3 ms·
> it's practically immoral to eat in a way that wouldn't be sustainable if everyone else did. Why would that be immoral if you have negligible negative impact?
by effie 7y ago
> it's practically immoral to eat in a way that wouldn't be sustainable if everyone else did.
Why would that be immoral if you have negligible negative impact? It would only be a problem if everybody else will begin doing it. Which does not happen. Having children, hunting in the woods, owning a big house. Eating meat. Not being a universal example for every person is not immoral. People have different needs, and one person has more impact on the environment than other (but usually still negligible). If you want to limit yourself in this particular way, fine, but this isn't particularly moral thing to do. It is more of a feel-good thing to do.
- steve_adams_86 7y agoI see where you're coming from and I largely agree. In fact if we do go hunting, we will eat meat. Obviously if everyone near me was hunting for meat, the forest would be emptied in no time. But they don't, so the impact is still less than buying beef for example so I think that's acceptable. I also hunt for fish and crustaceans when I dive, which wouldn't be sustainable if everyone else did. I suppose my desire is partially to exit a commercial food system that I know is unsustainable. That system doesn't look like it will become sustainable any time soon, and I don't want to vote for it with my dollars and contribute to the issue with each meal. I also don't necessarily do it to feel good. It feels bad at times, otherwise neutral. It feels like doing too little. There's no warm fuzzy feeling from half measures like this. I wish I could do more, but I struggle to figure out how.