jerkface

They wouldn't, though. Meat is a method of refining vast quantities of cheap, safe, largely sustainable plant products into a small amount of expensive, harmful and unsustainable luxury goods. If we stopped producing meat, not only would ranchers and slaughterhouse workers be out of work, but so would the majority of the plant producers. Most of the food we grow is fed to livestock. We would only be able to use a fraction of that plant production in a post-meat world, unless we started exploiting new industrial uses for plants or something.

At least you can still dog whistle your virtue signalling and identity politics.

Aren't most dairies in India (I presume) owned by people who aren't Hindu, like Sikhs? A billion Indians cannot consume dairy every single day without unholy things being done to cattle. Maybe you get milk from the one dairy in India that miraculously doesn't abuse cattle, but that means someone else can't get their milk there and has to use the cruel stuff.

Oof. Five USD a can. They really know they've got us by the nerve endings.

https://veganpsychologist.com/2017/09/09/do-you-suffer-from-vystopia/

Except that, E = 1/2 m v^2. You can't get rid of that m. All else being equal, lethality scales linearly with vehicle weight. The safety features that exist are still for the occupants; there are crumple zones for decelerating another vehicle hitting head on, not foam padding for protecting pedestrians. Some features of trucks are extra bad for impacts, but a heavy EV is going to be worse than the same frame with less mass.

Don't need legislation. Simply needed mechanical sorting. Place barriers only reasonably-sized vehicles can fit through without being damaged. Added bonuses: traffic calming, driver competency testing.

Since currently I pay for roads in my property taxes AT THE SAME RATE AS EVERY MOTORIST, this would result in a tremendous household savings for me.