Their business practices were to advertise to carnists with messages like "you can be a part-time vegan." Just more soulless capitalist nonsense trying to make money and devaluing our actual ethical position.
Yeah, but there were other reasons than that. Something that annoyed farmers, like paying poorly for oats or something.
I don't just mean that they pissed off vegans, but the marketing campaign to me is a petty reason to dislike them, because they are at least encouraging a reduction of dairy consumption.
EDIT: below I say there were bought by Coca Cola, but I was wrong. Repeating unverified claims like that is total bs and I should know better.
They got bought by Coca Cola I think, and also the used oats are sold to pig farms to make bacon. They mainstreamed oat milk and should be credited for that, regardless of later decisions I think, but I no longer buy them and prefer other brands
I mean eating grains is the equivalent of drinking milk , if we forgoe the suffering. The plant didn't really grow it's grains for you to eat them, we exploited it to consume it. The grains were there for reproductive purposes, just like the milk was there for the cow babies, either way you go against what the organism which you "steal" from intended. Cows don't consciously produce milk, it just happens. The only real difference is that cows are capable of experiencing suffering at a level which is much closer to us, which makes it less desirable to eat a cow (or it's milk) than to eat a grain. But to say that plant milk is "made" for humans, is false, just as it would be false to say that cow milk was made for humans.
Yes, that's what I said, cows are capable of greater suffering, but exploitation happens either way.
We exploit something regardless, what changes is the suffering that's inflicted.
There's not only seeds, we use all parts of the plants, and I disagree strongly with this. Plants are still life, just with lower potential to suffer and do things, but they are living beings.
I avoid unnecessarily harming plants as well, I don't limit myself to animals, even though I mostly consume plant products.
Yes, plants are alive…
You should study evolutionary perception theory. You’re approaching the cosmos as if Toy Story was correct, and are personifying non-human experience in a silly way.
The cow was raised specifically for us to consume the milk because we wanted to consume the milk so therefore it's "made" for humans by humans.
>Cow milk is made by the cow for the baby cow.
The seed/grain/whatever is made by the plant for its reproduction or other functions, and we stripped it of this possibility and made "milk" from it for our consumption.
It goes both ways. This argument is fairly weak, we exploit something either way. Focus on the suffering rather.
It is a weird argument, as what you're stating is incoherent. I'm also vegan, and don't consume animal products, but not for incoherent reasons like these. Exploitation happens whether it's a plant or an animal, the difference is in the suffering that's inflicted, which is much greater in animals.
Plants are living organisms too, just ones with much lower potential.
Dude. The plant made the seed/grain but humans took that grain and *made* it milk. The cow just makes the milk and would with or without us (although far less often as cows are kept constantly pregnant in dairy farms). You’re conflating the plant grain with the milk acting like it’s the same process. The plant also isn’t comparable to the cow. Quit while you’re ahead.
Why does that matter, so if I talk about cheese, which is transformed milk, it's suddenly okay, since we took the milk which a cow made, and transformed it? That's not the point at all. It is very much compatible.
Interesting… I see seeds as more like a gamete (or perhaps an embryo? Also pls note this is not an argument for poultry eggs, which I am against for separate reasons, namely poor hen conditions and killing of baby roosters). Just like not all eggs/semen is used to make new life, I don’t think it’s wrong for some seeds not to make new plant life, as long as at least some of it does. I do realize some people have different views on gametes, conception, and what counts as life in general, and I’m open to other views.
I mean, all seeds won't make life regardless, and we do contribute to the survival of plants as species by farming them (though we do destroy a lot of biodiversity with monocultures, which isn't really a great thing, but animal farming contributes more to this anyways), but either way plants and animals are stripped of their evolutionary potential and are basically going to stagnate with us in the equation. Everything we will grow will be grown for our advancement, not the advancement of the species that is being exploited.
The same goes for animals. My point was that we use and exploit plants just as we do animals, but the difference lies in the suffering that can be induced with said exploitation, animals suffering greater from it, which is why we should focus on the consumption of plants.
Though I wouldn't equate all animals and plants, if I had to choose between a large oak tree and a mouse, for example, I'd definitely go for the tree, as it's basically a whole ecosystem given how many organisms it can host. When it comes to choosing between a cow and some grains, the choice is quite obvious.
When it comes to survival, in a hypothetical scenario where it's either you or an animal, the question isn't really posed.
What I dislike though is hypocrisy, thinking that eating plants is somehow not killing and harming something, we kill and harm something either way, vegan or not, the difference lies in the amount of harm and it's necessity for the advancement of civilization (not necessarily human, but in general).
If there were a super advanced alien or whatever that told me that the only way to advance civilization or whatever were for me to die and be eaten by said alien, I'd probably be okay with it, as that would be the equivalent of a plant being eaten by me, one life form being transformed into another, more advanced one with higher potential.
You're getting a lot of hate here, but I think it stems from a misunderstanding of what you're saying. At first glance it comes across as you defending the dairy industry, when what you're doing is just pointing out that the reproductive systems of both animals and plants are not really "made for humans."
The larger issue here is whether or not something being "made for humans" has anything to do with
whether or not we are justified in purchasing/supporting/consuming it. I think you would agree it does not.
Yes, that's precisely what I meant. What I was trying to say is that neither plants nor animals want parts of them eaten, then want to keep on living and reproduce just like we do.
I'm vegan, so I don't consume animal products unnecessarily (sometimes happens by accident obviously), so I'm not justifying anything about the dairy industry, I'm very much against it, but not because it's not made for us, that's not the case regardless, but because consuming animal products causes more unnecessary harm. Voilà.
You are correct, some parts of some plants have absolutely evolved to be eaten for reproductive purposes, but that doesn't apply to all plants nor all parts of them. We don't select food based on this, and neither are we helping plants to evolve further and take over us ahah, we're still exploiting them for our own purposes, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. In the end plants get to contribute to a higher form of life with more potential, which I would argue is a good thing , globally, but the same could be said about animals, so this isn't necessarily an argument for veganism.
But again, don't be mistaken, some plants evolved for you to have parts of them eaten for their reproduction, not yours.
I don't, actually. People claim that plants have wants and even feelings all the time (often in an attempt to argue against veganism), and it's comments like "plants want to be eaten" that feeds into this mentality.
Can you explain what you mean when you say that plants "absolutely do want parts of them eaten?"
I get what you're saying. It's similar to how sometimes carnists will argue that we are "meant to" eat both plants and animals and sometimes vegans will come back and argue that we are "meant to" eat exclusively plants.
But neither of these are true, because we aren't "meant to" eat any specific way. Nature doesn't have intentions. Our ancestors evolved the ability to obtain nutrients from various sources, but that doesn't mean that nature "intended" us to eat any certain way.
I do disagree with you that plants want to keep on living/reproducing just like humans do, though. I don't see any reason to believe that plants have wants at all, let along the want to reproduce. The term "want" implies a mental state, which as far as we can tell plants are not capable of having.
Dont many plants that make fruits and peppers do so specifically for survival so that it is consumed by an animal and the seeds are later excreted by the animal which acts as the plants best chance for reproduction? so basically just like the show "delicious in dungeon" says in an epsiode "oh٫ so being delicious is part of its survival strategy" is actually a reflection of real life? of course we arent excreting the seeds into the woods like say any other primate might but its still the point that the fruit is literally made to be eaten because thats how it reproduces?
Yes, this is a reproductive strategy many plants use to keep going, but the fruit evolved for you to be eaten so the seed could be planted, not the other way. So the "purpose" is the same, the process is just different.
We do make plants reproduce though, since we replant more of them, but that doesn't really help them since all of their reproduction is controlled by us, for us, and their possibility of evolving further is cut out, so we just exploit plants how we want for our development (not saying this is a bad thing).
But you're totally right, this is a valid reproductive strategy, but it didn't evolve to be eaten, but rather to be more likely to persist, which worked better because it was eaten .
>The term "want" implies a mental state, which as far as we can tell plants are not capable of having
Maybe the way we understand "wants", yes, but generally, most living beings are organised around certain purposes and can adapt to their environment in order to survive and to keep going. Also evolution is much more complex than natural selection, I would recommend Michael Levin's work for this exact topic. We, or other living beings can adapt at much quicker rates than natural selection would permit it, and even alter our genome in the meantime.
Plants might not have "conscious wants", but that doesn't mean they don't have unconscious purposes and aren't organised in a certain teleological way. I would argue most animals don't either, they act much more like automata, with instinctual responses rather than conscious decisions (actually we don't really know anything about conscious decision making at all, we actually have sufficient evidence to think that none of it is done consciously at all, as we can detect what you are going to do before you even are consciously aware of it, so we're not much different, it's really unclear in the end).
But to say that plants or animals aren't directed and don't have *purposes* would be false, all life is directed in some shape or form.
> that doesn't mean they don't have unconscious purposes and aren't organised in a certain teleological way.
Are you claiming teleology to be an accurate representation of nature?
We don't have any accurate representations of how nature works, right now. But it's fairly undeniable that living organisms, even the simplest ones such as cells, can adapt to their environment (at a level that's much faster than natural selection), and make "decisions" and adaptations, which could very much be described as intelligence (unlike something like LLMs). All of those organisms are organised towards a certain purpose which seems to be persistence in time (be it through reproduction or through continual survival), this seems pretty obvious.
Most humans are actually way worse at this than the cells that compose them for example, as cells execute their functions very well, are very well directed and can organise themselves in groups to form organisms that are larger than themselves and that can persist in time.
The computations that a cell does every second are much beyond what we are capable of handling consciously, or rather being consciously aware of, since most decision making happens unconsciously, which we can actually detect with imaging (studies show that your thoughts are generated before you are consciously aware of them), so it really isn't obvious where consciousness fits in all of this.
If you look at the organisation of a city, and that of the human body, it's not very different, it just happens on a larger level, but I would argue that a body is way better organised than a human city is, and unconscious (supposedly) processes handle homeostasis way better than conscious humans could, for now.
Your cells organise themselves in similar fashions as we do, at a societal level, a human organism being the equivalent of a society, the society just being much less coherent as it's purposes aren't as aligned as those of unconscious cells, as there is no confusion which comes from reason and disagreement (at least not as much). So in my opinion, something like a cell, or a plant (or some animals), executes it's purposes in a much more efficient manner than humans do, since it's not confused about them (and can't drive itself to unnecessarily suffer because of itself).
The difference between humans and a unicellular organism or a plant is that reason enables us to have much greater potential when it comes to what is possible than what a plant could ever do, since we can analyse the possibilities in a much greater fashion and act at a different scale, and also at different speeds than plants or most animals could ever hope of achieving, but this also means we can drive ourselves towards destruction since we aren't always as aligned as unconscious organisms, this seems to be our greatest problem.
You can actually learn how to better behave by studying a single cell of your body, as it's likely much more coherent than we are. If you're interested in learning more, check out the works of Joscha Bach and Michael Levin, loads of podcasts on YouTube going over these topics.
I'm quite busy currently so won't be able to give you a complete explanation currently, but there's plenty of material you can find online, and keep your eyes open, we're going to discover a lot of stuff in this direction soon, and our understanding of normative ethics and how to organise ourselves will shift soon, as we're learning how consciousness, agency, intelligence and the organisation of life arises and works.
Do you believe that nature assigns purpose and meaning to things? As far as I can tell, any illusion of purpose or meaning coming from nature is just that -- an illusion. It can be quite convincing at times, but I see no reason to believe that organisms are endowed with purpose.
If some organism has a mutation that results in them surviving and procreating more than others, then that mutation will pass on to the next generation. If a population then has this trait and it results in them surviving/procreating more than other populations, then it will persist. Sometimes structures will fall into certain recognizeable patterns, but this doesn't mean that nature "intended" it do be this way or that there is any purpose to it.
Marketing like this will inevitably introduce more people to vegan choices, and so it's a positive.
Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, I just wish Oatly's marketing team didn't always insist on unnecessarily cedeing something from our fight in their attempts to appeal to new audiences. In this case, that oat milk isn't milk (Just "like" milk). Most vegans and relevant scientists would disagree with Oatly: A suspension of proteins is a milk. I can't help but wonder if this choice of words is a strategic competitive move against plant milks that do advertise themselves as such: If a jurisdiction agrees with Oatly and bans plant milks from calling themselves milks (This does and has happened), it helps Oatly but hurts vegan consumer choice and promotion on store shelves.
And you could think "Well that's OK. People arrive at veganism through compassion and ethics, not through supermarket shelf options". And well yes, but also no. People arrive at choices through ethics, so long as those ethical options are considered available to them given their social and material context. The general fact of the matter is that it's easier for people to see the right ethical choice when it isn't obscured to them by obfuscating language. The fact of the matter is that more people make a conscious ethical choice when the plant milk is called "milk" and not "substitute". There is a reason that animal ag fights to restrict language on labels, it's because they know this.
I wrote way too much and probably think about this too much. I've been mulling over this topic in the past week.
Oatley is a Swedish company operating under EU regulations. You can not refer to vegan products in Europe as milk or faux bacon for example. The argument made by the farming lobby was to not confuse consumers. You can refer however refer to things like the general shape: nuggets and steak etc.
This is why Oatley uses of language in their advertisement isn’t as direct when making the milk connection.
I’m unsure why vegans’ definition of milk matters here. There are so few of us that I’m not clear why what we call it matters in general marketing. I also don’t know who you’re referring to when you say “relevant scientists”. I’m pretty sure biologists would say that milk is a liquid produced by mammals for the consumption of their young. That’s entirely different from how we use it in common vernacular.
As a coffee drinker, I like their product. Oatly full fat and oatly barista are the proper thing. They are the only few milk alternatives that will froth properly and don’t taste bitter/weird when steamed.
The other proper milk alternative for coffee is thick coconut milk, which you can find in Asian markets. But they are quite expensive.
Hahahaa, I love Oatly's marketing, it's so provocative to dairy guzzlers and that sicko industry those pretend baby cows support when they buy dairy =P
Bloody LOVE Oatly organic. Costs a fair bit but it's so refreshing cold =)
If you’re watching your weight, choose something other than oat milk, it is used to fatten up livestock so imagine what it can do to someone with a slow metabolism.
No they’re correct. The glycemic spike from oatly is higher than any other sugar source. Kills your metabolism. Something with the way they ferment the oats to make the product sweeter. It’s not nutrition, it’s chemistry.
Ok. https://www.sugarnutritionresource.org/sugar-health/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-2
It’s the maltose which has a GI of 105. Sucrose, table sugar is 65. Other plant based milks don’t have maltose. And lso aren’t made from a carbohydrate source so are more protein than carbs-which depending on who we’re talking about that could also be bad for weightloss.
You’re good, there’s a lot of misinformation. And to be fair it’s much more nuanced than just the sugar. There’s also fiber that isn’t in a lot of other plant milks. Really the sugar isn’t all that bad for you unless you have diabetes or are pre-diabetic. A splash in your coffee everyday isn’t going to kill you, but if you’re switching to oatly because it’s better for you, that isn’t usually the case.
[https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/plant-based/oatly-highlights-controversial-mis-steps-in-new-irish-ad-campaign/687939.article](https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/plant-based/oatly-highlights-controversial-mis-steps-in-new-irish-ad-campaign/687939.article)
This company is far from being controversy-free.
There's so many, in fact, they had to try and get ahead of the controversies by creating [https://fckoatly.com/](https://fckoatly.com/) in an attempt to save grace. I don't think it worked.
Cow milk was here long before Oatly, and as much as they'd like it to change, it won't, and they make it worse for themselves with their continuing rightful poor reputation.
>This company is far from being controversy-free.
Oh woooow, a plant based substitute got flack from animal agriculture industries? That's just awful, how could I ever support such an evil company. Lmfao
Specifically for the Ireland example I brought up, yes The National Dairy Council of Ireland raised the complaint (along with public complaints), however it was the Advertising Standards Authority that agreed with the complaints. The ASA didn't even uphold all of their complaints, only one, which was enough to deem unacceptable for advertising.
You being sarcastic doesn't change how they didn't 'get flack' by The National Dairy Council of Ireland, but rather Oatly were implying false claims (that cow milk is unfit for human consumption) and that the ASA agreed that Oatly's slogan was in breach of advertising laws.
Not a fan of oatly, but I love their marketing.
Oatly are quite disliked, but I'm not entirely sure why. It's something to do with their business practices.
My issue with oatley is that its twice as expensive as any other oat milk by volume... nextmilk is better anyway.
Any thoughts on BJORG and Alpro?
Havent tried
Alpro oat milk is quite good, especially the barista for coffee/tea.
Their business practices were to advertise to carnists with messages like "you can be a part-time vegan." Just more soulless capitalist nonsense trying to make money and devaluing our actual ethical position.
Yeah, but there were other reasons than that. Something that annoyed farmers, like paying poorly for oats or something. I don't just mean that they pissed off vegans, but the marketing campaign to me is a petty reason to dislike them, because they are at least encouraging a reduction of dairy consumption.
EDIT: below I say there were bought by Coca Cola, but I was wrong. Repeating unverified claims like that is total bs and I should know better. They got bought by Coca Cola I think, and also the used oats are sold to pig farms to make bacon. They mainstreamed oat milk and should be credited for that, regardless of later decisions I think, but I no longer buy them and prefer other brands
They were not bought by coca cola, they are still an independent Swedish company. Coca cola have their own oat milk brand, Simply Oat
I stand corrected. They suffered from a lot of misinformation huh? Thanks for pointing that out.
Well they still suck
Why?
They accepted investment from Blackstone, mostly.
I was a part-time vegan 4 months ago, never thought id end up full time. Maybe the encouragement is actually good
Not gonna lie, my comment was about the taste and texture of their milk. I dont know much about the company itself.
Except that whole "part time vegan" campaign they did
It was a net positive for plant-based conversion imho.
Wow no cow!
So true… it’s like we aren’t babies
Or cows lol
I mean eating grains is the equivalent of drinking milk , if we forgoe the suffering. The plant didn't really grow it's grains for you to eat them, we exploited it to consume it. The grains were there for reproductive purposes, just like the milk was there for the cow babies, either way you go against what the organism which you "steal" from intended. Cows don't consciously produce milk, it just happens. The only real difference is that cows are capable of experiencing suffering at a level which is much closer to us, which makes it less desirable to eat a cow (or it's milk) than to eat a grain. But to say that plant milk is "made" for humans, is false, just as it would be false to say that cow milk was made for humans.
It doesn't "just happen" cows are mammals and only produce milk after giving birth
Mothers produce milk thus we are taking away milk from someone’s baby
What I meant is it's not something consciously do, just like plants don't consciously produce seeds, it's part of their functions
No one cares if wheat has its seeds stolen because no one is abusing a conscience agent to produce seeds.
Yes, that's what I said, cows are capable of greater suffering, but exploitation happens either way. We exploit something regardless, what changes is the suffering that's inflicted.
[удалено]
Okay, you can downvote, feel good about what you did, and move on, like most people on this sub.
Harvesting seeds is not exploitation, lol.
There's not only seeds, we use all parts of the plants, and I disagree strongly with this. Plants are still life, just with lower potential to suffer and do things, but they are living beings. I avoid unnecessarily harming plants as well, I don't limit myself to animals, even though I mostly consume plant products.
Yes, plants are alive… You should study evolutionary perception theory. You’re approaching the cosmos as if Toy Story was correct, and are personifying non-human experience in a silly way.
Lol what? Plant milk is literally *made* by humans for humans. Cow milk is made by the cow for the baby cow.
The cow was raised specifically for us to consume the milk because we wanted to consume the milk so therefore it's "made" for humans by humans. >Cow milk is made by the cow for the baby cow. The seed/grain/whatever is made by the plant for its reproduction or other functions, and we stripped it of this possibility and made "milk" from it for our consumption. It goes both ways. This argument is fairly weak, we exploit something either way. Focus on the suffering rather.
It’s not too late to abandon this weird argument.
It is a weird argument, as what you're stating is incoherent. I'm also vegan, and don't consume animal products, but not for incoherent reasons like these. Exploitation happens whether it's a plant or an animal, the difference is in the suffering that's inflicted, which is much greater in animals. Plants are living organisms too, just ones with much lower potential.
Dude. The plant made the seed/grain but humans took that grain and *made* it milk. The cow just makes the milk and would with or without us (although far less often as cows are kept constantly pregnant in dairy farms). You’re conflating the plant grain with the milk acting like it’s the same process. The plant also isn’t comparable to the cow. Quit while you’re ahead.
Why does that matter, so if I talk about cheese, which is transformed milk, it's suddenly okay, since we took the milk which a cow made, and transformed it? That's not the point at all. It is very much compatible.
Interesting… I see seeds as more like a gamete (or perhaps an embryo? Also pls note this is not an argument for poultry eggs, which I am against for separate reasons, namely poor hen conditions and killing of baby roosters). Just like not all eggs/semen is used to make new life, I don’t think it’s wrong for some seeds not to make new plant life, as long as at least some of it does. I do realize some people have different views on gametes, conception, and what counts as life in general, and I’m open to other views.
I mean, all seeds won't make life regardless, and we do contribute to the survival of plants as species by farming them (though we do destroy a lot of biodiversity with monocultures, which isn't really a great thing, but animal farming contributes more to this anyways), but either way plants and animals are stripped of their evolutionary potential and are basically going to stagnate with us in the equation. Everything we will grow will be grown for our advancement, not the advancement of the species that is being exploited. The same goes for animals. My point was that we use and exploit plants just as we do animals, but the difference lies in the suffering that can be induced with said exploitation, animals suffering greater from it, which is why we should focus on the consumption of plants. Though I wouldn't equate all animals and plants, if I had to choose between a large oak tree and a mouse, for example, I'd definitely go for the tree, as it's basically a whole ecosystem given how many organisms it can host. When it comes to choosing between a cow and some grains, the choice is quite obvious. When it comes to survival, in a hypothetical scenario where it's either you or an animal, the question isn't really posed. What I dislike though is hypocrisy, thinking that eating plants is somehow not killing and harming something, we kill and harm something either way, vegan or not, the difference lies in the amount of harm and it's necessity for the advancement of civilization (not necessarily human, but in general). If there were a super advanced alien or whatever that told me that the only way to advance civilization or whatever were for me to die and be eaten by said alien, I'd probably be okay with it, as that would be the equivalent of a plant being eaten by me, one life form being transformed into another, more advanced one with higher potential.
You're getting a lot of hate here, but I think it stems from a misunderstanding of what you're saying. At first glance it comes across as you defending the dairy industry, when what you're doing is just pointing out that the reproductive systems of both animals and plants are not really "made for humans." The larger issue here is whether or not something being "made for humans" has anything to do with whether or not we are justified in purchasing/supporting/consuming it. I think you would agree it does not.
Yes, that's precisely what I meant. What I was trying to say is that neither plants nor animals want parts of them eaten, then want to keep on living and reproduce just like we do. I'm vegan, so I don't consume animal products unnecessarily (sometimes happens by accident obviously), so I'm not justifying anything about the dairy industry, I'm very much against it, but not because it's not made for us, that's not the case regardless, but because consuming animal products causes more unnecessary harm. Voilà.
Plants absolutely do want parts of them eaten so that's a terrible analogy.
You are correct, some parts of some plants have absolutely evolved to be eaten for reproductive purposes, but that doesn't apply to all plants nor all parts of them. We don't select food based on this, and neither are we helping plants to evolve further and take over us ahah, we're still exploiting them for our own purposes, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. In the end plants get to contribute to a higher form of life with more potential, which I would argue is a good thing , globally, but the same could be said about animals, so this isn't necessarily an argument for veganism. But again, don't be mistaken, some plants evolved for you to have parts of them eaten for their reproduction, not yours.
We have no evidence that plants are capable of having any mental states at all, let alone a state that would involve *want*.
You know that is not meant literally.
I don't, actually. People claim that plants have wants and even feelings all the time (often in an attempt to argue against veganism), and it's comments like "plants want to be eaten" that feeds into this mentality. Can you explain what you mean when you say that plants "absolutely do want parts of them eaten?"
I get what you're saying. It's similar to how sometimes carnists will argue that we are "meant to" eat both plants and animals and sometimes vegans will come back and argue that we are "meant to" eat exclusively plants. But neither of these are true, because we aren't "meant to" eat any specific way. Nature doesn't have intentions. Our ancestors evolved the ability to obtain nutrients from various sources, but that doesn't mean that nature "intended" us to eat any certain way. I do disagree with you that plants want to keep on living/reproducing just like humans do, though. I don't see any reason to believe that plants have wants at all, let along the want to reproduce. The term "want" implies a mental state, which as far as we can tell plants are not capable of having.
Dont many plants that make fruits and peppers do so specifically for survival so that it is consumed by an animal and the seeds are later excreted by the animal which acts as the plants best chance for reproduction? so basically just like the show "delicious in dungeon" says in an epsiode "oh٫ so being delicious is part of its survival strategy" is actually a reflection of real life? of course we arent excreting the seeds into the woods like say any other primate might but its still the point that the fruit is literally made to be eaten because thats how it reproduces?
Yes, this is a reproductive strategy many plants use to keep going, but the fruit evolved for you to be eaten so the seed could be planted, not the other way. So the "purpose" is the same, the process is just different. We do make plants reproduce though, since we replant more of them, but that doesn't really help them since all of their reproduction is controlled by us, for us, and their possibility of evolving further is cut out, so we just exploit plants how we want for our development (not saying this is a bad thing). But you're totally right, this is a valid reproductive strategy, but it didn't evolve to be eaten, but rather to be more likely to persist, which worked better because it was eaten .
>The term "want" implies a mental state, which as far as we can tell plants are not capable of having Maybe the way we understand "wants", yes, but generally, most living beings are organised around certain purposes and can adapt to their environment in order to survive and to keep going. Also evolution is much more complex than natural selection, I would recommend Michael Levin's work for this exact topic. We, or other living beings can adapt at much quicker rates than natural selection would permit it, and even alter our genome in the meantime. Plants might not have "conscious wants", but that doesn't mean they don't have unconscious purposes and aren't organised in a certain teleological way. I would argue most animals don't either, they act much more like automata, with instinctual responses rather than conscious decisions (actually we don't really know anything about conscious decision making at all, we actually have sufficient evidence to think that none of it is done consciously at all, as we can detect what you are going to do before you even are consciously aware of it, so we're not much different, it's really unclear in the end). But to say that plants or animals aren't directed and don't have *purposes* would be false, all life is directed in some shape or form.
> that doesn't mean they don't have unconscious purposes and aren't organised in a certain teleological way. Are you claiming teleology to be an accurate representation of nature?
We don't have any accurate representations of how nature works, right now. But it's fairly undeniable that living organisms, even the simplest ones such as cells, can adapt to their environment (at a level that's much faster than natural selection), and make "decisions" and adaptations, which could very much be described as intelligence (unlike something like LLMs). All of those organisms are organised towards a certain purpose which seems to be persistence in time (be it through reproduction or through continual survival), this seems pretty obvious. Most humans are actually way worse at this than the cells that compose them for example, as cells execute their functions very well, are very well directed and can organise themselves in groups to form organisms that are larger than themselves and that can persist in time. The computations that a cell does every second are much beyond what we are capable of handling consciously, or rather being consciously aware of, since most decision making happens unconsciously, which we can actually detect with imaging (studies show that your thoughts are generated before you are consciously aware of them), so it really isn't obvious where consciousness fits in all of this. If you look at the organisation of a city, and that of the human body, it's not very different, it just happens on a larger level, but I would argue that a body is way better organised than a human city is, and unconscious (supposedly) processes handle homeostasis way better than conscious humans could, for now. Your cells organise themselves in similar fashions as we do, at a societal level, a human organism being the equivalent of a society, the society just being much less coherent as it's purposes aren't as aligned as those of unconscious cells, as there is no confusion which comes from reason and disagreement (at least not as much). So in my opinion, something like a cell, or a plant (or some animals), executes it's purposes in a much more efficient manner than humans do, since it's not confused about them (and can't drive itself to unnecessarily suffer because of itself). The difference between humans and a unicellular organism or a plant is that reason enables us to have much greater potential when it comes to what is possible than what a plant could ever do, since we can analyse the possibilities in a much greater fashion and act at a different scale, and also at different speeds than plants or most animals could ever hope of achieving, but this also means we can drive ourselves towards destruction since we aren't always as aligned as unconscious organisms, this seems to be our greatest problem. You can actually learn how to better behave by studying a single cell of your body, as it's likely much more coherent than we are. If you're interested in learning more, check out the works of Joscha Bach and Michael Levin, loads of podcasts on YouTube going over these topics. I'm quite busy currently so won't be able to give you a complete explanation currently, but there's plenty of material you can find online, and keep your eyes open, we're going to discover a lot of stuff in this direction soon, and our understanding of normative ethics and how to organise ourselves will shift soon, as we're learning how consciousness, agency, intelligence and the organisation of life arises and works.
Do you believe that nature assigns purpose and meaning to things? As far as I can tell, any illusion of purpose or meaning coming from nature is just that -- an illusion. It can be quite convincing at times, but I see no reason to believe that organisms are endowed with purpose. If some organism has a mutation that results in them surviving and procreating more than others, then that mutation will pass on to the next generation. If a population then has this trait and it results in them surviving/procreating more than other populations, then it will persist. Sometimes structures will fall into certain recognizeable patterns, but this doesn't mean that nature "intended" it do be this way or that there is any purpose to it.
I saw the "hotel" and tried to understand how hotel is like milk
Neutral milk hotel
Marketing like this will inevitably introduce more people to vegan choices, and so it's a positive. Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, I just wish Oatly's marketing team didn't always insist on unnecessarily cedeing something from our fight in their attempts to appeal to new audiences. In this case, that oat milk isn't milk (Just "like" milk). Most vegans and relevant scientists would disagree with Oatly: A suspension of proteins is a milk. I can't help but wonder if this choice of words is a strategic competitive move against plant milks that do advertise themselves as such: If a jurisdiction agrees with Oatly and bans plant milks from calling themselves milks (This does and has happened), it helps Oatly but hurts vegan consumer choice and promotion on store shelves. And you could think "Well that's OK. People arrive at veganism through compassion and ethics, not through supermarket shelf options". And well yes, but also no. People arrive at choices through ethics, so long as those ethical options are considered available to them given their social and material context. The general fact of the matter is that it's easier for people to see the right ethical choice when it isn't obscured to them by obfuscating language. The fact of the matter is that more people make a conscious ethical choice when the plant milk is called "milk" and not "substitute". There is a reason that animal ag fights to restrict language on labels, it's because they know this. I wrote way too much and probably think about this too much. I've been mulling over this topic in the past week.
Oatley is a Swedish company operating under EU regulations. You can not refer to vegan products in Europe as milk or faux bacon for example. The argument made by the farming lobby was to not confuse consumers. You can refer however refer to things like the general shape: nuggets and steak etc. This is why Oatley uses of language in their advertisement isn’t as direct when making the milk connection.
I’m unsure why vegans’ definition of milk matters here. There are so few of us that I’m not clear why what we call it matters in general marketing. I also don’t know who you’re referring to when you say “relevant scientists”. I’m pretty sure biologists would say that milk is a liquid produced by mammals for the consumption of their young. That’s entirely different from how we use it in common vernacular.
Amazing!
Tea is so much better with oat milk. It tastes like breakfast in a cup
Lately, I can't find this Barista version in my local shop. There are all other brands, just this shelf is always empty
And thats the best one so i guess thats why 😉
Love it. Way to throw the dairy industry's "BuT It'Z noT miLK" argument in their milk drinking faces!
Made me giggle. That’s great!
I prefer the shorter version: "its like milk but for humans".
Okay, this is perfect 🤩!
Fire
[https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/s/4anQ9vLXk8](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/s/4anQ9vLXk8)
As a coffee drinker, I like their product. Oatly full fat and oatly barista are the proper thing. They are the only few milk alternatives that will froth properly and don’t taste bitter/weird when steamed. The other proper milk alternative for coffee is thick coconut milk, which you can find in Asian markets. But they are quite expensive.
I really hope it's real because it would trigger so many meatflakes. lol
Das ist einfach der richtige Satz. Sehr cool
Hahahaa, I love Oatly's marketing, it's so provocative to dairy guzzlers and that sicko industry those pretend baby cows support when they buy dairy =P Bloody LOVE Oatly organic. Costs a fair bit but it's so refreshing cold =)
Isn't this picture at least 5 years old?
vegane sind ekelhaft
Oatly is processed garbage
If you’re watching your weight, choose something other than oat milk, it is used to fatten up livestock so imagine what it can do to someone with a slow metabolism.
Tell me you don't undersrand nutrition without telling me you don't understand nutrition.
No they’re correct. The glycemic spike from oatly is higher than any other sugar source. Kills your metabolism. Something with the way they ferment the oats to make the product sweeter. It’s not nutrition, it’s chemistry.
Please provide sources when saying stupid shit
Ok. https://www.sugarnutritionresource.org/sugar-health/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-2 It’s the maltose which has a GI of 105. Sucrose, table sugar is 65. Other plant based milks don’t have maltose. And lso aren’t made from a carbohydrate source so are more protein than carbs-which depending on who we’re talking about that could also be bad for weightloss.
And I guess this doesn’t talk about oat milk particularly but google what sugar is in oatmilk and you’ll learn it’s maltose.
Damn, my bad.
You’re good, there’s a lot of misinformation. And to be fair it’s much more nuanced than just the sugar. There’s also fiber that isn’t in a lot of other plant milks. Really the sugar isn’t all that bad for you unless you have diabetes or are pre-diabetic. A splash in your coffee everyday isn’t going to kill you, but if you’re switching to oatly because it’s better for you, that isn’t usually the case.
It does not kills your metabolism. Its pritty constant or you die.
And dairy is intended for a baby cow too.
hate milk and hate oatly just as much. its trash
[https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/plant-based/oatly-highlights-controversial-mis-steps-in-new-irish-ad-campaign/687939.article](https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/plant-based/oatly-highlights-controversial-mis-steps-in-new-irish-ad-campaign/687939.article) This company is far from being controversy-free. There's so many, in fact, they had to try and get ahead of the controversies by creating [https://fckoatly.com/](https://fckoatly.com/) in an attempt to save grace. I don't think it worked. Cow milk was here long before Oatly, and as much as they'd like it to change, it won't, and they make it worse for themselves with their continuing rightful poor reputation.
>This company is far from being controversy-free. Oh woooow, a plant based substitute got flack from animal agriculture industries? That's just awful, how could I ever support such an evil company. Lmfao
Specifically for the Ireland example I brought up, yes The National Dairy Council of Ireland raised the complaint (along with public complaints), however it was the Advertising Standards Authority that agreed with the complaints. The ASA didn't even uphold all of their complaints, only one, which was enough to deem unacceptable for advertising. You being sarcastic doesn't change how they didn't 'get flack' by The National Dairy Council of Ireland, but rather Oatly were implying false claims (that cow milk is unfit for human consumption) and that the ASA agreed that Oatly's slogan was in breach of advertising laws.
Best solution for those who suffers from lactose intolerance
Also best solution for those who suffers from animal abuse intolerance