Because I wake up refreshed, have steady energy throughout the day, and can focus on solving complicated tasks throughout the day. I'm happier and healthy than I've ever been.

> Are there other areas of your life that you optimize for your own personal preferences at the expense of other sentient beings?

Almost every area of my life is at the expense of other sentient beings. I use energy that probably comes from coal that is fueling the war. I use an iPhone that has a battery that was probably made from slaves in china, built from materials sourced from slaves in mines in Africa. If you're checking hacker news, I'm assuming you are optimizing for your own personal preferences at the expense of other sentient beings.

I'd like to change some of that. The are more effective ways of doing so than just opting out of society.

> Are there areas where you don’t?

Chicken and pork are actually my favorite foods. I don't eat them because I think as livestock they're a net harm to the environment.

I don't kill spiders in my house, they're happy to cohabitate.

I have a dog, I sacrifice hours a day to make sure he is happy and healthy.

Happy to answer any other questions

Do you desire to protect your dog or dogs over other animas capable of the same or greater social and emotional experience?

Why not eat dogs?

> Are there other areas of your life that you optimize for your own personal preferences at the expense of other sentient beings?

I think the answer must be yes for everyone here. We are choosing to use (and pay for) the internet and electricity when we could instead be buying food for people who have none. We participate in Western economies which prey on the economies of the developing world.

I think it's important to also think about the definition here of 'sentient' and the definition of 'harm'. Is it 'harmful' to build houses, when otherwise animals would live in the fields/forests? Is it 'harmful' to burn fossil fuels for energy? Do you refuse to use electricity which has come from fossil fuel sources?

Is 'sentience' the right point to draw the line? How would you respond to findings like this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pce.13065, which comes to the conclusion that the assumption that plants are not sentient may be flawed?

You make great points about exploitation that we all benefit from.

As for plants, I think it’s possible, however raising animals requires even more plants to be killed.

And I’m not sure plants experience pain the way animals do. And if I had to choose, it seems animals are more capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

The philosophy makes no sense even if you start with the assumption that animals are on the same moral plane as people that does not preclude or discount eating them out of preference because animals already do that. If you want to argue for veganism use a less combative prideful argument. For example I'm not vegan or vegetarian but I heavily reduce my meat consumption for environment and health reasons, less than 2 times a month and I want to go lower. Talking about the nuance and difficulty that comes with eating less meat and overcoming them should be inline with the, moral pride based better than you attitude you have. And it should be something you are seeking not trying to derail because your goal is to get people to eat less meat.

One need not conflate “combative” with confronting.

As for other animals, I know that they suffer, feel pain, and have a desire to live.

I do not know if they have the capacity to decide what to eat.

We humans, however, do.

And, the vast majority of meat being eaten is from animals that are vegetarian.

In your view, if a lion and a hunter both kill a gazelle, have they both committed the same moral violation?