News

You claim to have your "blood boiled" by people referring to history you think is irrelevant, but also use that same argument yourself? I'm not saying that every single custom on human history is perfect and needs to be maintained, but I'm not talking about something as fickle as human behavior. I'm talking about human biology. It's possible that within my lifetime I might see genetic modification lead to a humanity that can survive on different nutrition. More realistically, I hope to see the development of lab-grown meat or other protein sources. But the reality is that for most Americans, a healthy and nutritious meat-free diet is incredibly expensive. Even then, some people (including my own partner) have medical conditions that necessitate eating animal protein.

It's hilarious that you claim that I'm using fallacies similar to cults, when that's the exact roots of vegetarianism. The founders advocated for celibacy and genital mutilation. Kellogg was hugely into eugenics.

It's also hilarious that you're accusing me of having a Western-centric view. Firstly, because I was very clear that I'm talking about the US because that's the scope of the article. And funny you mention South America because Brazil is the 2nd largest producer of beef in the world behind the US. China is 3rd. Thinking Americans shove whoppers in their mouths is... incredibly strange. Whoppers haven't been relevant in decades and fast food has been on the decline in America. Is that how you imagine "the poors" behave?

"Environmental destruction" is kind of vague, but you're right that industrial agriculture is one of the larger causes of deforestation. That's bad and we need to stop doing that. That means better practices and moving away from more environmentally damaging animals. Cows are pretty terribly inefficient and should probably be reduced to luxury beef products, and dairy can probably be reduced. The article this thread is discussing is relating to Chicken prices: a much more efficient and effective option that requires far less land and water use, produces great natural fertilizer as waste, and has far fewer emissions.

Which brings me to my last point: you mention the suffering of billions of intelligent animals. I'll admit I really don't care about your moral arguments. There's billions of (allegedly) intelligent humans suffering right now. There's billions of animals experiencing suffering at the hands of other animals. To exist is to suffer and induce suffering in others. So where do we draw lines? Do the plants we eat not suffer? The fungi? Microrganisms? Some day my own flesh will be consumed by something else: I am merely borrowing this carbon for a short while. I agree that most of the industrial-scale animal production induces far more suffering than it should in the pursuit of providing more profit to shareholders, but I am under no delusion that anything I eat will not experience any sort of suffering.