Maybe I’m being too pessimistic, but feels like this is yet another study to add to the mountain of evidence that people will ignore because they’ve deemed the taste of meat worth an impending global calamity. When will the average persons tipping point be? When oceanfront property is available in Tennessee?
People only want to have happy feelings for the animals they eat. It’s what they are told since they were toddlers and don’t you dare say those animals are actually suffering while they keep stuffing themselves. And they’d go “plants have feelings too!”
Plants react to stimulus as well. The smell of freshly cut grass for instance is chemical signaling – typically they’d be losing their plant matter to insects eating them, so they release chemicals to attract other insects which prey on the ones eating them.
Is the grass in agony? It responds to harm with a chemical response aimed at stopping the harm.
Where do we draw the line? Do we starve obligate carnivores so their prey lives?
I think you’re getting a little too philosophical. Why not start with mammals with whom we share much in common? They exhibit levels of cognition far above what people like to believe. They mourn, have cultures, traditions. They feel fear, and that fear looks like ours, so it should be something we all can understand.
I’d also extend the same protection to fish and other complex organisms.
If it was really up to me, nothing would ever suffer, whether an earth worm or a human. But realistically we can stop eating the things with brains and friends and that’d be a boon for our climate, environment, and our health.
I would never starve animals in nature. My dog eats meat too because that’s what he is made to do. I don’t, because I don’t have to. Nature is cruel, but we don’t control that. We can easily control our nature and what we eat (or factory farm).
Individual people choosing to “do the right thing” is never going to work. It doesn’t matter if any individual chooses the right food, or kind of car, anything else.
Blameing people for not cutting their meat intake, is misplaced.
The government needs to change the market by subsidizing “good” things and taxing “bad” things. That’s the only way to change behavior at scale.
Ok but remember when Republicans made up that Biden was going to “outlaw burgers” with the Green New Deal? And how even the made up idea that the govt would stop subsidizing meat caused half the nation to flip their shit, while the other half went “no don’t be silly, we would never ever touch your precious tendies.”
Appealing to individuals is important because without shifting the public’s perception of meat as it relates to climate change, the government will be too terrified to enact those kind of changes for fear of getting voted out by the angry, barbecue-loving mobs.
Until flexitarians, vegetarians, and vegans (I’m vegan btw, just need everyone to know that) become a sizable enough percentage of the voting population, these systemic changes are never going to even be considered by our leaders. So we should keep pressing the importance of these changes to collectively move ourselves closer to that tipping point.
When meat alternatives like Beyond or Impossible brands, or lab-grown meat, are about as cheap as real meat, or cheaper.
That’s really all it’ll take. It already tastes perfectly good, and it’s not that much different to cook with. If it’s about the same, but costs less, that’s when the average person will switch.
Maybe I’m being too pessimistic, but feels like this is yet another study to add to the mountain of evidence that people will ignore because they’ve deemed the taste of meat worth an impending global calamity. When will the average persons tipping point be? When oceanfront property is available in Tennessee?
When its too expensive to buy meat. Its not like this is new either. Here’s meat consumption over the last 100 years in the USA:
It tracks decently with the rise in GDP in the USA:
If you could graph sentient creatures’ collective agony I’m sure that would line up pretty well too
I hope things get better
People only want to have happy feelings for the animals they eat. It’s what they are told since they were toddlers and don’t you dare say those animals are actually suffering while they keep stuffing themselves. And they’d go “plants have feelings too!”
This is a very sobering read: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/27/23893028/farmed-animals-animal-welfare-human-progress-poverty-climate-change-environment
Endless nightmare indeed
Plants react to stimulus as well. The smell of freshly cut grass for instance is chemical signaling – typically they’d be losing their plant matter to insects eating them, so they release chemicals to attract other insects which prey on the ones eating them.
Is the grass in agony? It responds to harm with a chemical response aimed at stopping the harm.
Where do we draw the line? Do we starve obligate carnivores so their prey lives?
I think you’re getting a little too philosophical. Why not start with mammals with whom we share much in common? They exhibit levels of cognition far above what people like to believe. They mourn, have cultures, traditions. They feel fear, and that fear looks like ours, so it should be something we all can understand.
I’d also extend the same protection to fish and other complex organisms.
If it was really up to me, nothing would ever suffer, whether an earth worm or a human. But realistically we can stop eating the things with brains and friends and that’d be a boon for our climate, environment, and our health.
I would never starve animals in nature. My dog eats meat too because that’s what he is made to do. I don’t, because I don’t have to. Nature is cruel, but we don’t control that. We can easily control our nature and what we eat (or factory farm).
Fair enough, that’s a very good argument.
Individual people choosing to “do the right thing” is never going to work. It doesn’t matter if any individual chooses the right food, or kind of car, anything else.
Blameing people for not cutting their meat intake, is misplaced.
The government needs to change the market by subsidizing “good” things and taxing “bad” things. That’s the only way to change behavior at scale.
Ok but remember when Republicans made up that Biden was going to “outlaw burgers” with the Green New Deal? And how even the made up idea that the govt would stop subsidizing meat caused half the nation to flip their shit, while the other half went “no don’t be silly, we would never ever touch your precious tendies.”
Appealing to individuals is important because without shifting the public’s perception of meat as it relates to climate change, the government will be too terrified to enact those kind of changes for fear of getting voted out by the angry, barbecue-loving mobs.
Until flexitarians, vegetarians, and vegans (I’m vegan btw, just need everyone to know that) become a sizable enough percentage of the voting population, these systemic changes are never going to even be considered by our leaders. So we should keep pressing the importance of these changes to collectively move ourselves closer to that tipping point.
Or at least start by ceasing to fucking subsidize the bad things!
That would be a good first step they could try.
When meat alternatives like Beyond or Impossible brands, or lab-grown meat, are about as cheap as real meat, or cheaper.
That’s really all it’ll take. It already tastes perfectly good, and it’s not that much different to cook with. If it’s about the same, but costs less, that’s when the average person will switch.