4 ms·

So you put down OP saying their post is conspiracy theory nonsense, then support pretty much the premise of their post by outlining that you hope US gov't regul

So you put down OP saying their post is conspiracy theory nonsense, then support pretty much the premise of their post by outlining that you hope US gov't regulations change to point that meat becomes harder to access and consume. There is pretty clearly a desire to cut overall consumption X% among the proles to fight climate change, meat and transportation in particular. There's some effort to come up with technological substitutes but at the end of the day, this desire is strong enough that a "war" is being fought culturally, politically, economically with subsidies, whatever it takes to make it happen without causing a revolt among the working class, cause as of today the substitutes are too expensive or inadequate and quality of life will take a hit as a result.

iforgotpassword 4y ago
The premise of GP was that it already happened. OP said it didn't, but they think it should. I don't think that supports the premise really.
giantg2 4y ago
The question in my mind is should we restrict quality of life, or restrict population to allow for individuals to live the quality of live they desire? We have limited resources and I think we're overpopulated. I wonder what the morality/ethics are of bringing more people into the world while restricting their quality of life and freedom to make choices.
- tomp 4y ago
  The areas with highest quality of life have declining population, so your premise is flawed. Obviously the solution is to increase our resource usage. If we had abundant clean energy (e.g. nuclear, maybe even wind/solar) none of this would be a problem.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "The areas with highest quality of life have declining population, so your premise is flawed." Which premise, and how so? "Obviously the solution is to increase our resource usage. If we had abundant clean energy (e.g. nuclear, maybe even wind/solar) none of this would be a problem." I fail to see how this solves all our problems. How does this replace things like metals, plastics, all agricultural products, over fishing, deforestation, etc?
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Implying eating non-meat proteins is a de facto reduction in quality of life, while limiting other people’s birth rates is not… uh huh…
  - giantg2 4y ago
    That wasn't the implication. Limiting birth rates would be a reduction in quality of life. However, there's a trade off. If there are multiple daily quality of life restrictions, then those could outweigh the singular restriction on reproduction. Also, the reproductive choice has consequences, potentially negative ones, on the others who are already living. If we want to discuss limiting diets, vehicles, housing, and all other things that are tied to consumption, then perhaps reasonable limits on reproduction should be discussed as well.

iforgotpassword 4y ago

The premise of GP was that it already happened. OP said it didn't, but they think it should. I don't think that supports the premise really.

giantg2 4y ago

The question in my mind is should we restrict quality of life, or restrict population to allow for individuals to live the quality of live they desire? We have limited resources and I think we're overpopulated. I wonder what the morality/ethics are of bringing more people into the world while restricting their quality of life and freedom to make choices.

tomp 4y ago
The areas with highest quality of life have declining population, so your premise is flawed. Obviously the solution is to increase our resource usage. If we had abundant clean energy (e.g. nuclear, maybe even wind/solar) none of this would be a problem.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "The areas with highest quality of life have declining population, so your premise is flawed." Which premise, and how so? "Obviously the solution is to increase our resource usage. If we had abundant clean energy (e.g. nuclear, maybe even wind/solar) none of this would be a problem." I fail to see how this solves all our problems. How does this replace things like metals, plastics, all agricultural products, over fishing, deforestation, etc?
ethanbond 4y ago
Implying eating non-meat proteins is a de facto reduction in quality of life, while limiting other people’s birth rates is not… uh huh…
- giantg2 4y ago
  That wasn't the implication. Limiting birth rates would be a reduction in quality of life. However, there's a trade off. If there are multiple daily quality of life restrictions, then those could outweigh the singular restriction on reproduction. Also, the reproductive choice has consequences, potentially negative ones, on the others who are already living. If we want to discuss limiting diets, vehicles, housing, and all other things that are tied to consumption, then perhaps reasonable limits on reproduction should be discussed as well.