this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
105 points (83.9% liked)
Asklemmy
54637 readers
479 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
One is torture.
The other is a means of survival.
It's acceptable to kill for survival.
It's not acceptable to torture and hurt for sexual gratification that can be gained solo with no one else involved.
Modern meat consumption is very disconnected from survival for most people though.
More humans could survive with more food if we reused the land growing food for animals for growing food for humans to eat. We would need so much less land that we could rewild a lot of it, and massively reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere as well.
But people like meat and will react badly to anyone suggesting that eating less is a good idea for everyone.
Animals are raised on grass land, which is different from cropland. Even if all the animals disappeared tomorrow we wouldn't have any extra cropland.
That doesn't address grass land vs cropland.
It just complains people are turning forests into cropland.
Nope. https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/soy-story
I do feel like most people I talk to irl seem to agree that eating less meat is good for everyone, but that's very local of course, and agreeing and doing it is also not necessarily connected ๐
I think this is just human nature, you say the socially acceptable thing to move the conversation along even if it wont impact their behavior. In a situation where the topic comes up (even staunch pro-meat doctors) the path of least resistance is to smile nod and "agree".
I get what you mean, but as somebody that hasn't eaten meet in 35 years I would argue its not needed for survival.
So shouldn't the same logic dictate that it is not acceptable to kill for culinary satisfaction, if nutrition can be gained without killing a creature? (Which is very possible in most parts of the world)
You do not need meat to survive lmao. You eat it because you like it, at least be honest with yourself
Valid argument - assuming you live in the woods and hunting and gathering is the only way you can get food.
In both cases we should be considering animal's perspective (what animals feel in both cases). We can't just involve human's perspective for our own convenience. Do animals consent to be murdered? I don't think so.