projectd @ projectd @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

20

Joined

2 yr. ago

80% of soy is fed to animals for humans to exploit, so not really sure what you're getting at.

A plant based diet eliminates the vast majority of animal suffering (bonus points for reduced climate destruction, antibiotic degradation and future pandemic likelihood)

I'd counter that with Earthling Ed, who's entirely rational and reasonable, while some of the people debating him are pretty scary characters https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCVRrGAcUc7cblUzOhI1KfFg

Thanks, that's a really interesting piece. I don't interpret that it's really about bias though, he's gone through to offer to some more ideas for context. The takeaway seems to be that while the OWID stats are accurate, historical context changes that changes the way people lived and would be good to add - it's really clever, but I don't think there's much to suggest there's anything nefarious. In times where we are presented with outright lies, it still seems to me to be a source which shines light

Could you reference some of these claims that our world in data was found to be biased? Sounds like a pretty solid judgement was made, but a cursory search didn't yield anything untoward. Maybe if it's definite, you could update the Wikipedia entry to reference the controversy, as that's always a good place to signpost that kind of thing.

Exactly, good for you. As individuals, we can choose to make things better, be a part of the solution, and have a big collective impact by making changes.

Bonus points are that it sends a signal to others which amplifies the impact, and also reduces the power of those large organisations who do bad, since our better actions often feed them less money.

That makes it sadder. Every one of those is an individual whose entire birth, life and death was for a sandwich, and people could just choose a different sandwich.

This Is Vegan Propaganda: (And Other Lies the Meat Industry Tells You) by Ed Winters. I think it's tough to read this book and not be vegan before it's finished, it's an extremely well considered and compelling book for for anyone who likes having their views challenged.

It changed my life profoundly in both outlook and actions, as it did everybody in my life who I suggested read it.

Was definitely a huge change for the worst, any recommendations for a replacement widget, since that was the most useful part?

15 minutes of pleasure from eating doesn't justify forcing an animal into existence to a life of suffering and premature death, especially when there are so many great alternatives - without even considering the the secondary effects of animal agriculture, including climate damage, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and the likelihood of bringing forward the next pandemic.

I do maintain that even if not everybody realises its benefits, is fooled by the terrible marketing etc., going vegan and lowering consumption is still a great solution for those who choose to refuse to be a part of the problem. I think it's one of those challenges that we have to throw as much as we can at through every angle possible, even while it's not going to be perfect. Perhaps we can buy some time for other solutions to join the fight.

Also, yes, definitely not having children is going to be the biggest change I expect (unless the child happens to help be a part of a bigger solution of course), but I'd certainly recommend veganism either as a great addition or for parents without time machines or those who have grown fond of their kids. Also, if nobody had kids, it would create other problems about who would look after the elderly etc., but that's another debate!

Well fantastic - best to go for the one with the least impact to the environment and suffering then!

To make one redundant point, a nice thing about the less natural sourcing of things is that exact dosages can be measured during synethesis - so when tree bark is swapped out for aspirin, opium for morphine etc. you can get reliable, pure dosages for medicine. I don't think that's really very important for vitamins of course.

Yes, I'm pretty sure a lion would die if he tried eating only plants, while I'd imagine a cow would die on a meat diet. I'm less well versed on non-human animal diets though, as I've never needed to give it a lot of thought.

I do know that humans can be very strong, fit and healthy on a plant-based diet, as confirmed by the world's medical institutions, and demonstrated by vegan athletes of all types.

I don't think enough people have made enough effort to cut down (or preferably stop) meat, and animal products, and still see incredible amounts of waste, SUVs etc. Admitedly it's old data, but a minority of surveyed Americans were eating less meat in year 2020 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/282779/nearly-one-four-cut-back-eating-meat.aspx. - not sure if the outlook is any better.

I totally agree with direct action and democracy, though I do maintain that the number one change people can make is to go vegan, as the lead author of the biggest meta study of its type concludes https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmental-cost-food

Importantly, I still agree that you are spot on that voting, complaining to companies and advocacy is incredibly important, but I just also feel that it is people who can choose not to buy the most damaging products (e.g. animal products) from those companies to accelerate more sustainable markets.

Why is it worse to get things from less natural sources? Ignoring that everybody get some of their vitamins from less natural sources, e.g. animals injected with B12, cereals fortified with iron, water and toothpaste with fluoride, synthesised morphines instead of smoking opium - would you say these things are bad too because they are less natural? And if so, why?

Also, do you take all of your moral code from the worst things animals do? I hold myself to a higher standard and don't eat my kids, rape, or fling shit at each others.

Herbivores must, carnivores must not, omnivores with very high level thinking and moral agency is fortunate enough to choose.

It's just not true that we can't make a difference though - it's just easier for people to think that. Even if corporations, China, people on private jets etc. are damaging Earth and its inhabitants, our habits still make a difference also. You know, we can do what we can do personally at the same time as voting, campaigning and protesting for the change we can't control.

What do you think they have to feed to the animals? If you believe plants to be important enough, you should go vegan to reduce their suffering. Also, do you get really annoyed at people walking on grass? How about if you see someone kick a dog? I swear, when it comes to the veganism devate, normally sensible people completely lose all sense of logic.

Worth noting that many non-vegans are vitamin deficient and some medical authorities, including the UK's, even recommend that everyone take vitamin D supplements. Also, please reconsider using your Internet connection, that isn't very natural either.

Are you sure?

Reduction is a really impactful thing to do for the reasons you've outlined, though "a vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use", according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date comparing the impact of food production. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325532198_Reducing_food's_environmental_impacts_through_producers_and_consumers