5 ms·

Uncomfortable thoughts: Let's say first world countries in the West get on board with not eating meat anymore. How do you exactly go about telling impoverished

Uncomfortable thoughts: Let's say first world countries in the West get on board with not eating meat anymore. How do you exactly go about telling impoverished countries/peoples to stop eating meat? Would we ban meat and force them to eat some substitutes? But food is an important part of culture and we would be erasing their culture if we did that wouldn't we? Should we give some cultural groups the right to eat meat since they're less privileged? Of course I'm only speaking hypothetically, assuming that the goal is to reach 0 animals killed for human consumption.

pmiller2 6y ago
Well, "we", as in "first world countries" can't "ban" meat in other countries without stepping on their sovereignty. "We" have done it before, for worse reasons (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A... and numerous other examples), but that doesn't mean "we" should do it again.
tomglynch 6y ago
Most of impoverished countries already eat mostly veg. We wouldn't need to ban them
- atlasunshrugged 6y ago
  But is that because of price? I thought China had one of the greatest rates of increases in meat consumption as their income rate grew
- samatman 6y ago
  "Mostly" is a useless metric when they're eating as much meat as they can afford, and that just happens to be not much. The only exception I'm aware of is India and since that's religious it seems difficult to scale. Islam has animal slaughter as one of its few obligate rituals.
lemmsjid 6y ago
Exporting cultural strictures rarely ends well (many historical examples, both distant and recent), so I'd say, if you can get a large number of people in the West to not eat meat, then you've reduced the suffering of animals by a tremendous amount. That alone is a perfectly fine goal. Let non-coercive cultural influence do the rest of the work, while never forcing a populace to do something against its interests or will. (After all, non-Western vegetarian cultures have influenced Western diets...)
- bdhess 6y ago
  > while never forcing a populace to do something against its interests or will Except for the westerners who disagree with this. They can be subjugated.
  - lemmsjid 6y ago
    You are welcome to believe that, but it doesn’t seem like an effective way of achieving anything, at least given the history of alcohol prohibition and drug criminalization.
Ididntdothis 6y ago
How about setting an example first and not worrying about other countries?
- mydongle 6y ago
  But let's say hypothetically, if we stopped our people from eating meat entirely, doesn't that collapse the involved industries? Both foreign and domestic. What does that mean for impoverished countries who rely on exporting meat to other countries?
  - atlasunshrugged 6y ago
    What country relies on exporting meat to other countries?
losteric 6y ago
Global markets should price in externalities, and leave the moral questions up to each nation. Cultural imperialism is so last century.
bad_user 6y ago
I don't understand why the goal should be 0 animals killed. I personally don't feel shame in eating animals bread to be eaten. Having had grandparents practicing subsistence farming, also being born in Eastern Europe during communism and thus suffering from food shortages, from a young age I've seen chickens, pigs and lambs being slaughtered. Not a big deal, and in an environment in which food is in short supply, killing an animal for food is a reason for celebration. People say that we've been desensitized due to being disconnected from our food source. But I think that's backwards. You rarely see vegans among subsistence farmers. Even when meat is a luxury, eggs and dairy are staple foods. Unless there's a massive economic incentive for stopping meat production, no country will ever get "on board" with not eating meat. The CO2 emissions story is the only argument that has any legs. But if you think about it, it's an argument for efficiency and for taxing CO2 emissions, with plenty of low hanging fruits, e.g. we should waste less food, prefer chickens and pigs over ruminants, etc. --- Note I'm actually a vegan 3 days per week out of 7 and I prefer to go through all periods of religious fasting, which is basically hard core veganism (no traces of animal products are acceptable) before the big holidays, e.g. Lent (I'm not religious, I just like the practice). Meat is the most efficient protein source, per calorie, with a complete profile and unfortunately there's no equivalent unless you start taking protein extracts. Otherwise a vegan diet is a diet in which you have to eat a lot of legumes every day (lentils, kidney beans, soy) for getting 60-80 grams of protein, an inadequate level if you're looking to maintain or build muscle and going over that is hard for me without being in a caloric surplus. Also, during vegan fasting periods I take B12, Calcium supplements and I strive to eat a varied diet. My point is, from first hand experience, a healthy diet is pretty challenging and expensive, with or without meat and for poorer populations life is hard enough as it is.

pmiller2 6y ago

Well, "we", as in "first world countries" can't "ban" meat in other countries without stepping on their sovereignty. "We" have done it before, for worse reasons (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A... and numerous other examples), but that doesn't mean "we" should do it again.

tomglynch 6y ago

Most of impoverished countries already eat mostly veg. We wouldn't need to ban them

atlasunshrugged 6y ago
But is that because of price? I thought China had one of the greatest rates of increases in meat consumption as their income rate grew
samatman 6y ago
"Mostly" is a useless metric when they're eating as much meat as they can afford, and that just happens to be not much. The only exception I'm aware of is India and since that's religious it seems difficult to scale. Islam has animal slaughter as one of its few obligate rituals.

lemmsjid 6y ago

Exporting cultural strictures rarely ends well (many historical examples, both distant and recent), so I'd say, if you can get a large number of people in the West to not eat meat, then you've reduced the suffering of animals by a tremendous amount. That alone is a perfectly fine goal. Let non-coercive cultural influence do the rest of the work, while never forcing a populace to do something against its interests or will. (After all, non-Western vegetarian cultures have influenced Western diets...)

bdhess 6y ago
> while never forcing a populace to do something against its interests or will Except for the westerners who disagree with this. They can be subjugated.
- lemmsjid 6y ago
  You are welcome to believe that, but it doesn’t seem like an effective way of achieving anything, at least given the history of alcohol prohibition and drug criminalization.

Ididntdothis 6y ago

How about setting an example first and not worrying about other countries?

mydongle 6y ago
But let's say hypothetically, if we stopped our people from eating meat entirely, doesn't that collapse the involved industries? Both foreign and domestic. What does that mean for impoverished countries who rely on exporting meat to other countries?
- atlasunshrugged 6y ago
  What country relies on exporting meat to other countries?

losteric 6y ago

Global markets should price in externalities, and leave the moral questions up to each nation. Cultural imperialism is so last century.

bad_user 6y ago

I don't understand why the goal should be 0 animals killed. I personally don't feel shame in eating animals bread to be eaten. Having had grandparents practicing subsistence farming, also being born in Eastern Europe during communism and thus suffering from food shortages, from a young age I've seen chickens, pigs and lambs being slaughtered. Not a big deal, and in an environment in which food is in short supply, killing an animal for food is a reason for celebration. People say that we've been desensitized due to being disconnected from our food source. But I think that's backwards. You rarely see vegans among subsistence farmers. Even when meat is a luxury, eggs and dairy are staple foods. Unless there's a massive economic incentive for stopping meat production, no country will ever get "on board" with not eating meat. The CO2 emissions story is the only argument that has any legs. But if you think about it, it's an argument for efficiency and for taxing CO2 emissions, with plenty of low hanging fruits, e.g. we should waste less food, prefer chickens and pigs over ruminants, etc. --- Note I'm actually a vegan 3 days per week out of 7 and I prefer to go through all periods of religious fasting, which is basically hard core veganism (no traces of animal products are acceptable) before the big holidays, e.g. Lent (I'm not religious, I just like the practice). Meat is the most efficient protein source, per calorie, with a complete profile and unfortunately there's no equivalent unless you start taking protein extracts. Otherwise a vegan diet is a diet in which you have to eat a lot of legumes every day (lentils, kidney beans, soy) for getting 60-80 grams of protein, an inadequate level if you're looking to maintain or build muscle and going over that is hard for me without being in a caloric surplus. Also, during vegan fasting periods I take B12, Calcium supplements and I strive to eat a varied diet. My point is, from first hand experience, a healthy diet is pretty challenging and expensive, with or without meat and for poorer populations life is hard enough as it is.