this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
91 points (84.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43863 readers
1597 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] markr@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m in the road kill is vegan camp, so sure after Winnie croaks chow down.

[–] federalreverse@feddit.de 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't roadkill another symptom of human cruelty, i.e. building roads and cars, creating a death trap that cuts through eco systems? The only real difference is that roadkill exists because of carelessness rather than intention.

[–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Roadkill is a side effect of our advancement as a civilization. Unfortunately there is no way to avoid using cars or transportation if you want to keep living in our society.

Roadkill is akin to crop deaths, a side effect of our advancements. No other way to keep our society, but animal farming can be completely avoided and it's easy and cheap once you get to it.

[–] federalreverse@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At this point, the number of cars is about as disconnected from human progress as the consumption of animal products is. Much like we could easily remove the majority of animal product consumption, we could also remove the majority of cars and car miles.

[–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Being vegan requires only to change your buying choices. What your'e suggesting requires one to plant/locally source everything you consume, work close to your home, and completely change your means of transportation.

Veganism is about not exploiting animals as practicable and possible. Which one do you recognize is practicable and possible for most humans?

[–] federalreverse@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I am saying reduce the number of cars, but not to zero. I'd guess that in developed nations, maybe 20% or 30% of cars are actually needed (obviously depending on the country and the local level of car use). Similarly, some percentage of animal products is actually useful even in developed nations (for now), e.g. for pregnant women or people with weird allergies.

And of course, society needs to support lifestyle choices for them to be viable. That's the same for veganism and a life without a car.

[–] lalo@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

I believe we should tackle the problems we can solve right now, if you can stop using cars and source locally, that's great.

Most of us can already change to a vegan lifestyle and stop contributing to intentionally killing animals that don't want to die. Once most people get onboard with that, then we should address accidental deaths.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago

Using fur instead of most plastic fabrics is the environmental choice. As an environmentalist, Fur/Leather are the best choices for clothing.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm all about human advancement, but nothing about cars is required. If it were trains, sure I'm with you.

[–] Jolteon@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Train networks good enough for people to travel wherever they want are difficult on the scale of large countries like Canada, the US, and Russia.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago

Incorrect. The US was built on passenger rail travel. It just wasn't as profitable as freight and also once cars started becoming a thing then car interest groups started fucking things up to make more money.

[–] markr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We had a world class transcontinental rail system that was stunningly expansive. Much of it, especially the branch lines that went just about everywhere people built towns and cities, has been abandoned, sold, or converted to bike paths. Now we have basically a freight only system with near zero branch service, and some local and inter-city rail transit that is utterly shitty by developed world standards.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

“Nothing about cars is required”

ho boy you’ve obviously never lived anywhere super rural. When the nearest house is 15 miles away, you need some form of transportation better than a bike.

This is a very “never lived anywhere but the city” take

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I guess rural living didn't exist between 1900 and the beginning of human civilization did it? Because this is a very "ignorant of history and can't imagine an alternative" take, which doesn't reflect well upon you.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Lol and things took exponentially longer and had a massive time investment to go anywhere.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not big on car centric design, but pretending personal transportation isn’t and hasn’t been important is just ignoring the practicality of the world.