you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 1 month ago (33 children)

If you really want to upset people, tell them becoming a vegetarian is one of the most effective ways to reduce your contribution to climate change.

  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    you don't even have to go vegan, just dropping beef is great and if you also drop pork you've nuked a whole lot of emissions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (16 children)

    lots of people have done this. meat production continues to increase

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    Yeah, because most people refuse to do this and would rather die than be even slightly inconvenienced.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (14 children)

    regardless of your excuse, just choosing not to eat meat hasn't actually helped save the planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Sure, individual choices don't matter. My choice to wear a mask couldn't stop COVID either.

    What matters are collective choices, made as a society. If everyone stopped eating meat, it would help.

    But they won't. They'd rather die.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (12 children)

    Of course it has helped. It may not have reduced the global meat consumption, because sadly there is still an increase through other people, but it has definitely reduced the current overall meat consumption in comparison to the scenario of this person having continued to eat meat.

    Who knows how many of the people who have contributed to this consumption increase have considered reducing but decided that their actions don't matter anyway?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    it has definitely reduced the current overall meat consumption in comparison to the scenario of this person having continued to eat meat.

    this can't be proven. what makes you think more meat could possibly have been produced?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (10 children)

    As I've talked of consumption, not production, it is basically self-evident.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

    but consumption isn't an issue. all the environmental problems come from production.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

    I mean yeah, they do. And I also get that it sounds easier to ban the production than convince billions of people to change their habits, but the companies also wouldn't produce all the meat if it didn't get bought by people, so consumption is just as much of an issue. If we stopped the production somehow people would protest these restrictions too, so it is in the least very helpful if people give up meat willingly. And there really is no benefit in waiting to stop the consumption until the politicians do anything about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (6 children)

    production happens before people buy the meat. the producers can't know the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    But the producers look at sales numbers from before to evaluate how much to produce.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    they may do that, but they make their own decisions. my actions don't cause their actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago (3 children)

    My actions do influence their decision to a tiny degree. Tiny, but more than zero. That's why collective action is necessary. You can take part or not. I personally prefer if my limited influence is a positive one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    they have free will, and moral agency. you don't make their decision for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    So have I, that's why I accept that my actions have consequences. They do have free will but instead of acting morally (in my view) they choose to act with a profit-driven agenda (which they possibly believe is the right thing as they enable a free market for the populace). And as that is a calculable action, to me it makes sense to make the selling of meat less profitable for them by not giving them money for meat. I understand feeling powerless in this context but do you see any more effective way to reduce meat production or do you not even want to change anything about that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)

    eating meat doesn't contribute to climate change. all the environmental problems with meat are in the production, not it's consumption.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (7 children)

    If product isn't purchased, that demand is not there. Supply increases alongside it, and prices drop with profits. Eventually the supply gets lowered by manufacturers to increase market value.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    lots of people avoid meat. meat production continues to increase every year. the problem isn't with eating

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (5 children)
    • a vast majority of the population isn't vegetarian
    • a very small percentage of them become vegetarian
    • people have children
    • population grows and meat consumption increases because of basic math
    • hans@feddit.org: HOW COULD THIS BE???? Meat industry conspiracy!!!
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    this is a straw man. it's bad faith

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (3 children)
    • lots of people avoid meat.
    • meat production continues to increase every year.
    • the problem isn't with eating

    Literally word for word what you said. Basic math disproves this. 100 people in the world, 10 are vegetarian, meat industry needs to feed 90 meat eaters. Each person has 2 kids, all children of vegetarians are magically vegetarians. Now there are 300 people. Let's say 50 of those meat eaters go vegetarian (way more percentage wise than in reality) The meat industry has to provide food for 220 meat eaters. Meat industry get bigger.

    This is a strawman

    You have no idea what that means, apparently. Something you don't like hearing doesn't make it a straw man.

    There are a thousand problems with the meat industry, most of the world could and should be vegetarian. I am one. Throwing one liners around that is blatantly incorrect doesn't help the cause. It actively hurts it when people see through the bullshit and think then the idea behind it is bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    •hans@feddit.org: HOW COULD THIS BE???? Meat industry conspiracy!!!

    this is a straw man. your restating my position in a silly my way to make it sound bad. it's the very definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago

    you seem to understand that being vegetarian hasn't actually reduced the amount of meat produced, and you haven't disputed that the environmental issues are from the production. you're just angrily agreeing with me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)