I am not arguing that it is good, better, etc because it is natural though. I am saying we , over ~750k years, evolved to have a strong natural reaction to indicators of things that are calorie dense, and maybe protein/nutrient dense. This makes it harder to persuade people to the better option of veganism. It isn't the only factor, but it is definitely one.

[–] blindbunny@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just because humanity has done something for a long time doesn't mean we should continue doing it. If this isn't an appeal to nature then look beyond it and and realize there's plenty of other ways to to get nutrients besides supporting mass murder of other sentient beings.

If you can over come that then radicalize and realize a unified boycott of the animal agriculture industry would cripple the owning class.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah no fucking shit. I was saying that this is a hurdle to getting the population at large to do something better. I didn't say you couldn't get nutrients without animals, I didn't say it was better than a vegan diet, I said we are wired to have a strong response to smelling, and tasting it. We have a similar response to bread. It would also be hard to convince most people to not eat bread. I did not say we can't, or shouldn't, or what the fuck ever you imagined my comments said, move to a vegan dietary system.

Holy shit, putting words in my mouth. God damn, can't even discuss things that make it difficult to persuade the general population to change, something we need to understand, if you really want to get to a point where no animals are used for food, with some vegans. Because clearly ethical concerns for animal welfare, and the sustainability of human life on earth, aren't enough of an argument.