Is it actually? As far as I'm aware, it doesn't really make any statements that anything is moral or immoral, nor is it a framework that could be used to determine such things by itself, more so a statement on the validity of such things. Or in other word, is it really a moral thesis, or is it a thesis about moral thesis?
CarbonIceDragon
joined 1 year ago
I've seen some scientists talk about it, but not as a "mwahahaha, we're going to force these people to eat bugs!" kinda deal like some people seem to imply, but more just as a "this is more efficient for growing protein than traditional livestock, so there would be environmental benefits if we can persuade people to switch to it" sorta deal.
Frankly I feel like a lot of the discussion is kinda silly, advocating that there would be benefits if people try to replace some of their meat intake with insect protein is not the same thing as forcing people to eat bugs. The intention behind advocating that is not malicious, they don't mean just any old bugs but generally farm raised ones, and besides, people already eat bugs anyway. Plenty of cultures throughout the world have dishes involving them in various ways, and beyond that, even in the western countries that a lot of this discussion happens in to my knowledge, people eat very bug-like creatures all the time as long as those creatures live underwater. Shrimp for instance.
- sets browser to request the desktop site instead *
I mean, the United States has, to be fair, developed a food culture that emphasizes using a lot of meat, especially over the past century or so. It's not surprising that people from an area that eats so much meat, who go vegan, are going to want to look for ways to still make dishes familiar to them