this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
610 points (96.1% liked)

memes

10435 readers
2448 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cheddar@programming.dev 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Often people watch something like Dominion, get shocked, and decide to go vegan. It's a purely emotional decision. Don't expect any rational choices here.

[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 10 points 2 months ago

What would be the rational choice after watching it?

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ummm. It’s pretty rational to go vegan/vegetarian. Humans can be healthy and we are capable to decide for ourselves. Cats on the other hand…

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (14 children)

When I made the change, I found that there are three major points that tip people to go vegan. They are: sustainability, health, and morality. And really the former two points boil down to the third if you think of it.

Eating animal products is terrible for the habitat which we call Planet Earth. Cows are one of the leading contributors of methane to the atmosphere, a gas that is 30-90 times more potent as a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. The IPCC is just now, as in the past few years, turning the corner on getting a handle on how to model CH4 as well as its contributing factors to global warming. Then you have to consider the other aspects of animal agriculture like resource demand and waste. Animal agriculture uses a disproportionate amount of water, not only for keeping the animals alive but also for growing the crops to feed the animals. Many times vegans actually raise the point that all the water we use to grow the soy and alfalfa for cows could be diverted to growing crops directly for human consumption. It's much less water intensive to do so, and we know that some areas of the world are already experiencing climate change in the form of less snow pact accumulating on mountains, countributing to less snow melt and less river water from which we draw for animal agriculture and lots of other uses. If we want to truly grapple with our changing climate, we really ought to change our behaviors about how we use Earth's natural resources. Ok, what about waste. I'll talk about this in two ways. First, since more plant agriculture is dedicated to animal consumption and raising than for human consumption, there is a disproportionate amount of fertilizers and pesticides used on that portion of crops. And for farmers, one of the cheapest and most convenient ways to fertilize/innoculate their crops is to be super inefficient in using way more chemicals than what they need to to get the job done. These chemicals don't holdfast in the soils (since our agricultural practices are also diminishing that too), so they wash off into canals, rivers, and eventually the ocean and aggregate just enough to accelerate local algal growths and deplete oxygen in the sea. This leads to dead zones where aquatic wildlife can't breath and end up dying. Ok, that's one aspect of waste. The other essentially follows the same casual relation, where manure if not captured by farmers drains off into waterways, carrying the same chemicals as were applied to the crops initially. Then you have other instances where farmers will manage animal waste and pump it into open pits where innate bacteria will try to reduce the toxicity of that substance over time. The other effect of these open pits is the stench they can originate and send for miles on end. Humans who live in areas nearby these farms have incredible distaste as they feel their quality of life, their clean air is polluted. Then we have to talk about animal agriculture and land use in general. Animal agriculture represents the largest biome on the entire planet. We as humans have domesticated the planet such that wild habitats are the minority today. There is less of the wild today than there has ever been in the history of the human species. These shrinking wild lands means that wild animals have less land to roam and exist in, leading to overcrowding, higher rates of disease contraction, higher rates of competition, and in general extinction. Many scientists attribute parts of the current extinction we're experiencing, the Sixth Great Extinction, to the habitat lost to animal agriculture. A lot of essential, environmental services that ecosystems provide to help make this planet livable for humans are deteriorating, and who knows if and when we'll reach tipping points that we can't return from. Land use can also affect global weather patterns. The Amazon rainforest is one of the largest, single biomes on the planet, and much of it has been deforested to make way for animal agriculture. That rainforest contributes to global geography and meteorology as a sink for tropical storms from the Sahara desert. If the Amazon fundamentally becomes a different biome, then its function may destabilize weather patterns that might make weather worse for other areas in the same region. I haven't even scratched the surface of environmental effects here.

Ok, then we turn to health. Consuming some animal products contributes to a greater chance of developing cancer, as the WHO classifies red meat for instance as a carcinogen. Another prominent disease that can develop on an animal/carnist diet is cardiovascular disease. People have heart attacks younger and younger as a result of this, which might be a contributing factor to countries like the US experiencing lifetimes decreasing as opposed to lifetimes increasing in other countries around the world. Let's talk about the contamination issue. Animal products like milk, cheese, and meat all tend to be recalled more than plant products because of the associated risk of disease within the products themselves. And when plant products are recalled, it's likely because there was cross contamination from animal products somewhere along the supply chain. Animal products also introduce more cholesterol to the human body than plant products. Cholesterol is one of the leading factors that contribute to cardiovascular disease, like I mentioned before, but in this sense animal products promote Low Density Lipoprotein (LDLs) production as opposed to High Density Lipoproteins (HDLs) in the blood. When you have more of the former and less of the latter, less cholesterol is swept up from the blood stream and taken to cells, meaning more free cholesterol floats in your veins. This free cholesterol is what contributes to plaques and blockages. There are more heavy metals concentrated in animal products too. It is often thought of by biologists that the more you ascend the food chain/web, the more heavy metals like mercury and lead build up. The is especially true with fish. So, if you eat animal products, there is a greater chance you introduce these poisons to your body that your body has to work harder to filter out and remove. People often say that vegans don't get enough nutrients on their diet compared to omnivores/carnists. B12 is really the only nutrient that's an issue there, with all other vitamins being supplied in abundance on a whole foods diet. Many omnivores/carnists are actually deficient in vitamins and minerals themselves, like in magnesium, zinc, and K2. A lack of magnesium, for instance, can lead to detrimental impacts on the brain over time (just as B12, mind you). Those are readily available from plant foods, but not so in animal foods. A lot of people suffer from allergies that develop from consuming animal products, and plant foods offer that escape to have good food without the downsides.

Lastly, we have morality. Animal agriculture existing is a form of genocide and oppression on a specific group for no other reason than to extract their resources for human pleasure/gain. This is no different than how humans treat other humans, especially so in the 3rd world. If anyone in this comments section believes in the emancipation of the Palestinian people, for instance, or of the countless others forced as slaves in the fishing industry (an added bonus against animal agriculture), sex work industry, agriculture, textiles, mining, etc., then your argument must also apply to animals. Humans are biologically capable of surviving and thriving on whole food plant based diets, and our choice to continue our damnation of animals is immoral and unethical. The leading practice for meat processors to turn live, emotion, morally worthy beings like cows, pigs, and sheep into commodity products is by first using gas chambers on them to asphyxiate and kill. The last time humans used gas chambers on other humans was during WWII when the Nazis mass slaughtered people of a common creed: the Jewish people. Nazis were and still are considered the absolute worst moral offenders in the entire history of the human species. The fact that we've continued their practices, this time only applying them to a group that has no voice to speak out against or warn others about is cruel, unusual, reprehensible, and condemnable. If you support animal agriculture today, you support Nazism. If you don't, think about changing the foods you buy at the supermarket and order at the restaurant. And yes, animals have no voice. We slaughter them for consumption without their consent. We have them as pets without their consent. We take them away from their natural habitats, and use them as emotional support devices without considering what impacts doing so has on THEIR wellbeing. Humans breed animals like this so others might adopt them as pets later for profit, without considering how that impacts the animals themselves. Mothers and children are separated, often at birth, and fanned off to pet owners before those crucial, biological, sociological, psychological bonds develop between offspring and parent. This happens too when calves and piglets and chicks are separated from their mothers, causing distress for both individuals that can emotionally scar them for life. Again, if you were against what Donald Trump during his presidency did to Hispanic families trying to cross the southern border of the US, with border agents ripping children away from their mothers and fathers with no prospects of the two ever returning, then you MUST be against the same actions that happen to animals. Again, animals can't communicate as effectively to us what they're feeling or going through, so it's even worse for them, and we have an even greater obligation to stop and do something about it. Animal agriculture also involves rape. Farmers often have to artificially impregnate cows such that they'll produce calves, and the more coveted item, milk. I could go on and on and on but I'm out of text.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

Animal agriculture existing is a form of genocide

it's not genocide: we don't want to wipe out cows.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

We slaughter them for consumption without their consent

it's absurd do discuss consent from something that cannot be informed. do you get consent from a door before you jam your keys in its holes? do you get consent before you put your whole body through it?

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

If you support animal agriculture today, you support Nazism.

this bombastic pigeon-holing is laughable. there are plenty of anti-fascist people who eat meat and dairy.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

Again, if you were against what Donald Trump during his presidency did to Hispanic families trying to cross the southern border of the US, with border agents ripping children away from their mothers and fathers with no prospects of the two ever returning, then you MUST be against the same actions that happen to animals.

why?

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Animal agriculture uses a disproportionate amount of water, not only for keeping the animals alive but also for growing the crops to feed the animals.

water isn't destroyed by being used for animals to eat or drink. even if it were (which makes no sense and, again, is not true), using water to make food is a good use for water. additionally, myopically focusing on any single metric really harms our understanding of the system as a whole. for instance, cows are fed cottonseed, but cotton isn't grown for cottonseed: it's a waste product. why should the crop weight of cottonseed be calculated as a portion of the water use of cows, when that's a conservation of resources? it shouldn't. this metric is a red herring.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Using water to make food is a good use so long as it doesn't led to waste on the part of us humans throwing that food out. This is a larger issue than just animal agriculture, but animal products have larger water footprints and consequently make up a higher proportion of that waste.

Also, water isn't destroyed, but it's extracted and shipped to other parts of the planet. This virtually eliminates the water present in the origin biome. Again, this issue cuts across animal and plant agriculture, but animal products have a higher water footprint and make up a higher proportion of that water displacement.

I think my original comment points to a greater understanding of the system wholistically than any of your one-off comments have. If you want to convince the viewer of this point, do my comment but better.

Cottonseed isn't the only feedstock for animal agriculture. Soy, grain, and corn are all others. The fact that cottonseed is utilized doesn't negate the utilization of other crops farmed specifically for animal agriculture, and not as a byproduct of another industry. That byproduct could be used for other purposes, including continuation of cotton farmers' own biostock for future plantings. But of course most cotton grown around the world is genetically modified to withstand fungicides, and these fungicides don't just wash off. Many people have allergic reactions to cotton depending on how it's grown and where it's sourced. Imagine now that that cottonseed is going into your food supply, where it doesn't go away.

I think that the circular economy is a virtue and we as a species should aim for it, but you pointing to cottonseed metrics ignores the larger variables associated with soy, corn, grain, and alfalfa. Those crops are all grown directly, not indirectly in the case of cottonseed, for animal agriculture, and do not offset the savings you get from using a byproduct.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

Cottonseed isn’t the only feedstock for animal agriculture. Soy, grain, and corn are all others.

the fact that your water use numbers, wherever you go, will be tainted with cottonseed or other crops that are actually being conserved by being fed to animals means that your myopic focus on this single metric is not giving you a complete view of the industry.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

. First, since more plant agriculture is dedicated to animal consumption and raising than for human consumption, there is a disproportionate amount of fertilizers and pesticides used on that portion of crops

this is simply untrue. globally, about 2/3 of all our crop calories go to humans, and, by and large, what is fed to livestock are parts of plants that people can't or won't eat.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

If anyone in this comments section believes in the emancipation of the Palestinian people, for instance, or of the countless others forced as slaves in the fishing industry (an added bonus against animal agriculture), sex work industry, agriculture, textiles, mining, etc., then your argument must also apply to animals.

no, it doesn't.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Cows are one of the leading contributors of methane to the atmosphere, a gas that is 30-90 times more potent as a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.

all of agriculture, including cows, is only about 20% of our ghg emissions. you are using vague and scary language to mislead.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Most agriculture is pursued for feedstock for the animal agriculture industry. This is true all across the planet. Also, CO2 != CH4.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago

Most agriculture is pursued for feedstock for the animal agriculture industry.

kindly, cite a source.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

Animal agriculture also involves rape. Farmers often have to artificially impregnate cows such that they’ll produce calves,

this isn't rape. it's a veterinary procedure.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago

Many times vegans actually raise the point that all the water we use to grow the soy

the vast majority of the global soy crop (about 85%) is pressed for soybean oil for human use. the waste product from that process is called soy cake, and if it were not fed to livestock, it would simply be industrial waste. feeding soy to livestock is a conservation of resources.

https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-soy-production-to-end-use.png

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago

Humans are biologically capable of surviving and thriving on whole food plant based diets, and our choice to continue our damnation of animals is immoral and unethical.

this might be true for some people, but i think you will find that most people will say they need meat or dairy or eggs.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago

The last time humans used gas chambers on other humans was during WWII when the Nazis mass slaughtered people of a common creed: the Jewish people

and it was wrong precisely because it treated humans like animals. treating animals like animals is not wrong.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago

when plant products are recalled, it’s likely because there was cross contamination from animal products somewhere along the supply chain

broccoli or lettuce covered in e. coli is not due to cross contamination with animal products, it's due to inhumane working conditions or simply bad farming practices. you're really stretching on this one

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Eating animal products is terrible for the habitat which we call Planet Earth

eating animal products has no impact at all. the problems that exist arise during production.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Eating animals does have impact. It has impact on your body and the animal.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

Eating animals does have impact. It has impact on your body and the animal.

the animal is already dead, and i dont' see the case that the effects or my own body of me eating food is really a detriment to the environment.