I think this less-more thing is synthetic and pointless. One person stops eating meat, it just reduces the demand and there’s one less cow that suffers, but not

I think this less-more thing is synthetic and pointless. One person stops eating meat, it just reduces the demand and there’s one less cow that suffers, but not in a sense that it becomes happy now. It just stops existing (best case). Is that a win? Hard to tell, cause the question is highly philosophical. Is to not exist better than to exist and suffer? Is suffering of 10M worse than suffering of 100K? Is 100K actually less suffering? One can imagine being a farm cow and being told that there’s 90% less of them than a decade ago, so they must feel 90-ish% better. Complete nonsense. There’s no “total suffering” cause suffering instances are separate in this case and are unable to grasp the scale. That said, most people would probably prefer if no animals were killed at all. Yeah I guess that at least skips the murky philosophical waters and has some actual impact rather than patting everyone and everything involved on various parts of an upper body.