Kibun
bigMouthCommie@kibun
that won't get the land back for the displaced indigenous people
@GrrlScientist
@bigMouthCommie @GrrlScientist not necessarily no, but it would reduce the rate of land thats being taken away right now and it could free up land that could then be given back (not that i am confident that would happen though)
@bigMouthCommie @GrrlScientist okay, nice to hear your opinion. If you go beyond opinion and want to know the facts: look at the scientific evidence and you will see that animal agriculture is one of the major drivers (if not the biggest driver) for deforestation and indigenous displacement world wide. Im not saying going vegan will fix all these problems, but we wont be able to fix these problems without shifting to a more plant based diet either.
@kibun @GrrlScientist
animal agriculture may be the biggest driver of deforestation, but there is no reason to believe going vegan would change that.
animal agriculture may be the biggest driver of deforestation, but there is no reason to believe going vegan would change that.
@bigMouthCommie @GrrlScientist yes. if the demand goes down, the supply will follow and if you have fewer animals, theres fewer incentive to expand pastures and farmland. Not really a hard logical train to follow.
@kibun @GrrlScientist
>if the demand goes down, the supply will follow and if you have fewer animals
that's not causal, but lets assume that it happens the way you describe: what is your plan to decrease demand?
>if the demand goes down, the supply will follow and if you have fewer animals
that's not causal, but lets assume that it happens the way you describe: what is your plan to decrease demand?
@bigMouthCommie @GrrlScientist it is causal, reducing demand and thus supply is happening in some countries because of higher awareness for the negative implications of animal agri. It can be accelerated by cutting subsidies to animal agri, implementing a co2 tax for animal agri, cutting the vat for plant based products. Germany has had a 10% reduction of farmed pigs as well as reduced import in the last year alone, with similar trend in most other EU countries
@kibun @GrrlScientist
> it is causal
no, it's not. producers are agents with free will and they get to choose their actions. the only "cause" of their actions is in choosing whether they will produce.
> it is causal
no, it's not. producers are agents with free will and they get to choose their actions. the only "cause" of their actions is in choosing whether they will produce.
@bigMouthCommie @GrrlScientist they have free will but if they earn less money through animal agriculture they will not invest more money into the same. Either they cant afford it or they dont want to afford it if growing plants is more profitable. They cant sell animal products if nobody wants to buy them, and stores wont buy them if the customers wont buy them.
@kibun @GrrlScientist
>They cant sell animal products if nobody wants to buy them, and stores wont buy them if the customers wont buy them.
no one bought iphones in 2004.
>They cant sell animal products if nobody wants to buy them, and stores wont buy them if the customers wont buy them.
no one bought iphones in 2004.
@bigMouthCommie @GrrlScientist sure, so your argument is to uninvent animal derived products as a food? Thats basically what veganism is doing
@kibun @GrrlScientist
no. my argument is that industry creates its own demand, so attacking demand is the wrong tactic to destroy an industry.
no. my argument is that industry creates its own demand, so attacking demand is the wrong tactic to destroy an industry.
@bigMouthCommie @GrrlScientist for inventions that is a valid argument, its not for meat based products. If consumers dont consume animal products. They wont be produced anymore
@kibun @GrrlScientist
> If consumers dont consume animal products. They wont be produced anymore
animal products were produced before anyone ever bought anything. there is no reason to believe it will ever stop.
> If consumers dont consume animal products. They wont be produced anymore
animal products were produced before anyone ever bought anything. there is no reason to believe it will ever stop.
@kibun @GrrlScientist
>for inventions that is a valid argument, its not for meat based products
this would mean that animal product-purveyors would have no reason to advertise, but surely you know that they do, and it works.
>for inventions that is a valid argument, its not for meat based products
this would mean that animal product-purveyors would have no reason to advertise, but surely you know that they do, and it works.
@bigMouthCommie @GrrlScientist but somehow me advertising a vegan diet does not work in your mond? Veganism has been on the rise in the western world for years and meat consumption in decline, which clearly shows that argument is invalid
@kibun @GrrlScientist
>but somehow me advertising a vegan diet does not work in your mond?
i never suggested that. but i will say just as there are people who don't eat big macs, there will be people who don't go vegan.
>but somehow me advertising a vegan diet does not work in your mond?
i never suggested that. but i will say just as there are people who don't eat big macs, there will be people who don't go vegan.
@bigMouthCommie @GrrlScientist perfect is the enemy of good, not everyone will immediately go vegan but that percentage of people is getting smaller and smaller. Besides, its no use pretending that we have to destroy 100% of animal agriculture for it to yield benefits.
@kibun @GrrlScientist
it's still not clear to me that any of the forest would be saved no matter how many people are vegan: the land that's been taken will likely never be returned, and the forest that can still be pillaged has value whether people are vegan or not.
it's still not clear to me that any of the forest would be saved no matter how many people are vegan: the land that's been taken will likely never be returned, and the forest that can still be pillaged has value whether people are vegan or not.