For more, it's a combination of all of it.
You've both done a great job at making the case that many people who go Vegan do so for reasons that are vastly different from those reasons that most people choose diets.
For those reasons, I think you're right that it is robustly different from a purely dietary trend. I'm still not seeing what makes it a mega-trend that rivals electric/autonomous cars, the internet, blockchain, the telephone, radio, etc.
Here's the only rationale I can infer:
- Vegans consider their moral compass to be superior to others who don't follow the lifestyle.
- Because it's so superior, most Vegans believe it's all but certain that this way of eating, living and consuming is the only way forward.
- Thus, it's a mega-trend because it's a logical conclusion that this way of living and eating is objectively "better".
But the adaptation rate by young people (millennial and younger) and the death rate are synergistically working to make it happen.
Am I mistaken here?
If I'm not wrong, then the assertion disregards the churn rate of Veganism.
Unlike other mega-trends, Veganism experiences a significant churn rate. Many people fall out of love with Veganism, for sound, valid and logical reasons.
Statistically speaking, most people do not stick with Veganism (as a diet or a lifestyle) for the long term. In fact, 84% of people who start eating Vegan ultimately come off.
Those that come off, tend to be very outspoken on why Veganism is a poor choice – perhaps even moreso than their evangelism while living Vegan.
Every source on why Veganism is so great focuses on explosive growth, and ignores the fact that many people come off of Veganism for myriad reasons.
I'm not trying to argue that you, personally, should not be Vegan @MJ DeMarco. That's your choice. You don't have to agree with the arguments from these groups.
But as an emotionless market analyst, it would be folly to ignore that churn rate.
Starting to live a Vegan lifestyle does not mean one stays Vegan. Someone who started using the internet/phones/radios ultimately did not stop using the internet/phones/radios.
Because of the high churn rate, I'm just not seeing what makes it a mega-trend. What am I missing?
Maybe your argument is that better products and services make it so less people churn out of Veganism. Maybe that's true. Maybe I'm missing something. But from the objective facts I've seen so far, I am still not seeing the evidence of a mega-trend emerging.
Because clearly you don't know why many vegans are vegan. That's OK. In a great irony, you are falling to a multitude of your own cognitive biases, a hindsight bias, and a recency bias, and Semmelweis reflex.
I don't pretend to know why anyone does anything, even myself.
I can only deduce and infer.
I did not point out that some were falling under cognitive biases as an insult. We are all falling under our biases every minute of every day. We can't help it....self included.
My comment was only to encourage all of us to examine any biases we may be experiencing.
That said, I'm certainly not falling victim to the Semmelweis reflex, nor hindsight bias, nor recency bias.
The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.
If you look, I am asking for more information, and explaining why I don't yet believe what you believe.
I am not reflexively discounting what you're saying. This isn't a new thing for me. I've been following Veganism as a dietary trend for over a decade.
I am open to the fact that I'm wrong – but the evidence is pointing a different direction to me. In fact, I haven't seen any new evidence that I could even reject...?
Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along effect or creeping determinism, is the inclination, after an event has occurred, to see the event as having been predictable, despite there having been little or no objective basis for predicting it
I am not claiming that I "knew it all along". I'm outlining what I perceive to be the pattern, and asking how this particular pattern could be different.
If anything, I am closer to falling into the trap of a Clustering Illusion or Gambler's Fallacy....but since I'm aware of it, I'm asking for more information on where I could be wrong in my pattern recognition or future prediction.
I don't want to be right. I want to understand.
"Recency bias" is the phenomenon of a person most easily remembering something that has happened recently, compared to remembering something that may have occurred a while back.
I've been involved in the diet and fitness space for the better part of 2 decades, and have researched dietary trends predating the 20th century.
That includes reading Anatomy and Physiology textbooks cover to cover, researching our adoption of the modern kitchen, the "better living through science" movement of the mid-century, and dietary trends from epochs spanning millenia.
It also includes a 3 year tenure at a company focused on serving intentional eaters as the head of product engineering.
Understanding dietary patterns has been a recurring theme through my life - not something that I just decided to troll today on FLF.
I'm not simply looking at Paleo and saying "Oh! Veganism is the same!" as you're suggesting (in what appears to be an attempt to discredit my point...?)
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.