DarthFrodo @ DarthFrodo @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

117

Joined

2 yr. ago

This one isn't human to human transmittable. It jumped to one human, but can't infect other humans from there, so unless it mutates in a bad way it won't start a pandemic. That's very unlikely with one infection, but there will be more if it stays on animal farms.

It would take away breeding ground for human transmittable mutations. With literally billions of animals, mainly in filthy conditions, we just keep rolling the dice every day for a strain that starts a pandemic. We can either try to abolish factory farming, or just hope that the next pandemic won't be much worse than covid.

Those Russian speaking separatists got heavily influenced by Russian disinformation and propaganda for years in preparation of the invasion, and supported by the Russian armed forces, precisely to have this justification. This is like saying Putin got 88% in the election, so clearly that's the will of the people. Assuming that authoritarian regimes lead by secret service agents play by the rules of democracy is dangerous.

Imo it's remarkable how successful they are at spreading their twisted narratives, even in western countries.

I wouldn't say they're equivalent. Obviously beating a fly isn't as bad as beating a dog or a pig. But is beating a human much worse than beating a dog? For me it comes down to capacity to suffer I guess.

That's probably because you criticized their behavior (in a rather provocative way), which is often perceived as hostile and leads to downvotes.

Haven't you been told that we don't talk about that kind of oppression here? Everyone knows that mistreatment of humans is bad, but mistreatment of animals is just how things are supposed to be. They are just lesser beings after all, and such kind of thinking hasn't lead to anything bad in history, so it's not at all problematic.

Progressivism is about fighting oppression when it suits you, and meat is just soo convenient. The mega corps promised that nothing bad is happening there, so praise the factory farms!

But that breeds diseases like avian flu and swine flu that will eventually kill loads of humans when they become human transmissible. It's all just a bit delayed this time.

I'd be very interested in the source for this...

America’s richest 10% are responsible for 40% of its planet-heating pollution

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/17/business/rich-americans-climate-footprint-emissions/index.html

The emissions of the middle class are also a huge problem and will have to drop to 0 as well.

This is partially why most veganism arguments that try and say that we shouldn't kill and eat animals and instead we should kill and eat plants usually fall on deaf ears for me just because it makes an implicit assumption that plant life is worth less than animal life

Animals don't create biomass from thin air though. They have to eat a lot of plants to grow.

the production of 1 kg of beef requires 8 kg of feed and 14.5 thousand liters of water. For 1 kg of pork, 3 kg of feed is needed and nearly 6 thousand liters of water

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Amount-of-feed-and-water-necessary-to-produce-1-kg-of-meat_tbl2_359929829#:~:text=Table%202%20shows%20that%20the,only%201.1%2D1.2%20...

Eating plants directly instead of feeding them to animals is clearly much more efficient, requiring much fewer animal deaths as well as plant deaths to sustain a human.

If plants are sentient, the moral argument for veganism is even stronger.

I don't know if media coverage and public awareness about the atrocities are high enough in India to make that judgement.

I agree that many urban areas need a lot more and better public transport, which is a systemic solution.

In rural regions it's not practical to build enough infrastructure to replace private transport though. Electric cars are a good solution there and will also get more affordable in the next years (over the lifetime they are already roughly as cheap as gas cars).

It doesn't make much sense, but conservatives are already losing their minds over the 25g we're allowed to carry "nooo, we're enabling drug dealers with those massive quantities". If they went for 500g at home, there would've been a lot more negative press I imagine and it might not have gone through. Maybe it will be adjusted a few years down the line.

BP and Shell only have that much power exacly because people buy fossil fuels from them. If demand would drop, their profits and political power would drop accordingly. As long as we don't even hold the biggest financiers of these companies responsible, how can anything change? Demand drives supply.

It's like saying "As long as hitmans exist, I won't give a shit about the people who pay hitmans, all consumption under capitalism is unethical anyways so anything goes." As long as we ignore those who actually fund the problem, we won't be able to fix anything.

the "quality of life" question is rather meaningless, animals that exist in the food supply chain were literally born so they could be turned into food.

And if someone bred humans to be slaves, these would be meant to be slaves, so it would actually be moral to keep them as slaves.

Solid logic. Abolishion was a mistake, guys!

There's always a supplier and a consumer. The pollution of these 100 corporations is caused on behalf of their customers who fund them in exchange for fossil fuels, directly or indirectly. They are both responsible, it's 2 sides of the same coin.

Of course, much of this pollution isn't really avoidable at this point. We can't have 100% renewable power and electric cars tomorrow. Some really polluting industries will take decades to decarbonize, like steel and cement production. But this makes it even more urgent to adress the low hanging fruit asap, i.e. big sources of pollution that can easily be cut. Private jets are a prime example.

You could say just a few private jet flights or chopping down one single forest won't make a dent in global carbon emissions, but that doesn't mean that thousands around the world can keep on doing it indefinitely without consequences for all of us. Especially if they are idols for millions of people, normalizing harm to society that we can't afford.

A land rover isn't nearly as polluting and doesn't drive nearly as far. More importantly, the heart surgeon isn't a role model in terms of lifestyle aspirations for literally hundreds of millions of followers.

People shouldn't be judged on a single data point.

It's not like we're talking about stealing some sweets from children or something. Climate change just gets worse and worse and worse until we reach net zero co2 emissions. As long as it's culturally accepted to cause massive amounts of completely unnecessary emissions, we don't have the slightest chance of fixing this.

The only way a decent person could be doing this is if they were completely uneducated about climate change and their impact as a role model.

Admittedly I don't know much about her as a person, but how can someone who uses a private jet in 2024 be considered a decent person by any stretch?

Having such a ludicrously unsustainable lifestyle in a climate emergency that will kill millions and displace hundreds of millions in just a few decades is a crime against humanity, change my mind.

The original Facebook posts are included in this article:

https://m.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/beatrix-von-storch-afd-vizechefin-will-polizei-sogar-auf-kinder-schiessen-lassen-14044186.html#:~:text=Die%20Berliner%20AfD%2DChefin%20und,Frauen%20und%20Kinder%20schie%C3%9Fen%20lassen.

AfD: "refugee children should be shot at the border"

Also AfD: "The problem is that Hitler is depicted as absolute evil"

AfD supporters: "just because they defend nazis, and talk like nazis, and use slogans from nazis, that doesn't mean they are nazis. LOL"

Much worse for who?

My point is: if police were completely abolished, conservatives and the far right would feel very unsafe and immediately form militias that enforce their values. That would be much worse for everyone who doesn't share their values, of course.

I get that in many countries, police is badly regulated and you might say that this wouldn't actually change much, but I'd rather seek more accountability for police, compared to a complete abolishion, leaving a power vaccum that'll be filled by right wing militias with zero accountability.

Divesting seems good to me though, much of the police is certainly overfunded (due to law and order populism) and does useless shit (like the war on drugs), while education, social workers and programs against poverty are severely underfunded. Changing this would surely help a lot with crime reduction and other issues.

Thanks for the links by the way, I will look more into them when I have more time to see if my concerns regarding abolishion are addressed.