This time without appeal to the naturalism fallacy.
Will you at least acknowledge the value of meat as a basic form of sustenance?
Are you saying that trading crypto as a hobby (or crypto itself) is equivalent somehow?
Given that you can sustain yourself with alternatives that are less GHG emitting, you are basically trading GHG for your own personal satisfaction/enjoyment. How is that different from me trading an equivalent GHG to get some enjoyment out of my hypothetical crypto hobby?
> Are you saying that trading crypto as a hobby is equivalent somehow?
Both things that you only do because they make you happy and something you want, not something you need to survive.
What makes a unit of enjoyment gained from trading crypto somehow a less worthy preference than the unit of enjoyment gained from eating a steak rather than a plant-based alternative?
You and I can, sure, since I assume we're both having this conversation from our smartphones or computers and don't have to hunt for our food.
But again, that was not the point, nor was it the foundation of the question I asked.
If you're interested in having the same conversation, I'm happy to continue, but until then, I'm out. Ciao.
The fact that meat has value is unrelated to the current state of the industry, which as I have said, is problematic.
The point I'm making is about the intrinsic value of the thing, because the GP wants to compare meat to cryptocurrency.
My point is that they're not comparable, regardless of the realities of mass produced meat and that industry's sustainability problems.
Dismissing issues with crypto as "meh, meat is a problem too" is a little bit like watching the Amazon burn down and concluding "meh, driving cars are a problem too".