Almost all infectious diseases physicians have had the dreaded call about patients with infections that were essentially untreatable because of antimicrobial resistance, says a Monash University professor.
You are making the false assumption that your consumption is causative to the production of animal products which is, unfortunately and non-intuituvely, untrue. The only difference between vegan and non-vegan diets is whether animal products end up on your plate vs. in “cheese mountain” type stockpiles, exports, landfills, etc.
That being said, ‘commie’ is a terrible communicator if that’s what they’re trying to say. Going vegan does help to highlight some of the contradictions of capitalism and you’re on the right track as it should be advocated for. However, the ‘invisible hand of the free market’ does not translate veganism to any reduction in farmed animals, land or water use.
That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying the act of “not buying it” (even if it was a complete and total boycott) has no impact on the production due to the system of subsidies, futures, derivatives, etc. that is set up explicitly to make sure production continues. And therefore has no impact on land/water usage, suffering etc.
With the point being that it’s a good first step, but if your expectation is it will change anything without first changing the underlying system you will be very disappointed.
Surely the societal pressure to change the systems that support factory farming of animals will grow pretty much in proportion with the vegan/vegetarian population? I don’t like the defeatist attitude that our choises as consumers don’t matter, at all.
Are u saying if over night the entire customer base of meat as a whole stopped buying it would have zero effect? Certainly thats not whay youre saying right?
it’s not a nirvana fallacy. they’re actually right, being vegan has no impact at all. a peace treaty actually creates peace. buying beans just means beans are sold, it doesn’t do anything to change any of the problems.
but beef, chicken, and pork continue to be made in increasing amounts. things are getting worse despite the fact that vegans exist. being vegan doesn’t help the planet at all.
what crops that are fed to beef chicken and pork are parts of plants that people won’t eat for the most part. The same fields that grow the soybeans we use for oil are growing soybeans that are used as feed. The same soybeans that are used for oil are used for feed.
This is sometimes true. However, e.g., about 4% of the farmland in California is used for alfafa, which is just for livestock. Alfafa is also a very water intensive crop.
Additionally, there are other uses that livestock corn feed could be put to if there weren’t so many damn cows, so it’s not like we’d be throwing away megatons of silage if it weren’t for cattle.
Go vegan. It’s better for the planet too.
I know, i am vegan for those reasons and more :)
being vegan doesn’t help the planet at all.
How does reducing land and water use through your food choice not help the planet?
it doesn’t actually reduce the use.
Please don’t tell me you’re gonna bring up the stupid soy fields in the rain forest argument :'D
environmental destruction continues whether you are vegan or not.
yep due to the meat industry keeping going regardless of a fairly small demographic quitting their products
so maybe you should stop lying to people about being vegan helping the planet.
It does, if enough people did it.
You’re so angry lol
also what part of my comment prompted you to post that random response?
being vegan doesn’t stop soy from being grown in rainforests
exactly, because almost 100% of that soy is for meat production
85% of global soy is pressed for oil. the vast majority of the soy that’s fed to animals is the industrial waste from that process.
Wheree do you get your numbers from?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254608/soy-production-end-uses-worldwide/
They seem off my guy.
Weird to not provide real numbers for someone calling me a liar
You are making the false assumption that your consumption is causative to the production of animal products which is, unfortunately and non-intuituvely, untrue. The only difference between vegan and non-vegan diets is whether animal products end up on your plate vs. in “cheese mountain” type stockpiles, exports, landfills, etc.
That being said, ‘commie’ is a terrible communicator if that’s what they’re trying to say. Going vegan does help to highlight some of the contradictions of capitalism and you’re on the right track as it should be advocated for. However, the ‘invisible hand of the free market’ does not translate veganism to any reduction in farmed animals, land or water use.
Proof?
“If you don’t buy it a company will throw it away instead” is not a very good argument to buy something if you even believe it to be true at all.
That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying the act of “not buying it” (even if it was a complete and total boycott) has no impact on the production due to the system of subsidies, futures, derivatives, etc. that is set up explicitly to make sure production continues. And therefore has no impact on land/water usage, suffering etc.
With the point being that it’s a good first step, but if your expectation is it will change anything without first changing the underlying system you will be very disappointed.
Surely the societal pressure to change the systems that support factory farming of animals will grow pretty much in proportion with the vegan/vegetarian population? I don’t like the defeatist attitude that our choises as consumers don’t matter, at all.
It’s not defeatist, it’s pushing back against the wishful thinking that “voting with your dollar” is effective and your responsibility ends there.
I mean if they make substantially less money with product x they scale back production. Just like with any other product.
Really not that complicated. Obviously they’re not tracking my personal consumption, nobody believes that.
Are u saying if over night the entire customer base of meat as a whole stopped buying it would have zero effect? Certainly thats not whay youre saying right?
Your argument is called the nirvana fallacy;
“World peace would be ideal; this peace treaty fails to completely achieve world peace; therefore this peace treaty is not worth doing.”
And I do not accept that.
it’s not a nirvana fallacy. they’re actually right, being vegan has no impact at all. a peace treaty actually creates peace. buying beans just means beans are sold, it doesn’t do anything to change any of the problems.
It takes less land and water to feed someone wheat, soy or corn than to feed them beef, chicken or pork.
but beef, chicken, and pork continue to be made in increasing amounts. things are getting worse despite the fact that vegans exist. being vegan doesn’t help the planet at all.
World population increase + westernization of diets in China outweigh the tiny number of vegans in the western world. Your math doesn’t check out.
make any excuse you like for why being vegan doesn’t help.
what crops that are fed to beef chicken and pork are parts of plants that people won’t eat for the most part. The same fields that grow the soybeans we use for oil are growing soybeans that are used as feed. The same soybeans that are used for oil are used for feed.
This is sometimes true. However, e.g., about 4% of the farmland in California is used for alfafa, which is just for livestock. Alfafa is also a very water intensive crop.
Additionally, there are other uses that livestock corn feed could be put to if there weren’t so many damn cows, so it’s not like we’d be throwing away megatons of silage if it weren’t for cattle.
I don’t think there is a better use than making food. I’m fine with that.
deleted by creator
feeding it to cows DOES make it into food.