31–40 of 114 posts
Yes, roaming, free living animals are good for the planet, but you don't have to eat them to have them roaming around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't particularly care about the planet, but I agree with you. What irks me more is that there is an element of consent involved with birth. Life is mostly suffering and struggle for the majority, and it is a mean thing to bring someone into existence and have them deal with the meaninglessness and misery that is existence, all by themselves so. And what happens when they can't cope, or they don't follow the rules…
Friend, I recognize this thought pattern because it's one that I've had before. While I didn't recognize it at the time I was in a deep state of depression, on the verge of committing suicide, thinking that maybe I wouldn't feel tired or defeated anymore. I'd seriously consider seeking out a psychologist, they are really good. There's so much light out there in the world.
More humane and sustainable forms of animal agriculture would certainly be a step in the right direction from the horrors of the concentrated feeding operations that supply most of the world's meat supply right now. But those techniques were developed for a reason. There's no way to meet the current and rapidly growing demand for meat without completely setting aside the welfare of the animals and the environment. Th…
More humane and sustainable forms of animal agriculture would certainly be a step in the right direction from the horrors of the concentrated feeding operations that supply most of the world's meat supply right now. But those techniques were developed for a reason. There's no way to meet the current and rapidly growing demand for meat without completely setting aside the welfare of the animals and the environment. Th…
Why such a drastic solution, why not just lower the meat consumption per capita? Or switch to lab-grown meat?
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
The current problem is the end to end status quo. What we eat. How we travel. Etc. That collective mindset needs to change; and since many of these habits are social (i.e., we assume the norm around us) we need to nudge the want for change forward. It's like a row of dominoes.
Diet might not be the final answer. But it certain helps us to move in the direction of being able to tackle the really hard stuff. We can't just sit and watch. The collective fear that will create is frightening.
Edit: For typos.
More humane and sustainable forms of animal agriculture would certainly be a step in the right direction from the horrors of the concentrated feeding operations that supply most of the world's meat supply right now. But those techniques were developed for a reason. There's no way to meet the current and rapidly growing demand for meat without completely setting aside the welfare of the animals and the environment. Th…
One thing to note is that being vegan is very difficult and most people aren't going to be vegan. One thing everyone can do is to cut their meat intake. People have meat for almost every meal and it's pretty simple to cut back and you still get some health and environmental benefits.
they begin the article by saying pasture raised, organic meat is better for the environment than single-crop, fertilizer grown crops, through a reduction in emissions and and increase in biodiversity and health of the soil. It does not compare it to the obvious alternative of more sustainably grown crops, using crop rotation, cleaner sources of energy for farm equipment, etcetera.
Here in the Canadian prairies, the ranches are by far the best conservators of native ecosystems because cows can graze on the same plants that bison did for the last millenia.
My province of Saskatchewan is one of the biggest producers of pulse crops in the world (chickpeas, lentils, etc..) but has also some of the worst habitat destruction worldwide (less than 3% of native grasslands remaining) precisely because so much land was plowed under to produce those crops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Friend, I recognize this thought pattern because it's one that I've had before. While I didn't recognize it at the time I was in a deep state of depression, on the verge of committing suicide, thinking that maybe I wouldn't feel tired or defeated anymore. I'd seriously consider seeking out a psychologist, they are really good. There's so much light out there in the world.
Having gone to the medical industry for help with my own extreme bout of depression, I very much don't recommend it. They have very little idea what they're doing when it comes to depression, but being doctors they refuse to admit this and keep applying leeches to balance the humors or whatever the treatment fad of the day is.
More humane and sustainable forms of animal agriculture would certainly be a step in the right direction from the horrors of the concentrated feeding operations that supply most of the world's meat supply right now. But those techniques were developed for a reason. There's no way to meet the current and rapidly growing demand for meat without completely setting aside the welfare of the animals and the environment. Th…
One thing to note is that being vegan is very difficult and most people aren't going to be vegan. One thing everyone can do is to cut their meat intake. People have meat for almost every meal and it's pretty simple to cut back and you still get some health and environmental benefits.
I'm gonna call BS on this unless you provide a citation.
Many people (in the west) eat a breakfast (cereal, pancakes, waffles, bagel, toast) or lunch (PB&J sandwich, salad) that contains no meat every day or every workday. Then you have to account for all the meals where there is no meat (pizza, mac and cheese). You'd need to have a substantial fraction of the population eating meat (almost) literally every meal in order to make up for the people who habitually don't eat meat at particular meals.
Edit: I'm talking about meat for the purpose of environmental impact and sustainability here. I'm not talking about meat from the perspective of strict veganism or the milk in your coffee or the eggs in your baked goods, those have negligible impact compared to raising animals to slaughter for food.
probably not a popular opinion but I think the best way to reduce your carbon foot print is not to have children
I don't know if that works for reducing your carbon footprint. Children don't add to your personal carbon footprint. They're individuals on their own. You'd never consider yourself to be part of your parents carbon footprint, in need of "reduction", would you? In a global sense, sure less population means less carbon footprint, but that isn't the end-goal of civilization. To me, the end goal of civilization is life--…
No, you don’t want to kill your children.