re: #56 Love-Child of Cassandra and Sisyphus

Plant based diets are more likely to be viable in the long run than bovine-based (beef meat, milk).

However, plant-only diets are more difficult for us humans to digest and to get essential amino acids, and adding some animal protein like eggs makes a plant diet much easier on us.

We really do not need Bos to live. Our ancestors found them useful for sure (and several species went extinct.)

That image of pouring out milk hearkens back to the Great Depression and farmers pouring out their milk product.

The issue is that they’re presenting plant-based diets not as healthier or better in the long run, but instead engaging in the emotional blackmail of suggesting that if you don’t eat imitation meat or drink almond milk then you’re contributing to the eventual ecological collapse of the planet. The implication made is that only by the mass-adoption of plant-based foods can we somehow slow if not stop the planet’s decline due to all the pollution of growing meat and dairy products. And to be frank, give how much of our current mass-farming methods are reliant upon the very same pollution-belching equipment and factories, I don’t think one can realistically argue that replacing all the meat consumed annually with plant-based alternatives will end all of that pollution or reduce it significantly enough to make a difference without reducing the supply of food available to the masses.

Personally, I think we’re gonna end up splitting the difference within the next generation by moving to methods of manufacturing meat products from vat-grown proteins. That once a company figures out how to print steaks that taste as good or better than the farm-grown competition but competitive on price, then meat sourced from grown rather than manufactured sources will move from a vital part of our diet to a niche product much like certain game animals are.