Here was my response: (Thanks Blob, for the Luddite reference!)
I struggle to see a compelling point. Change happens, progress materializes - and it often (almost always) results in a shift in which many people (the poor, as always) suffer the most. A lot of people would suddenly be out of work if people stopped eating meat - indeed. The Luddites didn't like change either. And while the article points out the advantages (reduced antibiotic resistance, effects on climate change,) it also suggests that people not go vegan - only vegetarian, because 'things would be better' for the poor if we exempted milk, wool and eggs; which irritates me. From my admittedly biased 'go-vegan' perspective, it is important to note that there is as much animal suffering in a glass of milk as a steak. But the article does not factor in any such animal welfare concerns. As a whole - it seems to be a hipster statement by someone who knows the enemy but wants to keep sleeping with them. "Eat less meat everybody, but let's not stop eating meat all together - it would tank the economy! And forget us giving up cheese, that's not going to happen and it would really be bad for the poor." The notion that we can all do this together gradually over time...etc, is a little silly, as if somehow all of humankind were collectively able to impose these or any meaningful global changes on itself. This behavior goes against human nature - so much so I'm not sure it's worth the time to speculate on - but then again why not? It gets people talking about eating less meat for or against and the important thing is the discussion is there to be had. Though, ideally the writer would have taken some of the moral implications of eating animal products into consideration.
