- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 9,794
- Reaction score
- 2,625
I agree, it is definitely a matter of shades of grey. I'm just pointing out it isn't an incoherent position, from their point of view it is the less bad option.You're probably right, but the point is its death all the way down. The environmental arguement is much more compelling in my opinion.
Honestly they'd probably be responsible for less net-suffering/death if they'd chip in on one pastured cow for the year, or shoot themselves a deer. The only diet with less of a death footprint than eating a few large wild animals would be "freeganism" (dumpster diving). The issue is there isn't enough wild game or thrown away food to support a whole country so I won't fault people for being part of the conventional food system and trying their best.
The environmental argument for plant-based really is powerful, I agree there. For example while supporting local production is great, when you look at a full life cycle analysis of the food, eating veggies that is flown between continents is going to have less of a footprint, per calorie even, than local beef in 99% of cases, its wild.