you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Go vegan. It's better for the planet too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    being vegan doesn't help the planet at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    How does reducing land and water use through your food choice not help the planet?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    it doesn't actually reduce the use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Please don't tell me you're gonna bring up the stupid soy fields in the rain forest argument :'D

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    being vegan doesn't stop soy from being grown in rainforests

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

    exactly, because almost 100% of that soy is for meat production

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    environmental destruction continues whether you are vegan or not.

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    “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.

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It takes less land and water to feed someone wheat, soy or corn than to feed them beef, chicken or pork.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    what crops that are fed to beef chicken and pork are parts of plants that people won't eat for the most part. The same fields that grow the soybeans we use for oil are growing soybeans that are used as feed. The same soybeans that are used for oil are used for feed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is sometimes true. However, e.g., about 4% of the farmland in California is used for alfafa, which is just for livestock. Alfafa is also a very water intensive crop.

    Additionally, there are other uses that livestock corn feed could be put to if there weren't so many damn cows, so it's not like we'd be throwing away megatons of silage if it weren't for cattle.

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

    it's not like we'd be throwing away megatons of silage if it weren't for cattle.

    I don't think there is a better use than making food. I'm fine with that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    but beef, chicken, and pork continue to be made in increasing amounts. things are getting worse despite the fact that vegans exist. being vegan doesn't help the planet at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments