Eating meat or not and its benefits for health and the environment, have always been the subject of discussion between vegans and non-vegans, for me eating meat is a natural act where as always the human being only thinks about their basic needs, but I have always considered these points. If we stop eating meat all of humanity, how could the growth of the animal population be controlled? It is true that there is a lot of human cruelty towards animals, but perhaps, would we have the tools to prevent a certain species from reproducing in such a way that we can not feed them or end up with the plant resources that humans are supposed to consume? I think there should be a middle point where it is taken into account that the fact that there are humans and animals in the ecosystem and that the need for their interaction between them is as necessary as the existence of vegans and non-vegans. For me this is the natural balance, then, if we were all non-vegan and nature would not have the ability to reproduce as many species as we consume given the population growth, and if we were all vegan then it would be nature who would not support having to support so many species.
As we can see, it will always be the nature that is affected, so there must always be the breaking point in each organization.
I believe that the existence of vegans and non-vegans is an existential natural order where we must respect each other's way of thinking, because both have their reasons for being.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: