191
Ban pollution! (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/climatememes@lemmy.world
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •