• Riccosuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I was using that as an extreme hypothetical. You can call that disingenuous if you like. I just don’t see how you can remove “animal suffering” from the equation without enforcing that measure. Otherwise all you are doing is drawing a subjective line around what suffering is acceptable and what isn’t. I’m personally fine with trying to make that determination in the least arbitrary way possible with the best technology possible so we can progress society forward, but let’s not act like there still won’t be people who see that cost as unacceptable.

    • ramirezmike@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      the meat industry wasn’t planned out and implemented, you could argue it literally took all of human existence working on it to get to this point.

      People can complain about the system and try to make it better without having all of the answers

      • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        People can complain about the system and try to make it better without having all of the answers.

        I totally agree, and I’m fine with that.

        • ramirezmike@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          sure, but you also said the following in reaction to the OP link

          Are you totally fine with the moral consequences of enforced veganism on the entire human population? I’m asking this because you must also understand that there are going to be seriously detrimental and inescapable outcomes associated with that as well.

          No one said “enforced veganism.” it’s weird that your reaction to this article is to dismiss it because forcing the world to be vegan overnight isn’t feasible.