Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rohit Krishnan's avatar

Interesting take! I found myself having 3 objections when I read it

1. The chart showing meat <> GDP per capita doesn't prove much. We can get similar charts for obesity, or alcohol. Revealed preferences don't reveal everything.

2. The "happiness hit" of a chicken sandwich (or falafel) seems way out of proportion. I'd bet that these things don't replicate, or hold steady, or even be always positive, even for the same person over time. This means the compounding doesn't necessarily happen. i.e., you can't say she was x% more productive today because she was happy, and this compounds for her whole life. More likely being point-happy gives a one time tiny boost, which is nice but decays like diminishing marginal utility.

3. The link of self-proclaimed happiness to productivity is interesting but I'm a tad suspicious of a Said b school article to be honest. Even if its true in a ceteris paribus condition, these things have crazy number of confounders. For instance, if we'd done this same analysis twenty years ago we might've said the same about smoking (makes me happier, happier people are more productive, productivity compounds).

Expand full comment
MP's avatar

Regarding your comment on carbon offsets, I'd echo Scott Alexander and others in noting that while the existence of an optional ethical offset price can br useful, it is only relevant **if you actually commit to pay it**.

Once the low hanging fruit in GHG offsets are cleared, those prices should start going up and, assuming you are fully committed to lifestyle offsets, the cost tradeoff might encourage your veganism anyway.

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts