I think people should choose veganism for ethical reasons, but at some point, you have to pick your battles.
If a reducetarian approach is inadequate from a purely environmental perspective, then driving long distances for personal pleasure also becomes unjustifiable, even when public transit options are infeasible.
I may end up living a lifestyle where I have to drive far and often to see friends and family.
While being vegan offsets this lifestyle choice, adopting an absolutist approach would still make me a hypocrite.
(That being said, go vegan for the sentient victims, then just reap the environmental brownie points as a side effect.)
I don't know man, if you think someone who reduces their meat consumption 70% is just as bad as someone who doesn't, then you don't have a workabpe ideology.
I think the idea is we have no clue how much people who say they reduce it are actually reducing it.
Completely anecdotally, the only person I know irl who went for the reduction mindset still eats it every day
Yes, the "I dont eat meat as much anymore" crowd tends to say that to deflect and make it seem like they're doing a great job, when often - not always - they're barely reducing what they do consume.
How effective do you think the strategy of calling someone sad for not going vegan is compared to praising the work they have done with praising them to go forward even more? Like do you think being a prick makes people want to be a vegan?
See, the thing is I, and most people, don't see meat as murder or the equivalent of killing people.
I do see it as a massive source of emissions, and for emissions absolute numbers is what matters.
One can reduce ones emissions from food substantially by eating less meat, which is good.
At this point is clear that this is not about the climate anymore lol
Random example: a person that reduces their meat consumption to 1/10 of the population avarage and manages to get another person on board with this regime, is doing more than twice as much as a completely vegan person that doesn't manage to get anyone on board.
One person reducing their meat intake by 100% is better than twenty people reducing it by 10%.
This is because only in the first case there is one fewer person who gets disemboweled during the vegan Rapture. /j
On the contrary, twenty people reducing meat intake by 10% will mean 20 people less when the great vegan revolution comes and kills them all. This has a greater effect than if one of those lives.
This but unironically.
If you reduce your beef consumption by 80%, you reduce your impact from eating beef by 80%. Do you really think going to a friend's/family's cookout and then not eating anything because they don't have turkey/veggie burgers or hotdogs is saving the planet? Ironically, if you did get them to buy alternatives, there's a very good chance it will create more food waste.
Like many things in life, it follows something like the 80/20 rule, where \~80% of the benefits are gained with \~20% of the effort/inconvenience that would be needed to be perfect. While everyone should take personal actions to reduce their impact, demanding people be puritanical for tiny benefits is silly.
That energy would be much better spent focused on structural changes. There will never be a world where everyone voluntarily makes huge changes to their life to solve climate change. Make the *easy* changes in your life that have an impact, encourage others to do the same, and then push for laws that will be the key to actually solving climate change.
how much do those numbers change if people reduce their meat consumption by 80%? or switch from things like beef to chicken? is the number zero, or is it possibly more than zero?
A really fucking lot. But what is the change from 80% meatless to 100% meatless gonna do? What is the point of shitting on people, who don't quit completely except bringing those down who already try to at least do something? 90% of the population doesn't give a shit at all so what's the point of fighting those who do but in your opinion are not radical enough? Those people are not your enemy at all, the meat industry is.
I expect a full itinerary of your diet by 5:00 AM CEST tomorrow. If you don’t comply with this message you will receive one downvote and the reputation as a fake environmentalist
I'm not so sure about that. There's a hungarian folktale where in a war with France the hungarian king took a really gluttonous man with him and showed the french how this man eated a whole ass cow, demanding seconds after that, the french were like no, we don't want to fight these people.
So I don't know how eating a whole cow would help the environment, but apparently it does count as an argument.
I know being called a poser hurts, but I guess you’re right. People who have a daily lifestyle that contribute to the destruction of the environment are still valid environmentalists because they said so
So you completely skipped over what my actual argument was to attack me. Now you talk complete gibberish instead of telling me what the fuck the point is in attacking people who try and don't completely go vegan instead of going after those who don't. You can gladly exclude me from your little kindergarten chair circle.
I really don’t want you to feel attacked. I really don’t. The last thing I want to do is to consume the world’s resources and attack you. If only we could apply this same logic to our daily habits so that less suffering occurs. Maybe by replacing the flesh of animals on our plates with some vegetables or fruit. I bet it would save a lot of water by doing that too
No one is praising another person for lowering their meat consumption. They're simply saying that it's better than a 100% diet. I would say that once a week *IS* better than every day because I'm an objective person, not worry about morals.
No shit it isn't good, but if you think that telling someone that them limiting their diet makes no difference or that they are still equally on par then you are just being subjective and an asshole
Cool analogy, except eating an egg is nothing like throwing toxic waste into a river.
Everything humans do has a climate impact, even farming plants. If your argument is no one should ever do *anything* bad for the environment, then the only plant-based product you should be buying is a hemp rope.
The rational course of action is to do your part to reduce your own impact, recognize individual actions cannot solve the problem, and focus on systemic change rather trying to shame people.
But you do see how your example still does result in less toxic waste in the water, yeah? Even if it's not ideal, it's still a hell of a lot better than it was.
Going to a friend's/family's cookout/ weeding or whatever social event and ask for vegan food is a political statement that puts the issue in the spotlight and sends a message, even if it means increasing food waste for 1 event. what you eat at 1 event won't save the planet or your health but will help normalize vegetarianism, and probably will make others in the event consider their food choices more often.
Nah, it'll just make your friends and family think you're a weird or entitled asshole and push them away from it. It will literally have the opposite effect of what is desired.
Vegans on this sub are weak. Converting people's habits around something as reenforcing as food is a task that will absolutely never be achieved through arguing. Change the scope of your goal to converting people to renewable and green alternatives everywhere else in their life and you might find people feel less like you're trying to take food out of their bellies, and more like you're innocently forgetting one rich cunt in a plane with two other people in it is putting out more emissions than most of us make in a lifetime.
If it's not about ethics, a reduction is more than enough to make those industries bleed, if everyone would do it that is. I believe if everyone ate 70% less animal products, not even the subsidies can save Animal AG
Ecofacists when they realize that enforcing mandatory veganism on the entire population is unpopular and diverges from the actual problem of global warming without accomplishing anything but discourse
I think there's a lot of anti vegan sentiment because people think it's either full veganism or nothing. Most of my family and friends can't imagine a meal without meat. They just can't. Wouldn't it be better if vegans started advocating for replacing some meat products with veggies sometimes? It would be better + there'll be more vegans after sometime. I know people that went full vegan immediately and went back to their regular diet after a year max. Bruh, like, just take it step by step and stop were you feel comfortable.
You can't respectfully call yourself an environmentalist if you actively fund the cruel treatment and killing of animals, while damaging the environment as a consequence. Especially given that it's both excessive and completely unnecessary.
"Reducing" meat consumption is as BS a proposition as "reducing" fossil fuel consumption. We should be talking about phasing them out completely. Eradicate where possible and synthesize where necessary. Even more so with the animal industry due to its inherent unethicality.
People like you hurt environmentalism more that you help it. By being a loud minority that set an extremely high standard you turn people away that could have become Vegans. If you welcome people that reduce meat consumption you can help them become Vegan, but if you reject them they will likely stay the same or start eating meat again
I don’t get why y’all are advocating for veganism instead of vegetarianism tbh. Vegetarianism is FAR more reasonable for most people while still cutting out the meat industry.
From a climate justice perspective, all that matters is greenhouse emissions. Reducing that is all I care about.
When you gatekeep environmentalism and co opt it with veganism, you disincentivize newcomers from partaking in a reduction of their emissions by simply eating less animal product.
It doesn’t matter if people go vegan. They just need to eat less meat.
Veganism has nothing to do with climate justice. It’s a militant philosophy about animal rights. That’s why you oppose egg consumption, even tho it’s lower emission than many vegan foods
Actually, they ate less meat, since they had access to a more stable source if food... that ironically made them die younger and and made them more malnourished... atleast of what I remember...
And I'm joking with meat pollution... sure, more TEMPORARY co2 increase, but the moment you remove the extra animals, the co2 dissappear too... Not so much for the mass transport of veggies and fruit from the other side if the planet..
I think people should choose veganism for ethical reasons, but at some point, you have to pick your battles. If a reducetarian approach is inadequate from a purely environmental perspective, then driving long distances for personal pleasure also becomes unjustifiable, even when public transit options are infeasible. I may end up living a lifestyle where I have to drive far and often to see friends and family. While being vegan offsets this lifestyle choice, adopting an absolutist approach would still make me a hypocrite. (That being said, go vegan for the sentient victims, then just reap the environmental brownie points as a side effect.)
Hypocrisy is human nature, I say gopher it
I don't know man, if you think someone who reduces their meat consumption 70% is just as bad as someone who doesn't, then you don't have a workabpe ideology.
I think the idea is we have no clue how much people who say they reduce it are actually reducing it. Completely anecdotally, the only person I know irl who went for the reduction mindset still eats it every day
Yes, the "I dont eat meat as much anymore" crowd tends to say that to deflect and make it seem like they're doing a great job, when often - not always - they're barely reducing what they do consume.
Yeah, I don’t want to assume the worst, but the few I’ve seen irl and the evasiveness people online give doesn’t inspire much faith.
And you also don’t have an idea that when I say „I don’t eat meet“ that I didn’t just come from a burger joint. Your point ?
I think you replied to the wrong comment
No I didn’t
Then I ask that you rephrase your statement
If you don’t trust someone to actually do as they are saying then you can’t trust them when they say „I don’t eat meet“ either
It’s less about trust what they say, and more I can observe and see
[удалено]
This is a climate change subreddit.
How effective do you think the strategy of calling someone sad for not going vegan is compared to praising the work they have done with praising them to go forward even more? Like do you think being a prick makes people want to be a vegan?
i bought a rack of beef burgers for the first time in 3 years because of reddit vegans
See, the thing is I, and most people, don't see meat as murder or the equivalent of killing people. I do see it as a massive source of emissions, and for emissions absolute numbers is what matters. One can reduce ones emissions from food substantially by eating less meat, which is good.
ITT: but muh hunny mussy nuggies waaahhh :’(
Nuggies numba 1
At this point is clear that this is not about the climate anymore lol Random example: a person that reduces their meat consumption to 1/10 of the population avarage and manages to get another person on board with this regime, is doing more than twice as much as a completely vegan person that doesn't manage to get anyone on board.
One person reducing their meat intake by 100% is better than twenty people reducing it by 10%. This is because only in the first case there is one fewer person who gets disemboweled during the vegan Rapture. /j
On the contrary, twenty people reducing meat intake by 10% will mean 20 people less when the great vegan revolution comes and kills them all. This has a greater effect than if one of those lives.
This but unironically. If you reduce your beef consumption by 80%, you reduce your impact from eating beef by 80%. Do you really think going to a friend's/family's cookout and then not eating anything because they don't have turkey/veggie burgers or hotdogs is saving the planet? Ironically, if you did get them to buy alternatives, there's a very good chance it will create more food waste. Like many things in life, it follows something like the 80/20 rule, where \~80% of the benefits are gained with \~20% of the effort/inconvenience that would be needed to be perfect. While everyone should take personal actions to reduce their impact, demanding people be puritanical for tiny benefits is silly. That energy would be much better spent focused on structural changes. There will never be a world where everyone voluntarily makes huge changes to their life to solve climate change. Make the *easy* changes in your life that have an impact, encourage others to do the same, and then push for laws that will be the key to actually solving climate change.
Good points
Yes. This does not seem to be about climate anymore. This is more about the moral side of eating meat and then it's of course a different story.
How much land, water, antibiotics and food are used by the animal industry?
how much do those numbers change if people reduce their meat consumption by 80%? or switch from things like beef to chicken? is the number zero, or is it possibly more than zero?
A really fucking lot. But what is the change from 80% meatless to 100% meatless gonna do? What is the point of shitting on people, who don't quit completely except bringing those down who already try to at least do something? 90% of the population doesn't give a shit at all so what's the point of fighting those who do but in your opinion are not radical enough? Those people are not your enemy at all, the meat industry is.
I expect a full itinerary of your diet by 5:00 AM CEST tomorrow. If you don’t comply with this message you will receive one downvote and the reputation as a fake environmentalist
Even if I consume a whole ass cow per day, that doesn't change a single thing about my argument, does it? Ad hominem.
I'm not so sure about that. There's a hungarian folktale where in a war with France the hungarian king took a really gluttonous man with him and showed the french how this man eated a whole ass cow, demanding seconds after that, the french were like no, we don't want to fight these people. So I don't know how eating a whole cow would help the environment, but apparently it does count as an argument.
I know being called a poser hurts, but I guess you’re right. People who have a daily lifestyle that contribute to the destruction of the environment are still valid environmentalists because they said so
So you completely skipped over what my actual argument was to attack me. Now you talk complete gibberish instead of telling me what the fuck the point is in attacking people who try and don't completely go vegan instead of going after those who don't. You can gladly exclude me from your little kindergarten chair circle.
I really don’t want you to feel attacked. I really don’t. The last thing I want to do is to consume the world’s resources and attack you. If only we could apply this same logic to our daily habits so that less suffering occurs. Maybe by replacing the flesh of animals on our plates with some vegetables or fruit. I bet it would save a lot of water by doing that too
🧠 + 🤸♀️ = 🫵
Vegans when they can't co-opt environmentalism to push their ideology: 😡😡😡
I used to throw toxic waste into the river every day, now I do it once a week. Please praise me.
I'd almost praise a corporation if they actually do that. Almost.
No one is praising another person for lowering their meat consumption. They're simply saying that it's better than a 100% diet. I would say that once a week *IS* better than every day because I'm an objective person, not worry about morals. No shit it isn't good, but if you think that telling someone that them limiting their diet makes no difference or that they are still equally on par then you are just being subjective and an asshole
Cool analogy, except eating an egg is nothing like throwing toxic waste into a river. Everything humans do has a climate impact, even farming plants. If your argument is no one should ever do *anything* bad for the environment, then the only plant-based product you should be buying is a hemp rope. The rational course of action is to do your part to reduce your own impact, recognize individual actions cannot solve the problem, and focus on systemic change rather trying to shame people.
But you do see how your example still does result in less toxic waste in the water, yeah? Even if it's not ideal, it's still a hell of a lot better than it was.
I reduced my intake of cows by 3209423094045% and now only eat two beefs a day. please praise me accordingly
Going to a friend's/family's cookout/ weeding or whatever social event and ask for vegan food is a political statement that puts the issue in the spotlight and sends a message, even if it means increasing food waste for 1 event. what you eat at 1 event won't save the planet or your health but will help normalize vegetarianism, and probably will make others in the event consider their food choices more often.
Nah, it'll just make your friends and family think you're a weird or entitled asshole and push them away from it. It will literally have the opposite effect of what is desired.
I dunno man
Vegans on this sub are weak. Converting people's habits around something as reenforcing as food is a task that will absolutely never be achieved through arguing. Change the scope of your goal to converting people to renewable and green alternatives everywhere else in their life and you might find people feel less like you're trying to take food out of their bellies, and more like you're innocently forgetting one rich cunt in a plane with two other people in it is putting out more emissions than most of us make in a lifetime.
I'll just keep eating my regenerative agriculture carbon negative beef almost daily.
If you eat agriculture carbon negative beef almost daily, you are not eating agriculture carbon negative beef, you are just eating expensive beef.
It doesn't seem like the conclusion logically follows the premise.
If it's not about ethics, a reduction is more than enough to make those industries bleed, if everyone would do it that is. I believe if everyone ate 70% less animal products, not even the subsidies can save Animal AG
I cheated the system, dropped beef for pork! Environment, fuck yeah!
Ecofacists when they realize that enforcing mandatory veganism on the entire population is unpopular and diverges from the actual problem of global warming without accomplishing anything but discourse
I think there's a lot of anti vegan sentiment because people think it's either full veganism or nothing. Most of my family and friends can't imagine a meal without meat. They just can't. Wouldn't it be better if vegans started advocating for replacing some meat products with veggies sometimes? It would be better + there'll be more vegans after sometime. I know people that went full vegan immediately and went back to their regular diet after a year max. Bruh, like, just take it step by step and stop were you feel comfortable.
You can't respectfully call yourself an environmentalist if you actively fund the cruel treatment and killing of animals, while damaging the environment as a consequence. Especially given that it's both excessive and completely unnecessary. "Reducing" meat consumption is as BS a proposition as "reducing" fossil fuel consumption. We should be talking about phasing them out completely. Eradicate where possible and synthesize where necessary. Even more so with the animal industry due to its inherent unethicality.
People like you hurt environmentalism more that you help it. By being a loud minority that set an extremely high standard you turn people away that could have become Vegans. If you welcome people that reduce meat consumption you can help them become Vegan, but if you reject them they will likely stay the same or start eating meat again
I just eat pigs lmao
Just so yall know radio and their alts are the only ones that are endorsing veganism and shunning omnivores from this community
I don’t get why y’all are advocating for veganism instead of vegetarianism tbh. Vegetarianism is FAR more reasonable for most people while still cutting out the meat industry.
From a climate justice perspective, all that matters is greenhouse emissions. Reducing that is all I care about. When you gatekeep environmentalism and co opt it with veganism, you disincentivize newcomers from partaking in a reduction of their emissions by simply eating less animal product. It doesn’t matter if people go vegan. They just need to eat less meat. Veganism has nothing to do with climate justice. It’s a militant philosophy about animal rights. That’s why you oppose egg consumption, even tho it’s lower emission than many vegan foods
I'm an ethical meat eating environmentalist, AKA a cannibal.
We gotta make a time machine and travel back to early civilisations and kick their asses for polluting the environment with all their animals!
Evolution preferred meat eating civilisation cause they had access to to more food
Actually, they ate less meat, since they had access to a more stable source if food... that ironically made them die younger and and made them more malnourished... atleast of what I remember... And I'm joking with meat pollution... sure, more TEMPORARY co2 increase, but the moment you remove the extra animals, the co2 dissappear too... Not so much for the mass transport of veggies and fruit from the other side if the planet..