“They won’t need to ban it, just depress the market by making it too expensive to produce or buy, due to regulations and conditioning, wait until no one recalls the taste or has any craving for it, then let it disappear. Eventually, the meat animals themselves achieve the same fate and will be gone.”
Never going to happen. Its like saying they are going to eliminate sex.
Its like saying they are going to eliminate sex.
____________________________________
I maintain that people will eat whatever as long as it is available and satisfies a few hardwired aspects such as taste and minimal nutrition, even if both are ersatz. Most fast/processed food already meets those requirements.
Promotion of ideologically-based diets has reached the point where, some few specific failures notwithstanding, there are large enough markets for vegetarian, vegan, gluten-free (gluten is the protein component of grain) to comprise significant economic sectors within the food industry.
It would be interesting to compare the market size of the above diets to the keto/paleo/clean food diet promotions. While perhaps healthier, these particular diets de-emphasize processed carbs to a large degree. The differences could boil down to the carnivorous diets being hormonally healthier than the ones substituting for animal protein and related animal products.
So, I can see where people will accept whatever can fool their bodies into satiety even if the nutritional requirements are only being met by approximation
Sex doesn’t interfere with the stated goals for humanity as long as it is not successfully reproductive and/or does not create a resistance enhanced with emotional (perhaps atavistic) energy by creating family units based on shared heredity.
To what do you attribute the promotion of homosexuality, masturbation, various forms of reproductive mutilation, and the near canonization of men masquerading as women, not to mention the concomitant derision aimed at *trad* relationships, natural parenthood and women who have not accepted the globally-approved definitions/presentations of ‘feminine’? Why is historically accepted masculinity defined as *toxic*? What drives the insistence that birth parents are inferior social role models?
I venture that you are missing the entire forest by virtue of normalcy bias. The world is being changed rapidly wrt every single past accepted definition of any given metric. I live in a place where I never see the variously encouraged alternatives to genetically determined gender (just as the ersatz meat is non-existent). But that doesn’t matter. If I consumed more than a smattering of state-supported legacy media, I would be as immersed in it as any inhabitant of a large urban area. People are not mounting barricades against the sex/gender education being forced on children for the fun of it. That particular resistance is fueled by real perceived dangers and requires a lot of energy and not a little social/economic/personal danger.
Just like ersatz food, people will accept orgasmic sex, in vitro gestation and any promoted version of *family* that minimally meets whatever personal need for intimacy they have been taught to expect and which is deemed socially acceptable/rewarded.
I have long hoped to *age out* before the goals being implemented are reached. However, from an historical perspective, so many changes all at once taking place globally have escalated the predicted cascade to the point that I expect to see the results within 5-8 years, right on schedule.
Do you see vastly successful sociological resistance anywhere? I could use some reason for optimism that the changes will take at least 10-15 years more.
As things stand, without such a successful resistance, those who eat meat that they likely will have to raise or hunt themselves will be as relegated to the fringes (some sort of Pale of Settlement arrangement) as will the genetically-determined, traditional reproductive man/woman>>family arrangement we’ve all taken for granted for millions of years.