3 ms·
If you are looking for a moral/ethical imperative to stop eating animals, then the IPCC report covers enough of the carbon and ecological costs of animal agricu
by moosey 8y ago
If you are looking for a moral/ethical imperative to stop eating animals, then the IPCC report covers enough of the carbon and ecological costs of animal agriculture that it is something that you should quit.
If you are looking for an expansion of "The Subject" of ethics, if you will, then that's something you have to do for yourself. To consider non-human animals for consumption regardless of the ecological externalities is an ethical choice, not an ethical demand. I have expanded my personal considerations ethically to include other life on this planet, as their success is required for my continued survival.
- joe_the_user 8y agoIf you are looking for a moral/ethical imperative to stop eating animals, then the IPCC report covers enough of the carbon and ecological costs of animal agriculture that it is something that you should quit. I wasn't looking but thanks. I mean, I'd say global warming can only be overcome by society-wide political action, not by individual choices. Collective action forcing different consumption patterns are the only way sorts of problems like this have ever been solved in the past.
- moosey 8y agoAnd that's going to require a cultural change - a cultural change that will be far easier without tons of people supporting the current state of the agricultural industries. Society-wide political action is definitely what is needed, and being generally supportive of vegetarianism/veganism, and pressuring politicians to do the same, is an important part of that process.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kaybe 8y agoI feel the consequences are a bit different. If you have ethical reasons, then no meat is ok. If you have ecological reason, a little bit (especially gras-fed or similar) seems ok (the only question is how much).