3 ms·
>"I don't try to impose my view of the world to other people." Everyone does, just not necessarily directly. Meat eating has consequences that extend beyond t
by ZenoArrow 10y ago
>"I don't try to impose my view of the world to other people."
Everyone does, just not necessarily directly.
Meat eating has consequences that extend beyond those that choose to eat meat. If our choices existed in isolation to the rest of the world, then we could say we didn't impose our view of the world on other people.
I'm not saying you have to stop eating meat, but at least do so with awareness of what happened before the meat arrived on your plate.
- detritus 10y agoI live in a city, rarely drive and have been consciously limiting my air travel for over a decade (tricky when my family and friends live abroad) — May i enjoy a steak once a month, please? Who dictates what spread of consumption and therefore environmental impact I am allowed? - ed Apologies, I responded here instead of generally..
- ZenoArrow 10y agoYou've clearly misunderstood me. I'm asking for greater awareness. How are you getting that mixed up with permission?
- Frondo 10y agoAs far as I know, no one's trying to pass a law banning your consumption of steaks. So this might be what's considered a strawman argument. As for what dictates the consumption and environmental impact, in theory it should be your ability to afford that steak. The price of beef, however, from calf to cow to transport to butchering to your plate, is so heavily subsidized all along the way--and the externalities like environmental impact mostly unaddressed--that that steak you're getting is the deal of the millenium. I'd like to see how much that steak would cost if it weren't subsidized, and its pollutant side-effects were properly assessed and taxed. Maybe once a month is all you'd be able to afford.