4 ms·

It's hunting wild game at an industrial, global, scale, for billions of people among hundreds of countries and expecting things will magically work themselves o

It's hunting wild game at an industrial, global, scale, for billions of people among hundreds of countries and expecting things will magically work themselves out indefinitely, with strong emphasis on "magically work". This is certainly a dumb idea. Some like to imagine this is defensible. We've all learned the futility of disputing with people's imaginations. I'd rather things weren't this way as well. Seafood is delicious

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Absolutely right. I would be happy to eat fish once and a while but only if I caught one myself. People imagine it is defensible because (a) the cognitive dissonance is too great for most and (b) industrial civilization has made it so that industrial farming is the only easy way to live. Some people say, "then go live on a farm and grow it yourself". But the problem is that even today, to get any land, you have to have a lot of money first, which means working to further the system again. There is no recourse for the poor who might even choose a different life if that were an option.
- eptcyka 2y ago
  No, the problem with everyone livivng off the land is that is incredibly inefficient. On the other hand, we have subsidized every kind of farming to such an extent that it now cannot survive without the induced demand. There are thousands of livelihoods today that depend on the process that is destroying livelihoods of tomorrow.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    > No, the problem with everyone livivng off the land is that is incredibly inefficient. True, but only in a world with so many people. The alternative is something efficient but destructive.
- kulahan 2y ago
  I’m not trying to be preachy, just take issue with the idea that there is no way for the poor to avoid eating factory farmed meat - at a bare minimum, we can agree that vegetarianism is possible, no?
Y_Y 2y ago
> We've all learned the futility of disputing with people's imaginations. Certainly not. I myself have to relearn this lesson over and over, not to mention people who are still out here trying to change hearts and minds with emotional and rational arguments. See also "you can't get someone to understand something when their salary (or identity or emotional wellbeing etc.) depends on them not understanding: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  I think "emotional well-being" is especially crucial here, more than salary even.

vouaobrasil 2y ago

Absolutely right. I would be happy to eat fish once and a while but only if I caught one myself. People imagine it is defensible because (a) the cognitive dissonance is too great for most and (b) industrial civilization has made it so that industrial farming is the only easy way to live. Some people say, "then go live on a farm and grow it yourself". But the problem is that even today, to get any land, you have to have a lot of money first, which means working to further the system again. There is no recourse for the poor who might even choose a different life if that were an option.

eptcyka 2y ago
No, the problem with everyone livivng off the land is that is incredibly inefficient. On the other hand, we have subsidized every kind of farming to such an extent that it now cannot survive without the induced demand. There are thousands of livelihoods today that depend on the process that is destroying livelihoods of tomorrow.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > No, the problem with everyone livivng off the land is that is incredibly inefficient. True, but only in a world with so many people. The alternative is something efficient but destructive.
kulahan 2y ago
I’m not trying to be preachy, just take issue with the idea that there is no way for the poor to avoid eating factory farmed meat - at a bare minimum, we can agree that vegetarianism is possible, no?

Y_Y 2y ago

> We've all learned the futility of disputing with people's imaginations. Certainly not. I myself have to relearn this lesson over and over, not to mention people who are still out here trying to change hearts and minds with emotional and rational arguments. See also "you can't get someone to understand something when their salary (or identity or emotional wellbeing etc.) depends on them not understanding: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary

vouaobrasil 2y ago
I think "emotional well-being" is especially crucial here, more than salary even.