• SmolSweetBean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    OK, but what if instead of going vegan, I just don’t have kids. Because adding more people to the world also creates more greenhouse gasses.

    • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Instead of going vegan or not having kids, I died when I was 5. Because living also creates more greenhouse gasses.

      In fact, having a small footprint is just a matter of choosing how miserable you’re willing to make your life.

      Unfortunately the Earth cannot sustainably support so many people living COMFORTABLY, and eating WHATEVER WE LIKE. The more people, the more miserable is the globally sustainable way of life.

      Curbing population growth - not Thanos-like, but through education and availability of contraceptive methods - is the only way we can all have the cake (and the meat) and eat it.

      Many wealthy countries have their population declining. Maybe if we get to the same level of wealthiness everywhere, less people would engage in procreation.

      In any case, if we just do nothing and the doomsday evangelists are even nearly right, extreme weather, plage and famine caused by climate change will indeed curb the population. Eventually it reaches equilibrium.

      In this case, the faster we get to the edge of the abyss, the quicker the situation will solve itself.

    • Bipta@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What if you don’t have kids and just make an effort to reduce intake of animal products knowing it contributes to global collapse and also represents a modern holocaust.

      Animal products don’t have to be as all or nothing as having kids.

      • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That moment when your veganism goes so hard you commit a hate crime on the internet implicitly comparing Jews to cattle

        Edit: I’m from Poland, the country where most of the Holocaust happened - this is where the Jewish population was the highest and where Germans build their death camps. We read about it extensively at school, including eyewitness accounts describing the atrocities involved in this horrific campaign of human extermination, from the home of the Jew, to the ghetto, to the transport train, to the camp, to the gas chamber and to the furnace. Many of us heard those stories from our grandparents, of their neighbors being humiliated and taken away, ghettos liquidated, and public executions. I don’t know what kind of deplorable scumbag one has to be to equate factory farming with the Holocaust.

        • Primarily0617@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          *implicitly comparing the treatment of Jews during the holocaust to the treatment of cattle today

          also, you can compare two things without equating them

          I think if you actually cared about the words you wrote, you wouldn’t have used them as the basis of a lazy strawman to win an argument on the internet against veganism

          • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t care about arguing about veganism. Just stop bringing up stuff like this. Also, do you think calling something a “modern holocaust” is not a comparison in terms of scale of harm? As opposed to every other time those words are used?

            Edit: If you want to argue for veganism, stop bringing up Shoah. It’s disgusting, downplaying the severity of the genocide, and earns you no favors with the general population. It has negative convincing power.

            • r1veRRR@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s 90 billion every year. If their suffering is 15000 less significant, that’s one holocaust a year, every year, since many years. Why are you using Shoah, if holocaust is so obviously only one thing? And why are the voices of holocaust victims/survivors/relatives totally fine to silence? Many have made that comparison, shouldn’t they know best whether it’s comparable???

              You are correct however that this argument is utterly stupid and useless to make, esp. online, where there is zero context.

    • Djennik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is not the amount of people but how much each individual consumes. Getting meat out of your diet is a simple and a small sacrifice. Besides the health benefits there is also the fact that you don’t contribute to the culling of 70 billion animals per year (of which 40% is probably not eaten and thrown in the trash). Not only that but you don’t contribute to the greatest cause of deforestation, antibiotics resistance, decline of biodiversity, water waste, …

      Besides the global population is steadily stagnating (Africa is still booming) as a lot of countries see population decline (less than 2 children per woman).

      • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Couldn’t we just stop food waste? Most food is discarded before even making it to the store. Seems to me being more efficient with how we distribute food is more realistic that trying to convince everyone to go vegan.

        Because I’m not going to stop eating meat and the amount of ppl like me is larger than you think

        • r1veRRR@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Many people will also not reduce food waste, for exactly same reasons you won’t stop eating meat. Convenience, habit, cost, time investment.

          • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except those two things are not the same. We already have regulatory organizations that determine how food is handled and distributed. We can’t regulate veganism, we can regulate food waste

            • r1veRRR@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              We could absolutely regulate veganism. Hell, it’s the other way around at the moment. For pretty much every animal rights law, there’s an exception specifically for farm animals. Just removing those exceptions would make factory farming (and therefore like 90% of meat production) illegal.

              And in a more general sense, we absolutely can regulate carnism (aka the opposite of veganism), exactly how we regulate a million other moral questions.