>>11851649>>11851682>>11851615The problem you're going to run into is that you don't actually get to have people ever give up, or have less of, anything. Didn't you guys learn from Carter?
>You do not win an election by telling Americans to be more reasonable in their consumption>You win an election by saying "More more more, more for you, always more, I promise."And therein lies the problem with pointing at meat eating and trying to get it to go away to cure your pandemic. If you were smart, you'd find a way to provide for all meat eaters without the practical issues (Animals living in cages, unsanitary practices) getting in the way.
Instead, you want to eliminate meat eating because the issue, for you, is an ethical one, not a practical one, which means you're never going to gain any kind of traction, because people simply do not agree on the same morals.
I think you'll find that meat eating sticks around literally forever. As long as there's a human race. And when it gets expensive, people will home-raise. When home-raising gets expensive, people will start eating domesticated animals or simply stealing meat (Cattle, chickens, etc.) from the rich. Back to the days of cowboys we go.
You will never see people decide "This is too hard, I guess I should give up my habits!" because that is antithetical to human nature. We BREAK the laws of nature and bend them to our will when we want something, we don't just accept it meekly.
>Hey squishy human meatbags, bet you can't dive a mile beneath the sea or fly through the air, because gravity and a need for oxygen are immutable laws!>Humanity: Hold my Beer and Watch This>???>Airplanes and SubmarinesBy the same token, you'll get factory farms in floating space stations, if that's the lengths people have to go to feed their wants and needs.
Give them an alternative other than "Give up the things you want" and you'll see results.
