4 ms·
You keep (mostly) repeating yourself, so I think you missed my point. I agree with Mr. Cock's points about industrial-scale, monoculture livestock being a fert
by p0pcult 4y ago
You keep (mostly) repeating yourself, so I think you missed my point.
I agree with Mr. Cock's points about industrial-scale, monoculture livestock being a fertile breeding ground for novel pathogens. Makes a lot of sense to me. Let's go, let's recognize it as an existential risk, let's do something about that.
>stopping eating meat is a logical position to take
Oh, I'm out.
No thanks.
There is certainly an accelerationism at work in your logic, as the professor merely suggests reducing meat consumption. Which you take to the mat, and think we should stop eating meat. Do you see the difference? Van Oosterhout comes across as an academic. You come across as a scold, and no one wants to listen to a scold. And this is from someone who eats meatless a couple days a week, and when I do eat meat, it tends to be a sensible portion size. I'm all in on the Beyond/Impossible stuff too. In other words, I'm pretty open minded generally to the idea of reducing meat consumption.
- myshpa 4y agoScold or not (thank you), optimal amount of meat (animal products) we should eat is zero. You won't hear it from academics as plainly not because it's not true, but because of resistance of general population to the idea. There is a push for reduction now, and it will (surely) in the future morph into elimination. There are many reasons for that. There are many sources discussing the problem. You may choose ignorance. Fine. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug, so your position is a familiar to me (for I've been where you are). If you'll take the red pill by studying the problem from all its sides, you'll think differently in the future. You're not ready to face the facts now, I get it. But don't worry. You seem to be on the right path. P.S. Scold? More like Don Quixote ;)