5 ms·

...and the USA is a large country of >300M people. It must lead in humanity's work towards reducing GHG. What is your point exactly?

by manux 5y ago

deworms 5y ago
This is a variation of the paternising "white man's burden" myth.
- manux 5y ago
  I fail to see how this is the case, but perhaps I'm missing the point you're trying to make? What you're referring to is about colonialism, whereas here the USA is very much incentivized to work within its own borders, on its own food industry. It just so happens that climate change is a global problem as well, and the USA being a large rich country it has more causal influence on the outcome of climate change.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  No it's not. The US must lead in reducing environmental destruction and emissions because it leads in producing environmental destruction and emissions (per capita.)
  - Zababa 5y ago
    Why does per capita matters? The resources of the Earth are limited, and don't rise with the population. Focusing on the per capita means that we shouldn't take into account overpopulation because they don't consume much, for now. That doesn't sound right.
imtringued 5y ago
Presumably 97% of cattle are dependent on feed imports. After all, it means the huge non arable grasslands of the USA that people pretend are super important aren't enough to feed them.
Zababa 5y ago
My point was that your comment was wrong as it only applies to the USA. > the USA is a large country of >300M people. It must lead in humanity's work towards reducing GHG Getting China to stop coal would be more effective than getting the USA to stop beef.
- manux 5y ago
  > Getting China to stop coal would be more effective than getting the USA to stop beef. Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the things we can realistically do". Both _must_ be done.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    > Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the things we can realistically do". I don't agree. We have limited time and energy to act. Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a problem is a waste, compared to using that time and energy to focus on a more important problem. I think focusing on moral imperatives instead of the most efficient actions is actually dangerous, as it's a denial of the reality we live in.
    - sinemetu11 5y ago
      > Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a problem is a waste It's a problem. Most americans consume way more meat than what they could possibly need and they do it because they've heard they need lots of protein which could come from many other sources besides dead animals.
      - Zababa 5y ago
        Again, America is not the only country in the world and is not the country that I was talking about when I said "beef in countries where it's not a problem". > Most americans consume way more meat than what they could possibly need and they do it because they've heard they need lots of protein I doubt that's true. Meat has always been rich people's food, especially beef, and people like consuming like rich people. > which could come from many other sources besides dead animals Is the problem ecological or moral here? If the dead animals were more efficient than the other sources (which they sometimes are), would it still be a problem?

...and the USA is a large country of >300M people. It must lead in humanity's work towards reducing GHG. What is your point exactly?

by manux 5y ago

...and the USA is a large country of >300M people. It must lead in humanity's work towards reducing GHG. What is your point exactly?

deworms 5y ago

This is a variation of the paternising "white man's burden" myth.

manux 5y ago
I fail to see how this is the case, but perhaps I'm missing the point you're trying to make? What you're referring to is about colonialism, whereas here the USA is very much incentivized to work within its own borders, on its own food industry. It just so happens that climate change is a global problem as well, and the USA being a large rich country it has more causal influence on the outcome of climate change.
pessimizer 5y ago
No it's not. The US must lead in reducing environmental destruction and emissions because it leads in producing environmental destruction and emissions (per capita.)
- Zababa 5y ago
  Why does per capita matters? The resources of the Earth are limited, and don't rise with the population. Focusing on the per capita means that we shouldn't take into account overpopulation because they don't consume much, for now. That doesn't sound right.

imtringued 5y ago

Presumably 97% of cattle are dependent on feed imports. After all, it means the huge non arable grasslands of the USA that people pretend are super important aren't enough to feed them.

Zababa 5y ago

My point was that your comment was wrong as it only applies to the USA. > the USA is a large country of >300M people. It must lead in humanity's work towards reducing GHG Getting China to stop coal would be more effective than getting the USA to stop beef.

manux 5y ago
> Getting China to stop coal would be more effective than getting the USA to stop beef. Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the things we can realistically do". Both _must_ be done.
- Zababa 5y ago
  > Fighting climate change is not a game of "what would be more effective" and ranking solutions (especially in between countries), it's a game of "what are ALL the things we can realistically do". I don't agree. We have limited time and energy to act. Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a problem is a waste, compared to using that time and energy to focus on a more important problem. I think focusing on moral imperatives instead of the most efficient actions is actually dangerous, as it's a denial of the reality we live in.
  - sinemetu11 5y ago
    > Getting people to stop beef in countries where it's not a problem is a waste It's a problem. Most americans consume way more meat than what they could possibly need and they do it because they've heard they need lots of protein which could come from many other sources besides dead animals.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      Again, America is not the only country in the world and is not the country that I was talking about when I said "beef in countries where it's not a problem". > Most americans consume way more meat than what they could possibly need and they do it because they've heard they need lots of protein I doubt that's true. Meat has always been rich people's food, especially beef, and people like consuming like rich people. > which could come from many other sources besides dead animals Is the problem ecological or moral here? If the dead animals were more efficient than the other sources (which they sometimes are), would it still be a problem?