this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

The memes of the climate

1645 readers
1 users here now

The climate of the memes of the climate!

Planet is on fire!

mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.

rules:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (7 children)

Veganism isn't better for the environment than significantly reducing the total amount of consumed meat. Animals play an important, difficult-to-replace role in making agriculture sustainable. Animals can be herded on land that's difficult to farm on, animals can consume parts of farmed plants that humans cannot, and animals produce products that humans cannot replicate without significantly more work.

Edit: I see a bunch of vegans who aren't really engaging with the argument. To be clear, anyone who makes statements about how things are right now to try to disprove this is probably arguing in bad faith. I'm not responding to comments anymore because, while it's entirely possible that I'm wrong, y'all aren't making any good points.

Furthermore, I'm not anti-vegan, but now I'm tempted to be. So many people I've engaged with have displayed all of the worst vegan stereotypes I've heard about. I've always assumed it was chuds making shit up, but no I just hadn't met any of the terminally online creeps in the vegan community yet OMFG.

[–] kapulsa@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, we need to significantly reduce the amount of consumed meat (maybe not insects, if we consider them meat). A step towards more vegan and vegetarian food would definitely be necessary. Yes, not everyone needs to be vegan. But we need to consume way more vegan and vegetarian food.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Insects are meat. Why are you so keen on eating bugs?

[–] kapulsa@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I'm not keen on eating bugs, most of them just are similar in environmental damage as vegan food. Insects are also already in almost all processed foods because they are small and almost everywhere. They just don't fall in the same category as what we in the western civilization typically consider meat (as a food).

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There is a general consensus that insects are not considered equal in terms of animal cruelty like mammals, as they have much smaller and simpler nerve systems.

In regards to ecological imprint insects have a much better feed to food ratio and you can feed them much more things than to grazing animals.

[–] QuaffPotions@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In vegan communities insects are very much extended the same moral considerations as other animals. What you're advocating is a form of speciesism, which is something better avoided as much as possible.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Anti-specieism is an argument often brought by vegan fascists, arguing that killing humans is no worse than killing mosquitos.

Also the concept of avoiding specieism fails the moment you look into nature. Is the cat that eats a mouse a speciest? Should you let mosquitos bite you and transmit diseases because killing them would be speciest? Are the farmers in Southern Africa that are plagued by locusts speciest for trying to protect their harvest?

Probably you would consider these examples as legitimate. But what about the building of the house you reside in? The production of your electronics, your energy usage...

It is impossible to make a consistent value frame of what is acceptable killing of animals and what isn't, if you deem an individual fly as equally protectworthy as a sheep or a human.

[–] QuaffPotions@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Vegan fascists? The people who are trying to put an end to the forced captivity, continuous torture, rape, exploitation, commodification, and perpetual holocaust-levels of slaughter of virtually every species of animal that is not human, are fascists?

Here's the most commonly accepted definition of veganism:

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.""

Emphasis added. The vast majority of vegans do not believe that killing a mosquito is exactly equivalent to killing a human, and even of the people who do, it's intended to imply that all species lives are important, that the mosquito's life is seen as equally valuable to the human's. The only reason such a proposition seems abhorrent to you is because you're looking at the mosquito through the lens of your carnist supremacist mindset, which is to see the mosquito as something worthless and thus conclude that a human's life is considered by vegans to be equally worthless.

But again, like everyone else vegans take anti-speciesism only as far as is practical. We just do it better. The mosquito bite is easy. If you know mosquitos are around, it's wise to wear repellent, and take other appropriate precautions depending on your circumstances. Maybe modify your environment if possible to be less of a breeding ground for them, if it's bad enough. If you're dealing with a particular mosquito, odds are they have already bitten you, so how is the lethal carnist reaction any more protective against a disease that may have already been transmitted, than simply blowing on the mosquito to get them to fly away?

Locust infestations happen because of shitty agricultural practices. If you've got a plot of land that's full of nothing but copies of one tantalizing crop, then of course it's going to be an obvious buffet for a vast amount of insects. Are veganic farming or veganic permaculture methods extreme? Or is it more extreme that our most common monocultural methods of farming are causing so much pollution that it's bringing so many vital pollinators to the brink of extinction?

You make the same erroneous argument that many other carnists make, which is the idea that because vegan values can't always be practiced perfectly, that somehow automatically means the entire ethical framework is without merit. But that's obviously nonsensical. To the individual mosquito or mouse, it makes all the difference in their entire little lives, whether they incidentally pestered a vegan or carnist. It's been estimated that a single vegan living their values results in about 200 fewer livestock animals being slaughtered every year. Is it extreme to live in a way that would end factory farms forever if we all embraced it, or what about the lifestyle that created them in the first place?

Nearly every half-baked gotcha that carnists try to catch vegans in has a common-sense practical answer. The example of predation in wild areas is a point of contention in vegan communities, whether we should intervene or not and ultimately make rather significant changes to the natural world, but presently it doesn't really matter, because there are so many other obvious abuses that need to end.

Veganism only looks extreme from the deluded perspective of carnism. But in reality going vegan is like becoming sober, and recognizing how disturbing it was to live the way that so many continue to.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] QuaffPotions@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So are you meaning to imply that it's racist to be vegan? Certainly like any other movement, veganism has a need for more intersectionality. And that outright nazi vegans exist is shitty. But to imply that the anomalous existence of a fringe nazi vegan community means that antispeciesism is in itself racist is completely false, and even misses the point of that very article you posted:

"White nationalist veganism can sound somewhat absurd, but it also shows how complex and deeply rooted this ideology is, and how it can appeal to a variety of different audiences. To combat these racist movements, we must understand them, including how they can incorporate beliefs we usually associate with liberal or leftist politics. The diversity of this movement should not be underestimated."

Emphasis added. It is important not to allow bigots to hijack otherwise important movements for justice. If that's something that matters to you, then you have even more reason to go vegan, because animal consumption is not only intrinsically racist, but it is demonstrably materially supporting the fascist institutions who are the largest threats to democracy.

https://www.christophersebastian.info/post/2018/10/20/if-veganism-is-racist-and-classist-bad-news-for-nonveganism

https://www.christophersebastian.info/post/they-want-to-take-away-your-hamburgers-animal-exploitation-and-white-nationalism

https://www.christophersebastian.info/post/2018/07/29/sorry-conservative-vegans-animal-rights-is-political-e2-80-a6and-it-leans-left

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, what are you talking about? I never said vegans are racist or fascist by default. I have nothing against veganism, so stop preaching to me.

All i said is that the concept of specieism is problematic, because it provides a link and entry point for connecting fascist ideology with veganism and there is examples of that. By eqauting the value of all animal life without any differnetiation, which is the ethical foundation of the "specieism-anti-speciiesm" ideology, you inadvertly open yourself to fascist dehumanising ideology. The framework is bound to fail by design, which is why it shouldnt be used. There is enough reasons to support veganism, without claiming dogs and man are equal.

[–] QuaffPotions@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Veganism without some kind of conceptual framework of speciesism is not veganism. Your assessment is backwards, not only is the concept of anti-speciesism not fascist; speciesism is foundational to racism, sexism, and ableism.

"When you are laying down the groundwork for what it means to be human, that is what it means to actually create human as a political identity because scientifically what we actually know is that human is just one of many species of animal on this planet, but we don’t actually think of ourselves as animals. I’ve talked to countless people who actually balk at the idea, who actually say to me well, I’ve never heard of that; of course humans are not animals. I’m like wow, you definitely did not pass seventh-grade biology. It’s like, you know, but this is just — this just illustrates to me how deeply entrenched these ideologies are. Because of course humans are animals but when we create human as a political identity, what we simultaneously do is create animal as a political identity and not just a species classification.

When we set up this binary, everyone who does not fall into the neat little perfect box of what’s considered human, they exist on the spectrum as an animal. You see the animalization of black people. You see the animalization of any marginalized group or any group that we desire to marginalize and that’s occurred several times throughout history. Yeah, you know, that’s one of the driving things that I want people to take away from these conversations or what I want people to understand. Human was actually never something that was meant to include — in particular — us as black people. Human was just a distinction that was meant to be — that was meant to include primarily people who were white, male, straight, land-owning, heterosexual, and had all of their abilities.

That’s really what we are — that’s really what we’re talking about and if you don’t meet these qualifications, if you don’t meet these criteria, then you are somehow considered to be less-than. That’s when the animalization starts to creep in. Yeah, this sort of aspirational humanity is something that I see people working toward over and over again in black liberation movements. We’re always talking about I am a human being. You know what? I deserve these rights as a human without ever critically interrogating what it means to be human or why human was considered someone — a person who is deserving of rights and not all of these other citizens that we share the planet with. That is one of our fundamental problems. Until we actually include other persons in our frame of reference of who is a marginalized community, I think that is going to continue to keep us back. Instead of actually embracing solidarity with other marginalized species, we instead continue to perpetuate the perceived exceptionalism of human and why that’s so good."

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I disagree. While biologically humans are not qualitatively different from animals in biological terms there should be qualitatively different in ethical terms. Even if it is just on the basis of being of the same species, a pattern often found in social animal species too. The binary human-non human is necessary, as it creates a clear framework. The moment you elevate any animal to the same ethical value, by denying the concept of evaluating the value of life differently based on species, you inadvertly devalue human life.

Also it is a concept that i have only found in white western countries. Most people in the world cannot afford to think in such terms, as for them using animal products is a matter of survival. By saying it is unethical to consider human life more valueable by default, you open another attack angle, claiming those people would be "barbaric", opening up discrimination. Incidently these people actually appreciate animal life and have a deep respect for animals, treating their livestock much better than most western societies do.

From Buddhists (e.g. normal buddhist people, not Monks for whom eating meat is forbidden), over Muslims, to indigenous people in South America. Animal cruelty is fundamentely prohibited in the religious and cultural frameworks, while acknowledging the necessity to kill and eat them. When hunting or slaughtering animals it is mandated to praise the animal and remind yourself of the preciousness of it, and acknowledge the gratefulness that it deserves for nourishing you. Attacking those people as "unethical" for not thinking in terms of anti-sepcieism would get you rejected and rightfully so.

The framework of anti-specieism can only exist as a reaction to the commodification of animal life in capitalist societies. And like the greed in capitalism it is over the top and counter productive. By elevating the necessary reaction to the missdevelopment in our societies to a fundamental ethical principle that fails in the life reality outside of our societies, anti-sepcieism is not only denying those life realities, it is also supremacist in itself and an insult to the many people that are much more cultured than capitalist societies, where this supposed principle is coming from.

And just to be clear, i'm strictly against cruelty animal cruelty and cruelty in general. But this should be a given and in the aforementioned cultured societies it is, without having to equate the value of animal life to human life. (Or other animal life in biological terms) But this is quite simple to integrate in a larger cultural framework without fetishized greed like in capitalism. If you only take what you truly need and feel respect and gratitude towards what nourishes you, it becomes obvious that animal cruelty is wrong, just as destroying nature for mining, or slash burning for tobacco, palm oil and other cash crops is wrong.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (10 children)

We don't need animals to consume plants we can't, because plant food is soooo goddamn more efficient on every metric. We can drastically reduce land, water and energy usage AND still feed way more people with plant foods. We simply do not need to eat animals.

Any form of "sustainable" animal farming I've read up on end up being still less resource efficient than plant foods, AND obviously massively reduced output. So we're truly talking about vegan vs. an ounce of meat a week. That's not a difference worth defending, considering the other obvious ethical issues.

Finally, why do you feel that it's important to argue for "99%" veganism? Do you genuinely believe people don't understand that less is better, but none is best? Do you apply the same argument to other ethical issues, like feminism? Being 99% feminist is a big improvement, but constantly arguing for it in favor of feminism (aka 100%) would obviously look ridiculous. Finally, don't you realize the humongous difference between "we should abuse animals for our pleasure less" vs. "we shouldn't do that"? A whole class of racism disappears if we get rid of the association between "animal" and "lesser moral consideration".

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] PetteriSkaffari@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Veganism is good for climate, biodiversity, health and animal welfare. We really don't need to eat animals or animal products to have good meal and live a happy life. The good thing is that humans are omnivores, with a free choice of what to eat. Please choose wisely, not only for your own mental and physical health, but also for others, living now as well as in years to come.

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Not everyone can eat a pure vegan diet. We are omnivores. We don't get to pick, we must eat it all to stay healthy.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So do it. While some people would argue vefpganism is ideal, the important part is “less meat”, especially less beef. I’d give kudos to anyone who eats one less beef meal per week: chicken is much easier in the environment than beef, or ne less meat meal,

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The word Ideal is very generic. Ideal to who? What is ideal? Your health? The climate? Your bowel movement?

Meat contributes a ton of CO2. 15% of global output in just beef alone. Pork and Chicken is better.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Instead of pickering over words we could just acknowledge the underlying facts.

Those who can, and most people in western industrialized countries can, should reduce their meat consumption. For most of them veganism is a viable option, especially as there is easy access to doctors checking as well as supplements if there is difficulties.

There is no intrinsic need for animal protein or fats for a healthy diet.

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The reduction of meat or even the total mandatory switch to all vegan diet won't stop climate change since it's such a small % in the total carbon footprint compared to our energy needs.

Your tribalism thoughts should be better focused on things like our need for clean energy like nuclear and solar.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I am neither vegan nor vegetarian, nor do i propose a mandatory switch to such diets. I also don't mind people who primarily eat meat, as they are still traditional herders or hunters like in Central Asia or parts of Africa. But you know what these people don't do? Fly on vacation twice a year, go on cruises, drive 20.000 km or more a year, consume 5 MWh of electricity per person and year...

The current way of animal farming with the current meat consumption results in about 10-17% of global GHG emissions. That is about the same emissions like all road traffic.

And unlike cars, where you could reduce the emissions effectively by using EVs, you simply cannot change a cow from emititting substantial amounts of methane, and the effects of the land conversion necessary for it's feed.

Finally the argument, that X source of emission would be irrelevant to target since it is so small on the global scale is the prime whataboutism argument to not adress any emissions. "Oh our country is only making 1% of global emissions, we don't have to change." "Oh our industry could cut emissions in half in three years, but what about the other industry?"

People in western countries eat way too much meat. Any reduction to that is good, be it by reducing your meat consumption significantly or by switching to a vegetarian or vegan diet.

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Vehicle emissions are closer to 25-30% of the total emissions. The mass majority of it is in passenger/truck vehicles. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions

I want to point out that cruises are not the problem. While it is a problem, it's not significant enough to warrant mentioning.

Aviation contributes around 2.7%. Again, it's a problem. I get it. But we need to focus the biggest polluters here first. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport.

That is energy production. Its literally the primary problem. It's 79% of the world's pollution. Everything starts here. Focus your anger here. Talk to your local representatives about this core problem. We need cleaner energy production, like nuclear, solar, wind or whatever magic shit smart inventors comes up with. We also need better battery technology to store said energy. We needed that yesterday. https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes-worlds-top-10-emitters

If today we banned all fossil fuels, it would *instantly *fix climate change. While changing nothing else.

Can't be said about meat production. Your effort quite literally does nothing for our climate. It's the fossil fuel industry switching the blame from them to us, the people. We are not the problem. Our diet is not the problem.

Your rhetoric only divides us. Focus on banning fossil fuels.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I am absolutely not against getting away from fossil fuels. If it was for me, we would put 5% of every countries GDP towards building renewables and updating the grid to handle them.

But while this is something that has to be done on a larger and organized scale, and while your alternatives for mobility might be limited, an easy choice for people is to eat less meat. Or at least substitute beef with lamb or chicken.

One of the difficulties of climate change is that it os a complex problem requiring many approaches at the same time. But we can and should take the approaches within our reach and demand politics to take the approaches that have to he taken on a societal level.

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But while this is something that has to be done on a larger and organized scale, and while your alternatives for mobility might be limited, an easy choice for people is to eat less meat. Or at least substitute beef with lamb or chicken.

Food spans social, religion, race, culture, countries, regions and a ton of other things I can't think of. In your little American bubble, you probably can survive perfectly fine if you choose to be a vegan. I live in Taiwan and don't eat sugars/carbs. It's so difficult to survive here with this simple restriction and I live in a 1st world country. China is the highest producer of emissions, and they are a 3rd world country.

Sometimes it's not a simple choice to eat less meat. Maybe it's your culture to mostly consume meat. Again, even if you made everyone in the world to stop eating meat, nothing happens.

One of the difficulties of climate change is that it os a complex problem requiring many approaches at the same time. But we can and should take the approaches within our reach and demand politics to take the approaches that have to he taken on a societal level.

It's a complex problem. We need complex solutions. Stop focusing your efforts on non-needle moving strategies that might work in an extremely narrow use case. It will only divide us since it shifts the blame from fossil fuels to the people.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

I'm not american, what are you talking about?

And quite frankly it would have tremendous impact if everyone would stop eating meat, because that accounts for about 10-20% of global ghg emissions.

I'm sorry, but it is apparent that you are not arguing in good faith, if you are so hellbend on ignoring one major source of ghg emissions. It is scientifically well established, that changes to food consumption are one of the lowest hanging fruits and the meat overconsumption in the western countries does not only harm the climate but also is detrimental to peoples health. Restricting carbs is also not a "simple restriction". It eliminates most plant based foods and then of course i understand why you are irrationally defensive against a simple statement of reducing meat consumption, since that must be your main source of nutritions.

Finally, i don't want to get too much into your beef about the one true China, but claiming China to be a third world country is not only historically incorrect as China was part of the "second world" as it is in economic terms today, since China is one of the strongest global economies and not at all comparable with countries in Subsaharan Africa or South America, that are considered "third world countries".

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] kapulsa@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

We have the technologies. The list goes on and on and on. We just need to employ them instead of waiting further for magical fixes.

Posting and liking memes is great, but real change comes from actions. If you are as concerned as we are about climate change, please consider joining or supporting climate activists near you.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

We don't need new technologies to overcome the issue of global warming itself; we need them to overcome the issue of human nature. People (in the population level sense, not individually) are not good at long term thinking. Solving global warming with current technologies will require a change in lifestyle from just about everyone. It's the kind of change that will have no perceivable reward to most people. That's why a lot of those solutions like biking, veganism, etc, will never catch on.

[–] kapulsa@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

We have seen, that people and societies are extremely adaptable to changes in lifestyle. The transformation of the Netherlands to a cycling -friendly country for example. Car free city centers. People were very opposed to them before. But once the changes were made, people were happy with them and adapted to the new options. There's also negative examples where people adapted to new negative lifestyles such as car centric cities. Or smog, pollution, garbage landfills, or rivers that one is not allowed to swim in due to pollution. People are surprisingly adaptable to new conditions. We just have to do it.

[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I am vegan btw but the amount of people who say apathetic shit like 'one person can't make a difference, it's all the corporations fault, wah' is honestly depressing. We get the society we ask for and until people start asking for something different nothing changes.

[–] squid_slime@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

On the human level, people won't as capitalism is so deeply ingrained in our culture, do you drive? Stop driving you can't because you have work that's in the next town over? Get a job that's closer? Stop buying non seasonal goods from your local supermarket? Stop buying random shit with air miles on it.

We can all make these changes but people won't because our monkey brains seek the fastest root to serotonin therefore government must harshly regulate at the corporate level. Build infrastructure at the civil level.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

A world where everyone does the best they can to avoid and/or fight against bad systems is absolutely the ONLY POSSIBLE WORLD where positive change can happen.

How else would the world change if not through individuals choosing to do the right thing? Are really expecting the same people that have fucked us(rich/politicians) to spontaneously develop a conscience and change the world out of the goodness of their hearts?

Before you bring up guillotines, those ALSO require individuals to make personal choices and changes and take risks.

[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I have a super mixed reaction here. On one hand, it's a good attitude as an individual to do what you can. OTOH, is it apathetic to realize that one billionaire's private jet adds more pollution than a thousand vegans can offset by being parsimonious with their consumption?

To keep a livable Earth, we need high-level systemic change to move the needle on that dial, not just a few thousand people making extreme sacrifices (tradeoffs? I shouldn't talk about being vegan as a sacrifice, lol) in lifestyle.

Edit: I'm thinking partly of celebrities booking commercial flights instead of flying private jets, but I'm also thinking about multinational corporations doing stupid things. CVS printing mile-long receipts, Amazon (or others) shipping tiny things in ginormous boxes, or hey, the expectation that every product on a retail shelf must be shrink-wrapped.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

You have to think practically: When has systemic change ever happened without individuals choosing to make a change? Never!

It's the same for voting, or boycotting or unionizing or even guillotining. The french kings head didn't spontaneously fall off, it involved many individuals making a choice, risking their life and even dieing.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

They also only ever believe that when it's about work THEY have to do. If it's about other people, or it's about things that directly affects them, the tune suddenly changes.

I can't, as an individual, end rape culture. Is that therefore an excuse to keep making rape jokes, defending rapists etc.? Obviously not, but by the logic of "people against individual change" it's entirely logically consistent. As long as I say "rape culture bad", I can keep supporting it. I just have to wait for magical "systemic change without individual change" to rain down from heaven.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, a lot of the new technologies people talk about regarding this are some of these things, but improved. For instance, better batteries or solar cells, recent improvement to which has already had a pretty notable impact (for instance, better solar panels making solar energy cheaper, which makes even entities concerned only with profit more likely to adopt it.)

[–] onion@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Usually it's just an excuse to do nothing, hoping for a magical technology that saves us from all our problems

[–] Numhold@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

Thorium reactors are the Hyperloop of energy generation!

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"We need new technologies that can be controlled by a megacorporation to make a select few rich, not things that individuals can do or use that can break the hold of existing monopolies"

[–] zaphod@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

And thus the shilling for nuclear power began.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Veganism"

Let's reign that in just a bit to Vegetarian for now. Incremental steps.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

You can totally incrementally step towards veganism. That doesn't mean that veganism isn't the correct end goal.

[–] Sorgan71@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

none of these are the solution. Nuclear is the solution.

[–] BambiDiego@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How about corporate, political, and economic accountability?

We can throw the transgressors into the nuclear reactor, two mutated birds, one stone, so to speak

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

Who do we throw into the reactor when the majority of people DEMAND something that is only possible with massive destruction of nature, horrendous waste of resources and horrible immoral practices?

If we kill all the "evil" factory farm owners, but still demand cheap meat every day, we'll end up reinventing that same horrible system.

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

nuclear power should definitely be one of those technologies listed

[–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Can you defend it on economic grounds, rather than outdated talking points used against Greenpeace in the 90s?

[–] Ageroth@reddthat.com 0 points 8 months ago (11 children)

You mean like the economically grounded notion of having a survivable environment?

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›