this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
320 points (88.5% liked)

World News

38797 readers
2020 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This type of rhetoric is just relieving big industries of their sole responsibility and enabling them. “It’s not my fault that I’m producing it, it’s your fault that you’re buying it” my ass. I won’t do a single shit unless the people that are actually causing this crisis do something.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

In situations where the harm is caused by the industry's approach, I'd agree. But animal products' harm is pretty inextricable, and its production is caused by consumer demand.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But, the harm IS caused by the industry’s approach. People will always demand high caloric and tasty food, there is a way to respond to that ethically and environmentally friendly, and there is shoving thousands of cows in a tiny building, pumping antibiotics and whatever they are doing for the sake of pure profit

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are high caloric tasty vegan foods available, and when they are not it's usually because they aren't in high demand. How is the onus not on the consumer for picking animal products over those?

I'm all for vilifying the Animal Agriculture industry, they do some terrible stuff that goes way beyond the harm intrinsic to factory farms. But how exactly would they meet demand without factory farming, a brutally efficient way of producing animal products?

Governments should cease subsidizing animal products (maybe help their producers transition to other production), subsidize other foods more, and enact many other policy changes besides. But in most places it can be cheap and delicious to be vegan now. I don't see how you get around personal choice being the main driver.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

I agree with your point, the issue is much more nuanced then how i took it at the beginning

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

One father can aupport 5 sons, 5 sons can not support one father.

Demanding that we all making good decisions consistently does not work. If we want change it has to be via the government. We can pass regulations that results in less animal harm and less CO2 output.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

In many cases yes, but in this case animal feed simply take up a lot of land and there's no way around it. The only way to free up that land to rehabilitate the environment is it reduce production and that means consuming it less.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I won’t do a single shit unless the people that are actually causing this crisis do something.

Companies wouldn't produce stuff but for people buying it. Naturally people who aren't willing to stop buying the product aren't going to do stuff like support legislature that makes it become a lot more expensive and/or difficult to acquire, or even forbidden entirely.

So it's political suicide for a politician to do something like that: they'll just get voted out. Without regulations forcing companies to adhere to those restrictions, it's basically business suicide to just do something that hamstrings the company's ability to produce whatever product. Their competitors will just eat them.

I'm not saying companies/the rich don't have responsibility, they absolutely do. I really think that change, for the most part, has to start with the population in general though. I definitely strongly disagree with anyone saying that consumers don't have at least equal responsibility.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah exactly - just look at the protests when fuel prices had a (relatively insignificant to what would be needed) rise in recent years

A lot of people seem to think that they are free of any responsibility whatsoever and can continue living as if they are not influenced by climate change...

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ive got a question, would you be cheering if the meat industry took you up on your offer and immediately ceased all production? Or if oil companies stopped providing gasoline? The shipping industry comes to a standstill to avoid exhaust emissions, no more metal mining, natural gas plants are shut down. Does that go well for you?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So I don't know what third option you've got in mind. Either the consumer, you, are responsible for the environmental damage caused by these industries by inducing demand. Or, as you seem to be explicitly saying, the industries themselves are responsible. How the hell do you think they're gonna take responsibility in stopping the damage they're doing to the environment?

There is no option where you get to keep eating meat daily and drive a gas car, and the environment gets to recover. Either you take responsibility in stopping on your own, or the industries themselves no longer provide it to you in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, it's corporations, lobbyists and governments that made us believe that we needed these things to be successful. Entire generations morals were bought with new technology that we were convinced we needed. And then the government's created places to revolve and evolve around these technologies and put us all in a position where we'd have to give up everything in order to be able have a chance at a future. Commuters have been put in a position where they need their gas guzzlers, we can't get jobs without consistent access to a mobile phone and internet- some won't even hire you if you aren't on socials.

Sure we can take steps to combat the problem, but the problem is still being shoved down our throats under the guise of success and happiness so most don't even have a clear idea of what the problem is. The industries themselves are responsible, they created this problem and they pay off governments for the ability to continue this problem. We as consumers can have a small impact on this, but without rallying 8 billion people against it, it is useless- the industries only have to convince a handful of people that their way is the right way.

You make it sound as though personal responsibility and discipline will show us the way out of the darkness, but that is disingenuous at best.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, it’s corporations, lobbyists and governments that made us believe that we needed these things to be successful.

God this sounds pathetic. No one made you do shit.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not the guy you were asking, but sure, I'm down. We'd be trading some real hard years now to avoid many more much harder years later. It's a good deal.