Killing is not murder.

You can't run the plow and be animistic.

Yes, I can.

Technology is not values neutral.

Yes, it is.

What makes you think that holding cattle had made the ones who first held cattle, "them whipping and beating them all day long"?

If people were animistic until the invention of the plow, did they stopp respecting the very creatures they have hunted and eaten earlier? Is to hold animals the way we do it today on an industrial level, inherently wrong from your point of view because it is assumed that humans in general are ungrateful towards what they eat?

Do you welcome or not welcome dependence? And is this, what makes a difference?

I personally don't think that way. Human beings are well aware of the fact that they are deeply dependent on other human beings, who are able to do the kill. If we, as meat eaters, put guilt and shame onto those, who do the killing for us, we are wrong in doing so.

We are wrong to refuse to be dependent on the animal killers and we unnecessarily shame ourselves for not being able to do the killing ourselves.

Understand the difference between murder and kill

Since we killed, and still kill animals for eating them, it would be rational to respect the killing nevertheless and respect it even more so, since we lost our killing capability as individuals.

"Even more so" is needed since the treatment and death bringing methods are "even more so problematic".

But to disrespect the killing acts altogether is utterly irresponsible.

That is the opposite of regaining and re-establishing respect for the killed animals for what they give us. But to put pity onto them, which is the opposite of respect; it is pathetic.

Now, if you pity an animal, it is because you pity yourself. If you respect the animal, you must respect the fact of it being killed for you to live from it.

Have you ever talked to anyone working in an animal farming/ killing / meat factory? You think the people there like their jobs? They have pleasure in killing them? No, they don't. Only a totally insane person would enjoy that. Which would make him a murderer, not a death bringer out of necessity.

Pathos is pathos, and ethos it ethos, to conflate the two is the human error.

To pity animals - instead of thanking them to have given their lives for us - is the pathos. To be grateful and respect that they had died for us, is the ethos. You cannot eat their meat and cry and suffer over your plate. But what you can do is to say a prayer and eat with dignity. Instead of making a fool out of yourself.

You do not come into the house of someone and puke out your

disrespect for both the killed animal and your host, in your zeal to appear as a virtuous person. Since you showed your very vice right then and there.

Becoming a guilt ridden populace, which now puts virtue on non meat eaters and evil on meat eaters is pathetic. No ethos to be found.

If you, on the other hand, respect the killing,

and you respect those human beings who bring death to animals on an industrial level (because that's what they do), you respect the killed animals as well. Why would you not? Is there any reason to think, and to feel towards any of it, without respect?

But if you think of yourself as a worthless parasite who,

because you are unable to kill yourself the animal from which flesh you eat, and therefore, unable to worship and be grateful towards what you eat, you will propel yourself and others into ever more guilt riddance. We can see this shame and blame utterance on a global level. The powers in place will gain that message from you and take you by your word.

So, ask yourself: are you able to eat in dignity and to honor the animal and to respect the humans who do the killing?

If you say "yes, I could do that", then do.
If you say "no", you must show yourself responsible for why you lack such respect and worship?

Since the era of being purely animistic changed into theistic worldviews and from there into countless different sub-world views about human nature, it is up to us as individuals to make the intellectual effort to regain respect for animals being killed by us, since this "us" are the very means we nowadays use to feed populations. But of course, we never lost our being animistic views in the first place.

The solution cannot be to not eat meat, but to respect the very fact that the killing is done for us by ourselves under such difficult circumstances (to which we will find better ways).

No, technologies are not "evil" in and of themselves. That is a logical fallacy.

But charging technologies with moral characteristics is a huge problem. Promising technology as a "general problem solver" alone is wrong.

A technology is both a problem-solver and a problem-causer, and nothing in the world can eliminate this fact.

To characterise a technology as unilaterally beneficial and unilaterally destructive is to attune the individual to that technology. If individuals allow themselves to become attuned and disengage from viewing such a technology as something that needs to be thoroughly considered before personal use, they may misconstrue it as a free pass for some kind of liberating purpose (on a collective level). This is never the case. Liberating can be true on a personal level, but it doesn't necessarily have to be true on a collective level.

Promise, advertisement and propaganda will always say

what for it can be used in a utopian way. They will always say it's for "the very sick and the needy, for the very disadvantaged and poor", at the same time though, they will say that this tech will "give you personal freedom".

Now, they can say whatever they want. It's not important what they say, it is of importance what you inform yourself about. Set your priorities.

---

I have not watched the video in total. So my handling of the topics touched is not exhaustive.