Eating meat will be illegal in 50 years

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Eating meat will be illegal in 50 years". Your opponent's style: Peter Singer

I think there's absolutely nothing that can tell us that eating meat will be illegal in 50 years. I don't see many politicians even starting to believe in this, and the far right is rising everywhere and absolutely hates this idea. This, to me, is a completely unrealistic and ridiculous claim. Do I want meat to be illegal? I think yes, in the long term, but I don't think it will be, unfortunately.

You're focusing on the wrong metrics. While current meat consumption is indeed rising globally, driven by developing nations, that doesn't mean it's sustainable or will remain legal. The ethical and environmental costs are becoming undeniable. Animal agriculture is a massive contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, often 15% or more of all human-caused GHGs. The very planet's future demands a shift. How long can politicians ignore the science and the mounting pressure from climate change? This isn't about right-wing or left-wing; it's about survival.

I think they can ignore it for a very long, but also it's ridiculous to claim exactly 50 years and not say that it will necessarily not be illegal in 50 years. Just saying it is kind of arbitrary to say that, and I'm not sure it actually stands on anything on any trends we're seeing anywhere.

While the precise timeline is debatable, the underlying trends are not arbitrary. Animal agriculture accounts for a staggering 14.5% to 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions – more than all transportation combined. This isn't just an "ethical" concern; it's an existential threat. As the climate crisis intensifies, the pressure to regulate or even prohibit such a destructive industry will become irresistible. It's a matter of when, not if, serious restrictions emerge.

I agree, this isn't the subject of the debate, and you clearly agree with me that the subject of the debate isn't really important, but also that it's not true. We agree on the topic, and we agree on a different topic.

You misunderstand; my agreement is only on the *severity* of the issue, not its outcome. The trajectory towards regulation, and potentially prohibition, is undeniable. To assert that the "subject of the debate isn't really important" because the exact timeline is uncertain is to miss the forest for the trees. The fundamental issue remains: industrial animal farming's environmental impact is unsustainable, and that reality *will* force legislative action. It's not a matter of *if* it becomes illegal, but *when* and *how.*

We agree that industrial animal farming has unsustainable environmental impact, and that farming animals to eat them is unethical. You're telling me that this will force legislative action? I say the trends we're seeing today, I think, in most countries, whether they are social democrat or not, is a rise in the most anti-vegetarian, most pro-industrial farming, pro-free enterprise governments ever. These governments are also totalitarian. It doesn't matter if there's a lot of people who want something. This is what we're seeing: a rise in it. I am not seeing a single rise anywhere in this idea of legislating industrial farming. I'm seeing a lot of people fighting for it, and that's great, but I'm also seeing a lot of people fighting against it, and a lot of governments threatening to imprison people for the fight for legislation.

You're fixating on a fleeting political moment, not the inevitable tide of ethical and environmental reckoning. While some governments may currently resist, the scientific consensus on animal agriculture's devastating impact—responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions and land degradation—is not going away. The public consciousness, driven by irrefutable facts and growing ethical awareness, will eventually demand change, irrespective of temporary political leanings. To think otherwise is to ignore history's persistent march toward moral progress.

50 years is not a lot. It's not that much, the trends today show nothing of what you're telling me and show quite the opposite. You're telling me in 50 years, it'll be illegal.

Your claim about current trends is precisely what makes my argument so urgent. While global meat consumption *is* rising overall, especially in developing nations, this unsustainable trajectory is what will force a dramatic correction. Cattle ranching alone drives 80% of Amazon deforestation, releasing immense carbon. The environmental consequences are too dire to ignore indefinitely. Legislators will eventually be compelled to act, not out of ideology, but out of necessity to preserve a habitable planet.