Like it or not, this is the side of history that will eventually win out. In 50-100 years from now, expect this kind of arrangement to be very common with American companies.
What’s a good way for me to bet you $1000 that you’re wrong? This statement seems so interesting. What’s the basis for this thought process? Isn’t the trend for meat consumption to increase with wealth so as the world develops, more meat will be consumed. [0]
I'd be happy to take out a $100 bet, but I would probably want to lean towards the 100 year end of the prediction, and it's unlikely both of us will be alive in 100 years.
>Isn’t the trend for meat consumption to increase with wealth so as the world develops, more meat will be consumed.
Note I said "American companies", not companies around the world. I don't think my prediction will hold when applied to the entire world. I believe that within 200-300 years at the latest, there will be a strong cultural taboo in Western countries around hunting, meat farming, and eating "real meat". I figure synthetic and analogue meat will still be very popular. I don't think meat will be outlawed, but I sincerely think most people will treat meat-eaters like how most people currently treat neo-Nazis.
I'll get downvoted for mentioning any crypto-thing, but I think this might be doable with Augur (which is an actual live product, not some crypto-vaporware, though not particularly easy to use in its 1.0 state)
maybe i'm mistaken, but i think the overall point was not specifically about meat.
just that more and more companies will align themselves with some specific viewpoint and require/impel their employees to do the same as a condition of working there.
Hopefully those businesses will cease to exist due to market forces as artificially limiting talent available based on arbitrary preferences of management team would, I expect, reduce productivity and so increase labor costs.
When I was a traveling consultant, meal and lodging budgets were generally so bad that it really only made sense to eat a single meal per day anyway. While WeWork might be on a moral kick about this, I can only see it becoming common if companies can use it as some kind of cost cutting loophole, in much the same way many have a no-alcohol policy. Yes meat will continue to be a rare and expensive thing, but humans have been eating it for a few millennia now, I have a hard time seeing that go away in the 100 year picture.
And not because of environmental concerns. But moral concerns. Something that is flagrantly immoral would be opposed regardless of environmental questions.
That is important to note because it is not a simple question whether meat is net positive or net negative for the environment. It isn't even clear what it means if something is net positive for the environment.
I completely agree. The primary reason to not eat meat is that it's inherently unethical (factory farm or not). But a lot of people don't feel that way, so any argument that will persuade them to eat less (or no) meat works in my book.
I understand that view too, but insincere arguments have some drawbacks too. I do know some people who became disillusioned after hearing bad motivated reasoning on that, and on dubious health claims.
My current thinking is that both the eco and health questions are extremely complex. The moral issue, however, is simple.
It's immoral to kill a conscious and sentient life form for luxury, recreation, or other purposes that aren't absolutely vital to immediate survival. Eating the result is generally encouraging the killing. Of course that doesn't apply to eating an organism that died through other means, or eating synthetic meat.
On what basis? The highly vegetarian countries are countries with a religious population, and Christianity has never been associated with vegetarianism.
There are plenty of (mostly older) Christian denominations that keep to vegetarian or vegan diets for large parts of the year. (This is why Ethiopian food tends to be so vegetable-heavy.)
