>> I just said that eating plant-based food is a good way to reduce the
>> use of resources (if you dislike the word 'waste', but the only
>> difference is that one of them sounds better).
>
> There's no reason to reduce the use of resources as you suggest.
> People like the results they get from the use of resources in that way,
> and they're willing to pay for them.

That's exactly the point. They are NOT paying for it, they make others
pay. India exports soybeans to the U.S. and Europe as animal food,
while large parts of the population suffer from hunger. They pay the
price. In Brazil, they cut down the rain forest in order to plant soy
as animal food (again for the rich countries). Probably, future
generations will have to pay.


> > There are many other ways to
> > reduce the use of resources: not driving a car, recycling, etc.
> > I'm not judging anyone: I'd just like people to know that people in the
> > western world consume far more resources than is sustainable in the long run.
>
> Not proved. The main thing is, you and other socialists DON'T LIKE the
> way the resources are used. You disapprove morally.

Oh, really? First, the only way to "prove" that we consume more than is
sustainable would be to wait until something goes terribly wrong, and
that's pretty stupid, isn't it? But there are estimations of resources
and of the amount that we consume. The data is available and it's not
looking good; check for yourself, if you don't believe me.
I don't know about "other socialists", but yes, I disapprove morally.
Is that a problem? I disapprove morally of the fact that our meat
consumption causes hunger in poor countries, for example. This is
subjective, of course, and you don't have to agree.

Best regards,
Marc