this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
1 points (60.0% liked)

World News

39603 readers
1760 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] insomniackoala@waveform.social -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This type of rhetoric is just relieving big industries of their sole responsibility and enabling them. “It’s not my fault that I’m producing it, it’s your fault that you’re buying it” my ass. I won’t do a single shit unless the people that are actually causing this crisis do something.

[–] Bolt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

In situations where the harm is caused by the industry's approach, I'd agree. But animal products' harm is pretty inextricable, and its production is caused by consumer demand.

[–] insomniackoala@waveform.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But, the harm IS caused by the industry’s approach. People will always demand high caloric and tasty food, there is a way to respond to that ethically and environmentally friendly, and there is shoving thousands of cows in a tiny building, pumping antibiotics and whatever they are doing for the sake of pure profit

[–] Bolt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

There are high caloric tasty vegan foods available, and when they are not it's usually because they aren't in high demand. How is the onus not on the consumer for picking animal products over those?

I'm all for vilifying the Animal Agriculture industry, they do some terrible stuff that goes way beyond the harm intrinsic to factory farms. But how exactly would they meet demand without factory farming, a brutally efficient way of producing animal products?

Governments should cease subsidizing animal products (maybe help their producers transition to other production), subsidize other foods more, and enact many other policy changes besides. But in most places it can be cheap and delicious to be vegan now. I don't see how you get around personal choice being the main driver.

[–] blazera@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ive got a question, would you be cheering if the meat industry took you up on your offer and immediately ceased all production? Or if oil companies stopped providing gasoline? The shipping industry comes to a standstill to avoid exhaust emissions, no more metal mining, natural gas plants are shut down. Does that go well for you?

[–] insomniackoala@waveform.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] blazera@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So I don't know what third option you've got in mind. Either the consumer, you, are responsible for the environmental damage caused by these industries by inducing demand. Or, as you seem to be explicitly saying, the industries themselves are responsible. How the hell do you think they're gonna take responsibility in stopping the damage they're doing to the environment?

There is no option where you get to keep eating meat daily and drive a gas car, and the environment gets to recover. Either you take responsibility in stopping on your own, or the industries themselves no longer provide it to you in the first place.

[–] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

To be fair, it's corporations, lobbyists and governments that made us believe that we needed these things to be successful. Entire generations morals were bought with new technology that we were convinced we needed. And then the government's created places to revolve and evolve around these technologies and put us all in a position where we'd have to give up everything in order to be able have a chance at a future. Commuters have been put in a position where they need their gas guzzlers, we can't get jobs without consistent access to a mobile phone and internet- some won't even hire you if you aren't on socials.

Sure we can take steps to combat the problem, but the problem is still being shoved down our throats under the guise of success and happiness so most don't even have a clear idea of what the problem is. The industries themselves are responsible, they created this problem and they pay off governments for the ability to continue this problem. We as consumers can have a small impact on this, but without rallying 8 billion people against it, it is useless- the industries only have to convince a handful of people that their way is the right way.

You make it sound as though personal responsibility and discipline will show us the way out of the darkness, but that is disingenuous at best.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

To be fair, it’s corporations, lobbyists and governments that made us believe that we needed these things to be successful.

God this sounds pathetic. No one made you do shit.