537
Whats your such opinion
(discuss.tchncs.de)
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 07 Dec 2023
537 points (87.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43822 readers
880 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Eating meat and dairy is not sustainable in terms of resources and greenhouse gases, and non-vegan environmentalists are clowns on the level of people flying private jets to climate conferences.
I mostly agree with you, with the caveat that industrial meat and dairy is not sustainable. Communal farms could be.
I saw it somewhere, and now I use it all the time. If you need an example of why capitalism is destined to fail, just look at the cheese caves. We have to bury cheese like nuclear waste just to be able to keep its market value up to a level that makes it worth producing.
This so much this. A mostly vegetarian lifestyle with the occasional meat IS sustainable. People forget that before industrialization, we ate meat like once every one or two weeks. You could count the number of times we ate meat in a month on one han
this argument that non industrial cattle is sustainable is totally moot. please check the literature available.
I apologize, but I'm struggling to catch your meaning.
it's not because a product is not made in a industrial fashion that it's de facto good, sustainable or eco friendly. it's like calling natural stuff better than chemical stuff. it's just a common bias.
you can't get meat without giving a lot of proteins to an animal. at the end if you end up eating this protein instead of giving it to the animal to grow tissue you always will win in efficiency.
some will argue that we can't eat grass. that's right we can't. but with all things considered if we eat proteins from plants we can digest, the balance will always be positive, regarding CO2 emissions, natural ressources being wasted like soil and water, and naturally the cruelty.
some will argue that prairies are stocking CO2. yes they are, but the cattle growing on them will produce more.
some will argue that eating soy will give you boobs. I'm sorry but it won't. too bad if it's boobs you were looking for.
etc etc. the scientific literature is quite explicit on this matter. all that I know is that if we decided to switch to a total plant based alimentation right now, we would need a period of transition were cattle or fishing will still be needed in some specific countries with specific ecosystem.
Well the main flaw in your reasoning is thinking that it's an issue addressed at the individual level rather than a greater systemic issue that cannot be addressed by the choice of individuals. And on top of that you colpevolise would-be allies whose life you don't know, ironically playing right into oil tycoons and meat industry's hands
It has to be both. Our World in Data puts it one way:
Or to cut through the flowery language - farms need to stop producing meat, and people need to stop eating it.
And that's cool and all but ain't no way you will convince everyone to quit eating meat. Especially given that it's not always a matter of choosing. Even then acting morally superior ain't helping.
It's the same discussion with cars, people will do whatever is most convenient and available, if you don't want people to use cars you don't go around telling tjem not to use it, you act on the city's design and public transport to make it so it is convenient to use the alternatives and then you start banning cars from city centers, then move towards the periphery, etc etc. All these are actions taken at the source. Sure telling people to mot use cars as much, to carpool, etc will help a bit but it ain't gonna solve your issues chief.
Maybe we can't convince everyone to quit eating meat, but I would hope that we could appeal to self-described environmentalists, who have a stated interest in making sustainable changes.
That's the OP's point, after all. That the science unambiguously states that we need to stop eating meat if we care about meeting our climate goals. Any environmentalist who learns that this needs to happen and still chooses to eat meat is acting against their own ethics.
But you're still pushing the responsibility to individuals, which is literally an oil company tactic.
"You eat meat? Guess you aren't a real environmentalist after all!" Is not the way we'll get more people to quit eating meat. In fact you can't even know why they eat meat despite knowing it's bad for the environment. And it still won't address the problem.
This isn't a race to moral purity.
Ok but remember this part?