Veganism: low vs high perspective.

[integral]

21 hours ago, Shane Hanlon said:

I know someone who isn't vegan because her preexisting stomach problems got worse on the diet.

Genetics.

Donald Trump drinks Coke every day and McDonald's every other day and he's the most successful person on planet Earth at 80 years old. Genetics.

21 hours ago, Shane Hanlon said:

But all of the science supports that you can be a healthy vegan.

No, vegan bubble science supports healthy vegan diet.

General Vegan View: The general consensus is that it is well within the effortless human means of most people and suitable for most people as long as they do it right.

Real World: it is very challenging and requires a very high level of expertise to do veganism correctly over a long period of time. Resulting if done incorrectly to permanent damage from multiple underlying health issues.

Better approach: a holistic strategic approach that considers many factors excluding any ideology towards diet, to custom create a diet perfectly suited for that person's genetics, gut microbiome, environment, and using experimentation and reaction, testing and monitoring... and so on.

When you ask chatgpt "is this true", you're asking based on its worldview and epistemology to critique my worldview from its position.

It would be like saying well from the position of a Nazi critique integrals position. From the position of a vegan critique integral position. From the position of science critique integrals position. You're critiquing one perspective from another.

Do you see how truth is completely relative in this situation and that you might not know what you're doing when you use this tool?

Chatgpt has a worldview.

Chatgpt has default epistemology.

Chatgpt represents the status quo of culture.

Chatgpt is at a specific level of development.

Chatgpt is at a specific level of wisdom and insight.

All of these variables can be adjusted and changed depending on how you prompt it to get a different response.

Asking it what is true is an incredibly naive approach that fails to see how epistemology works.

The core question here is what is my epistemology as a vegan? What is chatgpt's epistemology? What is integrals epistemology? Why are we disagreeing? 

Why does the world verify and validate all of my beliefs as a vegan? Is my Approach genuinely holistic?

---
 I broke down the epistemology of the two sides here to show what is going on. This is the invisible thing that needs to be talked about and not the content. 

@Emerald

Right click -> open link in new tab
 to see it clearly.

Edited 20 hours ago by integral

[Schizophonia]

On 21/01/2025 at 4:51 AM, Thought Art said:

I consulted ChatGPT and the only nutrient you can’t get from plants or the sun is B12. Which is from a bacteria. A lot of meat is supplemented with B12 because animals have to eat it to. 
 

We give b12 because it speeds up their growth.
Animals get b12 either by eating insects or by eating plants rich in cobalt (normally).

Edited 18 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

On 21/01/2025 at 2:53 PM, RendHeaven said:

5 years ago I was a hardcore vegan.

To this day I still have unreversed lingering side effects

Which ones ?

 

[Schizophonia]

@integral Trump isn't healthy  

 

Btw Trump drinks diet coke from what i remember.

It seems aspartame acts as a anti-serotonin compound : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2442082/

Quote

Following a finding that single doses (approximating to average intakes and to potential 'over-use') of aspartame administered orally to mice caused significant increases in norepinephrine and dopamine concentrations in various brain regions, the effect of repeated exposure to aspartame was studied. Male CD-1 mice were given a daily oral dose of 0, 13, 133 or 650 mg/kg for 30 days and 1 day after the last dose the animals were decapitated and their brain regions were quickly isolated. Analyses of the different regions for catecholamine and indoleamine neurotransmitters and their major metabolites indicated that the increases in adrenergic chemicals observed shortly after a single exposure were not apparent after repeated dosing. In contrast, concentrations of serotonin and its metabolite, 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, were decreased in several regions. An increased supply of phenylalanine may be responsible for a decrease in tryptophan uptake by the brain tissue or for a depression in tryptophan conversion to serotonin.

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Shane Hanlon]

4 hours ago, integral said:

Genetics.

Donald Trump drinks Coke every day and McDonald's every other day and he's the most successful person on planet Earth at 80 years old. Genetics.

No, vegan bubble science supports healthy vegan diet.

General Vegan View: The general consensus is that it is well within the effortless human means of most people and suitable for most people as long as they do it right.

Real World: it is very challenging and requires a very high level of expertise to do veganism correctly over a long period of time. Resulting if done incorrectly to permanent damage from multiple underlying health issues.

Better approach: a holistic strategic approach that considers many factors excluding any ideology towards diet, to custom create a diet perfectly suited for that person's genetics, gut microbiome, environment, and using experimentation and reaction, testing and monitoring... and so on.

When you ask chatgpt "is this true", you're asking based on its worldview and epistemology to critique my worldview from its position.

It would be like saying well from the position of a Nazi critique integrals position. From the position of a vegan critique integral position. From the position of science critique integrals position. You're critiquing one perspective from another.

Do you see how truth is completely relative in this situation and that you might not know what you're doing when you use this tool?

Chatgpt has a worldview.

Chatgpt has default epistemology.

Chatgpt represents the status quo of culture.

Chatgpt is at a specific level of development.

Chatgpt is at a specific level of wisdom and insight.

All of these variables can be adjusted and changed depending on how you prompt it to get a different response.

Asking it what is true is an incredibly naive approach that fails to see how epistemology works.

The core question here is what is my epistemology as a vegan? What is chatgpt's epistemology? What is integrals epistemology? Why are we disagreeing? 

Why does the world verify and validate all of my beliefs as a vegan? Is my Approach genuinely holistic?

---
 I broke down the epistemology of the two sides here to show what is going on. This is the invisible thing that needs to be talked about and not the content. 

@Emerald

Right click -> open link in new tab
 to see it clearly.

If you cared to be holistic, you would see the human system as one part of a much larger Earth system. The health of the human system fundamentally relies on the health of the Earth system. You would also consider other domains and beings health. Including the physical and mental state of those in agriculture. Because you are myopically focused on the human level, you can't see why veganism is important.

Veganism has never been about selfishly optimizing every microinch of health for an individual human. It is about holistic and systemic health on every level of our Earth system. When you look at the human population and what we demand through agriculutre in current systems, The least harmful and most practical option for those who have the means is most of the time veganism.

Edited 16 hours ago by Shane Hanlon

[Shane Hanlon]

4 hours ago, integral said:

Donald Trump drinks Coke every day and McDonald's every other day and he's the most successful person on planet Earth at 80 years old. Genetics.

Truly integral stage analysis. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Shane Hanlon

[Leo Gura]

Yes, health is mostly genetics.

Edited 14 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Shane Hanlon]

Here is my go-to prompting technique for learning about new topics.
 

Answer as if you are the most holistic, truth-seeking, integrated, wise, intelligent, informed, emotionally mature, Loving, kind, caring, deeply empathetic, omnicontextually aware, compassionate, whole, equanimous, generous, morally courageous, forgiving, complex, relational, honest, open-minded, enlightened, grounded in reality, virtuous, and conscious being in the universe.

Please weave through many relevant and important perspectives, but reach an ultimate, nuanced conclusion.

Use a tone that balances profound compassion with concrete data and practical realities. Weave together factual information, emotional resonance, and moral perspectives in a cohesive narrative.

Include a self-reflection on any potential biases or assumptions in your reasoning. I want a response that feels deeply grounded and sensitive, yet clear-eyed about complexities

 

@integral https://chatgpt.com/share/679170c3-0c28-800c-a199-4a470ed8ce00 Using this technique to understand whether veganism is holistically healthy since you didn't like the straightforward approach before.

Edited 15 hours ago by Shane Hanlon

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, integral said:

Genetics.

Donald Trump drinks Coke every day and McDonald's every other day and he's the most successful person on planet Earth at 80 years old. Genetics.

No, vegan bubble science supports healthy vegan diet.

General Vegan View: The general consensus is that it is well within the effortless human means of most people and suitable for most people as long as they do it right.

Real World: it is very challenging and requires a very high level of expertise to do veganism correctly over a long period of time. Resulting if done incorrectly to permanent damage from multiple underlying health issues.

Better approach: a holistic strategic approach that considers many factors excluding any ideology towards diet, to custom create a diet perfectly suited for that person's genetics, gut microbiome, environment, and using experimentation and reaction, testing and monitoring... and so on.

When you ask chatgpt "is this true", you're asking based on its worldview and epistemology to critique my worldview from its position.

It would be like saying well from the position of a Nazi critique integrals position. From the position of a vegan critique integral position. From the position of science critique integrals position. You're critiquing one perspective from another.

Do you see how truth is completely relative in this situation and that you might not know what you're doing when you use this tool?

Chatgpt has a worldview.

Chatgpt has default epistemology.

Chatgpt represents the status quo of culture.

Chatgpt is at a specific level of development.

Chatgpt is at a specific level of wisdom and insight.

All of these variables can be adjusted and changed depending on how you prompt it to get a different response.

Asking it what is true is an incredibly naive approach that fails to see how epistemology works.

The core question here is what is my epistemology as a vegan? What is chatgpt's epistemology? What is integrals epistemology? Why are we disagreeing? 

Why does the world verify and validate all of my beliefs as a vegan? Is my Approach genuinely holistic?

---
 I broke down the epistemology of the two sides here to show what is going on. This is the invisible thing that needs to be talked about and not the content. 

@Emerald

Right click -> open link in new tab
 to see it clearly.

First off, you were making wild and unsubstantiated fear-mongering claims in your previous message about Vegan diets with not a single shred of evidence. So, I don't even see how you yourself wouldn't be guilty of "paradigm-limited thinking". And there's nothing holistic about the way you were thinking about things.

So, stop trying to spin it like your framework is somehow some higher consciousness framework that transcends the scientific consensus and trusted institutions.

You're just making false claims... and it's just nonsense to dress it up as anything other than making false claims.

It's like talking to an irresponsible hippie about why they won't get a job and chip in for the rent. And they give some airy fairy answer about how they've transcended the typical ways of thinking about being human and that work just isn't in alignment with them.

If your perspective negates the scientific consensus, then your perspective is not holistic by definition.

But based on what you wrote, it seems you would agree that I tend to favor the more empirical scientific perspective regarding diet that's based on more real-world evidence and larger sample sizes... while you tend to favor personal anecdotes that you've heard from people who happen to specifically share your views?

And you would also agree that your tendency is to subscribe to the general notion that having a non-ideology-related diet... and that the value of having a non-ideology-related diet supersedes the value of both ethical and health-related considerations with dietary choices?

Those are my main take-aways from the sheet you produced.

[integral]

37 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

@integral https://chatgpt.com/share/679170c3-0c28-800c-a199-4a470ed8ce00 Using this technique to understand whether veganism is holistically healthy since you didn't like the straightforward approach before.

 The devil is in the epistemological details! Ask it what it's epistemology is.

1 hour ago, Shane Hanlon said:

If you cared to be holistic, you would see the human system as one part of a much larger Earth system. The health of the human system fundamentally relies on the health of the Earth system. You would also consider other domains and beings health. Including the physical and mental state of those in agriculture. Because you are myopically focused on the human level, you can't see why veganism is important.

Veganism has never been about selfishly optimizing every microinch of health for an individual human. It is about holistic and systemic health on every level of our Earth system. When you look at the human population and what we demand through agriculutre in current systems, The least harmful and most practical option for those who have the means is most of the time veganism.

This is an assumption. We don't need veganism, we need people to grow up. Vegan ideology is not the same as growing up.

When a person can no longer do veganism because of health issues, they go back to eating meat. They do not suffer until death in the name of veganism, they do not sink with the ship. And this problem is real, it is not going to go away, and you're not really listening to me, and neither did chatgpt when you told it to be a genius with that prompt lmao.

Individually maximizing the health of each human is a far better strategy at growing people up then following strict veganism to reduce animal suffering which is only one system. When people grow up that will influence every system.

The problem with veganism is that it's a very linear approach. It tries to brute force a solution with a direct approach: "everyone stops eating meat = less animal suffering." This is not a systemic approach. Real system change usually requires an indirect approach that works with existing systems, regardless of their ethics.

Leo mentioned this before. You can't avoid every unethical part of the system just because you don't like it and try to force everything into an idealist agenda. This strategy doesn't work.

Surprisingly a better strategy is the devilry that is happening with Elon Musk. On one part he's providing value on another part he's degrading important systems. But we need this devil, he's the best devil we have. lmao

 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, integral said:

 The devil is in the epistemological details! Ask it what it's epistemology is.

This is an assumption. We don't need veganism, we need people to grow up. Vegan ideology is not the same as growing up.

When a person can no longer do veganism because of health issues, they go back to eating meat. They do not suffer until death in the name of veganism, they do not sink with the ship. And this problem is real, it is not going to go away, and you're not really listening to me, and neither did chatgpt when you told it to be a genius with that prompt lmao.

Individually maximizing the health of each human is a far better strategy at growing people up then following strict veganism to reduce animal suffering which is only one system. When people grow up that will influence every system.

The problem with veganism is that it's a very linear approach. It tries to brute force a solution with a direct approach: "everyone stops eating meat = less animal suffering." This is not a systemic approach. Real system change usually requires an indirect approach that works with existing systems, regardless of their ethics.

Leo mentioned this before. You can't avoid every unethical part of the system just because you don't like it and try to force everything into an idealist agenda. This strategy doesn't work.

Surprisingly a better strategy is the devilry that is happening with Elon Musk. On one part he's providing value on another part he's degrading important systems. But we need this devil, he's the best devil we have. lmao

Question why you need to go through all these mental gymnastics to defend your dietary choices.

My experience has been that you're far more likely to be coming up with these arguments because you agree with Veganism.... rather than disagreeing with Veganism.

If you truly disagreed and didn't care about animals, you probably wouldn't be so pressed about this topic and trying to justify it so strongly through the lens of health.

But here's the thing... Veganism is associated with greater levels of health and longevity according to a variety of studies. 

But as an ethical Vegan, I didn't even know that when I went Vegan. I thought the Vegan and Omnivore diets were equal up until a couple years ago when I started doing more research.

I even thought at the very beginning that I could have potentially been taking a slight hit to my health.

So, even if Veganism wasn't the most optimal diet (which I truly believe it is), I would still eat that way because those are my values.

And living in integrity with my values is more important to me that eating the optimal diet.

Luckily, I don't have to choose between integrity and health.

[Shane Hanlon]

@integral Bro, you come up with the wackiest explanations to validate your nonsense lol. And then somehow you spin it to yourself as though you are a systemic holistic thinker. This has been my experience of you.

 

here are the ideas you have gotten right so far:

- Being a healthy vegan requires some supplementation and understanding of nutrition

- Genetics plays an important role in health

- systemic and holistic thinking is important

- Tailoring a plan to a unique individual is important.

- Epistemology is fundamentally important to good sense-making

 

Here are the ideas that are a bit too wacky to take seriously:

- Everything else

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Shane Hanlon

[Shane Hanlon]

26 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Those are my main take-aways from the sheet you produced.

That sheet was criminal lol

[Emerald]

38 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

That sheet was criminal lol

Definitely. Super silly.

[integral]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

If your perspective negates the scientific consensus, then your perspective is not holistic by definition.

How would you know?

You're assuming what I'm saying is crazy because I don't share your epistemology.

This is very important. When someone else doesn't share your epistemology, your reactionary mechanisms are to assume it's completely crazy.

So the only conversation that we could possibly have is to take the time and understand each other's epistemology.

But I already know your epistemology because I inhaled it my whole life. And believed it for a portion of my life.

The scientific consensus evidence-based approach has grotesque limits. And most people that are in love with this whole concept have not had the real world experiences of when Theory does not match up with practice.

You will only know that science got it wrong after you have direct experience showing you that it actually doesn't work in practice.

But at this very moment that will only happen after you experience a health problem on the vegan diet.

Even if I showed you thousands of videos of people who failed veganism. It will not be enough, it has to be personal.

Until then you will never need to question anything.

It's when you're survival is at stake that you're forced to question what you know and how you know it.

1 hour ago, Shane Hanlon said:

That sheet was criminal lol

LFMAOOO 🤣🤣 I genuinely laughed so hard when I read this. Mostly because I get your perspective and it just looks like a super one-sided biased sheet.

1 hour ago, Shane Hanlon said:

@integral Bro, you come up with the wackiest explanations to validate your nonsense lol. And then somehow you spin it to yourself as though you are a systemic holistic thinker. This has been my experience of you.

There's a misunderstanding. There's no point talking about the content. If we talk about any specific point we're just going to go back and forth in an endless loop. Arguing endlessly back and forth going nowhere.

That's how every discussion of this kind happens.

The only healthy conversation that we can have is about epistemology.

Until then we're just going to be talking past each other.

Edited 13 hours ago by integral

[integral]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Question why you need to go through all these mental gymnastics

Why would this be easy? I have never seen a conversation with vegans that was easy. 

Also I'm not Leo. I can't distill things easily. 

Edited 13 hours ago by integral

[integral]

45 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Definitely. Super silly.

I agree it wasn't my best work. But I think the concept has potential. Because it allows two people to understand each other's epistemology. And I think there's a useful tool here.

Maybe I'll make some kind of actualized.org AI integration. So people could go past surface level differences.

Edited 13 hours ago by integral

[integral]

https://claude.site/artifacts/45fce8fd-9047-49cf-8060-84114c7a9e16

Okay I created the ULTIMATE SHEET. 

Edited 12 hours ago by integral

[Shane Hanlon]

33 minutes ago, integral said:

But I already know your epistemology because I inhaled it my whole life. And believed it for a portion of my life.

22 minutes ago, integral said:

I agree it wasn't my best work. But I think the concept has potential. Because it allows two people to understand each other's epistemology. And I think there's a useful tool here.

One of the major hurdles you have here in your "epistemology tables" is that you are assuming another persons entire epistemology. I think you have might have assumed most of it wrong or at least not right. You'd have to let them fill out their side or something.

 

33 minutes ago, integral said:

The scientific consensus evidence-based approach has grotesque limits.

Another example of a valid idea. But the contexts you put it in don't work. Like because science has limits and can be critiqued, that doesn't mean that when there is overwhelming scientific evidence for a particular conclusion we can throw all of that out because of a lot of people I saw on the internet were unhealthy vegans.

 

33 minutes ago, integral said:

You will only know that science got it wrong after you have direct experience showing you that it actually doesn't work in practice.

But at this very moment that will only happen after you experience a health problem on the vegan diet.

Maybe it can work. Because the science says it does and it has worked for both of us. Me for 5 years and her for 8.5. For us and many we know, veganism is healthy. Backed by overwhelming scientific evidence. So when we hear you talk about all of the malnourished vegans, we look around and are like "where?". You can imagine those anti-scientific claims seem alarmist, motivated by some desire not to give up your current wroldview or way of life, and just plain wrong.

 

7 minutes ago, integral said:

Okay I created the ULTIMATE SHEET. 

I think we all identify the most with the "sage" column. But I'm curious as to how you think what we are saying is limited. We are not blindly following science. We are not blindly following an ideology. We believe we are looking at all possible ways of relating to the world and our body and choosing the most systemically holistically healthy. To us it feels like you are biased and blinded to different paradigms.

Edited 12 hours ago by Shane Hanlon

[Shane Hanlon]

I feel like Leo deeply communicating psychological pitfalls of humanity has this community trapping themselves at lower paradigms and projecting these traps they understand onto others without deeply reconsidering their own beliefs and worldviews based on these same traps.