I actually think this is an apt analogy. Slavery wasn't abolished because people magically realized it was wrong and "argued with ideas" in order to abolish it. Abolition only really became a movement after the mechanization from the Industrial Revolution made it possible to envision a society where production could continue along, even increase multi-fold, without the use of chattel slaves. Despite what you think of Aristotle, he was kind of right when he said that "when the looms spin by themselves, we'll have no need for slaves" (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle)).

So carrying on the historical materialist analysis into the realm of animal liberation, it seems clear to me that no amount of convincing is going to change such a long standing practice like consuming meat unless there is a fundamental technological shift, not unlike how "liberals" in Britain and the North (USA) "suddenly realized" that "slavery was evil" only after their societies had started to industrialize. Only then did they "voluntarily" give up their slaves (and trade them in for factory workers, which is another topic altogether). It was the South (USA) that lagged behind because it still had a plantation based economy and thus held on to slavery. It couldn't keep up in terms of production during the Civil War precisely because its industrial base to produce things like munitions, rail lines, etc. was undercapitalized compared to factories in the North. I mean think about it, why did a practice that had been around for centuries, in every society, suddenly get viewed as morally evil? And precisely in those areas (Britain and the northern USA) where industrialization had already started to take off?

Anyways, long story short, I think that a technological shift in the base is required before there can be a change in the superstructure with respect to ending conventional slaughter of animals for meat.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

comparing slaves to animals is gross. you shouldn't do that.