[ColdStream]

Yep, they took the eye off the ball. Instead of growing free software the harder but much more resilient way, they caved to corporations in the name of quick results. But those quick results have ultimately back fired on them a little.

Open source is huge now but it has lost a lot of the enthusiasm. Much of it feels like just putting out code waiting to be absorbed by some larger parasitic entity that has a marketing team.

Unfortunately, corporate doesn't like the word ethics.

It was funny when GPL 3 came along and it completely leveled the playing field so that they couldn't just take code and not allow modified execution on their devices. Apple suck on GPL2 2008 release GNU tooling for over a decade until they could build alternatives. That they would rather reinvent the wheel than let people use their own software was wild!

Same thing happened when they stripped out the ethics from veganism to make 'plant based diets'. It worked for a while but without the ethics based foundations it just couldn't last.

[lstodd]

There were ethics in veganism? Since when? It was always a religious movement, all the way back to Vedanta. A way to set yourself apart and then maybe feel better for not being "like those others".

[hailvectron]

There always have been. As a practicing vegan of over 20 years, I made the change consciously for ethical and moral reasons with no interest in "setting myself apart" or "feeling better for not 'being like those others'" by this decision. I do not proselytize, and try hard to not discuss this aspect of my lifestyle unless it becomes awkward to avoid it. Equating veganism to faith movements is superficial. Stating that people choose it to make statements to other people is cynical.

Also I don't know what GP is talking about when it comes to "it just couldn't last." Being vegan can still be a pain in the ass, but it's vastly easier to find "plant-based" options than it was 20 years ago. There seem to be more options every year.

[rixed]

  >  I made the change consciously for ethical and moral reasons with no interest in "setting myself apart" or "feeling better for not 'being like those others'" by this decision

We all believe we do what we do for good reasons, yet we are wrong most of the times.

So, when I hear you saying that you are motivated by pure moral reasons, but not stating those reasons, I can't help but think "this guy is lying to himself", sorry.

Listen, I consider myself some kind of vegetarian: I feel shame for how we humans treat other animals in the food industry, I don't want to take part in it; therefore, I rarely buy meat (I rarely buy anything, actually). But when I go someplace and I'm not the cook, it won't even cross my mind to ask for "a vegetarian alternative"; I eat what is there because it doesn't matter. During the meal I might engage a discussion about how badly we treat animals and we could avoid participating. Not eating or cooking meat is not the point at all, not buying it is the point.

I have met a lot of vegetarians who just "can't eat meat", won't tell why, require a specific meal be prepared for them, exactly like some religious people won't eat pork or wtv, without ever explaining why not. Because they don't want to do proselytism or because they don't want to sound stupid? I'm sure which alternative you will choose for yourself, but I'm not convinced.

[hailvectron]

  > So, when I hear you saying that you are motivated by pure moral reasons, but not stating those reasons, I can't help but think "this guy is lying to himself", sorry.

???

I didn't say more about these things because I felt my comment was long enough already on a tangent to the HN submission itself, and that I'd made the intended point.

Not that I owe you or anyone else any convincing that I'm not delusional, but since you appear to be asking, this will both try to answer you and also illustrate why I didn't bloat my previous comment.

I am striving to keep to an acceptable minimum the harm I cause to other sentient creatures. My moral framework includes the following:

1. I reject speciesism^.

2. I take as axiomatic there is no "elimination" of harm to other creatures - no existence as a human has zero external harm.

3. I observe that accounting within any sufficiently complicated system, whether economic, physical, or moral, admits no entirely black and white disposition.

4. I discard as a largely useless question whether or not it is "natural" for humans to consume animal products.

5. I don't think "what our ancestors did" justifies what we should or shouldn't do today in our presently-evolved state.

Consistent with these ideas, I conclude veganism minimizes the harm I cause to other sentient creatures subject to the constraints that I do not make it impossible for myself to live among other people in a western society, and I do not degrade my health. #2 implies one can always strive further toward an asymptote of zero. At some point, one has to decide for themselves if they've done "enough". #3 implies reasonable people will not always agree as to whether a specific action or choice is reducing harm. For example, you speak of going somewhere else and not asking for "a vegetarian alternative" because "it doesn't matter." I contend that it very well could matter. If restaurants offer more vegan options because people ask for them, patrons potentially reduce the amount of animal products they consume, or potentially convince fellow diners that not consuming animal products doesn't preclude the convenience and pleasure of shared meals eaten at restaurants.

A choice of veganism is analogous to a choice of voting in a democracy. Your single vote is probably not going to make the difference in an election, but everybody thinking their votes matter is how we achieve collective action that unequivocally matters.

I don't really respect the choice of vegetarianism being observed wholly out religious obligations, but I appreciate that there are so many vegetarians who, regardless of their motivations, reduce their harm and make it more economically viable for me to live more comfortably in a manner consistent with my principles.

Many people who don't answer "why" when asked about their vegetarianism do so because they don't want to invite mockery or debate. I know people like this, and having experienced this kind of mockery, I understand it. Avoiding mockery or challenges to justify one's postions doesn't equate to a lack of convictions. Sure, someone could be doing it because it "sets them apart" and then they don't answer because they don't want to get called out on this stupidity. But why is that the correct default assumption in the absence of a fulsome answer? As for me, if you sincerely ask me "why" to my face, I'll certainly tell you and not play coy.

^ [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/ [2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/26165687

[rixed]

Well, I'm glad I've asked because I very much enjoyed reading your answer.

I had a different experience of vegetarians though. In my mind, based on my experience, a vegetarian is someone who, when you invite in your place, or when joining a coliving or a mere picnic (was not thinking of a restaurant, that's another matter), will insist that he can't touch any food with meat, or any food cooked in a pot that had just also been used to cook meat, really like it was a taboo rather than a practical decision about a very earthly thing, and not willing to give any more explanation than "it would be offensive". To me the proselytism is even more important than the choice not to buy meat (which is itself more important than the choice not to eat meat).

It seems that you are of a different blend and that I might have over-estimated the number of vegetarians-by-religion; maybe many are just tired of explaining indeed.