You may not see it now, but views like yours are part of the problem. We can't keep destroying the planet. Change comes at multiple levels, whether it be from the individuals with their purchasing power or governments forcing reform.
Human beings already grow enough food to feed the planet. In fact we grow enough food to feed to hundreds of billions of animals we slaughter every year. We could easily give up fishing and factory farming AND eradicate hunger, but it requires significant change to folks priorities and supply chains. It’s possible though, and we should work towards it ASAP
Forgive me, but "Many people worldwide are struggling to get certain nutrients, so it doesn't matter if we remove an important source of those nutrients" doesn't strike me as very well reasoned.
> It’s possible though, and we should work towards it ASAP
Why should we give up fishing? Improve sustainability and management of fisheries, sure, but if the goal is to eradicate hunger, why would you want to get rid of something that is an important provider of jobs and nutrients for some of the poorest people?
I understand that there are folks who are dependent on fishing right now for livelihood, but we should change that so they aren’t.
But that also brings about a point often overlooked by carnists: are _you_ personally dependent on eating fish to survive? If not then you should stop. For some reason carnists often think in terms of “well this person on the other side of the world needs to rely on fishing, so it’s fine for me to continue eating fish”
I respect that, but it's a value judgement, and your priorities therein are different than mine.
That said, I'm also not sure I should stop if I did share your ethical priorities. Example: sometimes, I spearfish not far from where I live and take a fish or abalone. Fish often get headshotted and never realise they were speared, not sure there is suffering in those cases (Other times it is a few seconds before I pith them after spearing). No bycatch. Sometimes tens of meals from one sentient being if it is a larger species. I'm pretty sure a meal of agriculturally produced plant foods results in similar amounts of animal suffering once you include animals poisoned and killed by harvest machinery.
Stop focusing on things you can't change (even tho they make you look good/moral) and start focusing on results.
If all the energy used to try and convince people to not eat meat (something that can't even theoretically happen) had instead been focused on lobbing for systemic support for development of artificial meat ... we would have already had it. Then no one would have to give up meat. Most people have no connection to the animal as is - if the messaging is done right, most will not care, especially if it's seen as "better, cheaper and healthier".
But for that, someone would have to start a massive pan-EU campaign to start devoting billions into research and commercialization of artificial meat. I would support such a (vegan) candidate.
I eat meat, but I would much prefer if there was no suffering attached to it.
Also, there are already made viable replacements for meat. I’d start with lentils, but you don’t like them there are hundreds of other options.
My argument is, that there are multiple strategies and that you are using a suboptimal, possibly at this point a counter-productive one.
You will NEVER convince everyone (or even close to a majority) to stop eating meat. At least not in anything close to a lifetime and without highly authoritarian methods. So working toward that end is pointless. You should be, instead, working on providing an alternative and making sure people adopt it.
> This is how any rights movement works.
Yeah, and they all make the same mistake. Most of them have managed to change the values of the population but then lose steam, slow down and get stuck or even slide back when trying to change societal systems. Almost like changing values and changing systems isn't the same thing.
> Also, there are already made viable replacements for meat. I’d start with lentils, but you don’t like them there are hundreds of other options.
I've tried most of the ones that are available here. And no, they have not. They are getting better, and some are very interesting as a standalone thing, but they are not a replacement.
But… I have… numerous times. You don’t really know what you’re talking about at all.
If you have an actual legitimate reason you think you ought not to reduce the suffering of animals, let me know. Otherwise, have a good life and I hope you go vegan.
Sure, I don't doubt that. The current proportion, from a quick google search, is between 1%-10% in the western world. That's after A LOT of effort and before any serious pushback.
Now try doing it for 99% of the population. The world population. How long will that take? 100 years? 500? Don't forget that historically impoverished areas are on the rise economically, and they want, justifiably, what they didn't have an abundance of - meat (among other things).
Now imagine we get real artificial meat, that people can't tell apart, but is cheaper, better tasting and nicer to look at. How long till we get the percentage of people who don't eat "real" meat up to 90%? 20 years? Maybe less?
So it's up to you how many animals will have to be killed before we stop eating them.
Besides, what exactly is your argument? That it’s hard to change things like this? If so, why does that matter at all? Lots of things are hard but worth doing.
All ecological and anti-climate change movements have the same problem. Convincing people to give up the luxury of a car, airplane, vacation, phone, (overly) warm home etc. is a great way of putting people on the defensive and triggering pushback.
That's why I'm saying you will NEVER convince anything near a majority of people to give up meat. It's a rare luxury. They will never give that up, especially as long as they watch rich people have fun on their private islands.
This is the difference: - "You can't ever eat burgers again, or you're a bad person" - "Want to eat Wagyu beef burgers, but can't afford it? No problem! Now you can, plus, you're a good person for not killing a cow in the process!"
You must realize that "belief that animals ought not to be exploited for anything" is a belief enabled by privilege. A lot of privilege. That's not bad, as privilege (a really shitty word to use for the concept) is not a bad thing. But it's a privilege that many people lack. So you need to find ways to convince people to do what you want without relying on the privilage.
The rest of the world (where we have choice when walking down a supermarket or picking where to eat) should be looking to more ethically and environmentally friendly foods.
There is easily enough land on earth to support us all. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Your diet of dead animals is killing the planet.
> Your diet of dead animals is killing the planet.
You are showing your hand too soon mate. I'm taking about food with zero land use footprint - less than an entirely plant based diet. Nowhere did I advocate for eating terrestrial farmed animal protein. So really, by bringing up the land use footprint of terrestrial food, you are making a strong case for incorporating some seafood to reduce the impact of food. While it's cool that you are unintentionally supporting my case, I'm afraid you may come off as a zealot if you share vegan talking points that are irrelevant to the comment to which you are replying.
If you're trying to change people's values (i.e. from "who care about the environment" to "we need to protect the environment") than pragmatism isn't the way to go.
But if you want to convert values (i.e. "we need to protect the environment") into actual real world results, well in that case pragmatism is the only way to go.
Look at the whole green energy discussion. If the green movement contained its activism to fossil fuels and turned pragmatic on the topic of alternatives ... we would be living in a much cleaner world today.
But they didn't and as a result, they radically reduced their net positive effect on the world.