How is it any people cannot put themselves in that place with imagining? Even animals could identify with what would not be desirable. Humans should have the sensibility to know they would not want what the animals being used are put through, we can likewise choose to not have anything to do with that, and we can already find out ourselves that there are ways to be very healthy this way without products from animals. And the same amount of use of resources for it and contribution to damage to environments with loss of species does not need to be continued then. https://healthyaging.emory.edu/could-eating-30-plants-a-week-be-the-answer-to-better-health/
Your thought experiment quietly assumes that if a motivation includes pleasure, it becomes morally suspect. Odd. That’s not how we treat most other domains. People accept environmental damage for travel, resource use for comfort, even risk to others in things like driving or gun ownership or cohabitation. It’s typically because those activities provide value beyond bare survival.
Again, you can argue animal agriculture crosses a line, but then you need to explain why this tradeoff is categorically different, not just say “what if it tasted bad.”
Because replacing animal products with plant products is so very easy. 🙂 I think of it as minimal effort for maximum difference. Concerning other domains where we also choose pleasure over consideration, I would argue the “other options” are not so readily available.
Your personal experience doesn’t generalize cleanly. Cost, access, cultural norms, cooking knowledge, food allergies, digestive tolerance, and even just time and mental bandwidth all matter. What feels like a small adjustment to one person can feel like a constant friction to someone else. And when something becomes daily friction, it stops being “minimal,” even if it looks trivial from the outside.
Other options are abundant. Now I’m just starting to think you’re full of … Something.
For most people diet is a very small part of their “footprint.” And I’d argue other domains have more alternatives and are more viable and would make a greater difference than diet accounts for in its entirely.
Again, none of the cost, access, cultural norms, digestive tolerances etc. would matter to people if animal products tasted like shit. People would not be making an argument “i eat this horrible product three times a day because it’s my culture”. They eat it because they like the taste. This conversation could be over and done with much faster if people admitted this. And what other options are we talking about? Also, for most people diet is a big part of their carbon footprint, health issues, not to mention the suffering of the animals. This is not deniable science, and if you disagree with this, then I’m sure no argument in the world could ever reach you.
No one is arguing meat doesn’t taste good. Are you okay? Vegan-brained?
“Undeniable science” + “no argument could reach you” isn’t a strong case… it’s a conversation ender. The cries of a closed mind before it retreats in defeat.