Vegetarianism As Law?

Should taxes be placed on meat with the long term gradual goal of a society that does not eat meat from animals?

I'm not going to argue this from pathos or ethos, but from logos. Substitutes for meat are now readily available which do not precipitate the destruction of the environment on a scale as unprecedented as cars do. Eating meat on the scale we currently do is simply unnecessary and destructive, and in times when societal change is too slow, should the government step in?

Fundamental changes to society are sometimes labelled as impractical or contrary to human nature, as if there were only one human nature, but fundamental changes can clearly be made, we're surrounded by them. In the last two centuries, abject slavery which was with us for thousands of years has almost entirely been eliminated in a stirring world-wide revolution. Women systematically mistreated for millennia are gradually gaining the political and economic power traditionally denied to them. And some wars of aggression have recently been stopped or curtailed because of a revulsion felt by the people in the aggressor nations. The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinisms, and to rabid nationalist fervour are beginning not to work, a new consciousness is developing that sees the Earth as a single organism, and recognises that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet, and on this planet at this moment we find ourselves at a critical branch-point in history, what we do with our world, right now, will propagate down through the centuries and will powerfully effect the destiny of our descendants.

The scale at which we consume meat today is as unprecedented as its destruction to the environment, it demonstrates the worst excesses of human behaviour and our Jungian archetypes. Through personal experience, the proportion of vegetarians and vegans at top universities is much higher than the general population, but this is still a tiny minority of the entire demographics. In times when societal change is too slow, governments must step in as a catalyst, particularly when the issue at hand is as damaging to the world as this. This has been well demonstrated with the abolishment of abject slavery, racial segregation and the full introduction of LGBT rights in the US, when the government stepped in to settle the matter decisively. Despite the inevitable outcry from much of society and its damage to many industries, such action is essential to stop its more devastating and pernicious effects to the world at large. You do not have to be a master prognosticator to see that this will happen eventually, if history has taught us anything it is that the moral high-ground always wins eventually, even if initially support for it is minimal. Take slavery, sexism, homophobia and racism: all accepted as the norm 300 years ago, now deeply frowned upon by the bulk of society, you'd have to be obdurate to not see eating meat from animals going the same way. So my question is: Why wait?

So what you are saying is that you want to indoctrinate the majority of the population to suit the beliefs and ideals of a few? Tax on meat? What about increasing tax on cigarettes, or alcohol? This idea is fine from the stand point of a vegetarian, but your problem isn't that we are eating too much meant, our problem is simply that the population of humans are too great for the plant to sustain it in the long term.
The fractionation process used to separate soy and wheat, for example, into their constituent parts—proteins, oils, and soluble and insoluble fibers—is often highly energy intensive. She quotes Atze van der Goot, associate professor of food process engineering at Wageningen University, who spoke at the European Federation of Food Science and Technology, in Montpellier, France: “ ‘Due to the inefficiencies in the process to make meat alternatives, we lose completely the environmental benefits.’ ”
So really the problem isn't meat or vegetarian, it is the sheer numbers of humans on the planet

This isn't about subjective beliefs and ideals at all, it is simply a matter of mitigating the destruction to our environment in a field we have control over, the majority of people would prefer cheap but dirty energy from coal, rather than expensive renewable energy from wind/solar/hydro, but we must put our planet first despite cost, would you call that indoctrination of the majority of the population? I completely agree, tax on cigarettes and alcohol should just as well be increased, the same with petroleum. Why is it that petroleum is so heavily taxed while meat is not, and yet both precipitate the same kind of destruction? Overpopulation is also a tremendous intractable issue as you point out, vegetarianism allows more people to eat with less impact: If the crops used to feed livestock is feed directly to people, the process is ten times more efficient (source: https://youtu.be/uZDsSnpYZrw ), so if you're suggesting that then taxing meat is even more logical.

(I have don't have any inherent problem with people eating meat from a moral point of view at all, it's just the scale at which we do)

When you say meat destroys the environment in such a large scale what are you refering to?

I think this is a good idea. It would certainly get more vegetarians in the world. This is coming from a vegetarian.

People should be free to do what they want.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Thanks for telling us. You couldn't resist lol.

People should be free to do what they want.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Within what limits?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Even if it damages others? Like driving using leaded-petrol, or using CFC's, or having slaves, or smoking on a plane/bus? There must be boundaries, and the simple question of this thread is: What should the boundaries be on eating meat now that we know it's far-reaching, pernicious and damaging comsequences.

Probably should've worded myself better. The state should have no input on the preferences of citzens as long their actions don't impede upon others

Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.

I'd do things like fore meat products to have images of the conditions the animals live in and the slaughter process.

Like how cigarettes have to have picture of cancerous lungs etc.

However, if you think that it's good for animals not to suffer, i.e, something less than a right, then the question is more difficult.

That's a really interesting idea, never heard that before.

If you think that animals have a right to freedom from suffering and killing, then it should be supported by a law. Rights need to be reflected in law.

However, if you think that it's good for animals not to suffer, i.e, something less than a right, then the question is more difficult.

I personally am in the former camp. I think that the meat industry is reprehensible and that no sentient thing should have to go through that process.

But for the transitional period, we might have to eat insects. Do they have 'enough sentience' so to speak to enjoy the same rights as animals?

Why would we have to eat insects? A plant-based diet is perfectly nutritious, and cultured meat could potentially only be five years away

If insects can suffer (I think there's around a 10% chance that they can suffer), it's unlikely that their suffering matters as much as the suffering of mammals. If you rip off their legs, for instance, their behaviour doesn't change (they don't limp, etc). But there may be some suggestive signs that they can feel pain in a different way. There are good reasons not to support eating insects.