And it’s not even a sacrifice:
If you dare to look at each of the animal industries production chains it’s plain evil from start to finish. It needs to be shut down fast. And it takes very little effort to change your diet. Quitting meat, going plant-based, is nothing more than a slight inconvenience.
I think this is not true. It is for you, because you see the animal industries as inherently evil. You have to acknowledge that for many people food is a big part of what defines their culture and for many cultures that includes meat. You don’t have to like that fact, I certainly dont like it. And I agree that this has to change. But I don’t think that any moral argument about cruelty against animals is going to bring that change.
I think it is fair for me to demand people change their habits and culture because the status quo is hurting me. I want to make clear what I mean with a thought experiment. Let’s assume we bioengineered a cow that doesn’t produce methan, and does photosynthesis so no food is required. The climate impact of mass-breeding this type of cow would be neglectable.
I wouldn’t go out and tell people they should stop eating this type of cow. Not being a part of the cruel animal industry chain as a consumer is a choice anyone can make that doesn’t affect anyone else and vice versa it’s still true. You are hurting the cows and we should talk about that and make it public but I’d be in favor of people still being able to choose to eat that.
Mixing the altruistic arguments against animal abuse with climate protection doesn’t help convince anyone to do this. The debate about becoming vegetarian/vegan for moral reasons is way older than the one because of climate change. The ones who where conviced by it already stopped eating animal products and the rest wont suddenly stop now because of those reasons. It might even be counterproductive, because it ties climate protection to an altruistic motivation where that isn’t necessary. People can and should be interested in preventing climate change for very selfish reasons, which in my experience, is a way stronger motivator.
I think this is not true. It is for you, because you see the animal industries as inherently evil. You have to acknowledge that for many people food is a big part of what defines their culture and for many cultures that includes meat. You don’t have to like that fact, I certainly dont like it. And I agree that this has to change. But I don’t think that any moral argument about cruelty against animals is going to bring that change.
I think it is fair for me to demand people change their habits and culture because the status quo is hurting me. I want to make clear what I mean with a thought experiment. Let’s assume we bioengineered a cow that doesn’t produce methan, and does photosynthesis so no food is required. The climate impact of mass-breeding this type of cow would be neglectable.
I wouldn’t go out and tell people they should stop eating this type of cow. Not being a part of the cruel animal industry chain as a consumer is a choice anyone can make that doesn’t affect anyone else and vice versa it’s still true. You are hurting the cows and we should talk about that and make it public but I’d be in favor of people still being able to choose to eat that.
Mixing the altruistic arguments against animal abuse with climate protection doesn’t help convince anyone to do this. The debate about becoming vegetarian/vegan for moral reasons is way older than the one because of climate change. The ones who where conviced by it already stopped eating animal products and the rest wont suddenly stop now because of those reasons. It might even be counterproductive, because it ties climate protection to an altruistic motivation where that isn’t necessary. People can and should be interested in preventing climate change for very selfish reasons, which in my experience, is a way stronger motivator.