What you guys are talking about is the difference between values and their pragmatic execution. Yes, it is harder to live as a vegan, or even a vegetarian. Humans are obviously omnivores, and meat is a good source of some of our nutrition.
However, while I think "indoctrination" is too leading a term to be useful in a fair debate, it's obvious that culture has as much to do with who is willing to take steps to be vegetarian and who isn't. Go to Texas and tell people to give up steaks, and you're probably wasting your time. Go to Seattle or San Francisco, and you're much more likely to be received positively. This is because at least in part of values that people learned from their parents.
In the end, it's going to come down to economics. Either we stop the growth of humanity, or we have to realize that there IS no natural way to support 10 billion or more people. We'll have either to prevent reproduction, to kill a percentage of the population (through war, or a eugenic holocaust, or through secret viruses or whatever). Overall, a mixed approach is most economic. Some land simply is not arable enough to justify being cultivated by farming.
I personally think we are going to end up with giant food towers, starting with algae, and adding various genetically-modified plants to maximize nutrition. These will provide food to the giant towers of people surrounding them. Obviously, any kind of transported food is unnecessarily expensive: getting fruit from thousands of miles away will be reserved for the rich.
However, while I think "indoctrination" is too leading a term to be useful in a fair debate, it's obvious that culture has as much to do with who is willing to take steps to be vegetarian and who isn't. Go to Texas and tell people to give up steaks, and you're probably wasting your time. Go to Seattle or San Francisco, and you're much more likely to be received positively. This is because at least in part of values that people learned from their parents.
In the end, it's going to come down to economics. Either we stop the growth of humanity, or we have to realize that there IS no natural way to support 10 billion or more people. We'll have either to prevent reproduction, to kill a percentage of the population (through war, or a eugenic holocaust, or through secret viruses or whatever). Overall, a mixed approach is most economic. Some land simply is not arable enough to justify being cultivated by farming.
I personally think we are going to end up with giant food towers, starting with algae, and adding various genetically-modified plants to maximize nutrition. These will provide food to the giant towers of people surrounding them. Obviously, any kind of transported food is unnecessarily expensive: getting fruit from thousands of miles away will be reserved for the rich.
