3 ms·
Well, aside from the cultural elitism here (don't "teach" them about this), I think what you are arguing will happen is almost unavoidable in a globalized world
by stinkytaco 10y ago
Well, aside from the cultural elitism here (don't "teach" them about this), I think what you are arguing will happen is almost unavoidable in a globalized world. Withholding out of concern for the environment is simply entrenching the existing social order. It's a very "white mans burden" thing to argue.
Additionally, the best response is not to withhold meat, which they will no doubt come to anyway, but to offer a sustainable and realistic alternative. You can't stop the flow of global food, but you can make it cheaper and more sustainable. And cheaper will generally win.
Finally, you simply made a huge jump from "let's get them a chicken to live on" to "it's a terrible investment because commercial meat production is bad". This is not an obvious jump or foregone conclusion.
- hugh4 10y agoWhat's wrong with entrenching the existing social order?
- stinkytaco 10y agoIf you're the wealthy, meat eating country, with a higher standard of living, longer lifespan and lower infant mortality, nothing, I guess.
- hugh4 10y agoExactly.
- spoofball 10y ago> This is not an obvious jump or foregone conclusion. You said it yourself it's unavoidable. I'm not advocating for withholding, I'm just baffled by the call for sustainability when it isn't. You can't grow 50kg of continuous meat consumption in your backyard - that's something only industry can do. One has to wait for the chickens to grown and then at one moment in time consume them. "white mans burden" - is this the main argument for everything? from white guilt to whatever? I just commented on how it won't lead to long-term sustainability. It is experimentally proven in China and plenty of federal countries of India.