Almost downvoted until I saw the community lol
More likely don’t give it much thought or cognitive dissonance. Its a slipper slope though as you can put in other meat which while it hurts less does hurt none the less. but then there is a certain amount that is sustainable. There will always be plants that need to be eaten in a balanced eccosystem. Which brings us to how we control wildlife and plantings. All the lawns and such along with sprawl. Basically there is a lot to go around. Still beef is kinda a no brainer. I would like to say its why my wife and I eat little to no beef now but cost is a big contributer. My wife is quite the carnivore and if beef was cheap she would want to get it im sure. I would like to get down to were I did not buy meat and only ate eggs and milk along with honey and such along with plants. Its my particular line I would like to be at. You will notice I said buy because im not going to not eat it when its otherwise present like at parties or something.
One might say that I am a hypocrite. Yes, it is bad for the environment and yes I do eat beef on occasion.
I don’t believe complaining about the problem online will help anything move beyond that. I believe in total, immediate, cold turkey reform that probably causes just as much bad as it does good and I’m also fine with being the bad guy there.
Animal life is still life. Humans like to play God by herding cattle, domesticating, and breeding because they don’t want to commit to the greater good for all. They only want what’s best for humans.
LOL
This holier-than-thou bullshit again, probably typed out on a device manufactured with slave labor or assembled with parts produced via slave labor.
But sure. Okay.
The point went right over your head.
But that’s okay. Have a nice Saturday.
Thats what im saying. Its basically impossible to live 100% ethically anywhere unless youre off grid and self sustaining.
Ah so if it’s that black and white and surviving means I don’t care about the environment then I guess I don’t. Now you have one less ally. Great job!
Popular opinion around some corners here, generally more unpopular opinion when you touch grass.
But I’ve heard these kinds of arguments from people IRL, and my response is pretty simple: I do care about the environment, but there’s only so much time and energy I can devote to it. My day job is already essentially expanding public transit infrastructure, something the environment badly needs, just look at the GHG emissions of the transportation sector as an example. I don’t isolate myself politically, partially so that I can give people in otherwise more right-wing circles a bit of a window to what’s actually happening and give those that are more left-leaning (and more environmentally minded) in those circles who are somewhat worried about sharing their opinion an emotional home there. My phone is a fairphone, and I used my last phone for I think about 8 years. I can’t be perfect, and I never will, no one ever will. I do what I can. I enjoy beef (even though I don’t eat it super often), and I need to be able to enjoy things every once in a while to stay sane in this world. Even Greta Thunberg was “caught” using one-way packaging at some point, and you know what? It’s irrelevant. She isn’t perfect, either. She’s just pretty damn good at it.
If they still don’t get it, I show them my fairphone and ask them what their phone is. I shit you not, it seems like it’s always an iPhone, one of the worst offenders around. “You have an iPhone. So I guess you don’t care about the environment?”
I care less about the enviroment and way more about animals, but yes.
For your (and other’s) consideration. Thinking beyond domesticated animals. Non-domesticated animals need healthy environments. Degradation or loss of habitat is the greatest cause of extinction. Protecting the environment is protecting animals.
Eating it on a plane would be an even greater way.
As rage bait as the title is, it fails to be unpopular
LMAO…. Every time I see one of these obnoxious posts, it makes me want to eat the think they’re crying about. It’s like a fucking commercial.
congratulations on being a reactionary?
The irony of being called a reactionary in the comments of a post containing typical vegan spew that no one asked for.
And be it as it may, I’d rather be reactionary than an obnoxious vegan.
This is the “my gender is attack helicopter” of the anti-vegan jokes.
Fair. But this post is the epitome of what everyone thinks a vegan is. If I were a vegan, on behalf of all vegans, I’d be telling OP to shut the fuck up.
I am vegan because I realised it was logically incongruent to claim I cared about the environment and still eat meat (in addition to animal abuse).
Why would I tell OP to shut up? They’re right.
You at least didn’t feel obligated to tell others how they should feel about it.
Why would it matter if I did? Is it any different from pointing out any other injustice?
I supposed there’s nothing stopping you from posting whatever they fuck you want to post about. It’s a free lemmy… however, no one wants to hear(read) bullshit from obnoxious vegans about what they think of what others do.
They hypocritically yell at everyone that tells them to eat a McRib and shut the fuck up that no one has the right to tell them what to eat- yet someone feel justified to stand upon high and arrogantly proclaim that a time the rats meat is a [generic derogatory that only vegans think is clever].
The rub is- no one cares.
This is why you don’t see rando posts by non-vegans outside of cooking communities bragging about how awesome it is to eat meat.
No one cares.
Having children is the most environmentally damaging thing people can do
I’ll keep enjoying beef, and my freedom from children
I raise animals, I look after them well and at the peak of their lives I butcher them and use them tip to tail.
Someone eating impossible burgers and oreos have a much greater environmental impact than I do.
That’s just incorrect. The water, food, and land taken up by your animals in the months from birth to slaughter are order of magnitudes above the amount needed to grow the equivalent amount of calories of plants.
Livestock need plants to grow. You need to grow plants first, then give it to the livestock, and you need a tonne of plants for each animal. Cutting out the animal and just eating the plants instead is an enormous gain of efficiency.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
It’d be like saying you create your own energy on your property by maintaining a forest which you sustainably log to use as fuel for a boiler where you use the steam to turn turbines and that’s more environmentally friendly than someone getting their energy from a solar farm 100km away because the solar farm isn’t local.
We can’t eat grass, which is the plant that cattle eat
Farmland isn’t locked to one specific crop. It can be used to grow anything. The vast majority of farmland on Earth grows cattle feed, not because it’s the only thing that grows, but because there is more economic demand to grow feed for cattle than food for humans. That huge demand comes mostly from wealthy countries where the average person eats meat multiple times a day.
I’m factoring in growing the plants, building the factories, making the product, packaging it, selling it to a grocery store and finally ending up in someone’s hands.
Your animals also eat plants. The calculation in how much energy it takes to produce and ship plants also occurs with meat products. I’m sure you’re not growing the plants your livestock eats. It’s grown somewhere else using land and water and then harvested, packaged, shipped to a warehouse, and then shipped to your farm.
Then your animals eat it, and most of the energy provided by the plant goes to making the animal warm and not growing the animal’s mass. Most of the previous effort of growing, harvesting, shipping, is completely lost to heat. There is no way to go from plant->animal->human in a way that is more energy efficient than plant->human.
people don’t eat silage. giving cornstalks and cobs to livestock is a preservation of resources. the same land that grows food for us already grows food for livestock.
You assumptions are wrong.
Your animals don’t eat?
You’ve made your mind up that your way of living is the only ethical way.
Enjoy your factory produced chemical laden plastic wrapped food and I’ll enjoy eating beef, chicken and pork that is fed with food I grow on my land.
Too bad the microplastic from your way of life is throughout mine now I can assure you that my meat isn’t in your food.
Lmao you got me. I knew you were a troll but engaged anyways because somehow your top comment has fucking up votes.
this conclusion is based on poore-nemecek 2018, a dubiously methodized study. the conclusion may be right but the study used cannot support that.
So by that logic we just just cull all creatures because they require resources to live.
Holy strawman
Logic is not a strawman.
logic is not a strawman
Too bad it’s not logic.
Threeonefour pointed out that existing costs resources, and it is inefficient to use those resources to produce meat.
Bassturd made the leap to conclude we should kill those who cost resources (everyone)
Threeonefour did not assert that we should kill anyone.
That IS a strawman.
I don’t think it would be so bad if Beef and other meats weren’t marketed as an every day staple of breakfast, lunch and dinner. I know people who eat hamburgers, steak, and other red meats as their primary caloric intake every day. Bacon & eggs for breakfast, hamburgers for lunch, steak or more burgers for dinner. That’s grotesque just from a health perspective, not even accounting for the environmental impact.
A great recipe for colorectal cancer as well.
Then why am I picking up other people’s trash from the ground when nobody is even there to see? Why am I leaving half of my yard unmowed for pollinators? Why am I uprooting invasive species when I encounter them in the wild? The simple fact of occasionally eating beef nullifies all of that?
In a binary world you might have an argument there. We’re just not living in one. This is just a way to pick a single thing you do/don’t do and then congratulate yourself for being better than other people.
why do I do all these things which are good for the environment but then do the one thing which outweighs all of those things in terms of impact?
Cognitive dissonance is one hell of a drug.
Discussion is about values, not the total environmental impact of our actions.
I get it, but if you claim to care about the environment but needlessly participate in something which drastically harms the environment, that necessarily requires cognitive dissonance or acceptance of hypocrisy.
Being alive drastically harms the environment ffs
“In for a penny in for a pound I suppose”
So which is it, acceptance of hypocrisy, or cognitive dissonance? Pick your reality.
Firstly i want to say i don’t think environmental concern is about judging the moral worth of a person - proving that someone is good or bad. That seems to me implied in both your comment and op’s title.
Purely in terms of impact to climate change, claiming a share of the greenhouse gasses and land-degradation of beef industry by eating beef is almost certainly much worse than the benefit from litter removal, half a lawn for pollinators, and some invasive species removed.
Those are all good things, and no one is “bad” for eating/not eating something, but in terms of impact, the harm from eating beef probably would nullify the benefits of the good things you do.
“You don’t care about the environment” is a claim about one’s personal values. A person can value the environment while also valuing things like taste, nutritional value or convenience. Just because those values might at times be at odds with each other it doesn’t mean they can’t exist at the same time.
I value safety too but I also want to get to work on time which is why I drive 100 kph on the highway even though I know that it’s among the most dangerous things I do in my daily life. You simply can’t conclude from there that I thus don’t value safety.
I think you can accurately conclude someone’s values from their actions - it’s the only way you can.
Are you familar with posiwid - “the purpose of a system is what it does”? The idea is it makes no sense to describe, say, our healthcare system as designed to maximise health when it fails to do that. What it does is maximize profit, that’s its purpose.
Similarly it makes no sense to describe someone as valuing safety when they don’t do that. Often our actions put the lie to values our identities encourage us to profess.
However deeply we feel them, values that aren’t reflected in our actions cannot be our values.
The values don’t exist in a vacuum. There’s a life one needs to navigate in between. There’s always tradeoffs and nobody’s life survives this level of puritan scrutiny. OP might not eat meat but I have zero doubt that if we start going through their daily life with a fine-tooth comb we’re going to find plenty of other stuff there that they do that they absolutely don’t need to do that causes damage to the environment.
The starting claim is rhetorical overreach. Occasional beef consumption does not function as proof that a person places zero value on environmental outcomes.
This is just a way to pick a single thing you do/don’t do and then congratulate yourself for being better than other people.
Correct. That’s vegans in a nutshell.
Totally agreed. But people are entitled to take up individual space without that being indicative of the greater collapse of society. I mean nobody asked to be born, we’re all just trying to figure out how to survive on this rock.
Yeah I think people should be able to eat whatever they want as long as they’re not harming anybody.
