The point being? That it’s fine to set government regulation to protect species from being wiped out and that somehow doesn’t transfer to it being fine to regulate beef or other meats as we see them negatively affecting a vast swath of ecosystems including many of those endangered species? The harm has to be to the species being regulated and not from the species?
Are endangered species not also safe to eat generally?
There’s a difference between a government regulating against the consumption of endangered animals and banning the consumption of beef, chicken and pork so only insects are allowed to be consumed. You took my original comment extremely literally seemingly on purpose to try and make witty false equivalences and gotchas
You’re reading into it too much. I read your response to the other guy and went to the first example my mind thought of for government regulation of foodstuffs that are safe to consume but otherwise banned for a reason.
I for one would eat endangered species if it’s all I had access to, but I understand the damage it would cause and am comfortable eating other sources of food. I also do love eating beef and pork and chicken, but I’m willing to reduce consumption of those for other sources if needed.
We see a ton of rainforest being chopped to expand access to cattle farming, tons of pollution runoff from farms, and a history of antibiotic resistance being transferred due to heavy antibiotic use in close quarter factory farms. I would argue those would be equally damaging to not just us, but also many ecosystems and the species in them.
So I draw an equivalence there. If you’re not cool with eating endangered species, maybe you can ease off the gas on mammal based protein.
On the other hand, it’s looking like we might be able to get around a lot of that damage with lab grown meat.
Would you eat lab grown meat if standard beef/poultry/pork were to be banned?
You were deliberately missing the point.
Reported. Have a nice day
The point being? That it’s fine to set government regulation to protect species from being wiped out and that somehow doesn’t transfer to it being fine to regulate beef or other meats as we see them negatively affecting a vast swath of ecosystems including many of those endangered species? The harm has to be to the species being regulated and not from the species?
Are endangered species not also safe to eat generally?
There’s a difference between a government regulating against the consumption of endangered animals and banning the consumption of beef, chicken and pork so only insects are allowed to be consumed. You took my original comment extremely literally seemingly on purpose to try and make witty false equivalences and gotchas
Articulate the difference. You keep saying I’m missing the point or that there is a difference but you don’t state what it is.
You’re reading into it too much. I read your response to the other guy and went to the first example my mind thought of for government regulation of foodstuffs that are safe to consume but otherwise banned for a reason.
I for one would eat endangered species if it’s all I had access to, but I understand the damage it would cause and am comfortable eating other sources of food. I also do love eating beef and pork and chicken, but I’m willing to reduce consumption of those for other sources if needed.
We see a ton of rainforest being chopped to expand access to cattle farming, tons of pollution runoff from farms, and a history of antibiotic resistance being transferred due to heavy antibiotic use in close quarter factory farms. I would argue those would be equally damaging to not just us, but also many ecosystems and the species in them.
So I draw an equivalence there. If you’re not cool with eating endangered species, maybe you can ease off the gas on mammal based protein.
On the other hand, it’s looking like we might be able to get around a lot of that damage with lab grown meat.
Would you eat lab grown meat if standard beef/poultry/pork were to be banned?