> The only logical endpoint is that humans should just off themselves so we don't participate past one cycle of reabsorption into the Earth's environment.

That would obliterate all future human happiness. It doesn't stand up even under a cold utilitarian conception of morality.

I thought the whole premise was that we needed to limit the suffering of other living things that aren't humans at all costs, not about human happiness.

That's not the premise at all. That's a disingenuous strawman that anti-vegans would say to eachother about vegans to rile themselves up. It shows a total lack of understanding of what they're really about.

Please don't twist my contributions to being so ill-hearted. We're supposed to respond to each comment with generosity around here—defaulting to sincerity.

The discussion began with moralizing about eating other living things.

You literally proposed killing all humans and now feel unfairly portrayed as "ill-hearted".

I didn't propose anything, Mike—let alone killing all humans. But maybe I made too many assumptions and should have anticipated some might take my comment literally.

I'm an optimist, but I also don't anoint humankind with some divine moral authority—I put us on the level with every other animal on the planet.

I agree with mike. You have offered a reductio ad absurdum. This isn't meaningful discussion and it is painfully transparent, as well.

Transparent? How's that?

I was being hyperbolic, yes. That was the point. I think the entire argument over the morality of it is an appeal to absurdity. There are gross assumptions made on every side of the argument and I don't see any clear path to one side of the discussion about whether or not eating animals is immoral being possible.

I'm not anti-vegan. How could one even be anti-vegan? Seems more like a personal conviction to me, and that's, quite frankly, none of my business.

Very few people hold that moral view.

There are various reasons people become vegan or vegetarian, there's no single premise.

Doesn't that then go further to the point? It's not a matter worth moralizing over—rather a personal preference and pragmatic approach to that end.

> It's not a matter worth moralizing over

Why not? We already have some laws against animal cruelty. Thankfully we don't treat that as a matter of personal choice.

That's the eternal question isn't it: Where's the line?

In this case I think the question is something like "is it cruel to eat an animal?"

I'm not a spiritual person, but I like what the general consensus of the tribes around the Great Lakes (and elsewhere) saw of it: we're very much part of the [natural] world, not above or outside of it in any way. And I don't see that as a bad thing. Now, talking scale of consumption and all that is another matter that I didn't gather was at the core of this discussion—at least that is the way I've been framing my comments.

But now I'm getting a bit worried I'm taking this too far off track of the actual linked content and discussion so I think I'll have to leave it at that—but I'm happy to continue to discuss if you wanted to—just fire me an email.