• @DarthBueller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        111 months ago

        Margaret Atwood was spinning a yarn in the Maddadam trilogy when she wrote that alpha gal allergy was created by ecoterrorists trying to cut mammal consumption. But maybe she’s on to something. Will people start intentionally spreading Lone Star ticks? It’s already estimated to be the third most common food allergy in the US and growing fast. Even in folks that have the alpha gal antibody but no anaphylaxis, it’s thought that it causes a massive increase in risk of stroke from causing build up of unstable arterial plaque.

        • @joostjakob@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          611 months ago

          That’s just convenient defeatism. People are part of societies and are sensitive to choices others make. It does not save the sharks if you stop eating shark fin soup. But when there was a campaign against shark fin soup in China, and people actually chose to eat less of it, then that does have an impact on the shark population. Things can change surprisingly fast. It’s just a drop in the bucket, but we’re several billion people dripping into it. The collective impact of significantly reducing animal product consumption is important enough to try for it.

          In general, drop the “this is a nonsense solution, we should do this other thing instead”. We need to do all the things to survive this. Focus on making others with the same goal stronger, convincing them to do this other thing too, instead of ridiculing their efforts.

          • @pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 months ago

            He’s not wrong. There’s no way to coordinate any boycott of any product on the scale you’d need to shut down an entire industry, especially one so deeply tied to human culture.

              • @pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                011 months ago

                My guy, it’s the truth. It’s not possible to coordinate any boycott of any product on the scale you’d need to to effectively reduce climate change. There are too many people with too many diverse opinions, worldviews, and situations for it to be possible or effective. You need a better plan that’ll actually work instead of just moralizing it because you’re angry at everyone else.

              • @Smirk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                This @pintdrunkenelephant guy’s a reactionary dog with a bone they can’t let go of. An antagonist and contrarian, the antithesis of what they preach, unable to see the big picture, and nothing will ever be good enough for them till the world burns. I wouldn’t bother mate.

    • @Mrs_deWinter@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      711 months ago

      “Meaningful”, as in, “even if I alone do it this will somehow stop climate change”? Not possible, very obviously.

      Meaningful as in “if everyone would adapt that mindset we’d be half way to the solution” - there are many, many options. Vegan diet, fuck cars, use public transport, buy local, vote green (or the closest approximation available), support sustainable companies, less consumerism in general, change your electricity provider, get politically involved, social activism, convince your friends and family…

      Pick and chose as many as you want and can and you start becoming part of the solution.

      • @DarthBueller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I wish everyone had alpha gal allergy. Beef and pork production would cease and you’d stop seeing dairy put into every fucking packaged food on earth (chicken ramen? Dairy! God fuck on a Tuesday morning it drives me batty). If climate change keeps going, there will soon be lone star ticks everywhere! Bwhahahahahahahahah!