Its almost unbelivable that in a community as deconstructed as this one there are still rectionaries that downvote a comment like yours… being vegan is almost as tiring as being a Marxis-Lenninist.
I am a vegetarian. You will need to convince the Global South too, especially legions that are basically dependent on meat, like Mongolia, Central Asia, and the Middle-East. The transitional doesn’t happen in a day.
Not eating animal products is a moral question, but it is not achieved by moral arguments. I have never encountered a consistent moral framework that can argue for exploiting animals in order to eat them or their produce, but winning arguments is not how you change peoples behaviour. The question of eating animal products is purely habitual and cultural and by extension social, thus changing many peoples diets is a question of changing many peoples habits and culture. So there is little “convincing” to do in a sense, maybe on an individual level for a few. The only way to transform the diets of larger swats of populations in a short time is cultural revolution, otherwise - with concerted effort- there will be a gradual shift over time.
The question of eating animal products is purely habitual and cultural and by extension social
It is primarily logistical and a matter of survival, which is why it’s so normalized throughout history.
Then there’s factory farming, which at this point is not so much an extension of habit, as it is an extension of the power of capital and industry maintaining itself for its own sake. It’s much the same reason that the US is still dependent on cars to an absurd degree, with high speed trains passed over as an option to build for decades on end.
These are two very different things and veganism as an individualist ideology with moralist arguments largely seems to have spawned as a reaction to factory farming, not as a reaction to subsistence hunting. And as far as I can tell, it is largely a failure of an ideology that doesn’t seem to do much more than get a fraction of people to boycott eating meat. Which I don’t think is because it’s using moral arguments, but because it’s isolating individualist ideology as a response to collective industrial production. And it gets bogged down too much in the entire relationship between humans and non-humans, instead of focusing on dismantling the obvious systemic abuse. I would say it’s similar to western atheist thought in that way. It’s not being holistic, but is instead getting lost in the weeds of one particular facet of things.
We are in agreement, I think, that you need collective power to change these things on a large scale. But I would argue it’s largely not a cultural issue, but is instead almost entirely an extension of the need to survive by eating food. Which capital plays into when justifying factory farming. There are the fanatics who insist on meat as some kind of pivotal thing inherently, but these appear to be a minority and if factory farming was ended, along with matching increase in availability of other proteins to compensate, the price would rise and it would somewhat naturally transform into a luxury item. There would be a reaction, certainly, but food is food and the overriding concern is whether people have it to eat, not where it comes from; which is why factory farming has gotten away with what it does for so long in the first place. This isn’t to say nobody ever cares where their food comes from, but it’s always secondary to “do I have food to eat”; otherwise, you end up dead. It’s for this same reason that the boycott element of veganism so often ends up looking like the ivory tower arguments of privileged people, since many in the world are not exactly swimming in food options in the first place.
Once again, we found ourselves in that realm of, we gotta seize the means or we’re going nowhere fast.
From what I can find on it so far, it varies, with some being vegetarian, some being vegan, and some not considering it necessary. In any case, the form of veganism I was trying to talk about is the distinctly modern western form of it, one that doesn’t seem to have any noticeable relationship with buddhism.
I will concede I was overly hasty in how I went about talking about veganism with regards to history as a whole.
Incidentally, this does lend weight to Nocturne’s point in another comment, where they make a comparison between veganism and religion.
Practicing Buddhist monks dont cook for themselves largely. They are reliant/outsource that to the community. They will not reject meat if given because that would be wasteful, but morally or ideologically they are against it.
From what I understand at least, not that I have any authority on the matter lol.
It is primarily logistical and a matter of survival, which is why it’s so normalized throughout history.
I have not been in many countries where eating meat is logistically easier and/or cheaper than not. Something being historically common does not mean it is primarily about survival. In most places and periods, meat was not available in equal measure to everyone, but that still doesnt explain why some animals are treated as food and some as companions, or why meat often is bound up with status, masculinity, tradition, identity, etc etc. Survival may explain why people eat something, but it does not explain the specific moral and cultural rules around what counts as edible.
It’s for this same reason that the boycott element of veganism so often ends up looking like the ivory tower arguments of privileged people, since many in the world are not exactly swimming in food options in the first place.
That is only true in the case of genuine scarcity, and in those cases I dont think anyone is seriously making a moral demand to starve rather then eat animal products. But in ordinary situations, veganism is not a question of survival but a question of what people choose when survival is not at stake. This is why moral arguments matter here.
These are two very different things and veganism as an individualist ideology with moralist arguments largely seems to have spawned as a reaction to factory farming, not as a reaction to subsistence hunting.
And as far as I can tell, it is largely a failure of an ideology that doesn’t seem to do much more than get a fraction of people to boycott eating meat. Which I don’t think is because it’s using moral arguments, but because it’s isolating individualist ideology as a response to collective industrial production.
Here we are in complete agreement, and in terms of the philosophy of the movement I am not “vegan” although my diet is. Factory farming is the central issue, but I would not dismiss individual ethical refusal on those grounds alone. You can reject a harmful system both politically and personally. Refusing to participate is not a substitute for collective change, but not meaningless either. Would you say the same about the BDS movement against Israel for instance? I’d argue than one can both take the consistent moral position as an individual and isolate yourself from such anti-social practices, and also work on dismantling the systemic abuse. Just like I dont think BDS is a means to an end when it comes to ending the explotation of the Palestinians - I am not gonna reject it for not “focusing on dismantling the obvious system of abuse”.
But I would argue it’s largely not a cultural issue, but is instead almost entirely an extension of the need to survive by eating food. Which capital plays into when justifying factory farming.
I disagree. If it were purely survival, then people would not have such strong and inconsistent taboos about which animals are acceptable to eat. Dogs, cats, horses and other animals are treated very differently across cultures despite all of them being edible - once again showing the role of culture. Meat eating is not just “food is food”, it is socially organized, morally coded and culturally inherited. The existance of eating is explained by the matter of survival but the boundaries are explained by culture.
if factory farming was ended, along with matching increase in availability of other proteins to compensate, the price would rise and it would somewhat naturally transform into a luxury item.
I guess your argument is that factory farming will end without our social and cultural conditions ending, I disagree completely. The same way I dont think we first will transform into a socialist economy, and only after have shifts in social and cultural praxis. These transitions are heavily intertwined and most of all socially enforced.
The point I’m trying to make there is not that the superstructure isn’t real and that it will easily organically change in every scenario. As I also said:
There would be a reaction, certainly, but food is food and the overriding concern is whether people have it to eat
The point I’m trying to make is about the pressures of the base and the importance of that. The cuisines of various cultures aren’t, for example, because those cultures chose at random what to eat. The dishes arose in some significant part out of what ingredients were available to them.
That is only true in the case of genuine scarcity, and in those cases I dont think anyone is seriously making a moral demand to starve rather then eat animal products.
I don’t think they are either, but you can imagine how tone deaf it may look if someone is food insecure and hearing someone talk about veganism like it’s the important issue of the day and like it is obviously easy to go vegan. One of the primary reasons for wanting dramatic social change in the first place is to make sure people are not living in poverty. It can sound weird if veganism is presented to people like it’s assumed that problem is already solved for them and they are living in a post-scarcity world, without homelessness and starvation.
Here we are in complete agreement, and in terms of the philosophy of the movement I am not “vegan” although my diet is. Factory farming is the central issue, but I would not dismiss individual ethical refusal on those grounds alone. You can reject a harmful system both politically and personally. Refusing to participate is not a substitute for collective change, but not meaningless either. Would you say the same about the BDS movement against Israel for instance? I’d argue than one can both take the consistent moral position as an individual and isolate yourself from such anti-social practices, and also work on dismantling the systemic abuse. Just like I dont think BDS is a means to an end when it comes to ending the explotation of the Palestinians - I am not gonna reject it for not “focusing on dismantling the obvious system of abuse”.
Well what has it accomplished in the individualist boycott form? To my perception of things, even in “left” circles, veganism can be controversial and get a bad rap for being dogmatic and idealistic about how animals are viewed, similar to how MLs view ultra left positions. I don’t think the reputation it gets is entirely fair, but what I was trying to point at there is effectiveness. Is it moving the needle at all? I’m at a point in my life I usually find it pretty easy to listen and shift on important issues on lemmygrad, but some of the arguments I’ve read about veganism in this thread make me feel out of place here. That’s how far off it can be from the ideological framework I have right now.
It’s not all about me, mind you, I’m just using myself as an example. And of vegetarians or vegans that I’ve known in RL, the way their choice seems to get taken is on the level of someone with a gluten intolerance asking for accommodation for gluten-free food. Something to be considerate of, but not something to take up as a practice of their own. It doesn’t seem to catch on in any meaningful way and can even be very off-putting in how the arguments get presented.
So in review, yes, the cultural view is valid to look at and matters. But if somebody is hungry enough, culture is probably going to take a backseat. History has plenty of famines in it, even in recent history, and region makes a difference in what crops can be grown, what wildlife is around, etc.
I think you’re still arguing against a position I don’t hold.
Nobody is claiming that people facing food insecurity should prioritize veganism over feeding themselves. The existence of poverty, famine and scarcity is not in dispute. What I’m disputing is the claim that meat eating is therefore primarily explained by survival.
The vast majority of meat consumption in wealthy societies is not occurring under conditions where the choice is “eat meat or starve.” It is occurring under conditions where people have multiple available options and make choices shaped by habit, culture, identity, tradition, convenience, and social norms. That is why people have strong feelings about eating dogs but not pigs, horses but not cows, why meat is associated with masculinity in some cultures, why serving meat is associated with hospitality in others, and why rising incomes are often accompanied by rising meat consumption. None of that is explained by survival.
I also think you’re shifting the discussion from morality to effectiveness.
You ask whether veganism is “moving the needle.” But that is a different question from whether the position itself is coherent. If I refuse to buy products produced through some form of exploitation, I am not doing so because I believe my individual purchase will dismantle the entire system. I am doing so because I do not want to participate in it.
And frankly, I don’t think you’d apply that standard elsewhere. If there were products on the shelf that you knew were produced through the direct exploitation of Palestinians, would your response really be “well, refusing to buy them isn’t moving the needle”? Or would you refuse to buy them because you think participation in that exploitation is wrong, regardless of whether your individual action transforms the system? (I notice you didn’t touch on this parallell in your previous answer)
That is the distinction I’m trying to make. Individual ethical refusal is not a substitute for structural change, but it is not rendered meaningless simply because structural change is also necessary.
As for cuisine arising from available ingredients: of course it does. But that is not a rebuttal to my point, it is part of it. Material conditions influence culture. They do not eliminate culture. The fact that diets develop around available resources does not explain why different societies draw radically different moral boundaries around which animals are food, which are companions, and which are untouchable. Those boundaries are cultural.
(I notice you didn’t touch on this parallell in your previous answer)
Well they aren’t the same thing. I’ve seen the comparison made before and it’s kind of obnoxious to compare the two things and tiresome to respond to, so I had just ignored it this time. I’m not obligated to acknowledge every rhetorical point you try to make at me. The subject I’m on in that regard is whether the current veganism movement is effective, not whether I would personally be shamed into refusing to buy goods if I heard that Palestinians were being harmed in the making of them.
But if I thought BDS was an individualist movement that doesn’t appear to be doing anything and has a reputation for making shitty arguments in favor of it, I’d question it too.
It’s not meant as a personal attack against any particular vegan. My own approach for various things is shit sometimes and that needs to be acknowledged and evaluated. We aren’t imbued with the right way forward. Hell, I’m not even attacking a vegan revolutionary party here, because as far as I know, there isn’t one. What even is there to undermine with such criticism when it’s so disorganized? Am I being unfair to speak on unpleasant material realities, as I can discern them?
Its not a matter of convincing them if they’re dependant. Its a matter of making it economical and accessible. Plus the practices used by Mongolia for example are much more humane, efficient, and ecologically sustainable compared to the west. I don’t take much issue with a small rural country that treats animals with respect and where everyone is exposed to the killing of the animals and has great appreciation for them. From a purely moral standpoint I understand. But I just dont see the relevance in brining it up. The bigger issue is that countries with diverse and affordable vegan options still choose to consume meat at comparable rates to Mongolia. US and Australia actually consume more meat per capita than Mongolia depending on the data source. World population review has it at 131 (Mongolia) and 122 (USA) kg/person.
USA (while being a net importer) has 85m cattle stock vs 5m in Mongolia. The larger the animal the less efficient / more damaging it is for the environment. Although I concede that Mongolia eats more lamb than beef. Additionally the conditions in which American livestock are kept is reprehensible.
Brazil has 285 million cattle. Their exports have doubled since 2019. While slash and burning forest to clear new land for cattle. This is due almost exclusively due to American demand.
Its easy to finger wag Brazil for enabling those actions but it wouldn’t be the case if it wasn’t for gluttonous Americans.
It is the same thing as telling the global south ect to stop using oil etc while having no ground to stand on. Unless your Chinese lol.
Lastly switching to widespread veganism on paper doesn’t necessarily improve shit for the global south. I’d much prefer if Mongolia continued as is than if everyone became vegan if it meant conditions like this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zV9v0RIE-iI&pp=ygUMUGxhc3RpYyB0b2Z1
(Indonesians burning american plastic to cook tofu, filled with mircroplastic)
Please stop eating our animal comrades. That is all.
Its almost unbelivable that in a community as deconstructed as this one there are still rectionaries that downvote a comment like yours… being vegan is almost as tiring as being a Marxis-Lenninist.
I am a vegetarian. You will need to convince the Global South too, especially legions that are basically dependent on meat, like Mongolia, Central Asia, and the Middle-East. The transitional doesn’t happen in a day.
Not eating animal products is a moral question, but it is not achieved by moral arguments. I have never encountered a consistent moral framework that can argue for exploiting animals in order to eat them or their produce, but winning arguments is not how you change peoples behaviour. The question of eating animal products is purely habitual and cultural and by extension social, thus changing many peoples diets is a question of changing many peoples habits and culture. So there is little “convincing” to do in a sense, maybe on an individual level for a few. The only way to transform the diets of larger swats of populations in a short time is cultural revolution, otherwise - with concerted effort- there will be a gradual shift over time.
It’s only a moral question when the material conditions are sufficiently developed.
It is primarily logistical and a matter of survival, which is why it’s so normalized throughout history.
Then there’s factory farming, which at this point is not so much an extension of habit, as it is an extension of the power of capital and industry maintaining itself for its own sake. It’s much the same reason that the US is still dependent on cars to an absurd degree, with high speed trains passed over as an option to build for decades on end.
These are two very different things and veganism as an individualist ideology with moralist arguments largely seems to have spawned as a reaction to factory farming, not as a reaction to subsistence hunting. And as far as I can tell, it is largely a failure of an ideology that doesn’t seem to do much more than get a fraction of people to boycott eating meat. Which I don’t think is because it’s using moral arguments, but because it’s isolating individualist ideology as a response to collective industrial production. And it gets bogged down too much in the entire relationship between humans and non-humans, instead of focusing on dismantling the obvious systemic abuse. I would say it’s similar to western atheist thought in that way. It’s not being holistic, but is instead getting lost in the weeds of one particular facet of things.
We are in agreement, I think, that you need collective power to change these things on a large scale. But I would argue it’s largely not a cultural issue, but is instead almost entirely an extension of the need to survive by eating food. Which capital plays into when justifying factory farming. There are the fanatics who insist on meat as some kind of pivotal thing inherently, but these appear to be a minority and if factory farming was ended, along with matching increase in availability of other proteins to compensate, the price would rise and it would somewhat naturally transform into a luxury item. There would be a reaction, certainly, but food is food and the overriding concern is whether people have it to eat, not where it comes from; which is why factory farming has gotten away with what it does for so long in the first place. This isn’t to say nobody ever cares where their food comes from, but it’s always secondary to “do I have food to eat”; otherwise, you end up dead. It’s for this same reason that the boycott element of veganism so often ends up looking like the ivory tower arguments of privileged people, since many in the world are not exactly swimming in food options in the first place.
Once again, we found ourselves in that realm of, we gotta seize the means or we’re going nowhere fast.
Veganism has existed for millennia
as an individualist ideology with moralist arguments?
Yes, Buddhism.
Buddhists eat meat. I’ve visited Buddhist temples and eaten there.
From what I can find on it so far, it varies, with some being vegetarian, some being vegan, and some not considering it necessary. In any case, the form of veganism I was trying to talk about is the distinctly modern western form of it, one that doesn’t seem to have any noticeable relationship with buddhism.
I will concede I was overly hasty in how I went about talking about veganism with regards to history as a whole.
Incidentally, this does lend weight to Nocturne’s point in another comment, where they make a comparison between veganism and religion.
Practicing Buddhist monks dont cook for themselves largely. They are reliant/outsource that to the community. They will not reject meat if given because that would be wasteful, but morally or ideologically they are against it.
From what I understand at least, not that I have any authority on the matter lol.
I have not been in many countries where eating meat is logistically easier and/or cheaper than not. Something being historically common does not mean it is primarily about survival. In most places and periods, meat was not available in equal measure to everyone, but that still doesnt explain why some animals are treated as food and some as companions, or why meat often is bound up with status, masculinity, tradition, identity, etc etc. Survival may explain why people eat something, but it does not explain the specific moral and cultural rules around what counts as edible.
That is only true in the case of genuine scarcity, and in those cases I dont think anyone is seriously making a moral demand to starve rather then eat animal products. But in ordinary situations, veganism is not a question of survival but a question of what people choose when survival is not at stake. This is why moral arguments matter here.
Here we are in complete agreement, and in terms of the philosophy of the movement I am not “vegan” although my diet is. Factory farming is the central issue, but I would not dismiss individual ethical refusal on those grounds alone. You can reject a harmful system both politically and personally. Refusing to participate is not a substitute for collective change, but not meaningless either. Would you say the same about the BDS movement against Israel for instance? I’d argue than one can both take the consistent moral position as an individual and isolate yourself from such anti-social practices, and also work on dismantling the systemic abuse. Just like I dont think BDS is a means to an end when it comes to ending the explotation of the Palestinians - I am not gonna reject it for not “focusing on dismantling the obvious system of abuse”.
I disagree. If it were purely survival, then people would not have such strong and inconsistent taboos about which animals are acceptable to eat. Dogs, cats, horses and other animals are treated very differently across cultures despite all of them being edible - once again showing the role of culture. Meat eating is not just “food is food”, it is socially organized, morally coded and culturally inherited. The existance of eating is explained by the matter of survival but the boundaries are explained by culture.
I guess your argument is that factory farming will end without our social and cultural conditions ending, I disagree completely. The same way I dont think we first will transform into a socialist economy, and only after have shifts in social and cultural praxis. These transitions are heavily intertwined and most of all socially enforced.
Well like I said:
(added emphasis)
The point I’m trying to make there is not that the superstructure isn’t real and that it will easily organically change in every scenario. As I also said:
The point I’m trying to make is about the pressures of the base and the importance of that. The cuisines of various cultures aren’t, for example, because those cultures chose at random what to eat. The dishes arose in some significant part out of what ingredients were available to them.
I don’t think they are either, but you can imagine how tone deaf it may look if someone is food insecure and hearing someone talk about veganism like it’s the important issue of the day and like it is obviously easy to go vegan. One of the primary reasons for wanting dramatic social change in the first place is to make sure people are not living in poverty. It can sound weird if veganism is presented to people like it’s assumed that problem is already solved for them and they are living in a post-scarcity world, without homelessness and starvation.
Well what has it accomplished in the individualist boycott form? To my perception of things, even in “left” circles, veganism can be controversial and get a bad rap for being dogmatic and idealistic about how animals are viewed, similar to how MLs view ultra left positions. I don’t think the reputation it gets is entirely fair, but what I was trying to point at there is effectiveness. Is it moving the needle at all? I’m at a point in my life I usually find it pretty easy to listen and shift on important issues on lemmygrad, but some of the arguments I’ve read about veganism in this thread make me feel out of place here. That’s how far off it can be from the ideological framework I have right now.
It’s not all about me, mind you, I’m just using myself as an example. And of vegetarians or vegans that I’ve known in RL, the way their choice seems to get taken is on the level of someone with a gluten intolerance asking for accommodation for gluten-free food. Something to be considerate of, but not something to take up as a practice of their own. It doesn’t seem to catch on in any meaningful way and can even be very off-putting in how the arguments get presented.
So in review, yes, the cultural view is valid to look at and matters. But if somebody is hungry enough, culture is probably going to take a backseat. History has plenty of famines in it, even in recent history, and region makes a difference in what crops can be grown, what wildlife is around, etc.
I think you’re still arguing against a position I don’t hold.
Nobody is claiming that people facing food insecurity should prioritize veganism over feeding themselves. The existence of poverty, famine and scarcity is not in dispute. What I’m disputing is the claim that meat eating is therefore primarily explained by survival.
The vast majority of meat consumption in wealthy societies is not occurring under conditions where the choice is “eat meat or starve.” It is occurring under conditions where people have multiple available options and make choices shaped by habit, culture, identity, tradition, convenience, and social norms. That is why people have strong feelings about eating dogs but not pigs, horses but not cows, why meat is associated with masculinity in some cultures, why serving meat is associated with hospitality in others, and why rising incomes are often accompanied by rising meat consumption. None of that is explained by survival.
I also think you’re shifting the discussion from morality to effectiveness.
You ask whether veganism is “moving the needle.” But that is a different question from whether the position itself is coherent. If I refuse to buy products produced through some form of exploitation, I am not doing so because I believe my individual purchase will dismantle the entire system. I am doing so because I do not want to participate in it.
And frankly, I don’t think you’d apply that standard elsewhere. If there were products on the shelf that you knew were produced through the direct exploitation of Palestinians, would your response really be “well, refusing to buy them isn’t moving the needle”? Or would you refuse to buy them because you think participation in that exploitation is wrong, regardless of whether your individual action transforms the system? (I notice you didn’t touch on this parallell in your previous answer)
That is the distinction I’m trying to make. Individual ethical refusal is not a substitute for structural change, but it is not rendered meaningless simply because structural change is also necessary.
As for cuisine arising from available ingredients: of course it does. But that is not a rebuttal to my point, it is part of it. Material conditions influence culture. They do not eliminate culture. The fact that diets develop around available resources does not explain why different societies draw radically different moral boundaries around which animals are food, which are companions, and which are untouchable. Those boundaries are cultural.
Well they aren’t the same thing. I’ve seen the comparison made before and it’s kind of obnoxious to compare the two things and tiresome to respond to, so I had just ignored it this time. I’m not obligated to acknowledge every rhetorical point you try to make at me. The subject I’m on in that regard is whether the current veganism movement is effective, not whether I would personally be shamed into refusing to buy goods if I heard that Palestinians were being harmed in the making of them.
But if I thought BDS was an individualist movement that doesn’t appear to be doing anything and has a reputation for making shitty arguments in favor of it, I’d question it too.
It’s not meant as a personal attack against any particular vegan. My own approach for various things is shit sometimes and that needs to be acknowledged and evaluated. We aren’t imbued with the right way forward. Hell, I’m not even attacking a vegan revolutionary party here, because as far as I know, there isn’t one. What even is there to undermine with such criticism when it’s so disorganized? Am I being unfair to speak on unpleasant material realities, as I can discern them?
Its not a matter of convincing them if they’re dependant. Its a matter of making it economical and accessible. Plus the practices used by Mongolia for example are much more humane, efficient, and ecologically sustainable compared to the west. I don’t take much issue with a small rural country that treats animals with respect and where everyone is exposed to the killing of the animals and has great appreciation for them. From a purely moral standpoint I understand. But I just dont see the relevance in brining it up. The bigger issue is that countries with diverse and affordable vegan options still choose to consume meat at comparable rates to Mongolia. US and Australia actually consume more meat per capita than Mongolia depending on the data source. World population review has it at 131 (Mongolia) and 122 (USA) kg/person.
USA (while being a net importer) has 85m cattle stock vs 5m in Mongolia. The larger the animal the less efficient / more damaging it is for the environment. Although I concede that Mongolia eats more lamb than beef. Additionally the conditions in which American livestock are kept is reprehensible.
Brazil has 285 million cattle. Their exports have doubled since 2019. While slash and burning forest to clear new land for cattle. This is due almost exclusively due to American demand.
Its easy to finger wag Brazil for enabling those actions but it wouldn’t be the case if it wasn’t for gluttonous Americans.
It is the same thing as telling the global south ect to stop using oil etc while having no ground to stand on. Unless your Chinese lol.
Lastly switching to widespread veganism on paper doesn’t necessarily improve shit for the global south. I’d much prefer if Mongolia continued as is than if everyone became vegan if it meant conditions like this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zV9v0RIE-iI&pp=ygUMUGxhc3RpYyB0b2Z1 (Indonesians burning american plastic to cook tofu, filled with mircroplastic)
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: