Sure, but one person not eating beef doesn’t have a direct impact on beef farming.
In the same way that one person voting makes no difference, but people do it anyway. You are taking an extremely nihilistic and defeatist position that seems at odds with the effort you put into writing the reply.
And none of that is likely, so you may as well enjoy your cheeseburger.
At least if you cut down or give up eating them you can tell yourself that you are doing something to not actively making the planet worse for everyone. Is cutting down the amount of meat you eat really such an awful proposition? There are health benefits too.
There is also a massive difference in the CO2 produced for different types of meat - chicken produces 1/10th of the emissions of beef:
Not doing something that has been proven to be bad for the planet is making an effort to not make things worse. I’m not sure how you can argue against basic logic.
all you need to do is read the LCA references they cite, in which it is explained that LCA data should not be combined, due to using disparate methodologies
It’s difficult to avoid nihilism neck deep into an apocalypse. But you’re right, I was being glib and dismissive. Sorry about that.
The reason I objected in the first place is that the oligarchy has used the personal choices conversation to quash criticisms across the board, and it’s extremely effective. You can’t complain about American manufacturing jobs going overseas because you drive an imported car. You can’t complain about slave labor because you buy Nikes or KitKats or strawberries picked by illegal immigrants. It’s a thought-terminating purity test that doesn’t even hold up to scrutiny.
Factory farming chickens (or pigs or fish or reduces carbon output, but comes with its own environmental horrors, like diseases, water contamination, pest control, etc. Everyone in the world could go full vegan tomorrow, and the oligarchy would be clear cutting the Amazon rainforest to plant soybeans and lentils the day after, because the problem has never been personal choices. We need systemic changes to fix systemic problems.
By all means, reduce your beef consumption. But if you want to actually reduce human-drive climate destruction, we need to start eating billionaires, not chickens.
Yes, you are totally correct in all that, but I’m coming from a personal perspective - self preservation in what seems like a hopeless situation. Yes, it’s all fucked and don’t stop trying to eat the billionaires, but if you can not play their game, even in a minor way, that is a small win for you personally. Not dancing to their tune is a better feeling than hopeless nihilism as you bite into another one of their burgers, giving them a little bit more money and power.
And if enough people did that, who knows - it might actually make a difference.
In the same way that one person voting makes no difference, but people do it anyway. You are taking an extremely nihilistic and defeatist position that seems at odds with the effort you put into writing the reply.
At least if you cut down or give up eating them you can tell yourself that you are doing something to not actively making the planet worse for everyone. Is cutting down the amount of meat you eat really such an awful proposition? There are health benefits too.
There is also a massive difference in the CO2 produced for different types of meat - chicken produces 1/10th of the emissions of beef:
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane
but it’s not true. if i told you jumping jacks reduced global warming, how many would you do?
Well, what I said is true. I don’t really know what else to say if you are just going to ignore basic logic and facts.
you can say it’s true but you haven’t actually provided evidence
Not doing something that has been proven to be bad for the planet is making an effort to not make things worse. I’m not sure how you can argue against basic logic.
you are claiming it’s proven, but you haven’t actually provided the proof.
that graph is from poore-nemecek 2018, and should not be considered reliable.
Unlike random internet dudes, who are always 100% reliable.
all you need to do is read the LCA references they cite, in which it is explained that LCA data should not be combined, due to using disparate methodologies
It’s difficult to avoid nihilism neck deep into an apocalypse. But you’re right, I was being glib and dismissive. Sorry about that.
The reason I objected in the first place is that the oligarchy has used the personal choices conversation to quash criticisms across the board, and it’s extremely effective. You can’t complain about American manufacturing jobs going overseas because you drive an imported car. You can’t complain about slave labor because you buy Nikes or KitKats or strawberries picked by illegal immigrants. It’s a thought-terminating purity test that doesn’t even hold up to scrutiny.
Factory farming chickens (or pigs or fish or reduces carbon output, but comes with its own environmental horrors, like diseases, water contamination, pest control, etc. Everyone in the world could go full vegan tomorrow, and the oligarchy would be clear cutting the Amazon rainforest to plant soybeans and lentils the day after, because the problem has never been personal choices. We need systemic changes to fix systemic problems.
By all means, reduce your beef consumption. But if you want to actually reduce human-drive climate destruction, we need to start eating billionaires, not chickens.
Yes, you are totally correct in all that, but I’m coming from a personal perspective - self preservation in what seems like a hopeless situation. Yes, it’s all fucked and don’t stop trying to eat the billionaires, but if you can not play their game, even in a minor way, that is a small win for you personally. Not dancing to their tune is a better feeling than hopeless nihilism as you bite into another one of their burgers, giving them a little bit more money and power.
And if enough people did that, who knows - it might actually make a difference.