this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
927 points (100.0% liked)

The memes of the climate

1884 readers
1 users here now

The climate of the memes of the climate!

Planet is on fire!

mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.

rules:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Veganism isn't better for the environment than significantly reducing the total amount of consumed meat. Animals play an important, difficult-to-replace role in making agriculture sustainable. Animals can be herded on land that's difficult to farm on, animals can consume parts of farmed plants that humans cannot, and animals produce products that humans cannot replicate without significantly more work.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, we need to significantly reduce the amount of consumed meat (maybe not insects, if we consider them meat). A step towards more vegan and vegetarian food would definitely be necessary. Yes, not everyone needs to be vegan. But we need to consume way more vegan and vegetarian food.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Insects are meat. Why are you so keen on eating bugs?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Well lobster tastes pretty good so I'm pretty hopeful about the land bugs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I actually don't like lobster (I prefer the meatless versions) but that's a fair point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There is a general consensus that insects are not considered equal in terms of animal cruelty like mammals, as they have much smaller and simpler nerve systems.

In regards to ecological imprint insects have a much better feed to food ratio and you can feed them much more things than to grazing animals.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I agree that insects are generally less ethically significant than mammals, but as far as using English food category words I don't see how it's useful to draw a hard distinction between the category of "meat" and the category of "insects who's bodies can be cooked and eaten".

The reason I asked the question is that I noticed they made multiple comments about eating insects and I was curious as to the motivations behind their position.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In vegan communities insects are very much extended the same moral considerations as other animals. What you're advocating is a form of speciesism, which is something better avoided as much as possible.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anti-specieism is an argument often brought by vegan fascists, arguing that killing humans is no worse than killing mosquitos.

Also the concept of avoiding specieism fails the moment you look into nature. Is the cat that eats a mouse a speciest? Should you let mosquitos bite you and transmit diseases because killing them would be speciest? Are the farmers in Southern Africa that are plagued by locusts speciest for trying to protect their harvest?

Probably you would consider these examples as legitimate. But what about the building of the house you reside in? The production of your electronics, your energy usage...

It is impossible to make a consistent value frame of what is acceptable killing of animals and what isn't, if you deem an individual fly as equally protectworthy as a sheep or a human.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Vegan fascists? The people who are trying to put an end to the forced captivity, continuous torture, rape, exploitation, commodification, and perpetual holocaust-levels of slaughter of virtually every species of animal that is not human, are fascists?

Here's the most commonly accepted definition of veganism:

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.""

Emphasis added. The vast majority of vegans do not believe that killing a mosquito is exactly equivalent to killing a human, and even of the people who do, it's intended to imply that all species lives are important, that the mosquito's life is seen as equally valuable to the human's. The only reason such a proposition seems abhorrent to you is because you're looking at the mosquito through the lens of your carnist supremacist mindset, which is to see the mosquito as something worthless and thus conclude that a human's life is considered by vegans to be equally worthless.

But again, like everyone else vegans take anti-speciesism only as far as is practical. We just do it better. The mosquito bite is easy. If you know mosquitos are around, it's wise to wear repellent, and take other appropriate precautions depending on your circumstances. Maybe modify your environment if possible to be less of a breeding ground for them, if it's bad enough. If you're dealing with a particular mosquito, odds are they have already bitten you, so how is the lethal carnist reaction any more protective against a disease that may have already been transmitted, than simply blowing on the mosquito to get them to fly away?

Locust infestations happen because of shitty agricultural practices. If you've got a plot of land that's full of nothing but copies of one tantalizing crop, then of course it's going to be an obvious buffet for a vast amount of insects. Are veganic farming or veganic permaculture methods extreme? Or is it more extreme that our most common monocultural methods of farming are causing so much pollution that it's bringing so many vital pollinators to the brink of extinction?

You make the same erroneous argument that many other carnists make, which is the idea that because vegan values can't always be practiced perfectly, that somehow automatically means the entire ethical framework is without merit. But that's obviously nonsensical. To the individual mosquito or mouse, it makes all the difference in their entire little lives, whether they incidentally pestered a vegan or carnist. It's been estimated that a single vegan living their values results in about 200 fewer livestock animals being slaughtered every year. Is it extreme to live in a way that would end factory farms forever if we all embraced it, or what about the lifestyle that created them in the first place?

Nearly every half-baked gotcha that carnists try to catch vegans in has a common-sense practical answer. The example of predation in wild areas is a point of contention in vegan communities, whether we should intervene or not and ultimately make rather significant changes to the natural world, but presently it doesn't really matter, because there are so many other obvious abuses that need to end.

Veganism only looks extreme from the deluded perspective of carnism. But in reality going vegan is like becoming sober, and recognizing how disturbing it was to live the way that so many continue to.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not keen on eating bugs, most of them just are similar in environmental damage as vegan food. Insects are also already in almost all processed foods because they are small and almost everywhere. They just don't fall in the same category as what we in the western civilization typically consider meat (as a food).

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't really care. Abusing (using) animals for food and work is cruel anyway, if me not doing that because I think it's wrong is good for the environment, great! If it's not, fine, but it's not why I do it.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's the thing. Ethics and impact on the environment can be two different things. If you decide to go that way, you're fine. Do it. However we need animals for stated reasons. We have to eat less meat/generally consume less animal products.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We also need to stop overproducing everything. America makes far too much corn, because/and the industry is heavily subsidized.

The amount of food waste in North America is astounding. Completely unnecessary.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

True. That's the same with everything. As long as it is worth to produce stuff just to throw it away we will damage our planet more and more.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yup.. I want those subsidies to shift to hemp production. So many far more useful products that will be able to be produced rather than food processors playing hide the corn. It is a drop in replacement for the ethanol in gas since the seeds are 30% oil.

But we don't produce hemp, and megacorps go.. Here's another ethane cracker plant.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

No, animal captivity, exploitation, rape, slaughter, and consumption are all things that are very much unnecessary, and are detrimental in many ways.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I disagree that raising and keeping animals because we want their products or labor is cruel, and I especially disagree that referring to that as abuse is useful.

What standard of cruelty and ethical framework are you using to come to your conclusion?

Edit: as stated in my other comment, I don't believe that it's cruel in principle; I'm not denying that the industry has cruel practices.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It may not be cruel in principle, but it is usually cruel in practice. Still, I like the the guiding principle to try to not let minor benefits to myself (e.g. an easier way to a nice meal) go above vital benefits of other creatures.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I was speaking in terms of principles rather than discussing practical reality. Of course cruel practices are common in farming in general and the meat industry in particular; I'm not disputing that.

Edit: Why TF am I being downvoted?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ethical emotivism. A framework most people use, although few admit it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Ethical emotivism isn't a self-consistent ethical framework. It's arguably not even an ethics system; it's a philosophical attitude towards ethics as a field of study.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Veganism is good for climate, biodiversity, health and animal welfare. We really don't need to eat animals or animal products to have good meal and live a happy life. The good thing is that humans are omnivores, with a free choice of what to eat. Please choose wisely, not only for your own mental and physical health, but also for others, living now as well as in years to come.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not everyone can eat a pure vegan diet. We are omnivores. We don't get to pick, we must eat it all to stay healthy.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So do it. While some people would argue vefpganism is ideal, the important part is “less meat”, especially less beef. I’d give kudos to anyone who eats one less beef meal per week: chicken is much easier in the environment than beef, or ne less meat meal,

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The word Ideal is very generic. Ideal to who? What is ideal? Your health? The climate? Your bowel movement?

Meat contributes a ton of CO2. 15% of global output in just beef alone. Pork and Chicken is better.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Instead of pickering over words we could just acknowledge the underlying facts.

Those who can, and most people in western industrialized countries can, should reduce their meat consumption. For most of them veganism is a viable option, especially as there is easy access to doctors checking as well as supplements if there is difficulties.

There is no intrinsic need for animal protein or fats for a healthy diet.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everyone needs nutrients they can digest. The source doesn't matter under these conditions. Excluding rare medical cases, everyone can get all required nutrients from non-animal sources, ergo everyone can have and live a perfectly healthy life on a vegan diet.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Meat has more than just protein. It has so many micronutrients that your body needs that you would have to take a shit ton of supplements to just come close to it. Sure, you can survive without those micronutrients. But why go through all the trouble?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that you would have to take a shit ton of supplements to just come close to it

If you would've taken a dive into healthy vegan diets, you would know that this isn't true.

But why go through all the trouble?

I thought we already established that in the comments here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We don't need animals to consume plants we can't, because plant food is soooo goddamn more efficient on every metric. We can drastically reduce land, water and energy usage AND still feed way more people with plant foods. We simply do not need to eat animals.

Any form of "sustainable" animal farming I've read up on end up being still less resource efficient than plant foods, AND obviously massively reduced output. So we're truly talking about vegan vs. an ounce of meat a week. That's not a difference worth defending, considering the other obvious ethical issues.

Finally, why do you feel that it's important to argue for "99%" veganism? Do you genuinely believe people don't understand that less is better, but none is best? Do you apply the same argument to other ethical issues, like feminism? Being 99% feminist is a big improvement, but constantly arguing for it in favor of feminism (aka 100%) would obviously look ridiculous. Finally, don't you realize the humongous difference between "we should abuse animals for our pleasure less" vs. "we shouldn't do that"? A whole class of racism disappears if we get rid of the association between "animal" and "lesser moral consideration".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

why do you feel that it's important to argue for "99%" veganism

This argument relies on false assumptions about my ethics and an incorrect representation of my position. First: I don't want to reduce meat consumption/production by any specific ammount; I am currently unconvinced that removing domestic animals from food production entirely is maximally efficient, but think it's clear that the current ammount of meat is unsustainable and thus must be reduced by some ammount that is currently unknown to me. Furthermore, I don't believe that all living things qualify as "people" for moral considerations. Since I do not believe all living things are people unless proven otherwise, why should I consider all animals as people unless proven otherwise? There are certain animals that I consider to be people and thus give moral consideration equal to humans such as certain species of corvid, dolphins, elephants, and octopi which have demonstrated traits that make me believe they should qualify. In order to convince me, you need to either provide me an alternative definition of a person and demonstrate why it's superior or to show me that all animals fit into my definition of person.

Edit: forgot to mention your other argument, but simply put it's also off the mark. While I agree that eating plants directly is more efficient, that doesn't address the thesis of my argument. So long as there exists circumstances such that we produce plant matter (as a waste product) that an animal can consume and humans do not in quantities sufficient to feed a stock of animals of some size including those animals in food production and feeding them the plant matter is more efficient than throwing away that plant matter. Your argument needs to be more robust.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Lookup veganic farming, and veganic permaculture. The idea that animal ag has any place in combating global warming is demonstrably false, and was nothing more than a greenwashed hijacking of the other various regenerative agricultural movements. There is no room in neither a just world, or a sustainable one, for the exploitation and consumption of animals.

https://www.surgeactivism.org/allansavory

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sir you forget that in China there are pig condos

load more comments (1 replies)