• Umbrias@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Willful extinction” is not a productive way to end climate change.

            You won’t convince people, so it’s DOA, but it’s also philosophically weak in the face of alternative views. Alternatives which also theoretically have humans in them and don’t obliterate the environment exist, meaning you are on the back foot here to justify an anthropocentric philosophy.

            “Why do you think people should exist?” Can be an interesting discussion, but as an argument it’s not a great one.

            • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              You won’t convince people

              I don’t have to. Birth rates in the developed world are plummeting.

              And unless I’m mistaken, you are the one trying to convince people right now.

              • Umbrias@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Birth rates are plummeting to maintain what will probably be around 13 billion. That’s wildly distinct from willful extinction.

                I… What? You made a post saying people should do x, I responded. Yeah we’re both trying to convince people of a thing, I’m not sure I see how that is actually relevant.

              • n_emoo@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Birthrates are not plummeting to zero, if thats what youre implying. As people get more educated, they tend to have fewer kids. No one is considering having “fewer” kids because of the childs lifetime GHG emissions

        • sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s nothing inherently bad about eating meat. We’ve been doing it for 100s of thousands of years. It’s that there are too many freaking people. I judge people way more when I see them with offspring, then I do their dietary consumption.

      • dreadedchalupacabra@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And that is microscopic compared to levying massive fines on businesses that don’t go carbon neutral and passing global laws to protect the amazon and MESS UP any government that toys with it.

    • chickpeaze@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I’m a card carrying bike nut and plant-based eater, I feel we can make more of a difference encouraging people to do things that are less all in.

      Work commute too far right now? Maybe start replacing the small car trips with bike trips.

      Veganism unthinkable? Maybe try a meatless day or two a week.

      Something people can wrap their heads around, and after trying, realise they haven’t died.

    • dreadedchalupacabra@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      And that is nothing compared to corporate emissions and air travel, but the internet LOVES telling you that how you live your life is wrong for moral reasons or due to some panic.

      I say this as a chef that’s generally vegan friendly. We gotta stop blaming each other when we’re a drop in the bucket compared to big business. They got you attacking other people so they can do what they want with impunity.

      • PJepb@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Totally agree with your sentiment, we wasted so much time putting the pressure on the individual when the real culprit was Industry, there is no argument whatsoever there. That being said, the Agriculture Industry (food production in general) does account for a hearty chunk, about 25%, of all worldwide emissions, and that is without doing calculation for “land lost” costs, i.e. the reduction in forests we took by having agricultural industry there instead, and the emissions those forests could have negated.

        Food is a serious driver of climate change. Meat, but especially beef, is the worse food in terms of the cost we pay in overall emissions. Moreover, half of ALL agricultural land in use is for pasturing animals. Beef being eliminated as a food product would incredibly help climate change and meet emission goals much faster. This video does a great job at summarizing the problem, is a generally reliable channel for informative mini docs, and provides a huge list of sources you can review there.