commie @ commie @lemmy.dbzer0.com

About

---

Read more

Posts

12

Comments

2,780

Joined

2 yr. ago

you seem to go on the defensive for meat and dairy

your characterization is irrelevant to the truth of what I've said.

go comment on stuff you enjoy rather than getting riled up about this stuff

I don't tell you what to do. kindly return the courtesy.

further, I'm not riled up but your screed indicates you might be.

The meat and dairy industries have lobbied hard for ag-gag laws criminalizing photography on their farms after abuses have been discovered by undercover investigators and activists.

and that's bad

but it's still not necessary to kick cattle for milk

Female mammals, including cows, produce milk as a result of pregnancy in order to feed their young.

they don't have any volition in the matter. they produce milk. period. but they're not constantly pregnant.

Doing so to a creature who can't consent is pretty wack though

it's a veterinary procedure

artificial insemination isn't torture. cows aren't kept constantly pregnant. kicking and beating cows isn't part of husbandry. killing cows at the end of their useful life is fine.

nature doesn't have intent

milking cows isn't torture, but I'm pretty sure humans have a bigger carbon footprint than cattle

ferrier

poore-nemecek can't be trusted to be the basis of my dietary decisions. it probably can't even be trusted to have understood it's own source data.

If one person stops eating meat then the meat industry will create less waste.

I guarantee a meat eater died yesterday. the industry is not going to shrink because of it.

once again poore-nemecek is infecting the discourse with bad science

We could guillotine all of the CEOs, and revoke every corporate charter, but it'd do jack for the environment, unless unless we also all change our lifestyle.

without those companies, the lifestyles would necessarily change.

you're beans don't have the same nutrient composition on a per pound basis

do you not understand the basic concept that less =/= more, and that less emissions is better than more emissions?

yes, but there is no evidence that being vegan reduces the emissions from the meat industry.

you're not accounting for availability of convenient calories. it's cheaper to stop at Burger King than to buy beans and spend my time soaking and cooking. the availability of similarly priced convenient calories simply isn't there if you insist on avoiding animal products.

further, even when people are preparing their own food, if they raise their own, or hunt, fish or trap it, or if it's subsidized or free, then throwing away those foods to buy beans is more expensive than eating what they have.

It makes the difference preventing the deaths of the animals

where are all the animals that weren't killed?

Taste is not a valid argument to harm bovine

milking a cow doesn't harm it.

if you could get that value to 0% percent, there would be no meat industry.

meat production happened before trade. there is no reason to assume it will ever end.

there's still only half the meat production that there would be if 100% of people ate meat.

production determines availability. there is no reason to assume we could produce more meat than we do, given land and technology constraints.