• littlecolt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Similar to recycling, the impact is small. There must be large systemic change. My adoption of a vegan diet, or my diligent recycling of aluminum and plastic, is a drop in the bucket.

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The issue is how then do you get that systematic change? Governments are going to be extremely hard to convince to do anything as along as people expect to consume animal products en mass. It’s going to have to start with individual action until systematic change is palatable

        And with systematic action, it’s still going to have to involve change in consumption in the end. Factory farming is pretty much the only thing that scales. Want to avoid it? We’re going to need to see great drops in production and in turn consumption

        The impacts of people taking action do add up. For instance, in Germany there’s been declines in per capita meat consumption over the past decade

        In 2011, Germans ate 138 pounds of meat each year. Today, it’s 121 pounds — a 12.3 percent decline. And much of that decline took place in the last few years, a time period when grocery sales of plant-based food nearly doubled.

        https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23273338/germany-less-meat-plant-based-vegan-vegetarian-flexitarian

      • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, you should go vegan, and also post depressing memes on 196 that make all the carnists feel guilty. That’ll have a bigger impact.

      • dinkusmann@feddit.rocks
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        This is emphatically untrue. If you eat a few hundred fewer animals over the course of your life, that’s a few hundred animals saved (even if supply and demand aren’t perfectly elastic, the expected utility is 1-to-1). The fact that billions will still die is irrelevant.

        Would you refuse to save a child from poverty on the grounds that billions will continue living in poverty?

        • littlecolt@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yes, it’s not my responsibility to save that child from poverty. I would also be terrible at it. I would much rather financially support organizations than will assist in saving children from poverty in a more meaningful way, as well as supporting politicians that align with my values as far as lifting not just children, but everyone, out of poverty.

          • dinkusmann@feddit.rocks
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            You can, and should, give money to animal charities and support politicians in favor of better animal welfare (if you can find one) and I will commend you for that. But that does not negate the harm you do by paying for animals to be killed. Just as giving to a women’s shelter does not then mean that it becomes excusable for you to beat your wife.

            And I apologize for that analogy, I don’t think you’re a bad person. But I do think it’s an appropriate analogy and I think we live in a culture that normalizes and encourages normal people to participate in terrible atrocities. The reality is that you have nothing to lose from going vegan and, after a little research and preparation, it doesn’t take any extra effort, time, or money.

                • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Buying meat is paying for animals to be killed

                  no, it’s not. there are people who kill animals, and there are people who pay them, and most people are neither.

                  • debil@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    The cost of killing is tied to that package of minced meat whether you accept it or not.

                  • dinkusmann@feddit.rocks
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    So you pay the guy who pays the guy who kills the animals and that makes it fine? That’s the rule? There needs to be 2 degrees of separation? The animal is being killed because you created the demand. The guy wouldn’t have paid the guy if you weren’t going to pay him.

                    Edit: oh you’re a troll. And a reasonably funny troll to tbh. Edit Edit: I’m not correcting “to tbh” because it’s really funny

              • dinkusmann@feddit.rocks
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Veganism isn’t difficult. And yeah my tofu exploits people in the third world, but the beef I used to eat was fed soy anyways. You’re just removing a one really horrible and unnecessary step from the food supply chain.

            • OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              That analogy goes so far above what’s happening, at least for the average person.

              Do you buy jeans or any clothing produced outside of the US? BAM, you’re as bad as the people in the factories abusing local communities and child labor.

              Should one attempt to find clothing that is ethical where possible? Then absolutely, and buying a pair of Levi’s doesn’t make you complicit in enabling child endangerment.

              Same with most things, I try my best to already only buy from brands that don’t: support genocide through funding or messaging, discriminate based on sex/race/gender, engage in union busting or union restrictive activities, employ under the table for children or for tax/benefit reductions. So many people try to argue from a place of Absolute Moral Supremacy, and the world is just too grey for that.

              Reduce the meat you eat, yes, that’s a good plan and it’s good for the budget and it’s good for the planet. But humans HAVE been eating animals for longer than we’ve walked upright, so going entirely non-consumption just isn’t going to happen.

              You can make stances as to why it’s a good thing, why it might assist you in the long run, but to conflate it with enabling violence towards spouses? That’s the kind of rhetoric that gets vegans shouted down and laughed at anytime the name is brought up. If you want to make long lasting change, changing hearts and minds will do that, and your tone/style won’t win hearts and minds.

              • dinkusmann@feddit.rocks
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                First off, I have a tendency to be an asshole in online discussions so I want you to call me out if I’m being unproductive. I also really struggle with tone so please try to interpret what I say generously. This is why I generally only discuss veganism irl. This is a throwaway account I created just because I saw some anti vegan rhetoric and my emotions got the better of me. I’m going to abandon it as soon as we’re done talking. Here it goes:

                As for you last point, I want you to consider things a vegan’s perspective for a second. You’re often forced to either package your ideas so meekly and inoffensively that they’re easily ignored or express them forcefully and then be called an extremist and mocked.

                We slit the throats of 90 billion land animals each year. That’s billions of chickens who get theirs beaks cut off without anesthetic and get ammonia burns from living in their own shit. Billions of bulls that are branded, ear tagged, and have their testicles ripped off without anesthetic. Trillions of fish that suffocate to death or freeze to death in ice water.

                And the absurdity of it all is that it’s easy, cheap, and healthy to simply eat plants. Most people can wash their hands of this entirely any time they want. The idea that none of this is ethical or necessary is an idea that deserves to be presented forcefully. The idea that animals are not property to be owned and exploited is no different from the idea that human beings cannot be property of their masters or their husbands and deserves to be expressed with the same vigor. So is it really that people hate us because we’re presenting our message wrong, or do people just hate us because our message is hard to hear?

                I agree with most of your other points. Capitalism does force us all to be complicit in terrible things to a degree and I’m sure I absolutely could and should do more to avoid exploitative products. In fact, if you have a list of products that you avoid or a source you consult, I’d like know what it is. And if you’re willing to do research on the least explorative brand of jeans, then you really should go vegan. This is an easy win and I guarantee you it’s cheaper.

                As for the “humans have eaten meat forever” argument. Humans have had slaves forever yet you are clearly against slavery. If you go vegan and prevent a dozen cows from being raised and killed for meat, that’s worthwhile regardless of what everyone else does.

                  • dinkusmann@feddit.rocks
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    This is actually a very smart point and held me back from going vegan for a while. Peter Singer has the best counterargument. Suppose a farm hatches chickens in multiples of 1000 each month. So, if the demand for chicken drops by 1/mo nothing will change, but if it drops by 1000/mo then they will hatch 1000 fewer chickens next month. Well, then if a thousand people go vegan, one will be the straw that broke the camel’s back and they will have saved 1000 chickens. So, in other words, you have a 1 in 1000 chance of saving a 1000 chickens. Which means that each vegan saves one chicken on average. So, for all intents and purposes, you can consider yourself to have spared all of the animals you don’t eat.

        • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Would you refuse to save a child from poverty on the grounds that billions will continue living in poverty?

          this is a terrible analogy because at the end of one, you can point to the person being saved. no animals are saved by eating plants.

          • dinkusmann@feddit.rocks
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Good point. I don’t think it changes my argument though. If anything, allowing a creature to come into existence just so that it can be slaughtered is way more fucked up than exploiting an existing person.

      • threeduck@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Couldn’t that logic be used against literally any good action? Like giving $100,000 to a malaria charity isn’t going to stop malaria. If everyone thought like vegans, the world would be vegan, the climate crisis would almost entirely be averted, rivers swimmable, billions of animal lives saved each year.

        If during your supermarket shop, you use vegan recipes instead, you’ll be one of those dominos. You could be the systemic change!