Food isn't frivolous, meat arguably is if you're talking about efficiency.

You've got to feed a cow for a year and half until it's slaughtered. That's a whole lot of input, for a cow's worth of meat output.

Meat is not necessary.

The only way to phase out meat is to make a replacement that actually tastes good.

Come to the american south and ask them to try tempeh. They'll look at you like you asked them to eat roaches.

It's a cultural thing.

Taste has nothing to do with it; 'tis is all based on economics and the actual way to stop meat consumption is to simply remove big-ag tax subsidies and other externalized costs of production which are not actually realized by the consumer. A burger would cost more than most can afford and the free market would take care of this problem without additional intervention. Unfortunately, we do not have a free market.

I would much rather lobby for ending ad gag laws, and fighting for better treatment of animals.

I think its more realistic than getting people to give up meat entirely

You cannot treat a commodified individual "better" - it is only possible to euphemize such a logical fallacy.

So there's no point in pushing for pasture raised, and it's either all or nothing ?

I think incremental progress is possible. I think rolling back and gag laws would make a positive difference in animal welfare because people would be able to film and show how bad conditions are inside.

I think that's worth pushing for. And it's more realistic than everyone stopping eating meat all at once.

The economics of what you describe are impossible. The entire concept of an idyllic pasture is actual industry propaganda which is not based in objective reality.

I think getting everyone around me to stop eating meat is not based in objective reality.

If we had better animal welfare laws and meat became prohibitively expensive, I would be absolutely fine with that.

I think incremental progress is possible. We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.

People will eventually stop eating meat because it is unsustainable, but unfortunately not without causing a great deal of suffering first, and your comment is an example of why this process is unnecessarily prolonged. It is clear you have not done much research on actual animal welfare based on your "pasture" argument alone. I am even willing to bet you think humans currently outnumber animals, when the reality is so much more troubling.

>I am even willing to bet you think humans currently outnumber animals

I'm not sure what makes you assume that about me. I'm well aware that there are more animals than humans?

It's clear that this is no longer a productive discussion about animal welfare.

----------------------------

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine."

"Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative."

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> I'm not sure what makes you assume that about me.

I'm not sure why you're not sure; the parent comment explained it already: your vision of an idealized pasture is incongruent with reality, namely because the number of animals and resources it would take to materialize and actually sustain such a system defies reason.

This was never a discussion about animal welfare, but about challenging industry-seeded assumptions which were not even being questioned. It is unfortunate this makes you feel threatened and requires a retreat from the conversation, but it is also typical.