this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
76 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22058 readers
37 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
being vegan doesn't help the planet at all.
How does reducing land and water use through your food choice not help the planet?
it doesn't actually reduce the use.
Please don't tell me you're gonna bring up the stupid soy fields in the rain forest argument :'D
being vegan doesn't stop soy from being grown in rainforests
environmental destruction continues whether you are vegan or not.
also what part of my comment prompted you to post that random response?
yep due to the meat industry keeping going regardless of a fairly small demographic quitting their products
You are making the false assumption that your consumption is causative to the production of animal products which is, unfortunately and non-intuituvely, untrue. The only difference between vegan and non-vegan diets is whether animal products end up on your plate vs. in "cheese mountain" type stockpiles, exports, landfills, etc.
That being said, 'commie' is a terrible communicator if that's what they're trying to say. Going vegan does help to highlight some of the contradictions of capitalism and you're on the right track as it should be advocated for. However, the 'invisible hand of the free market' does not translate veganism to any reduction in farmed animals, land or water use.
“If you don’t buy it a company will throw it away instead” is not a very good argument to buy something if you even believe it to be true at all.
That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying the act of "not buying it" (even if it was a complete and total boycott) has no impact on the production due to the system of subsidies, futures, derivatives, etc. that is set up explicitly to make sure production continues. And therefore has no impact on land/water usage, suffering etc.
With the point being that it's a good first step, but if your expectation is it will change anything without first changing the underlying system you will be very disappointed.
Your argument is called the nirvana fallacy;
“World peace would be ideal; this peace treaty fails to completely achieve world peace; therefore this peace treaty is not worth doing.”
And I do not accept that.
it's not a nirvana fallacy. they're actually right, being vegan has no impact at all. a peace treaty actually creates peace. buying beans just means beans are sold, it doesn't do anything to change any of the problems.
Surely the societal pressure to change the systems that support factory farming of animals will grow pretty much in proportion with the vegan/vegetarian population? I don't like the defeatist attitude that our choises as consumers don't matter, at all.
It's not defeatist, it's pushing back against the wishful thinking that "voting with your dollar" is effective and your responsibility ends there.
I mean if they make substantially less money with product x they scale back production. Just like with any other product.
Really not that complicated. Obviously they're not tracking my personal consumption, nobody believes that.
Are u saying if over night the entire customer base of meat as a whole stopped buying it would have zero effect? Certainly thats not whay youre saying right?
Proof?
It takes less land and water to feed someone wheat, soy or corn than to feed them beef, chicken or pork.
what crops that are fed to beef chicken and pork are parts of plants that people won't eat for the most part. The same fields that grow the soybeans we use for oil are growing soybeans that are used as feed. The same soybeans that are used for oil are used for feed.
This is sometimes true. However, e.g., about 4% of the farmland in California is used for alfafa, which is just for livestock. Alfafa is also a very water intensive crop.
Additionally, there are other uses that livestock corn feed could be put to if there weren't so many damn cows, so it's not like we'd be throwing away megatons of silage if it weren't for cattle.
I don't think there is a better use than making food. I'm fine with that.
feeding it to cows DOES make it into food.