3 ms·
"Eating less meat" needs to come from a higher level than the individual. You can't convince millions of people to change their diets based on morality and ethi
by jbob2000 10y ago
"Eating less meat" needs to come from a higher level than the individual. You can't convince millions of people to change their diets based on morality and ethics.
Governments could start by removing subsidies for certain types of animal farming, which would cause consumers to realize the true cost of eating meat. A hamburger costs $1 in some areas. That's ridiculous.
As well, the tax system can be used to leverage behaviours. Maybe grocery stores hand out coupons if you don't purchase meat, which you can send in with your taxes for a rebate? Something like that.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoMore liberal proscriptive moralizing. You can convince millions of people; the vegetarian/vegan movement is doing just fine thank you. But that's not enough - now we need to force people to think vegan? And that article - full of vague attributions of harm and second-order effects. More cows means more methane! Just like when a hundred million buffalo roamed the US plains? Like that? But now its a problem? Or 'the US growing grain for meat means we're not giving it away to the 3rd world'. But we did that all the time - the US grows so staggeringly much grain we had to send it away in ocean tanker ships to avoid flooding our own markets. Using some for meat doesn't have to take anything away from giving it to others. What we lack there is simply the will. And on and on - more vague attributions of meat-eating to theoretical harm. Why this strange argument? Because the author has a not-so-hidden agenda. We should all be vegan just like them. And they'll say any tortuous thing to 'prove' it.