this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
695 points (97.8% liked)

Science Memes

10923 readers
2719 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

i'm saying if what you're claiming is true, then it would follow that the growth of the industry would stop and reverse.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There aren't enough people eating less meat yet? I don't think a problem of scale makes it futile. You are just assuming it would never grow big enough to affect the line.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You are just assuming it would never grow big enough to affect the line.

i have made no such assumption. teh fact is that it has not, in fact, reduced suffering (if we regard all animal slaughter as suffering, and the most meaningful metric). to continue to claim that it will is just a hypothesis, and continues to be unsupported by the facts.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

My problem is that it could be working now but since theres no proof yet you won't believe it. What if that line starts very slowly flattening out? Is that enough evidence?

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What if that line starts very slowly flattening out? Is that enough evidence?

you'd have to show the causal link between vegans existing and the production flattening. what if it's just that we run out of agricultural land, or a meteor strikes a major production region? we need to know what actually causes the change in the graph, not simply speculate that it could be buying beans.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

If we ran out of new land to use wouldnt it plateau?

Isnt the line going up constantly evidence of constant addition of new land to hold more animals?

I suppose they could be getting more efficient but thats the opposite of regulation.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If we ran out of new land to use wouldnt it plateau?

that's the assumption I'm using.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

When we run out of land, won't we have to replace land used for meat production for land for plant production so we can continue feeding an expanding world?

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean I don't know: these are some pretty wild hypotheticals we are concocting.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

I didnt know you'd think it was so wild. I guess we have plenty of land left tk go around for a while?

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Isnt the line going up constantly evidence of constant addition of new land to hold more animals?

I'm assuming it is this in combination with new efficiencies (like the swine hotels in China)

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Ew, thanks for something new to look up, I hate it!

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

I suppose they could be getting more efficient but thats the opposite of regulation.

whatever you call it, we can't attribute it to vegans.