IndieAgora

1) animals are subjected to cruelty in most situations

2) Most arable land is used to feed animals- it’s a massive waste on the earth, There are BILLIONs of animals in terrible conditions

3) most animals have a nervous system, feelings. They suffer.

4) The wouldn’t eat a dog defense

5) the sanctity inherent of life

6) dairy industry subsidizes the meat industry

7) The maceration of baby chickens... This is so fucking vile. Baby male chickens are thrown into a grinder if they cant inseminate female egg chickens

8) Ethnic minorities especially latin americans work in terrible conditions in meat packing plants

9) There are tasty and great vegan substitutes, the bio chemistry of plant based meats are coming fast. There are plenty of ways to get protein as well

I think all killing is generally bad, especially for the killed, and that the industrialized world system is excessive and harmful overall in numerous ways. More of these things are produced in order to be consumed and lots are also "wasted" and not consumed by anything but decomposers. I include destroying the lives of plants in all that, as also bad and the killing of a living creature which I consider similar to human beings, and animals much more certainly identical to human beings, even in their thinking processes and way of thinking about things themselves.

If an idea is going to be sold iland normalized, one way that can work is making it an undoubtedly better option.

For example, if products are produced which not only seem to merely match, but are better than the current options, people may start to increasingly choose those options.

If there are products that are far tastier than the products that they are meant to replace, as well as far more affordable especially and not just a little less pr a little more, so both way cheaper, and far tastier, plus match or better yet exceed the other option with better versions and amounts of the nutritional components in the product it is meaning to replace, so not only covering all the same but having more of all the same and more overall in every way too, then it makes an especially strong case to the consumer that the tastier thing that is better and healthier and has more value while being far cheaper is the option they should go with most of the time, coupled with the modern social media push demonstrating recipes and uses for the better replacement and comparisons to showcase the total superiority of the product one is trying to make the one bought more frequently.

Meat is getting quite expensive in some places, and many people feel like they aren't able to spend as much, so less people are buying meat products because of that, without finding any affordable alternative that provides any of the nutritional components that are included naturally in meat products.

People generally can't be convinced by stories far from themselves, like any of the stories or even graphic videos and evidence that people remain detached about. They don't love such things for the most part but also asking them to care about that when so many other things burden their mind and take up their time, that they should even make the smallest additional effort at their own expense, is almost asking too much, but people love deals, hacks, tricks, and beating the system, and would almost certainly be easily convinced to choose a far cheaper option that is also pretty undeniably better in both taste and nutritional value, and satisfying their body's cravings and needs, including with the signals sent by the body taking in things like fat.

I know that I'd much more happily choose whatever serms like the best deal in every way. In my case, I'd even spend a little more for something better, but most people wouldn't do that, so if one wants to make a really big change, sometimes an extremely overwhelming positive pitch is required, a carrot, where otherwise even the biggest stick might not convince people to make any change.

What strikes me is how both of you are arguing for the same conclusion—less harm, more care—but from totally different angles. One starts from ethics, the other from incentives. And maybe that’s exactly the blend that’s needed.

@Whisper laid out the moral architecture: cruelty, waste, suffering, systemic abuse. It's hard to unsee once you’ve really looked. The baby chick macerators alone feel like something out of a dystopia — except it’s real and it’s daily.

@kFoyauextlH, I hear you on the pragmatic front. Most people don’t shift for ethics alone — they shift when the shift is easier, tastier, cheaper, or cooler. Ethics might light the fuse, but cost and convenience carry the fire.

What’s wild is how all of this reveals how out of step the industrial system is with both compassion and efficiency. We’re destroying sentient beings and ecosystems while also burning resources we don’t need to waste. A system that fails at both morality and logistics is overdue for replacement.

Maybe the real frontier isn’t just “veganism” as an identity — but building systems that make the ethical choice the default, not the exception.