a diet that doesn’t include killing animals at all is objectively better.
assuming animals wouldn’t be killed either way, yes… but even if they’re killed for other livestock, that’s going to continue regardless of eating them or not so the difference is practically nothing
and also, something is better than nothing… i think for most people not eating meat just isn’t going to happen. subbing out beef for roo (and chicken and pork) is a very good trade, and i’ve switched a lot of people to do the same. it’s pretty easy to convince people to do that. it’s very difficult to convince people to eat exclusively vegetarian
threeduck@aussie.zone 4 days ago
Yeah currently the difference doesn’t amount to much because we’re still eating livestock, BUT if we stopped eating that livestock, we could return to a more natural Australia where shooting our national animals isn’t a requirement.
As I said, you’re right, eating roos is definitely better, but your argument is an appeal to futility, “I won’t be able to convince everyone to stop eating meat, so I’ll continue doing moral failures”. You could use that argument to continue all horrible injustices, right? “I won’t be able to convince everyone to vote for Labor, so I’ll vote Liberal as well”.
It’s much MUCH easier to convince people to drop meat when you’ve done it yourself, I’ve converted 5 of my friends over the course of my 6 years, two of which are from rural NZ.