"Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why"

[soos_mite_ah]

13 hours ago, lmfao said:

 

@soos_mite_ah In regards to your ethics point, yeah this video didn't address that and the ethics can be different from considering economics and environmental (although some people will argue they happen to fall on the same side, conveniently so perhaps). Ethics about is it right to kill animals for food, etc. 

I think I was being too vague with the ethics point. There is the whole animal cruelty argument but I was talking about how people who are really into caring about the earth and are concerned about climate change. For some people, becoming vegan gives them a sense of control, like they are doing their part and what they can in their power in the face of an existential threat. While some believe that going vegan will actually make a difference, in reality, it's a personal coping strategy at best since it's unlikely that individual people going vegan is actually going to be enough to save the planet. 

[Scholar]

On 26.4.2021 at 3:47 PM, DocWatts said:

While people should be encouraged to adopt more healthy and sustainable diets (which include much lower levels of meat consumption), placing the burden of climate change on individuals as a matter of 'consumer choice' distracts from the systemic nature of the problem.

It also shifts the burden of responsibly away from the organizations that are contributing most to the problem.

The organizations are made by the people, and they reflect the level of development of the people. What needs to change are the people, the organizations will follow. There is no other way. The reason why these challenges exist in the first place is because it is an opportunity for us to grow.

People shouldn't be encourage to do anything, people should be taught to care. People need to fundamentally change their mode of operation, not just reducing meat consumption. They must love their animal brothers and sisters more than their desire for consumption. If we cannot achieve this basic level of development, mankind will perish sooner or later, and it will be Good. Mankind should perish if it cannot meet the challenge of Evolution. This will give opportunity for others to rise and meet the challenge.

 

Our centeredness around consumption is the root of this problem. It is not just unsustainable for the ecology of this planet, but also for the health of our individual and societal psyche. The burden of environmental destruction if on all of us, every single one of us. The test of time will show if we can rise to the occasion, adopt this responsibility, and lead life on this planet into a prosperous future.

 

Climate Change is a gift in disguise. Be wise enough to see it as such. If all of us care enough, we would live in paradise within a few decades. The degree to which this will manifest is the degree to which we will be able to grow to care.

[Scholar]

You guys really need to stop falling for these youtube videos. I don't have time to explain why almost everything is just completely misinformed, but I'm sure there will be "debunks" on this in the future. Here an article on the "expert" in the video:

https://www.antaisce.org/news/balance-claims-agri-debate

Here a response from Johns Hopkins:

https://clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/files/2019-04/frank-mitloehner-white-paper-letter.pdf

https://undark.org/2021/02/03/beef-industry-funding-climate/

 

Brothers you really need to learn how to do some basic research. There should be several alarm bells going off if you see an "expert" who claims that the well established scientific consensus is completely false. This isn't any different from how oil companies confused the public with counter-research, or how the tobacco companies did the same. This is basic sharlatanism, it's like the Snakes Oil Men of the 21st century. The fact that you fall for this should make you really reconsider your epstemic foundations.

 

This is the person you are trusting:

 

Some of you guys are so desperate for the counter-veganism arguments that you will believe anyone.

You should also look up some of the past videos the What I've Learned person has made, and how deeply misinformed they were. You should consider this person to be completely discredited and untrustworthy. I mean just compare the video he quoted to the video he made. The Kurzgesagt Channel is actually a pretty good channel, they have enough integrity to correct their mistakes when they have gotten something wrong and they consult actual researchers not some discredited shills who will give them the narrative they need to satisfy their audience.

 

Here have this nugget of information as a balance to this misinformation:

 

[DocWatts]

@Scholar While I don't disagree with the idea that corporations do reflect the overall development of the society, I would counter that many of our consumption habits aren't a 'choice' (in the strong sense of the word), so much as a constrained set of options for meeting our Survival needs, which are inextricably tied to one's socio-economic and material circumstances.

It's also worth pointing out that organizations such as Corporations are not democracies, and while they can be influenced to some degree by public opinion, they can and do use their degree of influence to shape public perceptions. And in places like the United States, they have a proven track record of successfully corrupting public institutions and propagandizing large portions of society. Not because corporations are Evil, but because on a basic Game-Theoretical level, that's what the existing socio-economic system incentivizes.

If the society is set up in a way that a person has to be something approaching a saint to live an ethical life, then that's best addressed at a societal and systemic (rather than an individual) level. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by DocWatts

[soos_mite_ah]

7 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

@Scholar While I don't disagree with the idea that corporations do reflect the overall development of the society, I would counter that many of our consumption habits aren't a 'choice' (in the strong sense of the word), so much as a constrained set of options for meeting our Survival needs, which are inextricably tied to one's socio-economic and material circumstances.

It's also worth pointing out that organizations such as Corporations are not democracies, and while they can be influenced to some degree by public opinion, they can and do use their degree of influence to shape public perceptions. And in places like the United States, they have a proven track record of successfully corrupting public institutions and propagandizing large portions of society. Not because corporations are Evil, but because on a basic Game-Theoretical level, that's what the existing socio-economic system incentivizes.

If the society is set up in a way that a person has to be something approaching a saint to live an ethical life, then that's best addressed at a societal and systemic (rather than an individual) level. 

I second this. It's much more difficult to make the right choice when you are given limited options in your environment or hell are incentivized to act in unethical ways. 

[Tanz]

 

This farm is creating positive carbon.  There are ethical ways of both eating meat and maintaining a balance between nature.  Consume less and buy quality ethical products.  

[ilja]

You guys will spare yourselves a lot of pitfalls and suffering if you listen to @Scholar

Edited April 29, 2021 by ilja

[Scholar]

On 27.4.2021 at 11:34 PM, soos_mite_ah said:

I second this. It's much more difficult to make the right choice when you are given limited options in your environment or hell are incentivized to act in unethical ways. 

The solution is to have the members of society grow so they indeed can make the easy choice between oatmilk and cow milk. See, the individuals in our society are so underdeveloped that they struggle even adopting such few responsibilities.

 

Again, the problem you are trying to fix is the very thing you need to grow and get rid of the problem. This is the best opportunity of grow mankind will ever have. The people who don't understand why they ought to buy oatmilk over normal milk are the very people who uphold the current status quo, the system and the corporations. You cannot change the system without changing the people. This is something that has been tried numerous times throughout history, and it continously failed.

It is not black and white, institutions must change, but this change will only happen as a result of the growth of the individuals within society.

 

We live in a society that views the subjugation of individuals for luxury benefits as completely justified. This kind of society cannot ever hope to have institutions that are fair and justice. Look how many people here struggle to find ways to justify this subjugation, as people have done in the past. Fundamentally, this is the very problem that we need to get past. The desire to subjugate for the pursuit of individual freedom, rather than to take on responsibility for your own actions.

[soos_mite_ah]

9 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The solution is to have the members of society grow so they indeed can make the easy choice between oatmilk and cow milk. See, the individuals in our society are so underdeveloped that they struggle even adopting such few responsibilities.

Try to tell that to people who might not have an alternative to cows milk like say in a developing country or in a small town. 

I've noticed more and more people becoming vegan after things like meat alternatives came in because that meant that they can transition to veganism in an easier way without cutting out everything they enjoy eating. Yes, personal change can put pressure on institutions to change but institutional change can lead to personal change. It's like the chicken or the egg argument. One of the big reasons why we aren't as savage as people say in the middle ages or greek/roman times and we aren't pillaging each other is because over the centauries we have built up institutions, norms, societies, and environments that DE incentivizes that kind of behavior and makes them counterproductive to anything we wish to accomplish. 

[Scholar]

18 minutes ago, soos_mite_ah said:

Try to tell that to people who might not have an alternative to cows milk like say in a developing country or in a small town.

Why would I tell them this? We are talking about people of the first world countries, who do have alternatives, or can indeed live life perfectly well without consuming any milks at all. These are the members of this worldly community who have to take charge in the adoption of responsibility.

 

Nobody is changing anything by saying that we must change the institutions. To change the instutitions you need individuals who feel the responsibility to help change the instutitions in the first place. The institutions are the result of the social change, not the other way around.

[soos_mite_ah]

38 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Not everybody has the possibility to make that change. I don't think anybody is judging that. But it means that it is even more so important that those who do have the opportunity to make a change, actually do it.

Reminds me of what Sadhguru once said. "If you do not do what you cannot do, it's not an issue. But if you do not do what you can do, you are a disaster". 

I agree with this.

But there are people who do judge that. That's why I think that the whole "everyone should go vegan and if you aren't vegan you are selfish, hate all animals, and advocate for climate change" argument that a lot of triggered green people sometimes use is really naïve and short sided because there can be many reasons ranging from individual health and the availability of options in a systemic, sociological level that needs to be considered. 

Yeah definitely do what you can but don't judge other people for not doing the same because you don't always know what's up with them and their lives. 

[Danioover9000]

@soos_mite_ah

23 hours ago, soos_mite_ah said:

Try to tell that to people who might not have an alternative to cows milk like say in a developing country or in a small town. 

I've noticed more and more people becoming vegan after things like meat alternatives came in because that meant that they can transition to veganism in an easier way without cutting out everything they enjoy eating. Yes, personal change can put pressure on institutions to change but institutional change can lead to personal change. It's like the chicken or the egg argument. One of the big reasons why we aren't as savage as people say in the middle ages or greek/roman times and we aren't pillaging each other is because over the centauries we have built up institutions, norms, societies, and environments that DE incentivizes that kind of behavior and makes them counterproductive to anything we wish to accomplish. 

   Spot on.

[Scholar]

Here we go:

 

 

[Truth Seekah]

 

[blankisomeone]

No shit

[Hatfort]

I think addressing this topic in extreme terms like saving the planet is quite disingenuous. If as humans we reduce meat consumption, it will be good for the environment, the less we eat, the better. Why? Because meat production requires a lot of resources and land. When you eat a steak, you are also consuming all that the cow ate during all its life, the water that growing that feed was needed, the land to grow that feed, the costs of processing and transporting that to the animals, the medicines that those animals were given preventively.

It's not about the methane, at least not only. It's a lot that's behind the meat and we are close to 8 billion human beings now. The problem will catch up with us if these 8 billion start eating meat at the rate of the developed world citizens. That won't happen because the planet can't sustain it. Now, can we fuck things up? Wait and see. Maybe I was wrong and the terms were correct, but you gotta change the won't for will.