[sputr]

As a "carnist" (first time I have seen that, it's a good choice) who would, in an ideal world, prefer not to be one:

Stop focusing on things you can't change (even tho they make you look good/moral) and start focusing on results.

If all the energy used to try and convince people to not eat meat (something that can't even theoretically happen) had instead been focused on lobbing for systemic support for development of artificial meat ... we would have already had it. Then no one would have to give up meat. Most people have no connection to the animal as is - if the messaging is done right, most will not care, especially if it's seen as "better, cheaper and healthier".

But for that, someone would have to start a massive pan-EU campaign to start devoting billions into research and commercialization of artificial meat. I would support such a (vegan) candidate.

I eat meat, but I would much prefer if there was no suffering attached to it.

[sweetheart]

This is very silly. Your argument is based on thinking it’s futile to resume suffering as much as possible. The time spent trying to get folks to change isn’t a waste at all, as we can all see that there is progress. This is how any rights movement works.

Also, there are already made viable replacements for meat. I’d start with lentils, but you don’t like them there are hundreds of other options.

[sputr]

> Your argument is based on thinking it’s futile to resume suffering as much as possible.

My argument is, that there are multiple strategies and that you are using a suboptimal, possibly at this point a counter-productive one.

You will NEVER convince everyone (or even close to a majority) to stop eating meat. At least not in anything close to a lifetime and without highly authoritarian methods. So working toward that end is pointless. You should be, instead, working on providing an alternative and making sure people adopt it.

> This is how any rights movement works.

Yeah, and they all make the same mistake. Most of them have managed to change the values of the population but then lose steam, slow down and get stuck or even slide back when trying to change societal systems. Almost like changing values and changing systems isn't the same thing.

> Also, there are already made viable replacements for meat. I’d start with lentils, but you don’t like them there are hundreds of other options.

I've tried most of the ones that are available here. And no, they have not. They are getting better, and some are very interesting as a standalone thing, but they are not a replacement.

[sweetheart]

> You will NEVER convince everyone (or even close to a majority) to stop eating meat.

But… I have… numerous times. You don’t really know what you’re talking about at all.

If you have an actual legitimate reason you think you ought not to reduce the suffering of animals, let me know. Otherwise, have a good life and I hope you go vegan.

[sputr]

> But… I have… numerous times.

Sure, I don't doubt that. The current proportion, from a quick google search, is between 1%-10% in the western world. That's after A LOT of effort and before any serious pushback.

Now try doing it for 99% of the population. The world population. How long will that take? 100 years? 500? Don't forget that historically impoverished areas are on the rise economically, and they want, justifiably, what they didn't have an abundance of - meat (among other things).

Now imagine we get real artificial meat, that people can't tell apart, but is cheaper, better tasting and nicer to look at. How long till we get the percentage of people who don't eat "real" meat up to 90%? 20 years? Maybe less?

So it's up to you how many animals will have to be killed before we stop eating them.

[sweetheart]

You seem to think veganism is all about meat consumption. That’s only a part. Veganism is manifestation of the belief that animals ought not to be exploited for anything, meat included. Lab grown meat merely addresses part of the issue, at best.

Besides, what exactly is your argument? That it’s hard to change things like this? If so, why does that matter at all? Lots of things are hard but worth doing.

[sputr]

My argument is, that to archive your goals (which I in a way share), the strategy of securing drop-in replacements is a much, much more realistic one than the existing strategy of convincing people to give up luxury.

All ecological and anti-climate change movements have the same problem. Convincing people to give up the luxury of a car, airplane, vacation, phone, (overly) warm home etc. is a great way of putting people on the defensive and triggering pushback.

That's why I'm saying you will NEVER convince anything near a majority of people to give up meat. It's a rare luxury. They will never give that up, especially as long as they watch rich people have fun on their private islands.

This is the difference: - "You can't ever eat burgers again, or you're a bad person" - "Want to eat Wagyu beef burgers, but can't afford it? No problem! Now you can, plus, you're a good person for not killing a cow in the process!"

You must realize that "belief that animals ought not to be exploited for anything" is a belief enabled by privilege. A lot of privilege. That's not bad, as privilege (a really shitty word to use for the concept) is not a bad thing. But it's a privilege that many people lack. So you need to find ways to convince people to do what you want without relying on the privilage.