Regular readers know that I’ve always tried to show how the only “way forward!” from the environmentalists is that EVERYone must make do with less. No more meat, less choice in where we live, what we wear, how we work, the energy we use, less living spaces, no more fashion, and only get things we “need.”
And always THEIR sense of what is needed versus wants.
No more private cars, trucks and SUVs, no more airplane trips – you get the idea. And of course, there are the extremes (that seem to be gathering numbers to themselves) that humans are just bad for the planet. Thus, no more kids and pray (to GAIA, I guess) for some illness that take out most of the human population. We are the problem, according to them, and must be dealt with accordingly.
Yet, I never see them offering to “go first.” Such leaders, these are.
So this next part is a bit hard for me to write about as I AM a carnivore – nothing better than a medium-rare Prime Rib for dinner (and chili dogs for lunch). The crux of this is choice – I want the full panoply of choice (even if I may not be able to afford a specific choice but somebody else might) instead of always being told “less is more and we’ll make SURE you’ll have less” in the choice department. So while I am NOT in favor of “plant-based meat”, more choice is better.
Sidenote: I HATE the idea they call this “meat” but here we go with the corruption of our language again where anything can be called anything simply for an ideological reason. It’s yet another fraud and a case, if the Enviros were completely truthful, simply another example of the “Big Marketing” they all rail against over at TreeHugger that makes you want to buy more.
Socialism is all about Government saying “No!”; here, Capitalism is all about “here’s a voluntary alternative without Government diktats” – a “Yes!”:
The case against eating meat is a case for the mass renunciation of real human pleasure. (Yes, this is coming from someone who delights in little more than a well-cooked ribeye.) Like the case for reducing our carbon footprint, the vegan argument requires that the large majority of people sacrifice their lifestyle for outcomes that are often invisible to them as individuals. A cultural or moral revolution designed around the elimination of pleasurable options and the restriction of individual human choice is a hard sell, particularly in a country like the U.S., where materialist choice has been elevated to a kind of civic religion.
But if the vegetarians and animal-rights activists are right—if the mass torturing of animals is a rolling moral catastrophe that will shame our grandchildren and slow-cook the biosphere—their cause must be won through innovation rather than argument alone. In 10 years, we may look back on the decade of peak meat in the U.S. and recognize that Americans finally reduced their meat consumption, not because they were browbeaten into crossing off their favorite option on the menu, but because the menu got one item longer.
Yeah, The Atlantic is not one of my favorite sources and I am very surprised they even printed the piece – I guess because they all want to eliminate meat just as much as TreeHugger does but at least they make a small bit to be a tad less authoritarian about it. However, the point of the post is exactly where I stand – offer MORE choice rather than a demand to have LESS choice. Be persuasive to the general public versus simply convincing a small handful of politicians and bureaucrats that will legislate/regulate choice out of our lives. I’m tired of the “it’s good for you” because backing that up means, “We are morally superior than you, smarter too” when in a lot of cases, it is provably wrong.
Besides, choice is the quantification of Freedom. And Freedom should NEVER have to be justified.
Look, if people want to eat their greens and call it “meat” (and spending more green to get it in the first place), have at it.
Just don’t make me eat it.