3 ms·

Good 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 behavi

• guerby 3y ago
  I'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.