“As part of our commitment to supporting our customers to live healthier and more sustainable lives, we have decided to launch our first-ever ‘Meat-Free Christmas’ in our restaurants.”
I think there's a big difference between supporting customers who want to eat less meat (i.e. offering a veggie option) and removing the meat option entirely. There aren't any statistics on this, but if there's no meat at all, I might leave and go somewhere else. Maybe Ikea could have convinced me to eat less, but I'd likely end up somewhere else with no reduction whatsoever.
I guess it's Ikea's store and it can do whatever it wants, but I personally don't like the idea of some company telling me how to eat because a marketing guy decided it fit well as part of a corporate sustainability initiative.
Haha, me too. I have dietary restrictions that make most of their foods inedible for me, but the meat is good. But take it away cause there definitely aren't people like me out there.
Yes this is a kind of newspeak. This is not about supporting, it is about making choices on their customers' behalf.
I am thinking of the parent/child relationship, parents knows what is good for their children so they don't need to ask. Except, in some cases some parents actually don't know. IKEA is treating their customers like children here.
I am sure in 2-3 decades eating meat in West / developed World would either become prohibitively expensive like caviar or it would be outlawed.
It seems that nowadays humans want to completely redefine what is humanity - all social, cultural, religious values are being discarded altogether or are
being completely redefined.
I don’t know whether this is good or not - all I know is that there seem to be political or social movements behind each and every one of these movements and to have band of people redefine and reinforce, by law and through media, an altered version of humanity for our Children is a scary thought for me.
It will prohibitively expensive to raise and slaughter cattle if carbon taxes/cap-and-trade go into effect.
Personally I've completely cut most meat out of my diet and it's made my life a lot healthier. No particular moral reason and I'm not vegetarian, but I could see that kind of change happening throughout society as meat becomes more expensive.
It's one of the more resource-intensive foodstuffs there is; if the planet keeps getting more crowded at the current pace then I wouldn't be surprised if it's not long before people forced to shift toward less expensive food sources by basic economic forces.
Western nations aren't growing that quickly and likely have enough space. The fact that the whole world can't sustain it doesn't mean America can't, at least in terms of land. There's plenty of physical space; crowding is only an issue in part of the world.
Besides, if this is really the case, then demand will vastly out-strip supply and the price will sky-rocket. No need to try to stop people eating meat; the market would do that.
They're pretending the demand is somehow going to magically go away, or will be reduced to the point where the massive scale farming techniques aren't doable anymore. I also don't see it- it's a phenomenon that is Extremely Online. Normal people don't give these ideas the time of day.
The idea is to use the carbon taxes for sequestering the carbon released, so it's not just a punitive tax to reduce demand, like the tax on cigarettes.
It's not controversial that factories can't just pollute rivers with harmful chemicals, and that raises prices of goods. But apply that to the air and suddenly its a conspiracy to alter humanity.
The only reason I go to IKEA is for their Swedish Meatballs, not for their Kindergarten themed furniture. Good luck being meat free and depriving your customers of vitamin B12
B12 is largely misunderstood. B12 isn't produced by any animals, it's only produced by certain bacteria. It used to be available in plant based diets, but modern hygenic practices have more or less stopped that. In modern industrial farming it's common for the animals to not get enough B12 either, so they often get B12 from supplements as well.
Fortunately it's incredibly cheap to synthesize supplements and you don't need much of it at all, so this is not really a concern for vegans.
>'“As part of our commitment to supporting our customers to live healthier and more sustainable lives, we have decided to launch our first-ever ‘Meat-Free Christmas’ in our restaurants,”'
So a company that was predicated on planned obsolescence, that has littered the planet with disposable flat pack furniture is now going to support "sustainability" by getting rid of meatballs at its fast food lunch counter. Got it.
Oh yes, all that terrible flat-pack furniture... which is literally just captured carbon, if you think about it, and makes extremely efficient use of low grade wood.
You don't have to be rich to buy furniture whose primary design consideration isn't "cheap to ship." The metal and dowel based joinery of Ikea is a joke and it's a direct result of the "cheap to ship" design mentality.
You can find lots of furniture that uses proper joinery without breaking the bank. Lastly its false economy to buy the same disposable book case every 3-4 years when a well made one can last a lifetime. And they're quite easy to find second hand.
Ikea uses MDF - medium density fibre board, which is made from formaldehyde based binders and melamine. Try to to drop off MDF at a recycling plant some time. MDF ends up in land fills and yes formaldehyde leaches out. So no it's most certainly not "literally just captured carbon."
It's funny because a fair amount of vegan-based products (specifically meat substitutes) contain wheat and gluten, which I can't eat because of a physical disability. While there has been much more acceptance, etc. in recent years, and the amount of things I can eat has gone up, it's still frustrating to see vegans and vegetarians -- something that is for many people a dietary choice -- being catered to before people with physical disabilities.
Vaguely related, I'm not really won-over that everyone cutting meat out of their diet would have a considerable effect on the environment. The overwhelming majority of deforestation is done for crops, not pasture. And off the top of my head the most the majority people contribute to climate change is about 10%. So, sure, everyone stops using cars, and eating meat, etc. ad nauseum, that still leaves governments giving billions in subsidies to the coal and oil industries, etc.
It's a nice gesture, but that's all I'm seeing happening lately. Everyone's making gestures to climate change, but there has been no inter-governmental effort to actually charge, prosecute, and put to use the assets of the people who are responsible for covering up climate change for over forty years. I fear by the time it happens millions will have lost their lives in climate-related disasters.
Well, if you are allergic to soy, nuts, wheat, legumes, peas, etc. it may be challenging to find an off-the-shelf vegan meat substitute. Mushrooms are meaty/umami tasting and widely available but not high protein; perhaps nutritional yeast would be something to consider for savory dishes.
Also you can get enough protein just eating vegetables, fruits, and other grains (and pseudo-grains like quinoa and amaranth.) Spirulina could be another good ingredient, although algae is more fishy than meaty.
> Well, if you are allergic to soy, nuts, wheat, legumes, peas, etc.
I have celiac disease, so am allergic to gliadin. I don't know why you presumed that this encompasses soy, legumes, peas, etc. But given the severe undereducation about these disabilities I can see why you might not have known about it or recognized it at first glance.
> The overwhelming majority of deforestation is done for crops, not pasture
I'm not so sure this is true. Maybe in the United States. But most of the deforestation happening in the Amazon (which is a major component of climate change) is for meat and leather production.
Relevant quote from Wikipedia: "The cattle sector of the Brazilian Amazon, incentivized by the international beef and leather trades,[1] has been responsible for about 80% of all deforestation in the region,[2][3] or about 14% of the world's total annual deforestation, making it the world's largest single driver of deforestation.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra...
Somewhat different, but I have a similar issue finding dairy-free foods that aren't vegan (I'm lactose intolerant and the dairy pills don't always work well). It's really frustrating.
In any case, as another commenter pointed out, Vox has a good map showing how much of cropland is used for feed and fuel rather than direct human consumption [1].
I'm just curious, not intending to be challenging: Why is it a problem that you can't find dairy-free foods that aren't vegan? You didn't mention another dietary restriction; is it that you don't like the taste of vegan food?
Great question. A lot of times I want a meat-based dish or dessert. Soy and similar alternatives just don't taste that good to me (beyond meat isn't bad, but it's also not exactly healthy for you). For the former I end up mostly cooking myself, predominantly Asian (tons of naturally dairy-free dishes) and some modified Mediterranean. For desserts it's a lot harder and these days I just don't eat many anymore, which is probably a good thing anyway.
There exists a paradox in social choice theory (game theory applied to elections), the paradox of voting -- this comes out of Anthony Downs around 1950.
We can roughly consider that the utility value of voting is equal to a formula that looks like: E[voting] = pV - c, where c is the cost of voting (time cost, information cost, etc.), V is the value of your preferred candidate winning over other candidates, and p is your probability of being the pivotal voter. By pivotal voter, I mean that if everyone other than you cast their vote first, and then you cast your vote, the question is would your vote have a capability to change the outcome.
The typical view is that c is small but non-zero, V is reasonably large and by definition positive, but p is infinitesimal. And so, no one should bother voting. And yet, people do vote, an off-equilibrium behavior. And although it could be the case that someone's subjective belief in p is much higher than the true p is, this seems an unsatisfactory explanation because even stupid idiots know that their individual vote is unlikely to make the difference.
There are two major lines of rebuttal to the paradox. The first is that individual equilibrium models are not appropriate for assessing these kinds of questions. The second line of rebuttal is that there must exist other terms in the equation. The most promising of these is that the civic religion we have built around voting (social pressure to vote, personal moral imperative to "do one's part in society", the dumb stickers, how good it feels to stand up for what you believe, etc.) creates a "consumption value" of voting. So maybe the equation is E[voting] = pV - c + d where it is assumed that d >= c for many people, who vote.
I mention all of this because based on your post, p = 0, V = Infinity, c = high, and d = 0. If you are looking for a call to action, all you need to do is consider the great many benefits of changing your d term.
Finally, I think it weakens the approachability of your third paragraph argument (why bother, states should do it instead) that it comes after your second argument (environmentalists don't even help the environment) or your first argument (vegans annoy me because I can't eat gluten, why aren't people listening to me).
> Finally, I think it weakens the approachability of your third paragraph argument (why bother, states should do it instead) that it comes after your second argument (environmentalists don't even help the environment) or your first argument (vegans annoy me because I can't eat gluten, why aren't people listening to me).
Yes, this is true.
I would dispute your distillation of my first paragraph. It is not vegans or vegetarians that annoy me, it is the fact that groups and organizations are choosing to catering first and foremost for people who have fundamentally chosen not to eat something, rather than those who cannot eat something because of a physical disability. It means the interests of rich, abled-bodied people are once again being put above the interests of disabled people (Who are more likely to be poor, because they have invested a significant amount of money in coping with their disability -- as a celiac, for example, bread is 3x the price of normal bread, for a loaf about half the size (this is true for most other grain-based things)).
> The utility value of voting is ... E[voting] = pV - c, where c is the cost of voting (time cost, information cost, etc.), V is the value of your preferred candidate winning over other candidates
That patently ridiculous. There are varigated and complex motivations for voting in general and for voting for a certain candidate or party in particular. It has to do with your sense of identity; self-fulfillment vs passivity; commitment to peers, family, friends; sense of gratitude for past actions by the candidate or the party/movement; and these are all factors which are almost orthogonal to whether the candidate you vote for wins.
This is ultimately what goes in the d term in the next paragraph, yes. I agree that in hindsight people getting tripped up in the initial model before the criticisms elaborated on it were ignoring something that is obvious to everyone who isn't a game theory dweeb. My point in introducing the paradox was to introduce the solution to my comment's parent.
I guess "virtue signal" is the cool new catchphrase used by cynics.
Is there any way for a person or company to do anything of any good without being accused of this? Probably not. Anonymous commenters on the interwebs loves these types of throwaway accusations.
Actually, now that I think of it, mentioning "virtue signal" and "woke" is really just sending a virtue signal about how you're the truly woke one...
And I'm sending a virtue signal right now about how I totally get what's happening, and you don't, which shows how woke I am...
It's my understanding that ikea meatballs are made from mdf materials and dust that is produced as holes are drilled in their flat pack furniture. Not a single piece of material is wasted and the meatballs are a staple of their store cafes worldwide. I'm assuming the huge build up of these meatballs will be re routed to other locations during this Christmas experiment. Perhaps future mdf meatballs will have all meat additives removed and we will begin a new era of vegan foods.
57 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadI think there's a big difference between supporting customers who want to eat less meat (i.e. offering a veggie option) and removing the meat option entirely. There aren't any statistics on this, but if there's no meat at all, I might leave and go somewhere else. Maybe Ikea could have convinced me to eat less, but I'd likely end up somewhere else with no reduction whatsoever.
I guess it's Ikea's store and it can do whatever it wants, but I personally don't like the idea of some company telling me how to eat because a marketing guy decided it fit well as part of a corporate sustainability initiative.
I am thinking of the parent/child relationship, parents knows what is good for their children so they don't need to ask. Except, in some cases some parents actually don't know. IKEA is treating their customers like children here.
It seems that nowadays humans want to completely redefine what is humanity - all social, cultural, religious values are being discarded altogether or are being completely redefined.
I don’t know whether this is good or not - all I know is that there seem to be political or social movements behind each and every one of these movements and to have band of people redefine and reinforce, by law and through media, an altered version of humanity for our Children is a scary thought for me.
It will prohibitively expensive to raise and slaughter cattle if carbon taxes/cap-and-trade go into effect.
Personally I've completely cut most meat out of my diet and it's made my life a lot healthier. No particular moral reason and I'm not vegetarian, but I could see that kind of change happening throughout society as meat becomes more expensive.
Alternatively, vat meat takes over.
Besides, if this is really the case, then demand will vastly out-strip supply and the price will sky-rocket. No need to try to stop people eating meat; the market would do that.
If nothing else, I'm going to have to maintain or accelerate my consumption of venison, because the white tail population is spiking up.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturi...
Normal people also are very opinionated but don't know the facts.
I disagree. We're just more aware of each others' values.
Fortunately it's incredibly cheap to synthesize supplements and you don't need much of it at all, so this is not really a concern for vegans.
https://www.forksoverknives.com/vitamin-b12-questions-answer...
So a company that was predicated on planned obsolescence, that has littered the planet with disposable flat pack furniture is now going to support "sustainability" by getting rid of meatballs at its fast food lunch counter. Got it.
You can find lots of furniture that uses proper joinery without breaking the bank. Lastly its false economy to buy the same disposable book case every 3-4 years when a well made one can last a lifetime. And they're quite easy to find second hand.
Vaguely related, I'm not really won-over that everyone cutting meat out of their diet would have a considerable effect on the environment. The overwhelming majority of deforestation is done for crops, not pasture. And off the top of my head the most the majority people contribute to climate change is about 10%. So, sure, everyone stops using cars, and eating meat, etc. ad nauseum, that still leaves governments giving billions in subsidies to the coal and oil industries, etc.
It's a nice gesture, but that's all I'm seeing happening lately. Everyone's making gestures to climate change, but there has been no inter-governmental effort to actually charge, prosecute, and put to use the assets of the people who are responsible for covering up climate change for over forty years. I fear by the time it happens millions will have lost their lives in climate-related disasters.
Also you can get enough protein just eating vegetables, fruits, and other grains (and pseudo-grains like quinoa and amaranth.) Spirulina could be another good ingredient, although algae is more fishy than meaty.
I have celiac disease, so am allergic to gliadin. I don't know why you presumed that this encompasses soy, legumes, peas, etc. But given the severe undereducation about these disabilities I can see why you might not have known about it or recognized it at first glance.
Osmosis has a good video on it describing the pathology and full scope of the disease if you care to educate yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXzBApAx5lY
I'm not so sure this is true. Maybe in the United States. But most of the deforestation happening in the Amazon (which is a major component of climate change) is for meat and leather production.
Relevant quote from Wikipedia: "The cattle sector of the Brazilian Amazon, incentivized by the international beef and leather trades,[1] has been responsible for about 80% of all deforestation in the region,[2][3] or about 14% of the world's total annual deforestation, making it the world's largest single driver of deforestation.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra...
In any case, as another commenter pointed out, Vox has a good map showing how much of cropland is used for feed and fuel rather than direct human consumption [1].
[1] https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel...
We can roughly consider that the utility value of voting is equal to a formula that looks like: E[voting] = pV - c, where c is the cost of voting (time cost, information cost, etc.), V is the value of your preferred candidate winning over other candidates, and p is your probability of being the pivotal voter. By pivotal voter, I mean that if everyone other than you cast their vote first, and then you cast your vote, the question is would your vote have a capability to change the outcome.
The typical view is that c is small but non-zero, V is reasonably large and by definition positive, but p is infinitesimal. And so, no one should bother voting. And yet, people do vote, an off-equilibrium behavior. And although it could be the case that someone's subjective belief in p is much higher than the true p is, this seems an unsatisfactory explanation because even stupid idiots know that their individual vote is unlikely to make the difference.
There are two major lines of rebuttal to the paradox. The first is that individual equilibrium models are not appropriate for assessing these kinds of questions. The second line of rebuttal is that there must exist other terms in the equation. The most promising of these is that the civic religion we have built around voting (social pressure to vote, personal moral imperative to "do one's part in society", the dumb stickers, how good it feels to stand up for what you believe, etc.) creates a "consumption value" of voting. So maybe the equation is E[voting] = pV - c + d where it is assumed that d >= c for many people, who vote.
I mention all of this because based on your post, p = 0, V = Infinity, c = high, and d = 0. If you are looking for a call to action, all you need to do is consider the great many benefits of changing your d term.
Finally, I think it weakens the approachability of your third paragraph argument (why bother, states should do it instead) that it comes after your second argument (environmentalists don't even help the environment) or your first argument (vegans annoy me because I can't eat gluten, why aren't people listening to me).
Yes, this is true.
I would dispute your distillation of my first paragraph. It is not vegans or vegetarians that annoy me, it is the fact that groups and organizations are choosing to catering first and foremost for people who have fundamentally chosen not to eat something, rather than those who cannot eat something because of a physical disability. It means the interests of rich, abled-bodied people are once again being put above the interests of disabled people (Who are more likely to be poor, because they have invested a significant amount of money in coping with their disability -- as a celiac, for example, bread is 3x the price of normal bread, for a loaf about half the size (this is true for most other grain-based things)).
That patently ridiculous. There are varigated and complex motivations for voting in general and for voting for a certain candidate or party in particular. It has to do with your sense of identity; self-fulfillment vs passivity; commitment to peers, family, friends; sense of gratitude for past actions by the candidate or the party/movement; and these are all factors which are almost orthogonal to whether the candidate you vote for wins.
1. Save the company money.
2. Virtue signal how woke the company is.
Is there any way for a person or company to do anything of any good without being accused of this? Probably not. Anonymous commenters on the interwebs loves these types of throwaway accusations.
Actually, now that I think of it, mentioning "virtue signal" and "woke" is really just sending a virtue signal about how you're the truly woke one...
And I'm sending a virtue signal right now about how I totally get what's happening, and you don't, which shows how woke I am...
I don't think this particular hole has a bottom.
The implications for power management are troubling, to say the least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium-density_fibreboard