This might be a news flash, but food is a need. Not only that, but food and diets are formed during young ages and food networks take lifetimes to build.
Even in your perfect little world, if everybody ate vegan right now, we would eventually hit a point where somebody is eating meat.
So yes, unless you have secretly set up vegan food distribution networks to the entire planet overnight without everybody knowing, a bacon sandwich becomes a necessity somewhere.
Are you unaware of how markets work? You’re pretending like the person you’re responding to is the arbiter of all food production and consumption. Buy vegan, more vegan food gets made. It’s been happening for decades and as the number of vegans climb, the amount of vegan food increases.
There’s really nothing difficult to understand about that. If SO MANY PEOPLE go vegan that you literally go to the store and can’t find ANY vegan food (this won’t happen), then vegan food production will ramp up extremely fast, and this will only be a temporary issue as producers acclimate to new demands.
Arguments on purity bore me, one way or the other.
Less ecological impact is better than more ecological impact.
Less suffering is better than more suffering.
Cheaper food is better than more expensive food.
Somewhat healthy diet is better than a diet Lancet is warning you about (ie: too much meat, especially red meat)
Using less resources to feed more people is better than using more resources to feed fewer.
Every step from a modern western diet with way too much meat (the one Lancet warns about) to something more reasonable brings benefit basically in relation to how much meat you cut. You can argue that we can’t reach the absolute, but it strictly does not matter. If you try to reduce meat and succeed as much as you reasonably can, things improve. You don’t have to be a part of this, but surely you realize this is the case?
I didn’t realise people ate bacon sandwiches out of pure necessity.
This might be a news flash, but food is a need. Not only that, but food and diets are formed during young ages and food networks take lifetimes to build.
Even in your perfect little world, if everybody ate vegan right now, we would eventually hit a point where somebody is eating meat.
So yes, unless you have secretly set up vegan food distribution networks to the entire planet overnight without everybody knowing, a bacon sandwich becomes a necessity somewhere.
There are already food distribution networks so what are you blathering about?
A huge portion of the goods that fills that distribution network is meat, ranches, and non vegan farms.
You purposefully left out a key word on your food distribution network claim (vegan) and are playing dumb as a coping mechanism against reality.
How are you going to replace all of that at scale before lunch?
Are you unaware of how markets work? You’re pretending like the person you’re responding to is the arbiter of all food production and consumption. Buy vegan, more vegan food gets made. It’s been happening for decades and as the number of vegans climb, the amount of vegan food increases.
There’s really nothing difficult to understand about that. If SO MANY PEOPLE go vegan that you literally go to the store and can’t find ANY vegan food (this won’t happen), then vegan food production will ramp up extremely fast, and this will only be a temporary issue as producers acclimate to new demands.
This doesn’t change anything about the point I challenged.
As of today, a bacon sandwich is a need u till you handle the issues of supply and demand or culture shift over time.
Arguments on purity bore me, one way or the other.
Less ecological impact is better than more ecological impact. Less suffering is better than more suffering. Cheaper food is better than more expensive food. Somewhat healthy diet is better than a diet Lancet is warning you about (ie: too much meat, especially red meat) Using less resources to feed more people is better than using more resources to feed fewer.
Every step from a modern western diet with way too much meat (the one Lancet warns about) to something more reasonable brings benefit basically in relation to how much meat you cut. You can argue that we can’t reach the absolute, but it strictly does not matter. If you try to reduce meat and succeed as much as you reasonably can, things improve. You don’t have to be a part of this, but surely you realize this is the case?