• UlyssesT [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    25
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No one is going to force you to eat meat. I promise.

    Actually, that did happen while I lived with my immediate biological family in my formative years. You don’t speak for me. You don’t speak for anyone outside of your bubble world.

    The planet’s getting cooked with escalating feedback loops that are furthered along by animal factory farming while hundreds of millions are already experiencing a slow gnawing mass starvation from terrible land management. The rain forests of Brazil, for example, are being destroyed methodically largely for the sake of more industrialized meat farming and to grow feed for that industrialized meat farming.

    Meanwhile, bubble worlders like you keep expecting your meat treats in a timely and convenient matter. And with all that in mind, here you are condescendingly smugposting about the current status quo being “okay.” smuglord this-is-fine

    • BeamBrain [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Actually, that did happen while I lived with my immediate biological family in my formative years.

      To say nothing of the fact that we’re forced to fund the torture and killing of animals in the form of federal beef subsidies. Or that in some cases institutionalized people (in prisons, asylums, etc.) are, in fact, made to eat meat and may very well be force-fed if they refuse to.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        None of that matters if the treatbrain got theirs, thus the “no one is forcing you” condescending tone which is a fucking lie.

        • BeamBrain [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          And carnists still have the nerve to act like they’re the aggrieved party every time they’re forced to remember we exist, lol. I can only imagine how they’d act if the positions were reversed and we were winning as hard as they are.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            The world would be in better shape, there’d be a lot less pollution and suffering to living beings, and they may not even notice the difference because they wouldn’t be as used to shoveling down dae le epic Baconators.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes as a child

        You haven’t apparently emotionally developed past that point in any way that I can notice.

        You’re a destructively selfish treatbrain that only wants changes that don’t directly inconvenience you in ways you can immediately conceive.

        In the mean time, government action to stop fossil fuels are the only priority that matters.

        You’re as ignorant as you are selfish.

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study

        • @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          -21 year ago

          These “treats” you keep bringing up, most people call food. If you are against humans eating food, then this is the org for you. https://www.vhemt.org/

          Now let’s get to the meat of the issue. ALL human food production causes non-zero emissions, yes even the food you eat. Yes even if you grow it yourself. According to the link you provided “meat accounts for ~60% of green house gas emissions from food production.” I would say, so what? Humans need to eat food and some food production is going to emit more green house gases then other food. Trying to optimize our diets to reduce our impact on the world at the expense of enjoying that world is something no one actually wants, including you. At the end of the day everyone has to eat food. So you say “But if we just cut meat production, we would reduce the green house gases of food production by 60%!” Well in less then 80years, the population of the earth is projected to be ~11billion. That is ~50% more people and thus 50% more greenhouse gases emitted from food. So now what do you now?

          It’s 2100ad, and we got rid of meat 80years ago, along with 10,000 years of human culinary culture and animal husbandry, and now we are right back where we started as far as green house gases (though probably worse because fossil fuels are still around). So what have you solved? What did destroying a huge part of the essence of human society accomplish? Hundreds and thousands of cultures were told that because burning coal and natural gas is cheaper and certian people will get rich from continuing to do that, those billions of people can’t have certain kinds of food anymore. That’s not a deal anyone will take, nor should they.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            9
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            These “treats” you keep bringing up, most people call food.

            You’ve already sunk your own argument with your prior “well I don’t want to eat anything but yummy epic le Baconators don’t tell me what to dooooooooo” statements. “Most people” is an empty statement where you apply your own destructive selfishness to the majority of humanity, and even if you were right, that’s contributing to the ongoing ruination of the planet through both industrialized factory meat production pollution and the consequent massive carbon footprint of it all.

            It’s 2100ad, and we got rid of meat 80years ago, along with 10,000 years of human culinary culture and animal husbandry, and now we are right back where we started as far as green house gases (though probably worse because fossil fuels are still around). So what have you solved?

            “Inflicting less suffering and death on living beings and reducing pollution and land depletion. And for what? What would all of that solve? That doesn’t sound like unlimited meat treats to meeeeee!”

            You have a clownishly destructive and selfish take. 🤡

              • UlyssesT [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                6
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                projection

                This thread is full of attempts to answer the problem and you having nothing to say about them except “no, don’t do that, government bad, what about my treats.”

                Again, the implication is that you want the status quo to stay exactly the same and you lack the courage to even own up to that.

                • @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -21 year ago

                  The problem is that people are mean to animals? Sorry, I don’t see that as a problem at all. Producing food for humans’ causes green house gases? Yes. I agree, humans have impact on their environment. We should destroy all human culinary culture and eat only what is the most efficiency use of land? Why?

                  • UlyssesT [he/him]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    81 year ago

                    The problem is that people are mean to animals?

                    You are selectively ignoring both me and everyone else here stating over and over again that the environmental damage, pollution, and carbon waste of industrialized meat farming is a massive planet threatening problem. The ignorance is on you.

                    Sorry

                    You’re not. Stop doing that smug passive-aggressive Reddit talk.

                    I don’t see that as a problem at all.

                    The planet’s becoming desertified for the sake of your meat treats and you don’t see a problem? You’re destructively ignorant.

                    We should destroy all human culinary culture and eat only what is the most efficiency use of land? Why?

                    So we don’t fucking die for the sake of your unfettered treat demands.