3 ms·

You're right but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, though. For every vegetarian, vegan, or anyone just willing to scale down, there are h

by oblak 5y ago

You're right but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, though. For every vegetarian, vegan, or anyone just willing to scale down, there are hundreds who would happily consume more of that sweet subsidized meat, even if it kills them. Sorry for the rant

munificent 5y ago
You may discover one day that there is no "grand scheme of things", no final day of reckoning when all of humanity is tallied up to decide once and for all if we're a Good or Bad species. It's just individuals doing what they can with what they have.
- oblak 5y ago
  Well, I didn't mean it as some kind of grand cosmic spiritual picture or anything. Frankly, I am not sure what made you believe that. In any case, what I meant was that while individual efforts matter, they're dwarfed by de facto policy, formal or not. And, implicitly, that I am more than a tiny bit annoyed by people who desperately try to offset anyone's efforts just because they can. Consume, consume, consume. As being able is a justification enough in itself.
  - nickff 5y ago
    You said that efforts to relieve the plight of animals "doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things", but I disagree with you, as helping one animal is meaningful. I don't understand how you can believe that animals as a whole deserve better without also believing that each animal deserves better. You now brought up a separate issue, which seems to be rooted in a philosophical disagreement. If you think the 'desperate consumers' are causing harm, I invite you to convince them to change their ways. As an incrementalist, I see each small improvement as virtuous.
    - oblak 5y ago
      You cannot quote me saying animal suffering doesn't matter. That's not even remotely what I said. Please don't do this. Yes, I firmly believe my own efforts are easily offset by pretty much any of my peers who don't share my concerns. That's about 99 people out of 100, if that. I cannot seriously consider doing anything as "virtuous". Not a word I'd use unironically. We're just doing what we like. That's my take on it.
  - munificent 5y ago
    > while individual efforts matter, they're dwarfed by de facto policy, formal or not. My point is that "individual efforts" is really the only thing that exists. Policies and other structures are emergent properties of individual efforts. There is no change at the policy level that ultimately is not initiated by individuals doing things. A government or corporation has no independent physical embodiment. It's all made of humans making choices.
    - oblak 5y ago
      Oh, I know. But I have realized this war cannot be won for the right reasons. The vast majority of people not only have zero concern for animals we use for food, they will actively fight cultured meat and stuff like that for years and years. The war hasn't even begun! I believe things will change due to economics. Expecting the great masses to "do the right thing" is not going to work because not everyone shares your values on this topic. Price, quality and availability is what is going to drive change for some animal species.

by oblak 5y ago

munificent 5y ago

You may discover one day that there is no "grand scheme of things", no final day of reckoning when all of humanity is tallied up to decide once and for all if we're a Good or Bad species. It's just individuals doing what they can with what they have.

oblak 5y ago
Well, I didn't mean it as some kind of grand cosmic spiritual picture or anything. Frankly, I am not sure what made you believe that. In any case, what I meant was that while individual efforts matter, they're dwarfed by de facto policy, formal or not. And, implicitly, that I am more than a tiny bit annoyed by people who desperately try to offset anyone's efforts just because they can. Consume, consume, consume. As being able is a justification enough in itself.
- nickff 5y ago
  You said that efforts to relieve the plight of animals "doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things", but I disagree with you, as helping one animal is meaningful. I don't understand how you can believe that animals as a whole deserve better without also believing that each animal deserves better. You now brought up a separate issue, which seems to be rooted in a philosophical disagreement. If you think the 'desperate consumers' are causing harm, I invite you to convince them to change their ways. As an incrementalist, I see each small improvement as virtuous.
  - oblak 5y ago
    You cannot quote me saying animal suffering doesn't matter. That's not even remotely what I said. Please don't do this. Yes, I firmly believe my own efforts are easily offset by pretty much any of my peers who don't share my concerns. That's about 99 people out of 100, if that. I cannot seriously consider doing anything as "virtuous". Not a word I'd use unironically. We're just doing what we like. That's my take on it.
- munificent 5y ago
  > while individual efforts matter, they're dwarfed by de facto policy, formal or not. My point is that "individual efforts" is really the only thing that exists. Policies and other structures are emergent properties of individual efforts. There is no change at the policy level that ultimately is not initiated by individuals doing things. A government or corporation has no independent physical embodiment. It's all made of humans making choices.
  - oblak 5y ago
    Oh, I know. But I have realized this war cannot be won for the right reasons. The vast majority of people not only have zero concern for animals we use for food, they will actively fight cultured meat and stuff like that for years and years. The war hasn't even begun! I believe things will change due to economics. Expecting the great masses to "do the right thing" is not going to work because not everyone shares your values on this topic. Price, quality and availability is what is going to drive change for some animal species.