Eating less Meat won't save the Planet [video] | Hacker News Reader

Eating less Meat won't save the Planet [video]

youtube.com

15 pointshosteur17 comments

What is this video's point?

You don't not eat animals because it will save the planet. Nothing will. (By which I mean us, in case you quote Carlin at me.)

You do it because it's the goddamned right thing to do. The chicken you buy at the store suffered through 26 days of the most dogshit existence imaginable and then was murdered.

Go watch Dominion and tell me you still want to be party to that.

Exactly, we have moral agency and we should do what’s right.

Most of us in the ‘modern’ world don’t need meat to survive, so why torture and kill billions of sentient beings, destroy habitat & biodiversity and pollute our biosphere so we can enjoy a burger and some cheese?

It’s totally irrational.

You have two options, then. ① Switch to vegan food from the same shop, and avoid thinking about the animals being poisoned or shredded at the factory farms in order to preserve the giant monocultures. You don't really believe that the same cut-price vendors that treat the slaughtered animals so badly will treat other animals well, do you? Or ② switch shops.

I don't follow your logic. You're suggesting that because a store sells things that aren't vegan, then buying anything from them is just as unethical? Cool, guess I'll starve.

No. I'm suggesting that if you won't buy dead animals from a particular store on ethical grounds, then you also shouldn't buy dead plants from that particular store on the same ethical grounds (with which I may or may not agree).

I suggest that because farming plants also involves killing animals (using poison or mechanical means) and it is unreasonable to believe that someone who fails your ethical standard when raising animals for sale will take more care about rats/birds/… when raising plants for sale.

The usual counterargument to this specific line of reasoning is outlined in [0]. TL;DR vastly more animals die incidentally in the process of growing feed for livestock than in the process of growing plants for human consumption. The math is very simple; livestock outnumber us dozens to one, and consume comparable amounts of food on average (cattle really drag the mean here.)

More generally, you'll always be able to whatabout vegans, because to live is to kill --- it's completely impossible to live in modern society and not harm something somehow. I feel that I'm obligated to do the best I can under the circumstances.

[0] https://www.surgeactivism.org/articles/debunked-do-vegans-ki...

That's certainly a valid argument if your ethical standards are such that it's okay to kill some but not many.

Have you ever heard of something called the trolley problem?

Yes, and I think I know what you're trying to say. By choosing to buy your food from someone who disregards animal welfare, you're putting yourself in a position where you have to choose whether to kill more or fewer animals, and you liken your resulting problem to the trolley problem. I, on the other hand, wonder what ethical thinking led you to choose to buy from such a company.

Name one company that meets your theoretically consistent ethical standard of never killing or harming an animal, even incidentally. I don't think there are any.

I don't have that standard. There are perhaps a hundred food retailers in the city where I live that meet my ethical standards, out of perhaps 1000-2000 in total.

My standards for how to treat animals don't depend on whether I eat that animal after it's died. "Can maltreat as long as I don't eat it" is IMO difficult to justify.

Okay. My ethical standard is "to exclude — as far as is possible and practicable — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

You'll note the wiggle room. It's not about being perfect and never contributing to animal harm because that's impossible. It's about doing the best you can in a bad situation.

Makes sense to me. I don't find it at all impracticable to avoid the retailer chains that are callous about exploitation.

Which is all of them.

Veganism is about reducing the exploitation and killing of animals as much and as practicably as possible. Veganism is pragmatic not dogmatic.

Using your line of reasoning, meat eaters are responsible for even more animal deaths, i.e. collateral deaths from current plant farming methods plus the killing of farm animals for your consumption.

This line of reasoning seems to be an easy cop out, i.e. I won't be able to go 100% vegan, so why try.

Imagine if people would reduce their meat & dairy consumption by 50%, 80% - it would make a huge difference to our biosphere.

And then gradually reduce it to almost 0%.

It's the future ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS7NRtEJBcA

Agreed, I stopped eating meat because I don't want to cause pain and suffering to animals anymore. The environmental benefits are just a nice bonus effect for me.

The study they so heavily cite completely removes meat eating from the equation and supplements the US's need for meat with alternative methods in every scenario. It's obvious that, with such a drastic change, the change in emissions would be minimal, since many of these industries that would be replaced would have been the most optimal industries for these products. But if we consider instead, that meat can still be consumed instrumentally, for required nutritional needs, or perhaps even omit some of those needs entirely; we could end up in a scenario much better off than 2.6% reduction of emissions. So simply taking 10% of the proposed reduction of emissions won't cut it. It's really lazy, as the study cannot account for that in its current form.

Not to mention that "green water" sounds like the most invented term I've ever heard. Like, c'mon, rain water doesn't grow on trees, whatever you don't use goes back into the ecosystem. So of course using it would be more impactful than not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com