The new show from the creator of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul has surprisingly a lot more commentary about animal ethics, and "dietary ethics" specifically (note that veganism is a broader ethical stance & lifestyle & not just a diet) than I expected. It doesn't specifically touch on veganism, but it does talk about vegetarianism, as well as animal rights concepts, and harm reduction / ahimsa / nonviolence - and veganism would be a logical conclusion, in fact they may mean vegan when they say vegetarian (like historical uses of the word). However, it makes some points and expressions that vegans might have mixed opinions on, morally.

For those unfamiliar, it's about a phenomenon whereby the majority of humanity (save for like 12 or 13 people who are unaffected, including the main character) become mentally linked in a "hivemind" caused by a virus. They all have the same thoughts and emotions as some kind of average or merging of all human consciousness (seemingly non-human sentient beings/animals are also unaffected).

Surprisingly since most humans today are not vegan or vegetarian, the hivemind in this show is. This can be chalked up to the fact that their empathy and intelligence is also pooled together and heightened, I guess. Sure, they are "pick-me" vegetarians/vegans, since they are okay with the regular humans continuing to kill animals, and will even help them prepare their remains, but they won't participate in the acts of violence toward animals while they're alive, and all animal agriculture has shut down, meaning the regular humans just consume the remaining animal products in storage which will eventually run out (unfortunately they don't seem persuaded by the pro-animal ideals of the hivemind). I presume that if an industry that exploited and killed animals was still operational, they also wouldn't support/contribute to it via supply and demand or in any way.

I'm not sure if the hivemind actually consume animal products like the unaffected, but they might, since they seem to be more of freegans than vegans - a point of contention for many vegans - and only really see an issue with harming animals while they're living, or affecting living animals in some way (which in our world includes buying/consuming animal products, but not theirs since the industry doesn't exist anymore), rather than using them in general in any form and potentially having a role in maintaining societal views around animal use (which many vegans believe has the potential to lead to more living animals being exploited/harmed/killed, or incur an opportunity cost of failing to disrupt those cultural norms by not partaking). For example, they would probably be ok with eating roadkill since they didn't kill the animal and aren't playing into a system that harms them.

In addition, apparently the hivemind have freed all animals from zoos, and "pets" (companion animals) have been "unchained" - an endeavor that the unaffected didn't seem to understand. But this speaks to larger animal rights values than just diet-related.

The animal related and diet / lifestyle related ethical explorations continue throughout the first season (which is unfinished) and lead to a reveal that is supposed to be a big twist, so:

SPOILERS BELOW

When we get to the episode titled "Got Milk", I was nervous. Were they going to shill for the extremely cruel and exploitative dairy industry (which many people don't know also kills animals, though that's arguably not even the worst aspect - watch "Dairy Is Scary" by Erin Janus) despite promoting vegetarian/pro animal messages? "Got Milk?" as many know was a pro-dairy campaign orchestrated by the dairy industry/lobby in order to increase milk and dairy consumption among the general public, including in hospitals and schools, and to influence government dietary guidelines to recommend it, and reinforce the societal belief/misconception that dairy was essential to health and was "nice, normal, natural, and necessary" (the 4 N's of carnist conditioning).

(Sidenote: This campaign ignored scientific research showing dairy was unnecessary for the nutrients and health effects it was promoted for that could be obtained from other/plant sources, and even that it was associated with increased health risks and diseases (not to mention ethical and environmental impacts, though those were less understood at the time). It was also criticized as racist for the fact most POCs are lactose intolerant, due to lacking the lactase persistence gene that allows humans to continue digesting lactose into adulthood, which is an unnatural mutation caused by privileged wealthy Western colonial civilizations (which arguably not only stole land and oppressed or enslaved the humans there but also enslaved the nonhuman animals too - both as part of supporting agriculture) consuming high amounts of animal milk products (dairy), since newsflash: it's unnatural to continue to drink milk beyond babyhood, or to drink the milk made for other species' babies (e.g. calves of cows) - which isn't why it's a problem since unnatural things can be good and natural things can be bad, rather the ethical and environmental and health and other considerations are, but it's just a fact. And also plants are cheaper.)

Well, it wasn't that. Basically, it turns into "Soylent Green" - in a similar late-story twist. At first, Carol Sturka (the main character played by Rhea Seehorn, aka Kim from Better Call Saul) curiously discovers and investigates what appears to be a penchant of the hivemind to consume inordinate amounts of dairy milk (which she found strange due to the level of consumption, but didn't raise an eyebrow about in relation to their pro-animal ideas - the regular humans are presented as being out of touch on these ethical/animal topics, similar to not seeing the value of freeing captive animals). But it's revealed that they're actually consuming "HDP" - human-derived protein. Of course this is supposed to seem contradictory to their whole ethos of being vegetarian/etc, and Carol seemingly accuses them of hypocrisy, but John Cena (playing as himself, but transformed into a member of the hivemind) appears on television to explain the rationale behind it. And this is where it's kind of interesting, but also maybe loses the potency of the message a little bit.

Apparently, the hivemind are actually more like super-utilitarian, freegan, jainists or something - to an absurd degree that entails cannibalism/"anthropophagy". They consume "food" products (a yellowy high-protein liquid) made from the bodies of humans who died unintentionally or naturally, as a preferred alternative to harming plants (though they are fine with eating fruits or parts of plants that fell off naturally, like fruitarians or jainists). That's right, they're "plants matter too" people (although there is no reason provided for this, or recognition that the current evidence supports animal sentience but not plant sentience, and that the consensus is they can't possibly have a subjective experience while lacking a brain and nervous system, or the fact that much more plants are used and harmed in animal agriculture - though that's no longer relevant to their situation). At least they aren't using it as a whataboutism and nonsensical excuse to exploit animals (and harm even more plants & environment) like many people in the real world do, and they are logically/morally consistent and more like vegans who care about reducing harm to plants too as one of their reasons for being vegan. But their solution of consuming already-dead humans is very questionable to say the least (is it really worse to harm a plant, including picking fruit off them, than it is to consume humans, even if they're already dead?) - and apparently it makes them uncomfortable too, despite seeing it as the most moral option under the circumstances.

Perhaps since everyone is in agreement, they're all consenting to have their bodies consumed after they die, and there's no risk of it developing into a system in which humans are soon going to be "lined up and farmed like cattle" (a paraphrased quote from Soylent Green, in which Charlton Heston's character believes that the system of treating human bodies as products devalues human life psychologically and is a precursor to a worse situation in which they are intentionally exploited/killed for it while alive). Or is there? As a logical conclusion of this course of action of only consuming a diet of basically fruits and humans who died naturally, the hivemind acknowledges that they will eventually run out of food and starve to death, which they've accepted. (There is so far no discussion of the possibility of the hivemind humans reproducing with each other, though it could probably never be efficient enough unless they killed the humans prematurely at a fraction of their lifespan (as we do to other animals) instead of waiting for them to die, and it would require engaging in some kind of mass-breeding i.e. artificial insemination (as we do to other animals), even if it could be consentual in their case whereas with nonhuman animals it isn't). But the fact they're all on the same wavelength and can consent to whatever they all collectively want, maybe this could lead to them deciding to willingly sacrifice themselves and violate their nonviolence policy with a consent clause/utilitarian calculations about preserving human life on the planet and their apparently happy existence?

All in all, while these ideas and hypotheticals are interesting to entertain, it feels a little bit like an indirect strawman against vegans by suggesting that the logical conclusion of these kinds of philosophies/ethical stances would lead to extreme outcomes as an attempt a reductio ad absurdum - similar to how in the movie Okja, a member of ALF (based on the real life Animal Liberation Front) is presented as somewhat unhinged and starves themself in order to leave the least impact on the planet. It aligns with anti-vegan sentiments like "all vegans are crazy, you just want to eat "grass", might as well starve since that's even lower impact". Etc etc. Or, another common sentiment, suggesting that vegans care less about the sanctity of human life than animals (to the point of preferring some form of cannibalism or use/harm of humans over exploiting animals), which is usually opposite to reality (not that we care about humans more than other animals, though some do and still acknowledge they matter more than our modifiable habits, but that we can easily care about both, vegans and animal rights activists usually care a lot about human causes too, and plant based living is extremely beneficial to humanity and the planet in addition to animals). But maybe that's a pessimistic reading - and admittedly, the well has already been poisoned when it comes to the creator of the show Vince Gilligan, which had somewhat anti-plant based meat messages in both Breaking Bad snd Better Call Saul, making me skeptical of anything he explores about these topics and wonder if this is some kind of self therapy or rationalization for his own consumption/use of animals, or if it's more of a positive evolution of his mindset.

Verdict: Either way, the ideas so far are quite hard to find too much fault with and mostly I'm happy it's going to get people to start thinking and reflecting on pro animal principles and mindful ethical living - if the epitome of happiness, benevolence, harmony, cooperation, coexistence, peace, compassion and respect, is saying they would prefer if people be "vegetarian" (it's a step, if only they said vegan) and kind to animals, then what does that say about such an endeavor and how does it comport with the majority of humanity who claim to hold those values but don't align with them in their daily actions? #GoVegan

Six weeks ago, Jack Posobiec asked me to comment on whether I have a “creepy fetish for Asian women.”

That was one of several false and wildly personal allegations that the far-right pundit and newly minted member of the Pentagon press corps said that he planned to include in “a story that I’m writing about you.”

I immediately understood his October 28 email to be a threat, though it was not made explicit. The day before, I had sent the Pentagon press office a series of questions concerning Eric Geressy, a senior Pentagon adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Geressy, who served with Hegseth during a tour in Iraq in the mid-2000s, is part of the Pentagon effort to instill a “warrior ethos” within the US military. He now leads a team reviewing the role of women in the armed forces.

Calling Geressy “my toughest critic and my best mentor,” Hegseth in March presented him with the Distinguished Service Cross, the Army’s second-highest award for valor, for Geressy’s conduct following an ambush in Baghdad in 2007.

I had discovered that Geressy’s email address was linked to a public Goodreads page with a “currently reading” list that included various books featuring stories about “Asian wife sharing.” These pornographic works, with titles such as “Asian Wife Went With Her Dad’s Friend: A Cuckold Story,” appeared on the list alongside two books by Hegseth and a handful of military histories. They contain detailed descriptions of cuckolding, group sex, and scenes involving “ladyboys”—a term used to refer to Thai transgender women. The page, active since 2021, was taken down the day after I contacted the Pentagon and Geressy about it.

I also asked about a 1997 domestic violence allegation against Geressy, about his dating habits, and past relationships with foreign women. I inquired if the Pentagon had assessed those relationships as part of Geressy’s security clearance process, and, more broadly, if his personal life might create concerns about his susceptibility to foreign influence operations.

The Pentagon repeatedly asked for more time to address those questions. Eventually chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell responded, in part: “Geressy has served for 38 years in the government, has been vetted numerous times by the relevant agencies, and has never posed a security risk or engaged in improper behavior as this piece tries to suggest. Mother Jones has stooped to a new low with this shoddy hit piece and should be ashamed of itself.”

Posobiec’s email arrived the day after my initial inquiries. The false claims he asked about, particularly the Asian fetish thing, seemed to mirror my questions. Posobiec, who in 2016 promoted the bogus Pizzagate conspiracy theory, gave me a deadline, 5 p.m. on October 29, that was the same as the one I had given the Pentagon press office. A Pentagon spokesperson and Posobiec both denied coordination. Geressy declined to comment. But considering the questions, timing, and Posobiec’s links to Defense Department officials, the situation seemed clear. This was either an incredible coincidence or a deliberate message: Publish your article and get smeared.

In 2024, nearly three out of every four restaurant orders were not eaten in a restaurant, according to data provided to me by the National Restaurant Association, a trade group. The share of customers using delivery specifically, as opposed to picking up takeout or going to a drive-through, more than doubled from 2019 to 2024. In a recently released poll by the association, 41 percent of respondents said that delivery was “an essential part of their lifestyle.” For Millennials and Generation Z—the apex consumers of today, and of tomorrow too—it’s apparently even more essential: More than half of adults under 45 use delivery at least once a week, and 13 percent use it once a day. Five percent use it multiple times a day. But the delivery boom isn’t confined to young people or to urbanites: About one in eight Baby Boomers uses delivery once a week, and so does about one in five rural dwellers. We are a nation of order-inners. A world, really—earlier this year, DoorDash announced a deal to acquire the British delivery service Deliveroo for $3.86 billion; the new, combined company will have 50 million monthly active users, spread over more than 40 countries.

For as long as fast-food and pizza joints have existed, certain restaurants have been defined by, and designed for, takeout and delivery. But delivery has now come for what industry analysts call “full-service restaurants”—that is, the types of places where a server guides you through your meal from start to finish, or at least used to. These days, 30 percent of those restaurants’ orders are consumed somewhere else, according to the National Restaurant Association. The fanciest, most famous restaurants are still doing mostly table service, but just about every other establishment has been conscripted into the army that ferries hot food out of professional kitchens and into American mouths 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Meanwhile, the longtime industry analyst Joseph Pawlak told me, “you could shoot a cannon” through many dining rooms on a Tuesday night.

In effect, delivery has reversed the flow of eaters to food, and remade a shared experience into a much more individual one. If communities used to clench like a fist around their restaurants, now they look more like an open palm, fingers stretched out as far as possible, or at least to the edge of the delivery radius.

37, male.

I live in Europe, born and raised here too. Never really felt genuine joy or purpose in life until I moved to Japan, where I immersed myself in the language and culture. I moved back to Europe after taking my Master's degree in education, because I had a wife at the time and it's indisputably socioeconomically easier to have a family in my country, compared to Japan. We got divorced even before she got her residence permit. We had a good run. Eight years.

I've been back to Europe for six years now. I haven't felt happiness or purpose since. The contrast is just bizarre. To the point where it feels like a bad joke. In Japan I was a student, in my own country I work full time. Sure. But come on... I know that life isn't easy and that you can't always be happy and euphoric. I would accept being in some sort of "neutral" state 75% of the time and happy 25% of the time. But I'm sad, lonely and angry 90% of the time and "neutral" 10% of the time. I was diagnosed with medium to severe depression a year ago. Go figure. The antidepressants maybe have taken some of the edges off my feelings and I have learned a lot from my therapist.

But I am still sad. The depression seems unaffected. I still project this seemingly unfounded anger and hatred towards myself. What the heck were those euphoric years in Japan?

Anyway, I have spent about €100 per therapy session for the last year. Once a week the first six months and then once every second week the last six months. I'm considering taking a break. For the money and to explore other options.