this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
68 points (100.0% liked)

World News

22063 readers
52 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


For US News, see the US News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

being vegan doesn't help the planet at all.

[–] amzd@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How does reducing land and water use through your food choice not help the planet?

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it doesn't actually reduce the use.

[–] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Please don't tell me you're gonna bring up the stupid soy fields in the rain forest argument :'D

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

being vegan doesn't stop soy from being grown in rainforests

[–] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

exactly, because almost 100% of that soy is for meat production

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

85% of global soy is pressed for oil. the vast majority of the soy that's fed to animals is the industrial waste from that process.

[–] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wheree do you get your numbers from?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254608/soy-production-end-uses-worldwide/

They seem off my guy.

Weird to not provide real numbers for someone calling me a liar

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (17 children)

https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-soy-production-to-end-use.png

i can't click your paywalled link

here's what the UN's FAO says

oil is 17.2%. since a soybean is only about 20% oil to begin with, you need to crush 85% of all soybeans to get that much oil. do you see how the vast majority of what is fed to animals is called "soy meal" or "soy cake"? that's the industrial waste from processing soybeans to oil.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

environmental destruction continues whether you are vegan or not.

[–] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (14 children)

yep due to the meat industry keeping going regardless of a fairly small demographic quitting their products

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

also what part of my comment prompted you to post that random response?

[–] SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are making the false assumption that your consumption is causative to the production of animal products which is, unfortunately and non-intuituvely, untrue. The only difference between vegan and non-vegan diets is whether animal products end up on your plate vs. in "cheese mountain" type stockpiles, exports, landfills, etc.

That being said, 'commie' is a terrible communicator if that's what they're trying to say. Going vegan does help to highlight some of the contradictions of capitalism and you're on the right track as it should be advocated for. However, the 'invisible hand of the free market' does not translate veganism to any reduction in farmed animals, land or water use.

[–] amzd@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“If you don’t buy it a company will throw it away instead” is not a very good argument to buy something if you even believe it to be true at all.

[–] SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying the act of "not buying it" (even if it was a complete and total boycott) has no impact on the production due to the system of subsidies, futures, derivatives, etc. that is set up explicitly to make sure production continues. And therefore has no impact on land/water usage, suffering etc.

With the point being that it's a good first step, but if your expectation is it will change anything without first changing the underlying system you will be very disappointed.

[–] amzd@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your argument is called the nirvana fallacy;

“World peace would be ideal; this peace treaty fails to completely achieve world peace; therefore this peace treaty is not worth doing.”

And I do not accept that.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

it's not a nirvana fallacy. they're actually right, being vegan has no impact at all. a peace treaty actually creates peace. buying beans just means beans are sold, it doesn't do anything to change any of the problems.

[–] rautapekoni@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Surely the societal pressure to change the systems that support factory farming of animals will grow pretty much in proportion with the vegan/vegetarian population? I don't like the defeatist attitude that our choises as consumers don't matter, at all.

[–] SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not defeatist, it's pushing back against the wishful thinking that "voting with your dollar" is effective and your responsibility ends there.

[–] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

I mean if they make substantially less money with product x they scale back production. Just like with any other product.

Really not that complicated. Obviously they're not tracking my personal consumption, nobody believes that.

[–] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Are u saying if over night the entire customer base of meat as a whole stopped buying it would have zero effect? Certainly thats not whay youre saying right?

[–] fuzzywolf23@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It takes less land and water to feed someone wheat, soy or corn than to feed them beef, chicken or pork.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

what crops that are fed to beef chicken and pork are parts of plants that people won't eat for the most part. The same fields that grow the soybeans we use for oil are growing soybeans that are used as feed. The same soybeans that are used for oil are used for feed.

[–] fuzzywolf23@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is sometimes true. However, e.g., about 4% of the farmland in California is used for alfafa, which is just for livestock. Alfafa is also a very water intensive crop.

Additionally, there are other uses that livestock corn feed could be put to if there weren't so many damn cows, so it's not like we'd be throwing away megatons of silage if it weren't for cattle.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it's not like we'd be throwing away megatons of silage if it weren't for cattle.

I don't think there is a better use than making food. I'm fine with that.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

but beef, chicken, and pork continue to be made in increasing amounts. things are getting worse despite the fact that vegans exist. being vegan doesn't help the planet at all.

[–] fuzzywolf23@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

World population increase + westernization of diets in China outweigh the tiny number of vegans in the western world. Your math doesn't check out.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

make any excuse you like for why being vegan doesn't help.