The author says, in the introduction, "this entire essay is ridiculous." You are taking it much too seriously. It's all meant in a joking way just to explore some sillier ideas around animal ethics that may or may not have a kernel of value hidden in them.

Nothing about this article is embarrassing, unless you intentionally misconstrue the tone and intentions of the author.

The entire pieces is extremely embarrassing. It frames itself as ridiculous and then goes on to take itself entirely seriously. The author clearly thinks it is quite clever. I won't give it a pass.

The "one bad day" movement in the meat industry is a rounding error overall production It isn't that funny when 1) wild caught seafood is crushing wild populations of fish, cephalopods, and shellfish 2) nearly all meat is raised industrially and the livestock live in inhumane conditions 3) most animals are processed well before their first years.

The essay isn't provocative and cute, it is logically flawed and glaringly incomplete, which is the embarrassing part. The closest thing to a kernel of truth is at the end, when he talks about "one bad day" philosophy and he ruins that part by talking about eating only old animals, too (ignorance of what that means for farming ROI and also the impact of the taste/texture of the product).

This essay is a steaming pile from someone that is - based on their other accomplishments - clearly smart and capable of much better, and that pisses me off.

> Agreed, it's hard to imagine voluntarily embarrassing yourself in public as badly as the author has done here.

That's a common problem on Substack, it seems. Lots of people writing long "essays" on topics they don't quite understand, but think they do.