Just eat broccoli instead? I don't get other foods. Make a small amount of other things sustainable and respectful, then make the rest of your diet broccoli. Done.

Almost the entire point of cultivating different foods is to enjoy different flavors and textures. If something is tasty but expensive, in terms of money or the environment, we should encourage the people that try to make it cheaper. There's no reason to want things to be expensive and rare treats.

I think the point is that we have tried making meat cheap and it created a lot of problems. Until we fix those problems the grandparent comments strategy seems sound.

How is that strategy sound in the least? What's your plan to convert billions of people to stop eating meat?

The objective here isn't to convert a few people on hacker news, it's to convert billions. "Hey dummies, just eat plants! They were here the whole time!" isn't gonna happen.

I'm replying late but...By "strategy" here I'm referring to the strategy for humans to eat less meat to achieve environmental goals — not any particular strategy to achieve a reduction in meat eating. I agree that achieving that outcome is going to be hard.

Well I'm talking about both money and environmental costs, and we haven't done very much toward reducing the latter. I'd rather put a bunch of effort into reducing environmental impact than "just" eat traditional vegetables.

When you say "until we fix those problems" you're suggesting a very different strategy from "just" working around it with no notable effort to do anything else.

Congrats, you found the solution!

Now we just need to dump a few million into "JUST EAT PLANTS" billboards and I'm sure the problem will be solved!

Silly food companies, don't they know that consumers were ready to drop all meat eating at a moment's notice?

It would work if you completely disregard people's enjoyment and overall experience of eating the foods. (And only think of nutritional composition.)

A lot of people's preference of food comes from its culture that adapted to its immediate natural environment.

For America, the fast food industry was really born out of corporate interests and it is unnatural. It's not that eating meat is wrong but the fast food industry that is responsible for our over consumption and maltreatment of bovine stock to meet the demands.

In countries like Japan, France, Vietnam, fast food hasn't caught on as much as locals prefer their traditional diet. Unfortunately some South American countries have completely given way to American fast food lobby groups, in particular Brazil which comes with a huge cost to public health.

You have poorly educated population, corporate greed and unlimited lobbying powers, with limited public healthcare and you are in a man made ticking bomb.

> as much as locals prefer their traditional diet

Which is still meat. It might be prepared differently but it's still meat. Which tells you exactly that - meat consumption is not only about forced customs, it's about people legitimately enjoying eating eat. I know a lot of people that do this too, and it's not about being uneducated either.

>respectful of animal wellness

Killing the animal is not respectful to its wellness.

yeah the whole sustainability issue arises because of our excessive consumption. Just limit your intake by at least 50% or more and then slowly raise it by eating more vegetables.

The whole narrative around sustainability of meat has been completely hijacked by corporate interests who wants to push non-meat as meat.

Their whole goal is to enmesh it at a cultural level so that they can increase sales, not really concerned about the real problem which is cruelty, indifference to the treatment of animals by the bovine industrial complex.

We are simply seeing the usurpation of the latter group by a new commerce-first-pseudo-sustainability industrial complex. It's even more dangerous now because of the misinformation and groupthink by self appointed morality police.

> explain.

There is no animal cruelty in its production, so that solves the problem of "making this kind of thing is cruel to animals".

To be more specific, I mean the whole scenario of people buying it "as meat" removes all animal cruelty from their meat-motivated food purchases. Not that the product will stop people from kicking puppies somehow.

> do you realize the paradox of this sentence?

No, what is it? I said "amoral", not "immoral", and I said "very much".

It's a little worrying that companies are amoral, but that applies to every company ever. If a company is doing a good thing, then I give it a thumbs up.

explain how killing plants is the solution to the subsidized bovine industry's continued production of meats

The former replaces the latter 1:1.

That's a solution on the product level. It's not a solution on the systemic level, but that's not what I meant.

It's at the same level as "cut your intake 50%", but more effective.

> wait what? so everybody is eating grass but being tricked into thinking its meat today?

No, some people are eating grass and then not eating meat. And I'm not talking about today specifically but in general. 100 calories of A replace 100 calories of B.

> It's going to cause the government to kill subsidies therefore jobs and not get their votes from bovine states?

If people don't buy meat, then meat isn't made, subsidies or not.

> Ignorant of their commercial interests and completely brainwashed by their cultural narrative.

Whose interests? I'm not sure what you think I'm missing.

> You know not everybody shares your dull sense of taste right? You know people can taste the difference and they have no plans of accepting the future you fantasize right?

But... you were suggesting people eat less meat and more vegetables!

Being able to tell the difference doesn't mean you can't swap one for the other.

Great idea. Step two is to get several billion people to act against their own self interest.