commie @ commie @lemmy.dbzer0.com

About

---

Read more

Posts

12

Comments

2,786

Joined

2 yr. ago

this is posturing and the rhetoric. it is not evidence.

calling me names doesn't make what I'm saying any less true

this isn't proof. it's story telling

prove it

we can't know

it's not causal

why did the cost go up? what other variables are at play?

And a tariff on it will increase the price, because that is just how economics works.

this is not very scientific.

we could have a more robust economy where we do make everything and they make everything and nothing needs to be more expensive, if we just let it be less profitable

that's not going to help

eating meat is absolutely justifiable.

I would choose one that is provably effective. actually rescuing animals tangibly saves them from the agricultural system. everything else I can think of is the equivalent of hopes and prayers.

I mean I don't know: these are some pretty wild hypotheticals we are concocting.

clean living conditions. penalties for abuse. humane slaughter.

I suppose they could be getting more efficient but thats the opposite of regulation.

whatever you call it, we can't attribute it to vegans.

Isnt the line going up constantly evidence of constant addition of new land to hold more animals?

I'm assuming it is this in combination with new efficiencies (like the swine hotels in China)

If we ran out of new land to use wouldnt it plateau?

that's the assumption I'm using.

i think artificial insemination is safer for cattle than being mounted by a bull. that's likely true across the barnyard. so i'm fine with artificial insemination. i could see some argument about regulating separation practices, but my dairy farming friend tells me some cattle are bad moms and don't want to suckle their calves. i don't know how you could regulate any particular cow's inclination to nurse. and... as for life spans, i don't think their natural lives, free from veterinary care, provided food, water, shelter, and protection from predators would be any longer than they live now. i don't know and i'd love to have some real evidence of the lifespan of, say, holsteins in the wild. or broiler chickens.

so all your specific reforms are something id need to be sold on anyway, and i think of myself as a pretty reasonable and sympathetic subject, so you might be right about the difficulty of passing those specific reforms anyway.

but like... good luck.

but they aren’t smokers anymore by the time they are in front of congress talking through a voice box.

i would bet that if you lose your larynx, there isn't much reason to give up smoking. you already basically got the worst deal. this is all hypothetical and guesswork anyway. maybe you find it unbelievable, but i don't (of course this should feel familiar). it makes me uncomfortable to speculate this much, and i have even less interest in tracking down the specific facts about tobacco than i do in becoming vegan (take that how you will).

it's clear that regulation has been able to preceed a decline in use, even against powerful and profitable industries. it's not clear that a only partially-concerned (since veganism seeks to exclude all exploitation, not limited to diet) ideological boycott has any impact at all.

i have no reason to believe that the production of meat will decrease due to the nordic dietary guidelines. keep me posted, though.