>If you think the only choices we have are modern industrial farming or starving on porridge you seriously lack imagination. It's not easy to feed so many peop

>If you think the only choices we have are modern industrial farming or starving on porridge you seriously lack imagination. It's not easy to feed so many people so many different kinds of food at a price most people can afford. When I said the past century dramatically democratized our diets, that was achieved by improving the efficiency of production and transport of food to such an extent that was only possible with modern industrial innovations. >Also you're completely ignoring the externalities and the long term consequences both on the environment and on human health, And likewise I would argue you guys are ignoring the benefits to and desires of humanity. >if the question was just about having meat or not having meat we wouldn't have this discussion. Except that usually is ultimately the question, because inevitably the discussion degenerates into "we can eat <X> instead of <Y>". I'm saying that such conversations will convince noone because it ignores the reality of humans desiring to eat something and whatever else specifically. >Your analogy is plain wrong because there is 0 trade off in your example, The trade off is having a limited diet, possibly enforced from the top down. As I said previously, humanity has striven to widen its diet for as long as humanity has existed. This is a trade off that simply will not receive consensus.