We can also wait (not so long, either) for increasingly severe heat waves and droughts to harm the viability of the dairy industry in the US. That way scarcity and cost will take care of the job in a less gentle way, but there were be a lot of other incidental problems to cope with.

I bet it would just cause a change in production conditions which would be poor for the animals. It would be far better to find sustainable ways to use the livestock to sequester carbon (c.f. Allan Savory TED talk) and limit their environmental impact instead of giving up good eating.

Your objective is terrible. The ability to eat as much animal products as you desire is synonymous with living in a first world country. A future where we can no longer do that is backwards.

Your ability to eat as much food as you desire is synonymous with living in a first world country.

The ability murder as many animals as you want is not the desired state I look for when thinking about the world in which my child to grow up. A future in which that is synonymous with status is backwards - to me.

Well, you can choose to not contribute to animal-based agriculture. Similarly, I do not want mine to grow up in a world with forced veganism. Who wins in this conflict? I would say you keep your morals in your court for such contentious issues, to do otherwise is maliciously aggressive.

I don’t know if cows can suffer like humans can or not, so I am content to not get in your way.

That said, I invite you to consider what you would and would not allow others to do given a hypothetical: if you genuinely believed that cows were just as capable of suffering as humans — especially given that cows lactate only after giving birth, and dairy cows live only for so long as their milk is worth more than the cost of keeping them alive.

Most functioning adults can keep quiet about a simple preference (for Star Trek when around Star Wars fans, or whatever) but morals don’t work the same.

> Most functioning adults can keep quiet about a simple preference but morals don’t work the same.

Handling difficult feelings without acting out is one of the definitions of being a functional adult. You may have that backwards, though it is very consistent with the pop culture moral / philosophical (behavioral?) flavor of late.

Counterpoints: every religious war ever. The “war” on drugs. Prohibition. Moral crusades for censorship or elimination of porn. Rules against sex work in general. Sections 64, 65, 69, 70 and 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The religious affiliation requirements in the rules of succession of the British Crown. Forbidden foods in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and others. Western prohibition on multiple spouses.

The level of enforcement and punishment varies form instance to instance, from culture to culture, and from year to year, but there are cases even today where religious morality leads to extreme use of force: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/hindu-mob...

Those are examples of dysfunctional adults acting out. Thank you for making my case for me!

If you choose to describe majority of the electorate in multiple elections in a row as “not meeting the definition of ‘being a functional adult’”, then whatever definition you used for those words are not useful ones — and that’s just Prohibition.

Disagreeing with the requirements of sections 64, 65, and 70? Outside of philosophical discussions, most normal people find them sufficiently repulsive that even suggesting they might not be things that ought to be illegal is enough to make you a social pariah. (I’m not sure exactly how 69 or 71 are seen, but the actions they outlaw are demonstrably frowned on enough for the sections to survive multiple elections).

Fair point - thank you for the reasoned reply, esp. regarding the specifics for sections 64, 65, 70...

It's sad how this whole discourse so often boils down to the two extreme choices of "No animal products at all, you murderer!" vs "So much animal products as I want, you dictator!".

When imho a pretty sensible middle ground could very well be found between these two. But that would involve some moderation, rediscovering animal products as something special, and not just a mass commodity, something neither of the two extreme camps would ever agree with.

How is the presence of vegan cheese forced veganism ? Let us incorporate the true environmental cost of animal products into the price at the supermarket and have them compete fairly.

> murder

Please show me the law.

They’re clearly using the word in the moral sense rather than the legal sense.

So in the wrong sense?

This squeamishness is a product of the infantilization western culture seems to be going through recently. Hopefully immigration from 2/3-world countries (e.g. me) helps fix it.

It’s a perfectly legit use of the word. Words are not defined by God; they get their meaning though use, and Merriam-Webster records one such use is “to slaughter wantonly”.

A 'squeamishness' that comes from the reality that we don't need to kill animals to live comfortably anymore. The morality of a rich society is naturally different from the morality of poor country.

Yeah veganism is 100% a first world privilege.

Not at all. I live next to a tiny shop in Mexico that sells fruits, vegetables, and some extras like oatmeal and beans and olive oil. I eat healthier (according to research reviewed by NutritionFacts.org) and more cheaply than anyone I know once I decided to limit my diet to only the things they have, incidentally vegan.

I spend almost nothing on food in this shop. Same for all the poor Mexicans who live in the area.

It’s quite obvious that ubiquitous access to cheap animal products is a first world thing.

Let me introduce you to South Indian cuisine... yes, it's not actually 100% vegan, but it goes to show that you don't need to be a Marin County millionaire to eat healthy plant-based food most of your life.