What is it exactly that defines 'ethical consumption'? There are a whole bunch of products that are produced through suffering and that can include the suffering of their envisioners. It could also include the ease of envisioning certain products that could be developed to fill market gaps. If I think in terms of Rustlers and 100% homemade burgers from home raised cows and veganism which take would fulfil the description of ethical consumption? I can perceive Rustlers as a company that offers a product that represents an intermediary step between fast-food cheeseburgers, home sourced and home effort based produce, full rejection from an animal welfare and continuation angle as well as a full acceptance of the existence of mass produced goods and capitalism if it's just produce that was a result of someone scanning the markets for gaps but with only profits in mind. There are paths that are more obscure. Rustler can also represent a company that secretely sources and distributes high effort products to those who can't afford luxurious foods. What if it matches the qualities of certain foods that are obfuscated as near home-made produce that are distributed at friendly and inviting structures? What if it's impossible to represent near home-made produce because certain businesses conceal ingredients and one of the most trivial case would be selling Rustler's itself at a pub for multiple times it's original price. The first argument for this would be providing the structure and atmosphere at which the produce is consumed, but what if some of that atmosphere is produced by the patrons. The most trivial case is altering the playlists of the music box which represents both a patron and an artist effort. I can see a worldview that could prevail, one that considers the amount of effort and suffering through which a produce is produced. Rustler could embrace a path that is fully just and the only question it would need to answer is the choice between life and death of certain animals. If someone goes incredibly deep into this there is nothing stopping Rustlers from forming a stance that represents the highest level of animal welfare - which would be keeping cows secure and happy until they start suffering from the signs of age and passing. A stance can also be taken on the covering material that seals the product from external factors. If my opinion mattered I could see Rustlers as an outstanding company that seals extraordinary effort and life stories into emblemic containers that are like cans and can be re-used with pride no matter which moral value systems is used against it. What if in terms of money consumers would gladly pay multiple times it's current price if it represented core values that align with the core values of the nation that produces it. If a disproportionate amount of capitalists are also nationalists then this is something that could be thought of national socialism that is being practiced that could overcome every ethical challenge and questioning. Can you imagine Rustlers in a metal container that can be used to cook that is of some higher price but some would make sure they afford it because it could represent practices such as crowning a month's worth of hard work. Can you imagine a meal that promotes a grand vision and could be had with carrots and mushrooms with triple fried chips cooked out of paper wrapped seals? If Rustlers symbolises something quick for workers and students who don't have time due to how overwhelmed they are how would it be perceived if it was the best of the best and all you need to do is to grill the ingredients in an iron pan or toast it in a toaster that also represents similar technological and 'continuation of our species' centric values? What if it can be ritaulistically prepared by those who can't afford but because of what it symbolises they could make sure they can always afford and if enough companies started filling these gaps the combination of them could form such a strong unit that it truly becomes the backbone of a nation. What if Rustlers becomes £7 or 9 but for another 2 I can get my carrots and triple fried chips that is already optimised to be perfect representations of the ethically unchallengeable. What if everyone could have a meal like this once in a while and multiple companies start complementing one another while also utilising side activities that are beneficial and eases away the pressure of financial viability or sustainability. Another view that I can represent is: - not wasting food - not supporting but also not being against the evolution of it - admitting that I can't discard because suffering and loss of life was involved in the consumable being produced - if now I consume this, utilising it to drive behaviors thar promote continuation for estabilishing higher goals or values - how would the disposal of spoiled tissues or rejection of behavior that results in spoiling tissues by vegans seem from the perspective of living beings that were de-tissued - if faced with the challenge, would a vegan still chose death over consuming former living things if they could alter the course of the future by converging things towards absolute alignment as opposed to splitting off or being culled? if animal lives are finite then it would be down to the animals whether they prefer to be cared for and either reverse sky burialed or given back to nature to decompose. - it can be universally agreed that there's no such thing as cheap meat but it can also be represented how expense it is and consumed in ways that may only matter to humans. If animals practice the consumption of others, would they perceive their consumption if being cared for inhuman? Would they not care? Would they prefer to become a part of their companions? What other ways can the differences in lifespans be overcome other than remembering? What if we just simply know that there is no ethical reason to eat meat but we know it years or decades before we develop sources that are completely pure and disconnected from suffering? What if someone who could have been key to progress a huge chunk of this is being eliminated from the gene pool by someone who does nothing but represent a hard stance? I myself have been thinking about producing MRE-s or consumables that are free of plastic and would have never considered processing meat that could have expanded into something more but it may have been never possible to realise it because it would've required the miniscule sharing of certain meats. What if I thought of an inverse act such as being sky burialed? I researched methods of being given back to nature and would have not minded being eaten by vultures, sharks, to fertilise or be broken down by maggots. It could've been any method other than being sealed underground and not contribute to shorter, non-human cycles. How would you know that animals would not love to contribute to far-reaching human cycles if eventually it could diverge towards the caring for every other species? Vegans can hold views that nothing should consume anything but is the universe an idealistic terrarium of beings that respect this? an alternative is seeing humans as malicious and putting other beings first. It could be the case that learning how to kill is the most important lesson anything can learn. If we continue long enough it would be impossible to predict the things humanity would need to kill if it doesn't want to go down the path of being a sacrifice. I would also challange the notion of only exceptionally intelligent species leaving their planets. Earth could be a seed where overcoming the atmosphere is an enormous challenge. If we consider manufacturing in microgravity a technological leap (to be challenged) then it could very well be the case that others would go down or went down on paths where they accumulated technologies faster than they could develop universal moral values or they could have learned lessons that were hardly recovered from. Nobody can practice absolute peace against the uknown because it is among the leading causes of termination. It is like expecting a slot machine to always hand out winning moves. Not everyone who discovered lived to tell their tales. On the other hand, I could also agree to worldviews that respect every living thing but parasites could represent a barrier as well as the evolutionary paths of the unknown. I could get used to the consumption of invasive species that endanger others in large enough numbers. If consumption patterns that spare as many permanent tissue bearing beings as possible were to emerge the consumables should be very well developed and advanced. If veganism was enforced it would be unacceptable to use plastics or films that kill in large numbers but less visibly. There are steps through this should be estabilished and the first step would be habitat loss due to human activities. Another technological step would be weaves and fabrics that replicate biomechanical processes. The disappearence of obesity could mark a massive spiritual leap that could far outweigh radical actions against consumers. There are large populations who could align with views that aim to preserve or cleanse eco-systems but some who could have represented ways forward would have not been able to make the required leaps to cross barriers without being involved in unethical or borderline unethical or even just questionable practices. There could be future innovators who for example come from families where meat eating is common practice and only enforce or clean their views once they're capable of changing things and are not overwhelmed by getting by or continuning. You can do good while admitting that there is bad that needs good doing against. There could be a small business who wants to be fully ethical but will rely on the distribution of borderline produce. A sandwich van can shoot off by distributing traditional meals to local workers but it can also start to push homegrown or custom developed products. A decent example I can think of is serving from a huge pot of poppy seed bread pudding boosted with chia seeds or plant based dressings made out of stale bread. It could be exceptionally expensive and cheap to produce depending on how the stale bread is obtained. Someone way much more creative can also delve into alternative superfoods. For example, pizza can be home made as well as triple fried chips. The point is that it is possible to create luxurious produce that goes through sourcing processes that are exceptionally ethical. Can you imagine the following? Traditional spaghetti (tomato and homemade pasta) as far as I'm aware traditional spaghetti contained no meat but I could be wrong Homemade Pizza with borderline saved ingredients Poppy Seed Bread Pudding with walnuts or plant based dressings Triple fried chips If someone wants to go further than providing high value for the poor, recipes can be developed to provide something that is not just a whole bunch of carbs. What about triple fried chips with jackfruit BBQ pulled pork, cashew cheese and black beans burgers? This could be considered as not the final destination but it could also represent an intermediary step 72 servings of 500 calories, 8kg of flour, 80 large eggs, 200 mililiters of olive oil: $37.60 USD. £26.54 GBP. It would come to £ 0.36 plus working hours to produce 72 servings of 500 kcal homemade spaghetti noodles. 3 hours of work. it would come to £1 to produce including working hours at worst case and paid at £15 / hr If a business owner participates and does his own batch then it would come to £0.5 + profit margin (i think but I may be wrong) I'm not sure how good it is because I've never had the chance to make it, but I consumed homemade paste regurarly that were produced by my grandparents and it's a massive difference even if it's not fresh. Not giving a shit about these things is just an empty take, there's absolutely no way that if a business doesn't prioritise this they would eventually not be better off in every single sense unless it's working against it's own self interest. Some protein bars are just dates mixed with cocoa and seeds.