this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
538 points (87.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43874 readers
1325 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It has to be both. Our World in Data puts it one way:
Or to cut through the flowery language - farms need to stop producing meat, and people need to stop eating it.
And that's cool and all but ain't no way you will convince everyone to quit eating meat. Especially given that it's not always a matter of choosing. Even then acting morally superior ain't helping.
It's the same discussion with cars, people will do whatever is most convenient and available, if you don't want people to use cars you don't go around telling tjem not to use it, you act on the city's design and public transport to make it so it is convenient to use the alternatives and then you start banning cars from city centers, then move towards the periphery, etc etc. All these are actions taken at the source. Sure telling people to mot use cars as much, to carpool, etc will help a bit but it ain't gonna solve your issues chief.
Maybe we can't convince everyone to quit eating meat, but I would hope that we could appeal to self-described environmentalists, who have a stated interest in making sustainable changes.
That's the OP's point, after all. That the science unambiguously states that we need to stop eating meat if we care about meeting our climate goals. Any environmentalist who learns that this needs to happen and still chooses to eat meat is acting against their own ethics.
But you're still pushing the responsibility to individuals, which is literally an oil company tactic.
"You eat meat? Guess you aren't a real environmentalist after all!" Is not the way we'll get more people to quit eating meat. In fact you can't even know why they eat meat despite knowing it's bad for the environment. And it still won't address the problem.
This isn't a race to moral purity.
Ok but remember this part?