We don’t produce 1.5 times the food we need, as you said. We produce 100 times the food we need. Know why? To feed the billions of sentient animals that are tortured to death each year in factory abattoirs. Do you have any idea how sustainable that is? It’s not. So…
You’ve taken a roundabout way to tell me that mass adoption of veganism (literally the only way to save the environment) unfortunately has nothing to do with our economic system.
Every 3 calories of beef require at least 100 calories of legumes.
Worse still, the average water footprint per calorie for beef is twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots.
Add the methane and the nitrogenous runoff, and you have an ecological catastrophe.
says the person who cannot read, ignores sources, puts words in other people’s mouths, and makes simplistic, baseless, harmful assertions.
To feed the billions of sentient animals that are tortured to death each year in factory farms. Do you have any idea how sustainable that is?
i — a vegan — and the two sources i provided advocate for sustainable plant-based diets, and point to the systemic economic obstacles: agribusiness lobbying; little to no farmer control; subsidised incentives and poor farmers’ dependence on these subsidies; and severe economic and political inequality.
for every animal I don’t eat, a billionaire throws a meat party and goes hunting for exotic animals. Again, why are you blaming me? Even if I ate meat every meal I wouldn’t come close in a year to doing as much damage as a billionaire does in a day. So again, stop telling me about it and go after them.
you’re arguing for a vote-with-your-wallet approach, which ignores conspicuous consumption, ignores the plight of the lower classes, and greatly favours the wealthy elite and the state (who can always outbid you). this is not to say we shoudn’t change (our) individual behaviour, but that it cannot be the sole solution, and that there are systemic changes which would boost mass adoption of sustainable choices.
i once again point you to my book suggestion, the concept of superstructures, and to the responses to your last malthusian tangents.
if you have anything else to say: tell it to a mirror.
you’re arguing for a vote-with-your-wallet approach
You quoted someone else and then accused me of arguing for something I’m absolutely not. Did you reply to the wrong person? For the benefit of anyone who stumbles over this bizarre exchange, my question is super simple:
How will you convince 8 billion people to dramatically lower their standard of living?
Currently we are consuming about 2 earths worth of resources (if everyone lived like Americans it would be 20 earths). Obviously capitalism makes this worse, but the question remains. What then?
Once we abolish capitalism, this will raise standards of living. More people will want cars and air-conditioning and so on. More people will want to eat meat. So what’s the plan?
we are producing 1000 times the food we need
no we are not
You’re technically correct. It’s closer to 100, but my point stands.
We don’t produce 1.5 times the food we need, as you said. We produce 100 times the food we need. Know why? To feed the billions of sentient animals that are tortured to death each year in factory abattoirs. Do you have any idea how sustainable that is? It’s not. So…
You’ve taken a roundabout way to tell me that mass adoption of veganism (literally the only way to save the environment) unfortunately has nothing to do with our economic system.
no, we don’t.
no, i didn’t.
no, it isn’t.
no, it isn’t.
says the person who cannot read, ignores sources, puts words in other people’s mouths, and makes simplistic, baseless, harmful assertions.
i — a vegan — and the two sources i provided advocate for sustainable plant-based diets, and point to the systemic economic obstacles: agribusiness lobbying; little to no farmer control; subsidised incentives and poor farmers’ dependence on these subsidies; and severe economic and political inequality.
to quote another vegan in this thread who you’ve insulted:
you’re arguing for a vote-with-your-wallet approach, which ignores conspicuous consumption, ignores the plight of the lower classes, and greatly favours the wealthy elite and the state (who can always outbid you). this is not to say we shoudn’t change (our) individual behaviour, but that it cannot be the sole solution, and that there are systemic changes which would boost mass adoption of sustainable choices.
i once again point you to my book suggestion, the concept of superstructures, and to the responses to your last malthusian tangents.
if you have anything else to say: tell it to a mirror.
You quoted someone else and then accused me of arguing for something I’m absolutely not. Did you reply to the wrong person? For the benefit of anyone who stumbles over this bizarre exchange, my question is super simple:
How will you convince 8 billion people to dramatically lower their standard of living?
Currently we are consuming about 2 earths worth of resources (if everyone lived like Americans it would be 20 earths). Obviously capitalism makes this worse, but the question remains. What then?
Once we abolish capitalism, this will raise standards of living. More people will want cars and air-conditioning and so on. More people will want to eat meat. So what’s the plan?
You’re technically correct. It’s closer to 100, but my point stands.