• activistPnk@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Why not? If the right eco answer is to eat more of a certain kind of meat instead of quitting meat,

    First of all that’s not likely correct info. I can’t see the uncited chart you posted but it certainly sounds untrustworthy. I’ve seen several charts in documentaries and research papers and they generally show roughly the same pattern, comparable to this chart.

    But let’s say someone managed to convincingly cherry-pick some corner-case legumes that are bizarre outliers to the overall pattern. Maybe there are some rare fruits that get shipped all over the world. It certainly does not make sense to divide, disempower, and diffuse the vegan movement in order to make exotic fruit/veg X the enemy of climate action in favor of preserving chicken factory-farming. Not a fan of Ronald Regan but there is a useful quote by him:

    “if you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

    IOW, you’ve added counter-productive complexity to the equation at the cost of neutering an otherwise strong movement – or in the very least failed to exploit an important asset we need for climate action. This is not an environmental activist move. It’s the move of a falsely positioned meat-eating climate denier strategically posturing.

    The wise move is to consider action timing more tactfully. That is, push the simple vegan narrative for all it’s worth to shrink the whole livestock industry (extra emphasis on beef is fine but beyond that complexity works against you). No meat would be entirely eliminated of course (extinction mitigation is part of the cause anyway), but when a certain amount of progress is made only then does it make sense to go on the attack on whatever veg can really be justified as a worthy new top offender. The optimum tactful sequence of attack is not the order that appears on whatever chart you found.

    The somewhat simplified take is: “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, then beat ’em”. Vegans are united and it’s foolish to disrupt that at this stage.

    • activistPnk@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      And don’t neglect the disease factor. Recent research shows that stressed animals (both human and non-human) have weakened immune systems. And as you might expect farmed animals are stressed in high numbers. This has been linked to diseases. Diseases in non-human animals sometimes jumps to humans. There would be substantial overlap between climate activists and those valuing safety from pandemics. And indeed, that same political party in the US who fought masks and vaccines happens to be the same group of people who deny climate change.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        And don’t neglect the disease factor. Recent research shows that stressed animals (both human and non-human) have weakened immune systems. And as you might expect farmed animals are stressed in high numbers

        Good news. Much of the livestock industry is incredibly incentivized to keep livestock stress levels down because it is the cheapest way to include meat quality and (as you say) keep disease down.

        Diseases in non-human animals sometimes jumps to humans. There would be substantial overlap between climate activists and those valuing safety from pandemics

        Couldn’t agree more. Nobody with a brain is trying to deregulate the agricultural industry.

    • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      First of all that’s not likely correct info. I can’t see the uncited chart you posted but it certainly sounds untrustworthy

      Because its results disagree with your opinion? I’m not sure what constructive can come in any discussion after a line like that.

      I’ve seen several charts in documentaries and research papers and they generally show roughly the same pattern, comparable to this chart.

      So evidence that concludes anything other than “everyone has to stop eating meat now” is immediately untrustworthy. Understood.

      But let’s say someone managed to convincingly cherry-pick some corner-case legumes that are bizarre outliers to the overall pattern

      Let’s say someone made the brash presupposition that the only way to show eating meat isn’t destroying the environment is cherry-picking corner cases.

      Not a fan of Ronald Regan but there is a useful quote by him:

      “if you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

      IOW, you’ve added counter-productive complexity to the equation

      I agree with your statement about as much as I agree with Ronald Reagan. Like many Republicans, he was a fan of the tactic of oversimplifying an issue until it was easy enough to pretend to fix it with a trivial solution. Economy? Trickle-down! Anything more than saying “trickle-down” is adding counter-productive completixy to the equation.

      The problem here, specifically, is that there are more farmers in the US than vegans in the US. You might have a point in that many farmers are already working towards improving the environment and most vegans tend to have such a shallow view of the issue that you need to reconcile veganism with the environment to get them to help the environment. But in the process you’re losing environmentally conscious educated people who are in a position to take action, which most vegans are not.

      This is not an environmental activist move. It’s the move of a falsely positioned meat-eating climate denier strategically posturing.

      And here is the problem. You just did it. You just told me I’m not allwoed to be an environmental activist because I support ethical meat-eating. Another guy (well I assume it’s someone else) was attacking UC Davis, a reputable college.