[Captain Cardio]

Saying that "we are feeding an unimaginable amount of suffering into the cosmos" only makes sense if one supposes that "the cosmos" cares about suffering.

I don't agree with that the idea only makes sense if the cosmos cares. Depends on what your idea of the cosmos is.

I admit that was an abstract statement. What I was getting at, was that there is alot of suffering happening, that while we may not feel it, is still real and happening if you consider every conscious perspective of the universe. By the cosmos, I meant the universe in terms of all sentient beings experiences. That pain exists and there are sentient beings feeling it.

You can't make anybody care, but why wouldn't they? Why do we care about the idea of other humans suffering, and not animals? We feel pain sometimes, and we don't like it. It is negative experience in a fundamental way. We assume that other humans have consciousnesses besides ourselves, and we don't like the idea of them feeling pain, and we can see it on their faces. Why is there a prejudice against animals, that says that their suffering isn't a big concern, because they aren't humans? They still have brains, and demonstrate behaviour synomous with the sensation of pain. It's as if we feel no need to be empathetic to terrible suffering, because its inconvenient

We even have prejudice between animals. If you've ever seen a dog get hit by a car, its not easy to watch, because we have empathy for a dog in great pain. The dog seems to us to have partial humanity to us. Why do we not consider that empathy, when considering other animals such as livestock?

I've seen no evidence of that. Instead, I see some people caring about whether animals suffer. Of course, that may not sound quite as convincing as presuming there to be a caring, feeling "cosmos".

I don't presume there is a caring cosmos either. Different idea for meaning of cosmos, as talked about above.

Beside the point, really. The question is whether you would want to force people to give up eating meat -- or want others to do so for you.

That's fair, I admit that was off-topic. The OP did spark my thoughts on that and I felt a stronger desire to raise awareness of it in my own mind than go along with your thread, my apologies.

If there was no other way to stop animals from suffering to get to our table, sure I would make vegetarianism mandatory.

The reason people might not like that, is that they aren't ok with the idea of change, not that being a carnivore has any actual advantage. You could say taste, but if people gave vegetarianism a chance for awhile, they might get used to it and like it. People are not open enough to that idea, because they don't have a strong enough incentive to go through the hassle of change. Having not eaten meat for years (just me, not proof), I have developed a subconcious reaction for finding the taste and texture of meat disgusting, through no effort of my own.

On another note, do you consider death to be a form of suffering?

No, unless other beings have an emotional attachment (EDIT: or others were dependant on the deceased )to the being that died. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't care what happens to animals before they die. We like the idea of our fellow human beings passing away quickly, and not suffering, even though there is no living brain left to remember or relive the pain.

My debatable viewpoint:
If you were ever trying to come up with judgement of whether our world is a good thing, you couldn't go by your perspective alone. Just for me, the way I rate things, is by the notion that if anything is good or bad, it is related directly to what pain or joy it brings. Pain and joy are to me, fundamental good and bad things in the world. If there is more pain in our world than joy, our world is bad.