Entirely acceptable! I don't take issue with the concept of money, it's all the weird hangups and abstractions of responsibility it brings.

I take issue with the idea that we can't meet the needs of literally everyone on the face of this earth, and then expand the minimum.

As far as grass fed, I feel obligated to point out even the grass fed portion could be a crop in that same field, but the yield to calorie count in that decision is the important part to me when it comes to production or pricing, along with not planting acres of stuff essentially inedible humans.

If you want more horror stories methane production from the combination of deforestation and cattle emissions was unreal to read about too, it made me genuinely queasy and I don't think it got enough attention.

But it's just one industry example of how what we need is going to have to inform our actions. Maybe we have to host all our data centers in Siberia, I don't know.

More importantly we have done this before (though nowhere near this scale). Under the banner of capitalism no less! You can have a prevailing socialist ethos to actually stop or change fundamental production of a thing, not extincting the species is a decent cause.

You don't have to go back to Jonas Saulk either, CFCs got obliterated from production lines when we spotted the problem, all of which went down during the Regan and Bush years if I remember right.

Sorry to get wordy, Cato in particular is a sore spot when it comes to watching reasonable arguments get twisted into the windmills they want to tilt at.