3 ms·
> Yes, but animal agriculture can be less harmful if you do less of it
by sharkjacobs 3y ago
> Yes, but animal agriculture can be less harmful if you do less of it
- mdp2021 3y agoI beg your pardon? It is not just a matter of "raising less animals", it is also (and mainly) a matter of raising them sensibly.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoIt is mostly a matter of raising less animals. No other factor or approach or combination of them can address these things alone, reduction is a necessary step. Defining any of this as "sensible" is an error imo. In a sense it's certainly sensible to have the goal of providing accessibly-priced meat to every member of a large country. Each step along the way is sensible, I'm sure. But then we end up here and there is nothing sensible about it. The sheer scale required to provide all that flesh is nearly profane in its own right. There is simply and frankly no way to do it responsibly at the scale we've chosen to do it. It seems meat will either remain built on human, animal and ecological exploitation at an incomprehensible scale, or it will revert to a rare and expensive luxury mostly available only to an economic elite. I haven't seen a compelling vision of any alternative.
- davidjones332 3y ago[flagged]
- OJFord 3y agoThat's only a paraphrasing to the extent that it means higher cost, which means lower demand, which means lower supply. It's not the point that was made, and the 'harm saving' would be greater than proportional to the consequent reduction in supply (ceteris paribus).