this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
687 points (84.1% liked)

Technology

74673 readers
3069 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (11 children)

Eh. Factory farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases, particularly through methane released by large livestock herds.

But the industry is so saturated with subsidies and shielded from liabilities and exempted from taxes and so comically wasteful in its surplus production that there hasn't been any material benefit to veganism as a social movement. You can take a moral position (and you should, eating meat is awful for a variety of reasons). But there's no actual correlation between an increase in vegan eating habits and a decrease in agricultural emissions. All we ever get is more meat shipped abroad or thrown in the trash.

The real curb to agricultural production has been raw materials constraints - limits on arable land, potable water, and slaughterhouse workers - that have (directly or indirectly) emerged from a changed climate. Outside these limits, all we've really achieved is "Grapes of Wrath" style surplus destruction to keep retail prices up.

If a factory farm can produce another dead cow, it does, even if it can't reliably bring the carcass to market. The profit margins are set so artificially high that they'd be fools not to do so. Only herd die-offs resulting from heat waves, water shortages, and a lack of below-market migrant labor seem to dissuade them from trying to expand.

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

So just the "Appeal to futility" logical fallacy? I'm convinced!

Every change starts somewhere. Yes, 0.001% of the population can be vegan and it most likely won't save a single slaughterhouse animal. But 1%? That's already significant enough to make at least some change, and 10%? That's already setting market trends and modifying industries, 50%?

You get my point. You joining the current vegan population is significant! The vegan population is estimated to be 9% in india and mexico, 5% in Israel, 2% in the UK, 1.5% in the US, and estimated to be a total of 1%-3% of the global population. This is a movement that has probably saved more lives and more gas emissions than many others have.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

So just the “Appeal to futility” logical fallacy?

At some point, you have to recognize factory farming as a public policy decision rather than a retail choice. And the response has to be organized and political, not individualistic and consumerist.

You joining the current vegan population is significant!

It's significant for popular politics, sure. But a vegan community that satisfies itself with attaching blinders when they pass through the Bad Foods aisle at the grocery store is going to end up in the same place as the climate activist who only owns a bike.

The vegan population is estimated to be 9% in india and mexico, 5% in Israel, 2% in the UK, 1.5% in the US

The difference between the US and India is that if you go around trying to butcher cows in particularly devote areas of India, you're subject to serious political reprisals. In the US, it's practically a sacrament to eat burger.

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

At some point, you have to recognize factory farming as a public policy decision rather than a retail choice

It is both, and both affect each other. False dichotomy?

a vegan community that satisfies itself with attaching blinders when they pass through the Bad Foods aisle at the grocery store is going to end up in the same place as the climate activist who only owns a bike.

Strawmaning what being a vegan is. It is far from just turning a blind eye.

The difference between the US and India is that if you go around trying to butcher cows in particularly devote areas of India, you're subject to serious political reprisals.

You know that they eat plenty of other animals right? If you go there, meat and animal products are a very big part of the local food.

I can't take these arguments seriously.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

It is both

It's induced demand. Increased capacity invited consumption.

You know that they eat plenty of other animals right?

Per capita they're heavily constrained. They have three times the population and one third the land area. They can't slaughter animals to match US consumption patterns even if they try.

That's incentivized a culture of veganism as normal and virtuous, as a consequence. And it has allowed the population to expand to 1.3B without experiencing rates of malnutrition common to more rural countries (Kenya, Argentina, and Haiti, for instance) where enormous stretches of land have been dedicated to feedstock.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)