• UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yes as a child

    You haven’t apparently emotionally developed past that point in any way that I can notice.

    You’re a destructively selfish treatbrain that only wants changes that don’t directly inconvenience you in ways you can immediately conceive.

    In the mean time, government action to stop fossil fuels are the only priority that matters.

    You’re as ignorant as you are selfish.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      These “treats” you keep bringing up, most people call food. If you are against humans eating food, then this is the org for you. https://www.vhemt.org/

      Now let’s get to the meat of the issue. ALL human food production causes non-zero emissions, yes even the food you eat. Yes even if you grow it yourself. According to the link you provided “meat accounts for ~60% of green house gas emissions from food production.” I would say, so what? Humans need to eat food and some food production is going to emit more green house gases then other food. Trying to optimize our diets to reduce our impact on the world at the expense of enjoying that world is something no one actually wants, including you. At the end of the day everyone has to eat food. So you say “But if we just cut meat production, we would reduce the green house gases of food production by 60%!” Well in less then 80years, the population of the earth is projected to be ~11billion. That is ~50% more people and thus 50% more greenhouse gases emitted from food. So now what do you now?

      It’s 2100ad, and we got rid of meat 80years ago, along with 10,000 years of human culinary culture and animal husbandry, and now we are right back where we started as far as green house gases (though probably worse because fossil fuels are still around). So what have you solved? What did destroying a huge part of the essence of human society accomplish? Hundreds and thousands of cultures were told that because burning coal and natural gas is cheaper and certian people will get rich from continuing to do that, those billions of people can’t have certain kinds of food anymore. That’s not a deal anyone will take, nor should they.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        These “treats” you keep bringing up, most people call food.

        You’ve already sunk your own argument with your prior “well I don’t want to eat anything but yummy epic le Baconators don’t tell me what to dooooooooo” statements. “Most people” is an empty statement where you apply your own destructive selfishness to the majority of humanity, and even if you were right, that’s contributing to the ongoing ruination of the planet through both industrialized factory meat production pollution and the consequent massive carbon footprint of it all.

        It’s 2100ad, and we got rid of meat 80years ago, along with 10,000 years of human culinary culture and animal husbandry, and now we are right back where we started as far as green house gases (though probably worse because fossil fuels are still around). So what have you solved?

        “Inflicting less suffering and death on living beings and reducing pollution and land depletion. And for what? What would all of that solve? That doesn’t sound like unlimited meat treats to meeeeee!”

        You have a clownishly destructive and selfish take. 🤡

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            projection

            This thread is full of attempts to answer the problem and you having nothing to say about them except “no, don’t do that, government bad, what about my treats.”

            Again, the implication is that you want the status quo to stay exactly the same and you lack the courage to even own up to that.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The problem is that people are mean to animals? Sorry, I don’t see that as a problem at all. Producing food for humans’ causes green house gases? Yes. I agree, humans have impact on their environment. We should destroy all human culinary culture and eat only what is the most efficiency use of land? Why?

              • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                The problem is that people are mean to animals?

                You are selectively ignoring both me and everyone else here stating over and over again that the environmental damage, pollution, and carbon waste of industrialized meat farming is a massive planet threatening problem. The ignorance is on you.

                Sorry

                You’re not. Stop doing that smug passive-aggressive Reddit talk.

                I don’t see that as a problem at all.

                The planet’s becoming desertified for the sake of your meat treats and you don’t see a problem? You’re destructively ignorant.

                We should destroy all human culinary culture and eat only what is the most efficiency use of land? Why?

                So we don’t fucking die for the sake of your unfettered treat demands.

                • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How about we get rid of fossil fuels? You dont’ need to commute daily by car to your negative worth sales job. Lots of people actually hate their jobs under capitalism but no one says you know what? I actually really hate eating meat but I feel like I’m forced to do it anyway. People enjoy food. It’s one of the few joys many have left in our hell society.

                  Your solution to the environmental damage caused by agriculture is “eat less food.” That’s not a solution at all! My solution is that amazing experiences that human culture and society can provide us is 35% of the problem so let’s address the other 65% because that’s the shit that doesn’t make life worth living. Shipping consumer electronics 8,000 miles just to throw away within a year doesn’t make anyone happy. Spending 2hours a day commuting via car to some shitty office so that you can sell more consumer junk doesn’t make anyone happy. These are the things that should be changed. The fact that people eat different food then you should be celebrated. Human culture is awesome and a world where we all eat the same food because it’s the most efficient isn’t a world worth living in.

                  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    How about we get rid of fossil fuels?

                    Concern trolling argument. Besides, if those fossil fuels were gotten rid of, your meat treats would be staggeringly impacted when it comes to everything from raising to slaughtering to distribution, so you would suffer a loss there anyway.

                    The fact that people eat different food then you should be celebrated. Human culture is awesome and a world where we all eat the same food because it’s the most efficient isn’t a world worth living in.

                    Again, you’re selectively ignoring the very large pollution, land depletion, and carbon footprint of industrialized factory meat farming by conjuring an imaginary hyperbole all-or-nothing situation where nothing can be done unless everything is done. Besides, if I had to choose between those extremes, I’d rather the planet not become uninhabitable. Choosing otherwise if those must be the two extremes is basically death cult thinking, and for what?

                    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study

                    You are choosing to ignore the facts over and over again while pretending you’re not getting any arguments of that sort because you have nothing but your petty selfishness to fall back on here.

                    You are being willfully ignorant for obscenely petty and selfish reasons.