6 ms·

Completely agree. Reducing or getting rid of livestock animal agriculture will help with many major challenges we have today, like climate change, loss of biodi

by shafyy 2y ago

Completely agree. Reducing or getting rid of livestock animal agriculture will help with many major challenges we have today, like climate change, loss of biodiversity, animal cruelty, antimicrobial resistance. But hey, gotta have that cheap burger, huh? We, the people, have the power to improve this situation. Call your representatives, do activism, talk to your friends about it, vote for the right candidates.

exe34 2y ago
we the people don't want change.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  Are you arguing against the change itself or making the point that most people don’t care? Sorry to ask I just can’t tell.
  - exe34 2y ago
    the latter. people even claim to want change, but then they go about doing the same old things every day. they want others to lower their quality of life or spend more.
    - shafyy 2y ago
      That's because many people just don't have time to take action or inform themselves, because all they care about (and rightly so) is how to bring food on the table for their kids. Of course, this is exactly what authoritarian governments want. People who are exhausted, just poor enough but not too poor to start a revolution. People who don't have the time to read (really read, not watch TikTok videos) about important issues.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      Sure, because people have limited bandwidth for caring about things. I wish all livestock was raised humanely, and that the cost of meat accurately reflected that actual costs to society. But I like to eat meat, and I have lots of other things in my life to worry about; doing something to improve this situation is nowhere near the list of things I will actually have the bandwidth to work on. > they want others to lower their quality of life or spend more. This is the other sucky part: while we should be paying the "real" cost of meat, I don't think it's fair to make meat only affordable to those who are fairly well-off. That sounds like something out of a dystopian speculative fiction novel.
whywhywhywhy 2y ago
I'm fine with the burger being expensive, just want the burger.
- shafyy 2y ago
  That's part of the problem. You wanting the burger has all these negative consequences for humans, animals and nature.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    You can't just say something is bad and expect billions of people to change their wants in order to achieve your political and moral goals. I'm fine with the cost of a burger pricing in all these externalities, but I also don't like the idea of turning something like meat into a luxury good where only well-off people can afford it.
    - averagefluid 2y ago
      > but I also don't like the idea of turning something like meat into a luxury good where only well-off people can afford it. Why is that? What are the downsides of this scenario? Genuinely curious, as I believe this has been the norm historically.
      - brookst 2y ago
        What are the downsides of taking a relatively affordable good that people enjoy and making it a luxury good for the rich only? Is there a word that’s the opposite of “tautology”? Because this question seems like an example. It maps to “what are the downsides of decreasing quality of life for most people”.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        glenstein 2y ago
        Antibiotic resistance isn't pertinent to quality of life?
palata 2y ago
> We, the people, have the power to improve this situation. Call your representatives, do activism, talk to your friends about it, vote for the right candidates. And stop eating meat and fish! It's insane for many reasons even if you don't care about how the animals are treated: * Biodiversity loss: because we kill everything in the sea by fishing, and we kill everything in the fields for intensive agriculture (which is needed to feed the cattle). And because of deforestation of course. * Antibiotic-resistance: because putting so many animals (fishes or cows) together brings diseases we need to treat. * CO2 emissions: it's super inefficient, we all know it. Not being a vegetarian in 2025 is just completely unreasonable. We had Greta Thunberg talking to politicians, but actually I'm looking forward to when kids will ask their parents: "So you know you are killing us in so many ways, and you can't be arsed to eat less meat? Aren't you supposed to care about us?"
- kalenx 2y ago
  By this logic, having a car in 2025 is "just completely unreasonable". Taking plane in 2025 is "just completely unreasonable". Use of AC unless life threatening circumstances is "just completely unreasonable". Wasting rainwater and use drinkable water to wash your car (or yourself, actually) is "just completely unreasonable". Eating cashew/almond or other highly water intensive crops grown in a dried out area (California...) is "just completely unreasonable". Note that apart from the rainwater one, I do none of the above, so I'm not even pleading for myself and my "way of life". I'm just showing how easy it is to boldly state that "it is obvious, we just all have to be reasonable" while, in fact, _not_ being "reasonable" yourself.
  - palata 2y ago
    I call this bad faith. You're right, living the way we live is unsustainable. That's why almost all species are dying, and that's not yet a consequence of global warming. Now, some things are harder to change than others, and have more or less impact. Stopping to eat meat/fish is probably the one thing that is reasonably easy, cheap (vegetarian food is globally cheaper), and would have a huge impact.
    - 2y ago
DeathArrow 2y ago
[flagged]
AngryData 2y ago
Ehh, I don't think the problem is so much that we eat meat, it is how we produce it. Beef for example is raised primarily with alfalfa, a legume that puts nitrogen in the soil for free rather than having to turn fossil fuels into nitrogen fertilizer or spending substantial fractions of the total world's electricity generation on its production. Plus the fertilizer from the cow shit itself. Its not like we are short on land capable of growing grass, farmland utilization has been dropping for decades, a lot of those places get regular rainfall and alfalfa is nearly free to grow and harvest. Of course getting people to learn about these things and politicians to adopt sensible policies about it is a whole other game.

by shafyy 2y ago

exe34 2y ago

we the people don't want change.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
Are you arguing against the change itself or making the point that most people don’t care? Sorry to ask I just can’t tell.
- exe34 2y ago
  the latter. people even claim to want change, but then they go about doing the same old things every day. they want others to lower their quality of life or spend more.
  - shafyy 2y ago
    That's because many people just don't have time to take action or inform themselves, because all they care about (and rightly so) is how to bring food on the table for their kids. Of course, this is exactly what authoritarian governments want. People who are exhausted, just poor enough but not too poor to start a revolution. People who don't have the time to read (really read, not watch TikTok videos) about important issues.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Sure, because people have limited bandwidth for caring about things. I wish all livestock was raised humanely, and that the cost of meat accurately reflected that actual costs to society. But I like to eat meat, and I have lots of other things in my life to worry about; doing something to improve this situation is nowhere near the list of things I will actually have the bandwidth to work on. > they want others to lower their quality of life or spend more. This is the other sucky part: while we should be paying the "real" cost of meat, I don't think it's fair to make meat only affordable to those who are fairly well-off. That sounds like something out of a dystopian speculative fiction novel.

whywhywhywhy 2y ago

I'm fine with the burger being expensive, just want the burger.

shafyy 2y ago
That's part of the problem. You wanting the burger has all these negative consequences for humans, animals and nature.
- kelnos 2y ago
  You can't just say something is bad and expect billions of people to change their wants in order to achieve your political and moral goals. I'm fine with the cost of a burger pricing in all these externalities, but I also don't like the idea of turning something like meat into a luxury good where only well-off people can afford it.
  - averagefluid 2y ago
    > but I also don't like the idea of turning something like meat into a luxury good where only well-off people can afford it. Why is that? What are the downsides of this scenario? Genuinely curious, as I believe this has been the norm historically.
    - brookst 2y ago
      What are the downsides of taking a relatively affordable good that people enjoy and making it a luxury good for the rich only? Is there a word that’s the opposite of “tautology”? Because this question seems like an example. It maps to “what are the downsides of decreasing quality of life for most people”.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - glenstein 2y ago
        Antibiotic resistance isn't pertinent to quality of life?

palata 2y ago

> We, the people, have the power to improve this situation. Call your representatives, do activism, talk to your friends about it, vote for the right candidates. And stop eating meat and fish! It's insane for many reasons even if you don't care about how the animals are treated: * Biodiversity loss: because we kill everything in the sea by fishing, and we kill everything in the fields for intensive agriculture (which is needed to feed the cattle). And because of deforestation of course. * Antibiotic-resistance: because putting so many animals (fishes or cows) together brings diseases we need to treat. * CO2 emissions: it's super inefficient, we all know it. Not being a vegetarian in 2025 is just completely unreasonable. We had Greta Thunberg talking to politicians, but actually I'm looking forward to when kids will ask their parents: "So you know you are killing us in so many ways, and you can't be arsed to eat less meat? Aren't you supposed to care about us?"

kalenx 2y ago
By this logic, having a car in 2025 is "just completely unreasonable". Taking plane in 2025 is "just completely unreasonable". Use of AC unless life threatening circumstances is "just completely unreasonable". Wasting rainwater and use drinkable water to wash your car (or yourself, actually) is "just completely unreasonable". Eating cashew/almond or other highly water intensive crops grown in a dried out area (California...) is "just completely unreasonable". Note that apart from the rainwater one, I do none of the above, so I'm not even pleading for myself and my "way of life". I'm just showing how easy it is to boldly state that "it is obvious, we just all have to be reasonable" while, in fact, _not_ being "reasonable" yourself.
- palata 2y ago
  I call this bad faith. You're right, living the way we live is unsustainable. That's why almost all species are dying, and that's not yet a consequence of global warming. Now, some things are harder to change than others, and have more or less impact. Stopping to eat meat/fish is probably the one thing that is reasonably easy, cheap (vegetarian food is globally cheaper), and would have a huge impact.
  - 2y ago

DeathArrow 2y ago

[flagged]

AngryData 2y ago

Ehh, I don't think the problem is so much that we eat meat, it is how we produce it. Beef for example is raised primarily with alfalfa, a legume that puts nitrogen in the soil for free rather than having to turn fossil fuels into nitrogen fertilizer or spending substantial fractions of the total world's electricity generation on its production. Plus the fertilizer from the cow shit itself. Its not like we are short on land capable of growing grass, farmland utilization has been dropping for decades, a lot of those places get regular rainfall and alfalfa is nearly free to grow and harvest. Of course getting people to learn about these things and politicians to adopt sensible policies about it is a whole other game.