What are the downsides of taking a relatively affordable good that people enjoy and making it a luxury good for the rich only?

Is there a word that’s the opposite of “tautology”? Because this question seems like an example. It maps to “what are the downsides of decreasing quality of life for most people”.

It is about choices. You gain a certain amount of money and you can do various things with them. You can choose to eat 100 burgers I can choose to eat 100 carrots and buy a TV.

Antibiotic resistance implies "killing most of people faster" which in my book is worse than "decreasing quality of life for meat eaters".

I do eat meat occasionally, but I generally I am not able to eat all that I like each day (think: different cuisines, deserts, etc.) so maybe people just did not try enough stuff to enjoy more than one/two dishes... which in itself sounds sad to me.

>Antibiotic resistance implies "killing most of people faster"

We will always discover new drugs. Because we are smart due to animal fats we eat and our brains thrives with.

Also, why propose quiting raising cattle instead of a more careful using of the antibiotics when treating animals?

Antibiotic resistance isn't pertinent to quality of life?

It only has been a "norm" for a few thousand years during the agricultural era for the poorest of the poor, who could neither obtain hunting privileges, afford to keep their own animals, had no access to food, work or communal programs, which provided them with some meat, or there were significant famines which made the culling of livestock necessary.

Beyond that I'd argue we should strive to minimize class-based access restrictions to food rather than artificaly enforce them.

What is the downside of the scenario where only the rich can afford to own houses or land? After all historically, the rich owned the land and just allowed the poor to live there.

You can't think of a middle ground between runaway antibiotic resistance and taking away poor people's houses?

There is. Just as the GP was responding to a comment about meat availability and not just wanting to end meat consumption.

>That's part of the problem. You wanting the burger has all these negative consequences for humans, animals and nature.

I'm not seeing how that context makes your comment make more sense. I am not seeing that they were charged with any kind of unreasonable extrapolation along the lines of "wanting to end meat consumption," nor why that would create context that sets up your dichotomy.

Now it sounds like you're saying you know there was a middle ground but were saying it anyway to make some kind of rhetorical point, but I don't know what rhetorical point you are making.

>What are the downsides of this scenario?

Apart from widespread illnesses, malnutrition, physical weaknesses and reduced life expectancy?