this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
712 points (78.7% liked)

World News

39096 readers
2715 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FermatsLastAccount@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Someone who exclusively ate meat for some reason who moved to chicken would have a greater impact than someone who exclusively ate chicken and went vegan.

But that first person could have an even bigger environmental impact by becoming Vegan instead of only eating chicken.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

yes but if you actually convince someone who eats just chicken to go vegan it will have less of an effect if you actually convince a big red meat eater to limit to chicken.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You'd have a bigger impact by convincing 30% of the population to only have chicken, vs convincing 15% to go vegan.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Sure, and if we could only do one, we should choose accordingly. We can do both, simultanously. Exactly like how we don't have to choose between eating less meat and driving less cars.

[–] too_much_too_soon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or an even bigger impact by having fewer children.

[–] CantSt0pPoppin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is true, however, not realistic in some parts of the world. For instance, in the United States, Republicans have waged a war on bodily autonomy, which includes the Roe v. Wade ruling and states creating departments to hunt down citizens who go out of state to have abortions. There are also countries where sex education is not prohibited. So, take these things into consideration while thinking about potential solutions. That being said, you are right, and you can do something about it by voting, if you are able to, wherever you live.