"It's a single-celled protein combined with synthetic aminos, vitamins, and minerals. Everything the body needs."
— Dozer, The Matrix

While we share the spirit of Glenns theses in his article, we personally find Buddhism sentiocentric, thus short sighted (regardless of the flavor of Buddhism) and likewise the argument for veganism shortsighted as well. Our position extends beyond sentiocentric anti-specieism.

The common definition of speciesm is in regards to other creatures with central nervous systems that (we can be certain of) experience suffering. But even then, different anti-speciest vary where the line of adequate sentience is and which animals (and other species) are exempt from the list. Nearly all (but there are exceptions like ourselves) do not include plants as as deserving compassion. Yet, sentient animals are only a fraction of the the near infinity of species we are aware of. Thus, you are speciest if you
eat sentient animals, but not speciest if you eat non-sentient species. which calls in the sad use and meaning of what it is to be speciest, as the definition itself is speciest. Do plants not experience suffering? As far as we can tell, they don't, but is the assumption enough to take over plant species existences, their biology, their lives, genetics, reproduction, and be master of their life spans?

For the moment, we are, as a species, still caught up in the Ouroboros of nature that dictates that which lives must consume that which lives or was once living. (Plants are exempt but even they themselves prefer organic matter--that which was once living--to inorganic matter) But with lab growing techniques of organic matter, including vital proteins, fats, carbohydrates, and "Everything the body needs" , one day, maybe no plant or animal, will need to be havested, and butchered to satisfy the hunger nature imbued us with.