76
Commentary: We face a world potentially running out of antibiotics
(www.channelnewsasia.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
76 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22372 readers
7 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
How does reducing land and water use through your food choice not help the planet?
it doesn't actually reduce the use.
Please don't tell me you're gonna bring up the stupid soy fields in the rain forest argument :'D
being vegan doesn't stop soy from being grown in rainforests
exactly, because almost 100% of that soy is for meat production
85% of global soy is pressed for oil. the vast majority of the soy that's fed to animals is the industrial waste from that process.
Wheree do you get your numbers from?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254608/soy-production-end-uses-worldwide/
They seem off my guy.
Weird to not provide real numbers for someone calling me a liar
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-soy-production-to-end-use.png
i can't click your paywalled link
here's what the UN's FAO says
oil is 17.2%. since a soybean is only about 20% oil to begin with, you need to crush 85% of all soybeans to get that much oil. do you see how the vast majority of what is fed to animals is called "soy meal" or "soy cake"? that's the industrial waste from processing soybeans to oil.
Its statista, they limit traffic. Try a different browser.
Btw funny you link OWID, you should read their article. It doesn't mention the feed as a side product of oil production, and I'm having trouble finding your quote.
Even if its 100% true and just not mentioned in any articles on the matter, then I guess large scale veganism still only removes loads of industrial processes/co2 production, unspeakable animal abuse and insane amounts - and i mean ludicrous amounts - of wasted drinking water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDUjeR01wnU
that has never happened.
Exactly. Thats the problem.
Global consumption and production are increasing
Do. You. Follow?
you can make any excuse you want. the fact is that being vegan has not helped the environment at all.
You seem to have a very tough time matching what people say/write and what you feel like they mean with it.
Let me rephrase the original claim so you may understand what the actual topic is you're so furiously debating: Reducing global meat production would be a net benefit to the planet and every being living on it in the long term.
Reducing demand for said production at a large scale WOULD (this is in conjunctive because it's still a small movement so IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET - we all know that) over time force said production to scale down.
Literally no human i have ever interacted with before you thought not buying a steak for a few months instantly fixes the world. We are painfully aware. Which is why we chose not to participate in that insane bullshit which causes all kinds of issues and harm anymore.
Thank you for your time and energy, this has been awfully unproductive.
that's true. what you said before was not.
i never said that.
Funny how that works isn't it
strawmen? not really. it's exhausting dealing with intellectual dishonesty.
I wholeheartedly agree.
when someone takes you at your word, and then you need to walk back your position to a much weaker claim because they point out that you are writing checks the facts don't support, it's you who is practicing intellectual dishonesty. compounding it with strawmen, and then rhetorically implying it is, in fact, the person who called you out who is being dishonest is the height of intellectual dishonesty. you should be ashamed, and you should edit the comments where you lied so as not to continue to mislead other users.
You still talking about the comment that I didn't write? Still implying causality you never proved? Cool.
you keep waffling about whether you lied, but I assure you, you did. you've even owned up to it earlier in the thread, but now you're backsliding.
You're hilarious. Nice try.
this is deflection
that's not causal.
environmental destruction continues whether you are vegan or not.
also what part of my comment prompted you to post that random response?
yep due to the meat industry keeping going regardless of a fairly small demographic quitting their products
so maybe you should stop lying to people about being vegan helping the planet.
It does, if enough people did it.
You're so angry lol
what makes you think you can tell anything about my emotional state?
Cuz youre lying about a very emotionally charged topic and calling me a liar. If you were not emotionally engaged, youd simply point out the data.
everything i've said is true. you are the one who seems to want to bend reality to match your beliefs.
i've provided exactly as much data as you have.
Check again bro https://feddit.de/comment/4912410
do you have a plan to make that happen? how many people is enough?
You are making the false assumption that your consumption is causative to the production of animal products which is, unfortunately and non-intuituvely, untrue. The only difference between vegan and non-vegan diets is whether animal products end up on your plate vs. in "cheese mountain" type stockpiles, exports, landfills, etc.
That being said, 'commie' is a terrible communicator if that's what they're trying to say. Going vegan does help to highlight some of the contradictions of capitalism and you're on the right track as it should be advocated for. However, the 'invisible hand of the free market' does not translate veganism to any reduction in farmed animals, land or water use.
“If you don’t buy it a company will throw it away instead” is not a very good argument to buy something if you even believe it to be true at all.
That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying the act of "not buying it" (even if it was a complete and total boycott) has no impact on the production due to the system of subsidies, futures, derivatives, etc. that is set up explicitly to make sure production continues. And therefore has no impact on land/water usage, suffering etc.
With the point being that it's a good first step, but if your expectation is it will change anything without first changing the underlying system you will be very disappointed.
Your argument is called the nirvana fallacy;
“World peace would be ideal; this peace treaty fails to completely achieve world peace; therefore this peace treaty is not worth doing.”
And I do not accept that.
it's not a nirvana fallacy. they're actually right, being vegan has no impact at all. a peace treaty actually creates peace. buying beans just means beans are sold, it doesn't do anything to change any of the problems.
Surely the societal pressure to change the systems that support factory farming of animals will grow pretty much in proportion with the vegan/vegetarian population? I don't like the defeatist attitude that our choises as consumers don't matter, at all.
It's not defeatist, it's pushing back against the wishful thinking that "voting with your dollar" is effective and your responsibility ends there.
I mean if they make substantially less money with product x they scale back production. Just like with any other product.
Really not that complicated. Obviously they're not tracking my personal consumption, nobody believes that.
Are u saying if over night the entire customer base of meat as a whole stopped buying it would have zero effect? Certainly thats not whay youre saying right?
Proof?