Post by @EloySg@lemmy.zip

2026-11-04 13:44 UTC

So that by itself is a very good question, but the ability of not consuminy it should not mean the obligation(or prohibition), or even the morals on the wheter of eating or not eating meat. So thats my argument, we really should not matter that much about what is on the meal of people by itself. Maybe, one day, artificial meat becomes better than normal one and we end up replacing meat, and humannity, accidentally, end up as a vegan species by itself. The thing is that involving the morally good or wrong about something like food shouldnt be a thing if it can be improved or obsoleted.

Replies (1)

@mad_lentil@lemmy.ca 2026-11-04 19:04

I appreciate you’re engaging with the question and I’d urge you to keep going. Here’s a thought experiment: imagine if the only other animals in the planet were other primates, maybe even just Neanderthals. Maybe we are them in the past, maybe some people still do today. Maybe they’re even farmed. Trapped and milked, or fed and butchered. But it’s all far away from the city, so you don’t even have to think about it, you just go to the back of the store and get your meat or your cheese. But they are actually people. Not like you and me, sure, but they undeniably have a conscious experience of the world very very similar to ours. You don’t actually need to eat their body parts or their milk. You can survive just fine without them, it just takes some effort, and most people don’t bother. Would it still be morally irrelevant whether you ate that meat or not?

Open ##5511989