It's an inefficient form of food, requiring more nutrients than we get out of it. But we like eating meat (it's delicious after all), so in theory it is purely for our enjoyment.

Though we also use it to feed our cats I suppose.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's also a great way of turning food that grows in soil too poor to plant anything else in that humans can't get any nutrition out of at all, like grass, into food we can

[–] chetradley@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Most people eat animal products because they enjoy them more than the available plant-based alternatives.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"I have zero interest in food. If it were feasible, my diet would consist entirely of flavorless beige smoothies containing all the nutrients required by the human animal."

[–] chetradley@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I appreciate the B99 reference, but the difference between animal products and the plant based alternatives is small and getting smaller by the day. At the end of the day, it's that difference in enjoyment you get that you are weighing against supporting inhumane practices like the one in this post

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

As Holt demonstrates, not everyone chooses the more enjoyable and less moral choice. (For Holt there isn't a moral reason, he's just disinterested, but nonetheless makes the same choice of not choosing to enjoy food.)

At the end of the day, it's why there are so many so viable vegan alternatives nowadays.

Nowadays it'd be somewhat easy to fool a non-vegan into thinking they're eating meat, occasionally at least. Trying to pull that off 20 years ago would've been impossible.