The new show from the creator of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul has surprisingly a lot more commentary about animal ethics, and "dietary ethics" specifically (note that veganism is a broader ethical stance & lifestyle of nonexploitation & not just a diet) than I expected. It doesn't specifically touch on veganism, but it does talk about vegetarianism, as well as animal rights concepts, and harm reduction / ahimsa / nonviolence - and veganism would be a logical conclusion, in fact they may mean vegan when they say vegetarian (like historical uses of the word). However, it makes some points and expressions that vegans might have mixed opinions on, morally.

For those unfamiliar, it's about a phenomenon whereby the majority of humanity (save for like 12 or 13 people who are unaffected, including the main character) become mentally linked in a "hivemind" caused by a virus. They all have the same thoughts and emotions as some kind of average or merging of all human consciousness (seemingly non-human sentient beings/animals are also unaffected).

Surprisingly since most humans today are not vegan or vegetarian, the hivemind in this show is. This can be chalked up to the fact that their empathy and intelligence is also pooled together and heightened, I guess. Sure, they are "pick-me" vegetarians/vegans, since they are okay with the regular humans continuing to kill animals, and will even help them prepare their remains, but they won't participate in the acts of violence toward animals while they're alive, and all animal agriculture has shut down, meaning the regular humans just consume the remaining animal products in storage which will eventually run out (unfortunately they don't seem persuaded by the pro-animal ideals of the hivemind). I presume that if an industry that exploited and killed animals was still operational, they also wouldn't support/contribute to it via supply and demand or in any way.

I'm not sure if the hivemind actually consume animal products like the unaffected, but they might, since they seem to be more of freegans than vegans - a point of contention for many vegans - and only really see an issue with harming animals while they're living, or affecting living animals in some way (which in our world includes buying/consuming animal products, but not theirs since the industry doesn't exist anymore), rather than using them in general in any form and potentially having a role in maintaining societal views around animal use (which many vegans believe has the potential to lead to more living animals being exploited/harmed/killed, or incur an opportunity cost of failing to disrupt those cultural norms by not partaking). For example, they would probably be ok with eating roadkill since they didn't kill the animal and aren't playing into a system that harms them.

In addition, apparently the hivemind have freed all animals from zoos, and "pets" (companion animals) have been "unchained" - an endeavor that the unaffected didn't seem to understand. But this speaks to larger animal rights values than just diet-related.

The animal related and diet / lifestyle related ethical explorations continue throughout the first season (which is unfinished) and lead to a reveal that is supposed to be a big twist, so:

SPOILERS BELOW

When we get to the episode titled "Got Milk", I was nervous. Were they going to shill for the extremely cruel and exploitative dairy industry (which many people don't know also kills animals, though that's arguably not even the worst aspect - watch "Dairy Is Scary" by Erin Janus) despite promoting vegetarian/pro animal messages? "Got Milk?" as many know was a pro-dairy campaign orchestrated by the dairy industry/lobby in order to increase milk and dairy consumption among the general public, including in hospitals and schools, and to influence government dietary guidelines to recommend it, and reinforce the societal belief/misconception that dairy was essential to health and was "nice, normal, natural, and necessary" (the 4 N's of carnist conditioning).

(Sidenote: This campaign ignored scientific research showing dairy was unnecessary for the nutrients and health effects it was promoted for that could be obtained from other/plant sources, and even that it was associated with increased health risks and diseases (not to mention ethical and environmental impacts, though those were less understood at the time). It was also criticized as racist for the fact most POCs are lactose intolerant, due to lacking the lactase persistence gene that allows humans to continue digesting lactose into adulthood, which is an unnatural mutation caused by privileged wealthy Western colonial civilizations (which arguably not only stole land and oppressed or enslaved the humans there but also enslaved the nonhuman animals too - both as part of supporting agriculture) consuming high amounts of animal milk products (dairy), since newsflash: it's unnatural to continue to drink milk beyond babyhood, or to drink the milk made for other species' babies (e.g. calves of cows) - which isn't why it's a problem since unnatural things can be good and natural things can be bad, rather the ethical and environmental and health and other considerations are, but it's just a fact. And also plants are cheaper.)

Well, it wasn't that. Basically, it turns into "Soylent Green" - in a similar late-story twist, though with major differences. At first, Carol Sturka (the main character played by Rhea Seehorn, aka Kim from Better Call Saul) curiously discovers and investigates what appears to be a penchant of the hivemind to consume inordinate amounts of dairy milk (which she found strange due to the level of consumption, but didn't raise an eyebrow about in relation to their pro-animal ideas - the regular humans are presented as being out of touch on these ethical/animal topics, similar to not seeing the value of freeing captive animals). But it's revealed that they're actually consuming "HDP" - human-derived protein. Of course this is supposed to seem contradictory to their whole ethos of being vegetarian/etc, and Carol seemingly accuses them of hypocrisy and is shocked/repulsed/outraged (ironic given she was/is an animal product consumer, and seems to have more of an issue with eating anything from humans under any circumstance, than with exploiting and killing living sentient beings/animals), but John Cena (playing as himself, but transformed into a member of the hivemind) appears on television to explain the rationale behind it. And this is where it's kind of interesting, but also maybe loses the potency of the message a little bit.

Apparently, the hivemind are actually more like super-utilitarian, freegan, jainists or something - to an absurd degree that entails cannibalism/"anthropophagy". They consume "food" products (a yellowy high-protein liquid) made from the bodies of humans who died unintentionally or naturally, as a preferred alternative to harming plants (though they are fine with eating fruits or parts of plants that fell off naturally, like fruitarians or jainists). That's right, they're "plants matter too" people (although there is no reason provided for this, or recognition that the current evidence supports animal sentience but not plant sentience, and that the consensus is they can't possibly have a subjective experience while lacking a brain and nervous system, or the fact that much more plants are used and harmed in animal agriculture - though that's no longer relevant to their situation). At least they aren't using it as a whataboutism and nonsensical excuse to exploit animals (and harm even more plants & environment) like many people in the real world do, and they are logically/morally consistent and more like vegans who care about reducing harm to plants too as one of their reasons for being vegan. But their solution of consuming already-dead humans is very questionable to say the least (is it really worse to harm a plant, including picking fruit off them, than it is to consume humans, even if they're already dead?) - and apparently it makes them uncomfortable too, despite seeing it as the most moral option under the circumstances.

Perhaps since everyone is in agreement, they're all consenting to have their bodies consumed after they die, and there's no risk of it developing into a system in which humans are soon going to be "lined up and farmed like cattle" (a paraphrased quote from Soylent Green, in which Charlton Heston's character believes that the system of treating human bodies as products devalues human life psychologically and is a precursor to a worse situation in which they are intentionally exploited/killed for it while alive). Or is there? As a logical conclusion of this course of action of only consuming a diet of basically fruits and humans who died naturally, the hivemind acknowledges that they will eventually run out of food and starve to death, which they've accepted. (There is so far no discussion of the possibility of the hivemind humans reproducing with each other to use one another for food, though it could probably never be efficient enough unless they killed the humans prematurely at a fraction of their lifespan (as we do to other animals) instead of waiting for them to die, and it would require engaging in some kind of mass-breeding i.e. artificial insemination (as we do to other animals), even if it could be consentual in their case whereas with nonhuman animals it isn't). But given the fact they're all on the same wavelength and can consent to whatever they all collectively want, maybe this could lead to them deciding to willingly sacrifice themselves and violate their nonviolence policy with a consent clause/utilitarian calculations about preserving human life on the planet and their apparently happy existence?

Some minor criticism: while these concepts and hypotheticals are interesting to entertain, it feels a little bit like an indirect strawman against vegans by suggesting that the logical conclusion of these kinds of philosophies/ethical stances would inevitably lead to extreme, unreasonable or unrealistic outcomes as an attempt at reductio ad absurdum - similar to how in the movie Okja, a member of ALF (based on the real life Animal Liberation Front) is presented as somewhat unhinged and starves themself in order to leave the least impact on the planet. It aligns with anti-vegan sentiments like "all vegans are crazy, you just want to eat "grass", might as well starve since that's even lower impact". Etc etc. Or, another common sentiment, suggesting that vegans care less about the sanctity of human life than nonhuman sentient/animal life (to the point of preferring some form of cannibalism or use/harm of humans over exploiting other animals), which is usually opposite to reality (not that we care about humans more than other animals, though some do and still acknowledge they matter more than our modifiable habits, but that we can easily care about both, vegans and animal rights activists usually care a lot about human causes too, and plant based living is extremely beneficial to humanity and the planet in addition to animals). There was also a potential jab/insinuation of hypocrisy at vegans by saying "when we say we care about life, that includes plant life too" - again, ignoring animal sentience and larger plant harm in animal ag. But maybe that's a pessimistic reading - and admittedly, the well has already been poisoned when it comes to the creator of the show Vince Gilligan, which had somewhat anti-plant based meat messages in both Breaking Bad snd Better Call Saul, making me skeptical of anything he explores about these topics and wonder if this is some kind of self therapy or rationalization for his own consumption/use of animals, or if it's more of a positive evolution of his mindset.

Verdict: All in all, the ideas so far are quite hard to find too much fault with and mostly I'm happy it's going to get people to start thinking and reflecting on pro animal principles and mindful ethical living - if the epitome of happiness, benevolence, harmony, cooperation, coexistence, peace, compassion and respect, is saying they would prefer if people be "vegetarian" (it's a step, if only they said vegan) and kind to animals, then what does that say about such an endeavor and how does it comport with the majority of humanity who claim to hold those values but don't align with them in their daily actions? #GoVegan

Edit: I just remembered I already had a reason to dislike this show because they blatantly used the name "Gen V" for their show despite obviously knowing (they do research for this thing) about the existing vegan/animal rights charity organization called Gen V, formerly known as Million Dollar Vegan, which has since been forced to largely rebrand as "Generation Vegan" and doesnt use the Gen V name as much anymore since the TV show is the most well known result for that name, while previously it was the vegan org. And Gen V is a good vegan-themed name too; maybe we'll still use it.

If anyone watches the show Gen V, which is the spin off of politically satirical superhero show The Boys, you probably were cringing with frustration at the inability to respond (almost like another Kevin Costner/Taylor Sheridan/Ted Nugent/Joe Rogan "Yellowstone" moment) to Hamish Linklater's character (no hate on the actor) when he made the argument that Australians love their national icon of the kangaroos because they kill them to strengthen their population. It left a bad taste and I had to say something about it. As someone who has come across this argument a lot, though usually in the American context of killing deers, it always pains me when people make misinformed claims that killing wild animals is somehow benevolent.

Here's the quote:

You ever been to Australia? Used to go with my dad when I was a boy. The Aussies love their kangaroos. So, every year, they let hunters kill them. They cull the population in order to protect it. For the strength of the herd.

Firstly I want to focus on the "positive" silver lining, which is that his character is a villainous utilitarian and he is using this logic as an argument to defend doing the same or similar to humans. And that's where many vegans would go immediately, is "Would you find this acceptable to do to humans under equivalent hypothetical conditions?" and then run Name The Trait/NTT ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZughsYK_qE ) or something if he says no, in order to resolve the inconsistency. But he already came out biting the bullet on doing it to humans unprompted, since that was his initial goal. So he kind of outed/unmasked himself as sociopathic before he even mentioned animals, and also demonstrated how his specific antivegan argument aligned with principles that most humans already find abhorrent. This is definitely an effective way to establish vegans/animal rights supporters (or at least people who are against hunting) as firmly on the camp of "good" and people who defend hunting and animal exploitation as on the side of "bad". Additionally and somewhat related, the character, who is probably a human supremacist (like most humans in the real world), is also a "Supe supremacist" and believes in the inferiority of humans who don't have powers because they haven't been dosed with a serum called compound V by the nefarious corporation Vought (where the show derives its "V" name from), which is a pretty stupid concept if you ask me. But it's an interesting parallel that he calls non-Supe humans simply "humans", which implicitly denies that "Supes" are humans too and raises them to a different category/level/status of superiority or value, which is exactly the same thing that most humans do when they refer to non-human animals/other animals as simply "animals" (I know even we vegans often do it too due to speciesist/carnist conditioning) and even overtly say that humans aren't animals and "can't be compared to animals", which actually stems from Biblical denial in evolution and the animal nature of humans and the belief that humans alone are basically gods/made in the image of god (which is why I tell hardcore atheists that they're paying service to Christianity and other religions when they pretend that humans aren't animals and spout all these Biblically-derived anti-vegan arguments). Relevant and based Carl Sagan quote: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/296126-humans-who-enslave-castrate-experiment-on-and-fillet-other

Now I want to try to debunk the argument, though I can't do any research for it right now so it's just going to be based on my existing knowledge, and mainly from a moral lens rather than fact-based/empirical. I'd love if any vegans would share their own thoughts on it, even if you haven't watched the show (you really don't need to).

1. It's a deontologically compromised utilitarian argument. It wouldn't matter if its claims were true, because it would still be fundamentally devaluing the life of the individual and prioritizing the "greater good" of the many. It violates core moral principles about the sanctity of sentient life. And of course, someone can hold this view and even apply it to humans consistently (which they would have to if they held it for non-human animals without contradicting themselves, as the argument from marginal cases/NTT establishes), but then they would be in disagreement with the majority of humans already, and probably themself on some level, who think their view is morally despicable and horrendous. And at that point it's just a joke to take them seriously.

2. The empirics of the claim don't seem to check out.

• Cipher (Linklater's character who made the pro-"culling" of kangaroos argument) claims that you're "strengthening the herd" by picking off the weaklings. In theory, this makes sense, though it's despicable. But that isn't what people are actually doing. In almost all cases, adult, mature, male, and strong/well built animals are killed, because those are the ones that are most valuable for humans to use, and because ironically even hunters usually have a hang up about killing animal children (but not orphaning them by killing their parents) if you can believe it. Very rarely are child animals or disabled/injured/deformed/small/weak animals killed, who would be the ones to kill off if you really wanted to "strengthen" the population, though even then it could do the opposite in some cases and disrupt the natural balance of the ecosystem (which is almost never actually natural due to significant human interference).

• The dynamics with kangaroos and dingoes (the missing piece of the puzzle no one wants to talk about), or other of their natural predators like crocodiles, wedge-tailes eagles and pythons, is very similar to the dynamics with deers and their natural predators such as wolves, mountain lions, coyotes and bears in the US. Like deers, kangaroos are herbivorous. Both species of animals are hunted by humans (who are their primary threat) and one reason often given is because their populations are large or they're considered "pests" (imagine using that kind of language for a different race of humans you believed was intrusive), but even know that's often true with regard to population sizes, not only is it arguably incredibly morally unsound and insufficient reasoning/justification for taking their lives, but is also unnecessary for achieving the goal of lowering the population (and in reality doesn't lower it as I explained, and actually can increase and "weaken" it by allowing more "weaklings" to "dilute" the population strength and eliminating the biggest competitors for resources), and even counter-productive and self defeating. The population of those herbivorous wild animals is "overpopulated" (in humans' determination, despite being by far the most invasive, destructive and overpopulated species on Earth ourselves) because humans kill their natural predators, not to protect them or even to protect themselves (humans), but to protect animal farming operations, since otherwise predators will kill the farmed animals before the farmer/slaughterhouse worker can and they won't be able to use/sell them. In actuality, ironically and quite poetically in an almost intersectional or karmic reading, it all leads back to animal farming. Humans' desire to exploit and kill animals ultimately results in even more bloodshed done to facilitate, protect and ensure those habits - violence begets violence, both to humans and to non-human animals, but here being violent and oppressive to some animals leads to being violent and oppressive to more animals. Basically "we kill deers so that we can kill wolves so that we can kill cows". Or in this case "we kill kangaroos so that we can kill dingoes so that we can kill cows". It's as ridiculous and evil as that. We kill herbivorous wild animals to supposedly keep their population down (except it doesn't), which we simultaneously increase and undo our "work" of, not only by those actions themselves ironically but by killing the other animals who are keeping their populations down, which we do in order to be able to keep "farming", exploiting and killing animals to sell products made from them. It's insanity. We cause problems with violence and then try to fix them with more violence and just make them worse and continue the horrific cycle.

3. "Strengthening the population" is clearly not the real reason or motivation that most humans have for hunting non-human animals, including kangaroos in Australia. So this is a front/cover story/smokescreen/pretext. It's disguising the true intentions with post hoc rationalizions. It's the same kind of "logic" (or actually I would say propaganda) as when animal farming defenders and the industries themselves spin practices like cow-calf separation in the dairy industry or farrowing crates in the pig flesh industry as somehow benevolent or in the interests of the animals. Or that CO2 gas chambers for pigs are peaceful and don't cause suffering. It's complete profit-driven lies, 100% false. In reality, people hunt animals, including kangaroos, mostly so that they can eat their flesh, or use or sell their body for something else (such as this https://www.rooballs.com/australian-kangaroo-scrotum-gift-pack - yes it's real and they're disgustingly sold over the country as tourist souvenirs) or for sport/some kind of absurd bloodlust or sense of power/domination over others. This is always not only a factor/component but the ultimate reason why any of this is done, not to help animals or protect the environment. In the cases where people are hired by the government or authorized to kill wild animals to carry out "population control", they still do it for other reasons too, they still use the animals' bodies, or they do it to protect vegetation or their farming operations. It's never done purely to help animals (in some misguided way), and usually not done for them at all - it's done in the interests of humans, not our victims, obviously. And it's convenient that only the humans are here to share their side of the story because the other animals can't speak and defend themselves (which neither can some humans but we wouldnt exploit or discriminate against them just because they're differently abled in some way). I'm sure that deer or that kangaroo that you killed wouldn't be given any solace by the notion that their "sacrifice" was supposedly going to help other members of their species that they don't even know. It's just as bad for them no matter what reason you come up with to justify unnecessarily causing their suffering & premature death.

I may have more thoughts but that's about it for now. Hope this wasn't too off-topic or rambling. Would love to know what you all think about this.

https://strawpoll.com/poy9kl5VPgJ

If you're vegan, please answer the poll question in the link above.

If you're not vegan, please don't answer the question. I'm only interested in hearing what vegans think about this.

To be clear, I don't judge any vegans for believing that humans matter more than other animals. You're already doing the right thing by being vegan, so that's fine. It probably wouldn't affect your actions or decisions in any situation, aside from hypotheticals that are extremely unlikely to happen. So I think that being vegan is compatible with what some may call speciesism or human supremacy etc - or favoring/prioritizing members of your own species - without placing a value judgment on that. As we all know, you don't NEED to consider all sentient beings as mattering equally, in order to recognize that non-human sentient beings matter more than "your tastebuds" - or your particular fashion preference or whatever - or than your mostly arbitrary habits that you can easily change, and when you can replace and meet all your needs with alternatives.

That said, personally I think all sentient beings matter equally. I'm willing to accept any supposed reductios that extend logically from this view - though I don't consider them absurd, I find them to be logically sound & I actually find it to be impossible to logically defend speciesism without that leading to even "worse" reductios that the majority of people would be even more appalled by, and which would be far more arbitrary and less benevolent/empathically oriented. But I'm not here to debate that. I just wanted to state what my opinion is on the matter.

I also think that the antispeciesism argument is a great and very convincing/effective argument for veganism/animal rights - it's convinced many people to go vegan, especially the "Name the Trait" thought experiment etc - so it's interesting to me when people are vegan despite not agreeing with those antispeciesist arguments, and I really respect that since it indicates to me that you extend compassion to other sentient beings without it needing to be logically proven why you should or why it would be contradictory if you didn't - it's just natural empathy.

Plus, of course, we often tend to associate veganism with antispeciesism, and speciesism with carnism/animal exploitation - since they very often go hand-in-hand, and I think speciesism is kind of a risky ideology for a society to believe in while simultaneously significantly devaluing nonhuman animals - to a status lower than a human's arbitrary desire to eat a particular candy for example, seeing it as a "personal choice" and "right of the human consumer" to do whatever they want to other sentient beings provided they aren't a more legally protected species like humans, dogs or cats - but we must remember that this doesn't have to be the case and it is perfectly possible to be vegan without thinking humans and other animals are equally important/hold equal intrinsic moral value, etc. Now, equal moral consideration - or equity - is certainly possible either way, even if you don't think they hold equal absolute worth.

Very interested to see the poll results, since I'm actually not sure whether most vegans think humans and other animals matter equally or not.

Just want an objective answer to the question, no trolls pls. Appreciate responses from vegans.

Every vegan has probably heard "Why do you vegans make your food taste like meat (animal flesh) if you're against it?". And every time it continues to astound us that the reasoning fails to reach them and it requires explaining, how the moral objection relates to the treatment of actual animals rather than to how their bodies happen to taste when cooked or to that flavor/texture profile being approximated/simulated/replicated in foods that taste the same but don't involve the same issues of animal exploitation etc. Or how such products would be extremely beneficial and important if the main reason people are eating animal flesh is for the experience, and if we can provide them the desired object without all the harm involved - while meeting their more important (e.g. nutritional, energy & health) needs as well - since that can mean potentially trillions of sentient lives of non-human animals spared every year if people can actually be convinced to use the alternatives as replacements and stop buying the animal versions, not to mention the much lower environmental impact, etc.

And yet these products continue to be demonized in the media and in public, whether it's making dubious health claims about them steeped in Facebook-y misinformation, criticizing their supposed unnaturalness (and often purely basing the criticism of them on an appeal to nature fallacy), or relentlessly mocking and roasting vegans for eating them in any number of ways - including attempts at revealing some apparent hypocrisy of a vegan who would choose to eat them.

With all this external information we hear and are exposed to constantly, it can be difficult to separate our own thoughts and feelings from it sometimes, since the internalization of cultural attitudes is often very powerful & insidious. So if a vegan started feeling guilty or questioning their values and choices in relation to eating plant based meat, there's a good chance it could be attributed to paying too much attention to what the general "trolls" of the world and society think and say to us about our moral positions, lifestyle, diet, etc. and letting negative ideas get to us too much, being too self-critical, etc. However I wouldn't want to gaslight anyone either as everyone's experience is valid and it's entirely possible to have an overlapping personal attitude toward plant-based meat that is separate or unaffected by whatever other people (mostly non-vegans) have said to you.

Aside from people who don't have access to this category of products in general, I know a number of vegans who choose not to consume plant-based meat, some for health or cost reasons, while others are grossed or freaked out by its uncanny similarity to real animal flesh, which sometimes leads to avoidance and sometimes doesn't. (This variation makes sense since some vegans or vegetarians have a disgusted reaction to real animal flesh while others don't). So there exists some amount of seemingly genuine sentiment expressed naturally within the vegan community that is questioning the soundness of plant-based meat for different reasons, rather than such ideas existing purely by means of some artificial outside influence infiltrating our headspaces, potentially from the meat industry itself (they do have entire social media campaigns designed to discredit their competition after all).

Plant-based meat is a type of product I've had a strange relationship with. Since becoming vegan, Ive eaten more meat than I ever ate when I was a meat eater. I was vegetarian (not yet aware of the reasons to be vegan) for quite a while before plant based meat was really a thing/became widely available, so I never knew such products existed that were intended to actually replicate the taste and texture of animal flesh, nor had I ever needed to eat them or imagined or felt a desire for such a product - there are plenty of great plant based foods available as it is. Of course there were "veggie burgers" and things like that (which apparently a lot of people want to make a comeback) but while very tasty and hearty, the purpose of those was more to serve as a replacement for the nutrition and utility of animal meat rather than be a 1-1 substitute for the consumption experience of it.

So the arrival of realistic simulacrums of animal tissue on the market was unexpected to say the least. But now they've become ubiquitous and often dominate the vegan options available at many establishments. All the debate over processed foods aside, many people still prefer more whole food options or other plant based products like seitan, tofu, etc. But the reality is that these plant-based meat products are extremely popular, mostly among non-vegan, "vegan-curious" or flexitarian consumers who make up most of the purchases, as well as among vegans and vegetarians. People enjoy them for the taste experience while also finding them a convenient source of nutrition (not that it's necessary given other options). Some might choose them over animal meat for ethical, environmental or health reasons, regardless of the public disagreement & confusion around the healthfulness of plant-based meat vs animal meat (& as compared to plant-based whole foods etc).

For a casual vegan or vegetarian looking for options to choose from, I'm sure it's a familiar experience in recent times that some kind of dish with plant-based meat ends up being the only "proper" or decent option available in certain situations (or you have a wide range of options, every one of which happens to utilize plant-based meat). So the veg*n is more or less forced to eat plant based meat sometimes as a side effect of its popularity & availability in combination with the comparative lack of popularity and availability of deliberate vegan options in general, meaning it occupies the little space in the market that tailors to the demographic that wants vegan options (which, again, is mostly made up of non-vegans). This is something I wish non-vegans would remember when they think about judging vegans for eating plant-based meat, not that there's anything wrong with it, but we often don't actually have much choice anyway. If the plant based chicken option happens to be what's accessible instead of tofu or seitan or falafel or chickpeas or whatever then that's what we get. Also, in many cases the plant based meat option is literally just seitan, TVP or some other plant based food but they put the plant based meat label on it. Sometimes it can be easier to tell that it's not real animal flesh, which personally allows me to enjoy it more, appreciate it for what it is as a result of its plant-based ingredients, and reduces the small amount of worry that there's been a mixup with "real meat".

I don't judge any vegan or person in general who chooses to eat plant-based meat, I eat it myself sometimes (by choice even when there are other options), though I feel weird about it sometimes. I don't think it's a moral issue, though I'm not entirely certain of that since Ive heard some ethical cases to be made against it but which are more abstract/conceptual, symbolic, very consent and respect focused, and strongly principle-based/deontological rather than consequential, pragmatic or practical, etc. And I feel like given the real, physical, tangible and serious stakes of animal agriculture and the potential for food innovations like plant-based meat to disrupt its market and save animals, the purpose it serves is potentially more important and outweighs the value at least at this point in time for the animal rights movement (even if a temporary solution that could be re-evaluated later on in a vegan society) compared to relatively immaterial concerns/objections/qualms or feelings of moral uneasiness about taking pleasure in something designed to replicate the experience of eating an animal's flesh.

It's more just that I wonder sometimes how many of us ever feel weird and guilty eating it on some level, because in my opinion, even if it's perfectly understandable, moral and reasonable given the situation we're in in society, it is sort of a strange phenomenon. I think about whether we're being speciesist or if we would be comfortable with a similar scenario when it came to a human injustice that people were simulating as a replacement for it. I think the experience of being a vegan in today's world is very surreal in general and navigating the carnist society while holding the values we do is quite bewildering at times, so we can't really be blamed for not knowing how to act or for questioning ourselves and our conditioning etc.

However I think the feelings of guilt partly come from internalized shame caused by other people (non-vegans) criticizing & ridiculing us for eating plant-based meat. For example, when non-vegans say that we're "fake vegans" or "carnivores in disguise" because we secretly wish we were eating real animals, etc. just because we ate plant-based meat. All nonsense, but it can end up seeping into your subconscious and making you doubt yourself. Also with all the negative beliefs that people have about plant based meat in general, saying they think "vegans should just get their own foods", preferring us to eat/promote different vegan foods for some reason and particularly being against anything "processed" or "unnatural" at the moment. Do you ever feel like you want to hide the fact you're eating plant based meat so you don't have to deal with either judgment from non vegans or your own feelings of embarrassment about it? Even if it's irrational, it can be easy to slip into these destructive thought patterns about it. We shouldn't feel bad for eating WHAT we want (not who we want - and animals are "who"s, not "what"s). Or should we?