4 ms·
> As soon as you imply that someone’s way of life is immoral and their diet must be forcefully changed, you will encounter huge resistance. I think this is jus
by NotMichaelBay 3y ago
> As soon as you imply that someone’s way of life is immoral and their diet must be forcefully changed, you will encounter huge resistance.
I think this is just due to a lack of understanding or acceptance, because the nature of the problem makes it difficult/impossible to prove (X will lead to Y on date Z). I'm sure there are people who on principle hold personal freedoms above all else, but I think most people could change because they agree with the line of reasoning:
1. My consumption of meat contributes to demand for cows
2. Cows produce methane, which is a potent GHG
3. GHGs are causing global warming
4. Increased global warming is bad for future generations
They just question or fundamentally disagree with one or more of the premises.
- maratc 3y agoI think you missed the actual premise these people disagree with: 5. If I change my food preferences, this will have a tangible impact on both global warming and future generations.
- NotMichaelBay 3y agoHeh, good call. I was trying to figure out how to include level of impact, the "every vote counts" argument.
- maratc 3y agoGiven a choice of either A. Not changing your habits even a bit, and having the planet all fucked up in 100 years; or B. Drastically changing your habits, and having the planet all fucked up in 100 years and three hours, what would you choose?
- guerby 3y agoThe country with the most cow on earth is ... India. For most of the people there cows are sacred animals.
- NotMichaelBay 3y agoGood point. Are you saying that one can agree with all the premises and conclude it will cause hardship to future generations but ultimately don't change behavior because it's part of their core identity?
- guerby 3y agoI'm saying that in the country with the most cows generating GHG very few of those cows would be removed if more people chose to not eat meat. The real question is (for some reason not framed this way): how many ruminants us humans want to keep around and where? If less than now how fast we need to kill those animals? Tomorrow we could have 100% of grassland completely devoid of ruminants and other grazing animals, wild or not. What will really happen to ecosystems and climate if we do this? Do we have a previous point in history where that was the case? Are our models good enough to say it will be 100% positive as we expect? And I you looks at methane emissions globally ruminants are far from the leading emitters, why not go more intensely after other sources incluing the fossil fuel industry (leaks & all) that are fully man made, non renewable and useless, rather than trying to convince India people to slaughter all their sacred cows instantly? Wetlands are a large source of methane emissions, should we dry those lands? Same question about ecosystems and full climate impact. I understand vegan use this as a talking point, but when you look at the big picture there seem to be more reasonable choices and compromises based on data than ruminant extermination.
- callalex 3y agoIndia is also a huge diverse country with many cultures. Hundreds of millions of Indians have no qualms eating cow.
- cymian 3y agoonly 20% of India is vegetarian: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/08/eight-in-ten-indians-limit-meat-in-their-diets-and-four-in-ten-consider-themselves-vegetarian/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/08/eight-in-...