Honey
commie @ commie @lemmy.dbzer0.com Posts 12Comments 2,786Joined 2 yr. ago
commie @ commie @lemmy.dbzer0.com
Posts
12
Comments
2,786
Joined
2 yr. ago
What if that line starts very slowly flattening out? Is that enough evidence?
you'd have to show the causal link between vegans existing and the production flattening. what if it's just that we run out of agricultural land, or a meteor strikes a major production region? we need to know what actually causes the change in the graph, not simply speculate that it could be buying beans.
i am not an expert on global agricultural markets, but my suspicion is drought, followed by a global (human) pandemic, but i don't know if those actually caused it even if you could prove they (both) happened. you can also see a significant drop in the 90s correlating with mad cow disease. there it's easy to say "we destroyed a bunch of cattle instead of slaughtering them" but that's not exactly reducing suffering. i seem to recall similar stories during the pandemic.
i highly doubt we could draw a causal link between buying beans and either of those dips, though.
putting myself in prison wouldnt help anything.
i didn't say you should be in prison. i suggested a way you could actually stop animal slaughter.
edit:
i believe in your creativity and resourcefulness, and i think you can come up with a way that effectively and directly reduces slaughter without landing in prison. perhaps if you looked up your local animal liberation front, you would find some allies to help in your endeavor.
You are just assuming it would never grow big enough to affect the line.
i have made no such assumption. teh fact is that it has not, in fact, reduced suffering (if we regard all animal slaughter as suffering, and the most meaningful metric). to continue to claim that it will is just a hypothesis, and continues to be unsupported by the facts.
Care to elaborate?
poore-nemecek is bad science that misused LCA data and drew wild conclusions by, as i said, myopically distilling disparate studies with disparate methodology into discrete datapoints. we cannot rely on this methodology to understand the industry.
it can only support your position if you could prove your counterfactual, which you cannot.
i have a high degree of certainty that there were cigarette smokers who want regulation, and industrial workers who wanted to stop asbestos. if we were to look at congressional testimony in the usa, it would probably show just that.
but the other user isn't saying we should only rely on meat-eaters. most meat-eaters do think that animals should be treated humanely (i recognize their definition is at odds with yours), and would likely back stricter humane slaughter regulations. you seem to be saying that's not good enough, and i find it understandable that the other user has become quite jaded about helping animals at all in the face of your purism.
Is there just a crossover point for you or you think if noone ate meat that graph would still go up?
i honestly don't know. i do know vegans exist, and i suspect there are more now than ever, but the line still goes up.
i'm saying it's not causal or, at least, it requires more than simply making a thing for it to be bought by someone. fidget spinners are a great example. lots were made with no real understanding of their potential market. some were sold just because it's a cheap toy but it could easily have been any other similarly priced toy. the production created its own demand there, but not enough to empty every fidget spinner from a warehouse. so some other mechanism must be at play besides production (advertising, for instance). regardless, it certainly can't be the case that demand actually caused all those fidget spinners to have been produced.
it appears that the plan of creating government regulation is effective at stopping production, and no causal link to demand is outlined in your hastily-googled abstract.
Well, your graph could just as easily support my position as it could go against it.
no, it' can't. this is an unscientific claim.
Do you have anything else that proves being vegan is an effort in futility?
i've never said that. i think if you want to avoid animal products, then doing so is its own reward. but if you want to decrease animal slaughter, it's ineffective.
i suggest that you go where animals are being slaughtered and stop it.
I see a line that could be higher if not for the personal choice of a collective of vegans, vegetarians, and generally healthier people.
you can't prove a counterfactual. but it is a fact that vegans exist, and the chart continues to rise.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/tobacco-production?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
edit: i don't know how you can quantify the demand for tobacco, and i don't know what causal mechanism can explain this chart.
i think supply creates its own demand, but i don't believe there is any causal mechanism by which choosing to buy something causes more of it to be produced, nor that production causes others to purchase it.
i'm saying if what you're claiming is true, then it would follow that the growth of the industry would stop and reverse.
What kind of proof do you want and I’ll go find it for you how’s that.
i'd like proof of a causal mechanism by which choosing to buy beans has caused meat production to decline. i don't think you can find any such causal mechanism.
what you're presenting is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc. both of those declined in production following the introduction of color television as well. we can't very well say that color caused a reduced production. in fact, you haven't actually presented any evidence that less asbethos or cigarettes are being produced.
i did, but don't get fucking caught! or make sure you have the resources not to land in jail, whether that's a rich dad and a good lawyer or the support of the local populace, or whatever.
i think your goal is laudable. it's not personally motivating for me, but it clearly is for you, and i hope you make some real progress on it in your life. if i told you that using lemmy reduced factory farming, i doubt you'd think that's true since there is no evidence of it. the main piece of evidence we have about animal agriculture is that it basically always increases. so no method, that i know of, is effective at shrinking it, but you could achieve some actual tangible results if you adopt other tactics.