Care to elaborate? You don’t mind lots of probably very much intelligent animals being killed by accident? Why?
It's the same here. It's not good enough to better regulate fishing methods that minimize bycatch. It's not good enough to tax and penalize bycatch. It's not good enough to shift consumption to small pelagic forage fish that have negligible bycatch. It's not good enough to shift to farmed fish, or freshwater fish. Nothing is ever good enough...we must immediately discard human diets and cultures that have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, and if we're not willing to do that, we obviously hate dolphins. Can you sense an eye-roll here?
So here is my elaboration: vegans start from the end goal and then work backwards to find any reason to justify it, no matter how disconnected from reality it is. And it is always the same...the only way to solve every single problem on the planet is to stop consuming animal products. It lacks any form of intelligent thought or nuance, and it is an extremely disingenuous form of argument, so it gets the response it deserves: derision and dismissal. Come back when you want to have an actual conversation.
Yes, because there are now 8 billion people, and nature is on the brink of collapse.
> It's not good enough to tax and penalize bycatch
There are 5 mil. fishing boats, there is nobody who could reliably monitor them. Doesn't work. See Seaspiracy movie for an example.
> vegans start from the end goal
I became a vegan primarily due to environmental reasons. It's a logical conclusion when studying the issues of climate change, the anthropocene, deforestation and biodiversity loss.
It's a complicated problem, and you would have to study the issue yourself, not enough space here. You'd have to read a lot of text that goes against your beliefs. Not many people are able or ready to do that. Many rather prefer to stay ignorant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).
Some links to get you started (more articles and papers @ https://www.plantbaseddata.org):
Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm
How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
Livestock and climate change: what if the key actors in climate change are... cows, pigs, and chickens?
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Livestock-and-climate-...
Without Changing Diets, Agriculture Alone Could Produce Enough Emissions to Surpass 1.5°C of Global Warming
https://www.wri.org/insights/without-changing-diets-agricult...
Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agricultu...
Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/biodiversity
> Come back when you want to have an actual conversation
About how you want to keep eating meat even if it means total destruction of the environment? Do you have studies that show it's sustainable? Studies not paid for by meat & dairy industry?
Inside big beef’s climate messaging machine: confuse, defend and downplay
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/03/beef-ind...
Why Right-Wingers Are So Afraid of Men Eating Vegetables
https://newrepublic.com/article/171781/meat-culture-war-cric...
The meat industry is borrowing tactics from Big Oil to obfuscate the truth about climate change
https://www.salon.com/2022/11/11/the-meat-industry-is-borrow...
The Big Beef With the Meat Industry’s Advertising Tactics
https://medium.com/@jodi_64782/the-big-beef-with-the-meat-in...
If you have the facts, bring it on. Don't talk to me about culture, though (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7JE8j5Ncmw).
When fewer people consume fish/meat, it motivates politicians to take action on environmental issues. By cutting back on consumption, we can push politicians to implement environmental regulations. In a capitalist system, our choices as consumers shape the rules.
Your actions matter, benefiting non-consumed beings. By inspiring others and setting an example, anyone can contribute to a larger movement for a more sustainable and healthier planet.
Veganism is the fastest growing social justice and environmental movement.
The second part of the answer is just a meta-observation: at the end of the day, nobody but yourself can’t judge you. At some point I got to value being able to look myself in the mirror, and part of that is being honest with myself.
The reality is animals provide a way of consuming resources efficiently that, sure, can be consumed by eating other plant based things but it's not as efficient as eating flesh.
For me, emotional arguments about why I shouldn't eat animals don't sway me very much because of the undeniable fact that we're the apex predator on Earth. I reject any moral argument that we're supposed to respect nature and other species because of our intelligence.
I don't believe we have a responsibility to other species and if we can get by in the world by enslaving all the animals and killing the rest that we can't I'm perfectly fine with that. We're just as natural as everything else on the Earth and I think it's weird to place ourselves outside the scope of nature or what's natural because we're more intelligent than everything else.
Not overpopulation, maybe I was not clear enough. We would be fine if we didn't destroy, pollute and consume as much.
> The Earth and nature will be totally fine in the end
Yes, given few million years. Humans and animals we know may not be.
I'd rather protect the biodiversity for our children, I don't look that far ahead.
---
Since 1970, then, the size of animal populations for which data is available have declined by 69%, on average.
https://ourworldindata.org/biodiversity#livestock-outweighs-...
Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans. But we can turn things around by reducing the amount of land we use for agriculture.
https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammal-decline
Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
To meet U.N. climate, biodiversity goals, 79% of plant cover must be saved, study
https://news.mongabay.com/2023/06/to-meet-u-n-climate-biodiv...
Farmland practices are driving bird population decline across Europe
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2216573120
UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/natur...
The climate crisis and biodiversity crisis can't be approached separately, says study
https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-ap...
Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob...
‘A wake-up call’: total weight of wild mammals less than 10% of humanity’s
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/18/a-wake-u...
Ecological doom-loops: Why ecosystem collapses may occur much sooner than expected
https://phys.org/news/2023-06-ecological-doom-loops-ecosyste...
Mass extinction of Earth's wildlife is closer than we think - study
https://www.jpost.com/environment-and-climate-change/article...
Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeti...
Destruction of world’s pristine rainforests soared in 2022 despite Cop26 pledge
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/27/destruct...
Climate nears point of no return as land, sea temperatures break records, experts say
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/climate-nears-p...
... and so on and on ...
I reject the premise that biodiversity is something we require to successfully live on Earth.
> We're just as natural as everything else on the Earth and I think it's weird to place ourselves outside the scope of nature or what's natural because we're more intelligent than everything else.
In other words: if we killed everything we don't raise ourselves and we're the only living things in the world that have freedom it would still be natural and we will still be part of nature. Humans don't transcend nature or what's natural.
It's too late here, I'm ready to sign off, so I apologize for using chatgpt for the response.
"While it is understandable that you may hold a different perspective, scientific evidence strongly supports the importance of biodiversity for the well-being of our planet and our own survival. Biodiversity ensures the provision of vital ecosystem services such as clean air, water filtration, pollination, and soil fertility. It contributes to the stability and resilience of ecosystems, helping them withstand environmental changes and disturbances.
Biodiversity also offers immense potential for scientific and medical advancements. Many of our medicines and treatments are derived from natural compounds found in plants, animals, and microorganisms. Additionally, diverse ecosystems offer opportunities for economic development through ecotourism and sustainable resource use.
Furthermore, interconnected ecosystems form a complex web of life, where each species has its role and contributes to the overall functioning of the ecosystem. The loss of species and disruption of ecosystems can have cascading effects, impacting food security, water resources, and climate regulation.
Preserving biodiversity is not just about valuing other species; it is about safeguarding the intricate web of life that supports our own existence. By recognizing and respecting the importance of biodiversity, we can strive for a more sustainable and harmonious relationship with the natural world, ensuring a healthier planet for future generations."
"if we killed everything we don't raise ourselves and we're the only living things in the world that have freedom"
Both replies to me completely ignored that nuance.
Just for an example - many plants you like (well, as a side to your meat anyway, heh) are fertilised using Guano, which is just bat shit. Bats eat insects, for the most part. Insects thrive on pollen, saps, roots, fruit and flowers and so on. From here on out, requirements grow exponentially. It’s called eco „system“ for a reason.
If you really have the hubris to think humanity and a few cattle could survive just fine, it merely shows a lack of understanding.
"If we killed everything we don't raise ourselves and we're the only living things in the world that have freedom"
I didn't mention specific plants/animals or #s we'd keep around because obviously we wouldn't kill what we require to survive.