81–83 of 83 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef#Environmental_impact
How much Brazilian beef do we eat in the US? I don't think any deforestation is done to raise beef in this country.
The author then uses this philosophical thought to argue in favor of our existing state of affairs that we raise animals for food and that we eat them. The biggest issue for me with eating animals is that most of them are raised in cruel conditions and their death is not quick but prolonged and painful. Nowadays there are many plant-based sources of protein in a myriad of flavors and shapes. You can get all the protein and the rest of the nutrients without having to eat animal flesh.
What to do with all the animals if we stop eating them? Release them into the wild. Some would die or be eaten by other animals, but that's life. Most should have no trouble adapting to living in the wild. That's what happened in the Chernobyl.
The rest of the article goes into this ridiculous idea of eating animals based on whom we perceive to be bad. Majority of the humans judge and apply human criteria to animals when most of this is false. If you're going to eat animals then just eat all of them or exclude some based on more objective criteria like not eating those that are about to go extinct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's always easier to do mental gymnastics than it is to change one's lifestyle.
I agree, but that's kind of what we do to resolve moral cognitive dissonance all the time, with varying results. Personally it's something I really struggle with, and the questions usually boil down to whether I would be fine living my life wrongly, or if I'll give up enjoyment of my already sad life just to feel good about myself for being moral. I just can't picture it. 9 hours a day in the office, then I come back…