> Meat can be considered a byproduct of an immensely useful material that lasts indefinitely, has been harnessed by possibly every culture to exist and has uses that every person requires.

Meat is the flesh of sentient living beings with feelings and their own rich internal lives. Their bodies do not belong to us to strip for parts as we see fit. Though people throughout history have often eaten meat, there have also been many cultures that do not (about half of India is vegetarian for example). In the developed world, our factory farms have become brutal inhumane places of horrors with no connection to the indigenous uses of animals you reference.

> has uses that every person requires.

In the developed world it is false to say that every person requires animal products, as we surely don't. Most people can thrive on a plant based diet, no need to destroy the lives of thinking beings for their meals or shoes.

Omnivore. This is the way it is and will be. Humans have survived due to this feature.

We are not ruminants. We don't have multiple stomachs.

Your emotions are the deciding factor in your position. I implore you to look at the animal kingdom with honesty and not a disney-washed, Blue Planet version for children.

Nature is harsh and awful. Animals often die by incredibly vicious means from predators. Gored and crushed in their jaws.

We are humane to a fault. Now people are so disconnected from the reality of nature, they expect to impose restrictions based on their emotions. I find this argumemt to be lacking substance.

The developed world you highlight is dependent on petrochemicals. Everything you have and use. Leather is one of the very few durable goods that is not.

Yes, animals often die by predators who have no alternative. This is the way of nature. But humans DO have alternatives. We absolutely do not need to lock up animals in cages and kill them with machines. We don't need to use them at all.

Sure, you can say compassion is an emotion. But can you really even be a part of society without compassion? To say we should be willing to enslave and kill animals because we should set our compassion aside... why? Why do you argue for a world without compassion? Yes nature is brutal. And yet we have child seats for cars because we don't expect to expose our children to random brutality. What about a pig or a cow makes you feel it deserves brutality when we will work so hard to shield one another from the same?

We don't live in the jungle. That is not the point of society. We do care for one another, and compassion drives many aspects of our society. I see no reason it should not play in to what we eat.

> We are not ruminants. We don't have multiple stomachs.

This doesn't have anything to do with veganism. Vegans don't eat grass from the ground. We don't need multiple stomachs. This is a straw man.

Looks like you're newer, but your snarky / assumptive comments can be placed on other social networks.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Feel free to answer any of my questions, none of them were rhetorical.

Many people are eager to make their opinions the de facto law of the land. In reality they have rarely done any searching outside of their emotions.

They same people then cling to statutory protection when their ignorance is displayed

OK, let's debunk your BS point by point...

> Already being captured for energy. VC funds are all over this

There are roughly a billion cows on the planet. I live in the midwest. If VC funds (not sure what this means exactly) are all over this - then why have I not seen thousands of cows wearing ridiculous contraptions to sequester said methane? Show me the data.

> So you are saying you are in the bug camp, got it.

This is ignorance at it's finest - I'm not promoting bugs as food, nor am I discouraging it. Your comment is ignorant and assumptive at best and provides no value to your response other than to show little thought around the topic.

> Hyperbole and no accounting. You have no idea. Scale production and see what happens. Have you any data to validate your assessment?

https://livestockdata.org/data-object/livestock-and-greenhou... https://grain.org/article/entries/5976-emissions-impossible-... https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/09/animal-based-food-vs-... https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-...

Again, your arguments have no context and no basis. This information is widely available and is suppressed by dairy and meat industries - no different than tobacco or big oil has done.

> How so? Do you believe all grassland on earth should be appropriated for "best use" to increase productivity? Why would you believe that? Are you aware that allowing cattle to forage in forests helps prevent wildfires and enriches the soil increasing undergrowth and biodiversity. The practice is largely banned in state and national parks thanks to zealots of ecowarriors and bug campers.

It seems you haven't looked at the environmental impact that is caused by the supporting agriculture, which is required, to support livestock at our current consumption levels.

There's over 90 million of acres per year plated for "feed" corn. 90 million acres that are used for singular feed crops. 90 million acres that have fertilizer and pest control applications annually to keep the machine in motion. And you're proposing just letting the cows "forage in forests". Laughable at best, considering there are over 94 million cows in the US alone. Your idea is probably banned because cows are also, not natural wildlife in state and natural parks. There's something called the food chain and cows would be prime, and easy, targets for many predators. So your idea would disrupt the food chain and provide, basically, no value. And yet you claim that "it's because these practices are banned". Again, a biased and unfounded point of view that you've provided zero data to support.

https://petkeen.com/how-many-cows-in-us/

> What we need is trivial. We don't need cars or shoes or knowledge. > Meat can be considered a byproduct of an immensely useful material that lasts indefinitely, has been harnessed by possibly every culture to exist and has uses that every person requires. > Leather.

I don't know where to start with this because you're all over the place. First you start with a strawman that, seemingly, implies you live a minimal lifestyle of which you don't have a car, shoe, or cognizance? The idea that we don't need "knowledge" basically proves the point: your commentary is drivel.

> You need to read Oryx and Crake before you destroy the world.

Please provide sources.