I suspect it's hard to find a place to watch it, but "Carnage" addresses this very point. I highly recommend it for meat eaters and non-meat eaters alike.
> Carnage is a 2017 mockumentary directed by Simon Amstell. Set in the year 2067, when veganism is the norm, the film looks back on meat-eating today.
The “future generations will look back at us in horror” and “we’re on the Right Side of history” are both nonsensical positions that have zero historical basis and function more as a religious eschatology than as a serious scientific prediction.
You seem to be claiming that making a prediction about the future is inappropriate. I don't understand what "zero historical basis" even means.
A prediction is just that -- a claim of what the person uttering it expects will happen in the future. The prediction is falsifiable (could turn out to be false). So what's the problem with making a claim about how you think the future will be?
You can see a similar thing with religion. The progress narrative says we will outgrow these supposedly outdated myths, while the actual data indicates that religion is growing, largely due to birth rates.
You may dismiss their predictions; you may feel they are worthless to listen to; you might have an explanation for why we shouldn't take such predictions seriously. I can agree with all that. But none of this makes my claim any less of a prediction.
My claim is that in the future people will have a certain point of view. That is what a prediction is.
I am confident you know that predictions can be false, and calling something a prediction doesn't mean "it will come true" or "it is more likely to come true than not".
I'm just puzzled about your use of the word "prediction" -- perhaps we mean different things.
What is a prediction, other than a statement about what present people think about the future?
What people think about the future is based mostly on popular culture and the individual’s particular life situation.