Yeah... that was my point. Meat for humans in the contemporary era should cost more, there should be far less consumption per capita, and meat producers shouldn't be so cruel to the animals. However, some of us enjoy animal flesh. Some of us are in fact healthier when we consume it. We can consume animal flesh in a better way.
Do you consider animals (other than homo sapiens) "people" with "natural rights" to life?
If so, then there's no way for ethical animal husbandry for human consumption.
However, my opinion is that we homo sapiens are animals, along with other ancient hominids and current high primates, and we are omnivorous predators. Our prey's opinion on its right to life is inconsequential to whether we kill it to eat it or not.
Hypothetically similar to a brown bear hunting hikers along a trail through Yellowstone. The bear doesn't care if a hiker wants to live or not; it wants to eat the human.
Edit: Wrong article fixed. But yeah, so pretentious.
Red meat is a complete source of dietary amino acids, meaning it contains all essential amino acids (EAAs), and in addition, it contains all the non-essential amino acids (NEAAs). Red meat is also the most abundant source of bioavailable heme-iron essential for muscle growth and cardiovascular health.
Finally, red meat may also be situationally more beneficial to some groups than others, particularly in the cases of sex and aging. For pregnant women, increases in red meat consumption may be beneficial to increase the intake of semi-essential amino acids, while in the elderly, increases in red meat consumption may better preserve muscle mass compared with other dietary protein sources.
I enjoy beef for its flavor, culinary versatility in cuisine, and its natural complex amino acid density compared to other protein sources.
That said, the mass production of beef is a public health and environmental crisis. What I pay for "ethically" sourced beef is what it should be priced at per gram in every market, if I were calling the shots.
The concept behind the proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is found in the ancient Sanskrit treatise Arthashastra, attributed to Kautilya (also known as Chanakya), a political philosopher and advisor to the Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta I.
This treatise, dating to around the 4th century BC, outlines statecraft, military strategy, and economic policy, and it formalizes the strategic idea that a ruler's enemy is the natural ally of a neighboring power that is itself threatened by the same conqueror.
Specifically, Kautilya describes a king whose territory borders that of an enemy as a natural ally of the conqueror, because they are separated from the conqueror only by the enemy.
This strategic framework, known as Rajamandala or the "circle of kings," was used to inform foreign policy and alliances in ancient India.
Everyone (at least in the West) seems to know about tank man, but there's another story that's not as widely known and I never understood why. It shines a whole new light on this and explains why the Chinese government is so heavy handed when it comes to this subject. It was more than just another autocratic crackdown on protestors, which, while terrible, are par for the course.
A good chunk of military units sent in to squash the protestors refused to carry out their orders, refused to brutalize and kill their countrymen. Some actively joined in on the protests, then units sent in to put a stop it joined in as well. This terrified the Chinese leadership so they sent in the 27th army group, largely comprised of illiterate peasant farmers with no connection to Beijing or its people, headed by a politically reliable officer. The 27th army group then proceeded to massacre everyone, not 'just' students and protestors, but their own comrades in arms, other PLA soldiers.
Read the British embassy report and tell me it doesn't completely change your perspective. The CCP wants everyone to think this was just another protest, no big deal. It wasn't, it was the time they almost lost control, and they know it. It's why they're so fearful.
EDIT: Pressed the wrong button and accidentally deleted this comment. Fortunately, Lemmy let's you "undelete".
Also, the unsurprising "whataboutism" from CCP apologists notwithstanding, it's important for other folks to see that, despite "the west" being the techno-feudalist monsters they are, the CCP, the Iranian theocracy, the DPRK, and Putin's russian imperial revivalist government are not the "noble opposition" that the perpetually butt-hurt temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting will make them out to be. Anyone who says "I'm/We're in charge forever," should be ridiculed and held in the utmost contempt for being the asshole bullies they are.
Here are the sources from the author (and I suspect this won't convince you; it's clear your mind is already made up):
This excerpt on Tiananmen Square tells one exactly why the CCP are authoritarians who should never be trusted:
Everyone (at least in the West) seems to know about tank man, but there's another story that's not as widely known and I never understood why. It shines a whole new light on this and explains why the Chinese government is so heavy handed when it comes to this subject. It was more than just another autocratic crackdown on protestors, which, while terrible, are par for the course.
A good chunk of military units sent in to squash the protestors refused to carry out their orders, refused to brutalize and kill their countrymen. Some actively joined in on the protests, then units sent in to put a stop it joined in as well. This terrified the Chinese leadership so they sent in the 27th army group, largely comprised of illiterate peasant farmers with no connection to Beijing or its people, headed by a politically reliable officer. The 27th army group then proceeded to massacre everyone, not 'just' students and protestors, but their own comrades in arms, other PLA soldiers.
Read the British embassy report and tell me it doesn't completely change your perspective. The CCP wants everyone to think this was just another protest, no big deal. It wasn't, it was the time they almost lost control, and they know it. It's why they're so fearful.
Yeah... that was my point. Meat for humans in the contemporary era should cost more, there should be far less consumption per capita, and meat producers shouldn't be so cruel to the animals. However, some of us enjoy animal flesh. Some of us are in fact healthier when we consume it. We can consume animal flesh in a better way.