6 ms·
Unfortunately the documentary Cowspiracy is operating with massively exaggerated numbers (it claims meat is responsible for more than 50% of ghg emissions, it's
by hannob 6y ago
Unfortunately the documentary Cowspiracy is operating with massively exaggerated numbers (it claims meat is responsible for more than 50% of ghg emissions, it's explained on the wikipedia article of the film).
Real numbers from credible sources are that greenhouse gas emissions from the meat and dairy industry are around 15%. Which is large enough to take this problem seriously, but it's still far away from those claims.
I think this is harming the case. The problem is big enough to be passionate about fake meat. No need for exaggeration.
- nightski 6y agoThe 15% is globally also. In the US it's as low as 7% (all of agriculture is 10% - directly from the EPA website). We buy a 1/4 a cow from a local farmer once every six months. It's a pretty low impact way eat meat.
- hamax 6y agoExcept for the cow.
- fastball 6y agoIt's only 1/4 of a cow. The cow still has 3/4 to work with.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rsj_hn 6y agoEveryone has to cut back in lean times.
- leadingthenet 6y agoThe cow wouldn't even exist if it weren't useful to us. Let's treat them as humanely as possible, while not pretending they're something they're not. If you want to help animals, let's tackle the issue of rewilding and reforestation more seriously.
- handoflixue 6y agoWhat makes rewilding / reforestation a better focus for helping animals? I'd have thought the current situation dire enough that one would want to focus on the low-hanging fruit like regulations against the current cruelties and elimination of "Ag-Gag" laws.
- hamax 6y agoThis is a really strange argument. Even though you wouldn't exist if not for your parents, but you would still probably agree that they shouldn't have you for dinner?
- belorn 6y agoWhen animal smugglers are caught at the border, the police has to handle the animals. They can't release them into the wild, they can't repossess and sell them because of the unknown health risks and costs, and they can't keep them at the border for all time. The most common result is thus to kill them. Similar when there is an dangerous pandemic among animals, the most common response is to kill all the sick and those close by. Culling is the most common response to bird flue. For obvious reason we do not treat humans in the same way, and it would be extremely inhumane to do so.
- globular-toast 6y ago> The cow wouldn't even exist if it weren't useful to us. I hate this argument so much. For a start, animals are perfectly capable of breeding on their own. They don't need you. You are not their god. Who is pretending they are something they are not? They are sentient beings whether you like it or not. You might think you are superior, but your cat and your dog are certainly not. And who says that being alive is good? They're born into captivity, without a chance and many of them tortured for their entire life. But that's OK, because at least they got to live?
- briefcomment 6y agoYou could say the same thing for plants right? They probably don't want to be eaten.
- cecilpl2 6y agoThe Arrogant Worms had a good take on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM
- nearbuy 6y agoSince they lack thoughts, they couldn't care less.
- briefcomment 6y agoRespectfully, you and most people have no clue what plants experience. There were those studies published in recent years that suggested plants "scream" when they are being eaten or destroyed, presumably to warn other plants.
- sjy 6y agoThis is ridiculous. Consciousness may be mysterious, but the fact that something emits sound when you break it doesn’t bring it into the same ethical domain as cows and other mammals with brains and an obvious desire and ability to avoid pain and death.
- briefcomment 6y agoThen why don’t we just anesthetize animals before slaughtering them? Seems like it would take care of your concern.
- sjy 6y agoThe same reason anaesthesia doesn’t make it okay to kill humans. There’s lots more on this in chapter 4 (“What's Wrong with Killing?”) of Singer’s Practical Ethics, if you’re interested.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago7% isn't necessarily better, it could just mean USA adds more additional unnecessary GHG emissions to their agricultural production. I can't quite recall from the IPCC reports but isn't logistics, particularly shipping, far bigger a contributor. Not that we can only address the biggest contributors. So perhaps shipped soya/maize/whatever is worse than local meat?
- jredwards 6y agoI watched Cowspiracy. It was not convincing. It used numbers that seemed wildly exaggerated on their face, even before doing follow-on research. It also seemed designed to be emotionally manipulative more than informative. Maybe I don't watch enough documentaries, but it had a youtube conspiracy theorist vibe to it, rather than a measured, investigative approach.
- narrator 6y agoAny time there's a vegan angle to a scientific study or a documentary the standard of proof for me is much higher because these causes are often pushed for animal rights reasons.
- 3131s 6y agoWhat a dumb comment. I can't wait until all humans are dead.
- edanm 6y ago> Any time there's a vegan angle to a scientific study or a documentary the standard of proof for me is much higher because these causes are often pushed for animal rights reasons. I think that's a mistake. Or rather, the standard of proof shouldn't be higher for "vegan angle" scientific studies, because most studies have some background reason for existing, so our standard of proof should be high in all cases.