maybe, but only because a lot of people would starve... that's a demand change our food supply isn't currently structured to handle

long term with a proper transition, probably not 60% but likely some lower double-digit percentage (maybe closer to 20?)

▲

wongarsu 4 hours ago | parent [-]

We grow a lot of human-edible food for the sole purpose to feed it to livestock, who then spend most of those calories on existing and put a small portion into body mass that we eventually eat.

Sure, that stuff isn't of the same quality as food grown for human consumption, but putting livestock on a diet and diverting some of their food to human consumption would more than cover any shortfall from the missing meat

▲

scottyah 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, only the rich should be allowed to eat the basic food group of natural meat.

	▲	triceratops 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's how it worked for most of human history in most agricultural societies. It's a traditional value.

▲

micromacrofoot 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

we don't have the distribution systems for it, I promise you it could not be reconfigured overnight (which is the specific thought exercise we were given)