> apparently it's more likely to have an "elite intellectual class" in the background, scheming to deprive us from nutrients, rather than the fact that raising and killing billions of animals each year could simply have adverse side-effects for our planet.
I'm not saying some people don't take it too far but there is some justification here. Many people disagree with the assertion that current farming and herding practices are bad for the planet. The interpretation of "bad for the planet" is key here since those that disagree see this from the standpoint of the environment serving to support human life rather than protecting the environment for its own sake. Taking that view means there are very strong tradeoffs that need to be considered such as how reducing meat consumption or reducing fertilizer use will affect human health and happiness. Many people weigh those against each other and find that the benefit outweighs the harm and so argue that we should look elsewhere to compensate for those effects.
The conspiracy talk has its roots in seeing that only one side is being pushed hard in the media. This results in some pretty obvious media manipulation with some of the most glaring recent examples being under-reporting of the Dutch farmer protests, smearing of the Canadian trucker protest, and mis-reporting of the Sri Lanka crisis focusing on "economic mismanagement" rather than pointing out the precise policies that led to the implosion of their agriculture industry. As a Canadian, I saw with my own eyes the difference between reality and what reporters were saying about the trucker protest. That was a slap in the face and changed my opinion of our media from being perhaps a bit biased towards the current party in power to perceiving them as utter sycophants willing to blatantly lie to an entire country to serve their own purposes.
Those three events aren't unrelated either, they all have roots in policy being propagated around the world to attempt to drastically cut the amount of petrochemicals being used but those policies are cutting at the very foundations of our civilization when they are applied to food production and transportation of goods. You've heard the phrase "don't fuck with the money" when applied to business since it's a sure way to destroy the company, well this is the equivalent with civilizations "don't fuck with the food supply" if you do then the world won't be burning by 2050 it'll be on fire in 6 months while everyone tears each other to shreds over the last bag of grain.
I'm not saying some people don't take it too far but there is some justification here. Many people disagree with the assertion that current farming and herding practices are bad for the planet. The interpretation of "bad for the planet" is key here since those that disagree see this from the standpoint of the environment serving to support human life rather than protecting the environment for its own sake. Taking that view means there are very strong tradeoffs that need to be considered such as how reducing meat consumption or reducing fertilizer use will affect human health and happiness. Many people weigh those against each other and find that the benefit outweighs the harm and so argue that we should look elsewhere to compensate for those effects.
The conspiracy talk has its roots in seeing that only one side is being pushed hard in the media. This results in some pretty obvious media manipulation with some of the most glaring recent examples being under-reporting of the Dutch farmer protests, smearing of the Canadian trucker protest, and mis-reporting of the Sri Lanka crisis focusing on "economic mismanagement" rather than pointing out the precise policies that led to the implosion of their agriculture industry. As a Canadian, I saw with my own eyes the difference between reality and what reporters were saying about the trucker protest. That was a slap in the face and changed my opinion of our media from being perhaps a bit biased towards the current party in power to perceiving them as utter sycophants willing to blatantly lie to an entire country to serve their own purposes.
Those three events aren't unrelated either, they all have roots in policy being propagated around the world to attempt to drastically cut the amount of petrochemicals being used but those policies are cutting at the very foundations of our civilization when they are applied to food production and transportation of goods. You've heard the phrase "don't fuck with the money" when applied to business since it's a sure way to destroy the company, well this is the equivalent with civilizations "don't fuck with the food supply" if you do then the world won't be burning by 2050 it'll be on fire in 6 months while everyone tears each other to shreds over the last bag of grain.