This Atlantic article not only makes the case for plant-based meat but for real-world-based advocacy like this.
"For the past 50 years, Americans have responded to the case
against eating animals mostly by eating more animals.
"They
have heard again and again about the moral and ecological costs of eating
meat—from philosophers like Peter Singer and polemicists like Jonathan Safran
Foer; from viral documentary footage of slaughterhouses and tortured poultry;
from activist organizations like PETA and scientific reports on the fossil-fuel
cost of producing a medallion of beef.
"The
collective sum of all these books and films and eco–guilt trips has made little
difference. The share of Americans who call themselves vegan or
vegetarian hasn’t increased in the past 20 years. In
the 1970s, the typical American ate about 120 pounds of meat each year. In the
1990s, she ate about 130 pounds annually. Today, she eats more than 140 pounds
a year, or about 2.5 pounds of meat every week—a record high, according
to government estimates.
…
"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."
No comments:
Post a Comment