“Hardly anything is evil, but most things are hungry. Hunger looks very much like evil from the wrong end of the cutlery. Or do you think your bacon sandwich loves you back?”
This might be a news flash, but food is a need. Not only that, but food and diets are formed during young ages and food networks take lifetimes to build.
Even in your perfect little world, if everybody ate vegan right now, we would eventually hit a point where somebody is eating meat.
So yes, unless you have secretly set up vegan food distribution networks to the entire planet overnight without everybody knowing, a bacon sandwich becomes a necessity somewhere.
My point was that a bacon sandwich in particular is not a food need that’s hard to replace nutritionally by existing foods. People eat it because it’s super tasty. I would bet there is a very small percentage of total bacon eaten in the world that is eaten out of necessity (impoverished family eating their raised livestock).
It’s a bad faith argument to make the assumption that I think the change should happen overnight instantly. And it’s simply a bad argument that someone somewhere would have to eat meat eventually. It takes a LOT of crop farming to provide sustainance for the meat industry.
Arguments on purity bore me, one way or the other.
Less ecological impact is better than more ecological impact.
Less suffering is better than more suffering.
Cheaper food is better than more expensive food.
Somewhat healthy diet is better than a diet Lancet is warning you about (ie: too much meat, especially red meat)
Using less resources to feed more people is better than using more resources to feed fewer.
Every step from a modern western diet with way too much meat (the one Lancet warns about) to something more reasonable brings benefit basically in relation to how much meat you cut. You can argue that we can’t reach the absolute, but it strictly does not matter. If you try to reduce meat and succeed as much as you reasonably can, things improve. You don’t have to be a part of this, but surely you realize this is the case?
Are you unaware of how markets work? You’re pretending like the person you’re responding to is the arbiter of all food production and consumption. Buy vegan, more vegan food gets made. It’s been happening for decades and as the number of vegans climb, the amount of vegan food increases.
There’s really nothing difficult to understand about that. If SO MANY PEOPLE go vegan that you literally go to the store and can’t find ANY vegan food (this won’t happen), then vegan food production will ramp up extremely fast, and this will only be a temporary issue as producers acclimate to new demands.
There’s no world where every person goes vegan “before lunch” today, you were arguing about a fantasy because that’s the only way you could make an almost coherent point.
In your fantasy world where literally every person wakes up, realizes that paying for animal abuse because of taste preference is a moral abomination, then yeah we wouldn’t have enough vegan food easily accessible, but as all the vegan food would be perpetually out of stock, production would ramp up.
In reality however, people in the first world have incredibly easy and consistent access to vegan food. Essentially if you get your food from a grocery store you have incredibly easy access to cheap vegan food. If you live in a place where food is more scarce, then your diet is already primarily vegetarian or vegan because that food is way, way cheaper to come by.
An even greater portion is distributed as animal feed. In fact, 1/3 of crop production is fed to livestock at about a 10:1 calorie conversion. The land and resources exist, it’s just a matter of people realizing that animal products aren’t a necessity for much of the world. I also don’t recall anyone saying this change would have to occur immediately, it would obviously be a gradual transition.
All I’m hearing is you say, “unless we can do this in an instant it’s not possible”
There’s already a vegan food distribution network lol, part of the food distribution network.
You seem hostile to the simple idea of change for a greater level of humanity. Why?
ITT
Commenter 1: I love killing and eating one of those animals of similar intelligence and sentience! So sad the one I don’t eat is sad.
Commenter 2: I don’t understand the downvotes
“Hardly anything is evil, but most things are hungry. Hunger looks very much like evil from the wrong end of the cutlery. Or do you think your bacon sandwich loves you back?”
I didn’t realise people ate bacon sandwiches out of pure necessity.
This might be a news flash, but food is a need. Not only that, but food and diets are formed during young ages and food networks take lifetimes to build.
Even in your perfect little world, if everybody ate vegan right now, we would eventually hit a point where somebody is eating meat.
So yes, unless you have secretly set up vegan food distribution networks to the entire planet overnight without everybody knowing, a bacon sandwich becomes a necessity somewhere.
My point was that a bacon sandwich in particular is not a food need that’s hard to replace nutritionally by existing foods. People eat it because it’s super tasty. I would bet there is a very small percentage of total bacon eaten in the world that is eaten out of necessity (impoverished family eating their raised livestock).
It’s a bad faith argument to make the assumption that I think the change should happen overnight instantly. And it’s simply a bad argument that someone somewhere would have to eat meat eventually. It takes a LOT of crop farming to provide sustainance for the meat industry.
Arguments on purity bore me, one way or the other.
Less ecological impact is better than more ecological impact. Less suffering is better than more suffering. Cheaper food is better than more expensive food. Somewhat healthy diet is better than a diet Lancet is warning you about (ie: too much meat, especially red meat) Using less resources to feed more people is better than using more resources to feed fewer.
Every step from a modern western diet with way too much meat (the one Lancet warns about) to something more reasonable brings benefit basically in relation to how much meat you cut. You can argue that we can’t reach the absolute, but it strictly does not matter. If you try to reduce meat and succeed as much as you reasonably can, things improve. You don’t have to be a part of this, but surely you realize this is the case?
There are already food distribution networks so what are you blathering about?
A huge portion of the goods that fills that distribution network is meat, ranches, and non vegan farms.
You purposefully left out a key word on your food distribution network claim (vegan) and are playing dumb as a coping mechanism against reality.
How are you going to replace all of that at scale before lunch?
Are you unaware of how markets work? You’re pretending like the person you’re responding to is the arbiter of all food production and consumption. Buy vegan, more vegan food gets made. It’s been happening for decades and as the number of vegans climb, the amount of vegan food increases.
There’s really nothing difficult to understand about that. If SO MANY PEOPLE go vegan that you literally go to the store and can’t find ANY vegan food (this won’t happen), then vegan food production will ramp up extremely fast, and this will only be a temporary issue as producers acclimate to new demands.
This doesn’t change anything about the point I challenged.
As of today, a bacon sandwich is a need u till you handle the issues of supply and demand or culture shift over time.
Nobody “needs” a bacon sandwich lol.
There’s no world where every person goes vegan “before lunch” today, you were arguing about a fantasy because that’s the only way you could make an almost coherent point.
In your fantasy world where literally every person wakes up, realizes that paying for animal abuse because of taste preference is a moral abomination, then yeah we wouldn’t have enough vegan food easily accessible, but as all the vegan food would be perpetually out of stock, production would ramp up.
In reality however, people in the first world have incredibly easy and consistent access to vegan food. Essentially if you get your food from a grocery store you have incredibly easy access to cheap vegan food. If you live in a place where food is more scarce, then your diet is already primarily vegetarian or vegan because that food is way, way cheaper to come by.
An even greater portion is distributed as animal feed. In fact, 1/3 of crop production is fed to livestock at about a 10:1 calorie conversion. The land and resources exist, it’s just a matter of people realizing that animal products aren’t a necessity for much of the world. I also don’t recall anyone saying this change would have to occur immediately, it would obviously be a gradual transition.
All I’m hearing is you say, “unless we can do this in an instant it’s not possible”
There’s already a vegan food distribution network lol, part of the food distribution network. You seem hostile to the simple idea of change for a greater level of humanity. Why?
You do realise that this is your own claim, right? Nobody else is talking specifically about vegan food, lol
Yes, it was my claim that he responded to and filtered a word from
Good job, ypu found out what I’m talking about 👏
It’s called cognitive dissonance
I love eating all animals. They all should have the same rights to become a dinner. Stop opressing dogs and their rights!
Humans are animals. The rich look about ripe enough.
Apparently sometimes referred to as ‘long pig’.
Too fatty, you want something with muscle but without stress
Humans suck to eat because they need stress to gain muscle
Advent burgers anyone?
But the poor are to be eaten.
Found the Korean
South Korea just banned the consumption of dogs.
I declare you have the right to become my dinner!
I haven’t had the opportunity to eat dog meat but I’m told it is very good
Also a pig that size would make a good pet