• Gosplan14_the_Third [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Have fun trying to stop climate change without reducing meat consumption, not to mention other problems like desertification and soil degradation.

    The earth is an ecosystem with a metabolism, and humans take out of it way more than return, and with capitalism that isn’t going to change anytime soon.

    You can go “sweetie, but meat tastes good!” all you want, not to mention your bizzarre comment on optimizing land usage for population growth. It’s not a question of morality - it’s a question of not being a fool.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That condescending “it’s okay” tone from that self-absorbed status quo championing treatbrain was Reddit-tier grating, too. disgost

    • zephyreks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not only that, but we’re talking about a country with some of the highest per-capita beef consumption in the world. Beef has an order of magnitude higher impact on emissions as other meats. It’s so fucking inefficient it’s insane.

      I think it’s much easier to shift people to more efficient meats than it is to cut meat out entirely.

      • Gosplan14_the_Third [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Easier yes, I suppose.

        It’s still a half measure that will at best delay the worst effects of climate change (such as many other mainstream proposals to combat it) and there’s a difference between how radical the changes to society will be and whether climate change will be bad, very bad, very very bad or lead to Medieval death rates