• amzd@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      How does reducing land and water use through your food choice not help the planet?

      • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are making the false assumption that your consumption is causative to the production of animal products which is, unfortunately and non-intuituvely, untrue. The only difference between vegan and non-vegan diets is whether animal products end up on your plate vs. in “cheese mountain” type stockpiles, exports, landfills, etc.

        That being said, ‘commie’ is a terrible communicator if that’s what they’re trying to say. Going vegan does help to highlight some of the contradictions of capitalism and you’re on the right track as it should be advocated for. However, the ‘invisible hand of the free market’ does not translate veganism to any reduction in farmed animals, land or water use.

        • amzd@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          “If you don’t buy it a company will throw it away instead” is not a very good argument to buy something if you even believe it to be true at all.

          • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying the act of “not buying it” (even if it was a complete and total boycott) has no impact on the production due to the system of subsidies, futures, derivatives, etc. that is set up explicitly to make sure production continues. And therefore has no impact on land/water usage, suffering etc.

            With the point being that it’s a good first step, but if your expectation is it will change anything without first changing the underlying system you will be very disappointed.

            • amzd@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your argument is called the nirvana fallacy;

              “World peace would be ideal; this peace treaty fails to completely achieve world peace; therefore this peace treaty is not worth doing.”

              And I do not accept that.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                it’s not a nirvana fallacy. they’re actually right, being vegan has no impact at all. a peace treaty actually creates peace. buying beans just means beans are sold, it doesn’t do anything to change any of the problems.

            • rautapekoni@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Surely the societal pressure to change the systems that support factory farming of animals will grow pretty much in proportion with the vegan/vegetarian population? I don’t like the defeatist attitude that our choises as consumers don’t matter, at all.

              • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not defeatist, it’s pushing back against the wishful thinking that “voting with your dollar” is effective and your responsibility ends there.

                • shapesandstuff@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I mean if they make substantially less money with product x they scale back production. Just like with any other product.

                  Really not that complicated. Obviously they’re not tracking my personal consumption, nobody believes that.

            • shapesandstuff@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are u saying if over night the entire customer base of meat as a whole stopped buying it would have zero effect? Certainly thats not whay youre saying right?

    • fuzzywolf23@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It takes less land and water to feed someone wheat, soy or corn than to feed them beef, chicken or pork.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        what crops that are fed to beef chicken and pork are parts of plants that people won’t eat for the most part. The same fields that grow the soybeans we use for oil are growing soybeans that are used as feed. The same soybeans that are used for oil are used for feed.

        • fuzzywolf23@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is sometimes true. However, e.g., about 4% of the farmland in California is used for alfafa, which is just for livestock. Alfafa is also a very water intensive crop.

          Additionally, there are other uses that livestock corn feed could be put to if there weren’t so many damn cows, so it’s not like we’d be throwing away megatons of silage if it weren’t for cattle.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        but beef, chicken, and pork continue to be made in increasing amounts. things are getting worse despite the fact that vegans exist. being vegan doesn’t help the planet at all.