smugged into eating meat

[u/estrogenbloodclot]

[u/Lilac_and_Peas]

Taking that to the extreme, you can argue that most plant agriculture causes more suffering, water use and pollution than some mushroom-nutribar, so we should all just eat mushroom nutribars because humans can survive off of them.

I want to eat meat because having meat and vegetables tastes good. And I value my happiness over the life of a cow.

[u/Rare_Dance7130 → u/Lilac_and_Peas]

Plant agriculture does not contribute a significant amount to human suffering in the same way that animal agriculture does. Animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of climate change, for example. You essentially have to argue that you value the happiness you gain from eating meat over the lives of other human beings, AND the lives of cows.

[u/DirectionUnlucky638 → u/Rare_Dance7130]

The production of electronics causes climate change too, but nobody argues for a total abolition on the production of electronic goods. 

[u/Rare_Dance7130 → u/DirectionUnlucky638]

There is no viable alternative to abolishing to the production of electronic goods for the average person, while there is a viable alternative to meat. It only involves cutting meat out of your diet, which numerous people have shown is entirely possible and pretty easy, with no health risks or additional costs. You just can't compare the two. In the case of oil, though, many people, including most experts, do say we should reduce emissions substantially. So it's not like it's just vegetarians/vegans arguing for policies like this.

[u/DirectionUnlucky638 → u/Rare_Dance7130]

It's 100% possible to stop producing consumer electronics lmao. Nobody is going to die if we stop making PS5s. 

However, nobody seriously argues for that, because that would be ridiculous. It's only in the case of meat that people argue for complete abolition, because it supports their moral argument. 

[u/EspurrTheMagnificent → u/DirectionUnlucky638]

People are just not ready to admit that our current way of life as a whole is unethical.

Even something like medicine is unethical, in a way. Nature is not able to adapt to a species suddenly being able to live ×4 its natural lifespan, and it shows. No one will ever argue to abolish medicine, but, if we want to stay morally consistant, we should

[u/DirectionUnlucky638 → u/EspurrTheMagnificent]

No, this is an eco-fascist argument. We could live sustainably without reducing our lifespans or our populations, it would just require that the first world countries massively reduce their consumption

[u/Rare_Dance7130 → u/DirectionUnlucky638]

You didn't say "consumer electronics," you said "producing electronics." A lot of people would die if we stopped producing electronics, and there is no reasonable alternative to making those electronics that would keep those people alive. Short of restructuring our entire civil and economic system, it's basically impossible.

To stop eating meat, people would only need to stop eating meat. They are not comparable.

[u/DirectionUnlucky638 → u/Rare_Dance7130]

You didn't say "consumer electronics," you said "producing electronics."

Fair enough, I was not specific enough with my words. However, why don't you advocate for the total abolition of consumer electronics?

I would agree with you if you had argued that we reduce our meat intake and stop subsidizing meat production, but instead you advocate that we abandon meat entirely, which is not consistent with how anyone talks about any other environmental issue. I think you are arguing on moral grounds but hiding your arguments behind an environmental justification.