I was using that as an extreme hypothetical. You can call that disingenuous if you like. I just don't see how you can remove "animal suffering" from the equation without enforcing that measure. Otherwise all you are doing is drawing a subjective line around what suffering is acceptable and what isn't. I'm personally fine with trying to make that determination in the least arbitrary way possible with the best technology possible so we can progress society forward, but let's not act like there still won't be people who see that cost as unacceptable.

[–] ramirezmike@programming.dev 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

the meat industry wasn't planned out and implemented, you could argue it literally took all of human existence working on it to get to this point.

People can complain about the system and try to make it better without having all of the answers

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

People can complain about the system and try to make it better without having all of the answers.

I totally agree, and I'm fine with that.

[–] ramirezmike@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

sure, but you also said the following in reaction to the OP link

Are you totally fine with the moral consequences of enforced veganism on the entire human population? I'm asking this because you must also understand that there are going to be seriously detrimental and inescapable outcomes associated with that as well.

No one said "enforced veganism." it's weird that your reaction to this article is to dismiss it because forcing the world to be vegan overnight isn't feasible.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Again, it was an extreme hypothetical. There were multiple people in this thread who outright suggested that as an option, which is why I asked the question.