News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

normallove

It's a recognized flag for a specific and rather imperial memeplex that is spreading rapidly. It also seems like a motte argument for the bailey of antinatalism, which is another strong and particularly distasteful -- for those who are not antinationalist I mean -- flag for this set of ideas that seems to come together or at least have an extremely tight correlation.
Re:Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation' on Saturday July 18, 2020 @08:43PM (#23886046)
I glanced through and the study seemed targeted at dietary choices, which ignores my point that transportation and other energy intensive aspects of life far outstrip meat production. It also did not go into my suggestion, which is investigate ways to mitigate environmental impact.

>keeps people employed in this horrific industry

I am for reform of the industry and personally buy in bulk from local farmers. Factory farming is horrible, I will not argue with that.

>and the fact that an animal has to suffer immensely, so that you can get a piece of its flesh.

Moral grandstanding. You don't care about the environment or health, you wish to impose your view of the world and personal choices on others. Your pretention of care for sustainability is a tool not a real concern. I'm willing to bet you have never met or talked to a beef farmer or slaughterhouse worker.

Re:Amazon soya and beef exports 'linked to deforestation' on Saturday July 18, 2020 @11:37AM (#23882078)
Red meat is possibly the most nutrient dense food in the world. With everything from essential proteins and fats, to minerals like zinc, iron and magnesium, to water soluble vitamins like biotin. It's also tasty and satisfying to eat.

My parents had only two children, same as my grandparents. My family isn't growing and taking up an exponential amount of resources, so I do not personally feel responsible for unsustainable population growth. Therefore I will not sacrifice my health and well-being in order to satisfy some resource quota being morally applied. Meat production isn't even a proportionally large source of energy use compared to transportation and electricity, so being asked to give up eating it to increase sustainability before larger slices of the pie are confronted really smacks of dogmatic imperialism.

I think the discussion would fare far better with people who think along lines that I do, if you focused on 'how can we make meat production more energy and land efficient' instead of 'you are sinful for eating meat, give it up.' More efficient grazing patterns and breeding animals to better digest alternative food sources like kelp, for example, are promising. I'm sure there are many other avenues yet thought up.