• mizu@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    got nothing against vegans it’s just when they try to force it into others

    • DotSlashExecute@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a vegan myself, I completely agree! I won’t tell others what to eat and they shouldn’t tell me what to eat. If I were to ever get “preachy” it’s purely about reducing impact on the factors mentioned in the meme and by no means forced… One less meal a week with meat in? Go you! Locally sourcing meat? Hell yeah, less environmental impact!

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        For the bit about local, it’s worth noting here that the difference is substantially less than one might expect. Transport is a surprisingly small portion of emissions and environmental impact

        Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.

        Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions.

        This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%

        https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

        • Abel@lemmy.nerdcore.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I always thought the party of sourcing from local wasn’t transport but supporting your local economy and small producers, keeping the money within your city and raising buying power for its citizens.

    • max@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Very few will force it on others, though. Anyway, I find it hilarious how people can get riled up about the idea of a person not eating meat or any animal products. I’ve seen it often that they take it personally for some reason and will “compensate by eating extra bacon/steak/chicken”. It’s bonkers.

      • taj@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eh, I don’t care what you eat. But I find very offensive, naive, and just plain wrong the idea that it’s impossible to sustainably raise animals for meat, eggs, dairy, etc as many vegans will try to insist.

        Does it cost more? Yes. Can we raise as many as we do today using conventional farming techniques? No. Will/should we all cut back on our meat, dairy, etc? Yes. But, then again being more mindful of what we all eat is going to be required regardless, if we’re going to manage to feed everyone.

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Claiming that something is on its whole sustainable is rather loosely defined (i.e what level of impact is considered sustainable and on what metrics), so let’s look a little closer. What many are saying there is that process is still going to inherently be much more inefficient compared to growing plants directly for human consumption

          It turns out to be the case that the worst-case production of any plants-based production comes out ahead compared to best-case production of meat, dairy, etc. on virtually all environmental metrics

          If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

          […]

          Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

          https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

          Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

          https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm

          Even true of synthetic fertilizer usage compared to the best case of animal manure

          Thus, shifting from animal to plant sources of protein can substantially reduce fertilizer requirements, even with maximal use of animal manure

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344922006528

          In terms of biodiversity

          Livestock farmers often claim that their grazing systems “mimic nature”. If so, the mimicry is a crude caricature. A review of evidence from over 100 studies found that when livestock are removed from the land, the abundance and diversity of almost all groups of wild animals increases

          https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/16/most-damaging-farm-products-organic-pasture-fed-beef-lamb

          If we compare more typical production rather than best to worst, the differences are even more apparent

          To produce 1 kg of protein from kidney beans required approximately eighteen times less land, ten times less water, nine times less fuel, twelve times less fertilizer and ten times less pesticide in comparison to producing 1 kg of protein from beef

          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25374332/

      • SolarNialamide@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        People take it personally because deep down everyone knows it is wrong to keep something as cruel as the meat and dairy industry alive, plus the huge environmental impacts on multiple fronts. So they get super defensive instead of confronting or accepting the fact that they’re doing the wrong thing for selfish reasons.

    • art@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, they’re always outside the Steakhouse picketing. Running at me constantly with a fork full of green vegetables.

      THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM THAT I CONSTANTLY HAVE IN REAL LIFE.

      • puppetx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the sarcasm we deserve.

        I’ve known plenty of vegans and not once have I seen them “try to force it into others”… Outside of internet rage baiting crazies.

        …Now the religious on the other hand, I have first hand experience with.

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

    I’m a vegetarian.

    I was, and still am, surprised by how often people will go into a long rant justifying why they eat meat to me as soon as they find out I’m vegetarian. All the while I’m just sat there, not saying anything, because I literally do not care whether or not they eat meat.

    Me being a vegetarian is a personal choice for me and myself only. You do you. I don’t care. You don’t need to explain yourself to me. It makes me feel so awkward.

    People will often ask me why I’m a vegetarian too. But it feels like a very personal and heavy question to ask someone immediately after finding out they’re vegetarian… I don’t especially want to talk about animals dying all the time and how it makes me sad especially to strangers.

    Edit/Addition: It feels like a lot of focus is brought on how vegetarians/vegans force their views onto other people but my experience personally is non-vegetarians/vegans trying to force me into conversations about this topic.

    • jargoggles@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are a lot of people who take it personally when confronted with the idea that someone else is making an ethical choice that they, themselves, are not. When they hear someone say “I made this personal choice,” their ego warps it into “I made this personal choice and if you don’t, you’re a bad person.”

      It’s simply low empathy behavior. They struggle to contextualize other people’s thoughts and decisions outside of their own personal experience and beliefs.

  • A Chilean Cyborg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Voting >>>> Personal energy usage [Using public transit instead of driving, Electric heating, efficient buildings, etc] >>>>>>>>>>>>> Non energy lifestyle choices.

    • hugz@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can vote and make personal lifestyle/dietary sacrifices. It’s not mutually exclusive

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It matters much more than you might think. The emissions from the meat, dairy, etc. industry on their own are enough to make us miss climate targets.

      To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

      (emphasis mine)

      https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357

    • Flinch@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sorry, voting won’t save us, not while the interests of oil barons supercede the interests of humanity as a whole.

      Biden Administration Approves Huge Alaska Oil Project - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/12/climate/biden-willow-arctic-drilling-restrictions.html

      Biden administration moves ahead with massive Gulf of Mexico drilling … - CNN https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/29/politics/gulf-of-mexico-drilling-lease-sale-biden-climate/index.html

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is just voting enough on its own, no, but giving up and not voting or voting for worse candidates can make us go from bad to terrible. Every fraction of a degree of warming matters here

        • Flinch@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          yes, absolutely, but when both of the choices you’re presented with are equally disastrous for the environment, there’s nothing you can realistically do by just voting. The superstructure that stands in the way of real, actual change needs to be destroyed.

  • Galven@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not them not eating meat that I have a problem with(even though it’s not healthy), it’s the self-righteousness of it.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      In terms of health, that’s not the case

      It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/

  • candyman337@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    While the initial reasoning is respectable, veganism is t without it’s flaws, several plants are not ethically sourced and either cause a lot of pollution, destroy habitats to be grown, or are grown via slavery, or a combo of all 3. The real issue is the systems that are in place across the food industry, plant and animal based.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That being said, they still come out ahead in comparison to animal-based foods due to the fact that you need to grow massive amounts of feed crops to raise other creatures. It turns out that pretty much every environmental metric comes out ahead

      Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits

      […]

      Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

      https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm

      In terms of workers, the meat industry is arguably worse on that front. It’s one of the most dangerous industries anywhere for workers

      US meat workers are already three times more likely to suffer serious injury than the average American worker, and pork and beef workers nearly seven times more likely to suffer repetitive strain injuries

      […]

      Amputations happen on average twice a week, according to the data

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/05/amputations-serious-injuries-us-meat-industry-plant

      And there’s great risk of PTSD from the workers that you don’t see for harvesting crops

      There is evidence that slaughterhouse employment is associated with lower levels of psychological well-being. SHWs [slaughterhouse workers] have described suffering from trauma, intense shock, paranoia, anxiety, guilt and shame (Victor & Barnard, 2016), and stress (Kristensen, 1991). There was evidence of higher rates of depression (Emhan et al., 2012; Horton & Lipscomb, 2011; Hutz et al., 2013; Lander et al., 2016; Lipscomb et al., 2007), anxiety (Emhan et al., 2012; Hutz et al., 2013; Leibler et al., 2017), psychosis (Emhan et al., 2012), and feelings of lower self-worth at work (Baran et al., 2016). Of particular note was that the symptomatology appeared to vary by job role. Employees working directly with the animals (e.g., on the kill floor or handling the carcasses) were those who showed the highest prevalence rates of aggression, anxiety, and depression (Hutz et al., 2013; Richards et al., 2013). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15248380211030243

  • Slayer 🦊@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be fair. There is much debate around whether livestock is indirectly carbon neutral with very valid studies on both sides

    • VeganSchnitzel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Please link any study on livestock being CO2-neutral. I’m very skeptical, but would love to read your source first.

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not carbon neutral if you look at studies that account for more factors. For instance, here’s an article with an interview of the researchers in the field talking about how there is no carbon-neutral beef

          There’s not been a single study to say that we can have carbon-neutral beef

          […]

          We also have to ask how much of the sequestered carbon in these systems is actually due to the cattle. What would happen to the land if it were simply left fallow?

          The answer is, depending on the land, and on the kind of grazing, it might sequester even more carbon https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2022/10/03/beef-soil-carbon-sequestration/

          If we look at much more rigorous reviews on the carbon sequestration potential of “regenerative grazing” it’s pretty slim. It cannot even sequester enough to counteract just grazing only production which only produces 1g protein/person/day

          Ruminants in grazing-only systems emit about 1.32 Gt […] These are their emissions. The question is, could grazing ruminants also help sequester carbon in soils, and if so to what extent might this compensate? As the following numbers show, the answer is ‘not much’. Global (as opposed to regional or per hectare) assessments of the sequestration potential through grassland management are actually few and far between, but range from about 0.3-0.8 Gt CO 2/yr 301,302,303 with the higher end estimate assuming a strong level of ambition.

          https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf

          And keep in mind that this doesn’t scale very well due to the massive land it requires. Already clearing land for pastures is a large deforester. Trying to even scale to a quarter of beef demand would require using 100% of grassland which would put enormous pressure for further deforestation

          We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates

          […]

          If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.

          https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

  • Trizza Tethis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago
    1. Oil comes from dinosaurs.
    2. Electricity comes from oil.
    3. This means electricity is made from dinosaurs.
    4. Dinosaurs are animals.
    5. This means electricity is an animal product.

    How curious it is that vegans still use electricity, when in most places it isn’t even vegan!

    • dieelt@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      😂 not sure if you are joking. But most of the biomass which became oil was from plants.