As negotiations get underway at COP28, we compiled a list of the leading research documenting the connection between meat and greenhouse gas emissions.
I would love for you to explain how cars by themselves, ex their polution, are a moral subject.
Is there some kind of “cars suffer” angle? Or is it about the “pain of roads”?
Yeah, Environmentalism can be a form of Moralism, in turn meaning that anything that polutes - cars, planes, factories - is by extention looked at in a moralist way, but there is no such thing as a belive in the inherent badness of using four wheeled vehicles.
Your entire “argument” starts with a massive False Equivalence and then goes on into a massive display of Projection - just because your “Environmentalism” is secondary to your convenience doesn’t mean that everybody else’s is - and missing the point - the problem never was vegans and vegetarians who are also Environamentalists, the problem is vegans and vegetarians willing to sacrifice positive Environmentalist outcomes to their need to preach their moral standpoint on meat-eating and even force others to obbey their morals on that, and hence they are not genuine Environmentalists (their hypocrisy often noticeable by their actual anti-Environmental choices in domains other than meat-eating).
If that is so hard to understand, imagine two types of Christians who claim to be Environmentalists: the first talk about Environmentalism by itself and evaluate ways to improve the Environment on their own merits, the others go on and on about how the Almighty created the Universe and how you should read the Bible and join the other “Followers of Our Lord Jesus” in “Protecting God’s Creation”.
It’s pretty obvious that the second group are not genuine Environamentalists and are just leveraging Environmentalist concerns to preach their Morals to others and in doing so are even turning people away from Environamentalism.
However as I try to make clear in my alegory with the first group, it’s perfectly possible to genuinelly be both, and people who are don’t sacrifice Environmentalism to their need to preach their other Moral Beliefs.
So confident in your moral superiority. Guess what, you still pollute. And while I am definitely a meat eater, you have to be damn blind to not recognize that issues with animal agriculture goes beyond a mere moral issue. Heck, you even started your post with “Greenhouse gas emissions from Agriculture has been well known for quite a while.”
Cars are transportation, and used to get to work and perform necessary errands. Not everyone can bike or walk long distances. Would you force some people to be homebound, unable to support themselves?
My point can be sumarized by: don’t let a need to preach your Morals on non-Environmental sides put aside more effective paths for better Environmental outcomes in favour of those paths which mainly serve your other Morals.
My personal standpoint on this specific subject is that we should be convincing people to eat less meat and aim for less enviromentally damaging meat (more poultry, less beef), and even try eating fully vegetarian meals once in a while, which IMHO is way more likelly to improve things Environmentally that trying to force people to switch to a “Meat Free” diet.
Pushing for the full “Meat Free” through legislation won’t yield better Environmental outcomes, it will just generate lots of opposition, whilst an education “Eat less Meat” message will be much more broadly accepted and at the very least influence people away from damaging the Environment as much in this way.
I would love for you to explain how cars by themselves, ex their polution, are a moral subject.
Is there some kind of “cars suffer” angle? Or is it about the “pain of roads”?
Yeah, Environmentalism can be a form of Moralism, in turn meaning that anything that polutes - cars, planes, factories - is by extention looked at in a moralist way, but there is no such thing as a belive in the inherent badness of using four wheeled vehicles.
Your entire “argument” starts with a massive False Equivalence and then goes on into a massive display of Projection - just because your “Environmentalism” is secondary to your convenience doesn’t mean that everybody else’s is - and missing the point - the problem never was vegans and vegetarians who are also Environamentalists, the problem is vegans and vegetarians willing to sacrifice positive Environmentalist outcomes to their need to preach their moral standpoint on meat-eating and even force others to obbey their morals on that, and hence they are not genuine Environmentalists (their hypocrisy often noticeable by their actual anti-Environmental choices in domains other than meat-eating).
If that is so hard to understand, imagine two types of Christians who claim to be Environmentalists: the first talk about Environmentalism by itself and evaluate ways to improve the Environment on their own merits, the others go on and on about how the Almighty created the Universe and how you should read the Bible and join the other “Followers of Our Lord Jesus” in “Protecting God’s Creation”.
It’s pretty obvious that the second group are not genuine Environamentalists and are just leveraging Environmentalist concerns to preach their Morals to others and in doing so are even turning people away from Environamentalism.
However as I try to make clear in my alegory with the first group, it’s perfectly possible to genuinelly be both, and people who are don’t sacrifice Environmentalism to their need to preach their other Moral Beliefs.
There are people who oppose cars on moral grounds - they make cities noisy, they pollute, they kill people
Oh, wait, that’s rational grounds.
So confident in your moral superiority. Guess what, you still pollute. And while I am definitely a meat eater, you have to be damn blind to not recognize that issues with animal agriculture goes beyond a mere moral issue. Heck, you even started your post with “Greenhouse gas emissions from Agriculture has been well known for quite a while.”
Cars are transportation, and used to get to work and perform necessary errands. Not everyone can bike or walk long distances. Would you force some people to be homebound, unable to support themselves?
By not having children, my wife and I save 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent, compared to living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year)..
I suggest you re-read my previous post.
My point can be sumarized by: don’t let a need to preach your Morals on non-Environmental sides put aside more effective paths for better Environmental outcomes in favour of those paths which mainly serve your other Morals.
My personal standpoint on this specific subject is that we should be convincing people to eat less meat and aim for less enviromentally damaging meat (more poultry, less beef), and even try eating fully vegetarian meals once in a while, which IMHO is way more likelly to improve things Environmentally that trying to force people to switch to a “Meat Free” diet.
Pushing for the full “Meat Free” through legislation won’t yield better Environmental outcomes, it will just generate lots of opposition, whilst an education “Eat less Meat” message will be much more broadly accepted and at the very least influence people away from damaging the Environment as much in this way.