More humans could survive with more food if we reused the land growing food for animals for growing food for humans to eat. We would need so much less land that we could rewild a lot of it, and massively reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere as well.
But people like meat and will react badly to anyone suggesting that eating less is a good idea for everyone.
I do feel like most people I talk to irl seem to agree that eating less meat is good for everyone, but that’s very local of course, and agreeing and doing it is also not necessarily connected 😅
So shouldn’t the same logic dictate that it is not acceptable to kill for culinary satisfaction, if nutrition can be gained without killing a creature? (Which is very possible in most parts of the world)
In both cases we should be considering animal’s perspective (what animals feel in both cases). We can’t just involve human’s perspective for our own convenience. Do animals consent to be murdered? I don’t think so.
One is torture.
The other is a means of survival.
It’s acceptable to kill for survival.
It’s not acceptable to torture and hurt for sexual gratification that can be gained solo with no one else involved.
Modern meat consumption is very disconnected from survival for most people though.
More humans could survive with more food if we reused the land growing food for animals for growing food for humans to eat. We would need so much less land that we could rewild a lot of it, and massively reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere as well.
But people like meat and will react badly to anyone suggesting that eating less is a good idea for everyone.
I do feel like most people I talk to irl seem to agree that eating less meat is good for everyone, but that’s very local of course, and agreeing and doing it is also not necessarily connected 😅
I get what you mean, but as somebody that hasn’t eaten meet in 35 years I would argue its not needed for survival.
So shouldn’t the same logic dictate that it is not acceptable to kill for culinary satisfaction, if nutrition can be gained without killing a creature? (Which is very possible in most parts of the world)
Valid argument - assuming you live in the woods and hunting and gathering is the only way you can get food.
You do not need meat to survive lmao. You eat it because you like it, at least be honest with yourself
In both cases we should be considering animal’s perspective (what animals feel in both cases). We can’t just involve human’s perspective for our own convenience. Do animals consent to be murdered? I don’t think so.