True. Just to add that if you don't go vegan you won't minimize footprint, but you still can reduce it by eating less meat, or eating animal products that don't require to klill the animal and grow a new one, like eggs or dairy. It isn't optimal, but it's better than nothing. Or it might be a way to get vegan step by step, I don't know. And if you go vegan watch your diet (vitamin B12 specially). But if you don't go vegan, watch your diet too. Eating meat is no guarantee to eat healthy.
The Communication Cube
- Thread starter Jourdy288
- Start date
Phlyra
FLOSSing
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,517
Grow and eat spirulina
λ the β-Redex Reducer
β-Redex Reducing Member
Eating meat is a guarantee to eating unhealthy as meat itself is unhealthy. People with a B12 deficiency are probably much better off just taking a supplement.
That can work but in order to produce cheap eggs or diary you need to kill and torture animals. The male chicks need to go into the meat grinder, the calves need to be separated from their mother, the calves need to be fed an inferior milk replacement, the chickens and cows need to be kept in small cages that are rarely cleaned, and of course chickens and cows who are too old for production need to be killed off. Solving all these problems would make egg production and dairy production extremely expensive and thus would make eggs and dairy extremely expensive.
I disagree."Footprint" is much more than Food-footprint. People in guzzling SUV's, collecting airmiles like crazy (for example, going to a CO2 meeting by airplane)...
For now you have fallen into the trap that cows burp and fart. However, Bitcoins consume the amount of electricity a small country uses. Windmills are not biodegradable and not reusable for now.
But don't worry! After the Great Reset, a tab will be kept for you (what your footprint is - and what you are allowed to do, based on the points you have left. Either go on a fancy trip, or eat meat, for example. But not both.)
Null
Snug
The Useless Web
The Useless Web Button... just press it and find where it takes you. The perfect button for the bored, or those looking to find useless sites online!
theuselessweb.com
λ the β-Redex Reducer
β-Redex Reducing Member
This is non-sequitur. Being a vegan has nothing to do with whether you use Bitcoin, planes, SUV's, windmills, etc. The total footprint is equal to the footprint of your food + the footprint of the other things you do. Thus to minimise your total footprint you need to minimise the footprint from your consumption of your food, and in order to do that you need to be vegan.
In addition to that, your argument here is not about animal suffering anymore but instead about CO². I do not care about CO² anyway. Going vegan is necessary to reduce CO² emission, but I do not care at all about that. I am vegan for health, compassion towards animals, and to have more appetising food.
I am not sure what that is supposed to mean.
Cool, that means I will be able to keep traveling without having to give anything up!
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
But you must see the irony of ordering the vegan option on a 747, at least if you reason for going vegan is to reduce your carbon footprint.
You did start this by talking about the footprint which I like FBNil I took to be the carbon footprint. You reason there are the only valid reasons for ordering vegan on an airplane, so well done there.
Ow! Isn't it lovely when they think it isn't being kept already ?
Ok, some of us don't even think in flying on an 747. The problem in your scenario is to be flying. To fly and order a vegan option is still better than to fly and order another option. Minimally better ? so what ?
It sounds like once you've killed one man you can kill one hundred. No. You should try to do no mistakes, but making one is no excuse to make more.
I took it to mean carbon footprint too. Even if he didn't mean that, he's still right that a vegan diet minimizes carbon footprint.
I once heard an argument that being vegan was to minimize the amount of vegetables dead. Vegetables would be superior life forms to animals, because they create life out of dead matter and raw energy.
Animals kill other life beings to subsist, so they deserve death more than vegetables. And they can understand it easier, that other life forms kill them for their subsistence. It's what they themselves do, after all.
They don't have to like it, but it's life, like their life, not like a vegetable's life.
But to feed on animals implies more vegetables end up dead, so one should feed on vegetables, because that leaves more vegetables alive. It's not emphatic with the vegetable you're eating, but it's with the general flora.
That's maybe not evident in hunter/gatherer societies, but nowadays, it works for humans because the animals that humans eat are almost always raised for that, not hunted.
breatharianism does a good job of that. Not sure if I want to, though.
You know what lowers foodprint when eating food? Eating local and seasonal food. Not imported from far-far-away in big tankers, or airplanes. But but... it's important for vitamins and such, I hear you say... sure. I enjoy a coconut from time to time, and peanuts from far away, and kiwi's and other far-far-away foods... with spices from far far away.
Did you know that you could have kiwi's from NewZealand, packaged in Bangladesh and shipped to Europe? Or tulips from Turkey, landed shortly in Amsterdam, and then shipped to NewYork.
No it's not.
footprint
noun
- An outline or indentation left by a foot on a surface.
- The surface space occupied by a structure or device.
- The impact that a particular activity, person, or group has on the environment.
Having a stadium, with the lights on, even if you in particular never visit it... you guessed it...
Having more roads, and denying the grass that would have been there on the ground to grow, you guessed it...
Having cars drive from Paris to Dakar at top speeds (not fuel economic)... you guessed it...
Having an Eurovision song festival and flying singer candidates over and doing lights and such... you guessed it...
Keeping your engine running during the night so that the car is nice and warm in the morning (this is required for cities near the poles, in the morning your car would not even start)
Creating a new Shaun the sheep episode... you guessed it... (plastics for the DVD distribution, etc)
Throwing away garbage on the ground... you guessed it... it increases your footprint (because someone needs to take transportation to cleanup your mess)
Laying in your bed... you guessed it... it has a footprint, al be it a small one.
Last edited:
You're just making the same nonsequitur in more words. A nonsequitur is when you use a true fact to justify an assertion that is not a consequence of that fact.
Yes, all that has a footprint, and all that is no reason to make a bigger footprint in anything else.
The fact that other things have a footprint does not have the consequence that food has no footprint.
You can be vegan and also work to eliminate all those footprints you say or any others. Stadiums do not stand there because there are vegans. Roads are not vegan's fault (or not more than non-vegans fault). Etc.
you can be vegan... one in many options to reduce your footprint.
To re-qoute your earlier text and :
"So in order to minimise footprint (without killing yourself) you must go vegan."
<sarcasm, but in a nice way, but a little annoying, you know me>
You MUST! There is no other way! It will not only LOWER your footprint, it will MINIMIZE it!!1! (drives away in a SUV)
</sarcasm>
You are too fixed on that vegan thing. And you skipped over my first part that eating local foods also reduces the footprint.
But lambda didn't say "you only need". He said "you need".
To minimise is to lower the most, to reach the lowest level.
That requires to minimise all factors. So you need to minimise your food footprint to minismise your footprint.
The driver is not minimising his footprint despite being vegan. And Lambda didn't say he does.
Lambda didn't even say you need to minimize your footprint. It said minimising it requires veganism.
Because we all agree on that. It's obvious. Ÿou did well to add that.
λ the β-Redex Reducer
β-Redex Reducing Member
You said that eating avocados is bad because of the footprint and that thus vegans kill animals too, so I countered your argument by telling why veganism is actually necessary to minimise footprint. This was a good point that turns your original argument against you because it showed that eating meat does all footprint damage of veganism that you complained about and then some.
As to your point about me saying that you can still drive a SUV while minimising footprint, that is just a strawman. Going vegan is necessary to minimise total footprint, but it is not sufficient; and I never contradicted that. You are putting up a strawman where you falsely imply that I claimed it is sufficient, which I never did.
Also, I do not care about CO² emissions. Going vegan does tend to reduce CO² emissions, but that is no reason for me to go vegan. I have different reasons for going vegan so if I wanted to drive a SUV then I definitely would and it would nto contradict any of my reasons for going vegan.
Post automatically merged:
Actually, FBnil started talking about footprint, not me. And I took it to be animals killed or caused to suffer.
λ the β-Redex Reducer
β-Redex Reducing Member
Yes it is, because you are basically claiming "veganism is not sufficient to minimise footprint, therefore it is not necessary to minimise footprint". That minimising footprint requires more than just going vegan has nothing to do with whether it does require going vegan. Some things require going vegan and doing other things in addition to that. Minimising footprint is one of them.
So you are advocating both sides, for the eventuality lambda DID and also if he did NOT? Interesting.
No, I'm not!
(That's not what I am saying.)Ahaaa... so you add extra words to your sentence "So in order to minimise footprint (without killing yourself) you must go vegan. (complete stop)".
So what I was saying is that if you keep doing all your vegan things, your total footprint could be higher than a less consuming, uh, normal diet. From a farmer, without TV, raising his own lifestock. Chickens eating snakes, buffalo helping to plow, sheep helping to cloth.
Nope the point is that eating more veggies and less meat is good. Going Vegan however... I do not quite agree.
Wikipedia in english also lies a bit
"The German Society for Nutrition—which is a non-profit organisation and not an official health agency—does not recommend vegan diets for children or adolescents, or during pregnancy and breastfeeding", while skipping over other instances that are official, that claim the same thing. Like the footnote 18 in the Dutch wikipedia.
Wikipedia in english also contradicts ifself a bit
Quoting Donald Watson: "It means that we're not just exploiting animals; we're exploiting human beings." while still exploiting human beings to create their supplement pills.
And a bit of absurdism because it's all too dry:
"So in order to minimise footprint (without killing yourself) you must go vegan. (complete stop)".
But what if somebody else kills you? Wouldn't that minimize your footprint and not contradict your sentence?
So if I pay someone to kill somebody else, is that murder-by-proxy? So if I pay my busfare to feed the driver, WHO IS A MEAT-EATER, does that make me a non-vegan-by-proxy?
and as always: Thanks for the dialogue. It's fun to argue on a level with peers.
λ the β-Redex Reducer
β-Redex Reducing Member
But if that farmer owns 10 privet jets and uses them to fly between continents every day then his foot print will still be bigger than the vegan's. So evidently being a farmer with his own livestock does not help to reduce foot print either.
Also, your farmer would still have a smaller foot print if he did not consume animal products. So the vegan farmer (who is a vegan) still beats the meat eating farmer when it comes to reducing foot print (assuming that both eat a diet as optimal as is possible for minimising footprint within the respective assumed constraints and that all other things besides their diets and the requirements for those diets are equal).
In that case I would be wrong, but evidently that did not happen because if someone had killed you then you would not be posting this.
Yes, if you take the bus and then pay the bus driver under the condition that he may only buy meat from that money then you are not a real vegan. However, if you just pay him normally without asking questions or making weirdly specific demands on how he uses the money then you would not be a murderer even if he uses the money he got from you to murder someone, and you being vegan would not depend on how he uses the money.
ElPoco
Hardcore Member
Individual carbon footprint is something that's heavily promoted by the fossil fuel industry. It's a great way to redirect the public discourse from "how do we, as a society, limit our carbon emission?" (which would lead to answers that would hurt the fossil fuel industry) to "how do I, as an individual, limit my carbon emission?" (which won't impact the fossil fuel industry much).
It doesn't mean that there's nothing we can do at an individual scale, but that approach is clearly not the most efficient and is more likely to hurt poor people (who can't buy a newer cleaner car, have more difficulty to control their diet, etc.).
I'm concerned that as the environmental situation worsens, the extreme-right will start to embrace "environmentalism" with a focus on that individual-centric approach and use that to pursue their hateful agenda and shield their plutocratic friends. It's already started a bit here and there, with politicians blaming environmental problems on the high birth rate in African countries.
It doesn't mean that there's nothing we can do at an individual scale, but that approach is clearly not the most efficient and is more likely to hurt poor people (who can't buy a newer cleaner car, have more difficulty to control their diet, etc.).
I'm concerned that as the environmental situation worsens, the extreme-right will start to embrace "environmentalism" with a focus on that individual-centric approach and use that to pursue their hateful agenda and shield their plutocratic friends. It's already started a bit here and there, with politicians blaming environmental problems on the high birth rate in African countries.
Null
Snug
I wasn't arguing I was agreeing.
But: if it weren't for meat eaters all those animals would never have been granted life. Just saying.
Similar threads
