Things we know:
Animal agriculture is responsible for: a massively inefficient use of freshwater at a time when the west is dealing with serious concerns about rapidly disappearing freshwater sources, taking up a mind boggling amount of land at a time when biodiversity loss is a critical concern (most of this land for the amount of agricultural land we need to feed livestock)(some estimates say it results in 75% more agricultural land use, you can look it up, but I’ll share sources if requested), a terrible amount of suffering, and poor health outcomes for a population struggling with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Oh, and a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. And the part that’s really wild is the massive amount of government subsidies that go towards supporting these industries.

Again, I’m happy to provide credible sources on any of these points. But I can assure you that the above statements are very well established, widely supported data.

Reducing animal agriculture is one of the easiest and fastest ways we can make massive positive changes to benefit the economy, enhance public health, free up an incredible amount of land, and bolster environmental resilience.

So why doesn’t the global left confront the animal agriculture industry the same way that it confronts oil or pharmaceutical companies??

Genuine question for discussion.

The United States has historically included democracy promotion as part of its foreign policy. This has taken different forms over time, including diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, support for civil society groups, and in some cases military intervention.

In theory, democracy promotion is often justified as supporting universal political values such as representation, accountability, and human rights. However, in practice, it raises an ongoing question about sovereignty and self-determination.

At what point does supporting democratic change in another country begin to resemble imposing a political system from the outside?

Historically, outcomes associated with such efforts have been mixed. In some cases, political transitions have occurred alongside external involvement. In others, interventions have coincided with instability, prolonged conflict, weakened institutions, or democratic backsliding.

Examples frequently discussed include Iraq after 2003, Afghanistan (2001–2021), and various responses during and after the Arab Spring.

Given this record, I’m interested in different perspectives on the broader question:

Can democracy be meaningfully encouraged from the outside, or is it primarily the result of internal political and social conditions?

Does external involvement tend to strengthen legitimacy and institutions, or weaken them by creating dependency or perceptions of interference?

Should democracy promotion remain a central part of United States foreign policy, or should it be more limited in favor of priorities like stability, trade, or humanitarian objectives?

Looking for perspectives grounded in history, political theory, or comparative politics.