory farmers have no incentive whatsoever in producing ethical meat. In theory, we could imagine that the ethical-eaters would on...
If you personally feel safer eating animals products, fine.
If you don't want to follow a well-planned diet, also fine to eat omnivorously.
But before encouraging others to feel unsafe about following a well-planned vegan diet, it's probably a good idea consider that the US Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics published in 2025 a peer-reviewed position paper that reiterates what they've been publishing for decades now, that well-planned vegan diets are healthy, and to explain why and how they would do that if, as you claim, the weight of the eviden...
Not to mention that of all of the hunter gatherer tribes ever studied, there has never been a single vegetarian group discovered. Not. A. Single. One.
I think this does not prove as much as the "Not. A. Single. One." part seems to try to hammer home to the reader. It merely shows that people that evolve under conditions of scarcity and extremely low technology do not get a strong evolutionary benefit from excluding animals from their diet. But do vegans in general assume the opposite? Additionally, India might be a relevant case study here, because vegetarianism seems to have been common there for a long time.
A lot of this doesn't pass the smell test.
> First off, even the most dedicated vegans will tell you that to stay vegan you need to take medicine to not die - B12.
It is not controversial that vegans should take supplements, and vitamin B12 is the most important. However, taking supplements does not make a diet inherently unhealthy.
When people argue that veganism is "unnatural" or "difficult" because it needs supplementation (e.g. B12), they assume the current food environment is neutral. However, the current food environment has been shaped by centuries of cultural, economic, and technological r...
Vegan here -- best essay I have read against veganism so far!
That being said, I have much to criticize that has not yet been in the comments.
However, I also agree that veganism is not necessarily the best thing we can do for the animals, but for reasons that I believe are stronger than the ones you provided. More on that at the end.
...Calcium is one of the only nutrients we know of that can reduce the mood symptoms of PMS for women and it is practically impossible to get enough calcium from real food from vegan sources (you’re stuck taking me
I have suspected my veg*ism of having caused depression (onset: a few months after starting vegetarianism in 2017, basically monotonically increasing over time; though it did coincide with grad school) for years.
But my habits are too ingrained, and I find meat gross, I have no idea what to do. Should I just order some meat from a restaurant and eat it? That's almost certainly suffering-producing meat. Doing the things in this post sound like a lot of work that kind of goes against my altruistic values.
On the unhealthy to be vegan point:
idk about "mitochondrial dysfunction" but I can easily clock vegans by the quality of their skin (w/ false positives from malnutrition/MTHFR issues, but few-no false negatives.)
Unrelatedly, shifting demand of meat into more humane meat creates stronger economic incentives for the companies to treat their animals well
There is a restaurant in Washington where they serve the right leg of the crab which will later regenerate.
Eating a largest possible animal means less amount of suffering per kg. Normally, the largest are cows. You can compensate such suffering by having shrimp farm with happy shrimps. Ant farm is simpler, I have one but for this reason.
I don't know what updates to make from these studies, because:
What process determined the study list?
Most people would consider sacrificing their health for others to be too demanding an ethical framework.
(This comment is local to the quote, not about the post's main arguments) Most people implicitly care about the action/inaction distinction. They think "sacrificing to help others" is good but in most cases non-obligatory. They think "proactively hurting others for own benefit" is bad, even if it'd be easier.
Killing someone for their body is a case of harming for own gain. The quote treats it as just not making a sacrifice.
I think it does feel to many th...
There’s the sniff test. A large percentage male vegan influencers look pale and sickly. (I’m not going to name names, but if you follow the space at all, you’ll know who I’m talking about, because it could refer to so very many of them.) Of course, you can build muscle and be fit as a vegan, but it is much harder, and we know that muscle mass is a significant predictor of all sorts of positive health outcomes.
I do not "follow the space" of male vegan influencers, so I cannot judge it. However, I would like to ask for a comment on...
I think it is important and often neglected to take nutrition seriously in conversations on plant forward diets. In particular I think there is a lot of uncritical rejection of the very important nutritional role that animal products currently play in the lives of most people, by several prominent figures- and repeated uncritically by their followers.
However, the argumentation in this argument is pretty fundamentally flawed, This argument is framed as a rejection of an overly prescriptive pathway to improving sustainability and animal welfare (vegani...
I eat oysters but am otherwise vegan. The reason I didn't just go with standard veganism is something like the more general arguments in this post. I had my reasons for nitpicking the details of this post; rationalists should learn some science and thereby be less wrong than the rest of the cultic milieu. But I want to comment again to focus on the positive: this post was a great reminder that I'm not a real vegan and why, and I've been making more of an effort to get oysters since reading it.
They often have access to the outdoors for a large percentage of their lives. They are cuter so we treat them better. Also, since they’re massive, even if their lives are quite bad, if you ate exclusively cow for a year, you most likely wouldn’t finish a single cow. Compare that to a chicken, which might last you a day. The same logic applies to dairy.
One of my gripes with utilitarians is not taking math and scale seriously enough. These both sound like arguments for "pro eating beef" but taken together they counteract each other. If cows live go...
Wait, you think people need to eat collagen? Collagen is just a kind of protein, it'll get broken down into raw amino acids in the stomach. There can be issues with a vegan diet not getting complete protein (that is, low on one or more essential amino acids) but there's nothing special about collagen specifically.
Some vegans reading this may even discover they're like me and do significantly better without eating many plants at all. I went most of my life without realizing that eating vegetables consistently made me feel bad. So now I just… don't. I feel great and it prevents many health issues. I eat 1.5lb of pasture-raised beef (from a special farm) per day and 1.5 sticks of butter. Sometimes Ora King salmon or Seatopia contaminant-safe fish or scallops. Solves acne, improves inflammation, solves lethargy, prevents sleeping 1-2h longer when I eat vegetables
I struggle a lot with the arguments for suffering and ethical treatment of animals. I come from a farming region.
Wild animals almost all die horribly. Freezing to death, starving, succumbing to parasites or disease with long periods of suffering and for the most part all being ripped apart by predators. By contrast the lives of factory farmed animals are incredibly gentle and easy, with almost no suffering, and their deaths are about as low in suffering as is possible to arrange. Claims that those lives are somehow better than domes...
Cross-posted from my Substack
To start off with, I’ve been vegan/vegetarian for the majority of my life.
I think that factory farming has caused more suffering than anything humans have ever done.
Yet, according to my best estimates, I think most animal-lovers should eat meat.
Here’s why:
I’ll start with how to do this because I know for me this was the biggest blocker. A friend of mine was trying to convince me that being vegan was hurting me, but I said even if it was true, it didn’t matter. Factory farming is evil and causes far more harm than the potential harm done to me.
However, you can eat meat and dramatically reduce the amount of suffering you cause.
Here’s my current strategy, but I’m sure there is a lot of room for improvement (and if there is anybody who feels nerdsniped by this, then I’ll consider this post to be a success):
Avoid pig, chicken, factory-farmed fish and eggs. They cause some of the most suffering-per-meal.
You can also consider offsetting, by donating to an animal welfare charity.
First off, even the most dedicated vegans will tell you that to stay vegan you need to take medicine to not die - B12.
Not to mention all of the vitamins that technically you could get enough of in vegan diet, but in practice you never will because nobody wants to eat a cup of sesame seeds a day and 2 bags of spinach or the like. Things like iron, DHA omega 3, calcium, zinc, choline, coenzyme Q10, collagen, vitamin K2, selenium, taurine, vitamin D, creatine, or carnosine.
And that’s just what we know of.
Nutrition science is at about the level of medicine in the 1800s. We know enough not to remove half of your blood if you’re sick, but we’re still doing the equivalent of not washing hands between surgeries.
Here is a list of just the antioxidants that we know about in thyme:
“alanine, anethole essential oil, apigenin, ascorbic acid, beta-carotene, caffeic acid, camphene, carvacrol, chlorogenic acid, chrysoeriol, derulic acid, eriodictyol, eugenol, 4-terpinol, gallic acid, gamma-terpinene, isichlorogenic acid, isoeugenol, isothymonin, kaemferol, labiatic acid, lauric acid, linalyl acetate, luteolin, methionine, myrcene, myristic acid, naringenin, rosmarinic acid, selenium, tannin, thymol, trytophan, ursolic acid, vanillic acid.”
Excerpt from In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan
Have you ever heard of rosmarinic acid? What does it do in the body? If anything? How does it interact with myristic acid? What about with all of the other ones?
Or take a look at this simplified chart of human metabolism (that we know about so far!)
I highly recommend Michael Pollan’s book, In Defense of Food. It’s basically about the meta field of nutrition and how little we know, how most of nutrition science is fundamentally difficult, and is just one giant case for epistemic humility when it comes to nutrition.
Now, of course, being vegan won’t kill you, right away or ever. But the same goes for eating a diet of purely McDonald’s or essentially just potatoes (like many peasants did). The human body is remarkably resilient and can survive on a wide variety of diets. However, we don’t thrive on all diets.
Vegans often show up as healthier in studies than other groups, but correlation is not causation. For example, famously Adventists are vegetarians and live longer than the average population. However, vegetarian is importantly different from vegan. Also, Adventists don’t drink or smoke either, which might explain the difference.
Wouldn’t it be great if we had a similar population that didn’t smoke or drink but did eat meat to compare?
We do! The Mormons. And they live longer than the Adventists.
The problem with vegans is that it selects for a very particular sort of person - somebody who can control what they eat far more than the average population.
Not to mention it controls for the people who don’t have such severe health effects that they drop the diet. Many people tried vegan and then stopped because it caused health issues for them.
There are also undoubtedly plenty of effects that we do not measure well, haven’t thought to study, or what not, that are caused by veganism. A common pattern I had with a friend of mine is that they’d think their life was falling apart and they’d pick fights with everybody until I asked, as tactfully as I could, when was the last time they took their iron pills. I’d always find out they’d accidentally slipped for a week or so. They felt better within a day or two of restarting.
As far as I’ve seen, nutrition studies rarely measure things like irritability. What other symptoms are we experiencing from eliminating a whole food group from our diet that we don’t know about? There are already some indicators in studies that need way more follow up.
There was that RCT showing that creatine supplementation boosted the IQs of only vegetarians.
Calcium is one of the only nutrients we know of that can reduce the mood symptoms of PMS for women and it is practically impossible to get enough calcium from real food from vegan sources (you’re stuck taking medicine for it in the form of supplements or eating artificially fortified sources, like soy milk).
Here’s a list of negative health effects found in studies, with the usual caveat that correlation isn’t causation and doing RCTs on long term effects of diets is almost impossible:
But honestly, the best we have most of the time are observational studies or RCTs done on a short time frame, measuring only a small fraction of all the relevant possible outcomes, with no or few ways to see if people actually followed the diet. So consider this just light evidence pointing in the direction that eliminating a whole source of nutrition has negative side effects.
There are many other pieces of evidence that point that direction.
There’s the sniff test. A large percentage male vegan influencers look pale and sickly. (I’m not going to name names, but if you follow the space at all, you’ll know who I’m talking about, because it could refer to so very many of them.) Of course, you can build muscle and be fit as a vegan, but it is much harder, and we know that muscle mass is a significant predictor of all sorts of positive health outcomes.
In fact, weight loss is a common side effect of a vegan diet, which could explain all or most of any health upsides, rather than being vegan itself. Being overweight leads to poor health outcomes independent of the source of weight.
Not to mention that of all of the hunter gatherer tribes ever studied, there has never been a single vegetarian group discovered. Not. A. Single. One.
Of course, what we did in our ancestral environment is not always good for us (there was a lot of infectious disease and murder there). And there’s a ton of variety in hunter-gatherer lifestyle. However, it is a good prior to assume that our bodies are evolved for our ancestral environment, so start with the prior that if all of our hunter-gatherers did a certain thing, it is more likely than not that that thing is good for us. The burden of evidence should be on people proposing a diet that eliminates the majority of foods we ate in our ancestral environment.
Now, why should you care about your health? Well, I’m just going to assume that you care about your own suffering at the very least.
But this also affects your ability to help others. Health problems directly affect your ability to work on altruistic activities by preventing you from working or forcing you to take time off. Affecting your cognitive abilities affects your ability to choose good strategies, which can be the difference between being net negative and net positive.
Affecting your mood is an underrated side effect of poor health. You might be feeling tired and sad because your job isn’t a good fit. Or you might be deficient in something.
You might be missing one of the things we know that you need and is hard to get with a vegan diet, or you might be missing one of the innumerable bioactive compounds that we haven’t researched enough yet to know. Or maybe ones we haven’t discovered yet. Choline was only recognized as an essential nutrient in 1998.
I once had to take time off of work due to depression. There are many things that could have led to a cure, but one thing correlates is when I recovered, I’d secretly started consuming dairy again. Vitamin B12 deficiency includes fatigue, depression, loss of appetite.
I kept it secret because I felt I couldn’t tell my vegan friends what I was doing. They would think that I didn’t care about animals. But I do care about animals. A lot.
I wish that we could be optimally healthy without eating animals. Honestly, I’d prefer not to eat plants either, because I put a disconcertingly high probability that plants are also sentient.
But we are what we are. I do not wish to kill all lions because they cause suffering to the gazelles. I do not wish to force all lions to live on a vegan diet that slowly kills them, or live semi-healthily with medical intervention of pills to keep away the known deficiencies. Likewise, I do not wish for humans to sacrifice their health for others.
You could make the argument that taking supplements and having greater risk of various health issues is worth the guaranteed harm you’ll cause to animals.
The argument against that is:
Another argument could be that you simply try vegan, then switch back if you experience health issues. This is actually already the default for most people.
The problem with this is when it’s unclear whether the diet is causing health issues. For example, it might be affecting people’s IQs by just a handful of points. You wouldn’t be able to subjectively tell, but this could be massively affecting your life and ability to do good in the world.
One of the most common side effects of deficiencies are mood disorders, which are extremely hard to notice as such. The default is for our brains to blame sadness, anxiety, or anger on external things (your job, your partner, the weather, society, politics) and it’s very hard for us to notice that it might be based on nutrition.
I never considered that perhaps my depression was caused by B12 deficiency. I was supplementing and eating fortified vegan foods. I thought it was because of my job and my relationship. And I still think it might have been those things! The human mind is complex and we do not really understand it, even our own.
My friend who got irritable never noticed that it was iron deficiency, even when they had such frequent and clear feedback loops.
It’s made worse by the fact that nutrition effects often happen in unintuitive ways. You body can store vitamin B12 for years before it runs out, leaving you to develop deficiency symptoms years after you go vegan. You maybe be taking supplements or eating vegan alternatives, but not absorbing the nutrients well.
One could feasibly do something like eat a regular diet, systematically measure as many possible figures as you can, then take the same measurements at a few points later on (shorter term and longer term) and see if there were any differences.
For myself, the things I most worry about are mood issues, which I know I cannot measure well enough to be of use in this sort of experiment. I regularly track my happiness on a scale of 1 to 10, and in one period, I was experiencing depression severe enough to make me stop working. I recorded an average 6.5 out of 10 compared to my average 7.5, because my coping mechanisms allowed me to feel neutral, as long as I was completely engaged in the most entertaining entertainment I could find. The moment I “returned to the real world”, the emotions would come crashing down again. So at the end of the day, I would record a 6 or a 7 for happiness - because while I was completely distracted, I felt alright.
If veganism caused anything less than full on depression, I most likely wouldn’t be able to detect it with my measurements.
Not to mention, given the suffering mitigation strategies, it’s unclear to me whether this is worth the time or effort.
The world is full of things I could stop consuming that probably cause some amount suffering.
For example, a large percentage of chocolate comes from slave labor and I am very against slavery. But the marginal effects on my chocolate consumption on slavery seem small enough that most people wouldn’t consider sacrificing chocolate due to this.
I think this is rational. There are nearly infinite things you can do to make the world better. It’s best to focus on the things that have the highest returns on investment, since you have limited amounts of energy and time.
You could also start from a stronger prior that you should require very strong evidence to do something that none of your ancestors did in the ancestral environment. Or a strong prior that you should not sacrifice your health for others.
Anyways, it’s complicated. Like any time you try to make the world better.
So, if you want to maximize the good in the world, don’t martyr your health to a proof-of-virtue diet or think in black-and-white of vegan vs carnivore. Choose welfare-optimized animal products, consider offsetting with targeted donations to animal charities, and remember that thriving humans - sleeping well, thinking clearly, not anemic or depressed - are the ones who best help all sentient beings.