6 ms·
Mass farming destroyed this ecosystem not cows. We need regulations that enables swift, painful liability for any ecosystem altering industries. CO2, PFAS, BPA,
by JoshTko 4y ago
Mass farming destroyed this ecosystem not cows. We need regulations that enables swift, painful liability for any ecosystem altering industries. CO2, PFAS, BPA, antibiotic resistance, heavy metal contamination, seems like we are barreling towards a uninhabitable hellscape within in our lifetimes.
- benatkin 4y agoI blame Costco. They're at the forefront of making overconsumption fashionable.
- nocsi 4y agoHow do they do that exactly? It’s not like they advertise or fearmonger. It’s consumers devolving down to their survival instincts.
- bhargav 4y agoWalmart is almost 3x sales than Costco [1] 1: https://images.app.goo.gl/ZzusMw52oLywXopP6 https://images.app.goo.gl/ZzusMw52oLywXopP6
- paulryanrogers 4y agoWalmart is most famous for shrink-flation per unit sold. Costco sells bulk units. IME, from a household perspective Costco incentivizes getting more than you need and Walmart on getting the least you're willing to accept. Both are trying to maximize profits, yet by taking different tacts.
- strulovich 4y agoDo you have a family? Costco sizes makes perfect sense for many people. There’s nothing weird about buying 3lb of chicken at once or a 4 pack of butter. It might even be better by minimizing amount of trips and packaging material.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- literalAardvark 4y agoIt's definitely better. Gas, time on the road and packaging are much bigger drains than owning a freezer.
- uoaei 4y agoThat's actually hilarious. Can I ask what kind of lifestyle you lead? How often you order grocery or food delivery? What you consider "essential" and what you consider "reasonable" shipping times for those "essentials"?
- robocat 4y agoThe money people spend is roughly proportional to the ecological damage caused by that spending. Spending the same amount of money at Costco or the local heath shop makes little difference to carbon footprint. That is, your income is proportional to your damage almost regardless of what you choose to spend your money on (indirect damage is high for every $ whether spent or invested). The US is roughly 25% of the world’s GDP with ~5% of the world population, so each person in the US is on average causing ~5x the damage of the average person in the world (often indirectly in other countries). The single easy thing you could personally do to reduce your long term footprint is to not have kids.
- Dalewyn 4y agoOf all the reasons to not have kids, this is one of the most woke/progressive/crazy of them all.
- ch4s3 4y agoThis is a terrible take. Any kind of agriculture changes the local environment. Boats on a river, big buildings, wind mills, all of it. I assume in good faith that your value is pristine nature but it’s a fallacy.
- JoshTko 4y agoAre you suggesting nothing can be done? I'm just advocating for reasonable sustainability. Our current path simply shifts harm to the least fortunate of today.
- ch4s3 4y agoNo, I’m saying that the black and white approach of never effecting “the environment” doesn’t make sense from the jump. It treats the earth as a thing that was static before human intervention, which is simply not true. There are a lot of great reasons to want to arrest climate change which is a very different matter, or infant to preserve or rehabilitate particular ecosystems.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- uoaei 4y agoThis high-school-debate-style approach -- ie, assuming there are only two sides to any discussion, and that criticism of one side implies advocacy of the other -- is one of the more antisocial things we have developed as a culture of late. It is most prevalent on mainstream news outlets but also exists in plenty in allegedly reasonable discussion forums such as this one. To summarize: yikes.
- ch4s3 4y agoWhat I am saying is precisely that there needs to be nuance to the discussion rather than a dogmatic appeal to some archaic and Edenic past. The OP in my estimation has a very anti-human set of values. I’m specifically say that we need to have thoughtful conversations about what we preserve and what we change.
- Dalewyn 4y ago>We need regulations that enables swift, painful liability for any ecosystem altering industries. Have fun not existing.
- benatkin 4y agoPretty much this. That's why I mentioned Costco because I wanted to specifically attack those encouraging wasteful behavior. Forcing people to buy in bulk is a form of that but that's just one thing they do. The giant sizes of their stores, focus on making it cheap and convenient to buy gas, and providing a status symbol that's about acquiring cheap stuff are others.
- Dalewyn 4y agoBuying in bulk is more efficient in general. If you want to screech about consumerism you're barking up the wrong tree.
- benatkin 4y agoOnly when you need stuff and don't waste it. Costco is waste city from what I've seen.
- Dalewyn 4y agoHave you tried incorporating Costco into your life? You sound like you never did, only saying "I don't need 24 rolls of toilet paper at once, that's wasteful." as an outsider.
- benatkin 4y agoYeah. I found that there are a lot of places that let you buy in bulk or not in bulk at the same place. A wonderful example of this is H Mart, a Korean grocery chain. I also found that Costco's selection sucks and I would often leave not getting what I went in there to buy.
- htowieuro2343 4y ago+1 This is what the vegan movt. is going wrong. Eating meat is missing the point: the disgusting ways in which animals are factory farmed are a disaster no one wants to address.
- ornornor 4y agoRemoving animal products from your diet lowers the demand for farming animals, eventually eradicating it once enough people switch. What makes you think it’s the wrong way about it?
- faeriechangling 4y agoBecause people have been practicing vegetarianism of some sort for over 5000 years of recorded history and it has to yet to catch on? Whereas factory farming is a new and relatively malleable seeming thing?
- wittycardio 4y ago[dead]