I don't have all the links I had saved on reddit anymore so I'm trying to get ahead of the next struggle session and I think it would be beneficial for everybody if we planned it out ahead of time. We should at least figure out what it will be about and when it should start. Any ideas? I was thinking we should do something a little bit different than the usual.

    • eduardog3000 [he/him]
      12·
      4 years ago

      Ooh, I'll address the environmental argument:

      Fossils fuels have a much larger effect on the environment to the point where non fossil fuel greenhouse gases from animal agriculture are an afterthought. On top of that, individual action with regards to the climate is useless.

      Here's Kurtis Baute going over his carbon footprint as much as he does to make his footprint extremely low (including veganism) is basically cancelled out by one person's private flights, and he recognizes as much. And that's still not even getting into the system as a whole.

        • eduardog3000 [he/him]
          1·
          4 years ago

          It is true that large-scale societal changes rarely happen as a result of one person’s efforts. Rather, these changes happen when a number of people begin to live in alignment with their shared values.

          That's not true. Changes happen at a systemic level.

        • eduardog3000 [he/him]
          1·
          4 years ago

          The first one is flat wrong. Non CO2 animal ag emissions are the 18% figure at best. No way in hell are they 50 fucking percent.

            • eduardog3000 [he/him]
              2·
              4 years ago

              Ok, let's look at the EPA source. 76% of ghg emissions are CO2, 65pp of which are from "fossil fuels and industrial processes", only 16% come from Methane. If animal ag truly made up 51% of ghg emissions, most of that would be from fossil fuels.

              Then scroll down. 24% of emissions are from "Ag, Forestry, and other land use", which includes animal ag, plant ag, forestry, and more. So animal ag only actually makes up <24% of ghg emissions.

              The image lists it as a source without actually using it as a source...

      • Utopia [none/use name]
        6·
        4 years ago

        Brb killing a living being for literally no reason. The vast majority of people do not need to eat small game, or any meat, in modern day society.

          • Utopia [none/use name]
            1·
            4 years ago

            But the difference is animals can suffer and are actually aware they are alive

              • Utopia [none/use name]
                2·
                4 years ago

                I have a lot of respect for Jainism, ahimsa is badass.

                However if you seriously want to argue that a completely thoughtless chemical response to stimuli in a lifeform with no nerves or nervous system, nevermind a brain, is the same as suffering from animals with actual nervous systems then you must be arguing in bad faith (or you're joking in which case sorry for the rant lol)

                • the_river_cass [she/her]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  ehh keep in mind, the Jains live the way they do because of their relative class/caste position. they literally hire servants to sweep the road in front of them so they don't accidentally step on bugs. without the labor of people who do kill, their philosophy would be much harder to put into practice.

                  a version of the same that also barred exploitation? that would be interesting but possibly also bar you from cultivating food to eat.

                  • Utopia [none/use name]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    That's a good point to be fair, I guess that's something they had no concept of when they were thinking of that stuff, although I guess a rotting body does also support a lot of life in the bacteria that eat it, which I guess some of which would be the bactiera that are already on/in you?

                    With regards to a nervous system, it isn't inherently better however for the argument of veganism it is what allows suffering to occur, according to all the science we know to date. Killing things without nervous systems that are (probably) incapable of suffering will reduce the amount of suffering in the world when compared to killing things that can suffer.

                    Even if plants did suffer, eating them over animals would still reduce total suffering because 90% of energy is wasted as you move up every trophic level. And so by us eating plants directly, rather than us eating animals that eat plants, we actually eat fewer plants anyway.